Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

Meet the New Year, Same as the Old Year – January 6, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

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.

This is, of course, hogwash. For what it’s worth, I think there is great merit in having some form of “resident assemblies” or “ward committees” – even though I think that what was proposed by the Charter Review Committee was not only terrible but disempowering. Anyway, that’s a discussion for another day. I will also note that some councillors are still considering proposing a change in the Charter to extend their terms from two years to four years (staggered terms) – even though they haven’t given even a moment of thought to what this means in terms of our PR elections or the need for a recall provision. Less accountability has some support because apparently having to seek reelection every two years (like every member of the United States House of Representatives and every member of the Massachusetts House and Senate) is just so inconvenient.

Here are a few things that stand out on this week’s agenda:

Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $29,388,181.96 from Free Cash to the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund. During FY24, the City received mitigation revenues from various developers as a result of commitments related to zoning ordinance amendments and special permit conditions. By law, all mitigation revenues must be deposited into the General Fund and can only be appropriated after the Free Cash Certification is complete.
pulled by Siddiqui re: Free Cash balance and source of mitigation revenues; comments by Yi-An Huang, Taha Jennings; Siddiqui wants names of developers; Nolan comments; Order Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #2. 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.
pulled by Siddiqui w/questions about meetings related to this; Yi-An Huang notes difficulties in funding health care institutions, some history leading up to this point, changing loan terms w/Rockland Trust; Claire Spinner (Finance) additional comments and explanation; Andy Fuqua (Neville Board) on reducing monthly debt service and preservation of physical building; Siddiqui inquires about role of State Legislature delegation; Fuqua notes recent Act adjusting Medicaid reimbursements; Nolan notes concerns about use of public funds to pay down loan to a private bank, wants to know terms of original loan; Spinner notes that original term was 10 years at a high interest rate, term extended, now to be extended to a 30-year term, current debt service is ~$120,000/month to be reduced to ~$75,000/month; Charter Right – Nolan [Azeem asks if City Manager’s Agenda items are subject to Charter Right (of course they are, as are any New Business items)]

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments and reappointments of members to the Citizens’ Committee on Civic Unity.
Appointments Approved 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-65, regarding the creation of a jobs training trust through Home Rule Petition. [text of report]
pulled by Toner noting reasons he will be voting No; Sobrinho-Wheeler takes opposite view, naively noting that the Trust need not be funded and that this exists in Somerville and in Boston; Zusy supports intention of this but says cart is before the horse and that existing programs have not been evaluated and that additional funds and increased (already high) Linkage Fee may not be needed, petition is premature; Nolan supports motion w/explanation re: Nexus Study, agrees that existing programs should also be evaluated; JSW offers to have an additional committee meeting on this topic; Toner notes that such a meeting already pending; Home Rule Petition Adopted 7-2 (Toner, Zusy – No)

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Planning Board Report regarding citywide Multifamily Housing Zoning Petitions.
pulled by Toner re: insinuations that councillors have not paid attention to Planning Board, explains proposed revisions in line with Planning Board suggestions, notes impasse re: development review and relation to AHO; Toner notes that he would prefer to focus first on Squares and Corridors (still undefined) but that other councillors disagree; Azeem notes feedback from both sides of the advocates, prefers version prior to proposed amendments, suggests plenty of time and process to go [not really]; McGovern claims that he and other councillors are listening, disputes suggestion that Council is “eliminating zoning” [which is, of course, an intentional misreading of what people are actually saying]; Nolan notes that exclusive single-family zoning is proposed to be eliminated, wants Planning Board feedback on “4+2” vs. “3+3+3” options, previous Planning Board meetings were specifically about original proposal; Jeff Roberts notes that there is no precedent for back-and-forth w/Planning Board, but that expiration and re-filing would allow for this [It is worth noting that the Planning Board could voluntarily choose to do this. – RW; Simmons notes that Planning Board generally in favor (but with what?), does not want to slow this process down; Nolan notes that Planning Board is advisory to the City Council and has not opined on these specifics even though they have been requested to do so [seems like the CDD staff is the real roadblock here]; Zusy notes that many feel that this process has been rushed, Planning Board report doesn’t really reflect sentiments of Planning Board members and that they gave no recommendation because of their expressed concerns – some of which have not been addressed, possible escalation of property values that will make housing less affordable, notes thousands of letters expressing concerns, wants additional Planning Board meeting on this topic and CDD response to questions raised by councillors; Simmons objects to suggestion that process has been rushed [and not acknowledging that the scale of this proposal is unprecedented]; Jeff Roberts says CDD staff and Law Dept. have been working on this and plan to have responses for Jan 16 Ordinance Committee meeting; Zusy notes some developers are already amassing properties for redevelopment, not much time for evaluation of proposal; Siddiqui notes that Planning Board is only advisory and that City Council’s word is only thing that really matters noting past actions ignoring Planning Board’s advice; Referred to Petition 8-1 (Zusy – No)

