Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

February 16, 2020

Catching Up on the Cambridge News – Feb 16, 2020

Free No Balance CharlieCards Available at City Hall Annex
Jan 30, 2020 – The City of Cambridge has partnered with the MBTA on their program to increase the availability of CharlieCards to residents who rely on public transportation.The City of Cambridge joins a growing list of organizations, cities, and towns partnering with the MBTA to increase access to CharlieCards.Central Square - Charlie Cards

“We’re pleased to see the continued expansion of this program, ensuring that more customers have access to lower fares through the re-loadable CharlieCard,” said MBTA General Manager Steve Poftak. “Thank you to the City of Cambridge for partnering with us in this growing effort that ultimately allows the MBTA to be even more accessible for our riders.”

“Cambridge continuously strives to support sustainable and affordable options for people to get around our city,” said Cambridge City Manager Louis A. DePasquale. “By partnering with the MBTA on this program, we’re increasing our residents’ access to the public transit system and the fare savings that come with using a CharlieCard. I hope this program will encourage more people to consider riding the T.”

Under the program, free no balance CharlieCards are now available at the Community Development Department, on the 3rd floor of the City Hall Annex, 344 Broadway.

Unlike CharlieTickets, CharlieCards are reusable plastic cards that can be routinely loaded with stored cash value or one-day, seven-day, or monthly passes. As a way to encourage use of CharlieCards, cardholders pay lower single-ride fares on bus and subway services than customers who pay cash or hold a CharlieTicket. CharlieCards also offer enhanced options for transfers over tickets and cash. Note: CharlieCards are not valid for use on the Commuter Rail though customers are encouraged to learn more about Commuter Rail fare products that include the mTicket.)

CharlieCard availability has historically been concentrated around major rapid-transit hubs. Similarly, fare vending machines are clustered around rapid-transit stations. Under this program, the MBTA continues to acknowledge that access to cards needs to increase, especially in communities with a higher reliance on buses.

The MBTA hopes to partner with nonprofit organizations or cities and towns to provide residents with CharlieCards, either blank or pre-loaded with a dollar amount for purchase. By providing easier access to CharlieCards, the T hopes to incentivize riders to use CharlieCards and fare vending machines throughout their travels, resulting in a savings of both time and money. Organizations and communities seeking to partner in this effort should contact MBTA Chief Customer Officer Danny Levy at DLevy@MBTA.com. For more information on CharlieCards, visit mbta.com/CharlieCard or connect with the T on Twitter @MBTA, Facebook /TheMBTA, or Instagram @theMBTA.


Cannabis Litigation
City SealFeb 14, 2020 – Today, the City Solicitor’s Office filed a Petition for Interlocutory Review to a Single Justice of the Appeals Court in the case Revolutionary Clinics II, Inc. v. the City of Cambridge. The plaintiff in that case has challenged the City’s Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance, specifically, the two year period in which only Economic Empowerment Applicants are eligible to receive a Cannabis Business Permit for a Cannabis Retail Store (the “two-year moratorium”). The City is seeking interlocutory relief from a Single Justice of the Appeals Court with regard to the Superior Court’s Jan 24, 2020 order on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction in this case (“Order”), which restrains and enjoins the City from enforcing the two-year moratorium and from taking any action to prevent the Plaintiff from immediately applying to convert its Medical Marijuana Treatment Center (“MTC”) to a co-located adult-use cannabis retail establishment and MTC. The City also filed a Notice of Appeal in the Superior Court preserving the City’s right to further appeal the Order to a panel of the Appeals Court. Additionally, the City filed an Emergency Motion for a Stay of the Court’s Order in the Superior Court. The Motion for a Stay requests that the Superior Court stay the Order pending the appeals.


Steps to Starting Your Own Business Workshop Feb 24
City SealFeb 14, 2020 – The City of Cambridge is holding a free workshop, Steps to Starting Your Own Business on Mon, Feb 24, from 5:30-7:30pm, at the City Hall Annex, 344 Broadway, 2nd floor, Cambridge.

Participants will learn about the steps to starting a business, the specifics of starting one in Cambridge, and the risks and rewards. The workshop will also provide an overview of available resources.

This workshop is a pre-requisite for the 10 Week Business Planning Program March 9 – May 18, on Mondays from 5:30-8:00pm. This 10-week course educates eligible Cambridge entrepreneurs about financing, marketing techniques, business plan development, and honing a business pitch. It provides participants with one-on-one assistance, expert advice, and networking opportunities. The course is free to eligible Cambridge residents and business owners. To check your eligibility and apply, visit CambridgeMA.gov/SmallBizCourse.

For more information, visit CambridgeMa.gov/business. To register, contact Rona Abrahams at 617-349-4637 or rabrahams@cambridgema.gov.


Join us for Bike for Bites Winter Ride and Celebration!
Saturday, February 29, 8:30am-1:30pm     Meet at the Alewife T Station

Bikes for BitesJoin the Cambridge Bicycle Committee for Bike for Bites, the first annual Winter Bike Ride and Winter Biking Celebration! Brave the cold for this winter ride while stopping at Cambridge cafes to warm up and taste their treats.

We will meet at the Alewife T Station at 8:30am and depart at 9:00am. The ride will end at Lamplighter Brewery at roughly 11:00am for a winter biking celebration and meet-up. Free Bluebikes passes will be provided for anyone without a bicycle!

Interested in winter biking, but not yet ready to hit the streets? Come by Lamplighter between 11:00am and 1:30pm to meet other winter bicyclists and exchange tips!

The ride will be cancelled in the event of poor weather.


Cambridge Achieves 30 Percent Trash Reduction Milestone One Year Early
Feb 14, 2020 – In 2009, the City of Cambridge adopted a goal to reduce trash by 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, using 2008 as a baseline. Subsequently, the Department of Public Works (DPW) launched new programs and educational campaigns over the past decade to encourage residents to reconsider what they toss in the trash.

Today, Cambridge officials announced that the 30% trash reduction goal was achieved one year early. In 2019, the City of Cambridge reduced its trash reduction numbers by 32%, to 15.6 pounds per week per household, compared to 22.8 pounds per week per household in 2008.

“By adding new programs that encourage diverting items from the waste stream and enhancing our existing recycling programs, we’ve been able to achieve this ambitious goal ahead of schedule,” said Public Works Commissioner Owen O’Riordan. “I want to thank Cambridge residents and our Recycling Advisory Committee for their hard work in helping the city reduce the amount of trash we send to the landfill. It may take an extra minute or two to separate your items, but it’s worth the extra effort.”

Trash Graph

Cambridge achieved this goal by improving curbside recycling, encouraging reduce and reuse practices, and enhancing opportunities to divert hard-to-recycle items such as electronics and textiles. Among the most impactful programs was Cambridge’s curbside compost program which expanded citywide in 2018 as part of recommendations from the city’s Zero Waste Master Plan. The compost program is accessible to more than 32,000 households in Cambridge. The curbside compost program has reduced trash by 7% and has substantially reduced the net greenhouse gas emissions of our waste programs. It also costs the city less money to dispose of food waste in the compost program than in the trash.

The Zero Waste Master Plan, which was developed to assist the City in achieving goals of reducing waste and greenhouse gas emissions, also identified mattress recycling as a program that can help reduce trash. Launched in April 2019, the program has diverted more than 5,000 mattresses to date. Instead of going to a landfill, the mattresses are collected by UTEC (United Teen Equality Center), a nonprofit organization serving at-risk young adults, that picks up, deconstructs, and recycles mattresses. This new program reduced trash by 250,000 pounds in 2019.

Cambridge has also encouraged residents to utilize its Recycling Center, at 147 Hampshire Street, to drop off items that may be recycled, but cannot be collected curbside, such as electronics, plastic bags, and scrap metal.

“I’m incredibly proud of this achievement and the various efforts that DPW staff have deployed since 2009 that have contributed to the city meeting the 30% trash reduction goal ahead of schedule,” said Cambridge City Manager Louis A. DePasquale. “This accomplishment highlights the city’s commitment to using data and evidence to drive strategic decisions to achieve goals set by the City Council. Without the help of our impassioned residents and the support of the City Council, this goal would not have been accomplished. I look forward to making strides outlined in our Zero Waste Master Plan to continue decreasing trash in Cambridge.”

“We’re thrilled that we could come together as a community to accomplish this goal,” said Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui. “Reducing waste is one of several ways Cambridge is working to help reduce our impact on climate change.”

Residents are encouraged to visit CambridgeMA.Gov/Recycle to learn more about how they may collaborate with the city on reducing trash. Stay tuned for opportunities coming this spring to help celebrate this milestone.

Michael Orr at baler
Cambridge Recycling Director Michael Orr inspects sorted recycling bales
with Kate Riley, Public Works Community Relations Manager


Comment on DCR Mount Auburn St. Corridor Project
The Department of Conservation and Recreation is soliciting public comments on the Mount Auburn St. Corridor Project. Comments can be submitted online by visiting www.mass.gov/dcr/public-comments or by writing to the Department of Conservation and Recreation, Office of Public Outreach, 251 Causeway Street, Suite 600, Boston, MA 02114. Comments will be accepted through Tuesday, February 18, 2020.

For more information about the project, visit the project website at www.mass.gov/dcr/mt-auburn-corridor-study. If you have question or concerns or would like to subscribe to a DCR project-specific or general information listserv, please email mass.parks@state.ma.us or call 617-626-4973.


City of Cambridge Tree Protection Ordinance Amendment Extended
Feb 13, 2020 – Effective Feb 10, 2019, the City Council has voted to extend the Tree Protection Ordinance Amendment requiring a permit to remove a “significant tree” on private property.

“Significant trees” have a trunk diameter of 8 inches or more (measured 4 feet above ground).

Permits will only be issued in the following circumstances:

  • The tree is dead or dangerous;
  • An emergency exists relative to public health, safety or welfare;
  • Removal of the tree is necessary to complete a significant utility infrastructure project;
  • Removing the tree may result in a healthier tree canopy;
  • The tree poses a significant risk to an adjacent existing structure.

In each of these cases, a completed Permit Application Form and all associated documentation must be submitted to be considered for a permit. In the event a tree had to be removed due to an emergency situation prior to receiving a permit, an application must be submitted retroactively.

The extension of this ordinance amendment is valid until Dec 31, 2020 or until an additional amendment is put in place, whichever comes first.

For complete permit requirements, please visit the online permitting system.


River Street Reconstruction – February 2020 Project Update
River Street ReconstructionWork on the River Street Reconstruction and Carl Barron Plaza project continues in many areas.

Working group meeting postponed to March
Given that many of the project work items are still in progress, the project team has postponed the next working group meeting to March 24. This will allow the project team to make substantial progress on design work. The information for this meeting is as follows:
Tuesday, March 24, 2020, 6:00pm-8:00pm, Doors open 5:45pm
Manning Apartments, 1st Floor Community Room, 237 Franklin Street

Public meeting planned for April
The project team is also working toward a public meeting in April to show the latest designs. This meeting will include corridor designs, traffic analysis, bus routings, and a few concepts for a redesigned Carl Barron Plaza. Stay tuned for updates on the topics and a save the date for this meeting.

Design updates – Carl Barron Plaza
Carl Barron Plaza is the public plaza space in front of Cambridge Savings Bank, Amazon, and the Holmes Building entrance. At the last meeting of the River Street Working Group in December, the working group came to consensus for looking at expanded plaza space. The main way to create a larger plaza is by changing bus routes and stop locations at the busway. The project team calls this new configuration the “Butterfly” design because of its butterfly shape. This design allows for more plaza space while keeping two well-used bus stops on the edges of an expanded plaza.

At the current time, the project team is creating a few distinct conceptual designs to bring to the public for comments. A specific design for the plaza is not yet selected.

To see some of the conceptual designs, view the slideshow from the last working group meeting.

Design updates – River Street corridor
Work to improve the design on the corridor continues. The project team is reviewing the River Street design at places where the street is narrow, evaluating daily use and maintenance. Some minor curb adjustments are expected.

At the same time, the project team is continuing to conduct detailed traffic analysis and modeling. This analysis and modeling will help the project team make sure that the new River Street will work for everybody no matter how they get around and will function to move people safely and efficiently.

The project team is also reviewing curbside access (loading, parking, etc.) along River Street. This review is to make sure that the River Street design meets curb access needs for people going to local businesses, residents, and visitors.

Exploring changes to bus routes and stop locations
We are discussing with the community and the MBTA shifting MBTA Route 64 from Magazine Street to River Street. Using River Street is a more direct route to Central Square. We are also discussing shifting Route 47 from Massachusetts Avenue to Green and Franklin Streets. Using Green and Franklin streets would allow for more plaza space at Carl Barron Plaza and make Route 47 more reliable.

The project team will share more information about these changes at upcoming project meetings. We are also planning to engage riders and the public in additional outreach efforts.

Work continues on public art on River Street
Ritsuko Taho is the artist for the River Street project. She is the original artist who created the “Multicultural Manifestos” artwork in Carl Barron Plaza. This artwork includes the “dream towers” and “dream wheels” in the plaza. The “Multicultural Manifestos” artwork will be removed from the plaza during the reconstruction process. The artist will then take elements of that work and create a new work that will be located in several places along the corridor. We hope to preview the new work at the next working group and public meeting.

Tell us how River Street works today on our questionnaire
The River Street Reconstruction project will renew infrastructure on and under River Street. This questionnaire’s goal is to hear what you feel and think about River Street today. By taking this questionnaire, you will help the project team think about how to design the street. We will also use your answers to compare what people think and feel before and after our reconstruction project.

This survey takes between 5 to 10 minutes. Take the River Street survey.

Project web page with meeting materials and other useful information.

For more information on this project or to be added to the project email list, please visit: cambridgema.gov/riverstreet. If you have any questions about this project or upcoming meetings, contact the River Street Reconstruction team by e-mail at riverstreet@cambridgema.gov. You may also contact Bill Deignan at wdeignan@cambridgema.gov or 617-349-4632.


Cambridge Black History Month Celebration February 26
Feb 10, 2020 – In celebration of Black History Month, the City of Cambridge Employees’ Committee on Diversity will hold a reception featuring art by local black artists, the unveiling of the 2020 Black History Month postage stamp, and a presentation by Dr. Manisha Sinha on black womens’ roles in the suffrage movement Wednesday, Feb. 26, from 5-7:30pm, at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue. Light refreshments will be served. This event is free and open to the public.

The evening will also include remarks by Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui and City Manager Louis A. DePasquale.

Manisha Sinha is the James L. and Shirley A. Draper Chair in American History at the University of Connecticut and a fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University for this academic year.

A leading authority on the history of slavery and abolition and the Civil War and Reconstruction, Dr. Sinha was born in India and received her Ph.D from Columbia University where her dissertation was nominated for the Bancroft prize. She is the author of The Counterrevolution of Slavery: Politics and Ideology in Antebellum South Carolina, which was named one of the 10 best books on slavery in Politico in 2015 and recently featured in The New York Times’ 1619 Project. She is also the author of The Slave’s Cause: A History of Abolition (2016) which won the Frederick Douglass Book Prize and was long listed for the National Book Award for Non Fiction. In 2016, she was named one of the top 25 women in higher education by the journal Diverse: Issues in Higher Education.

This talk will illuminate the forgotten origins of the women’s suffrage movement in the abolition movement and reconsider the break between abolitionists and some feminists after the Civil War. It will show how the Reconstruction constitutional amendments opened a path to women’s suffrage and the Nineteenth Amendment. Despite black disfranchisement, the Nineteenth Amendment eventually paved the way for black women to emerge as the most progressive voting block in American politics.

[Event Flyer] [Event Program]


Renew Your Resident Parking Permit for 2020 Now to Avoid Delays Later
Feb 7, 2020 – The renewal season for 2020 Resident/Visitor Parking Permits for the City of Cambridge is in process from Jan 2 – Mar 31, 2020. Please note that 2019 Resident and Visitor Permits are valid through Mar 31, 2020.

Residents who have a current Resident or Visitor Parking Permit have the option of renewing their permit(s) online at CambridgeMA.gov/parking-permits. Online applications can take up to three weeks for processing and delivery, so please plan accordingly, keeping in mind the March 31 expiration date for 2019 permits.

Permits can also be renewed by mail using the application available at CambridgeMA.gov/parking-permits or in person during regular hours at the Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department, 344 Broadway, Cambridge, Monday: 8:30am-8:00pm, Tuesday-Thursday: 8:30am-5:00pm, Friday: 8:30am-12:00pm.

The featured photo on the 2020 Permit is of Little Fresh Pond by Judy Silvan.

For more information, visit CambridgeMA.gov/parking-permits.

Little Fresh Pond by Judy Silvan


City of Cambridge to Celebrate Five Year Anniversary of Domestic & Gender-Based Violence Prevention Initiative Feb 26
Feb 5, 2020 – The City of Cambridge and its community partners will celebrate the five-year anniversary of the Domestic and Gender-Based Violence Prevention Initiative (DGBVPI) Wed, Feb 26, from 4-6pm, at the Cambridge Senior Center, 806 Massachusetts Avenue. The event, which is free and open to the public, will include welcome remarks from Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui, City Manager Louis A. DePasquale, Deputy City Manager Lisa C. Peterson, State Representative Marjorie Decker, and Transition House’s Community Liaison Shameka Gregory. Light refreshments will be served.

The theme of the event – Many Partnerships, One Initiative – will include a showcase of the major projects and work the DGBVPI has accomplished to prevent and respond to domestic and gender-based violence in Cambridge. This will include a “speed meeting” poster session, where members of the community can walk around and engage in conversations with local community partners and service providers about:

  • Cambridge Police Department’s trauma-informed law enforcement initiative and training;
  • Examining racial justice within the Initiative’s Steering Committee;
  • Training, protocol development, advocacy, and supportive housing through the Cambridge Housing Authority and Transition House partnership;
  • Creation of The Sexual Assault Response Team, a collaboration between the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center and Cambridge Police to better coordinate citywide response to sexual assault;
  • Educating and engaging youth to promote healthy relationships and prevent teen dating violence;
  • Engaging men in prevention efforts, including the work of Mending Cambridge, a group of men in the city dedicated to taking an active role in preventing domestic and gender-based violence;
  • Community outreach through the Community Engagement Team;
  • Preventing elder abuse through Transition House’s advocacy and services; and
  • Citywide trainings on domestic violence prevention and response.

Katherine Triantafillou - Domestic Violence Free ZoneCambridge has a long history of domestic violence prevention, including the historic resolution to declare the city as a Domestic Violence Free Zone in 1994. Building on this groundbreaking effort and with leadership from State Representative Marjorie Decker (then Cambridge City Councillor), in 2011, the city hosted a Domestic violence summit to stimulate interest in revitalizing Cambridge’s work to prevent domestic violence and undertook a 21 Days of Questions/365 Days of Action Campaign to engage the Cambridge community on questions they had about domestic violence. The campaign led to the official establishment of the Domestic and Gender-Based Violence Prevention Initiative.

“Since its creation, the Domestic and Gender-Based Violence Prevention Initiative has been engaging and mobilizing the entire Cambridge community to prevent and bring attention to domestic and gender-based violence,” said Cambridge City Manager Louis A. DePasquale. “Under the leadership of Elizabeth Speakman, the Initiative’s coordinator, Cambridge has emerged as a leader in providing training and building collaborations to ensure we are creating and fostering compassionate and supportive environments for survivors.”

“We are proud that the City of Cambridge is so fully committed to preventing domestic and gender-based violence and ensuring survivors can get support when they need it,” said Elizabeth Speakman, Coordinator of the Initiative. “This event will recognize the tremendous work of our community partners and the city leadership, while imagining what is possible in the future and hopefully inspiring other communities.”

For more information, contact Elizabeth Speakman, espeakman@cambridgema.gov.

About the Cambridge Domestic and Gender-Based Violence Prevention Initiative
The Domestic and Gender-Based Violence Prevention Initiative (DGBVPI) engages and mobilizes Cambridge’s communities, agencies, and city departments to change attitudes, behaviors, policies, and practices to prevent and bring attention to domestic and gender-based violence.

In collaboration with community leaders, local agencies, and interested citizens, the DGBVPI develops and provides accessible, safe, and relevant strategies and resources to prevent and respond to domestic violence in Cambridge. Services include training, consultation, building collaborations across various sectors in Cambridge, and coordination of systems of change in order to ensure compassionate and supportive environments for survivors of domestic and gender-based violence across the city.

November 27, 2019

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 435-436: November 26, 2019

Episode 435 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 26, 2019 (Part 1)

This episode was broadcast on Nov 26, 2019 at 5:30pm. Topics: Karp Petition; Planning vs. “Let’s Make A Deal”; how high is high, how dense is dense?; the YIMBY-NIMBY War to Nowhere. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 436 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 26, 2019 (Part 2)

This episode was broadcast on Nov 26, 2019 at 6:00pm. Topics: Harvard Square zoning petition, “super crosswalk”; zoning change vs. cultural change; riding the latest bandwagon; License Commission authority. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

November 13, 2019

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 431-432: November 12, 2019

Episode 431 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 12, 2019 (Part 1)

This episode was broadcast on Nov 12, 2019 at 5:30pm. Topics: Municipal election results; effectiveness of slates; role of major issues (if any); what’s next. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 432 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 12, 2019 (Part 2)

This episode was broadcast on Nov 12, 2019 at 6:00pm. Topics: Election last details; Harvard Square Zoning Petition; where do we go from here. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

May 7, 2019

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 393-394: May 7, 2019

Episode 393 – Cambridge InsideOut: May 7, 2019 (Part 1)

This episode was broadcast on May 7, 2019 at 5:30pm. Topics: Jane Jacobs and the virtue of standing in the way of “progress”; reconsidering the roadways; Cambridgeport churches; Outstanding City Employees. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters. [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 394 – Cambridge InsideOut: May 7, 2019 (Part 2)

This episode was broadcast on May 7, 2019 at 6:00pm. Topics: Budget hearings; new candidates; new, old, good, bad, and dreadful zoning petitions. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

October 31, 2018

Cambridge Growth Policy – Toward a Sustainable Future

Filed under: Cambridge,planning — Tags: , , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:34 pm

Today’s Homework Assignment:
Please identify which policies, if any, from Cambridge’s Growth Policy Document should be changed.
[To the best of my knowledge, these important policies have never been part of the discussion among the current Envision Cambridge Advisory Committee or its various Working Groups. Indeed, some of the current recommendations growing from the Envision Cambridge process clearly contradict some of these current policies. – RW]

Cambridge Growth Policy – Toward a Sustainable Future
1993, updated 2007
[Full Document – with graphics and narratives]

Policy 1
Existing residential neighborhoods, or any portions of a neighborhood having an identifiable and consistent built character, should be maintained at their prevailing pattern of development and building density and scale.

Policy 2
Except in evolving industrial areas, the city’s existing land use structure and the area of residential and commercial neighborhoods should remain essentially as they have developed historically.

Policy 3
The wide diversity of development patterns, uses, scales, and densities present within the city’s many residential and commercial districts should be retained and strengthened. That diversity should be between and among the various districts, not necessarily within each individual one.

Policy 4
Adequate transitions and buffers between differing scales of development and differing uses should be provided; general provisions for screening, landscaping and setbacks should be imposed while in especially complex circumstances special transition provisions should be developed.

Policy 5
The major institutions, principally Lesley College, Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the hospitals, should be limited to those areas that historically have been occupied by such uses and to abutting areas that are reasonably suited to institutional expansion, as indicated by any institutional overlay district formally adopted by the City.

Policy 6
For such institutions reasonable densities should be permitted in their core campuses to forestall unnecessary expansion into both commercial districts and low density residential neighborhoods.

Policy 7
Notwithstanding the limitations implied in the above policy statements, (1) the establishment of a new center of tax exempt, institutional activity may be appropriate in one or more of the city’s evolving industrial areas and/or (2) the development of a modest and discreet institutional presence may be appropriate in any non-residential district when a combination of two or more of the following benefits accrue to the city:

1. Such action will permanently forestall excessive development at the core campus of an existing institution, in particularly sensitive locations; or

2. Existing institutional activity in a core campus area will be reduced or eliminated, particularly at locations where conflict with existing residential communities has been evident or is possible in the future; and

3. The potential for future commercial, tax-paying development is not significantly reduced; or

4. The presence of a stable, well managed institutional activity could encourage, stimulate, and attract increased investment in non-institutional commercial tax producing development.

Policy 8
The availability of transit services should be a major determinant of the scale of development and the mix of uses encouraged and permitted in the predominantly non-residential districts of the city: the highest density commercial uses are best located where transit service is most extensive (rapid transit and trolley); much reduced commercial densities and an increased proportion of housing use are appropriate where dependence on the automobile is greatest; mixed uses, including retail activities in industrial and office districts, should be considered to reduce the need to use the automobile during working hours. Similarly, the scale, frequency, mode and character of goods delivery should play an important role in determining the appropriate density of non-residential uses anywhere in the city.

Policy 9
The evolution of the city’s industrial areas should be encouraged, under the guidance of specific urban design plans, and through other public policy and regulations such that:

1. Those areas can adapt to new commercial and industrial patterns of development;

2. The residential neighborhood edges abutting such areas are strengthened through selective residential reuse within the development areas or through careful transition in density, scale and lot development pattern;

3. New uses and varied scales and densities can be introduced into such areas;

4. Uses incompatible with the city’s existing and future desired development pattern are phased out.

Policy 10
In some evolving industrial areas multiple uses should be encouraged, including an important component of residential use in suitable locations not subject to conflict with desired industrial uses, to advance other development policy objectives of the city:

1. To provide opportunities for those who work in the city to live here;

2. To limit the use of the automobile to get to Cambridge and to travel within Cambridge;

3. To encourage more active use of all parts of the city for longer periods throughout the day; and

4. To limit the secondary impacts of new development on the existing, established neighborhoods. These impacts may be both economic, as in the increased demand placed on the limited stock of existing housing, and environmental, as in the increase in traffic on neighborhood streets.

Policy 11
A wide range of development patterns should be encouraged in these evolving industrial areas at scales and densities and in forms which would be difficult to accommodate in the city’s fully developed districts and neighborhoods.

Policy 12
Those necessary or desirable uses and activities which require specially tailored environments should be provided for and those uses, activities and development patterns which create distinctive environments that serve as amenities for the whole community should be protected or maintained.

For example: low rent industrial space for start up enterprises; locations for industrial use and development which could be compromised by proximity to other, incompatible, uses, including residential uses; small commercial enclaves which directly serve their immediate surrounding residential neighborhood; locations appropriate for gas stations, car repair facilities, tow yards, etc.; structures or clusters of structures eligible for local historic district designation; or for designation as a local conservation district; environments as frequently found in the Residence “A” districts, where a unique combination of distinctive architecture and landscaped open space prevails; areas designated or eligible as national register historic districts.

Policy 13
A pace of development or redevelopment should be encouraged that permits the maintenance of a healthy tax base, allows for adjustment and adaptation to changing economic conditions, and is consistent with the City’s urban design and other physical development objectives yet does not unreasonably disrupt the daily activities of the city’s neighborhoods and residents or overburden the city’s water and sewer infrastructure.

Policy 14
Increase the City’s investment in Transportation Demand Management to promote non-single occupancy vehicle forms of transportation and assist Cambridge employers, both individually and collectively, in developing such programs for their employees and operations.

Policy 15
Enact land use regulations that encourage transit and other forms of non-automobile mobility by mixing land uses, creating a pleasant and safe pedestrian and bicycle environment, and restricting high density development to areas near transit stations.

Policy 16
Encourage regional employment patterns that take advantage of areas well served by transit to and from Cambridge.

Policy 17
Seek implementation of MBTA transit improvements that will provide more direct and, where demand is justified, express service to Cambridge from those portions of the region now inadequately served by transit to Cambridge.

Policy 18
Improve MBTA public transportation service within the city including updating routes, schedules, signs, and bus stop placement.

Policy 19
Investigate the feasibility of developing and implementing, within the financial resources of the City, a paratransit system, utilizing taxi cabs where appropriate, in order to supplement the current MBTA system in Cambridge.

Policy 20
Encourage the state transportation and environmental agencies to develop a regional goods movement plan; in the meantime, use the City’s limited authority as much as possible to route truck traffic around rather than through residential neighborhoods.

Policy 21
Discourage vehicle travel through residential areas both by providing roadway improvements around the neighborhoods’ perimeters and by operational changes to roadways which will impede travel on local streets.

Policy 22
Undertake reasonable measures to improve the functioning of the city’s street network, without increasing through capacity, to reduce congestion and noise and facilitate bus and other non-automobile circulation. However, minor arterials with a residential character should be protected whenever possible.

Policy 23
Encourage all reasonable forms of non-automobile travel including, for example, making improvements to the city’s infrastructure which would promote bicycling and walking.

Policy 24
Support regional transportation and land use policies that will improve air quality by reducing dependence on single occupancy vehicles, both through reduction in employment-based travel and in other trips taken for non-work purposes.

Policy 25
Promote the use of truly clean alternative vehicle technologies for necessary vehicle travel particularly in regards to fleets.

Policy 26
Maintain and preserve existing residential neighborhoods at their current density, scale, and character. Consider exceptions to this policy when residents have strong reservations about existing character, are supportive of change, and have evaluated potential changes in neighborhood character through a planning process.

Policy 27
Where possible, construct new affordable housing that fits neighborhood character. In existing residential neighborhoods housing should be built at a scale, density, and character consistent with existing development patterns. Permit reconstruction of affordable housing (defined as more than 50% of units rented or owned by households at 80% or less than median income) that serves a wide range of incomes and groups at previous nonconforming density where reconstruction is less expensive than rehabilitation. Emphasize construction of affordable housing designed for families with children.

Policy 28
Affordable housing in rehabilitated or newly constructed buildings should serve a wide range of households, particularly low and moderate income families, racial minorities, and single persons with special needs.

Policy 29
Encourage rehabilitation of the existing housing stock. Concentrate City funds and staff efforts on rehabilitation that will provide units for low and moderate income residents.

Policy 30
Concentrate rehabilitation efforts in the city’s predominantly low and moderate income neighborhoods.

Policy 31
Promote affordable homeownership opportunities where financially feasible.

Policy 32
Encourage non-profit and tenant ownership of the existing housing stock.

Policy 33
Encourage where appropriate, recognizing housing’s possible impact on desirable industrial uses, the construction of new affordable housing through requirements, incentives, and zoning regulations, including inclusionary zoning provisions, in portions of the city traditionally developed for non-residential, principally industrial, uses. Create effective, well designed transitional zones between residential and industrial uses.

Policy 34
Cambridge’s evolving industrial areas are a valuable resource whose mix of uses must be carefully planned over the next twenty years.

Policy 35
Appropriate development in the city’s evolving industrial areas should be encouraged to maintain the city’s overall economic health, to expand the tax base, and expand job opportunities for Cambridge residents.

Policy 36
The observable trend towards the development of clusters of related uses in the city’s evolving industrial areas should be strengthened through the city’s land use policies.

Policy 37
In evolving industrial areas for which economic development, urban design, or other plans have been developed, private phased development consistent with those plans should be permitted to develop to completion, even if completion may take more than a decade.

Policy 38
Within clearly established limits, land use regulations in the evolving industrial areas should recognize the need for flexibility of use as, for instance, between office, research, and light manufacturing activities and provide for a wide range of density options throughout the city including those which foster research and development and start up operations.

Policy 39
Development patterns in all non-residential areas must be planned to minimize negative impact on abutting residential neighborhoods.

Policy 40
The City should actively assist its residents in developing the skills necessary for them to take full advantage of the city’s changing economic makeup and to provide the personnel resources which would make Cambridge a desirable place to locate and expand.

Policy 41
The benefits of a strong employment base should be extended to portions of the resident population that have not benefitted in the past; the City should support appropriate training programs that advance this objective.

Policy 42
While recognizing some of the disadvantages of any urban location for many kinds of manufacturing activities, the City should make every effort to retain and recruit a wide range of enterprises suitable for a Cambridge location, presently, or in the future as manufacturing processes evolve and change. Where possible the disadvantages should be minimized and the real advantages strengthened for manufacturing activities that can widen the city’s job base and solidify its economic vitality.

Policy 43
The City should establish the regulatory environment and provide the support necessary to encourage the establishment of manufacturing activities for which the city may be a suitable location in the future.

Policy 44
The City should actively cultivate a regulatory and policy environment that assists in the retention of existing industries, supports the creation of new businesses and the innovative thinking that precedes it, retains an inventory of low-cost space necessary for fledgling enterprises, and fosters an innovative environment where entrepreneurship thrives.

Policy 45
Specialized economic activities for which Cambridge is a congenial host, such as the tourism and hospitality industries, should be supported.

Policy 46
The diversity, quality, and vigor of the city’s physical, ethnic, cultural, and educational environment should be nurtured and strengthened as a fundamental source of the city’s economic viability. More specifically, minority businesses and economic entrepreneurship should be encouraged.

Policy 47
Existing retail districts should be strengthened; new retail activity should be directed toward the city’s existing retail squares and corridors.

Policy 48
Retail districts should be recognized for their unique assets, opportunities, and functions, and those aspects should be encouraged, in part to assure that they can compete with regional shopping centers and maintain their economic viability.

Policy 49
The City and its major institutions should engage in a formally established ongoing dialogue to share concerns; identify problems, conflicts, and opportunities; and to fashion solutions and areas of cooperation to their mutual satisfaction. As part of this dialogue, each institution should create a plan describing its existing status as well as outlining its future needs and goals, and the means for achieving those goals.

Policy 50
The City should recognize the need for the major institutions to adapt and respond to changing circumstances to maintain their leadership positions in education, health care, and research while recognizing, responding to and coordinating with City policy goals.

Policy 51
Where tax-exempt academic uses are expanded into retail corridors and squares, mixed-use development including taxable retail or other commercial development should be incorporated wherever possible, especially at street level, recognizing each retail area for its unique assets, opportunities and functions, and strengthening these aspects when expanding into such areas.

Policy 52
The city’s major educational institutions should be encouraged to provide housing for their respective faculties, students, and staff through additions to the city’s inventory of housing units. Effective use of existing land holdings should be a tool in meeting this objective, where it does not result in excessive density in the core campus. In addition, where new housing is to be located within or abutting an existing neighborhood, it should match the scale, density, and character of the neighborhood. The institutions should be encouraged to retain this housing for client populations over an extended period of time. They should consider housing other city residents within these housing developments as a means of integrating the institutional community with city residents.

Policy 53
Except in circumstances where further institutional growth is appropriate or beneficial to the city as a whole (see Policy 7) the city’s institutions should be discouraged from creating new fiscal burdens on the City treasury through the conversion of property from tax-producing uses to non-taxable uses, and should mitigate any harmful effects of such conversions through financial compensation.

Policy 54
The institutions’ capacity for commercial investment should be directed in part to assist in the transformation of evolving industrial areas and commercial districts, as defined by City policy and elaborated upon through formally established, ongoing planning discussions.

Policy 55
Where major institutions invest in commercial properties, their willingness to manage those properties partly in response to broader community objectives of diversity and community need, as articulated through the continuing formal dialogue with the City and its residents, should be encouraged, consistent with the institutions’ fiduciary responsibilities.

Policy 56
Recognizing the localized nature of their physical presence, the city’s smaller institutions should be regulated on an individual basis as provided in the zoning ordinance’s institutional regulations and as they are impacted by zoning, urban design, and other City policies.

Policy 57
Design review for new development should be established throughout the city for all areas where future development will be of a scale or quantity that will potentially change or establish the character of the district.

Policy 58
Even in areas where the character of a district is firmly established and new development is likely to be very modest, design review should be required where small scale changes are likely to disrupt the desired district character.

Policy 59
The regulations for all zoning districts in Cambridge should reflect the city’s fundamental urban design and environmental objectives: height, setback, use, site development, and density standards imposed should be consistent with or advance those urban design objectives.

Policy 60
Urban design and environmental standards should be developed for all areas of the city which are or may be in the future subject to redevelopment or significant new development.

Policy 61
Urban design standards should reflect the historic context within which change will occur while permitting design that is responsive to contemporary circumstances.

Policy 62
As transitions between differing uses are extremely important in a densely developed city, urban design standards should be developed to ensure that these transitions are made properly, respecting to the maximum extent possible the needs of each contrasting use.

Policy 63
Open space and recreational facilities serving a wide range of functions and clientele, including the elderly and special needs populations, should be encouraged, either through expansion of the existing inventory, through multiple use of existing facilities, or through creative programming of those facilities.

Policy 64
Conservation lands and other environmentally sensitive areas are a vital part of the city’s open space system and should be maintained and protected appropriately. Public access to and use of these areas must be carefully planned and balanced with preservation of these resources.

Policy 65
Expansion of Cambridge residents’ opportunities to use regional recreational facilities (those owned by the Metropolitan District Commission and the Commonwealth) located in the city should be encouraged, particularly where the adjacent residential community is underserved by local recreational facilities, and when the legitimate regional use of that facility would not be unduly restricted. In addition, there should be increased coordination of recreation programming and planning between the local and regional levels.

Policy 66
New open space facilities, including larger ones for organized activities, should be considered for those private developments where the size of the development, the amount of land area and/or the ownership patterns provide the flexibility to accommodate such a facility without loss of economic value for other uses.

Policy 67
Acquisition of publicly owned or administered open space should be made in those dense residential areas clearly deficient in all forms of open space, but only where significant fiscal resources are provided through federal or state acquisition programs or a substantial portion of the cost is borne privately; facilities of modest size and flexible in use characteristics, located close to the homes of the persons for whom they are intended should be encouraged.

Policy 68
Only under extraordinary circumstances should existing open space facilities be eliminated from the city’s inventory for other uses; small, passively or merely visually used facilities, should not be undervalued in this regard merely for lack of intensive or active recreational use.

Policy 69
The city should encourage the permanent retention and protection of useful, effective, attractive private open space whether publicly accessible or not. Community use of private recreational and open space facilities in the city should be encouraged at reasonable levels where the private function of those facilities would not be impaired and where the recreational activity provided by the private facility is not well served in available public facilities.

Policy 70
Repair, maintenance and timely upgrading of existing facilities should be the City’s highest fiscal priority with regard to open space and recreational facilities. The City should explore, and adopt as appropriate, mechanisms whereby the private sector can reasonably provide, assist in and/or contribute to the maintenance of publicly useable open space and recreational facilities.

October 17, 2018

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 345-346: Oct 16, 2018

Episode 345 – Cambridge InsideOut: Oct 16, 2018 (Part 1)

This episode was broadcast on Oct 16, 2018 at 5:30pm. Topics: Baseball, Oct 15 Council meeting, Inman Square, Subsidized Housing Overlay controversy, Envision Cambridge. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 346 – Cambridge InsideOut: Oct 16, 2018 (Part 2)

This episode was broadcast on Oct 16, 2018 at 6:00pm. Topics: Zero Waste Report, urban design & retail (creating active storefronts), Central Square, upcoming events. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

October 15, 2018

Notable items on the Oct 15, 2018 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 9:07 am

Notable items on the Oct 15, 2018 Cambridge City Council Agenda

City HallHere’s my first pass at the interesting stuff up for discussion at this week’s meeting:

Manager’s Agenda #2. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $160,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Executive Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account which will fund an expansion of free food programming for Cambridge youth.

Expanded Free Breakfast & Lunch in Cambridge schools and pre-schools courtesy of Mother Cambridge.

Manager’s Agenda #7. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $5,000,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Department Extraordinary Expenditures Account to support the completion of the Inman Square Intersection Improvements Project.

Communications & Reports #1. A communication was received from City Clerk Donna P. Lopez, transmitting a communication from Councillor Kelley, transmitting memorandum regarding Inman Square Redesign Project.

There are some who still feel that the plan needs revision (including Councillor Kelley), but the judge isn’t going to look at the twenty-seven 8 x 10 colored glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one.

Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-76, regarding a report on Linkage fee as part of the Incentive Zoning Nexus Study.

Another study coming. At least this time there will also be effort expended to measure the impact of new nonresidential development on employment opportunities for Cambridge residents (could there be a positive impact?). Currently any linkage fees exacted from new development go toward subsidized housing. Some might argue that the greatest deficiency in how these nexus studies and associated linkage fees work is that they do little to address the lack of access for existing residents to jobs in all these new bright shiny buildings, and building additional subsidized housing without such access to employment isn’t necessarily the best strategy.

Charter Right #1. That the Envision Cambridge draft recommendations should be reviewed by the entire City Council in respective committees.

As I have said previously, handing a laundry list of suggestions from Envision Cambridge working committees to each of the City Council committees hardly seems like the best path toward comprehensive planning (you know – the Master Plan). Maybe they just want the Faster Plan.

Order #1. That the City Manager confer with the City Solicitor’s Office on the legal question and the feasibility of placing a condition in public bidding documents prohibiting municipal contractors from displaying any signage—other than company markers and contact information—on vehicles.   Councillor Siddiqui, Mayor McGovern, Vice Mayor Devereux

Though I don’t know for sure (really, I do), I believe this Order came about because somebody snapped a picture of a cement truck that had "Make America Great Again" on it.

Order #4. That the Chairs of the Ordinance Committee schedule a hearing on Tree Protections and the Chairs of the Health & Environment Committee schedule public hearings on Tree Protections and the preliminary results from the Ordinance Committee hearing.   Councillor Zondervan

I may just have to take down sooner than later that problematic ash tree in my yard that’s leaning on my roof. Otherwise, if a new ordinance is passed I may need a lawyer and an additional check.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Community Development Department and the City Solicitor to investigate the queries posed by the Economic and University Relations Committee for a City-Based Cannabis Social Equity Program.   Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Zondervan

Cast me out from the community, if you will, but I simply cannot wrap my head around a policy that gives preferential treatment to relatives of people convicted of drug-related crimes. Ensuring that the new dope industry provides economic opportunity broadly, i.e. "social equity", is one thing, but getting nailed for dealing dope under previous laws should not provide an advantage over those who lived within the law.

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councilor E. Denise Simmons, Chair and Councilor Sumbul Siddiqui of the Housing Committee for a public hearing held on Sept 27, 2018 to discuss Affordable Housing Overlay District.

The juggernaut continues. I spoke my mind on this subject at the most recent meeting of the Envision Cambridge Housing Working Group (which really should be renamed the "Subsidized Housing Working Group" based on the fact that they never addressed housing generally). As I have stated repeatedly, it’s certainly true that people want housing to be affordable in the sense that a typical person or family can find a place to buy or rent within their budget, but this is not the same as advocating for a dramatic increase in subsidized housing (of which Cambridge already has a significant amount when you add up all the Housing Authority properties, Inclusionary housing units, etc.). Indeed, I think an argument can be made that the singular focus on subsidized housing may be contributing to the non-affordability of housing generally. The best affordable housing program ever conceived was the proliferation of multi-family housing, and that involved no government subsidy at all.

Better ideas would be to permit multi-family housing in all zones, adjust allowable densities to better reflect the existing built environment, and work regionally to increase the overall housing stock. As I stated at the very first meeting of the Envision Cambridge Advisory Committee, constructing many housing units in Somerville’s Union Square, in Everett, in Allston, and elsewhere will do more toward making housing more affordable in Cambridge than anything. Only when people have options can they make rational economic choices. It is the shortage of available better options that allows housing costs in Cambridge to rise unchecked.

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from Paula Crane, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui, Chair of the Economic Development and University Relations Committee, for a public hearing held on Sept 12, 2018 to discuss Storefront Vacancies Best Practices.

Though I suppose I like the idea of "pop up" art in vacant storefronts, it’s a poor substitute for actual retail. On a related matter, current state law requires all new marijuana stores to obscure the views into these establishments (kinda like a speakeasy in the prohibition era). The crappy response has been to propose putting artsy stuff in the front windows. There are better approaches. My proposal is to create arcade-like shallow retail operations on these frontages. How about a hot dog vendor? A newsstand (if anyone still buys newspapers/magazines)? Maybe just a simple water bottle filling station. How about just creating a recessed area with an awning where a local vendor can sell hats, scarves, or trinkets? There are plenty of other good ideas. I would make the same proposal for other "formula businesses" to create active, low-cost, retail opportunities. – Robert Winters

August 14, 2018

Tight spot on Huron Avenue

Filed under: Cambridge,cycling — Tags: , , , , , , — jsallen @ 1:01 pm

I am expanding here on comments which I made on a post in the Cambridge Bikes Facebook group.

The overhead view from the post shows a stretch of Huron Avenue near Sparks Street.

Huron Avenue and Sparks Street, Cambiridge, Massachusetts

Huron Avenue and Sparks Street

I see here a retrofit to a car-centric street design in an attempt to accommodate bicyclists of all ages and abilities, a popular goal of bicycling advocacy.

This stretch is downhill right to left in the overhead view. A common explanation for the buffer (diagonally-striped area) to the left of the bike lane is that it is to protect cyclists from overtaking motorists — but it places the bike lane in the door zone. A bike lane in the door zone is unsafe for any bicyclists, but it is worse here. Motorists don’t have x-ray vision. A look in the driver’s side mirror won’t show a bicyclist until rather late on a right-hand curve: bicyclists are hidden by the parked cars behind. Bicyclists can travel as fast or nearly as fast as cars here, also worsening the dooring hazard. and do best to merge out and ride in the stream of motor traffic. This also improves sight distance for motorists who might (horrors!) have to slow a little to follow a bicyclist.

On the other side of the street, the bike lane leads bicyclists into the right-hook zone at Sparks Street in the expectation that all right-turning motorists will yield. The green-painted crossing is an attempt to accommodate bicyclists who do not check for traffic behind them, whether due to lack of skill, a stiff neck, inattention or misplaced trust. But, not all motorists yield. A bicyclist needs to be extra careful here, casting a look over the shoulder, and preferably merging left to block a right-turning motorist or let that motorist pass on the right.

Is it actually possible to design safely for all ages and abilities here? A speed hump could help by slowing motor traffic. Removing parking spaces would make a big improvement, but parking spaces are sacred to residents and business owners, and illegal parking (as in the bike lane on the south side) is tolerated as a minor sin. Moving the legal parking to the uphill, soutth side, would reduce the dooring risk. On the south side, bicyclist are traveling more slowly and sight lines are better.

But above all, a major change in motorists’ behavior is needed — a cultural change: reduction in speed, and respect for bicyclists who safely far enough from the parked vehicles to avoid dooring. Attempting to bring about bicycling accessible to people of all ages and abilities using paint first, without the public will to step up enforcement, gets things backwards. In the mean time, children might ride slowly on the sidewalk, but grownups do best to use defensive driving techniques, as I have described.  The major motorist behavior change can be expected (with autonomous vehicles) — in a decade or three.  If  shared use becomes dominant with motor vehicles, there also will be less need for parking spaces and that would be good too.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress