The Cambridge City Council continues to be held hostage by those braying brats of socialism, so The Nine will again gather in their respective Zoom Caves this Monday to stumble through the motions of another futile exercise in shaky democracy. Here are a few items worth noting:
Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Revised Response to Proposed Amendments to Ch. 2.78, Art. III (Neighborhood Conservation District and Landmarks Ordinance).
pulled by Zondervan; remarks by Zondervan, Carlone, Toner, McGovern; Refer to Ordinance Committee 9-0
Committee Report #8. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Tues, Mar 7, 2023, on potential changes to Chapter 2.78 Historical Buildings and Landmarks, Proposed Ordinance #2022-11. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
These particular proposed amendments seem quite reasonable – as opposed to the Robert Moses (not our Bob Moses) tear-it-all-down perspective on “urban renewal” espoused by some current activists. One of the many great things about living in Cambridge is its remarkable history and the coexistence of many different types of architecture in every corner of the city.
Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 22-79, regarding Garden Street Safety Improvement Project local traffic analysis.
pulled by Zondervan; Toner moves to take up with Charter Right #1; Placed on File 9-0
Charter Right #1. Policy Order for Garden Street Accommodations. [Charter Right – Zondervan, Mar 20, 2023]
Zondervan proposed amendments to implement recommendations proposed by staff; Toner opposed to QZ amendments; Carlone notes that there were NO pedestrian improvements in project; Nolan disagrees with QZ amendments that eviscerate original recommendations and notes that Cycling Safety Ordinance was meant to override any concerns of Traffic Department; McGovern also disagrees with first and last QZ amendments; Mallon notes that report calls original proposed changes infeasible and supports QZ amendments; Azeem says he was open to proposed amendments but now supports QZ amendments; responses by Brooke McKenna (TPT) – back-and-forth with Nolan; Zondervan says Council should not be second-guessing the Traffic Department and suggests that any criticism is sexist; McKenna notes that proposed changes would complicate the Huron/Garden intersection with an exclusive bicycle signal phase and cause gridlock; Siddiqui remarks; additional Toner remarks supporting original proposal and on role of councillors; McKenna says “charterwritten” (cringe); McGovern notes that one can support both the Order and the Traffic Department report, notes that he was the lead sponsor of the Cycling Safety Ordinance; Carlone notes that there are two women on this policy order and objects to Zondervan’s use of word “sexist” as ridiculous (Zondervan objects); QZ amendment #1 passes 6-3 (PN,DS,PT – No); QZ amendment #2 passes 7-2 (DS,PT – No); QZ amendment #3 passes 6-3 (DC,DS,PT – No); QZ amendment #4 fails 3-5-0-1 (BA,AM,QZ – Yes; MM,PN,DS,PT,SS – No; DC – Present); Siddiqui attempts to explain function of policy orders; Toner notes that it is proper role of City Council to submit policy orders; Zondervan will vote against the Order; Toner wants assurances that TPP will actually look at proposals; Zondervan says TPP has already done their analysis; Mallon would support “explore the feasibility” rather than “implement”; McGovern moves to replace “implement” with “consider” [passes 6-3 (PN,DS,PT – No); Order Adopted as Amended 5-3-1 (DC,MM,PN,PT,SS – Yes; AM,QZ,DS – No; BA – Present)
139 Communications on a range of topics, especially (a) the Garden Street road configuration a.k.a. Policy Order #3 from Mar 20 and Charter Right #1, (b) the HEART patronage proposal, (c) the AHO Behemoth Proposal, and (d) Starlight Square and the proposed Outdoor Use Zoning for the Central Square Cultural District.
The only two observations I’ll make on this hot topic are (a) it’s never OK to begin a traffic study with predetermined conclusions followed by “cherry-picked” data to support those conclusions; and (b) elected officials are not necessarily the best people to be evaluating traffic studies.
Charter Right #2. That the City Council authorize an extension of time for the Special Committee/Charter Review Committee to file its report on suggested Charter changes with the City Council until Dec 31, 2023. [Charter Right – Zondervan, Mar 22, 2023]
Zondervan would prefer interim changes on the ballot this year rather than waiting until 2025 (not at all clear that this would be when changes would be on ballot); Nolan would have preferred faster action and notes that any changes to elections could not be proposed for this year, says that a Special Election could be held in 2024 specifically on the Charter; Simmons supports additional time for committee to do its work; Zondervan wants clarification about procedure for changing how elections conducted, suggests they could not take effect until 2025; Glowa disagrees – notes that proposals would go to City Council, then Attorney General, then voters (should also include State Legislature if substantial changes); Zondervan thinks a Special Election would be burdensome; McGovern asks what would be the alternative; Order Adopted 8-1 (QZ – No)
A six-month extension of the Charter Review Committee will almost certainly be approved. After that, it’s a crapshoot since the end product will only be recommendations, and the incumbents can pick and choose whatever suits their fancy to present to the Legislature and ultimately to Cambridge voters. The long history of Cambridge city charters from 1846 to the present has been of modifications made in the public interest, and certainly not in the self-interest of incumbents. Keep that in mind when you hear calls for more power and/or longer terms. There are some good and important modifications to the charter that can and should be made in the public interest, but let’s save that discussion for later.
Unfinished Business #3. An Ordinance has been received from Diane P. LeBlanc City Clerk, relative to a Zoning Petition from Patrick Barrett et al. North Mass Ave BA-5 Zoning District Petition. [Passed to 2nd Reading, Mar 6, 2023; To Be Ordained on or after Mar 20, 2023; Expires Apr 3, 2023]
McGovern notes that several votes required; Zondervan consistently opposed as spot zoning, feels that this subverts AHO and speaks in favor of AHO Behemoth Proposal; Carlone notes that proposal is for a 4.0 FAR yet project under 3.0 FAR with maximum height of 69 feet; objects to absence of documents and call this “a joke” – classic spot zoning with no City benefits; Toner supports proposal – heights not unreasonable – wants further N. Mass. Ave. study, says Planning Board liked the project but wanted the full study first; Nolan says she’s torn, questions why a 4.0 FAR is necessary, proposes amendment to reduce maximum FAR to 3.0 (acceptable to petitioner); Azeem wants to remove dwelling area to lot ratio; Siddiqui want to pass this tonight; Carlone reiterates desire for calculation and drawings for what is proposed, expects this will yield enormous pressure to have this up and down Mass. Ave., concerned about precedent; Toner asks if this requires 5 votes or 6; Zondervan notes that for creation of housing requires only 5 votes, Glowa agrees; Zondervan opposed to amendments – not discussed at Ordinance Committee; Glowa says that because proposal allows office and retail uses, requires 6 votes for any parts not involving housing; Nolan amendments adopted 7-2 (QZ,SS – No); Azeem proposes amendment to reduce ratio of dwelling units to lot area to zero; Glowa affirms that 6 votes required; Carlone notes that developer promised parking for each unit; Azeem amendment passes 5-3-1 (DC,AM,SS – No; PN – Present); Amend by Substitution with CDD modifications (as amended) passes 9-0; Ordained as Amended 6-3 (DC,QZ,SS – No)
Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with the City Solicitor to provide a legal opinion which clarifies the state law on zoning petition signature requirements to ensure clarity and lawful deliberation in the future. Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0
Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Department of Human Service Programs to develop a three-year plan to expand and improve After School Care for Cambridge children. Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor Mallon
pulled by McGovern; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
Order #5. That the City Manager is hereby requested to direct the Community Development Department and the Law Department to review the Citizens Zoning Petition received from Michael Monestime et al. regarding Outdoor Use Zoning for the Central Square Cultural District for form and content. Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted 9-0
Committee Reports #1-7 from the distant past (2019-2020 Transportation and Public Utilities Committee) w/special thanks to the staff of the City Clerk’s Office. It will take time to make up for the negligence of committee Chairs who apparently prefer darkness over light. [Long Overdue Reports: Carlone (15), Simmons (12), McGovern (11), Nolan (11), Zondervan (10), Devereux (4), Kelley (7), Sobrinho-Wheeler (2), Mallon (2), Toner (2), Azeem (2)]
Reports Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Committee Report #9. The Housing Committee held a public meeting on Mar 8, 2023 to continue the recessed meeting from Feb 8, 2023 to continue discussing potential amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay district as outlined in the Nov 21, 2022 policy order adopted by the City Council. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
I’m not sure where this offensive proposal stands since it ultimately would have to go through the Ordinance Committee and Planning Board before coming to a vote. It may be that the industry lobbyists who wrote it strategically proposed such absurd deviations from existing zoning so that anything less might be viewed as a “compromise”. It’s also a municipal election year, and there may be political risks or benefits to being associated with such a radical upzoning. In any case, let me just say that in Cambridge and elsewhere, use of the word “crisis” is often just another way of saying “do what I say or else”.
Communications & Reports #4. A communication was received from City Solicitor Nancy E. Glowa, transmitting Legal Opinion on Recent Supreme Judicial Court Case Regarding Public Comment. [text of opinion]
pulled by Mallon (early); Mallon proposes Rules Changes – 38.6, 32B, and 12; Late Policy Order Adopted 7-0-0-2; Placed on File 9-0
Late Order #8. That the City Council amend Rules 38.6, 32B, and 12 to align the City Council Rules with the decision made in Barron v. Kolenda. Vice Mayor Mallon
Comments by Mallon, Zondervan suggests a Gov’t Ops. meeting; Carlone notes that this will make the Council more of a circus; Nolan says no meeting necessary, need for Council to prevent a tone; Mallon asks if Rules changes can be done now without usually required delay; Glowa says that no law requires delay – just City Council Rules, can be changed immediately under suspension of rules; Mallon moves suspension (passes 7-0-0-2; Carlone, Simmons – Present); Azeem says this should have been on City Manager’s Agenda, asks if the ruling applies to City Council; Glowa notes that changes to Rule #12 would make this apply to City Council as well; Simmons notes that in a previous training question raised about what is actually meant by “avoid personalities”, would prefer more discussion in committee of proposed changes; Glowa reticent on interpreting “avoid personalities” in City Council Rules; Simmons wants to be recorded as voting Present (Zondervan objects) – approved 7-1-1 (PT – Absent, QZ – No); Zondervan favors striking all restraints on free speech, wants fuller conversation in Gov’t Ops.; Order Adopted 7-0-0-2 (DC,DS – Present) for immediate Rules changes
It looks like uncivil comments will now be considered permissible during Public Comment, but City Council Rules can still require speakers to stay on point. Shutting down an actual (in-person) meeting is still not protected speech, but that really doesn’t mean much if there’s no will to prevent it. – Robert Winters