Order #1. That the City Manager is hereby requested to work with the relevant City departments to report back on additional multi-family zoning considerations, along with the other amendments put forward by the City Council on Dec 23, 2024.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler to add Siddiqui as co-sponsor (Approved 9-0); Nolan asks clarification of “below current threshold of the inclusionary zoning ordinance”; Toner disagrees with the “average maximum unit size of 2,000 square feet per lot area” requirement; Zusy concurs on this; JSW notes desire to prevent a large single-family (“McMansion”) from being built under proposal; Zusy would prefer language to allow density increase only if increased housing units on the lot; JSW notes that proposal consistent with current zoning language; McGovern dismissively notes that “all we’re doing is asking a question”; Azeem concurs with JSW, says California concept (conditional upzoning based on adding units) noted by Zusy not consistent with existing enabling legislation (Chapters 40A or 40B); Simmons asks if Zusy has a specific proposal); Zusy notes that Azeem answered her question; Order Adopted as Amended 7-2 (Toner, Zusy – No)

Committee Report #1. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on two Multifamily Zoning Petitions on Nov 19, 2024. This public hearing was recessed and reconvened on Dec 4, 2024. It was again recessed. It reconvened and adjourned on Dec 19, 2024. [Nov 19, 2024 report] [Dec 4, 2024 report] [Dec 19, 2024 report] [communications]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

These reports actually represent three separate meetings, though they are being lumped together because the first two meetings are technically recessed rather than adjourned. This is an unnecessary confusion.

162 Communications – overwhelming with the message “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

Unfinished Business #1. An Ordinance 2023 #8B has been received from City Clerk, relative to Amend Chapter 14.04 – Fair Housing. [Passed to 2nd Reading Oct 2, 2023; Amended Nov 6, 2023; to remain on Unfinished Business pending legislative approval of Special Act needed prior to ordination] (ORD23-8B)
Siddiqui notes that legislative approval has been obtained, nod to Rep. Marjorie Decker shepherding it through process; Ordained 9-0

According to State Representative Marjorie Decker (who I wish was my representative), legislative approval has now been completed and signed by the Governor, so this matter is now ready for ordination.

Unfinished Business #2. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to proposed amendments to the Cycling Safety Ordinance to extend the deadline associated with the completion of those sections of the ordinance that are required to be completed by May 1, 2026. [Passed to a 2nd Reading Dec 16, 2024; Eligible to be Ordained on or after Jan 6, 2025] (ORD24#8)
McGovern comments, Toner amendment to seek status of Grand Junction Multi-Use Path Adopted 9-0; Nolan says the current timelines are aggressive and that she looks forward to completion of currently planned lanes and additional expansion of the network; Ordained as Amended 9-0

This item is apparently also ready for ordination – though it could really use one important change.

Resolution #8. Condolence Resolution for Dr. Robert S. Peterkin.   Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toner

Committee Report #2. The Finance Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Dec 11, 2024 for an update and discussion on Public Investment Planning. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

I suppose money used to grow on trees in Cambridge. Now we have fewer trees and more fiscal constraints. – RW