Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

Hidden Agenda – December 23, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

This week’s agenda is quite short, but perhaps the biggest item on the agenda was actually not on the original agenda at all – a Late Order containing proposed amendments to the two rather problematic zoning petitions now before the Ordinance Committee [Petition #1, Petition #2]. These petitions comprise perhaps the largest residential upzoning in the history of Cambridge zoning but are disguised under the innocuous banner of “allowing multi-family housing” citywide (or, as one of the local political advocacy organizations brands it, “ending exclusionary zoning”).

Here are the not-so-late agenda items of interest this week:

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to direct the City Solicitor to provide the City Council with a legal opinion on the City Council’s ability to levy a tax or fine on store fronts and commercial properties that remain vacant for more than two years, including any applicable definitions of “vacancy” and relevant legal precedents, and provide such opinion no later than the February 17th City Council meeting.   Councillor Toner, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson, Vice Mayor McGovern
pulled by Toner; Toner notes community scuttlebutt, Law Department never asked for legal opinion; Wilson wants to be added as cosponsor; McGovern recounts history; Siddiqui says she previously worked on this and that there was a legal memo on this (2018-19), says data on vacancies readily available; Sobrinho-Wheeler wants to also penalize residential vacancies; Simmons recounts some history on this; AW and MM added as sponsors 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

I will only note here the rather absurd proposal from several years ago that would have levied fines equivalent to the entire assessed value of such properties over the cost of just two years (4.17% of the assessed value every month). Obvious regulatory takings were apparently not so obvious to the councillors who proposed this “remedy” back in February 2017. Something should absolutely be done about the many vacant storefronts, but hopefully something constructive and collaborative rather than hostile or legally absurd.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to direct Community Development Department (CDD) staff to draft proposed amendments to the Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance that would accomplish adding select HCA requirements into the ordinance so the city can waive the HCA requirement and that the City Manager is requested to ask the CDD staff to draft a zoning amendment to remove the repackaging prohibition.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Toner; Toner notes that these amendments intended to align Cambridge ordinances with recent state law and to streamline process; Order Adopted 9-0

Committee Report #1. Economic Development & University Relations Committee (cannabis policy issues, including the potential allowance for repackaging of products at local dispensaries, the 1800-foot minimum distance requirement between cannabis businesses, and the lack of zoning provisions for social consumption establishments that are now permitted under state law) – Committee Meeting – Dec 17, 2024. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (Toner-Absent)

Are there any cannabis retail locations in Cambridge that are not owned at least in part by politically connected people?

Unfinished Business #2. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to Flexible Parking Corridor Zoning Petition. [Adopted as a City Council Zoning Petition and Passed to 2nd Reading Dec 2, 2024; Eligible to be Ordained Dec 23, 2024; Expires Feb 19, 2025]
Ordained 9-0

Unfinished Business #3. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to the Parking and Transportation Demand Management (PTDM) Municipal Ordinance. [Referred to Ordinance Committee Oct 21, 2024; Passed to 2nd Reading Dec 2, 2024; Eligible to be Ordained Dec 23, 2024]
Ordained 9-0

Unfinished Business #4. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to the Commercial Parking Space Permits Municipal Ordinance. [Passed to 2nd Reading Dec 2, 2024; Eligible to be Ordained Dec 23, 2024]
Ordained 9-0

These are the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and the Municipal Ordinances associated with accommodating parking displaced by the requirements of the (untouchable) Cycling Safety Ordinance (and dedicated bus lanes in some locations).

As for the aforementioned Late Order:

Late Order #3. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct Community Development to prepare updated Multi Family Housing Zoning language and report back to the Ordinance Committee, not later than January 16, 2025.   Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner
pulled by Toner; Toner notes misinformation over recent days, clarifies procedure of late order, notes that this ordinance is not yet done and additional committee meetings prior to Feb 10 final vote deadline, notes that he would prefer to focus first on (undefined) “corridors”; McGovern offers his own explanation, notes that this is purely procedural in that Council cannot order departments to do anything except through the City Manager via a City Council order and that there are more meetings pending, objects to suggestion that City Council is not listening, characterizes putting back minuscule setbacks as “putting them back in”, suggests that many people favor original proposed ordinance changes; Burhan “phone it in” Azeem says he’s trying to “lower the temperature”; Siddiqui says intent is not to do anything without transparency, objects to “misinformation”; Zusy says she will vote against these amendments, not that amendments are misguided, that people are OK with added heights in squares and (undefined) “corridors”, concerns about allowing massive development as-of-right w/o special permits, loss of open space and other environmental consequences, questionable stated need (76 projects in process now 5,301 units with 987 affordable – mostly in East Cambridge), all housing nonprofits now have multiple projects in process, lack of any urban design plan, unintended consequences; Nolan expresses excitement over proposed zoning changes with reservations about middle-income housing, insatiable demand for market-rate housing, concerns about effect on solar power arrays, notes that many people are unaware of proposed changes, just having meetings does not imply that people are being made aware of proposed changes, hope that Planning Board can have a meeting on this to offer their perspective; Wilson says she supports an amendment to require 3 floors of inclusionary housing for any new 6-story building under this ordinance (plus 3 stories for an AHO project), acknowledges lack of community engagement; Order Adopted, Referred to CDD 8-1 (Zusy-No)

It seems that the current political modus operandus in Cambridge is to propose something outrageous and then scale it back somewhat to merely excessive so that you can claim that a happy compromise has been reached. I still have some serious questions about the data and goals underlying much of these proposed changes. – RW