Central Square « Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

June 25, 2023

Preview and Postview – June 26, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,City Council,cycling — Tags: BEUDO, boards and commissions, Cambridge, Cambridge Police, Central Square, City Council, cycling, Envision Cambridge, housing, Norm McIver, Saundra Graham, zoning — Robert Winters @ 10:17 pm

Preview – June 26, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

Here’s the rundown of interesting agenda items before the players run away: On Vacation

BEUDO

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Proposed Clarifications to Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance Amendments discussed at the June 12, 2023 Council Meeting. (CM23#191) [Manager’s memo] [June 22 BEUDO Amendment – clean version] [June 22 BEUDO Amendment – redline version]
pulled by Zondervan; Rules suspended 9-0 to bring forward Unfinished Business #5, Communications & Reports #3; BEUDO Proposal amended 9-0 with CDD language; Amendment by Mallon, Simmons, Toner, and McGovern re: hardships w/hospitals, large health/elder care facilities, and houses of worship (CR#3) – Nolan objects (with a speech), Carlone objects, Siddiqui objects, Amendment Fails 4-5 (AM,MM,DS,PT-Yes; BA,DC,PN,QZ,SS-No); Proposed Amendment to remove residential apartment buildings from Councillors Toner, McGovern and Simmons – Nolan objects (with a speech asserting that at some point the BEUDO restrictions will be made to apply to all residential buildings all the way down to single-family homes, calls those who disagree fear-mongers); Azeem doesn’t like fact that condo owners contacted but not renters; Carlone questions CDD and Ms. Rasmussen explains that all residential buildings will eventually be targeted – especially at any point of sale, time of lease, or time of renovation – with deadlines; Zondervan objects to amendment; Siddiqui asks CDD if they have additional recommendations, Farooq explains why CDD wants to include apartment buildings but exclude condo buildings; City Manager calls this doable, yet quotes use of RECs (Renewable Energy Credits) in Boston – a tax that can be used as a workaround when non-compliant; Toner wants to exclude all large apartment buildings with presumption that they will be addressed soon; McGovern says they’ll go after a single-family home BEUDO mandate soon enough; Nolan asks if dorms would be covered; Farooq talks of voluntary inclusion of dorms by universities [recess], CDD proposes change to campus definition; Toner amendment Fails 4-4-1 (BA,AM,MM,PT-Yes; DC,PN,QZ,SS-No; DS-Absent); CDD Amendment Approved 9-0; On Rules Suspension to allow Simmons to vote on previous (Toner) amendment it is noteworthy that DC,PN,QZ,SS voted against suspension in order to prevent Simmons from casting her (deciding) vote, suspension prevails 5-4; Simmons recorded as Yes, so Toner amendment Prevails 5-4 (BA,AM,MM,PT,DS-Yes; DC,PN,QZ,SS-No); Nolan amendment Approved 9-0; Zondervan proposed amendment to move Net Zero deadlines up to 2025 and 2030 for New Covered Buildings; Nolan expresses appreciation of proposal and desire that no new building use fossil fuels; CDD expresses reservations about amendment and its aggressive standard, challenges buildings will have in meeting this standard – noting the use of “carbon credit” and other compliance taxes as workarounds; Azeem says this is all new to him and hard for him to support tonight, suggests referring to committee along with his desire to have BEUDO apply to all residential buildings; Mallon not supportive of amendment; Zondervan moves to refer his amendment to Ordinance Committee, Mallon objects to referral and suggests including this in discussion of Fossil-Free Demonstration proposal; McGovern notes that electric grid currently maxed-out and 85% fueled by fossil fuels (which makes all of this downright comical); Carlone cries crisis again; City Manager suggests that Council should do a better job at process of policy-making – either pass BEUDO now as it is and save Zondervan proposal for a later day, or delay passage of BEUDO; Motion to refer Zondervan amendment to Ordinance Committee Prevails 5-4 (BA,DC,PN,QZ,SS-Yes; AM,MM,PT,DS-No); Siddiqui confused about suspension of the rules (clearly motivated by those who did not want Simmons to be allowed to vote); Glowa explains that while a 2/3 vote needed for suspension of the rules, in this case it was technical difficulties on part of Simmons that prevented her from voting; McGovern notes how offensive it would be to prevent Simmons from voting in order to have your way; Toner notes that the recess was partly responsible for the difficulties; Azeem notes that councillors should be generous toward their colleagues; Nolan coldly says that we should follow our rules (really cold, and typically manipulative from Councillor Nolan); Zondervan wants to redo the vote on suspension; Simmons speaks of collegiality. Siddiqui calls for Reconsideration on previous motion to suspend rules – Reconsideration Prevails 7-2 (Carlone, Nolan – No); on Third Attempt, Toner amendment Prevails 6-3 (BA,DC,AM,MM,PT,DS-Yes; PN,QZ,SS-No); They screwed up yet again because of Carlone’s inattention, so another Reconsideration – Prevails 9-0; on Fourth Attempt, Toner amendment Prevails 5-4 (BA,AM,MM,PT,DS-Yes; DC,PN,QZ,SS-No); Simmons, Toner, McGovern, Zondervan, Carlone, Mallon, Nolan, Azeem, Siddiqui speeches; On Final Ordination of BEUDO as Amended: 8-0-0-1 (Simmons – Present); Reconsideration Fails 1-8 (Simmons – Yes); Mgr #2 Placed on File 9-0; Comm & Reports #3 Placed on File 9-0

On The Table #5. Proposed amendment to BEUDO. [Tabled – June 12, 2023]
Removed from Table 9-0; Placed on File 9-0

Unfinished Business #6. Ordinance entitled “Building Energy Use,” Chapter 8.67 of the Municipal Code of the City of Cambridge Building Energy Use Disclosure and Emission Reductions BEUDO (Ordinance 2021-26). [Passed to 2nd Reading June 5, 2023; To Be Ordained on or after June 26, 2023]
BEUDO Proposal amended 9-0 with CDD language; Amendment by Mallon, Simmons, Toner, and McGovern re: hardships w/hospitals, large health/elder care facilities, and houses of worship (CR#3) Fails 4-5 (AM,MM,DS,PT-Yes; BA,DC,PN,QZ,SS-No); Toner amendment to remove residential apartment buildings Prevails 5-4 (BA,AM,MM,PT,DS-Yes; DC,PN,QZ,SS-No); On Final Ordination of BEUDO as Amended: 8-0-0-1 (Simmons – Present); Reconsideration Fails 1-8 (Simmons – Yes); Mgr #2 Placed on File 9-0; Comm & Reports #3 Placed on File 9-0

Communications & Reports #3. A communication was received from Vice Mayor Mallon, transmitting proposed amendments to the Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance. Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Toner, Councillor Simmons
Placed on File 9-0

Late Policy Order #8. Policy Order re: creating a BEUDO Compliance Advisory Committee. Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toner
comments by Simmons; Charter Right – Azeem

The word on the street is that some version of BEUDO has the simple majority votes needed to pass. This really should be renamed “Building Energy Use Mandatory Retrofit Ordinance” (BEUMRO) or something similar because this is no longer just about “disclosure”.

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Fossil Fuel Free Demonstration pilot. [Fossil Fuel Free Council Submission for June 26 2023] [225 CMR 24.00 (Updated)5.10.23] [Model Rule – Fossil Fuel Free Demonstration Project 5.10.23]
pulled by Zondervan; Rules suspended 9-0 to bring forward Charter Right #1 (with modified language); Comments by Zondervan, Toner, Simmons, Carlone, McGovern (on claims that “celebrity chefs” support this – really?), Nolan (who claims that there has been outreach over many years in support of this – really?, and also equates this with worker health?); Rasmussen (CDD) claims that outreach is being done and that she would like this to be ordained at Summer Meeting; Substitute Language Approved 7-2 (DS,PT-No); Passed to 2nd Reading 7-1-0-1 (Toner – No, Simmons – Present); Referred to Ordinance Committee 7-1-0-1 (Toner – No, Simmons – Present)

Charter Right #1. Fossil Fuel-Free Demonstration Pilot. [Charter Right – Zondervan, June 12, 2023]
Substitute Language Approved 7-2 (DS,PT-No); Passed to 2nd Reading 7-1-0-1 (Toner – No, Simmons – Present); Referred to Ordinance Committee 7-1-0-1 (Toner – No, Simmons – Present)

As the proposal states: “the Fossil Fuel-Free Demonstration is to restrict and prohibit new building construction and major renovation projects that are not fossil fuel-free.” This basically would mean that unless large wind turbines sprout up and massive solar arrays cover the city, all new buildings will be forced to rely on an increasingly unreliable electric grid. I can’t even get Eversource to restore the feed to my building that failed over 8 years ago, so Good Luck Cambridge!

BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following person as a member of the Foundry Advisory Committee (FAC). This appointment is for a term of three years; Jameson Johnson.
Appointment Approved 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as members of the Community Preservation Act (CPA) Committee. These appointments are for five years: Elaine DeRosa, Kathy Watkins, Taha Jennings, and David Lyons.
Appointments Approved 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #11. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as members of the Community Benefits Advisory Committee. These appointments are for three years; Anya Bear and Elena Sokolow Kaufman.
Appointments Approved 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #14. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments of the following persons as a members of the Planning Board. These appointments are for five years; Mary Lydecker, Ashley Tan, Tom Sieniewicz, Adam Westbrook, and Diego Macias.
pulled by Siddiqui; Appointments Approved 9-0

I would love to learn more about the criteria used to select the new Planning Board appointees. I still recall the Government Operations Committee meeting last year where councillors expressed concerns about possibly embarrassing an appointee by exercising their new veto power in open session. It was suggested at that time that they might prevent such discomfort by privately communicating their concerns to the City Manager outside of any open meetings. I have no idea if that’s how things are now playing out, but I do worry that for significant appointments such as the Planning Board, adherence to the agenda of a political group could well be the hidden test.

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the rescission of the remaining amount [$2,600,000] of the loan order authorized by the City Council on May 23,2016 for the construction of the King Open/Cambridge Street Schools & Community Complex.
pulled by Siddiqui; Order Adopted 7-0-1-1 (Azeem – Absent; Simmons – Present)

Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-60, regarding the review of the Parking Permit Program.
pulled by Toner; comments by Toner, Simmons, Azeem, Nolan; additional clarification from Brooke McKenna; Placed on File 9-0

This addresses the abuse of the Resident Parking Permit Program that had vehicles being rented out on a peer to peer car sharing model as part of a business enterprise. Nothing like using our dwindling supply of on-street parking to run a car rental business. Enough!

Manager’s Agenda #13. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report #23-29, regarding the legal opinion for issuing bonds for affordable housing.
pulled by Zondervan; comments by Zondervan (It’s not a hard “No”), Nolan; clarification by City Solicitor Nancy Glowa (It is a hard “No”); Placed on File 9-0

I can hear the hearts breaking among councillors who would like nothing better than to dip even further into the pockets of residential and commercial taxpayers to the tune of the half billion dollars that had been suggested. Solicitor: “Therefore, given that there is no general statutory authority to borrow for the purpose of affordable housing, if the City wishes to borrow for such purpose and does not want to do so under the specific statutory authority available under Chapter 44B, the City would be required to seek special legislation.” I can almost hear the fingers tapping on the keyboards drafting yet another Home Rule Petition to gather dust on Beacon Hill.

Manager’s Agenda #15. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board report recommending that the City Council not adopt the Franklin, et al., Zoning Petition.
Referred to Petition 9-0

Among other things, the Planning Board report has this to say: “Board members were unsure as to whether the proposed zoning changes would actually have the effect of reducing housing costs. Board members expressed concern that the proposed changes could have the opposite effect, resulting in the creation of more high end units, as the development potential of the parcels would also be increased. There was also some doubt expressed about whether the dimensional standards proposed were the “right ones”, and Board members expressed support for studying the proposed standards in greater detail to understand if they would complement the existing, prevailing development pattern in many parts of the City.” … “Many Board members felt that the Petition was too broad-brush to be particularly effective. Board members agreed that an overhaul of the City’s zoning should be accompanied by detailed study and a more robust public involvement process than what exists in a public hearing process as part of a zoning petition.” – True that.

Manager’s Agenda #16. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to PO23#49, regarding the review of multi-family properties on the market for potential affordable housing acquisitions.
pulled by Carlone; remarks by Carlone, Chris Cotter (CDD Housing), Nolan; Placed on File 9-0

The Manager’s communication is worth the read, but at some point everyone should take a step back and consider what the net effect and unintended consequences of this and related proposals (AHO on steroids, real estate transfer tax, dedicating 10% of the entire City Operating Budget, etc.) might be. It’s hard to “Envision”.

Manager’s Agenda #17. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update on Summer Programs. [text of report]
pulled by Simmons; comments by Simmons; comments by Liz Speakman (Community Safety Department), Ellen Semonoff, City Manager Huang, Carlone; Placed on File 9-0

RELEASING NAMES OF OFFICERS AND USE OF FORCE

Manager’s Agenda #18. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 23-37, regarding a Policy of Releasing Names of Officers and Use of Force. [text of report]
pulled by Zondervan; mumbling comments by Zondervan (wants to know when inquest will be completed, wants to know why officer names cannot be released); clarification by Police Commissioner Christine Elow, City Manager Huang, City Solicitor Glowa (notes that restriction by court applies to release of officer names); Placed on File 9-0

The Party for Socialism & Liberation kids will not be pleased. The adults in the room will continue to honor due process.

Manager’s Agenda #19. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to request that the City Council vote to designate the members of the Charter Review Committee as special municipal employees pursuant to G.L. c. 268A.
pulled by Siddiqui; clarification by City Solicitor Glowa; Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Mallon – Absent)

I don’t get this. These are volunteers.

Charter Right #2. Golf Course Demographic Information PO. [Charter Right – Zondervan, June 12, 2023] (PO23#117)
comments by Zondervan (who invokes “racism”), Nolan, Toner, Simmons (what will we do with this information?); Order Adopted 5-4 (BA,DC,PN,QZ,SS-Yes; AM,MM,DS,PT-No)

As I said two weeks ago: “I don’t really know how we got to the point of recording racial and other characteristics of people who choose to play golf. This is madness. Let’s also not forget that City Council Order from January 2022 that suggested closing part of the golf course in favor of such things as high density affordable housing development. That original Order was proposed by Councillors Nolan, Carlone, Zondervan, and Azeem.”

MATH IS GOOD

Charter Right #3. That the City Manager is requested to amend the Cambridge Math Circle budget up by $100,000 annually. [Charter Right – Toner, June 12, 2023] (PO23#118)
comments by Toner, Carlone, Mallon; Rules suspended to bring forward Comm & Reports #2; Mallon objects to this Order because “other nonprofits” not getting this funding; comments by Simmons, McGovern, Nolan, Siddiqui, Carlone (who notes that Council was OK with asking for add’l funding for CHA), Azeem; Order Adopted 5-4 (BA,DC,PN,QZ,SS-Yes; AM,MM,DS,PT-No)

Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from Councillor Dennis Carlone, transmitting a document with supplementary information about Cambridge Math Circle. (COF23#114)

Charter Right #4. City Council support for MIT GSU’s right to a fair contract. [Charter Right – Toner, June 12, 2023] (PO23#119)
comments by Toner, Zondervan (accusing Toner of being a “union buster”), McGovern, Simmons; Toner Proposed Amendments (striking several “WHEREAS” clauses) Fail 2-7 (DS,PT-Yes); Order Adopted 8-0-0-1 (Toner-Present)

177 Communications – mainly AHO and Bike Lanes

Resolution #12. Congratulations to David J. Kale on his retirement from the City of Cambridge. Councillor Toner, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Carlone

I’ll miss seeing David around City Hall, but I hope to see him around town so that we can continue our regular conversations about baseball (and occasionally municipal finance and other crunchy topics).

Order #1. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Law Department to review the proposed amended ordinance language and to work with the Law Department and the Historical Commission to provide an explanation of the legal standard that is used to compel changes or deny projects reviewed by the Historical Commission or Neighborhood Conservation District Commissions and report back to the full City Council by Aug 7, 2023. Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Carlone – Absent)

I continue to have serious concerns about the efforts of some activists to eviscerate historic preservation in this historic city.

“ENABLING” LEGISLATION

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to issue an RFP calling for an agency that will lead the City through a community process with all stakeholders that will include community education, feedback, location possibilities, and potential legal issues as it relates to Overdose Prevention Centers. Councillor McGovern, Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Mallon
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Carlone – Absent)

Committee Report #1. The Human Services and Veterans Committee held a public hearing on Tues, June 13, 2023 from 3:00pm-5:00pm to discuss Overdose Prevention Sites, previously referred to as Safe Consumption Sites. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (Carlone – Absent)

Councillor McGovern wants desperately to site such a facility in the heart of Central Square. As I have often said at various meeting regarding the future of Central Square: “We should plan for the Central Square we would like to see in the future, and not around those things we feel we are stuck with in the present.” You can change the names all you like, but this is basically a Drug Abuse Enabling Center.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant departments, local business associations, and local businesses to communicate to all retail businesses operating in Cambridge to encourage them to keep doors closed when operating cooling systems and inform them of other energy saving tools. Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Carlone – Absent)

What, no mandate? No ordinance? No fine?

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to consider measures to improve the Cycling Safety Ordinance Business Impact Study. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern, Vice Mayor Mallon
pulled by Toner; comments by Nolan; Charter Right – Toner

Translation – Please pay no attention to what residents and businesses are actually saying and experiencing.

Order #6. That the Human Services & Veterans Committee hold a public hearing to discuss options for addressing the situation at Central House. Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted, Referred to Human Services & Veterans Committee 8-0-1 (Carlone – Absent)

FYI – “Central House” is the Central Square YMCA building.

Order #7. That the City Council go on record in enthusiastic support of H.R.1433, the Philippine Human Rights Act, and in urging Representatives Katherine Clark and Ayanna Pressley to co-sponsor the existing bill. Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone
pulled by Nolan; comments by Zondervan; Charter Right – Zondervan

Councillor Azeem announced recently that he would no longer be voting for foreign policies Orders such as this one. Regardless of sentiments expressed in Orders such as this, they really have no place in the Sullivan Chamber. – Robert Winters

Late Resolution #16. Condolences to the family of Saundra Graham. Councillor Simmons, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Toner
comments by Simmons, McGovern; Resolution Adopted 8-0-1 (Carlone – Absent)

Late Resolution #18. Resolution on the death of Norman Thomas McIver. Councillor Toner
Resolution Adopted 8-0-1 (Carlone – Absent)

Comments (0)

June 11, 2023

BEUDO + AHO = Performance Art

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: AHO, BEUDO, Cambridge, Cambridge government, Central Square, City Council, City Manager, housing, Patrick Barrett, zoning — PatrickWBarrettIII @ 7:40 pm

BEUDO + AHO = Performance Art – a message from Patrick Barrett

June 11, 2023

Mayor Siddiqui and Cambridge City Council,

I am asking you to do a couple of things tomorrow night but first and foremost I ask that you attempt to take a look at the current state of our city. We are teetering on breaking into a billion dollar budget where our schools consistently underperform and nearly 8% of families have abandoned the system in just the last couple of years, small and large businesses are still failing at an accelerated rate burdened by excess pandemic debt and an ecosystem that has evaporated, Kendall Square is facing a 30% vacancy rate, drug dealers own Central Square emboldened enough to mug and strip a man naked in broad daylight for failure to pay a drug debt, and the general sense among those who do the work is that we are currently leaderless. Where in all of this is our City Council, Manager, and Department Heads? In truth many of you have little to no substantive connection to the City at all. Most of you do not have young or school aged children. Most of you do not now nor have you ever run a business in Cambridge. Most have not built the home they live in or any structure in Cambridge. Some have lived here generationally and that is terrific but we are talking policy and whether you’ve lived here for a day or seven centuries there are those with “skin in the game” and those that have none. Most, if not all of you, are activists each having their own area of “expertise” where the actual power to drive policy on these issues rests with the State or Federal government not the Cambridge City Council. Thus as stewards of the city you’ve very little that directly impacts you regarding schools, business, development, crime or even the lofty goals of your activism. Do any of you own or live in a BEUDO property? Are any of you currently on the waiting list for affordable housing? Do any of you have a child waiting to take algebra in 8th grade only to find out that has been taken off the table? I could go on for days … this takes me to Monday night:

1) The AHO has always bothered me. It is a set of rules specially designed for a small group of developers with direct access to municipal funds that allows them to ignore anachronistic and obtuse zoning rules everyone else has to obey. If you are a homeowner and want to add additional bedroom or play room for your growing family it likely means a variance or special permit you’re never going to get but for the AHO developer there is no such impediment. It seems an odd result that home owners and property owners should face such steep headwinds for minor quality of life adjustments and that for a small group of developers they can simply do whatever they like. The amendment to the AHO is another reminder to me that when it comes to housing policy and zoning we really are just winging it. Anyone who builds anything (which is none of you currently on the Council) knows very well that 12-15 stories or infinity stories as previously contemplated is highly likely to produce nothing. Your current inclusionary zoning is so horribly broken your director of CDD is doing backflips to hide this fact. When San Francisco reduces from 25% to 12% and says it still doesn’t work you can bet the same rules apply here or worse. Lastly, you received a communication from Susan Connelly last week that is the most coherent salient and informative communication I’ve ever read on the subject and you’d all be wise to read what she says and listen to her. 100% spot on. I hope you hit the pause button on this one and become a serious legislative body again. I do not care about heights, density, or anything else the so called NIMBY folk are accused of (the whole nimby v yimby game is another level of performance art) but I do care about results and like the 99.9% of Cambridge citizens who are not City Councillors it is baffling that we should face so many real immediate issues and yet you’ve chosen to not address any of them but instead have spent a year or more on what is essentially small town theatre.

2) BEUDO is another performative piece of legislation on the docket for Monday night. Will it reduce greenhouse gases in commercial and residential buildings? Of course not. The grid is 80-85% fossil fuel based and likely to stay so well past the 2030’s. CDD identified 20 buildings as the largest producers of GHGs in the city all of which are labs that will be exempt of gas hook up bans and are well capitalized enough to weather this new tax. Why focus on 20 buildings producing more than 50% of our GHGs when you can draft an incoherent set of rules that will devastate the least able to bear it? BUEDO will make residents and business owners rip out perfectly functional HVAC equipment, displace commercial and residential tenants, and further compress our economy during the worst commercial financing conditions of our time. This is obviously the work of people who do not trouble themselves with the details. Further, the amount of resources Eversource will now have to redirect to Cambridge will deny essential resources to other communities on the State’s 2050 timeline and create more havoc when the infrastructure we need rapidly needs to be located within our communities. You still haven’t even addressed the building to building or citywide infrastructure needed for any of this to work; unless of course this was all just about the tax. One billion dollar budget and you need a new tax? Really? Further, our 6.32 square mile billion dollar city will be pushing the remaining 10,559 square miles to the side so we can not only be “first” but the only one out in front of the State. This isn’t “green washing,” it’s “green bullying” and something as a City and as individual residents we should only feel shame in being a part of. To anyone watching, and there weren’t many, the entire “process” was a sham. CDD has ceased to adequately function for at least a decade now but their “work” on BEUDO highlighted a deep and powerful incompetence that I personally found stunning. However I think much like the Council, CDD is also primarily comprised of activists. Thus we have lots of policy and very little substance. In the end this will hurt any individual with a commercial or residential property swept up in a tax scheme they cannot comply with. In effect Cambridge is sending a message through this Council to pack up and leave … only MIT and Harvard need apply. Message heard. In the meantime I ask that you vote Zondervan’s amendment down. CDD did not include it for good reason and what little policy was shaped by a transparent process with actual stakeholders ought to be preserved if for no other reason to not add more drama to the second act.

3) Gas Hook-Up ban. The final act in local theatre production is another light on substance heavy on pain for small businesses and especially those in the restaurant industry. I do not think there is anyone on the City Council who works in or owns a restaurant; yet another example of no skin in the game. We should absolutely NOT sign on the pilot program. We passed the specialized stretch code and we are about to pass BEUDO. We do not need any further constraints on small businesses. The pain of the pandemic which this Council absolutely exacerbated in yet another performative opera of incompetence is still very much with us. Restaurants will be feeling this pain for a generation. In Central Square only 11% of restaurants received any relief and even the ones that did closed. Gas hook-ups are essential to many different types of cuisine and are still industry standard though I do recall Councillor Nolan and Susan Rasmussen both stating the “high end” chefs prefer induction. I asked at the time for a source and am still waiting. It might be worth mentioning that induction stoves cost more, require specialized pots and pans, and are about 4-5 times more costly to fix … I know I know … details right? This type of prohibition was blocked by the Ninth Circuit court fought by a Restaurant lobby only a few short months ago. Lastly, the pilot will not affect medical facilities nor will it affect labs and that is how we know that this is yet another piece of performance art. Gas stoves are used by many Cambridge residents and chefs, and it’s hard to imagine in the home of Julia Childs we could be so neglectful to this industry. Do not approve this policy order and do not join this so called pilot program … you’ve all done enough damage for one Monday.

There is so much more going on in our city besides affordable housing and regurgitated faux environmental policies that are currently failing everywhere they’ve been adopted. No matter what we do we cannot be “The First.” However we do have it within us to be The Model, but only if we pull back and get serious people in the room. We can get to better places on housing, environmental issues, crime/policing, and more but not with activists who only read the CliffsNotes nor a Community Development Department that is at its core broken. In the meantime please vote down Zondervan’s amendment and put the breaks on any AHO amendment to merge this policy with a comprehensive strategy that includes market rate housing and fixes inclusionary; a real housing policy for Cambridge. I would be remiss in not mentioning that this year will be C2’s tenth birthday. Ten years have passed since we had the chance to rezone and create thousands of new housing units in one of the last places in Cambridge to truly redevelop, but instead of working on that we push a bunch of nonsense that will produce nothing but distrust and enmity among residents; why? I’m not really much of a critic of the arts but this is absolutely the worst play I’ve ever seen.

PS: to those who act, perform, sing, and dance in actual theatre I love you and mean no harm.

Respectfully,
Patrick W. Barrett III

Comments (0)

June 7, 2023

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 589-590: June 6, 2023

Filed under: 2023 election,Cambridge,Cambridge InsideOut,Central Square,Charter,City Council,covid,elections,School Committee,schools — Tags: Cambridge, Cambridge Police, Central Square, City Council, COVID-19, elections, Patrick Barrett, Robert Winters, School Committee, Schools, social justice, zoning — Robert Winters @ 9:34 am

Episode 589 – Cambridge InsideOut: June 6, 2023 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on June 6, 2023 at 6:00pm. Topics: Central Square updates – Starlight Square and a shoutout to Matt Boyes-Watson, Nina Berg, and especially Brian Wright; Cambridge Police doing the work; politicizing the moment and jumping on board the latest ideological train; looking back at the craziness of Covid, getting back to living; “saving capitalism one screw at a time”; retail spaces as amenities rather than as profit centers; Popportunists coming to Columbia Street. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 590 – Cambridge InsideOut: June 6, 2023 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on June 6, 2023 at 6:30pm. Topics: Municipal Election Calendar; time to declare intentions for City Council or School Committee; dumbing down in the name of social justice; education and lifting people up; candidacy takes courage – putting yourself out there – service, not a career; need for a broad range of candidates and a lot of voter education; small “d” democrats vs. performative progressives; Sullivan Chamber as community theater; BEUDO – incentives and support vs. mandates; CDD as an activist organization; upzoning petitions on parade. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

Comments (0)

May 3, 2023

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 587-588: May 2, 2023

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,Cambridge InsideOut,Central Square,City Council — Tags: budget, Cambridge, Central Square, City Council, City Manager, cycling, Patrick Barrett, Robert Winters, Schools, traffic — Robert Winters @ 11:28 am

Episode 587 – Cambridge InsideOut: May 2, 2023 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on May 2, 2023 at 6:00pm. Topics: John Clifford and Central Square heroes; AHO – different rules for different people; when bigger and denser is your only goal; starting with conclusions; Vision Zero fantasies; public policy driven by social media; the consequences of living in a news desert. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 588 – Cambridge InsideOut: May 2, 2023 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on May 2, 2023 at 6:30pm. Topics: FY2024 Budget and shifting allocations; explosive growth of City Manager’s Office; self-congratulation disguised as public information; questioning the Cambridge Public Schools; Tax Classification – shifting the burden from commercial to residential, commercial abatements anticipated with high vacancy rates; cumulative effect of regulations and added costs; golden geese growing rarer; continuing kerfuffle over Riverbend Park and traffic diversion. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

Comments (0)

April 30, 2023

Mayday, Mayday! Rabbit, Rabbit! – Curiosities on the May 1, 2023 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: boards and commissions, budget, Cambridge, Cambridge government, Central Square, City Council, Danehy Park, FY2024 Budget, zoning — Robert Winters @ 5:32 pm

Mayday, Mayday! Rabbit, Rabbit! – Curiosities on the May 1, 2023 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Budget Season is upon us, and we appear to be in for the largest jump in memory – a nearly 10% increase from last year. The total City Budget for FY23 was $787,913,900 and that’s proposed to go up to $866,254,920 – a 9.9% increase (and that doesn’t include the additional $167,150,000 in loan authorizations). The budget for the Executive Department (the City Manager’s Office) is going up a whopping 50.2% from $5,638,040 to $8,467,495. I’m eager to get my hands on the full Budget Book to better understand why the Community Development Department’s budget is going from $14,409,820 to $39,290,300, a 172.7% increase – most likely due to some reshuffling of City departments and budget categories, but this really is bewildering. Coins

Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the FY2024 submitted budget and appropriation orders.
Referred to Finance Committee 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

It was explained that the reason the CDD Budget went up by 172.7% was because of an accounting change in which $23,045,750 from the Capital Budget for the Affordable Housing Trust was moved to the Operating Budget under CDD. If this shift were to be excluded, the increase in the overall Operating Budget would be $57,260,265 or 7.1% over the FY23 Adopted Budget (instead of the reported 9.9% increase).

Other changes revealed in the FY2024 Budget Book are that the Electrical Department was moved into the Public Works Department during FY2023, and the Water Department is now listed under the Community Maintenance and Development category rather than as its own separate Budget category. There is now also a new “Capital Building Projects” budget line under Community Maintenance and Development. The Personnel Department has also been taken out of the Finance Department Budget and is now its own “Human Resources” budget line.

It’s worth noting that the City Manager’s Office (Executive) had grown to 16 full-time positions in FY2022 (up from 11 a few years earlier). That grew to 22 in FY2023 and has now leapt to 31 full-time positions in the FY2024 Budget. This partially explains its 50.2% increase from $5,638,040 to $8,467,495.

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $50,000,000 to provide funds for the reconstruction of the Mass Avenue between Waterhouse Street and Alewife Parkway.
Passed to 2nd Reading 7-1-1 (QZ – No; AM – Absent); Referred to Finance Committee 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to appropriation and authorization to borrow $35,350,000 to provide funds for the Municipal Facilities Improvement Plan. Funds will support upgrades to the 689 Mass Avenue Interior; upgrades at the Moses Youth Center; Interior fit-out of Rindge Pre-K building; electric vehicle charging station infrastructure at several municipal buildings; and additional work at Inman and East Cambridge Fire Houses; First Street Garage upgrades to stairs and elevator; and other City building upgrades.
Passed to 2nd Reading 7-1-1 (QZ – No; AM – Absent); Referred to Finance Committee 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to appropriation and authorization to borrow $2,500,000 to provide funds for the construction of the Peabody School Playground and Corcoran (Raymond Street) park.
Passed to 2nd Reading 7-1-1 (QZ – No; AM – Absent); Referred to Finance Committee 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to appropriation and authorization to borrow $1,800,000 to provide funds for financing school building upgrades.
Passed to 2nd Reading 7-1-1 (QZ – No; AM – Absent); Referred to Finance Committee 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $51,500,000 to provide funds for the construction of sewer separation, storm water management and combined sewer overflow reduction elimination improvements within the Port and River Street areas as well as the Sewer Capital Repairs Program and climate change preparedness efforts.
Passed to 2nd Reading 7-1-1 (QZ – No; AM – Absent); Referred to Finance Committee 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $26,000,000 to provide funds for the reconstruction of various City streets, sidewalks and bike facilities. $15,000,000 of this loan order is attributable to the improvement project related to sewer infrastructure upgrades on River Street, which include full depth roadway reconstruction, new sidewalks, new street trees and various other street improvements.
Passed to 2nd Reading 7-1-1 (QZ – No; AM – Absent); Referred to Finance Committee 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

bottomlineFY2024

Budget Summaries – FY2024 Comparisons

The City Manager’s presentation on Monday (and at the upcoming Budget Hearings) should be very interesting. I’m also eager to hear if there are any (misguided) efforts to turn some of the ARPA windfalls into permanent parts of the City’s Operating Budget. Questions worth asking would be about how changes in commercial property use and value in addition to a rapidly growing City Budget will translate into residential property tax rates over the next few years. These are the kinds of questions city councillors should be asking now rather than after the municipal election.

Manager’s Agenda #17. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 22-74, regarding needs assessment of the Danehy Park and recommendations for improvements; and irrigation updates.
Placed on File 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

“Danehy Park opened in 1990 – a 50-acre open space that provides sports fields, walking paths, a dog park, and other open space amenities. Previously, between 1847-1952, clay was extracted to manufacture bricks by the New England Brick Company. The result was a deep clay pit that the City used as its landfill between 1952 and 1971. This was capped and Danehy Park created in 1990. … The City has begun working with MassDEP on a 30-Year Post Closure Evaluation and Report that will include an evaluation of the existing methane trench. … On Mar 21 a contractor working for the City performing soil borings identified a methane pocket beneath the clay cap in Danehy Park. … City staff from DPW, DHSP, Fire, and Public Health are working closely with DEP to install additional venting structures to allow the landfill gases to safely vent and increase monitoring in the park to ensure the effectiveness of the venting modifications. … Other improvements presently underway: Girls Softball Improvements, Irrigation System Improvements.”

Manager’s Agenda #18. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment and reappointment of the following persons as a members of the Board of Zoning Appeals: Members (five-year term) – William Boehm, Fernando Daniel Hidalgo, Virginia Keesler, Steven Ng; Associate Members (two-year term): Carol Agate, Michael LaRosa, Thomas Marshall Miller, Zarya Miranda; Associate Members (two-year term reappointment): Matina Williams, Wendy Leiserson
Appointments Approved 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

Let’s see if the City Council’s newfound authority to confirm Board appointments results in any challenges to these BZA appointments – one of the Boards targeted by ABC (a.k.a. “A Bigger Cambridge”) for Just Doing its Job. The role of the BZA has never been to overrule zoning regulations as a policy matter, but rather to manage exceptional and hardship cases and to grant some Special Permits – regardless what some have claimed in regard to some recent major development proposals.

Manager’s Agenda #19. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board report with no positive or negative recommendation on the Michael Monestime et. al. Zoning Petition. (CM23#123) [Monestime Petition – amended]
Referred to Petition 8-0-1 (AM – Absent); later moved to Suspend Rules for Reconsideration 8-0-1 (AM – Absent); Reconsideration of Referral Fails 0-8-1 (AM – Absent) to allow for immediate ordination

Unfinished Business #1. A Zoning Ordinance has been received from Diane P. LeBlanc City Clerk, relative to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge be amended on a Zoning Petition by Michael Monestime, et al., to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge by creating new footnotes in the Table of Permitted Uses in Section 4.30 for Outdoor Retail or Consumer Service Establishment, not otherwise defined and Outdoor Entertainment and Recreation Facility”; in the Business B, B-1 and B-2 column which read, “For the Central Square Overlay see section 20.304.5 (5)”; and “For the Central Square Overlay see section 20.304.5 (6)”;; and by amending Section 20.304.5 of the Central Square Overlay District to allow Outdoor Retail or Consumer Service Establishment, not otherwise defined by Special Permit from the Planning Board, with associated approval criteria, and to permit Outdoor Entertainment and Recreation Facility as-of-right within the Business B District of the Central Square Overlay District. [Passed to 2nd Reading Apr 24, 2023; To Be Ordained on or after May 15, 2023; Expires July 12, 2023] (ORD23#1)
Motion to Declare This Matter a “Special Emergency” Prevails 8-0-1 (AM Absent); Ordained 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

Though we all expect this will be ordained unanimously and perhaps even fast-tracked as an “emergency”, the issue of concern is amplified music that may annoy close neighbors. There are three abutting 8-family affordable housing structures, and the Planning Board received communications from some of the residents. Under existing zoning it has been up to the BZA to allow this exceptional use – together with regulation of noise levels by the License Commission. The zoning change would make the operation of Starlight Square (and other areas within the Central Square Overlay District) an as-of-right use, but noise levels and days/times of operation would continue to be regulated by the License Commission. The best long-term solution would be to build an enclosed performance space that would be usable year-round and in inclement weather, but that won’t likely be happening any time soon.

Applications & Petitions #2. A Zoning Petition has been received from Ian Ferguson, et al. regarding Pitched Roofs Zoning Petition. (AP23#22) [text of petition]
Referred to Planning Board & Ordinance Committee 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

At first I thought this reminiscent of the Rainwater & Flat Roof Zoning Petition from 2018 that was championed by Councillor Kelley, but it’s actually quite different (and interesting).

Communications #31. A communication was received from Marie Elena Saccoccio, regarding Proposed Amendments to Ch. 2.78, Art. III.

Communications #32. A communication was received from Frank J. Paolitto, regarding Proposed changes in housing policies.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to promptly draft a zoning petition to be considered for filing by the City Council, based upon the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay amendments now before the Housing Committee. Councillor Simmons, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Zondervan
Charter Right – Nolan (after numerous speeches by the likes of Zondervan and McGovern who declared that they would prefer even taller heights along all of the declared “Corridors” and Squares, and that anything less that the City obtaining every residential property that goes on the market should be viewed as a failure);
Councillor Toner introduced a Substitute Order that will be reintroduced when this matter comes up at the next regular meeting

I suppose if Major League Baseball can institute pitch clocks then perhaps this is the City Council’s own version of a hurry-up strategy. That said, this entire proposal is outrageously wrongheaded. It would be one thing to propose some height increases along streets where 3-story buildings are typical to perhaps allow an extra few stories – especially along streets where there are already some 4-6 story apartment buildings, but this offensive proposal would more than quadruple the allowed heights for favored housing developers. Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of this attempt to fast-track this matter is that it has Councillor Simmons as a co-sponsor – someone who up until now I thought actually cared about the concerns of neighbors.

Order #2. That the City Manager is hereby requested to work with the Community Development Department and neighboring cities and agree to a non-binding framework that Cambridge can use to work towards a more diverse real estate development industry. Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toner, Councillor Azeem
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (AM – Absent) – Zondervan declares that he would also like to codify requirements for union labor and a laundry list of social goals to do business in Cambridge, Siddiqui concurs

The last “Ordered” states: “That this framework includes an update to the Special Permit process with a request that they report on actions they are taking to increase the diversity of their teams, construction firms, and investors, and share the findings of this update with regional partners.” Regardless of its merits, this is a rather unusual thing to include as part of any Special Permit criteria regardless of whether it is non-binding. It’s one thing to require a range of requirements in City contracts, but I’m not aware of even a requirement for something like union labor anywhere in the Zoning Ordinance. Shall only those owners/developers matching the political/social goals of the City Council be allowed to do business in Cambridge? This is a very slippery slope.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with CDD, Law Department, the Assessor’s Office, and any other relevant departments to produce final draft ordinance language for the BEUDO amendments based on the CDD proposal as amended by the Ordinance Committee at its Apr 26, 2023 hearing; and that the City Manager report back on this matter, including presenting final draft language to the City Council no later than May 31st, 2023. Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

Order #6. City Council support of letter on strong Clean Heat Standards. Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

Committee Report #1. The Economic Development & University Relations Committee held a public meeting on Apr 4, 2023 to the discuss the practical impact of various city policies, regulations and ordinances on commercial and residential development and construction projects in Cambridge. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

This committee report is very interesting. It gives a nice summary of the multitude of requirements faced by those who seek to build anything in Cambridge. – Robert Winters

Comments (0)

April 24, 2023

Preview of April 24, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,City Council,cycling,Fresh Pond,transportation — Tags: Alewife, Cambridge, Cambridge Police, Central Square, City Council, cycling, traffic, transportation, zoning — Robert Winters @ 1:18 pm

Preview of April 24, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

Here’s my survey of the more interesting items on this week’s agenda: City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of School Committee Member Caroline Hunter as a member of the Family Policy Council.
Appointment Approved 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as member of the to the Cambridge Commission on the Status of Women for a term of three years: • Jean Connor (appointment) • Caitlin Dube (appointment) • Rhonda Greene (reappointment) • Mara Horwitz (appointment) • Natalie Le (appointment) • Judith Tumusiime (appointment)
Appointments Approved 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as members of the the Mass Ave Partial Construction Working Group: • Sukia Akiba • Steven Beaucher • Darren Buck • Christopher Cassa • Makayla Comas-Race • Gary Dmytryk • Debby Galef • Diane Gray • Denise Jillson • Timothy Keefe • Ruth Ryals • Eitan Normand • Daniel Stubbs • Laurie Pessah
Appointments Approved 9-0

“The Working Group will meet over a period of 12 months to advise City staff on key issues related to the planning, design, and construction of this important project.”

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, requesting that the City Council authorize an agreement to partner with the Town of Arlington (“Arlington”) in its receipt of a federal planning grant (“Grant”) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”).
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, DPW Commissioner Kathy Watkins, Zondervan, Deputy City Manager Owen O’Riordan (Roundtable suggested); Nolan offers a committee hearing and Siddiqui agrees; Order Adopted 9-0 (after Siddiqui misstep of merely calling for a vote to accept report and place on file)

“The Grant is to conduct a study in furtherance of this work undertaken by Arlington and the City as members of the Resilient Mystic Collaborative (“RMC”). … The Grant concerns the Amelia Earhart and the Charles River (the Island End River and the Draw 7 Park) dams that protect Arlington, the City, and other communities from coastal flooding. … Arlington’s Hazard Mitigation Plan recognizes coastal hazards as high and serious for Massachusetts but not currently applicable because of dams that turned the upper Mystic and Charles Rivers from tidal estuaries to freshwater impoundments. However, climate projections show the dams at risk of being overtopped by 2030 and failing by 2050.”

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to improvements to the area around Jerry’s Pond. (CM23#103) [Danehy Bridge Connectivity] [Open Space Needs Assessment] [Jerry’s Pond Communication from CM]
pulled by Siddiqui who expresses shock and disappointment on City’s lack of transparency in diversion of funds; Carlone says $400,000 is peanuts and that we should do both projects (bridge and Jerry’s Pond enhancements); McGovern notes ~700 new trees and ~$14 million from IQHQ but disappointment w/diversion of funds from Jerry’s Pond study; Toner asks what reasoning was for diversion of funds; O’Riordan notes loss of significant trees and level of excessive excavation and inability of site to act as wetland due to hydrology, potential benefits questionable; Comm. Watkins reiterates concerns about loss of significant trees, suggests a floating wetland adjacent to Rindge Avenue without doing excavation; Toner would like this all summarized in a memo, notes additional time and cost associated with plans from Friends of Jerry’s Pond; O’Riordan notes that IQHQ owns the site and that they do not support to proposal from advocates; Zondervan expresses concern about other groups not getting their ARRPA funds and Council’s inability to determine allocations, wants improvements on Rindge Ave. edge; City Manager Huang expresses gratitude to the advocates, City still looking at plans, says City does not take lightly reallocation of funds, echoes comment of Deputy City Manager, notes 2200 dump-truck loads of required excavation, concern about $600,000 toward a proposal that would not happen; Nolan acknowledges work of advocates and that plans improved as a result, expresses delight with RR crossing but would prefer an underpass instead; O’Riordan says City will be exploring both a bridge and an underpass; Nolan has liability concerns; Watkins notes significant amount of urban fill that would have to be moved and disposed – not clean soil, liability would fall on IQHQ; Azeem appreciates learning now about infeasible plans; Referred (Zondervan) to NLTP Committee 9-0

“we plan to reallocate the ARRPA funds identified to study the feasibility of renovating Jerry’s Pond to fund the 25% design of a new bike and pedestrian bridge over the Fitchburg Commuter Line to connect Rindge Avenue and Danehy Park. … The latest multi-use path projects, including the upcoming Danehy-New Street Path and the recent completion of the Watertown-Cambridge Greenway, make the bike/ped bridge connection over the Fitchburg Commuter Line even more valuable.”

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 23-08, regarding a report regarding exploring additional less-lethal alternatives that pose the smallest risk of injury when deployed for standard issue in the Cambridge Police Department. (CM23#104) [text of report]
pulled by Zondervan who wants report also referred to Public Safety Committee for further discussion; Toner notes that only “Axon Taser 10” and “FN-303 Less-Lethal Launcher” (a shoulder-fired weapons system that is accurate from up to 160 feet) are not currently part of CPD inventory, would prefer that this matter not be referred to committee; Police Superintendent Rob Lowe notes that only the taser is currently recommended for addition to inventory; Simmons notes our exemplary Police Department, wants to allow Commissioner Elow freedom to make recommendations informed by ongoing study; McGovern asks about concerns that if officers had tasers this might lead to less de-escalation; Lowe notes that significant training would accompany any use of tasers; McGovern notes willingness of CPD to self-evaluate and adapt; Mallon asks about why FN-303 and “Vector Shield” not currently recommended; Nolan asks when PERF report may be available; Elow says they have begun and report will not be available until after inquest is done; Siddiqui chimes in; Zondervan notes that tasers can also be lethal; Report Referred to Public Safety Committee 9-0

“Whenever practicable, Cambridge Police officers are to use verbal and non-verbal engagement techniques and de-escalation actions to stabilize a law enforcement situation so that more time, options, and resources are available to gain a person’s voluntary compliance and to reduce or eliminate the need to use force. However, when de-escalation tactics have been attempted and failed or are not feasible based on the totality of the circumstances, officers are authorized to use reasonable force to gain, maintain, or reestablish control to protect the lives and safety of others and/or themselves.” … “we are recommending that the department wait and evaluate PERF’s final report and recommendations before we consider pursuing or expanding less-lethal options.”

Charter Right #2. Riverbend Park on Memorial Drive. [Charter Right – Simmons, Apr 10, 2023]
Simmons notes comments by Riverside residents who feel disrespected by Council intentions to ask DCR reconsideration – “people closest to the pain should be closest to the power” – asks Councillors Nolan and Azeem to rescind or table this Order; Nolan fully supports Order and claims that only a small number of people object, suggests that people in Riverside support all-weekend closure, proposes amendment to seek legal justification for full weekend closure; Carlone says all sides are right, City has insufficient open space, DCR controls the land and road, compliments Suzanne Blier (and others) suggestion to close from Eliot Bridge to JFK Street on Saturdays; Zondervan notes that DCR has decided against Saturday closures so Riverside residents were heard, calls traffic on Memorial Drive environmental injustice, says eventually it will be closed all weekend; Azeem notes that Order expresses disappointment about DCR decision to not consider other options; McGovern is dismissive of Blier proposal if this is a matter of legal authority, notes that neighborhood is divided on issue, wants traffic mitigation regardless; Siddiqui on defense over neighborhood concerns, agrees with need for traffic mitigation; Carlone notes that Blier proposal would still need DCR approval, notes that City has insufficient capacity for studying traffic; Simmons notes that compromise proposal for Eliot Bridge to JFK St. was suggested by multiple people; Nolan protests Simmons suggestion that a cover letter include minority view – Simmons takes exception; Order Adopted 7-2 as Amended (DS,PT – No)

I look forward to yet another meeting where advocates on either side of an issue talk past each other. I also expect a lot of “studies have shown” rhetorical BS. In the end, this may simply come down to whether someone has “pull” with the incoming DCR Commissioner.

Communications #22. A communication was received from Joan Pickett, regarding Material for Monday City Council Meeting. [Analysis of Cycling Safety in Cambridge Under the Cycling Safety Ordinance Year-3]
Placed on File 9-0

At the very least, this partially fills the gap left by the City’s failure to actually evaluate the safety impacts of various road reconfigurations undertaken in recent years. I’ll leave it to others to sift through the statistics. Anecdotally, I will say that I feel a lot more nervous when driving now because of the many different road obstructions and greatly narrowed lane widths. Whether they provide increased bicycle safety (as opposed to “comfort”) is debatable. Former Traffic Czar Joe Barr would likely call it all “traffic calming”, but I feel a lot less calm when driving, and I worry a lot more now about cyclists racing up while I’m making a right turn due to decreased visibility. This was not a problem when I previously would simply pull as far to the right as possible when making a turn.

Resolution #2. Resolution on the death of Ruth Hill. Councillor Simmons
pulled by Simmons with comments of great respect; Adopted 9-0

Ruth Edmonds Hill was a magnificent and brilliant person in her own right, but some may remember “Sister Ruth” as the wife of the late Hugh Morgan Hill (“Brother Blue”). [Obituary]

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to bring together a working group to conduct outreach through neighborhood groups including the Fresh Pond Residents Alliance, and any other nearby neighborhood groups and City departments, in order to discuss and review options for use of the BB&N Field. Councillor Nolan, Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted 9-0

“this property could be utilized by the City in a variety of important ways, including: a location for the City’s operations, affordable housing development, preschool use, open space, and other uses which would benefit the larger Cambridge community” – It’s worth reiterating my comments from the previous meeting on this topic: “Toner asks about public process in determining uses for City-owned property; Mallon says site would be perfect for an affordable housing development; Zondervan proposes that tall affordable housing towers be built on this site on Larch Road; Carlone prefers mixed use w/o towers and proposes stormwater storage under buildings with zero parking.”

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to direct relevant departments to work together to develop a policy that would lead to a ban on the use of gas-powered lawn equipment in Cambridge in line with other municipalities and development of possible ordinance language limiting the use of gas-powered lawn equipment by residents, businesses, and city operations. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone
pulled by Toner; Nolan comments; Toner notes that a Working Group was supposed to have been formed (but wasn’t), asks if a proposed ban is a foregone conclusion; Zondervan bemoans fact that a ban has not already been enacted; Nolan states that within a few years there will be no gas-powered cars and no gas-powered equipment; Adopted 9-0, Referred to Health & Environment Committee

Frankly, among all the competing priorities worth pursuing, this ranks pretty low on my list. Then again, I live on a busy street where a leaf blower would be just another instrument in the cacophonous orchestra.

Committee Report #1. The Health and Environment Committee met on Mar 1, 2022 to receive an update on the Net Zero Action Plan. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Health and Environment Committee met on Mar 8, 2022 to conduct a public hearing on proposed BEUDO amendments. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #3. The Health and Environment Committee met on Mar 23, 2022 to continue discussion on the Net Zero Action Plan. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #4. The Health and Environment Committee met on Mar 29, 2022 to receive a report from the Climate Resilience Zoning Task Force. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #5. The Health and Environment Committee met on Tues, Apr 11, 2023 to review plans for solar and renewable energy installations in the city, including report on solar expansion and works by the CEA (Cambridge Energy Alliance) and potential for solar on city owned water supply land, and any other items related to renewable energy. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Please note that four of these five reports are from more than a year ago.

Committee Report #6. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Apr 13, 2023 on the Citizen’s Zoning Petition received from Michael Monestime et al. regarding Outdoor Use Zoning in the Central Square Cultural District. [text of report]
pulled by Zondervan; Passed to 2nd Reading 9-0; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

This zoning petition will likely breeze through to ordination, but lest anyone be concerned about as-of-right noisiness to neighbors, the Cambridge License Commission will continue to have authority to regulate any potential nuisances (as opposed to the Board of Zoning Appeal). – Robert Winters

Comments (0)

March 20, 2023

Spring Backwards – March 20, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: 2023 election,Cambridge,Central Square,Charter,City Council,Comcast — Tags: budget, Cambridge, Cambridge Police, Central Square, City Council, City Manager, housing, municipal broadband, traffic, zoning — Robert Winters @ 3:41 pm

Spring Backwards – March 20, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

Spring officially begins Monday, Mar 20, 2023 at 5:24pm. Six minutes later the Cambridge City Council will spring backwards into Zoom isolation. Here are the agenda items that caught my attention: First Sign of Spring

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the new appointments of Maria Guadalupe Arlotto and Brendan Koscher as members of the Police Review and Advisory Board for terms of five years.
Appointments Approved 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 23-05, regarding a report on beginning the process of obtaining police body worn cameras (BWC) for the Cambridge Police Department, and to work with all appropriate departments to produce policy recommendations that would allow body worn camera usage while also not violating civil liberties in compliance with the City’s Surveillance Ordinance.
pulled by Toner; comments by PT, DS, MM, PN (critical of previous city managers), QZ (opposed to body cameras); responses by Commissioner Christine Elow, and Superintendent Freddie Cabral; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 23-09, regarding a report on engaging a third party, independent firm/consultant or university partner to review and examine the Cambridge Police Department’s policies and practices regarding de-escalation methods, mental health calls for service, training, and more.
pulled by Zondervan; questions from Siddiqui; comments by QZ (concerned about bidding process for contract – curious that no such concerns about HEART funding and contract; also challenging use of a police entity doing review), DS (noting that CPD already intentional about deescalation methods), AM, DC, PN, SS; responses by Elow, City Manager Huang; Placed on File 9-0

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to fund the HEART initiative and negotiate a contract for services with HEART, to include but not limited to HEART responding to certain 911 calls. [Charter Right – Nolan, Mar 6, 2023]
Siddiqui again says “charterwritten”; Toner moves to also discuss Comm. & Rpts. #3; Nolan reads prepared statement, says HEART expects to be ready in Fall, proposes amendments; Zondervan supportive of amendments; Toner OK with amendments but questions HEART, prefers to develop a scope of services for others to bid on, questions about liability; McGovern says that Manager believes that contracts with a non-profit entity do not need to go out to bid, floats notion of $8 million funding for HEART, fully supports Community Safety Department but wants HEART to be outside of any City department; Simmons notes her letter with Toner expressing concerns about HEART, notes model for non-police response that grew from Task Force, wants assurance that any entity chosen is actually equipped to do the job; Zondervan expresses support w/o any questions; Amendments Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 7-1-0-1 (Simmons – Present; Toner – No)

Communications & Reports #3. A communication was received from Councillor Toner, transmitting Questions regarding Requests to Fund Heart Using City Funds.
Discussed along with Charter Right #1; Placed on File 9-0

It seems all but certain that the reason the City Council meeting is taking place on Mount Zoom this week is because of the multiple police-related agenda items and the inevitability of a PSL invasion (Party for Socialism and Liberation). We may also see further evidence of the current Mayor’s differences of opinion with the City Administration (and perhaps a signal of how she might prefer to change the Charter to gain more authority). [“In Cambridge, our charter grants the City Manager power over the Police Department as well as oversight of personnel matters. There have been repeated demands from the community to release the name of the officer who shot Faisal, and I personally believe this is an important step for the sake of transparency, but a statement released last week made clear the City will not do so.”]. Ms. Siddiqui’s definition of “the community” is not so clear.

Regarding HEART: There’s something disturbing about the fact that city councillors are pressing the City Manager to award a contract to a particular vendor – and especially a vendor with zero track record other than the consistent hostility of its adherents toward the Cambridge Police Department.

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to recommendations for the block rates for water consumption and sewer use for the period beginning Apr 1, 2023 and ending Mar 31, 2024. [FY24 water/sewer charts]
pulled by Nolan; comments by PN; responses by Owen O’Riorden, Kathy Watkins (DPW); Placed on File 9-0

The notable increases in the water rate this year actually exceed the increases in the sewer rate, but it has generally been the reverse for some time. It costs far more to lose the water than to supply it.

Water Rates (per CcF)		FY05	FY14	FY15	FY16	FY17	FY18	FY19	FY20	FY21	FY22	FY23	FY24
Block 1	0 – 40 CcF	$2.73	$3.02	$3.02	$3.02	$3.02	$3.02	$3.02	$3.02	$3.02	$3.05	$3.11	$3.32
Block 2	41 – 400 CcF	$2.94	$3.24	$3.24	$3.24	$3.24	$3.24	$3.24	$3.24	$3.24	$3.27	$3.33	$3.55
Block 3	401 – 2,000 CcF	$3.11	$3.44	$3.44	$3.44	$3.44	$3.44	$3.44	$3.44	$3.44	$3.47	$3.54	$3.77
Block 4	2,001 – 10,000 CcF	$3.31	$3.65	$3.65	$3.65	$3.65	$3.65	$3.65	$3.65	$3.65	$3.69	$3.76	$4.01
Block 5	Over 10,000 CcF	$3.58	$3.96	$3.96	$3.96	$3.96	$3.96	$3.96	$3.96	$3.96	$4.00	$4.08	$4.35
Sewer Rates (per CcF)		FY05	FY14	FY15	FY16	FY17	FY18	FY19	FY20	FY21	FY22	FY23	FY24
Block 1	0 – 40 CcF	$5.54	$8.19	$8.62	$9.21	$9.50	$10.23	$11.00	$11.77	$12.51	$13.51	$14.59	$15.34
Block 2	41 – 400 CcF	$5.87	$8.67	$9.12	$9.74	$10.05	$10.82	$11.63	$12.44	$13.22	$14.28	$15.42	$16.21
Block 3	401 – 2,000 CcF	$6.30	$9.31	$9.79	$10.46	$10.79	$11.62	$12.49	$13.36	$14.20	$15.34	$16.57	$17.42
Block 4	2,001 – 10,000 CcF	$6.79	$10.02	$10.54	$11.26	$11.62	$12.51	$13.45	$14.39	$15.30	$16.52	$17.84	$18.75
Block 5	Over 10,000 CcF	$7.22	$10.66	$11.21	$11.97	$12.35	$13.30	$14.30	$15.30	$16.26	$17.56	$18.96	$19.93
Combined Rates (per CcF)		FY05	FY14	FY15	FY16	FY17	FY18	FY19	FY20	FY21	FY22	FY23	FY24
Block 1	0 – 40 CcF	$8.27	$11.21	$11.64	$12.23	$12.52	$13.25	$14.02	$14.79	$15.53	$16.56	$17.70	$18.66
Block 2	41 – 400 CcF	$8.81	$11.91	$12.36	$12.98	$13.29	$14.06	$14.87	$15.68	$16.46	$17.55	$18.75	$19.76
Block 3	401 – 2,000 CcF	$9.41	$12.75	$13.23	$13.90	$14.23	$15.06	$15.93	$16.80	$17.64	$18.81	$20.11	$21.19
Block 4	2,001 – 10,000 CcF	$10.10	$13.67	$14.19	$14.91	$15.27	$16.16	$17.10	$18.04	$18.95	$20.21	$21.60	$22.76
Block 5	Over 10,000 CcF	$10.80	$14.62	$15.17	$15.93	$16.31	$17.26	$18.26	$19.26	$20.22	$21.56	$23.04	$24.28
Percent Increases (Water)			FY14	FY15	FY16	FY17	FY18	FY19	FY20	FY21	FY22	FY23	FY24	10 Year	19 Year
Block 1	0 – 40 CcF		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	1.0%	2.0%	6.8%	9.9%	21.6%
Block 2	41 – 400 CcF		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.9%	1.8%	6.6%	9.6%	20.7%
Block 3	401 – 2,000 CcF		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.9%	2.0%	6.5%	9.6%	21.2%
Block 4	2,001 – 10,000 CcF		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	1.1%	1.9%	6.6%	9.9%	21.1%
Block 5	Over 10,000 CcF		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	1.0%	2.0%	6.6%	9.8%	21.5%
Percent Increases (Sewer)			FY14	FY15	FY16	FY17	FY18	FY19	FY20	FY21	FY22	FY23	FY24	10 Year	19 Year
Block 1	0 – 40 CcF		4.2%	5.3%	6.8%	3.1%	7.7%	7.5%	7.0%	6.3%	8.0%	8.0%	5.1%	87.3%	176.9%
Block 2	41 – 400 CcF		4.2%	5.2%	6.8%	3.2%	7.7%	7.5%	7.0%	6.3%	8.0%	8.0%	5.1%	87.0%	176.1%
Block 3	401 – 2,000 CcF		4.3%	5.2%	6.8%	3.2%	7.7%	7.5%	7.0%	6.3%	8.0%	8.0%	5.1%	87.1%	176.5%
Block 4	2,001 – 10,000 CcF		4.2%	5.2%	6.8%	3.2%	7.7%	7.5%	7.0%	6.3%	8.0%	8.0%	5.1%	87.1%	176.1%
Block 5	Over 10,000 CcF		4.2%	5.2%	6.8%	3.2%	7.7%	7.5%	7.0%	6.3%	8.0%	8.0%	5.1%	87.0%	176.0%
Percent Increases (Combined)			FY14	FY15	FY16	FY17	FY18	FY19	FY20	FY21	FY22	FY23	FY24	10 Year	19 Year
Block 1	0 – 40 CcF		3.0%	3.8%	5.1%	2.4%	5.8%	5.8%	5.5%	5.0%	6.6%	6.9%	5.4%	66.5%	125.6%
Block 2	41 – 400 CcF		3.0%	3.8%	5.0%	2.4%	5.8%	5.8%	5.4%	5.0%	6.6%	6.8%	5.4%	65.9%	124.3%
Block 3	401 – 2,000 CcF		3.1%	3.8%	5.1%	2.4%	5.8%	5.8%	5.5%	5.0%	6.6%	6.9%	5.4%	66.2%	125.2%
Block 4	2,001 – 10,000 CcF		3.0%	3.8%	5.1%	2.4%	5.8%	5.8%	5.5%	5.0%	6.6%	6.9%	5.4%	66.5%	125.3%
Block 5	Over 10,000 CcF		3.0%	3.8%	5.0%	2.4%	5.8%	5.8%	5.5%	5.0%	6.6%	6.9%	5.4%	66.1%	124.8%

*All rates are per CcF. CcF is an abbreviation of 100 cubic feet. One CcF is approximately 750 gallons

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments and reappointments of Danielle Jones-McLaughlin, Deepti Nijhawan, Loring Brinckerhoff, Avril dePagter, Mary Devlin , Dan Stubbs as members of the Cambridge Commission for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD).
Appointments Approved 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Salvation Army Shelter and Daytime Program.
pulled by Zondervan; comments by QZ, MM, PT; responses by Yi-An Huang, Ellen Semonoff (annual cost $1,080,000); Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to PO23#35, related to the Allocation Plan for Cambridge’s HOME-ARP funds.
pulled by Nolan; comments by PN, QZ, MM, DC, SS; responses by Yi-An Huang, Iram Farooq; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a summary of a Planning Board Meeting on the 2022 Town-Gown Reports and Presentations.
pulled by Carlone; comments by DC (graduate student housing, etc.), PN; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #11. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the final report for the City’s comprehensive year-long municipal broadband feasibility study.
Placed on File 9-0

I am eager to be convinced that this is a worthwhile investment that won’t jeopardize the City’s financial standing. The $194 million estimate is almost certainly less that what the actual cost will be. I also have a lot of questions about what this initiative would mean in terms of residents who have their Internet, Cable TV, and phone bundled into a single Comcast package. For example, will a resident still have to contract with Comcast if they want to watch TV? Will the result actually be cost savings or additional cost? Will Cable TV simply dry up and blow away in a few years with everything shifting toward data-intensive streaming options? Even more fundamentally, were any of these questions raised in the supposedly “scientific survey” now being touted by some councillors in their pre-campaign email blasts?

Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to PO23#44, related to the Barrett, et al., Zoning Petition. [text of report]
Referred to Petition 9-0

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 (Ordinance #2022-21). [Passed to 2nd Reading, Mar 6, 2023; To Be Ordained on or after Mar 20, 2023; Expires Apr 3, 2023]

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate City departments to ensure multi-family properties on the market are reviewed as quickly as possible as potential affordable housing acquisitions. [Charter Right – Simmons, Mar 6, 2023]
Remarks by Simmons, Nolan; Amendments Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

I don’t wish to infuriate anyone by saying this, but the notion that multi-family buildings, particularly two- and three-family buildings, should be removed from private ownership flies in the face of the reality that small property owners have been possibly the greatest source of affordable rents in Cambridge for well over a century. A nonprofit corporation is not an improvement over a good landlord or landlady and these properties have long been an essential part of securing a middle class of Cambridge residents.

Unfinished Business #4. An Ordinance has been received from Diane P. LeBlanc, relative to Ordinance # 2022-6 Article III Green Jobs 2.66.100 Definitions. [Passed to 2nd Reading, Feb 27, 2023; To Be Ordained on or after Mar 20, 2023]
pulled by Zondervan; Ordained 9-0

Applications & Petitions #1. A Zoning Petition Has been received from Charles Jessup Franklin et al., regarding allowing new construction that is similar in size and shape as existing buildings for the purpose of promoting housing and first floor retail.
pulled by McGovern; comments by MM, BA (not enthusiastic, wants even higher density); Referred to Planning Board and Ordinance Committee 8-0-0-1 (Carlone – Present)

Perhaps we should call this latest variation the Missing Middle Revisited Petition. Variations on this theme by the densifiers seem endless. The suggested residential densities in this variant are in many ways even greater than those proposed in the previous “Missing Middle” attempt – and continue to be be somewhat oblivious to how housing on Cambridge streets actually functions. [Ref.: “A few observations on density”]

Applications & Petitions #2. A Zoning Petition Has been received from Michael Monestime et al. regarding Outdoor Use Zoning Petition for the Central Square Cultural District.
pulled by McGovern; comments by MM, QZ, PT, PN, DS; Referred to Planning Board and Ordinance Committee 9-0

Order #4. That the City Manager work with the Central Square Business Improvement District and provide a license agreement, as well as direct financial and regulatory support for the continued and uninterrupted operation of Starlight Square. Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Siddiqui; remarks by Siddiqui, Simmons, McGovern, Nolan, Zondervan, Carlone (consider redevelopment of the edges as well), Azeem, Mallon; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

I greatly appreciate that we had Starlight Square during the pandemic, and I absolutely hope that we can have a suitable venue like this in the future. That said, Starlight Square as it is now is something of a relic that would need either a substantial upgrade or a relocation. Many of us view it as an experiment that strongly made the case for comparable and perhaps much better options in the future. Central Square needs options for vendors such as those provided by Popportunity, and we definitely need better gathering spaces for events or a rethinking of existing spaces. Dumping on the BZA (as some councillors are doing) is more of a cheap shot than an actual plan that can be sustained.

Resolution #1. Congratulations to Sara Reese on receiving the 2023 Exemplary School Champion Award for her leadership in workforce development in Cambridge. Councillor Toner

Resolution #2. Gratitude to Margaret Drury for her many years of tireless service to the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority and to the City of Cambridge. Councillor Simmons, Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Simmons (notes Margaret’s three decades of service to the City); remarks by McGovern, Carlone; Adopted as Amended 9-0

Order #2. That the Executive Assistant to the City Council is requested to confer with the Dedication Committee to consider the request to dedicate a street corner in honor of Ned Handy. Councillor Carlone, Councillor Toner
pulled by Carlone; remarks by Carlone; Order Adopted 9-0

Order #1. That the City Council go on record supporting Enabling Legislation for a Real Estate Transfer Fee. Councillor Carlone, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Carlone; remarks by Carlone (would generate $23 million more per year for affordable housing); Order Adopted 9-0

Order #3. Policy Order for Garden Street Accommodations. Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Carlone
pulled by Zondervan; remarks by Toner; notable that there were many nearly identical comments during Public Comment from the “bike lobby” opposing this Order; Charter Right – Zondervan

This is a start – and hopefully not just ass-covering for some city councillors concerned about how West Cambridge residents might vote in November. Ensuring bicycle safety need not be a monolithic enterprise with little room for revision.

Committee Report #1. The Finance Committee met on May 7, 2019. [text of report]
pulled by McGovern; Reported Accepted as Amended, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Finance Committee met on Feb 16, 2022 to consider the City Council goals in relation to the budget and to gather input and discuss priorities on the FY23 budget. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #3. The Finance Committee met on Feb 23, 2022 to reconvene its Feb 16, 2020 meeting to receive public comment regarding the City Council goals in relation to the budget and to gather input and discuss priorities on the FY23 budget. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #4. The Finance Committee met on Apr 20, 2022 to discuss the city’s ARPA application/funding update status. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #5. The Finance Committee met on May 10, 2022 to conduct hearing on FY 2023 budget. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #6. The Finance Committee met on May 11, 2022 to conduct hearing on FY 2023 school budget. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #7. The Finance Committee met on May 17, 2022 to conduct hearing on FY 2023 budget. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #8. The Finance Committee held a public hearing on June 14, 2022 to receive an update on ARPA funding. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #9. The Human Services and Veterans Committee held a public meeting on Feb 28, 2023, to discuss the status of after school programming in Cambridge. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Perhaps Neil Sedaka should provide the soundtrack with “Catching Up Is Hard To Do”. My favorite case is the (March 6) adoption of the ordinance establishing the procedure for appointment of the Charter Review Commission as required by the Charter amendments adopted in 2021. The committee was appointed July 1, 2022 – more than 8 months prior to the adoption of the ordinance. – Robert Winters

Comments (1)

January 22, 2023

Completing the Square [June 11, 2013]

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,planning — Tags: Central Square, Urban design — Robert Winters @ 2:30 pm

[This was originally posted almost ten years ago — June 11, 2013. What has changed? What remains the same?]

Central Square in Cambridge has once again become a focal point for planners, activists, property owners, developers, elected officials, and residents. There is much that can be said, but the primary point of this picture book is to emphasize the opportunities that exist in what may be a narrow window in time to “Complete the Square” in a manner that should satisfy most people. Here are a few images (mostly taken on Monday, June 10, 2013) to help tell this story.

It’s important to understand that Central Square today is just an echo of the days when it was a prime shopping district for the residents of Cambridge and elsewhere. There are proposals today that would encourage a more diverse mix of retail and bring more residents close to the Square. This may require some creative changes in the zoning laws to bring about these positive changes. There’s plenty of room for debate on location, height and density but there are good opportunities now to make some great changes for the better. – RW

This was once the site of the Cambridge Athenaeum which also served for a time as City Hall	There seems to be something missing next to the beautiful facade of the Barron Building.

This site at Pearl Street could be so much more vital than it is today.	Another strip of “taxpayers” – one story structures that occupy space formerly occupied by far more appropriate structures.
The rhythm of Mass. Ave. benefits from a mixture of taller and shorter structures, especially when the sides of the taller buildings have something to offer visually.	This is one of the most deficient parts of the Central Square streetscape – a site where new retail and residential uses would be a great benefit. Today the most prominent feature is the graffiti next door.
Central Square could be so much better than prominent displays of vandalism. There should be great buildings all the way to Norfolk St.	The site of the Middle East Restaurant today occupies what was a building with several stories. It could use some upstairs space.
Many of us remember this block when you could rent tools in one location, watch a movie in another, buy clothes at another, and enjoy some great Chinese food.	This block is improving, but we could still do better.
One of the blocks that seems to be missing a lot. The Central Square Cinema and other storefronts once occupied this space.	Lafayette Square now hosts Jill Brown-Rhone Park. This end of the Square can only improve with more residents in proximity.
Standing like a lone soldier in what should be a series of great buildings.	Miracle of Science at the eastern edge of the Square
The park is beautiful and tries to draw attention from the scene’s most prominent feature – a blank pink wall.	This may be the most incomplete corner in all of Central Square. The decaying billboard on the roof guards the deficit.
The U-Haul is convenient for those who are moving, but this stretch of Main Street would be so much better with residential uses.	One of the many Quest sites recently sold which may soon potentially enhance this area.
Another missing tooth. The outline of a former building is apparent on the blank brick wall.	Ideally, the future Central Square would still retain some of its industrial past, but maybe people could live next door to the chocolate factory.
The view from Main Street across Lafayette Square	The view toward the hotel at University Park. Ideally, Central Square should have more of a rhythm of heights and density.
Architecturally Lacking – #1	Architecturally Lacking – #2
This end of Columbia St. would be so much better with more activity.	A great Central Square building
Central Square Hardware and Tool Rental was once here until a spectacular fire destroyed the building. It’s now a parking lot. A view of what this block once looked like is shown at right.
Another great Central Square building	The Odd Fellows Hall (now the Dance Complex) seems to be missing a neighbor.
Vacancies where there was once a very active street	Though this site at Pearl Street is just feet from public transit and should support more height, the existing building seems to be in good shape.
The site of the former Manhattan Market has cycled through multiple commercial tenants in recent years.	The old signage on the side of the Barron Building
This block could stand to have a lot more character.	The Barron Building – another great Central Square building
Here’s an example of a good-looking tall building in Central Square.	Most of us agree that we don’t want this kind of tall building again.
The often-criticized Holmes Building was supposed to have cafes and other amenities on the ground floor. Instead we got banks and phone stores.	With the old pool removed, we get a brief look at the YWCA prior to new housing construction on Temple Street.
Looking across the Temple Street lot toward City Hall	The ultimate eyesore – Vail Court still vacant after decades
Lost opportunity – Vail Court still vacant on Bishop Allen Drive	View from the balcony of the new Alice K. Wolf Center
View of the Holmes Building from the Alice K. Wolf Center	View of City Hall from the Alice K. Wolf Center