Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

September 18, 2023

Reconsider This! – Featured Items on the September 18, 2023 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Reconsider This! – Featured Items on the September 18, 2023 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Here are the things that drew my attention this week:City Hall

Reconsideration #1. That the City Council go on record in opposition to the Cambridge Police Department and the City of Cambridge government sending trainees to, participating in any collaborations with, or supporting the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center or any similar facilities, in any way.
Motion to Reconsider Adopted 9-0; Simmons explains about unintended consequences of Order as written. Toner conveys remarks from Police Commissioner Christine Elow regarding preparation to critical incidents. Zondervan says this is just a resolution that conveys our feelings about it (actually, it’s a policy order). McGovern engages in doublespeak, notes that his son lives in Atlanta and has participated in protests there, sees no reason why CPD would ever send anyone there. McGovern doesn’t appear to understand that there are different kinds of training, and what Cambridge provides is not the same as what another jurisdiction might provide. Mallon says she was comfortable with original language and also says “this is just a resolution and not a policy order” but it is a policy order. She will not support any amendments. Nolan says we should only utilize facilities “that support our standards”. McGovern wants to add language to call out other facilities other than Atlanta. Carlone expresses confusion and lack of expertise to comment on it, and will vote Present. Siddiqui fine with original. Simmons Amendment Approved 5-4 (DC,MM,PN,DS-Yes; BA,AM,QZ,SS-No). Main motion Approved 6-1-0-2 (BA,AM,MM,PN,QZ,SS-Yes; PT-No; DC,DS-Present)

Mr. Zondervan and his trainees would abolish the police entirely if they could. I doubt whether CPD will be sending any of our police officers to Atlanta, but that’s really not the point of this policy order. I’m glad the matter is up for Reconsideration (it was an oversight that this item was not pulled last week) because anyone who votes in favor of this will not receive any ranking from me on my City Council ballot in November, and I hope others also use this as a signal for their own personal “No Vote” list. Isn’t it ironic that the same people who questioned police actions earlier this year are the same ones who will likely vote against this or any other opportunity for police training?

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Lauren Reznick as a member of the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority for a term of five years.
pulled by Simmons; Referred to NLTP Committee 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to recommendations of the Community Preservation Act Committee (CPAC) for FY2024. [Manager’s message] [Message from Taha Jennings, Chair of Community Preservation Act Committee] [FY24 Project Recommendations]
pulled by Siddiqui; remarks by Nolan re: cost for parks; remarks by Mallon re: cost of 2 BR apartment; all votes Adopted 9-0; Vote to not suspend rules for reconsideration (which is not the same as “moving Reconsideration hoping the same will not prevail”)

Though we all want housing to be as affordable as possible, there are permanent financial impacts associated with each new unit of deed-restricted housing. Hint: Every such unit yields significantly less property tax revenue than the added cost of the City services that must then be provided for its occupants, so residential taxes go up permanently for everyone else and/or more commercial development is required to balance the books. I hear a City Council candidate at a forum last week say why we need to ban labs and build affordable housing – but he neglected to mention that those labs are what pays for that affordable housing.

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Community Safety Department Update.
pulled by Zondervan who asks about HEART; Liz Speakman responds; Zondervan continues pressure about contract with HEART and is informed that there is not yet a contract (so much for separation of roles of City Council and Executive; McGovern chimes in about “the community” and wait for contract, wants to know when department will be up and running; Speakman says they are aiming for March 2024 and need to build trust and credibility (good luck); Speakman notes plan to have response to 911 calls; Mallon is “excited” and notes that she was able to meet the team of respondents, asks where policy of “mandatory reporting” stands; McGovern elaborates on questions surrounding the filing of reports and possible consequences; Zondervan harps on role of HEART and that “they are up and running” and that they have submitted a proposal; Speakman says there was a meeting but no proposal or scope of services was ever submitted; Zondervan wants more info on HEART and how they will fit in; Placed on File 9-0

Except for the $300,000 in political patronage ARPA funds, this is a promising report.

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the City Manager’s Fall Update.
pulled by Nolan to say “kudos to the team”; Carlone concurs; Zondervan expresses appreciation and notes Budget discussion more collaborative, desire to include more residents, wants more promo on “green jobs”; Nolan would like more on municipal broadband (not in report); Huang says more on municipal broadband coming as well as capital planning; Siddiqui notes UPK, Rise-Up. Placed on File 9-0

Putting a positive spin on everything is a useful skill. Apparently all is well, and none of the City’s actions over the last year have even a shred of controversy or potential negatives.


Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a memo and technical edit of the Affordable Housing Overlay language and Planning Board report with no positive or negative recommendation. [memo and technical edit] [Planning Board report]
pulled by Carlone who notes that corridor heights have now been jacked up from 120′ to 140′ on corridors, 150′ to 170′ in squares; Farooq says they did not change the text and that the text was just moved from one section to another; Carlone notes concern about perceived added height; McGovern suspends rules to bring forward Unfinished Business #6 (AHO); Rules Suspended; Moves to amend language by substitution of CDD language; Nolan asks why these amendments are before Council; Farooq explains that these amendments are just refinements at request of Planning Board and that there are still a couple of issues that have come up regarding “split lots” that might thwart the “intended outcome” – working with the project proponents, i.e. the developers who stand to benefit from the changes; Amendments to Petition Adopted 9-0; Placed on File 9-0

Unfinished Business #6. An Ordinance has been received from City Council, relative to Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) amendments. (Proposed Ordinance #2023-7) [Passed to 2nd Reading Sept 11, 2023] (ORD23#7) [text of report] [Final Publication]

The AHO (1.0, 2.0, or eventually 3.0, 4.0, etc.) needs a lot more than just a few technical edits. But then again, who has time for all that! Don’t you know that we have a crisis and there’s simply no time to make better decisions!


Charter Right #1. Policy Order re Improving the Quality of Life In and Around Central Square. [Charter Right – McGovern, Sept 11, 2023]
pulled by McGovern, watered down Substitute Order introduced removing references to unhoused community and proposed task force; Toner asks if there was intention to not have Task Force (miscommunication); Substitute Order Adopted 9-0 (Voice Vote)

I can’t wait to hear what Mr. McGovern has to say about this. As the late, great Sergeant Schultz used to say: “I see nothing! I know nothing!”

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with relevant departments including the Affordable Housing Trust, Community Development Department and Law Department to review the attached zoning proposal and report back to the City Council with an initial assessment regarding the feasibility and efficacy of such an approach no later than Oct 31, 2023. [Charter Right – Toner, Sept 11, 2023]
Toner wants to move to Housing Committee; Zondervan says that idea is to add CDD for their thoughts first before referring to committee; Simmons supports referral to Housing Committee but also voting for it as is; McGovern agrees with Zondervan re: sending to CDD only for now with a suggestion that CDD report directly to Housing Committee; Referral to Housing Committee 6-3 (BA,MM,QZ-No)

This proposal is a mix of good and bad ideas and observations, but it does at least highlight one of the greatest deficiencies in our City’s various affordable housing initiatives, namely the fact that they allow little opportunity for actually building wealth and equity. For example: “The existing financing mechanisms for affordable housing development preferentially generate income-restricted rental housing, which is also the greatest need, but further limits homeownership opportunities for people who have been economically disenfranchised.”

Charter Right #3. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the relevant departments, including Community Development and Law to review the attached proposed amendment language and propose any adjustments no later than the Oct 2, 2023 Regular City Council Meeting. [Charter Right – Toner, Sept 11, 2023]
Order Adopted 9-0

I will simply add that my chief concern with the Green Roofs Zoning Ordinance is that it fails to acknowledge that when a leak occurs in a roof that is complicated by vegetative cover and more, diagnosing and curing that leak becomes an enormous expense – a lot more than just heading up to the roof with some flashing cement or a patch. Theory vs. practice.

Unfinished Business #4. Amendment to Chapter 2.78 of the Cambridge Code of Ordinance, entitled “Historical Buildings and Landmarks.” (Ordinance #2022-11). [Passed to 2nd Reading as Amended Aug 7, 2023; To Be Ordained on or after Aug 28, 2023] (ORD22#11) [text of report]
pulled by McGovern; notes that purpose statement updated, membership requirements updated to reflect demographics, AHO oversight to be nonbinding (hence meaningless), climate-related matters made nonbinding, etc.; Amendments re: appointments Approved 9-0; Nolan proposes amendments re: review provisions and non-binding for affordable housing and need to allow commission to impose certain dimensional and setback requirements; Nolan provides some history and context regarding applications and decisions over many decades; Azeem suggests that process causes unnecessary costs to property owners, and need to “foolproof this” for next 40 years; Carlone notes that our NCDs are seen nationally as successful and a model for other cities; McGovern emphasizes that removal of NCDs was intentional; Nolan notes that “size and shape of the structure” is an essential part of the review; Nolan Amendments Fail 3-6 (DC,PN,PT-Yes; BA,AM,MM,DS,QZ,SS) – noteworthy that the vote exactly coincides with the AHO2.0 proposal. McGovern suggests voting this at next meeting.
Note: This entire escapade was purely political and a “solution” in search of a nonexistent problem.

Whittling away Cambridge history one building at a time. I don’t really believe the current City Council has much of a grasp on what they are doing in this area. They are just so quick to buy into false narratives about history, democratic process, and more.

Unfinished Business #5. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to amending Article 4.30 and Article 11.800 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge. [Passed to 2nd Reading as Amended Aug 7, 2023; Expires Sept 25, 2023 (no meeting on Sept 25)] (ORD23#4) [text of report]
pulled by Zondervan who notes that essence is to allow cannabis sales as of right in business districts w/o need for Special Permit; Ordained 9-0

Cannabis. ‘Nuf said.

110 Communications

Resolution #1. Congratulations to Karen Francis on her retirement from the City of Cambridge.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Simmons

Karen is one of the best people I have ever met in Cambridge City government – a real friend. Indeed, everyone who works in the office of the Election Commission has a heart of gold.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Law Department to prepare a proposed Home Rule Petition relative to amendments to the Fair Housing Ordinance, as discussed at the Ordinance Committee meeting on Sept 12, 2023, and report back to the full City Council by Oct 2, 2023.   Councillor McGovern, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to prepare a regular summary (at least annually) of available funds for each funding source, as well as any amounts released to specific projects or efforts.   Councillor Carlone, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Carlone for explanation of how this information is currently unavailable; comments by Nolan who wishes to be added; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

This would be very helpful information.

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to direct relevant departments to work together with the Chair(s) of the Health and Environment Committee and the Ordinance Committee, and include community input from residents and landscaping companies, to develop ordinance language that would lead to a phased in ban of the use of gas-powered leaf blowers in Cambridge.   Councillor Nolan
pulled by Toner; comments by Nolan; Toner wants to ensure outreach to landscaping companies and impact on workers; Adopted 9-0

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant city departments on funding sources to supplement available state and federal funds to support and incentivize the transition to electrification of lawn equipment.   Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0

Leaf blowers and lawn care are surely at the top of my list of priorities right now. – Robert Winters

Late Order #5. That the City Council sign in support of a Transportation Grant Application.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toner, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0; Not Reconsidered

September 14, 2014

The Ides of September – Sept 15, 2014 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 7:57 pm

The Ides of September – Sept 15, 2014 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

This week’s central agenda item is the vote to approve the appropriation of CPA funds.

80% for Affordable HousingManager’s Agenda #8. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, requesting that the City Council formally appropriate/allocate the Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds as follows:

1A. 80% of the FY2015 CPA Local Fund revenues ($6,240,000) allocated to Affordable Housing and appropriated to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust;

1B. 10% of FY2015 CPA Local Fund revenues ($780,000) allocated to Historic Preservation;

1C. 10% of FY2015 CPA Local Fund revenues ($780,000) allocated to Open Space;

2A. 80% of FY2014 State Match revenues ($1,360,000) allocated to Affordable Housing and appropriated to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust;

2B. 10% of FY2014 State Match revenues ($170,000) allocated to Historic Preservation;

2C. 10% of FY2014 State Match revenues ($170,000) allocated to Open Space;

3A. 80% of the Fund Balance ($2,400,000) allocated to Affordable Housing and appropriated to the Affordable Housing Trust;

3B. 10% of the Fund Balance ($300,000) allocated to Historic Preservation;

3C. 10% of the Fund Balance ($300,000) allocated to Open Space;

4A. Appropriate ($10,000) from the Fund Balance for the cost of the Community Preservation Coalition Membership Dues.

Manager’s Letter     Full Report

The information is provided here only to highlight the City’s continuing commitment to dedicating the maximum 80% of Community Preservation Act funds toward Affordable Housing initiatives and the minimum 10% each to Open Space Acquisition and to Historic Preservation. These are the only three permissible uses for CPA funds.

Applications & Petitions #2. A zoning petition has been received from Charles D. Teague, et al. to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance to clarify existing ordinance so that said ordinance can be enforced: align the zoning amendment expiration date in the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance to be the same as state law, align the Special Permit criteria with adjudicated state law and require that the master plan be followed whereas following the master plan is optional under state law.

As to the first proposal regarding expiration dates of zoning petitions, this is a simple correction that the City Council should have addressed when they were first alerted to the discrepancy by the City Solicitor. I wrote here on July 29, 2013: "The ambiguity between zoning petition expiration dates can be simply resolved via a minor change in the Zoning Ordinance. It’s baffling why no city councillor has yet proposed this solution."

The second proposal calls for changing the language in the Zoning Ordinance so that Special Permits "may be granted" rather than "will normally be granted" by the Planning Board if all the Special Permit criteria are met. This would be a major change from a relatively clear process with established criteria to an environment in which there may as well be no criteria at all.

The third proposal is actually pretty funny (as well as absurd). Mr. Teague was perhaps the single most outspoken person making the claim during last year’s municipal election season that Cambridge had no master plan. Now he’s saying that the very thing he said did not exist must now be followed to the letter. Even if Mr. Teague had a change of heart regarding his beliefs, it would perhaps be a good idea if he tried to understand the difference between planning principles and legally enforceable ordinances. It’s an important difference.

Resolution #18. Declare Sept 21, 2014 as Gratitude Day in the City of Cambridge.   Mayor Maher

I am most grateful to Mayor Maher for this Resolution.

Order #4. Scheduling of Roundtable/Working Meetings on Oct 6, 2014 with the Affordable Housing Trust, Dec 1, 2014 to discuss city-wide planning including discussions with the Planning Board and Jan 12, 2015 to discuss city-wide planning including discussions with the Planning Board.   Mayor Maher

Order #5. That the Chair of the Government Operations, Rules & Claims Committee schedule a meeting to review the City Council’s most recent goals and make recommendations for FY16 Goals to include the addition of a goal relating to City-Wide Planning.   Mayor Maher

It’s worth noting that these steps addressing City-Wide Planning are taking place the week after the distraction of the Carlone Petition was finally eliminated. This is not to say that there won’t be other zoning petitions forthcoming. In particular, it seems likely that those who wish to block the Sullivan Courthouse redevelopment and those opposed to building housing in the Alewife area may yet have a few cards to play.

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Paula Crane, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Chair of the Housing Committee for a public meeting held on July 9, 2014 to discuss the Community Development Department’s efforts to preserve expiring use buildings, and a discussion about inclusionary zoning and the Nexus study.

In the spirit of moving on to more important business, it’s about time that these housing-related matters are fully addressed. In particular, an increase in the inclusionary zoning requirement will likely have to permit additional density to cover the cost of the additional "affordable" units. That will likely require some uncomfortable political choices. The preservation of expiring use buildings is now a top priority of the Affordable Housing Trust and the Housing Division of the Community Development Department. Suffice to say that the cost of preserving existing affordable housing units is generally far less than building new affordable housing units. – Robert Winters

Powered by WordPress