City Council « Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

September 10, 2012

End of Summer – The City Council Returns – Sept 10 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: Cambridge, City Council — Robert Winters @ 12:41 am

End of Summer – The City Council Returns – Sept 10 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

The first agenda item is the culmination of the annual faux process of allocation of Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds. The outcome is always determined before the CPA Committee even meets. In fact, the outcomes every year were determined ten years ago, but feel free to peruse the details:

Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, requesting that the City Council formally appropriate/allocate the Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds as follows:
1A. 80% of the FY2013 CPA Local Fund revenues ($5,600,000) allocated to Affordable Housing and appropriated to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust;
1B. 10% of FY2013 CPA Local Fund revenues ($700,000) allocated to Historic Preservation;
1C. 10% of FY2013 CPA Local Fund revenues ($700,000) allocated to Open Space;
2A. 80% of FY2012 State Match revenues ($1,320,000) allocated to Affordable Housing and appropriated to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust;
2B. 10% of FY2012 State Match revenues ($165,000) allocated to Historic Preservation;
2C. 10% of FY2012 State Match revenues ($165,000) allocated to Open Space;
3A. 80% of the Fund Balance ($800,000) allocated to Affordable Housing and appropriated to the Affordable Housing Trust;
3B. 10% of the Fund Balance ($100,000) allocated to Historic Preservation;
3C. 10% of the Fund Balance ($100,000) allocated to Open Space;
4A. Appropriate ($1,035,000) from the Open Space Reserve to the Public Investment Budget; and
5A. Appropriate ($7,500) from the Fund Balance the cost for the Community Preservation Coalition Membership Dues.

Though it’s hard to discern what progress the Cambridge Police and the District Attorney’s Office have made in the Willow St. murder case, at least there is a report on the agenda (and in the Cambridge Chronicle – thanks).

Manager’s Agenda #3. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Numbers 12-76 and 12-77, regarding discussion on violence and the youth perspective in reaction to the Willow Street shooting.

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Police Commissioner to determine a format that will accommodate the City Council and the victim’s family for an update on the status of the Willow Street shooting in May. Councillor Reeves

One of my neighbors was a classmate of murder victim Charlene Moore, and she and many people have been mystified by the seeming lack of progress in this case. We’re all hoping that law enforcement is now "making the case" and not just hoping for clues.

Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-93, regarding a report on the feasibility of supporting the concept of human-powered bicycle cabs.

I mention this item only to raise the issue of how these wider human-powered vehicles will navigate Western Ave. after the travel lanes are narrowed and cyclists are pushed onto the sidewalk. Same goes for the Metro Pedal vehicles making pickups and deliveries around town.

Manager’s Agenda #17. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-100, regarding a report on whether emails to Councillors either through the City email or to their personal accounts may be shared with the general public.

The city councillors may want to ask for a second opinion on this one. This legal opinion seems to suggest that e-mail messages sent to city councillors’ private e-mail accounts are to be considered public records. Who shall be the first to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for these private e-mail messages?

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate City departments to expand enforcement of the prohibition on Cambridge pick-ups by non-Cambridge cabs not specifically called to Cambridge.

I’ll say it again: We’d all be better off if the entire taxicab industry was deregulated and taxi owners and drivers were required only to prove that they meet basic safety standards. It’s a cab cartel now – plain and simple.

Unfinished Business #10. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $81,500,000 to provide funds for architectural design, construction and other associated costs of the King School project. The question comes on adoption on or after Aug 13, 2012.

This is just the formality of a final vote on the appropriation which will allow the project to proceed.

Resolution #11. Resolution on the death of Charles L. Stead, Sr. Councillor Maher, Mayor Davis, Vice Mayor Simmons

Resolution #49. Resolution on the death of Henrietta S. Attles, Ed.D. Councillor Reeves, Vice Mayor Simmons, Mayor Davis

These resolutions mark the passing of two very important players in the Cambridge schools. Many of the city councillors will likely make statements about one or both of these very significant Cantabrigians. Charles Stead was a Cambridge school principal who was hated by some and beloved by many. Henrietta S. Attles first ran and was elected to the Cambridge School Committee in 1979. She was reelected in 1981 but was defeated in the 1983 election. She served from 1980-1983. The meeting room of the Cambridge School Committee is named for her.

Resolution #26. Retirement of David Holland from the Budget Department. Mayor Davis

Resolution #118. Retirement of Eileen Ginnetty from the Council on Aging. Councillor Maher

Dave Holland and Eileen Ginnetty are two of the more familiar faces in their respective departments. Best wishes to both of them in their retirement.

Order #6. That the City Ordinance Committee resume discussing the outlines of a formal Community Benefits & Mitigation Plan for projects within the city with the goal of making a recommendation on a policy that the City Council can vote on by year’s end. Vice Mayor Simmons

Order #8. That the Housing Committee review the City’s inclusionary zoning policy, to explore the possibility and feasibility of increasing the percentage of affordable housing that must be included in any new development. Vice Mayor Simmons

These interrelated Orders concern the unresolved matter begun several years ago about updating and standardizing the way developers are asked to contribute to the city – either when seeking changes in zoning or when building projects as-of-right. The Inclusionary Zoning law was crafted at the time of its passage to be relatively cost neutral for housing developers, i.e. in exchange for providing affordable units they would be given a density bonus to allow for additional market-rate units. Any proposed update would likely demand even more affordable units and would likely then have to grant even greater density bonuses. This should spur some serious debate, especially in light of the highly divergent views of high density advocates and downzoning advocates spawned by discussions over the last two years about the future of Kendall Square, Central Square, and the transition area between these centers.

Order #11. That the Government Operations and Rules Committee publish a schedule of meetings devoted to the City Manager selection process and issue periodic statements so that the public may be informed as to the chosen selection process and timeline for the upcoming appointment. Councillor Reeves

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Government Operations and Rules Committee, for a public meeting held on June 22, 2012 to have an initial discussion with the City Manager to develop a comprehensive short and long term succession plan.

Who could argue with this Order? What’s really striking is the silence surrounding what is arguably the single most important responsibility of the City Council. There is another meeting of the Government Operations & Rules Committee scheduled for Wed, Sept 19 at 9:00am in the Ackermann Room "to continue discussion to develop a hiring process for the position of City Manager."

Order #12. That the City Council suggest that the Cambridge Housing Authority study and consider the feasibility and reasonableness of placing long-term affordable housing deed restrictions on developments such as Newtowne Court and Washington Elms so that these developments will always be dedicated long-term affordability housing areas. Councillor Reeves

Part of the genesis of this Order is the strategic misstep in the series of meetings on Central Square when Goody/Clancy showed an image indicating some of this public housing being potentially replaced with new housing built at greater density. There was never any actual plan to do this – just a concept – but it has served as an alarm for organizing public housing tenants. It does seem, however, that placing deed restrictions to lock in place what is there now might be a poor policy – unless the flexibility to redevelop with no net loss of housing units is written into any such deed restrictions. It can also be reasonably argued that concentrating this much public housing into one area is a rather outdated and unenlightened public policy.

Order #13. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Assistant City Manager of Community Development and report back to the City Council on how the City is facilitating affordable housing opportunities for middle class families. Councillor Toomey

Despite some of the sentiments expressed in recent years about providing middle-inclome housing in the Central Square area, the question of how this can be done remains largely unanswered. Is the plan to ultimately have the Cambridge Housing Authority become the intake mechanism for all of the lower-income and middle-income housing in Cambridge?

Order #15. That the City Council go on record agreeing that a minimum of 80% of mitigation funds should be distributed within the neighborhoods that are impacted by these projects. Councillor Toomey

This is really a recurring Order that will likely go nowhere. Most of the new development in Cambridge is concentrated into just a few areas and most of the city councillors ultimately vote for spreading the loot.

Order #16. That the City Manager is requested to create an inventory of the vacant lots and derelict buildings throughout Cambridge that the City could potentially purchase to add to the city’s open space inventory for other city uses. Mayor Davis

This reminds me of an initiative pressed years ago by City Councillor Ed Cyr to set up a "Land Bank" of City-owned parcels that would be used for building affordable housing. It didn’t go over well, but rent control was still in place in those days. This predated the creation of the Affordable Housing Trust (which looks for housing opportunities) and the Open Space Acquisition Fund (which looks for open space opportunities).

Order #17. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with information on the new parking arrangements in the vicinity of the former Longfellow School on Broadway as they relate to the operation at the school building and to work with the School Department and the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. Councillor Toomey

I recently wrote a letter of support to the BZA for a local business to have its parking requirement waived due to the availability of on-street parking, but I also warned that much of this parking would likely disappear with the reactivation of the old Longfellow School building. I also recommended to the BZA that the Traffic & Parking Department should be dissuaded from using the metered spaces that are supposed to be there for patrons of the local businesses. At times like this I become cynically convinced that City departments never talk to each other.

Order #18. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Community Development Department to conduct a preliminary exploration of an east west bike path alongside the commuter rail line or along the old haul route. Councillor Cheung

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Chair of the Economic Development, Training and Employment Committee for a public meeting held on Aug 6, 2012 to receive an overview from the Community Development Department of the Grand Junction Rail with the Trail (RWT) Feasibility Study of 2006 and to discuss actions the City can make towards its construction.

The possibility of sharing the Grand Junction right-of-way has been under discussion for years, including the recent subcommittee meeting chaired by Councillor Toomey. Those of us who served on the Green Ribbon Open Space Committee were advocating for this goal last century.

Order #20. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate departments to itemize all mitigation commitments throughout the city to be compiled into a single document. Councillor Cheung

Perhaps a small, sad chapter can reserved at the end of the document on mitigation for the disgraceful privately negotiated and publicly accepted "mitigation" that created "Neighbors for a Better Community" (NBC) in order to receive a parcel land and cash that have been used for no other purpose than the personal enrichment of members of one family.

Order #21. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Community Development Department to report back to the City Council on what strategies other cities have used to dissuade land-banking and what may be applicable in Cambridge. Councillor Cheung

The problem is not land-banking so much as nonproductive very-long-term land-banking. Assembling parcels as part of a greater plan is normal. Indeed, that was a primary role of the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority during its active years. This Order could use a little more detail and refinement. It never makes much sense for a property owner or developer to sink a lot of money into the preservation of properties that are destined to soon be redeveloped.

Committee Report #4. A communication was received from … Councillor Minka vanBeuzekom, Chair of the Environment Committee for a public meeting held on Aug 8, 2012 to discuss implementation of a plan for separate trash or recycling curbside pickup for small businesses along existing curbside routes.

I spoke at this meeting against the idea of the City taking on the cost of business recycling. However, based on the discussion at this meeting I have become much more aware of how some businesses in mixed-use buildings in my own neighborhood routinely put all their rubbish and recycling out along with the residential rubbish and recycling – at no cost to the businesses. I still don’t believe the City should be taking on these costs, but there is a fairness issue that needs to be resolved when some businesses are paying for these services and others are getting a free ride. – Robert Winters

Comments (7)

August 5, 2012

Town and City (Forest City, that is) – Aug 6, 2012 Cambridge City Council Special Meeting Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,City Council — Tags: Cambridge, City Council — Robert Winters @ 11:25 pm

Town and City (Forest City, that is) – Aug 6, 2012 Cambridge City Council Special Meeting Agenda Highlights

Last week’s annual Midsummer meeting unanimously resolved most of the pending zoning petitions before the City Council, but deliberation and a possible vote on the Forest City/MIT petition was delayed one week as late negotiations continued toward a possible resolution. Public comment at the July 30 meeting was remarkable in its alarmism, disregard for protocol, and distortion of facts. The bottom line is that Forest City could build a functional building right now within the constraints of existing zoning, but that building would contain no retail frontage on Mass. Ave. and provide no "community benefits" whatsoever other than expanding the number of jobs for biotech workers. The question to be answered by the City Council is whether they want to allow a relatively small increase in height (from 80 ft to 95 ft not including rooftop mechanicals that would be added either way) and additional floor area in exchange for a much improved retail corridor and guarantees of long-term affordability of existing housing at University Park and the promise of additional affordable units.

The greatest difficulty of this petition (and a related "Permanent Parking Petition" as well as another petition yet to come calling for no additional density increases anywhere in the city) is that it has been caught in the crosshairs of a political campaign. This was perhaps best captured by one July 30 commenter who matter-of-factly said to the city councillors that the real purpose of their petition was to buy time so that they could replace the City Council. Perhaps it is not such a wise move to instruct city councillors to support a petition that is supposedly designed to defeat them in the next municipal election.

In addition to some priceless communications from naysayers, the agenda for the Aug 6 Special Meeting really consists of just four items – three committee reports on the Forest City/MIT petition on Unfinished Business and a communication from Mayor Davis containing additional information on the University Park housing and a FAQ from the Community Development Department.
Full text of these documents (HTML) Original (scanned PDF)

The Monday, Aug 6 meeting at City Hall starts at 7:30pm. – Robert Winters

Aug 6, 9:30pm update – The petition was allowed to expire without coming to a vote.

Mayor Henrietta Davis released the following statement (July 31, 2012):

I’m writing to update you on the status of the Forest City Zoning Petition.

Right now, without needing City Council permission, Forest City can build up to 80 feet and just under 139,000 square feet of space. They would not be required to provide ground floor retail or other benefits for the community. They are asking for an additional 15 feet in height and an additional 107,000 square feet to be used for lab space and ground floor retail.

Originally Forest City also proposed a high rise residential structure. I’m pleased to report that Forest City has removed this portion of the proposal, a residential tower at the corner of Sidney Street and Green Street that would have abutted the Mass Ave park and cast some shadows on Jill Brown-Rhone Park.

The most important news is that the Mayor’s Office is now working with representatives of Forest City and the Chair of the Ordinance Committee to address housing needs in other ways:

1. We are hoping Forest City will extend affordability on approximately over 150 units of housing in University Park by 50 years. The units are now set to lose their affordable status starting in the next decade.

2. It is also proposed the Forest City provide 20 new units of affordable housing, possibly in connection with a new housing development.

I appreciate that this had been a difficult and complex process for the community. In order to continue and possibly complete negotiations with Forest City, I have scheduled a special City Council meeting at City Hall for next Monday August 6 at 7:30 PM. The public is welcome to attend.

COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICERS
1. A communication was received from Mayor Henrietta Davis transmitting the following documents:
   • Communication from Assistant City Manager Brian Murphy transmitting the original Forest City housing commitment letter from 1988;
   • The Cambridgeport Revitalization Development District (CRDD) Affordable Housing FAQ; and
   • The Cambridge Revitalization Development District Affordability Requirements.
Full text of these documents (HTML)    Original (scanned PDF)

Comments (2)

July 29, 2012

2011 City Council and School Committee Candidates – Campaign Finance Reports

Filed under: 2011 Election,campaign finance,City Council,School Committee — Tags: City Council, elections, Schools — Robert Winters @ 6:00 pm

The 2011 Cambridge municipal election for City Council and School Committee has come and gone, but the money continues to flow in and out of the candidate campaign accounts. Campaign finance reports are one indicator of the strength of a campaign, but some candidates can and do run successful campaigns on a shoestring. Other candidates raise and spend extraordinary amounts of money and are either not elected or barely squeak through.

Below are the 2011-2012 figures for City Council and School Committee candidates and the totals for the previous two years (2009-2010) for both City Council and School Committee candidates.

There were several interesting new candidates in 2011 for both City Council and School Committee and several strong candidates from 2009 who made another run.

City Council Candidates
2011-2012 City Council Campaign Finance - 2011 Candidates (updated Sept 1, 2012)

Candidate	Open	Receipts	Expenditures	Balance	Date	#1 Votes	$/Vote	Notes
Cheung, Leland	$8081.63	$72635.06	$75314.53	$5402.16	8/15/2012	2017	$37.34
Davis, Henrietta	$2818.98	$54310.99	$54472.00	$2657.97	7/31/2012	1436	$37.93
Decker, Marjorie	$1775.77	$93365.89	$70094.79	$25046.87	4/30/2012	1123	$62.42	includes $ raised for 2012 State Rep. race, no add'l reports
Kelley, Craig	$9765.37	$12211.25	$13714.54	$8262.08	8/15/2012	1098	$5.66	$7500 candidate reimbursement subtracted
Maher, David	$17868.78	$53283.00	$70661.02	$490.76	8/15/2012	1686	$41.91
Marquardt, Charles J.	$3459.50	$11063.25	$11046.37	$3476.38	8/15/2012	501	$22.05
Mello, Gary	$0.00	$487.02	$487.02	$0.00	2/29/2012	135	$3.61	reimbursements subtracted, committee dissolved
Moree, Gregg	$0.00	$4873.20	$4921.45	-$48.25	4/15/2012	56	$87.88	account overdrawn
Nelson, Matt	$2164.50	$15386.53	$16532.93	$1018.10	8/15/2012	542	$30.50
Pascual, Jamake	$0.00	$60.00	$60.00	$0.00	5/31/2012	63	$0.95
Reeves, Ken	$4780.97	$59515.65	$55264.23	$9032.39	8/15/2012	1013	$54.56
Seidel, Sam	$2007.45	$20725.72	$22389.30	$343.87	8/15/2012	788	$28.41
Simmons, Denise	$2972.36	$36700.17	$33739.41	$5933.12	8/15/2012	1266	$26.65
Stohlman, Tom	$2734.24	$475.00	$2184.42	$1024.82	7/31/2012	344	$6.35
Toomey, Tim	$4886.73	$45902.63	$47646.53	$3142.83	1/31/2012	1705	$27.95	no longer on depository account - no records for 2012
vanBeuzekom, Minka	$2879.00	$34725.66	$34787.38	$2817.28	8/15/2012	1038	$33.51
Ward, Larry	$248.47	$16753.83	$17002.30	$0.00	4/30/2012	835	$20.36	Account apparently closed
Williamson, James	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	4/15/2012	175	$0.00

A detailed report is here: http://rwinters.com/elections/CCfinance2011-2012.pdf (updated periodically)

City Council Campaign Finance (2009-2010) - updated Feb 18, 2012

Candidate	Open	Receipts (2009-10)	Expend. (2009-10)	Balance	Date	#1 Votes	$/Vote	Notes
Adkins, Lawrence	$34.93	$495.00	$199.80	$330.13	12/31/2010	103	$1.94
Cheung, Leland	$0.00	$21757.50	$13675.87	$8061.63	12/31/2010	756	$11.48	$5000 repaid loan subtracted
Davis, Henrietta	$11185.16	$57901.70	$66267.88	$2818.98	12/31/2010	1858	$35.67
Decker, Marjorie	$1867.27	$101624.90	$101716.40	$1775.77	12/31/2010	1285	$79.16	includes money related to State Senate campaign
Flanagan, Mark	$0.00	$140.35	$140.35	$0.00	12/31/2010	112	$1.25
Glick, Silvia	$0.00	$12466.22	$12424.01	$42.21	12/31/2010	256	$48.53
Kelley, Craig	$6465.86	$12620.92	$9321.41	$9765.37	12/31/2010	1250	$7.46
Leavitt, Neal	$0.00	$5856.17	$5439.21	$416.96	12/31/2010	136	$39.99
Maher, David	$12827.62	$58636.50	$53595.34	$17868.78	12/31/2010	1286	$41.68
Marquardt, Charles J.	$0.00	$34909.40	$31449.90	$3459.50	12/31/2010	385	$81.69
Nelson, Matthew P.	$0.00	$2255.00	$90.50	$2164.50	12/31/2010	-	-	Filed papers for candidate account (Dec 2010)
Podgers, Kathy	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	12/31/2010	78	$0.00	no records
Reeves, Ken	$6401.11	$65906.34	$67526.48	$4780.97	12/31/2010	1166	$57.91
Seidel, Sam	$775.16	$27934.02	$26701.73	$2007.45	12/31/2010	900	$29.67
Simmons, Denise	$8689.90	$117709.78	$120780.40	$5619.28	12/31/2010	1785	$67.66	includes money related to State Senate campaign
Stohlman, Tom	$0.00	$5525.00	$2790.76	$2734.24	12/31/2010	378	$7.38
Sullivan, Edward	$3950.24	$25100.00	$28420.48	$629.76	12/31/2010	885	$32.11
Toomey, Tim	$34043.27	$68070.73	$97092.27	$5021.73	12/31/2010	1748	$55.54	includes money related to State Rep. campaign
vanBeuzekom, Minka	$0.00	$22097.64	$19218.64	$2879.00	12/31/2010	682	$28.18
Ward, Larry	$132.86	$16933.34	$16817.73	$248.47	12/31/2010	736	$22.85
Williamson, James	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	12/31/2010	90	$0.00

A detailed report is here: http://rwinters.com/elections/CCfinance2009-2010.pdf

School Committee Candidates
School Committee Campaign Finance (2011-2012) - updated Feb 18, 2012

Candidate	Opening Balance	Receipts	Expenditures	Current Balance	Date	#1 Votes	$/Vote
Fantini, Fred	$4235.79	$4543.00	$5708.86	$3069.93	12/31/11	2371	$2.41
Forster, Bill	$0.00	$1527.19	$494.45	$1032.74	12/31/11	330	$1.50
Gerber, Joyce	$0.00	$2310.00	$2259.63	$50.37	12/31/11	434	$5.21
Harding, Richard	$86.88	$9484.53	$9565.86	$5.55	12/31/11	1850	$5.17
Holland, John	$0.00	$7945.00	$7680.72	$264.28	12/31/11	388	$19.80
McGovern, Marc	$2500.00	$15837.00	$16053.00	$2284.00	12/31/11	1771	$9.06
Nolan, Patty	$386.47	$7779.00	$8079.89	$85.58	12/31/11	2126	$3.80
Osborne, Mervan	$0.00	$31109.19	$29948.74	$1160.45	12/31/11	2065	$14.50
Stead, Charles	$0.00	$406.18	$406.18	$0.00	12/31/11	293	$1.39
Tauber, Nancy	$141.36	$11233.29	$9912.00	$1462.65	12/31/11	1490	$6.65
Turkel, Alice	$3600.53	$11344.48	$13506.44	$1438.57	12/31/11	2111	$6.40

School Committee Campaign Finance (2009-2010) - updated Feb 18, 2012

Candidate	Opening Balance	Receipts	Expenditures	Current Balance	Date	#1 Votes	$ per #1 vote
Fantini, Fred	$4966.00	$6080.38	$6810.59	$4235.79	12/31/10	2045	$3.33
Grassi, Joe	$10.00	$6205.00	$6225.88	-$10.88	12/31/10	1881	$3.31
Harding, Richard	$0.00	$10710.60	$10623.12	$86.88	12/31/10	1996	$5.32
McGovern, Marc	$1873.00	$17741.00	$17114.00	$2500.00	12/31/10	1954	$8.76
Nolan, Patty	$1385.69	$9645.00	$10644.22	$386.47	12/31/10	1745	$6.10
Stead, Charles	$0.00	$599.87	$599.87	$0.00	12/31/10	392	$1.53
Steinert, Alan	$0.00	$26540.00	$26539.98	$0.02	12/31/10	1447	$18.34
Tauber, Nancy	$223.82	$9875.00	$9957.36	$141.36	12/31/10	2043	$4.87
Turkel, Alice	$0.00	$21904.69	$18304.16	$3600.53	12/31/10	1793	$10.21

Click on the field names to sort in ascending order and again to sort in descending order.

As always, you can look this up yourself at the website of the Office of Campaign & Political Finance (OCPF) to get the most current information.

Cambridge Candidate Pages

Comments (2)

Midsummer at the Council – July 30 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,City Council — Tags: Cambridge, City Council — Robert Winters @ 1:39 pm

Update: Here are the main things that happened at the marathon July 30 City Council meeting:

1) Action on the Forest City/MIT Zoning Petition was delayed until a Special City Council meeting scheduled for Mon, Aug 6 at 7:30pm with this as the sole agenda item. Mayor Davis and Councillor Maher indicated that there may be additional provisions included in the agreement that would protect 168 expiring-use affordable housing units that are part of University Park.
[Cambridge Chronicle report by Erin Baldassari]

2) The appropriation and authorization to borrow $81,500,000 to provide funds for architectural design, construction and other associated costs of the King School project was passed unanimously to a 2nd Reading.

3) The City Council Zoning Petition for School Site Zoning was ordained unanimously.

4) The NorthPoint Zoning Petition was ordained unanimously.

5) The North Mass. Ave. Rezoning Petition was ordained unanimously, and the related zoning petition for the Trolley Sq. area is to be re-filed on Sept 5.

6) The Area Four Neighborhood Preservation Petition (a.k.a. the Permanant Parking Petition) was received and referred to the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee (where it will be received with great laughter and derision). – RW

Midsummer at the Council – July 30 City Council Agenda Highlights

The annual Midsummer meeting of the Cambridge City Council always sports one of the longest agendas of the year (being the only meeting between June and September). This year is light compared to other years with "only" 26 items on the City Manager’s Agenda, 10 on the Calendar, 5 Applications & Petitions, 43 Communications (mainly from an orchestrated effort opposing the Forest City/MIT zoning petition as a proxy for Central Square zoning recommendations yet to come), 71 Resolutions, 34 Orders, and 7 Committee Reports. Most of the items are the usual drivel, but a few stand out or are guaranteed to generate comment. Here are the items that caught my attention:

King School/Putnam Ave. Upper School Reconstruction:
Manager’s Agenda #20. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $81,500,000 to provide funds for architectural design, construction and other associated costs of the King School project.

The list of new features associated with this school is impressive. Some residents have argued that a complete teardown is not necessary and that may be a part of the discussion at this meeting.

Manager’s Agenda #26. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-57, regarding the City Council’s request for a report regarding the question of appropriate regulation of satellite dishes.

The report includes proposed language for a possible ordinance regulating how satellite dishes could be located on buildings. Federal law does not allow these devices to be too harshly regulated nor fees to be charged, but there is some flexibility to allow regulation of placement on building unless there are no feasible alternatives.

Forest City/MIT Zoning Petition:
Unfinished Business #7. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on May 15, 2012 to discuss the petition of Forest City/MIT to amend the Zoning Ordinances by extending the Cambridgeport Revitalization Development District from Green Street out to Massachusetts Avenue in the area adjacent to Blanche Street and further to provide for the potential development of a residential building on Sidney Street between Massachusetts Avenue and Green Street. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after June 25, 2012. Planning Board hearing held May 1, 2012. Petition expires Aug 13, 2012.

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from Paula Crane, Administrative Assistant, City Clerk’s Office, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public meeting held on June 27, 2012 to continue discussion on the petition of Forest City/MIT to amend the Zoning Ordinances by extending the Cambridgeport Revitalization Development District from Green Street out to Massachusetts Avenue in the area adjacent to Blanche Street and further to provide for the potential development of a residential building on Sidney Street between Massachusetts Avenue and Green Street.

Committee Report #5. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public meeting held on July 25, 2012 to continue discussion on the petition of Forest City/MIT to amend the Zoning Ordinances by extending the Cambridgeport Revitalization Development District from Green Street out to Massachusetts Avenue in the area adjacent to Blanche Street and further to provide for the potential development of a residential building on Sidney Street between Massachusetts Avenue and Green Street.

The twisted rhetoric and misinformation that has grown around this matter is beyond incredible. Here are a few truths to consider:

A previous petition, the Novartis Petition to create a new Special District 15 along a portion of Massachusetts Avenue between Albany Street and Windsor Street, passed 9-0 on June 20, 2011. There was no request from "the community" to build any housing whatsoever. There was no requirement that they provide retail space. The sole tenant is a pharmaceutical company. The Forest City/MIT proposal includes 13-15,000 sq. ft. of ground floor retail. Its sole tenant for the rest of the building is Millennium, a pharmaceutical company that is already a tenant of University Park.
In the new Special District 15 created as a result of the Novartis Petition, the maximum FAR is 3.5 and the maximum height as-of-right is 120 ft. (plus mechanicals) which can be increased to 140 ft. via Special Permit. In contrast, the Forest City/MIT proposal is to build a 95 ft. building (plus mechanicals). The height associated with the Novartis proposal was never opposed by "the community".
The original Forest City/MIT proposal did not include housing, but the revised petition did include housing in response to suggestions from the City Council and the Community Development Department. That proposed housing was controversial and was subsequently removed in response to pressure from "the community". There is simply no way to rationally make the case that Forest City has been anything other than responsive to feedback from elected officials and "the community".
The original zoning for University Park required 400 units of housing of which 150 were to be "affordable". There are now 674 units of housing in University Park of which 26% are classified as "affordable" – well in excess of City goals.
The block at the heart of this petition currently contains a boarded-up former bar, the Thailand Cafe, an MIT garage for service vehicles, an auto glass replacement shop, the former Salvation Army Thrift Store, and the All-Asia bar (which is relocating to Prospect Street under a new name). This block has been an eyesore for many years. It generates about $55,000 in real estate taxes per year. If the petition passes, there will be retail opportunities for local companies and it is estimated that the City will receive about $2.4 million in real estate taxes every year. In addition, an Incentive Zoning payment and a Community Benefit Mitigation payment will total about $2,163,000.

Much of the public comment associated with the Forest City/MIT petition has centered on matters unrelated to this site or the petition. It is being used a proxy for possible future Central Square zoning recommendations yet to come. It is likely that there will be future recommendations for strategic increases in density in Central Square – largely driven by the desire to create more housing opportunities in the area and to provide other community benefits. Opponents have stated that the Forest City/MIT petition should be delayed pending the final report of the Goody Clancy study and its associated advisory committee, yet all indications are that the current proposal is consistent with that process. This makes this assertion little more than a red herring or a transparent delay tactic.

Ultimately, the fate of any zoning petition comes down to how the nine city councillors will vote, and six votes are needed for ordination in this case. It will be a shame if this matter is decided not by the merits of the proposal but by entirely political considerations. One councillor has a long-term friendship with one of the opponents. Another pro-density councillor lives on Essex Street where some of her neighbors are at the core of the opposition – based on an unrelated concern that parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive may one day become sites for future housing. These and other councillors have been seeking rationale for voting against this petition even though those who were on the Council in 2011 voted unanimously in favor of the Novartis Petition that provided fewer "community benefits" and more height than the current proposal. If this petition fails, it will be a victory for hypocrisy.

City Council Zoning Petition for School Site Zoning:
Unfinished Business #8. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on May 23, 2012 to discuss a petition to amend the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Cambridge by adding to Section 5.50 entitled "Special Dimensional Regulations" a section 5.54 entitled "Special Regulations for Municipal Elementary and Middle (K-8) Schools. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after June 25, 2012. Planning Board hearing held June 5, 2012. Petition expires Aug 21, 2012.

Committee Report #4. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public meeting held on July 19, 2012 to conduct a follow-up meeting on the petition to amend the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Cambridge by adding to Section 5.50 entitled "Special Dimensional Regulations" a section 5.54 entitled "Special Regulations for Municipal Elementary and Middle (K-8) Schools.

This petition is primarily crafted to allow sufficient flexibility in the reconstruction or renovation of the proposed middle/upper schools that are at the heart of the so-called "Innovation Agenda." This should be relatively noncontroversial.

North Mass. Ave. Rezoning Petition:

Manager’s Agenda #24. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the Planning Board’s recommendation with regard to the North Massachusetts Avenue Rezoning Petition.

Unfinished Business #10. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on June 6, 2012 to discuss the petition from the Planning Board to rezone the North Massachusetts Avenue area. A hearing was also scheduled at 4:15pm to discuss a petition of the Planning Board to amend the Zoning Map for an area along North Massachusetts Avenue in the vicinity of Trolley Square and Linear Park from Business A-2 to Residence C-2B. The petitions were discussed together. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after July 2, 2012. Planning Board hearing held May 15, 2012. Petition expires Sept 4, 2012.

Committee Report #3. A communication was received from Paula Crane, Administrative Assistant, City Clerk’s Office, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public meeting held on June 28, 2012 to continue discussion on the petitions from the Planning Board to rezone the North Massachusetts Avenue area and to amend the Zoning Map for an area along Massachusetts Avenue in the vicinity of Trolley Square and Linear Park from Business A-2 to Residence C-2B.

Order #20. That the petition to amend the zoning map along Massachusetts Avenue in the vicinity of Trolley Square and Linear Park from Business A-2 to Residence C-2B be re-filed on Sept 5, 2012. Councillor Maher

There are two petitions in play here. The Planning Board petition to incentivize retail in this stretch of Mass. Ave. has plenty of neighborhood support and the blessing of the Planning Board. It will likely be voted at this meeting. The other petition that is more specific to the Trolley Sq. area has not yet been passed to a 2nd Reading and expires before the next City Council meeting, hence the Order that it be re-filed.

Northpoint Zoning Revision:
Unfinished Business #9. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on May 23, 2012 to discuss an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance on a petition filed by CJUF III Northpoint LLC to amend Article 13.700 – Planned Unit Development in the North Point Residence District. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after June 25, 2012. Planning Board hearing held June 5, 2012. Petition expires Aug 21, 2012.

This is a relatively minor revision to previously approved zoning for this area (2003). It has the blessing of the Planning Board.

The "Permanent Parking Petition":
Applications & Petitions #1. A zoning petition has been received from Susan Yanow, et al. transmitting a zoning petition entitled "Area Four Neighborhood Preservation" requesting the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map in Area Four and the Central Square area.

There was an unsuccessful effort at the June 18 City Council meeting to introduce this petition as a late order. The petition proposes to do the opposite of every anticipated recommendation of the ongoing Goody/Clancy process relating to the Central Square area. Ironically, these same petitioners endorse waiting until the final Goody/Clancy report before any action is taken on the Forest City/MIT petition. This is just civic comedy – proposing the opposite while at the same time arguing that Goody/Clancy should be used as a guide. This petition would also sanctify the permanent existence of surface parking lots around Central Square.

There is a need for a robust discussion on the pros and cons of additional density in Central Square to take place. We should all look forward to such a discussion. This petition contributes nothing to that discussion.

Resolution #21. Resolution on the death of Anne F. Williamson. Councillor Maher, Mayor Davis

Anne Williamson was a long-time friend and one of the most reasonable and rational people I have known in civic affairs in Cambridge.

Resolution #48. Resolution on the retirement of Gordon Gottsche. Councillor Toomey, Mayor Davis, Vice Mayor Simmons

Gordon Gottsche, the Executive Director of the non-profit Just-A-Start, is practically a Cambridge institution. We should all wish him well in his retirement.

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council in Executive Session the nature of the possibility of six lawsuits, their status, and any others that might have been filed. Councillor Reeves

This seems like the next step in what will likely be a miserable effort by this councillor to leverage the upcoming process of hiring the next city manager. Let’s hope that there are at least five city councillors who will not allow themselves to be led around.

Order #13. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Department of Conservation and Recreation to create the placement of appropriate signage or indication of entry into the City of Cambridge on or around the North Bank Pedestrian Bridge. Councillor vanBeuzekom

This is a nice sentiment, but there’s a small problem of geography. A significant part of North Point Park on the Cambridge side of the new bridge is actually in Boston. The city boundary is determined by the historic channel of the Charles River, and many iterations of filling and redefining the boundary of the river have led to this oddity. Perhaps there should be a legislative fix putting the park entirely in Cambridge, but this really is a metropolitan park and the municipal boundaries should not be overly emphasized.

Order #14. That the City Manager is requested to confer with relevant City staff and report back to the City Council on whether a tagging program could be implemented to notify owners of bicycles that have been removed from sign posts by the Department of Public Works and contact information for retrieval of said bicycle. Councillor Kelley

As we like to say, "Same Roads, Same Rules." When an automobile is tagged and towed on street cleaning day, the cops and tow truck drivers never leave a note. Cyclists are obligated to know the rules, and that includes rules regarding the use of sign posts for long-term personal parking.

Order #16. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council statistical information regarding enforcement citations for loud motorcycle mufflers, car radios and the City’s plan to address these issues. Councillor Kelley

I am completely in support of this Order and for action to be taken to crack down on this aural abuse, but this matter has been brought up time and time again and it never goes anywhere.

Order #18. That the City Manager is requested to confer with relevant City staff on whether, and under what conditions, emails to both Council@Cambridgema.gov and to individual Councillors, at both their personal and City emails, may be shared with the general public and what, if any, redaction of personal information should be done prior to such sharing, whether the sharing of an email is by forwarding it to others or by posting it to a website. Councillor Kelley

This is an intriguing Order. Some of the hate mail originating from nitwits on the right and left might provide for entertaining reading. My personal belief is that anyone who sends inflammatory e-mail does so in full recognition that it may come back to embarrass the writer. On the other hand, if there was an expectation that ordinary messages to public officials would be thrown into the public arena, this would likely lead to fewer people contacting elected officials. Perhaps simply asking elected officials to use reasonable discretion is answer enough to this Order.

Order #30. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate departments to report back to the City Council with an estimate of how sequestration would affect municipal finances and the finances of human services organizations that partner with the City. Councillor Cheung

I have to confess that I have no idea what this Order is asking. I know what carbon sequestration is and I know what it means to sequester a jury, but beyond that I have no idea.

Order #32. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate City departments on the feasibility of providing bike regulations to a wider audience including through media outlets such as Twitter, Facebook, public service announcements and newspaper ads, increased enforcement and installation of signs informing bikers that they must obey the rules of the road. Councillor Cheung

Though this is certainly a good idea, I believe it can be fairly said that almost all cyclists are completely aware of the Rules of the Road. Some of them just choose to ignore those rules. Will a few "tweets" change their scofflaw behavior? Probably not. In contrast, it’s likely true that periodic aggressive ticketing of cyclists does have the desired effect.

Order #33. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate City departments to expand enforcement of the prohibition on Cambridge pick-ups by non-Cambridge cabs not specifically called to Cambridge. Councillor Cheung

There is another point of view that questions the whole idea of granting exclusive rights to certain cab operators and perhaps even the very idea of hackney licensing. Does this licensing really serve the public good? Or does it merely inflate the value of hackney licenses and drive up consumer costs? Though it would have to be done across all city and town boundaries, perhaps we’d all be better off if hackney licenses were eliminated. This, of course, won’t put any "Elect Candidate X" bumper stickers on any Cambridge cabs. – Robert Winters

Comments (4)

June 18, 2012

Ready for Summer Break – June 18 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge Redevelopment Authority,Central Square,City Council,Kendall Square,planning — Tags: Cambridge, City Council — Robert Winters @ 1:14 pm

Ready for Summer Break – June 18 City Council Agenda Highlights

Tonight’s meeting is the last regular meeting before the City Council takes its summer vacation. There will be a Roundtable meeting next week (June 25) with the School Committee and the Superintendent of Schools on how the City’s Five Year Financial Plan will impact the School District’s building renovation plan. The next voting meetings will be the Midsummer Meeting on July 30 and the Regular Meeting on Sept 10. There are also two potentially consequential committee meetings coming up – (1) Government Operations & Rules this Friday, June 22 at 10:00am "to have an initial discussion with the City Manager to develop a comprehensive short and long term succession plan." (Ackermann Room); and (2) Ordinance Committee on Wed, June 27 at 4:00pm "to continue discussion on the petition of Forest City/MIT…" (Sullivan Chamber). [There’s also a Tues, June 19, 8:00pm Planning Board hearing on the Forest City/MIT petition.]

The Gov’t Operations Committee meeting will be the initial meeting on how things may proceed as we look ahead to Bob Healy’s retirement a year from now. There have been no public indications to date about the process or of the inclinations of any individual councillors (though it’s likely that some are already plotting to call the shots).

The Ordinance Committee meeting could bring some excitement as activists respond to real and perceived threats to the "livability" of the greater Central Square area. At least one new ad hoc organization (Cambridge Residents Alliance) has already sprouted in response to the proposed 165 ft. residential tower that had been proposed adjacent to the Central Square fire house. There is a somewhat delicious irony to housing activists being agreeable to the commercial construction and opposed to the housing construction, but I suppose the devil is in the details. The provisions in the proposed zoning amendment that would have permitted the residential tower were taken out at last week’s meeting, but the general alarm has already been rung and the reaction will continue. Perhaps the most significant aspect to the public reaction is the perception that the Forest City/MIT proposal is just the first of a wave of "upzoning" proposals that will steamroll their way from Kendall Square up Main Street and through all of Central Square. The activists are saying that nothing should be approved until the ongoing Goody/Clancy study is completed, but most indications are that the central recommendations from that study will be for density, density, and more density. The activists are also calling for a one-year moratorium on all upzoning petions. Perhaps the activism would be better spent on formulating alternative proposals instead of simply saying NO in every imaginable form.

We learned at last week’s meeting that our Budget Director, David Kale, will be leaving to become Town Manager of Belmont. Not only will Belmont be gaining a great fiscal manager, they’ll also be gaining a great baseball man – one of many on the City Manager’s team. Perhaps Belmont should be required to send us a "player to be named later" to complete the deal.

Another big news item in Central Square was the announcement that the Korean grocery chain H Mart will be opening an 18,000 sq. ft. grocery market in Central Square in the space previously occupied by The Harvest (14,500 sq. ft.) plus an additional 3,500 sq. ft. next door. I’ve been advocating for a Super 88 store for this location, so this is a very good move, in my opinion. It is probable that this will be a relatively affordable grocery store in contrast to the Whole Foods trend of overpriced food which has sent many a Cantabrigian over the Somerville line to Market Basket. The property owner (Morris Naggar and 3MJ Realty) may have earned some serious good will with this lease. The new grocery store is expected to open early next year after extensive renovations.

For tonight’s City Council meeting, here are a few items of interest:

Manager’s Agenda #11. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation on the City Council Petition to Modify Zoning Requirements for Municipal K-8 School Sites (Proposed Section 5.54).

This zoning change will facilitate the renovation/reconstruction of the proposed middle schools (grades 6-8) that are at the center of the "Innovation Agenda". The Planning Board recommends the zoning change with the caveat that language be inserted to ensure the retention of publicly enjoyable open space. The zoning petition will presumably be moved to a 2nd Reading and be eligible for Ordination at the July 30 Midsummer meeting (when several zoning petitions may come to a vote).

Manager’s Agenda #12. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation on the CJUF III Northpoint LLC Zoning Petition to Amend Section 13.700.

The Planning Board recommends adoption as proposed, saying "the proposed changes have been carefully crafted and developed in close consultation with neighbors and City officials, and the Board believes that these changes will only further improve the final development from what was previously proposed." The North Point development may actually start to take shape in the next few years.

Charter Right #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the purchase of 53.6 acres of watershed land in Lincoln, MA, for $1,152,247 from Community Preservation Act Open Space Reserve Fund, for the purposes of drinking water supply protection and land conservation.

The land in question is a combination of wetland and buildable land along Route 2 in proximity with the Hobbs Brook – a principal water source for Cambridge. The brook flows into the Hobbs Brook Reservoir (near the intersection of Route 2 and Route 128) which then joins the Stony Brook before flowing into the Stony Brook Basin not far from Brandeis University. The water supply then travels via aqueduct to Fresh Pond. The argument is made annualy that Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds should only be used for open space acquisition within Cambridge city limits, but if watershed protection is not part of the preservation of community then I don’t know what is. The money can come either from CPA funds or from the water ratepayers, but these are just two different pockets. Nothing prevents the City from acquiring other open space as part of the regular budget process.

Charter Right #2. That a Task Force be formed to review Cambridge’s current program to creatively encourage and maximize participation in PILOT agreements with the City, and to evaluate the possibilities of implementing SILOT (Services In Lieu of Payment) and/or GILOT (Grants In Lieu of Payment) programs.

This matter was discussed briefly last week. There are certainly some possibilities here, but efforts to compel tax-exempt property owners to contribute additional money and/or services to the City opens a rather large can of worms. Should churches be compelled to contribute the "the state"? The intended target may be hospitals and other technically nonprofit institutions such as Mount Auburn Hospital, but ultimately this is something that might best be accomplished via good will rather than ordinance.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with an explanation of what processes and procedures have been instituted to help ensure that discrimination and wrongful termination complaints do not arise in the future. Councillor Kelley

Committee Report #4. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Marjorie C. Decker, Chair of the Finance Committee, for a public hearing held on June 11, 2012 to discuss an appropriation of $11,917,462 from Free Cash to the General Fund Law Department Travel and Training (Judgment and Damages) account which appeared as Agenda Item Number Fifteen of Apr 23, 2012.

This is an example of the worst kind of "faux righteousness." For better or worse, the Monteiro case and other claims have been settled and the litigants have received their ransoms – significantly more than their continued employment would have generated. The City administration has repeatedly made clear that policies are now in place to prevent the kinds of problems alleged in those lawsuits. Councillor Kelley wishes that the City Council and the City administration should now profusely apologize for infractions real or imagined in addition to the settlements – even though most settlements like these include provisions that both parties do not acknowledge wrongdoing. It’s difficult to understand what exactly Kelley is trying to accomplish. The matter has been settled and little is to be gained from continuing to stir the pot.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with relevant City staff, to include the City Clerk’s Office, to determine how best to put direct communications to the City Council on the City Council’s website to make the information contained in them readily available to the public even though it does not become part of a particular City Council agenda. Councillor Kelley

This specifically refers to communications from the City administration in response to City Council requests for information. Other than simple informal requests, one might have been led to believe that this information is always part of the City Manager’s Agenda, but apparently this is not the case. It seems that any request for information passed by majority vote at a public meeting should have a response that is also included in the proceedings of a public meeting of the same body, or at least be available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office. There are many communications that don’t properly belong in the public arena, but this should not include a response to a request voted at a public meeting as long as it is practicable to do so.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to refer the matter of a ban on soda and sugar-sweetened beverages in restaurants to the Cambridge Public Health Department for a recommendation. Mayor Davis

Nanny government at its very worst. Note that our good Mayor is proposing a BAN, not just a limitation. Does the Mayor know that chocolate cake also contains sugar? Shall we ban chocolate cake? Will Mayor Davis lead a march on Toscannini’s to demand that ice cream be driven out of Cambridge with the same zeal that St. Patrick drove the snakes from Ireland?

Note: This Order was amended at the meeting to better reflect Mayor Davis’ intention:
Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to refer the matter ~~of a ban on~~ to limit the size of soda and sugar-sweetened beverages in restaurants to the Cambridge Public Health Department for a recommendation. Mayor Davis
Amended; Referred to Community Health Committee – Decker

Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to instruct the Assistant City Manager for Community Development to have a 3-D model created of all potential development projects resulting from zoning petitions. Councillor Decker

Isn’t this the same as Councillor Decker’s Feb 13 Order #12 that received this very reasonable response last week? Pay attention, kids.

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Government Operations and Rules Committee, for a public hearing held on June 5, 2012 to review the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority’s (CRA) relationship with the city, how the CRA was set up and who is the CRA’s governing body.

This was an informative meeting with plenty of history and perspective. The newly reconstituted CRA Board is a great group with a skilled executive director and legal counsel. It will be interesting to see what role the CRA plays in future plans in and around Kendall Square. Still unknown is whether the CRA will settle solely into a maintenance role and eventually phase itself out, or possibly find a new role to play either in the Kendall Square area or elsewhere in the city. – Robert Winters

Comments (7)

June 11, 2012

On the Agenda – Highlights of the June 11, 2012 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,City Council,planning — Tags: bicycling, City Council, Council, cycle track, Western Avenue — Robert Winters @ 12:45 am

On the Agenda – Highlights of the June 11, 2012 Cambridge City Council meeting

There are several substantial items on the agenda this week. Among them:

City Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-33, regarding a report on a plan for implementing separate trash or recycling curbside pickup for small businesses along existing curbside pickup routes. ["Please be advised that I am not recommending the implementation of such a program given the cost impacts to the City."]

This responds to an Order that grew, at least in part, out of East Cambridge traffic congestion problems caused by multiple collection vehicles. Needless to say, the suggestion that the City should take over all collection did not resonate with these multiple waste haulers. The real deal-breaker is the very substantial additional cost.

City Manager’s Agenda #28. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the purchase of 53.6 acres of watershed land in Lincoln, MA, for $1,152,247 from Community Preservation Act Open Space Reserve Fund, for the purposes of drinking water supply protection and land conservation.

This watershed land is located on the north side of Route 2 in Lincoln just east of Bedford Road. The City has in recent years acquired numerous parcels through which the Hobbs Brook flows en route to the Cambridge Reservoir (Hobbs Basin) in the vicinity of Route 2 and Route 128. Some may argue that Community Preservation Act open space funds should be spent exclusively within the city limits, but watershed protection is generally a very good investment.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Cambridge Police Commissioner, the Superintendent of Schools, and other appropriate personnel to organize a youth-focused community forum to discuss issues related to the shooting at Willow Street on June 3, 2012, to allow our young people a chance to openly communicate their concerns, grievances, and ideas directly with City officials and administrators. Vice Mayor Simmons

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Cambridge Police Commissioner and to urge him to reach out to the various stake holders in the community, including building managers, property owners, and local business owners, in an attempt to proactively address the summer violence before it has a chance to begin. Vice Mayor Simmons

Though the law enforcement aspects of the shooting near Donnelly Field are appropriately in the hands of the Cambridge Police and the District Attorney, it is appropriate that Vice Mayor Denise Simmons should take a leadership role in the many other necessary responses to this incident that hit uncomfortably close to home. The greatest opportunity for leadership lies among the young people who know the victims and who may be able to help in the resolution of the case and in the prevention of future violence.

Order #4. That a Task Force be formed to review Cambridge’s current program to creatively encourage and maximize participation in PILOT agreements with the City, and to evaluate the possibilities of implementing SILOT (Services In Lieu of Payment) and/or GILOT (Grants In Lieu of Payment) programs. Councillor vanBeuzekom and Councillor Cheung

The motivation of this Order appears to be a comparable program by the City of Boston that has achieved some success in generating addition revenue from tax-exempt institutions. Though the prospects are not great for additional payments in lieu of taxes, there is clearly plenty of opportunity for non-profit and educational institutions to offer services in lieu of taxes. The major colleges already provide many such services and could probably do more with some facilitation.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to confer with relevant City and Harvard staff to determine who is doing what on the Cambridge Street Overpass, how through passage is being safely managed, how signage has been displayed, what the overall plans for this project are and the timing of the work and its expected completion date. Councillor Kelley

There was a very comprehensive presentation about this made at a recent meeting of the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association. Though substantial work is planned, the disruption both to the tunnel and the plaza above should be acceptable. The redesigned plaza will no longer have its familar grassy areas, but it will have the potential to become an important new public space for both Harvard and the City. [Details on the project (DPW) – Check out all the tabs.] I just hope the Harvard planners have an alternative for driving stakes into the ground when they want to install a tent. It’s not so easy to drive stakes into concreate pavers.

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with an explanation of how the City plans to maintain grade separated bikeways and keep them as free from sand, branches and other debris as the adjacent streets. Councillor Kelley

The larger issue is the grade-separated facilties themselves. While City officials and the public continually frown upon bicycling on sidewalks, they are simultaneously designing it into the Western Avenue project commencing later this year. To those of us who choose to ride in the street with all other vehicles, the City proposal will be less safe for us and slower for the cyclists who use the sidewalk track. It is very unlikely that the sidewalk track will be kept free of snow and ice in the winter. [“Cycle track”: a sidewalk by another name]

Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with an explanation of how the locations for the three bike corrals currently in place in Cambridge were determined. Councillor Kelley

Good question. One of these corrals appeared recently in front of the Broadway Bicycle School. It’s empty basically all the time. [Correction: On Monday there were 8 bikes locked up there, probably related to the City Hall Annex.] Cyclists coming to the Broadway Bicycle School generally bring their bikes inside to work on them. Meanwhile in places all over Cambridge there are derelict bikes chained up for months at a time taking up many of the available locations for locking up a bike.

Order #14. That the City Manager confer with the appropriate departments to discuss the potential of installing security cameras in the Donnelly Field area and report back to the City Council. Councillor Toomey

The recent shooting at Donnelly Field does not in and of itself justify the installation of such cameras, but their presence could very well have resolved this case in short order. Though the government conspiracy theorists may feel otherwise, their arguments against these cameras remain weak. Public spaces are public and cameras strategically located along roads and on public buildings can and do help in solving crimes.

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on May 15, 2012 to discuss the petition of Forest City/MIT to amend the Zoning Ordinances by extending the Cambridgeport Revitalization Development District from Green Street out to Massachusetts Avenue in the area adjacent to Blanche Street and further to provide for the potential development of a residential building on Sidney Street between Massachusetts Avenue and Green Street.

A few thoughts on this (more to follow in the coming weeks as the various advisory committees complete their efforts):

Though the proposal for the All-Asia block is similar to what MIT/Forest City proposed last year, the proposal for a 165-foot residential tower next to the Lafayette Square fire house apparently came out of the Community Development Department. Forest City was receptive to the idea, but it wasn’t their idea. A more human-scale residential building next to the firehouse might be more acceptable as long as an equivalent amount of open space is relocated to a site people would actually use. MIT/Forest City’s primary motivation is the development of the All-Asia block – something they would have done 20 years ago if they had sufficient control of the property. Significant height (about 140 ft.) and density is also proposed there. Of great concern to some MIT faculty is the current trend of MIT sacrificing properties close to the core campus to private development (e.g., Pfizer, Novartis) that might otherwise have supported the academic mission of the Institute.

I would caution people against taking an either-or view of this or any of the other proposals that will soon appear for future development in the greater Central Square area. Some will be opposed to any additional height or density and others will be receptive to any and all additional height or density. I find both of these points of view to be lacking. Surely there is room for people to express their own "vision" for what they want the future of Central Square to be – as opposed to simply reacting to the proposals of others. It’s ironic that the City Council has a Neighborhood & Long-term Planning Committee, yet two things the committee apparently doesn’t do are neighborhood and long-term planning.

I would much rather see the emphasis be on increasing density within the envelope currently prescribed by the zoning code with some strategic modification to induce good uses. The zoning is actually pretty generous already and there are many underbuilt sites in the area – including the All-Asia block. My "vision" for Central Square primarily consists of replacing the one-story and two-story "taxpayer" buildings with buildings that rise 3 to 5 stories at Mass. Ave. and possibly step back an additional story or two. I feel that a good-looking ten-story building like the Central Square Building at Mass. Ave. and Western Ave. should be the (anomalous) upper limit for height. I might be convinced that one other such building should be built, but this should not be the norm. Central Square is not Kendall Square, and it should not be redeveloped in the manner of Kendall Square. The Central Square neighborhood is already somewhat dense and can afford to be more dense if the gaps along Mass. Ave. are better developed and if some of the back lots see new construction. If housing in new buildings close to work is what is needed, I would suggest that the best place for new housing would be in Kendall Square, in the area between Main Street and Mass. Ave. replacing some of the old industrial properties, and on some (not all) of the parking lots.

Regarding the issue of shadows cast by taller buildings, I’ve always felt this to be primarily a naysayer strategy transparently intended to block a given proposal. In Jill Brown-Rhone Park (Lafayette Square), the City has installed umbrellas in that area because of the excess sunniness. I would prefer to see a shorter building than the 165 foot tower currently proposed, but I don’t really care about the shadows. I simply prefer a more human scale in an area that is primarily oriented toward neighborhood people rather than trans-national industries. We have Kendall Square and downtown Boston for that sort of thing.

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on May 23, 2012 to discuss a petition to amend the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Cambridge by adding to Section 5.50 entitled "Special Dimensional Regulations" a section 5.54 entitled "Special Regulations for Municipal Elementary and Middle (K-8) Schools.

This is largely a formality despite some of the scary and dishonest e-mail alerts distributed by some activists with nothing better to do than spread false rumors about unlimited heights, unlimited parking, exemption from all zoning, and the consolidation of all middle school programs into a single "supersized" building. False, false, false, and false. – Robert Winters

Comments (6)

June 4, 2012

Of Lesser Importance – June 4, 2012 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: Cambridge, City Council — Robert Winters @ 1:38 pm

Of Lesser Importance – June 4, 2012 City Council Agenda Highlights

Tonight’s meeting is not the main thing on the minds of most Cantabrigians today. Last night’s shooting on Willow Street in the Wellington-Harrington neighborhood that left one girl (Charlene Holmes, age 16) dead and another (Thania-Lee Cotto, age 17) in critical condition is on the minds of everyone today. According to reports, the two girls were best friends and neither of them was the intended target. A candlelight vigil is planned for 7:00pm.

Of lesser importance are the following agenda items:

Communications #1. A communication was received from Forest City transmitting expanded shadow studies for the proposed Forest City Project on Massachusetts Avenue.

Attention is being misdirected toward whether or not the proposed 165 foot residential tower next to the Lafayette Square fire station would cast shadows on the park across the street. The more significant issue is whether this is an appropriate height for Central Square and whether it would set a precedent for future development proposals. What’s appropriate for Kendall Square is not necessarily appropriate for Central Square. Most of the public reaction to the proposed tower has been decidedly negative, but it has served to distract attention from the core proposal to redevelop the nearby 300 block of Mass. Ave. to a very significant height (145 feet) and density.

Resolution #22. Resolution on the death of Robert I. Winters. Councillor Maher, Mayor Davis

This is the father of Planning Board member (and friend) Pam Winters. He died last week at the age of 90. Because of our shared name, several people who saw the obituary came up to me with comments like, "You look well." As sad as this is, it’s good to have friends who can make the best of things.

Resolution #25. Congratulations to City Councillor Leland Cheung on the occasion of his graduations from Harvard University and MIT. Councillor Reeves, Councillor Toomey, Mayor Davis, Councillor Decker, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Maher, Vice Mayor Simmons and Councillor vanBeuzekom

Yes indeed, congratulations to Leland. I guess this means he’s now going to have to look for a job….

Resolution #38. Welcome Reverend Al Sharpton and Reverend Melvin E. Wilson to the City of Cambridge. Councillor Reeves

I don’t know about the latter, but I’ll pass on the former.

Order #1. That the City Manager confer with the Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation with a view in mind of changing the "Traffic Regulations in Appendix D, City of Cambridge – Traffic Department Parking Ticket Violations – Schedule 13 by striking out the penalty fee of $30.00 and inserting in place thereof the fee of $5.00 as it relates to Section 16.7 entitled" Street Cleaning. Councillor Cheung

I don’t know about the need for the fee reduction, but maybe there should be a cap put on the capture and storage fees charged by the towing companies as a precondition for their getting a contract with the City. Those are the fees that really hammer you – not what the City gets.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Police Commissioner and discuss increasing patrols aimed at preventing graffiti in the Wellington Harrington and East Cambridge area. Councillor Toomey

It’s often the case that tagging is associated with other illegal activity. Removing the graffiti will not abolish gangs any more than removing Central Square benches will cure alcoholism, but tolerance of tagging and negligence in removing it is inexcusable. It should be noted that this is the area of last night’s murder.

Order #8. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the appropriate departments on the cost, user price, and payback period if Cambridge were to build its own broadband network and report back to the Cambridge City Council. Councillor Cheung

An old idea comes round again. There were plans to do this some time ago and I even volunteered my roof as a site for a wireless router for the network. This would, of course, directly challenge Comcast, a.k.a. The Evil Empire. I’ve always suspected that it was the objection of Comcast that put an end to the previous initiative.

Order #11. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate departments to ascertain how the potential increase in student loan rates might impact Cambridge students and report back to the City Council. Councillor Cheung

This is an example of a Democratic Party Talking Points memo being repurposed in the form of a City Council Order. The answer is clear enough – it would negatively impact students just as any increase in costs would. The text of the Order makes clear that this is really criticism of a recent vote in the U.S. Senate. For what it’s worth, I agree with the sentiment that these loan rates should remain comparable with other (currently low) interest rates. What offends me is that forgiveness of (significant) student loan debt is being used as a tool to rally votes in the upcoming presidential election. Some of us "old school" types still believe in the principle that, whether or not the rates are negotiable, you should still repay your debts.

Order #16. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate departments to look into the feasibility of providing a map of long term parking spots for rental on the city website and report back to the Cambridge City Council. Councillor Cheung

Though this Order refers to "long term parking spots for non-residents looking to visit family members for extended periods of time", it should be quite obvious that such a map will inevitably be used by other non-residents. A better resolution would be for the Department of Traffic, Parking, & Transportation to issue temporary permits for family members on a case-by-case basis. They most likely already do so. – Robert Winters

Comments (0)

May 21, 2012

Passing the Budget and the Shape of Things to Come – May 21, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge Redevelopment Authority,Central Square,City Council — Tags: Cambridge, City Council — Robert Winters @ 4:18 am

Passing the Budget and the Shape of Things to Come – May 21, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

The FY2013 General Fund Budget [$454,384,460], the Water Fund Budget [$14,144,080], and the Public Investment Fund [$21,277,065] will be approved this week along with final votes on 5 loan authorization orders totaling $17,442,670 to cover various public works projects. That’s the Big Stuff. In addition, there are a few other items sure to attract some interest from the councillors and the public.

Manager’s Agenda #4. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-61, regarding a report on implementing a Buy Local policy.

To the Honorable, the City Council:

In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-61, regarding a report on implementing a Buy Local policy, please be advised that the procurement of goods and services is controlled by State Law, MGL Chapter 30B. This statute does not permit the granting of preferential treatment for businesses in local cities or towns.

I am extremely skeptical that the Legislature would enact an amendment authorizing such a preference due to the potential "balkanization" impact.

Very truly yours, Robert W. Healy, City Manager

There has been a fair amount of agitation from several councillors to adopt some sort of local preference for City purchasing. They’re not going to like this response and will likely quote statutes from other states to justify the worthiness of the concept of giving local preference. This, however, is Massachusetts and Chapter 30B is fairly restrictive in what cities and towns can and cannot do when it comes to purchasing and awarding contracts for goods and services. The Manager’s statement about "balkanization" could just as easily be applied to periodic efforts to require residency for City jobs. The taxicab industry, on the other hand, is solidly located in the Balkans. A Boston cab picking up a fare in Cambridge (or vice-versa) could spark all-out war.

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to instruct the Acting City Solicitor to prepare draft language to the Municipal Code that will increase the fines for violations to the dog ordinance and refer said language to the Ordinance Committee. [Charter Right exercised by Councillor Kelley on Order Number Thirteen of May 14, 2012.]

This was Councillor vanBeuzekom’s late Order from last week that was appropriately delayed by Councillor Kelley. The Dog Lobby can both bark and bite and there’s a good chance that some of them will come barking in opposition at this meeting. Seriously, proposing changes in fees via a late Order with no public notice is very bad move.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Law Department and report back to the City Council on the current status of the Inlet Bridge and steps the City can take to ensure that agreements with the Commonwealth are upheld. Councillor Toomey

I have a place on my shelf at home for City reports and plans for projects that never materialized. There’s the well known stuff like the Inner Belt, but there’s also the rapidly disappearing "Urban Ring" plan for public transportation, the pedestrian walkway that was supposed to be suspended from the back of the Museum of Science garage to reconnect the fabulous walkway behind the Museum that looks out over the Charles, and perhaps now the less consequential "Inlet Bridge" designed to create another means of access to the new NorthPoint Park and the brand-new bridge over the RR tracks to Charlestown. Maybe it’s time we pulled some of these plans off the shelf and put them back on the table for a fresh look.

Elsewhere in town, the newly reconstituted Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA) will have their first meeting Monday evening at the same time as the City Council meeting. Up at Harvard, if you haven’t yet heard of the plans for the space between Harvard Yard and the Science Center above the tunnel, you may want to check it out. Major rejuvenation of the tunnel structure will commence after Commencement. The redesigned plaza will lose most of its greenery but promises to become a significant new civic space – not just for Harvard.

Meanwhile, we are getting close to the day when the Kendall and Central Square Goody/Clancy advisory committees communicate their thoughts on their respective Squares. It appears that the Harvest Market in Central Square will soon disappear or have to relocate into another (smaller) space. Mega-profit plans for the Naggar property, well-wrapped in red ribbons from political friends, are moving forward hungrily awaiting zoning changes to allow significantly greater density. Densification is the latest craze – quite the contrast from the wave of downzoning proposals that were common a decade or so ago. Further down the street, proposed plans for a 165 foot residential tower next to the Lafayette Square fire station and another 145 foot tall proposed building in the 300 block of Mass. Ave. are receiving their first taste of pushback from a wary public. – Robert Winters

Comments (2)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

September 10, 2012

End of Summer – The City Council Returns – Sept 10 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

Like this:

August 5, 2012

Town and City (Forest City, that is) – Aug 6, 2012 Cambridge City Council Special Meeting Agenda Highlights

Like this:

July 29, 2012

2011 City Council and School Committee Candidates – Campaign Finance Reports

Like this:

Midsummer at the Council – July 30 City Council Agenda Highlights

Like this:

June 18, 2012

Ready for Summer Break – June 18 City Council Agenda Highlights

Like this:

June 11, 2012

On the Agenda – Highlights of the June 11, 2012 Cambridge City Council meeting

Like this:

June 4, 2012

Of Lesser Importance – June 4, 2012 City Council Agenda Highlights

Like this:

May 21, 2012

Passing the Budget and the Shape of Things to Come – May 21, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

Like this:

We take civility very seriously here. Any threats or abusive behavior of any kind will get you banned for life.

September 10, 2012

Share this:

Like this:

August 5, 2012

Share this:

Like this:

July 29, 2012

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

June 18, 2012

Share this:

Like this:

June 11, 2012

Share this:

Like this:

June 4, 2012

Share this:

Like this:

May 21, 2012

Share this:

Like this:

We take civility very seriously here. Any threats or abusive behavior of any kind will get you banned for life.