Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

January 31, 2023

Arlington to Harvard Square on a Bicycle

Filed under: Cambridge,cycling,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — jsallen @ 1:44 pm

The video embedded in this post is of my bicycle ride on Massachusetts Avenue from the Arlington town line to Harvard Square and Brattle Street, November 29, 2022. I recorded continuously, so the video runs for 15 minutes. I have added narration explaining my actions. I describe many different riding conditions and strategies, so think that your patience to watch it all the way through is warranted. Most of the time, I chose not to ride in the designated bikeway, in the interest of my safety or to avoid obstructions. I didn’t cause delay for anyone: quite the contrary, the traffic signals established travel times and at the end, I caught up with a truck that had passed me 12 minutes earlier.

This is a high-definition video. For the best viewing experience, expand it to fill the screen.

January 18, 2023

Concerns about Garden Street and environs

Filed under: Cambridge,cycling,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:22 am

Concerns about Garden Street and environs – a letter from Beth Gamse and Judith Singer

From: Beth Gamse
Date: January 12, 2023
To: City Manager; City Councillors; City Clerk; Dept. of Traffic, Parking and Transportation
Subject: Concerns about Garden Street and environs

January 12, 2023

Dear City Manager,
CC: City Council Members, City Clerk, and Acting Director of the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department

We write to you to express concerns about the recent changes on Garden Street, which have caused numerous unintended consequences on nearby streets and on the overall system of interconnected streets in western Cambridge. We are residents of one of those nearby streets – Walker Street – and are homeowners, taxpayers, and avid pedestrians.

Over the past year, we have attended all of the informational sessions about changes to Massachusetts Avenue as well as each community meeting about changes to Garden Street, and many City Council meetings at which street safety was a topic. Because our primary mode of transportation is on foot, we are especially interested in pedestrian safety, and we support the City’s commitment to improved safety for its residents and visitors. We appreciate the efforts made by the City, including the City Manager as well as the Traffic, Parking and Transportation (TPT) Department to engage in outreach to the community and conduct research about then-planned, since-implemented changes. However, in our opinion – and those of many of our neighbors on affected streets – the communication efforts and data collection/analyses fall far short of intended goals. Below, we outline specific issues and questions (in bold and italicized) about which we would deeply appreciate a response.

Communication and Participation

TPT engaged in a number of efforts to inform residents about proposed changes, including use of postcards to selected residential/business addresses in the neighborhoods thought to be most likely to experience disruption and posted placards announcing upcoming public meetings. This well-intentioned outreach did not take into account the fact that many people who use Garden Street do not live in the immediate catchment area; rather, they use Garden Street to get somewhere else, and now they use Raymond, Walker, Concord, Bond, Robinson, Madison, Huron, and Walden, among other local streets. From what we understand (based on comments from Representative Decker and other Raymond Street residents at the first and second Listening Sessions in November), Raymond Street residents were not included in the initial outreach about changes to Garden Street even though it [Raymond] is arguably one of the most adversely affected streets. Other than the Listening Sessions and periodic updates on the TPT website, how does the City plan to communicate its decisions about any updates and/or changes in implementation of Garden Street Safety Improvement efforts to ensure that information is available/provided to residents across the city’s system of interconnected streets?

Our understanding of the Garden Street Project is that it is part of a “Quick-Build” approach to make progress toward the Networked Streets and the Cycling Safety Ordinance (CSO). Recently, low concrete curbs were placed on Garden Street between Walker Street and the intersection with Concord Avenue, further narrowing the space available to motorists. Can the City please describe how installing concrete barriers is part of the “Quick Build” solutions? Additionally, how will snowplows navigate when snow renders the barriers less visible?

Project costs are not transparent. As taxpayers, we believe residents should be informed about the City’s budget, and the City should be transparent about how it allocates resources. When residents asked about additional pedestrian crossings across Garden Street at the Listening Sessions, we were told that because curb cuts able to accommodate universal access (e.g., wheelchairs, strollers) would require additional infrastructure costs, no additional crosswalks were possible with incurring capital costs. However, even though the installed bicycle lanes are designed as “quick-build” projects that do not include structural changes, the new concrete barriers clearly represent additional infrastructure costs to install – and plow around. How has the City communicated about planned/expected CSO costs to its citizens? When the CSO was passed by the City Council in 2019, was there a projected budget? How much has been allocated/spent so far?

There is little information about intra-departmental communication with other City agencies, including the Fire, Police, Public Works, School, and local hospital/emergency service providers. Informal communication with a dozen police officers assigned to monitor traffic patterns in the weeks after the Garden Street implementation (on Shepard, Garden, Raymond, Bond) revealed they were blind-sided by the changes, and were dismayed about the increased vehicular speeds on Garden and Raymond in particular, despite the speed alert signs. Walker Street, without the electric speed alert signs, has also seen increased vehicular speeds and volume. We raise this issue because we have observed – on multiple occasions – emergency vehicles blocked from traveling eastward on Garden Street because there is nowhere for cars to pull over. On a related note, the state recently passed a new law governing the minimum distance (4 feet) between cars and those who are “vulnerable,” including pedestrians, cyclists, and those engaged in the provision of emergency services (see the Boston Globe, January 3, 2023): “Pedestrians, cyclists gain protections with new law meant to reduce traffic deaths.” While the separated bike lanes may provide close to the required 4 feet, there is insufficient room to provide that distance to emergency vehicles anywhere on Garden Street between Huron Avenue and Arsenal Street. Can the City please describe pre- and post-implementation communication with other departments to ensure that emergency vehicles have the clearance required to pass traffic on Garden Street?

Listening Sessions both in person and via Zoom have always begun not with listening but with presentations by City staff; attendees have only been allowed to voice comments after City staff presentations. While many attendees of these events have noted that they are city residents, many have reported that they live elsewhere, and traverse Cambridge streets to reach their respective destinations. Despite the fact that the sessions were seemingly designed for residents of the affected neighborhoods – the people whose taxes support our city – too many residents were not even able to speak in thee time allotted for feedback, as individuals from other communities voiced their opinions. Can City officials explain why non-residents have equal speaking priority at meetings for Cambridge residents?

It is not clear that feedback provided at the Listening Sessions registers with the City. TPT personnel have described minor and incremental changes while indicating that the overwhelming majority of comments have been in favor of the current arrangement on Garden Street. The two in-person November listening sessions we attended at the Graham and Parks School were overwhelmingly dominated by residents who are concerned about the unintended consequences and whose questions to TPT remain unanswered; the January 4 Zoom session included both those who applaud the Garden Street Safety Project and those who asked the City to reconsider the Garden Street Safety Project, whether in part or whole. Additionally, the recent TPT report indicated that there is strong support for the changes to Garden Street, yet did not acknowledge the substantial community concerns raised at the Listening Sessions. As a result, it is not clear that the City is indeed listening to residents’ concerns. Can the City Manager, TPT, and the City Council please indicate whether any aspects of the project will be reconsidered, and when?

Nomenclature and word choice matter. The name “Garden Street Safety Project” does not communicate the nature of the project clearly or effectively. This project is exclusively driven by the Cycling Safety Ordinance, and while there have been some mentions of pedestrian safety in TPT presentations, they are clearly secondary. It is MORE challenging now than before October 28, 2022, to be a pedestrian on Walker Street, Raymond Street, Shepard Street, and Garden Street, because cars AND bicycles travel too fast, do not heed traffic light signals, stop or yield signs. Ironically, the 2023 parking permits for the City include a sticker for car owners to place on side view mirrors about checking for bikes, but there is no such sticker about checking for pedestrians. Sadly, in the most recent year, approximately 10 times as many pedestrians died in car-related accidents than cyclists in our state (99 and 10, respectively). As long as this project continues, can the City consider renaming this project to indicate what it is – a protected bicycle lane project – rather than (mis)representing it as creating safety for all, which it is not?

The majority of bicyclists and scooterists are using the lanes as intended. Unfortunately, those who do not risk endangering themselves as well as pedestrians, other cyclists, and drivers when traveling outside the designated lanes whether in the street or on sidewalks, in the wrong direction, and when ignoring traffic signs. We have had to jump out of harm’s way too many times to count when using crosswalks or “Walk” signs on Mass Ave, Garden, Shepard, Raymond, Linnaean, and Follen Streets, because cyclists/scooterists neither stop nor yield. What are the City’s plans for communicating with bicyclists and scooterists about respecting pedestrian safety and heeding traffic signs?

Notably, only a handful of City Councillors have attended some of the in-person “listening sessions,” and our City Manager has not; it is not possible to discern who attends the Zoom sessions as a listener. The recent TPT report includes a statement to residents from City Manager Yi-An Huang, including the following:

The reality is that many people feel unheard, and there is a broader challenge about how we make decisions when people disagree….For the City’s part, I recognize that there is work to do to improve our communication, transparency, and responsiveness, and this is a priority for me.

Can the City Manager, in particular, describe his efforts to improve communication, transparency, and responsiveness about the Garden Street Safety Project?

  • The City’s commitment to the CSO and the Vision Zero initiatives are laudable, yet the City’s decisions to proceed have not all been transparent nor have been shared in a manner that invites public participation in decision-making. Cambridge residents have not voted directly on either of these initiatives, for example, but instead have voted for City Council candidates who share their broad philosophies and vision for the City. Can the City use a process like a ballot question or the Participatory Budgeting to ask residents about their priorities with respect to these two initiatives? In the most recent round of Participatory Budgeting, for example, we find it telling that none of the selected projects was focused on bicycle safety but instead on other priorities for residents.

Data collection/analysis

  • The recent TPT report indicates the TPT Department recognizes that the process could have been improved. It also indicates that the City will continue to collect data about implementation. Because so much of the city population adheres to an academic calendar, data collection from mid-December through the end of January is unlikely to be sufficient to provide a clear understanding of the impacts of the traffic changes. Can the City describe the planned data collection for the future? Will the City ensure that sufficient data are collected – on a range of days, times of day and times of year – to demonstrate to residents that their lived experiences of the effects of these changes are represented validly and reliably? We live on an affected street and are out-and-about several times a day most days of the year. There is great variation over time that does not appear to have been captured by the measurements to date.
  • The report presented information about average speeds on affected streets. However, information about averages alone is not sufficient – the distribution is also important to know because averages mask variation. The major speed issue isn’t about “average speed,” it’s about the faster speeds that many motorists – and frankly cyclists/scooterists, especially those with motorized devices – are achieving. As you consider expanding the amount of data collection over multiple days and times of day, please collect information on the entire distribution of speeds.
  • Selection of independent third-party urban planning/traffic management organization to collect/analyze data given talent in Cambridge. Governments are wise to contract with independent consultants to evaluate the effects of policy changes. Having the same people who implement the policy evaluate its effects does not provide the level of arms-length assessment needed given the felt impacts of these changes on residents. Will the city commit to a quality independent assessment of the impact of these changes?

Beth Gamse, bethgamse@gmail.com, 617-448-4860
Judith D. Singer, Judith_singer@harvard.edu, 617-999-4701
14 Walker St, Cambridge, MA 02138

January 6, 2023

Challenges of a New Year – January 9, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 10:24 pm

Challenges of a New Year – January 9, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

The first meeting of the new year promises to be a difficult one. Here are some featured agenda items:

Updates

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update on the fatal officer-involved shooting in Cambridgeport.
Excellent, balanced statements by City Manager and Police Commissioner Elow; community meeting and Special City Council meeting scheduled; comments by SS, AM, BA, MM (body cameras, procedures, independent investigation), QZ moves to bring forward Committee Report #4 on “HEART”: 8-0-1 (DS Absent); Zondervan calls for funding of HEART program suggesting that they would have prevented this incident, calls for demilitarizing police, investment in more mental health services, objects to defense of our “supposedly progressive police force”, calls for Cambridge Police Department “to disarm or disband”, will schedule a Public Safety Committee meeting; remarks by PN, PT, DC, DS (resist the urge to think we have all the facts); Placed on File 9-0

Tragedy, controversy, and crisis can bring out the best and the worst in people, and can provide opportunity for leadership or opportunism. It’s best that everyone withhold judgment until all the details and circumstances of this incident are better understood.

An organized protest is scheduled to take place starting at 3:00pm in front of City Hall prior to the City Council meeting. The City will conduct a Community Meeting on Thurs, Jan 12 at the MLK School (102 Putnam Ave.) from 6:00pm to 8:00pm with District Attorney Marian Ryan, Police Commissioner Christine Elow, and City Manager Yi-An Huang to answer questions; and a Special City Council Meeting is scheduled for Wed, Jan 18 at 3:00pm to discuss protocols, processes, and training in the Cambridge Police Department.

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a public health update.
Derrick Neal notes that hospitalizations are now at a high level – stressed but managing; indoor masks recommended; wastewater peaked but declining; Placed on File 7-0-2 (DS,QZ – Absent)

Zoning MattersCity Hall

Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board report recommending that the City Council not adopt the Patrick Barrett, et al., Zoning Petition.
Referred to Petition 9-0

Order #2. That the City Manager direct the Law Department to research whether the Barrett et al. petition would need to be refiled should there be a Letter of Commitment attached to the rezoning.   Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern
pulled by Zondervan; Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Carlone ABSENT)

Manager’s Agenda #11. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board report recommending that the City Council not adopt the Duane Callender, et al., Zoning Petition.
Referred to Petition 9-0

Committee Report #2. Joint meeting of the Economic Development and University Relations Committee and the Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebrations Committee on Dec 7, 2022, at 1:00pm to review and discuss the attached zoning petition regarding lab use. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (Carlone ABSENT)

Unfinished Business #3. An Ordinance has been received from Diane P. LeBlanc City Clerk, relative to Emissions Accounting Zoning Petition. [Passed to 2nd Reading Dec 19, 2022; To Be Ordained on or after Jan 9, 2023; Expires Mar 6, 2023]

Applications & Petitions #3. A Zoning Petition Has been received from Douglas Brown regarding Amending Article 4, 5 and 8 incrementally modernizing residential zoning.
pulled by Mallon; question about why only one signature on petition, Clerk reads ruling of City Solicitor explaining why this is permissible; Zondervan acknowledges the legality; Toner had same questions about single signature; McGovern also surprised but then barks ABC party line about housing crisis and his desire to not do anything incremental but instead only at a grand scale; Azeem, Simmons also comment; Referred to Ordinance Committee and Planning Board 8-0-1 (Carlone ABSENT)

Order #7. That the City Manager is hereby requested to direct the CDD and the Law Department to examine the Citizen’s Petition submitted by Suzanne P. Blier, et. al on the Harvard Square Zoning Petition Modification regarding Frontage of Financial Institutions and make recommendations for any amendments that are needed.   Councillor Zondervan
pulled by Zondervan; Order Adopted 9-0

Committee Report #5. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Dec 14, 2022, at 1:30pm regarding the Citizen’s Petition submitted by Suzanne P. Blier, et. al regarding the Harvard Square Zoning Petition Modification regarding Frontage of Financial Institutions. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0 (Carlone ABSENT)

Committee Report #4. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Dec 14, 2022 at 12:30pm on Zoning Petition Recommendation – Removing Limit on BZA Compensation (Attachment F of CM22#207 in Council on Oct 24, 2022). The Ordinance Committee voted to send proposed Ordinance #2022-23 regarding removing the limit on BZA compensation to the full Council with a favorable recommendation to Pass to a Second Reading. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File, Passed to 2nd Reading 9-0

Energy, Climate, and all that

Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Cambridge Net Zero Action Plan 5-Year Review and Update. [text of report]
pulled by Toner; comments by Nolan and Zondervan; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #13. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Stretch Energy Code and Specialized Energy Code. [text of report]
pulled by Toner w/Order #4; Placed on File 9-0

Order #4. That the City Council adopt the Specialized Stretch Code, as outlined in 225 CMR 22.00 and 225 CMR 23.00, with an effective date of July 1, 2023.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui
pulled by Toner w/Mgr’s Agenda #13; series of forums and other outreach proposed for Feb-March (Farooq); comments by Zondervan (wants to adopt w/o outreach), Nolan (says City has been waiting for this – including the ban of natural gas supply to new buildings and more); Carlone tells of sustainable buildings he’s designed and says Stretch Code doesn’t go far enough – calls it “old guard”; Siddiqui notes that it only applies to new buildings and substantial renovation; Simmons asks about what outreach has been done – Farooq acknowledges that no special outreach has taken place; Charter Right – Toner

In short, this Order calls for the immediate adoption of the new “Specialized Stretch Code” without any further discussion or committee meetings even though the new standards may involve considerable new requirements and expense for Cambridge residents. While it may be true that meetings have been held in the past, I will wager that very, very few residents were aware of such meetings or what adoption of the new code might mean in terms of renovation projects in their homes. This is reminiscent of the adoption of amendments in 2020 to the Bicycle Safety Ordinance where residents only found out much later what was in store for Cambridge roadways.

25 Years Waiting

Manager’s Agenda #14. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Vivek Sikri, Kimberly Kaufman, and Kathryn Carlson to the Cambridge Traffic Board pursuant to Chapter 455 of the Acts of 1961 (the “Special Act”).
Placed on File 9-0

I first made the case at City Council about 20 years ago that the City was in violation of the law in its discontinuation of the Traffic Board. Without it, regulatory decisions of the Traffic Director are absolute with no mechanism for redress. We’ll have to see whether or not the City Manager has “stacked the deck” with advocates for specific policies or if the Traffic Board will prove to be objective in matters brought before them by residents or in their role advising the Department of Traffic, Transportation and Parking.

… and the rest

Order #6. That the Assistant City Manager for Community Development be and hereby is requested to inform the Ordinance Committee on whether or not it is the case that the rate of rents being charged in the buildings located in the City squares is primarily driven by those who can pay the highest rent amounts.   Councillor Simmons
pulled by Zondervan; rules suspended to also take up Order #7 and Committee Report #5; Order Adopted 9-0
[Note: Zondervan and Nolan question why these Orders from Committee Reports are listed here, but this is the way it had always been done until relatively recently.]

Other than during the rent control years, was this ever not the case for either residential or commercial buildings?

Committee Report #6. The Public Safety Committee held a public meeting on Dec 14, 2022 at 3:00pm to discuss the implementation of the new Community Safety Department and integration with HEART. [text of report]
Taken up with Mgr #1, Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

The report notes that “Robert Winters… shared concerns on discussions that were presented at the meeting.” That’s quite the understatement. The points I actually made were that: (a) most people, including Cambridge Police, support the idea of having appropriate alternatives in crisis response; (b) the proponents of the HEART proposal have a clear history of hostility toward police; (c) if the City chooses to contract with the HEART proponents in providing alternatives to police, it is inevitable that conflicts and possible litigation will result; (d) all of the rhetoric from the HEART proponents to date has been dismissive of the City’s newly created Community Safety Department which would be the department contracting with HEART; (e) there is no actual evidence of training or expertise among the people associated with HEART; and (f) good management calls for a proper RFP and bidding for the proposed services. – Robert Winters

January 3, 2023

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 573-574: January 3, 2023

Filed under: 2023 election,Cambridge,Cambridge InsideOut,Charter,City Council,covid — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 10:38 pm

Episode 573 – Cambridge InsideOut: Jan 3, 2023 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Jan 3, 2023 at 6:00pm. Topics: Sheila Doyle Russell – fond memories and good friends, Senior Center, modernization of elections; 2022 highlights; chronology of actions, reactions, and inactions of City and City Council – especially bike lanes, golf course controversy. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 574 – Cambridge InsideOut: Jan 3, 2023 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Jan 3, 2023 at 6:30pm. Topics: 2022 chronology of actions, reactions, and inactions of City and City Council; choosing Auditor, Clerk, and City Manager; FY2023 Budget; charter review; expectations for the coming municipal election year. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

December 16, 2022

And away they all flew like the down of a thistle… Dec 19, 2022 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,Charter,City Council,covid — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:38 pm

And away they all flew like the down of a thistle… Dec 19, 2022 Cambridge City Council meeting

It’s that time of year for the pre-holiday gathering. Here are a few items of interest on this week’s agenda:down of a thistle: the fluffy part of a sharp plant that you can blow away

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a public health update.
Placed on File 9-0

Awaiting Report #22-85. Report on organizing a vaccine clinic in December which will provide gift cards to residents who receive a COVID19 vaccination or booster.  Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui (O-2) from 12/5/2022
[Note: This event took place on Thurs, Dec 15, 2022.]

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to approval requested for appointments of new members and reappointments to the Cambridge Library Board of Trustees.
Appointments Approved 9-0

I propose that City Council review of Board appointments work like jury selection where each councillor gets one peremptory challenge per Council term. That would be more honest than what I expect we’ll otherwise soon be seeing.

Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $4,709,473 from the Water Fund Balance, Retained Earnings ($2,354,737) and from Free Cash ($2,354,736), to the Water Fund Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($3,392,903) and to Water Public Investment Extraordinary Expenditures account ($1,316,570) to fund the purchase of water from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA).
pulled by Zondervan; Order Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #7. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $700,000 from Water Fund Balance (Retained Earnings) account to the Water Public Investment Extraordinary Expenditures account, to fund the purchase of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) testing equipment.
pulled by Zondervan; Order Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #8. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation in the amount of $9,812,215.88 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Capital Projects Control Account ($7,036,323.82); to the Grant Fund Historical Control Account ($29,909.04); to the Grant Fund Public Celebrations Control Account ($78,836.02) and to the Grant Fund Police Control Account ($92,457), as well ($2,574,690) to the Capital Receivables account. This is an accounting transaction adjustment requested by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR), Division of Local Service) based on a change in their position and will eliminate negative balances which have been included in our annual Free Cash calculation for several years.
Order Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to changing the name of the City’s Climate Protection Action Committee’s (“CPAC”) to the “Cambridge Climate Committee.”
pulled by Nolan; Placed on File 9-0

Not to be confused with Conservative Political Action Coalition (CPAC), I’m sure.

Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommending adoption of the BZA Stipends Zoning Petition, with additional comments.
pulled by Carlone; Referred to Petition 9-0

Why not just pass around $75 debit cards to everyone who shows up?

Manager’s Agenda #11. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board report recommending adoption of the Suzanne Blier, et al., Zoning Petition, with additional considerations.
Referred to Petition 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 22-79, which requested that the Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department and Department of Public Works meet with and receive input from residents living on the streets in the impacted area [around Garden St.] to discuss strategies to mitigate and reduce overflow and cut through traffic, including the proposal mentioned in the order, or other traffic calming or traffic diversion methods, and report back to the Council on any short-term recommendations no later than December 19. [TPP memorandum]
pulled by Toner; Placed on File 9-0

…and the Judge wasn’t going to look at the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us.

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate departments to conduct street cleaning without towing starting with the 2023 season. [Charter Right – Simmons. Dec 5, 2022]
Order Adopted as Amended 6-1-1-1 (Toner – NO, McGovern – ABSENT, Simmons – PRESENT)

[From the previous meeting…] I have mixed feelings about this – especially as a resident who has been voluntarily clearing the storm drains in my neighborhood for decades. I have always appreciated a good curb-to-curb cleaning during the warmer months and plowing snow as close to the curb as possible during winter. Having even one vehicle to go around negates much of this benefit. I would be happier if a new policy had some discretion, i.e., if the crews and police feel that little is gained by towing in a specific occasion then a pricey ticket may be sufficient. Unfortunately, there are many people now living in Cambridge who might just write that off as the “cost of doing business” as they wallow in their negligence.

18 Communications, including 5 from Young Kim and 4 from the inevitable Bob LaTrémouille.

Is cooking a Christmas goose still a tradition?

Resolution #5. Resolution on the death of Sheila Doyle Russell.   Councillor Toner, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan

I have known many city councillors since the time I began paying attention to things, but Sheila Russell tops my ticket as the councillor and Mayor I most enjoyed being around. Nobody else even comes close to her mix of wit, wisdom, and willingness to pull a friendly prank on colleagues. The Sullivan Chamber has never been the same since she retired from the Council in 1999.

Order #1. That City Manager be requested to direct Legal Department and CDD to review the final language of the emissions accounting zoning petition, and make any recommended adjustments, including to the effective date, to the city council prior to ordination.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern
pulled by Zondervan; Order Adopted 9-0

Order #2. That City Manager be requested to direct CDD to work with relevant stakeholders to provide a preliminary estimate of the cost and time burden of compliance with the emissions accounting provision, prior to ordination.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern
pulled by Zondervan; Order Adopted 9-0

Order #3. That City Manager be requested to direct CDD to work with relevant stakeholders to inform the design of future regulations associated with accounting for embodied emissions.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern
pulled by Zondervan; Order Adopted 9-0

It’s almost as though our “progressive” councillors have discovered the concept of “unintended consequences.” Keep dreaming.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to provide an updated tree canopy projection and provide up-to-date tree data to reflect the effect of the 2022 drought and plans to remedy tree loss as soon as possible.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner
Order Adopted 9-0

Committee Report #1. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee met on Wed, Oct 19, 2022 to conduct a public meeting to discuss the Cambridge Street Study: Findings and Recommendations Update. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (McGovern – ABSENT)Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (McGovern – ABSENT)

Committee Report #2. The Economic Development and University Relations Committee met on Tues, Nov 22, 2022 to conduct a public meeting to receive an update on the BEUDO amendments from the Community Development Department and a discussion of the environmental and economic impact of BEUDO on residential, business and academic properties/communities. Meeting was recessed and not adjourned. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 7-0-2 (McGovern, Simmons – ABSENT)

Committee Report #3. The Human Services and Veterans Committee met on Tues, Nov 29, 2022 to conduct a public meeting to discuss the unhoused population in Cambridge and uptick in substance use in Central Square. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 7-0-2 (McGovern, Simmons – ABSENT)

Committee Report #4. The Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebrations Committee held a public meeting on Wed, Nov 30, 2022 to receive and update on the latest recommendations from the Alewife Zoning Working. Meeting was recessed and not adjourned. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (McGovern – ABSENT)

Committee Report #5. The Ordinance Committee held a public meeting on Tues, Dec 6, 2022, at 1:00pm to discuss proposed Ordinance #2022-20, Emissions Accounting Zoning. The Committee voted favorably to send three policy orders to the City Council that appear on this agenda in the Policy Order section. Further, the Committee voted to send proposed Ordinance #2022-20, Emissions Accounting Zoning as amended, to the Full Council with a favorable recommendation to Pass to a 2nd Reading. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File, Passed to 2nd Reading 7-0-2 (McGovern, Simmons – ABSENT)

Committee Report #6. The Ordinance Committee held a public meeting to continue the discussion of Pregnancy Centers, proposed Ordinance #2022-16 on Dec 6, 2022 @3pm. The Committee voted to send proposed Ordinance #2022-16 as amended, Crisis Pregnancy Centers, to the full Council with a favorable recommendation to Pass to a 2nd Reading. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File, Passed to 2nd Reading 8-0-1 (McGovern – ABSENT)

Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from Councillor Nolan and Mayor Siddiqui transmitting a Charter Review Committee Status Update.
Placed on File 8-0-1 (McGovern – ABSENT)

The authors state: “As of this communication, the CRC has met almost a dozen times.” — Actually, the CRC has met exactly 7 times. The first meeting of any substance was the most recent Meeting #7 on Dec 6. I have no idea how the authors decided that “the CRC has met almost a dozen times.” All of the meetings have been in Zoom with very limited public attendance or public comment – the opposite of what a process of this significance should be.

The authors state: “The vote to draft a new charter was done with the understanding and knowledge that a new charter could, if desired, maintain every element of the current charter. Starting fresh with a new charter means that the charter would no longer use Plan E, a form of charter no longer allowed in the Commonwealth. Current municipal government charters are usually based on a model charter with each element of the charter decided by the municipality based on needs and circumstances.” — This statement is contradictory. The Plan E Charter is still an option under Chapter 43 of the Massachusetts General Laws with the formal exception that the use of proportional representation (PR) as an election method was subsequently repealed. However, under the provisions of Chapter 43B (Home Rule Procedures Act) and Chapter 43C (Optional Forms of Municipal Administration Act), a city may propose various election methods, including proportional representation (PR) as currently used in Cambridge or (hopefully) a modified version that no longer has the awkward dependence of the order in which ballots are counted. In other words, and as stated in the authors’ first sentence, “a new charter could, if desired, maintain every element of the current charter.” I will add that on May 18, 2022 the Northampton City Council unanimously approved a home rule petition to implement Ranked Choice Voting and PR using the Modified Inclusive Gregory Method. The proposal is essentially the same as the Home Rule Petition from Amherst that proposd to use the Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method (WIGM). The point is that Massachusetts cities have again begun to consider proportional representation methods using improved versions of what Cambridge has used for the last 80+ years, and this is permissible under Massachusetts laws relating to elections. Whether any of these Home Rule Petitions survive the legislature remains an open question. In the case of Cambridge, our current PR system is “grandfathered” and may continue to be used without state legislative approval.

The authors state: “If we are to consider changes to be put on the ballot for 2023, the CRC work must be completed in a timely fashion and the City Council would need to work expeditiously to decide on what proposal to put before the voters. A home rule would have to be filed and passed in order for the ballot question to be put forth.” — Translation: Regardless what this CRC recommends, the current city councillors, subject to state legislative approval, would be the sole deciders on what would go before the voters – unlike an elected Charter Commission which would be able to propose changes independent of what the current councillors may feel is in either their best interests or that of the city. In other words, I wouldn’t expect to see any proposals survive to November 2023 that don’t either maintain or enhance either the power or electablity of the incumbents.

There are several significant themes that really should be considered in the ongoing charter discussions. For example: (1) the loss of neighborhood representation when the role of wards in representation was effectively eliminated in 1940; and (2) the mechanisms for “redress of grievances” with which a reasonable number of citizens can force a hearing and possibly a vote on a specific matter. Previous charters all had such a mechanism, but under the Plan E Charter the barrier is extremely high and any such petition is seen merely as a request that can be simply “Placed on File” with neither a hearing, a vote, or any other consideration.

By the way, in Meeting #7 of the CRC, members were given a review of the current modified Plan E Charter. The document was pretty familiar – it’s the very same document I produced from the original printed text some years ago complete with my choice of formatting and fonts – and even the links to documents on the Cambridge Civic Journal site on proportional representation and chapter fifty-four A. Prior to that, even though Cambridge has been operating under the Plan E Charter since the 1941 election there had been no reference anywhere on the City website to what actually constituted the Plan E Charter. You’re welcome. – Robert Winters

November 5, 2022

Roads Scholars? – Notable Items on the Nov 7, 2022 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council,cycling — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:18 am

Roads Scholars? – Notable Items on the Nov 7, 2022 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Apparently the quickest roads to City Hall right now are via Brattle Street and Garden Street. Here are the agenda items that drove me to comment:Penny Farthing

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to approval requested for an appointment of new members to the Cambridge Commission for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) – Keisha Greaves, Robert Goss [three-year terms].
Appointments Approved 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 22-58 , regarding directing the appropriate City staff to establish a fund designed to assist those City employees in same-sex marriages with paying for surrogacy services. [City Solicitor’s response]
pulled by Simmons; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board report with a recommendation to adopt the Incentive Zoning Rate Study Petition, with clarifying changes.
pulled by Zondervan; Referred to Petition 9-0

Lotsa Communications about bike lanes and the collateral damage of cut-through traffic caused by the City’s latest “engineering” solutions.

Order #1. Policy Order Regarding Traffic Flow on Garden Street.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Carlone
pulled by Toner; comments by Toner, Simmons, Carlone, Nolan, McGovern, Zondervan (proposes amendments), Mallon, Siddiqui, Toner (willing to acept amendments), Carlone, Azeem, Nolan, Simmons; Charter Right – Simmons

Order #2. Ban Turns on Red Citywide.   Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Azeem, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone
pulled by Mallon (who apparently advertised this proposal with the print and broadcast press), amendment proposed; comments by Azeem, Carlone, Zondervan, Toner (notes that Traffic Director already has authority to impose “No Turn on Red”), McGovern (notes Alewife Brook Pkwy at Rindge Ave. backups), Nolan, Simmons, Siddiqui; Mallon amendment passes 9-0; Amend to add McGovern, Zondervan, Nolan, Carlone as cosponsors passes 9-0; Nolan amendment (as further amended by Zondervan) passes 9-0; Order Adopted 7-2 [Simmons, Toner – NO]

Order #4. MBTA Pass [for City employees].   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon
pulled by Mallon; comments by Siddiqui, Mallon; Order Adopted 7-0-2 (Carlone, Toner – ABSENT)

Order #5. Roundtable on Broadband.   Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #6. Capital Projects Finance Meeting.   Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #7. Revised MBTA Bus Redesign.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Toner
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Simmons; Substitute Order Adopted 9-0 (this substitute was not made available to the public in any form)

Note: Rather than offer my usual comments this week, I instead spent my time Monday restoring my living room to a condition where I can now find and play all of my favorite CDs and vinyl records. Some things are just more important than Cambridge City Council meetings. – Robert Winters

October 23, 2022

Getting Board and Commissioned – October 24, 2022 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 2:29 pm

Getting Board and Commissioned – October 24, 2022 Cambridge City Council meeting

Over 15 years ago I wrote an essay for The Alewife titled “Getting Board and Commissioned” that was basically an appeal for residents to apply to serve on City boards and commissions. I would still encourage people to do so based on all the same reasons I expressed in that essay. Things are potentially a bit different now in that for some of these boards you could be subjected to scrutiny by elected councillors and their political handlers. That’s a shame, but it’s still worth applying. One thing that has been missing for a very long time is a full accounting of what City boards continue to exist. Some were created based on short-term concerns and have either quietly disappeared or were officially discontinued.

Perhaps the most intriguing of these is the Traffic Board (officially the “Traffic and Parking Commission”) that was created in 1961 by a Special Act of the Massachusetts Legislature and quietly disappeared at least 20 years ago but which legally continues to exist (and due to the “holdover” rules in Massachusetts its 3 members continue to be legal appointees to that board). The significance of this particular board (and the Special Act that created it) is that (a) it grants authority to the Traffic Director to make or change regulations, and (b) it is the legal mechanism via which citizens can appeal a traffic or parking regulation issued by the Traffic Director. City Manager Communication #4 is the first time in decades that acknowledges the Traffic Board. There are a few other interesting items as well, but Mgr #4 is definitely the highlight. It also proposes stipends for some of the City’s boards and commissions. It also clarifies which City boards and commissions are subject to City Council review of appointees.City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation $1,409,562 from Free Cash to the Community Benefits Stabilization Fund.
Order Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #2. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $2,050,000 from Free Cash to the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund which will be used to fund specific future projects, which will require separate individual appropriations by the City Council.
Order Adopted 9-0

We’ll have to wait and see how these funds are proposed to be spent. These are just formal transfers to the specified Community Benefits and Mitigation funds.

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report items numbered 21-52 & 22-25, regarding a report on Boards and Commissions. (CM22#207) [Manager’s Communication] [Info Charts] [Job Description Best Practices] [Standard Demographic Battery for Cambridge Surveys] [Boards/Commission Application] [Survey of Other Communities – Stipends] [Zoning Petition Recommended Language – Removing Limit on BZA compensation]
Attachment A [Info Charts] referred to Gov’t Operations Committee; Attachment F [Zoning Petition Recommended Language – Removing Limit on BZA compensation] referred to Ordinance Committee and Planning Board as a City Council Zoning Petition; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

This is one of the more substantial items in recent years to appear on the City Manager’s Agenda. It includes:

  • proposing a standard operating procedure for recruiting, screening, and interviewing candidates to Boards and Commissions
  • developing strategies for orienting and training new appointees and conducting exit interviews with departing members
  • consideration of term limits for members of boards and commissions with some accommodation for longer service
  • developing a standardized presentation of appointments and re-appointments to City Council
  • proposal for stipends to some boards and commission members who meet more regularly, e.g. Planning Board, BZA, Historical Commission

The Manager’s Office has provided a long-overdue accounting of all City boards, commissions, and other committees with details on number of members, how each board came to be, which are or are not subject to City Council approval of members, and which are or are not in the Cambridge Municipal Code but which are not technically “boards or commissions” (and are therefore not subject to City Council review of appointments). As mentioned above, this is the first time in decades that the City is acknowledging that the “Traffic and Parking Commission” was never legally discontinued and which provides a legitimate avenue via which residents can appeal regulations issued by the Traffic Director.

I don’t personally see much value in providing stipends to board members. I seriously doubt if such financial considerations factor into most residents’ decisions on whether or not they want to serve on a City board or commission. The level of time commitment is surely a factor, but that is hardly addressed by offering a modest stipend. I’m also not enamored by term limits because any board or organization can benefit from having a mix of new members and long-term members with long-term perspectives.

Not specifically addressed in the Manager’s communication is the issue of “self-perpetuation” of existing boards and the practice of City staff often deciding who may or may not be appointed based on whether or not the appointee shares the philosophy or agenda of the staff person reviewing the list of possible appointees. My feeling has always been that all appointees to City boards have to represent the interests of all residents and not just use their position for their own personal advocacy or that of City staff.

I also feel strongly that there should be a periodic review of all boards, commissions, committees, and task forces to assess their current relevance and whether some might be discontinued, merged, or redefined. A sunset can be a beautiful thing.

Charter Right #1. Policy Order Seeking Development Analysis [Charter Right – McGovern, Oct 17, 2022]
Amended (QZ) 9-0; Tabled (DS) 9-0

Regardless of the motivations behind this particular Order, it highlights the need to at least occasionally assess the cumulative effect of multiple City ordinances and policy initiatives. I know an MIT mathematician who once brilliantly commented on a mathematical paper that it was “locally comprehensible but globally incomprehensible”. The same could be said of the patchwork of City ordinances and policies each of which may have been born out of the best of intentions but which in combination with all else creates a bureaucratic rat’s nest or a level of economic burden that drives reasonable people to frustration and worse.

Unfinished Business #3. That section 6.36 entitled, Schedule of Parking and Loading Requirements, of Article 6.000, entitled “Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements and Nighttime Curfew on Large Commercial Through Trucks”, of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge be amended (Ordinance #2022-5) [Passed to 2nd Reading as Amended, Oct 3, 2022; To Be Ordained as Amended on or after Oct 24, 2022; Expires Nov 1, 2022]
Ordained as Amended (to add “including in all overlay districts” at end of section 6.31) 8-1 (Carlone – NO)

The correct answer on the question of reducing or eliminating parking minimums is: “It’s complicated.” That said, my expectation is that this City Council will once again go with its quasi-religious tendency to adopt the latest trendy housing, zoning, or transportation philosophy hook, line, and sinker without any consideration of nuance, applicability in different settings, or consideration of unintended consequences.

Order #1. That the Rules of the City Council be amended to add the following sentence at the beginning: “The rules of the City Council should be reviewed and provisionally adopted towards the beginning of every new City Council term.”   Vice Mayor Mallon
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #2. That the Rules of the City Council be amended to add the following sentence at the end of Rule 5: “All motions made by any members of the Council should require a second prior to debate.”   Vice Mayor Mallon
Order Fails of Adoption 2-7 (Simmons, Toner – YES)

Order #3. That the Rules of the City Council be amended to add the following sentence at the end of Rule 12: “During debate each Councillor will state their comments clearly and concisely with the understanding that other members are waiting to present their comments.”   Vice Mayor Mallon
Order Adopted 9-0

Former Mayor Frank Duehay once said to me that the death knell of any organization is when they spend excessive time and emphasis on their by-laws instead of their mission. Now I don’t think this City Council or their predecessors have overthunk their rules, but my antennae do go up when the modification of rules becomes a focal point. I can’t help but think that some of these rules changes are driven by the misbehavior of one or two specific councillors. For example, regarding the proposed rules change in Order #2, wouldn’t it have been nice if a “second” had been required at various times when Councillor Zondervan proposed something that everyone in the room knew was eventually heading toward a 1-8 vote? As for the proposed rules change in Order #3, this could easily apply to more than a few councillors who have been more interested in speechmaking than in conducting an efficient meeting.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with all relevant City departments to develop a communication on the most environmentally responsive and responsible methods of [managing] yard waste, and utilize the City website and other communication avenues to publicize best practices for leaf disposal.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted 9-0

Makes sense. Those leaves can be your soil’s best friend and the enemy of your local storm drain. – Robert Winters (who was once known as “Compost Man” around town and who regularly clears the nearby storm drains)

October 15, 2022

No Retreat – Notable Items on the October 17, 2022 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,Charter,City Council,Harvard Square,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:03 am

No Retreat – Notable Items on the October 17, 2022 Cambridge City Council Agenda

The councillors had a private, unannounced retreat last week where they learned to get along. Yeah, right. This week they’re back to bide their time as some of them continue to “charter” a course to take over the government. Some of the more notable agenda items this week are:City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a public health update.
Placed on File 9-0

Incentive Zoning and Linkage

Manager’s Agenda #10. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of a Housing Contribution made under the Incentive Zoning provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in the amount of $1,565,953 from DIV 35 CPD, LLC to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
Order Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #13. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Policy Order O-12 dated Oct 3, 2022, regarding review of recent proposed amendments to the Incentive Zoning Rate Petition.
pulled by Toner; Placed on File 9-0

Unfinished Business #3. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on July 27, 2022 to continue discussions around an Ordinance potentially raising the linkage fee rates. (#2022-14). [Text of Committee Report]
Rules suspended (Toner) to take this with Mgr #13; Placed on File 9-0

Unfinished Business #4. The Ordinance Committee held a public meeting on Sept 7, 2022 to continue the discussion around Ordinance # 2022-14, Section 11.202(b) of Article 11.000 Special Regulations Linkage Fee, proposal to amend by substitution, raising linkage fee rates. [Text of Committee Report]
Rules suspended (Toner) to take this with Mgr #13; Placed on File 9-0

Unfinished Business #6. Section 11.202(b) of Article 11.000 Special Regulations linkage fee, be amended by substitution. (Ordinance #2022-14) [Passed to 2nd Reading Sept 12, 2022; To Be Ordained Oct 17 or Oct 24, 2022]
Rules suspended (Toner) to take this with Mgr #13;
Toner amendment [“so long as there is no change of use”] Adopted 5-4 (BA,DC,PN,DS,PT – YES; AM,MM,QZ,SS – NO);
Azeem Amendment [“has obtained a building permit for reconstruction within three years”]
Adopted 6-3 (BA,DC,MM,PN,DS,PT – YES; AM,QZ,SS – NO);
Zondervan amendment [“for incentive projects less that 60,000 sq ft in total gross-floor-area”] Adopted 9-0;
Zondervan proposed amendment to strike final sentence Fails 4-5 (AM,MM,QZ,SS – YES; BA,DC,PN,DS,PT – NO);
Main Amendment Ordained as Amended 9-0; Reconsideration (Nolan) Fails 1-8 (QZ – YES)

Comm. #61. A communication was received from Patrick W. Barrett III, regarding linkage labs and Central Square.
Placed on File 9-0

Taking a Step Back to Look at Net Effect

Order #3. Policy Order Seeking Development Analysis.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toner, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Azeem
pulled by Nolan, Charter Right – McGovern

Political Religion, One-Size-Fits-All, and the Continuing War on Cars

Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, regarding the Accessory Parking Requirements Zoning Petition.
pulled by Toner; proposed amended language adopted 7-1-0-1 (Carlone – PRESENT, Toner – NO); Referred to Petition 8-1 (Carlone – NO)

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department to meet with and receive input from the Vision Zero, Pedestrian, Bicycle Committee, the Council on Aging, the Transit Advisory Committee, the Commission for Persons with Disabilities Advisory Board, Cambridge Police Department, and any other departments, to review and revise the Cambridge Street Code, promulgate the updated guide throughout the city, and develop recommendations for staffing and methods of improving traffic enforcement. [Charter Right – Zondervan, Oct 3, 2022]
Mayor Siddiqui refers to this as having been “charterwritten” this; Order Adopted 6-2-0-1 (PN,QZ – NO, DC – PRESENT);
Zondervan amendments:
#1 – Fails 1-8 (QZ – YES); #2 – Approved 8-1 (DS – NO); #3 – Approved 8-1 (DS – NO);
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Resolution #4. That the City Council go on record thanking Joe Barr for his service.   Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui
pulled by Azeem

Combating Bank Inflation

Applications & Petitions #1. A Zoning Petition has been received from Suzanne P. Blier, et. al Harvard Square Zoning Petition Modification regarding Frontage of Financial Institutions. [text of petition]
pulled by Zondervan; Referred to Ordinance Committee and Planning Board 8-0-1 (Carlone ABSENT)

81 Communications – Trees (60), Parking Minimums – Pro and Con, mainly depending on your political religion (8), Bike Lanes (2), Linkage and Incentive Zoning (4), and several more. Of particular note are:
Comm. #60. A communication was received from Patrick W. Barrett III, regarding public safety.
Comm. #61. A communication was received from Patrick W. Barrett III, regarding linkage labs and Central Square.
Comm. #81. A communication was received from Joan Pickett, regarding the status of the citizens’ petition signed by 97 registered voters living on or near Brattle Street.

Joan Pickett’s communication is especially interesting in that it refers to a petition to the Traffic Board which has existed under a Special Act of the Legislature for nearly 50 years but which was allowed to “disappear” by the Department of Traffic, Parking, & Transportation – thereby eliminating any appeals process for changes in traffic and parking regulations. Technically the Board still exists and its 3 members (all of whom are still Cambridge residents) would still be on the Traffic Board as “holdover” appointees until others were appointed. Those appointments were never made.

One Ring to Rule Them All

Order #1. That the City Manager direct the City Solicitor and City Clerk to update the posted City Council rules on the website and other locations where posted, to properly reflect the change made to Rule 24c that adds the sentence “individuals will be heard in the order that they signed up whether they are participating in person or remotely.” and to report back to the Government Operations, Rules and Claims committee when complete.   Vice Mayor Mallon
pulled by Mallon, also 3 Orders with Gov’t Operations Committee Report; Order Adopted 9-0

Committee Report #1. The Government Operations, Rules & Claims Committee met on Apr 28, 2022, to discuss potential changes to the City Council Rules. The attached “RULES OF THE CITY COUNCIL, 2022-2023” shows the changes in red, that the Committee is putting forth to the City Council with a favorable recommendation to adopt. [text of committee report]
Placed on File 9-0; 3 Orders Adopted

And the rest…

Order #2. That the City Manager direct the City Solicitor to develop language to regulate car-sharing services that register vehicles to Cambridge residences.   Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Simmons
pulled by Mallon, reference to Awaiting Report #21-60; Referred to Ordinance Committee 9-0

Order #4. Supporting HD 5394.  Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toner, Mayor Siddiqui
pulled by Nolan (opposed to tax refunds), amended by Carlone to add all as sponsors (which is an incredibly coercive practice), Adopted as Amended 9-0

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress