First pass at the Dec 5, 2022 Cambridge City Council agenda

The clock is running down on the first half of the game. Time to get a beer or decide to be a candidate or both. Here’s hoping that Maura Healey is in a Cambridge appointing mood this month and next so that we can open up some seats and bring in some prospects from the minors. Here’s what’s on this week’s dance card:

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board report with a recommendation to adopt the Emissions the Accounting Zoning Petition (Version 3) with clarifying comments. [Planning Board report]
pulled by Zondervan; Referred to Petition 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board Zoning Petition to consider adoption of the attached Climate Resilience Zoning. [Planning Board Zoning Petition]
pulled by Nolan; Referred to Planning Board & Ordinance Committee 9-0

---

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the City Manager’s 90 Day Report.
pulled by Mallon; Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #1. The Government Operations, Rules & Claims Committee held a public meeting on Nov 22, 2022 to discuss the City Manager’s Annual Evaluation process. [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0

Communications & Reports #1. A communication was received from Vice Mayor Mallon, transmitting information regarding the City Manager Annual Review process. [City Manager Performance Review] [Proposed City Manager Annual Performance Review Process] [City Manager Draft Annual Performance Review Template]
Placed on File as Amended 9-0

I especially liked this note in the Manager’s Report: “Finally, many of our greatest challenges are fundamentally regional issues - housing, homelessness, climate change, and transportation. We often view our work within our 6.4 square miles, but there is a need for greater coordination with our neighbors and state government. As we enter 2023 and welcome a new Healey administration, I’m looking forward to Cambridge having a greater voice to advocate for and collaborate to find solutions that match the scale of our challenges.”

And this: “As with all relationships, I believe the relationship between the City and Council is not a static arrangement that can be written down or governed through contract provisions. Relationships are interactions between people over time and built on mutual respect, shared norms, communication, and trust. There will be mistakes and areas for improvement, and we won’t agree on every issue, but I’m committed to creating a government that works and where we are increasing alignment and trust between the City, Council, and community.”

Perhaps the greatest indication of the mettle of our new City Manager will be how he handles all the upcoming appointments to City Boards & Commissions. Will political considerations outweigh other factors? For at least this one observer, those appointments and how the city councillors handle or mishandle their newfound power to review (some of) these appointments will be very telling. The City Manager also speaks of “greater empowerment for leaders and staff,” but accountability and answering for poor decisions and the willingness to change direction when warranted are just as important. The same goes for all of our elected officials.

---

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to asking the Department of Conservation and Recreation to suspend the Saturday closures of Memorial Drive between Greenough Boulevard and Western Avenue for the remainder of this year. (CM22#241)
pulled by Zondervan; Zondervan motion to ask Manager to not ask DCR to suspend remaining Saturday closures fails 3-6 (AM,QZ,SS - YES; BA,DC,MM,PN,DS,PT - NO); Placed on File 9-0

Charter Right #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Reports Items Numbered 16-111, 18-38, and 20-61, regarding Municipal Property Inventory. [Charter Right - Zondervan, Nov 21, 2022]
Placed on File 8-0-1 (Toner ABSENT)

I wish this Property Inventory was so heavily intertwined with the future of the greater Central Square area, but this is the hand we’ve been dealt. I will be very disappointed if the provision of subsidized housing outweighs the whole range of other possibilities. I also hope that residents and councillors from the other side of the city don’t continue in their misguided and lazy belief that all social services should be further concentrated in Central Square - one of our most significant commercial and cultural districts in the city.

83 Communications - mostly from last week expressing shock and outrage about the proposal from three councillors to supersize the city no matter what anyone thinks.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department to work with the residents at 931 Massachusetts Avenue to identify and provide a short-term parking spot in front of 931 Massachusetts Avenue.   Councillor Toner, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons
pulled by Toner; Toner amendment Adopted 6-3 (BA,AM,QZ - NO); Azeem amendment Adopted 6-3 (DC,DS,PT - NO); McGovern amendment Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 8-1 (QZ - NO)

Further evidence that an amended and overly rigid Bicycle Safety Ordinance is no substitute for good traffic engineering that anticipates and takes into account the whole range of parking and transportation needs.

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate departments to conduct street cleaning without towing starting with the 2023 season.   Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem
pulled by Nolan; Charter Right - Simmons

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

Comments?

Destroying a City is as Easy as ABC - November 21, 2022 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Perhaps it’s a good time to burn some bridges and take sides. The 2023 Municipal Election Season has now begun and there is some detritus that needs to be disposed.

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Policy Orders 2022 number 290 & 291 [Awaiting Report 22-82], regarding continuing the outdoor dining season and considering the extension of the reduced fee schedule.
pulled by Zondervan; Placed on File 9-0

Though this may not be the response some councillors wanted, but it makes total sense - especially in regard to how much of the space taken in the public way for cold weather outdoor dining went unused most of the time last winter.

---

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-90, regarding a request for various City departments in coordination with the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority to identify spaces in Central Square that would support the creation and protection of cultural and human services.
pulled by Mallon; Placed on File 9-0

Another great response from the City Manager and staff. One extra note I will make is that venues that support music and the arts should be viewed as “community benefits” in much the same way as open space and ground-floor retail and housing that is affordable to people whose incomes might otherwise leave them priced out.

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Reports Items Numbered 16-111, 18-38, and 20-61, regarding Municipal Property Inventory. [Report]
Pulled by Nolan; Charter Right - Zondervan

Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $200,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Community Development Department Extraordinary Expenditures account to be used for professional services related to a Central Square area municipal property needs assessment and planning study.
pulled by Carlone; Order Adopted 9-0

Excellent reports that make clear the range of priorities that need to be considered - especially in the proposed Central Square area municipal property needs assessment and planning study. All too often the City Council simply throws ideas out onto the floor based on what they see as popular. This is how Boston ended up with zillions of MDC skating rinks while the water and sewer infrastructure crumbled - until the courts created the MWRA to properly manage these resources. In the Cambridge context, this illustrates very well the value of a city manager form of government over some populist alternative.

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the City of Cambridge resuming the use of the city-owned water supply on Nov 19, 2022.
pulled by Nolan; Placed on File 9-0

Speaking of infrastructure, it’s great to have you back again, Cambridge Water.

---

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 22-77, regarding a review of the proposed language for Ordinance #2022-18, the Incentive Zoning Rate Study Petition, as amended in Committee and report of findings back to the City Council.
pulled by Zondervan; Referred to Petition 9-0

Unfinished Business #2. An Ordinance has been received, relative to Reevaluation of Housing Contribution Rate, Incentive Zoning Petition, Section 11.202 (d) of Article 11.000 entitled SPECIAL REGULATIONS, Ordinance #2022-18, as amended. [Passed to 2nd Reading Oct 31, 2022; To Be Ordained on or after Nov 21, 2022] (ORD22#18)
pulled by Zondervan; Ordained as Amended 9-0

This is really just a minor alteration in the timeline for the next nexus study, but I still believe that the whole basis for Incentive Zoning needs to be reviewed rather than to exist only as a cash cow for “social housing.”

---

Unfinished Business #3. The Government Operations, Rules & Claims Committee met on Oct 25, 2022, to discuss potential changes to the City Council Rules. The Committee voted favorable to recommend several amendments to the Rules of the City Council related to Rule 15, Rule 21(resulting in Rule 21, 21A and 21B), Rule 22, Rule 24B, Rule 24C.1b, Rule 27-Economic Development and University Relations Committee, Rule 27-Housing Committee, Rule 27-Civic Unity Committee, Rule 32 (adding new Rule 32D), Rule 38.8, and adding a new Rule 40.1. The Committee also voted favorably to replace “he” and “she” with gender neutral language. Rule 36B. No amendments or additions to the rules may be enacted until at least seven days have elapsed from the date of the submission of the proposed changes or additions and require a majority vote of the entire membership of the City Council. [Order #1] [Order #2] [Order #3] [Order #4] [Order #5] [Order #6] [Order #7] [Order #8] [Order #9] [Order #10] [Order #11] [Order #12] [Order #13] [Order #14]
pulled by Mallon; Orders #1-6, #8-14 Adopted 9-0; Order #7 Adopted 8-1 (Zondervan - NO)

This is mainly routine “hey kids, let’s re-write the student organization constitution” stuff. I will note only two specific things. First, amending the Rules should not be viewed as an opportunity to enshrine specific policies. City Council Orders and Resolutions are the more appropriate places for that. Second, there are better ways to achieve gender-neutral language than nonsense phrases like “A member that has recused themselves shall not participate in the discussion…” Try something more like, “A member, after recusal, shall not participate in the discussion…” Just a friendly suggestion.

---

Order #15. Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay.   Councillor Azeem, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Zondervan
pulled by Toner; Azeem amendment Fails (BA,MM,DS,QZ - YES; DC,AM,PN,PT,SS - NO)
QZ amendment to Require Committee Reports by Jan 31, 2022 Fails 4-5 (BA,MM,DS,QZ - YES; DC,AM,PN,PT,SS - NO)
Toner Amendment to send to Housing Committee and NLTP Committee (rather than to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board) Adopted 8-1 (QZ - NO)
Order Adopted as Amended 8-1 (QZ - NO)

This may well be the most outrageous proposal I have ever seen from this or any other Cambridge City Council. Please read the full text of this Order and the accompanying maps. It simply blows past decades of thoughtful, deliberative planning and public participation in favor of dramatic upzoning without any meaningful opportunity for public response or input. I will add that we may now be at the point where proposals such as this will have to be viewed through a “regulatory taking” lens in the sense that what is allowed and what is proposed to be allowed for government-sponsored developers is dramatically more than what is allowed for ordinary property owners. It seems as though the policy of this City Council has become completely skewed toward moving privately-owned property toward “social housing” – and they apparently are willing to keep skewing the rules to benefit their chosen developers (who are likely also the ones drafting the regulations) until they achieve this shift.

I feel some obligation to now talk about proportional representation elections. In the absence of any true civic and political infrastructure in Cambridge, our municipal elections have become dominated by single-issue advocacy groups. In the absence of a true local newspaper willing to listen to community concerns and provide objective journalism, political propaganda has become the rule, and that includes partisans embedded in neighborhood listservs eager to attack anyone who might stand in the way of their respective agendas. So here is my first bit of advice when it comes time to vote in the next municipal election – in addition to considering which candidates you find acceptable and ranking them by preference, think even more about which candidates you should exclude from your ballot. We are now in a period where voting for candidate slates is being strongly encouraged, and in an environment where most residents remain unaware of the actions and proposals of councillors and candidates, propaganda can dominate. The truth is that some candidates win regardless of endorsements and it’s demonstrably false to claim that a majority of voters support policies of your organization simply because they are included on your candidate slate. We have never actually polled Cambridge voters about specific issues, and the range of criteria used by most voters in their candidate preferences is as wide as an ocean.

The ABC group (more properly called “A Bigger Cambridge”) has never made a secret of its long-term mission - namely to dramatically increase heights and densities everywhere in Cambridge, to eliminate all neighborhood conservation districts and historic preservation regulations, and to “streamline” permitting in the sense that most or all rights to object to development proposals should be eliminated. One of their principal officers even suggested a target population of at least 300,000 for Cambridge a few years ago (that’s about triple the current population). This is like the reincarnation of Robert Moses as Jane Jacobs rolls over in her grave. I actually ranked 3 of the 9 candidates ABC endorsed in the 2021 municipal election. I will not rank any of their endorsees again even if I like them personally, and I encourage others to do the same. This, by the way, should not be viewed in any way as an endorsement of any other candidates or candidate slates - despite what some activists may choose to think (or tweet).

Here’s a letter sent by Patrick Barrett to the City Council that captures many of my sentiments and makes some very important points:

Honorable Mayor Siddiqui and Cambridge City Council,

I have to admit that following this Council lately is a lot like drinking from a fire hose. It has been difficult to keep up with all of the proposed changes. This latest amendment request has a lot of stuff in it but instead of getting tangled in the binary weeds of yes or no I think what I am seeing here is a moment in time where we ought to clearly state or get comfortable with where this city is headed. In about a month it will be C2’s 9th birthday ... a failed planning initiative that was ultimately rejected by CDD, some current councillors, and the Planning Board. I compare that five year process to this petition and I can only think about how massively this conversation about development has changed in such a short time. Back in those days (2013) 14 stories was declared too tall, would block out the sun, and force MBTA personnel to use brooms to push passengers into overcrowded T stops. Dark times to be sure. However, now the pendulum has swung wildly in another direction where proponents of any change now state that an “emergency” dictates that we must act immediately on everything … all the time … no matter what. Even worse, proponents of everything from BEUDO to the AHO state that to not be 100% onboard is akin to doing nothing, being a climate denier, being anti-housing, or being a racist. It is hard to take them seriously especially in a city like Cambridge where it is unlikely and rare to find another city that does more within 6.2 sq miles on either subject. Maybe we ought to start thinking about what we do instead of berating ourselves over the false perception that we do nothing?

I am supportive of “tall” buildings in Central Square in part because we already have them and because Central Square, more than most areas of the City, has yet to come close to realizing its potential. However I think this has to do more with a lack of vision than archaic zoning, though to be clear Central Square zoning is the absolute worst in the city. I must admit, and please do not faint, that I have an issue with 100% affordable development schemes; especially when they preclude market rate developments that match. For instance, Central Square has a base height of 55' whereas this proposal would allow for 280' and potentially unlimited height depending on how you interpret the section on open space subparagraph (f). I’m not sure I care that much about height and I cannot tell the difference between an 18 story building or a 24 story building especially from the ground floor but such a wildly disproportionate development scheme for one type of housing is a mistake anywhere and especially in an area that already exceeds 30% affordable for total housing stock. I say this in light of the fact that proponents of the AHO often cited lack of affordable housing in other parts of the city, currently below even 40b standards, and that the AHO was designed to fix that. This has not been the case so far and maybe it makes sense to put the lion share of affordable housing in one section of the city … but I've yet to hear anyone in planning or the City explain why. I also believe that market rate housing IS the “affordable housing” for the vast majority of people coming to Cambridge who do not qualify for affordable housing. Without a substantive plan to address that population aren’t we just kicking the can and further exacerbating values? Have we decided collectively that supply and demand is a myth? If so that might help explain this strategy though I've not heard that openly expressed by CDD or City Staff.

My questions about this policy change are more about bigger picture issues:

1) Are we no longer going to permit market rate development?

2) Do we have a goal with regard to affordable housing?

3) Have we thought about what happens once people are housed or are we merely counting units?

4) What happens in the commercial districts or more importantly a cultural district when the developer is no longer bound to zoning in any way?

5) Is home ownership no longer a goal?

6) If the council feels that 280' is an appropriate height for buildings, why limit that to affordable only?

7) Has anyone audited the impact of the AHO on market costs?

8) Have we assessed the impact of changing inclusionary zoning since it was increased in 2015?

9) Is there a conflict of interest with the affordable housing trust where the Manager, affordable developers, and a few interested parties are solely responsible for doling out taxpayer money to each other for their own projects and also now draft zoning changes with City staff to remove their need to comply while everyone else has to? I cannot imagine we’d accept this arrangement for market rate development. Why is it OK here?

10) I would love to hear someone articulate a clear vision for the City. In Central Square we have been pushing our own vision in the absence of a clear direction from the City. I am happy to share that vision; would you kindly share yours?

Lastly, our ordinance is a book about us and our values and it seems at this moment in time it is making assumptions that are incorrect. Maybe this is the moment where we take a pause and try to piece together the dozens of studies, reams of data collected over four decades, and actually reform our zoning code to reflect the values everyone seems to claim they have? It doesn’t have to take another decade or even more than a few months, but if we are planning for the next 150 years like our university friends do we should be looking at this top down not through the narrow lens of one subject.

CC: Hatfields
CC: McCoys

Regards and Happy Thanksgiving,
Patrick W. Barrett III

---

Order #16. The City Manager is requested to work with the Finance and Assessing Departments to determine how the City could adopt G.L. c. 40, sec. 60B, created under the Municipal Modernization Act, which allows cities and towns, through their respective legislative bodies, to provide for Workforce Housing Special Tax Assessments Zones (WH–STA) as an incentive to create middle-income housing.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0

This Order quotes the “Envision Cambridge Housing recommendations” that supposedly came out of the Housing Working Group of Envision Cambridge (of which I was a member). I consider that entire exercise to be a failed process due to the manner in which that committee was formed primarily of inside “affordable housing” developers, funders, and advocates with virtually no focus on housing in general. That said, this is an interesting proposal. It does, however, need some clarification. In particular, does the statement “The WH-STA Zone is an area in which the City identifies opportunities for increased development of middle-income housing and provides property tax relief to developers during construction and for up to five years, in exchange for all units being rented at a pre-established rate targeting middle-income renters…” mean to imply that rent levels would be maintained for up to 5 years or be subject to regulation in perpetuity (which would seem to violate state law)?

Order #17. Roundtable on Open Space Planning and Programming including the Public Space Lab.   Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #18. That the memo from Charles Sullivan regarding Comments on Citizen’s Petition to Amend Ch. 2.78, Article III, Neighborhood Conservation Districts and Landmarks and the memo from Charles Sullivan regarding the Proposed Friendly Amendments to Ch. 2.78, Art. III be forwarded to the full City Council with the recommendation to refer said memos to the Ordinance Committee for further discussion.   Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee conducted a public meeting on Oct 25, 2022 to discuss the Neighborhood Conservation District Citizen’s Petition: Historical Commission Proposed Response. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Suffice to say that the “Neighborhood Conservation District Citizen’s Petition” is one of ABC’s policy goals to minimize or eliminate public review of development proposals. As for Neighborhood Conservation Districts in general, while I absolutely would not want them to dictate what paint I can use on my house or the requirement of materials that are dramatically more expensive, I absolutely support their underlying purpose. In spite of the Robert Moses view of things, I believe there are many things in Cambridge worthy of preservation.

Committee Report #1. The Health and Environment Committee conducted a public meeting on Oct 12, 2022 to discuss the issue of water quality from the Cambridge water supply including PFAS levels, and comparison with the MWRA system, the long-term strategy for ensuring water quality standards for all users and all other water quality related issues and concerns. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

I didn’t attend this meeting and I don’t really buy into the alarmism espoused by some of the councillors. I do, however, agree that some businesses (coffee shops are the one that come to mind) and some residents have expressed concerns about hardness and possibly other qualities of Cambridge water that can affect appliance life span. I have heard this many times from plumbers. The Water Department recommends that we “Flush/Drain/Clean Hot Water Heater at least Annually (per manufacturers recommendation)” but the truth is that many of us still go with the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” philosophy.

Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from City Solicitor Nancy E. Glowa, transmitting a response of City of Cambridge to Open Meeting Law Complaint of John Hawkinson dated Nov 7, 2022.
Response to Office of Atty. General Approved 9-0

I suppose we all have the discretion to choose which hill to die on. This isn’t my hill. To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a training is just a training.

Resolution #1. Congratulations to Deputy Superintendent Rick Riley on his retirement from the Cambridge Police Department.   Councillor Toner

Best of luck and happy trails, my friend. - Robert Winters

Comments?

Akriti Bhambi has submitted her resignation from the Cambridge School Committee - effective Nov 15.

Nov 2, 2022 (updated Nov 19) - Under the Plan E Charter, Bhambi’s replacement will be determined from among eligible candidates who ran unsuccessfully in the 2021 School Committee election using a PR Count to elect one person from the quota of ballots that were used to elect Bhambi in 2021. The Election Commission will now have to officially contact all potential candidates (Caroline Hunter, Daria Johnson, and Christopher Lim) to determine if they wish to be considered and remain eligible for this vacancy recount. The Vacancy Recount will take place on Dec 1, 2022 at 5:30pm at City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 344 Broadway.

Who would replace each of the elected city councillors and School Committee members should a vacancy occur? Replacements are determined from the ballots used to elect each councillor or School Committee member. I ran the tabulation software with the 2021 ballot data and here’s what I found (assuming all candidates are still eligible):

City Council Replacement Azeem Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler Carlone Nicola Williams Mallon Sobrinho-Wheeler McGovern Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler Nolan Nicola Williams Siddiqui Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler Simmons Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler Toner Joe McGuirk Zondervan Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler

School Committee Replacement Bhambi Caroline Hunter Fantini Caroline Hunter Rojas Villarreal Christopher Lim David Weinstein Daria Johnson Rachel Weinstein Caroline Hunter Wilson Daria Johnson

Nov 21 Update: A vacancy has been created in the School Committee due to the resignation of Akriti Bhambi, effective November 15, 2022. Pursuant to the Cambridge Charter and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 54A, the Cambridge Election Commission will hold a Vacancy Recount to fill the seat.

This Vacancy Recount of Akriti Bhambi’s ballots will be held on Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 5:30pm at the City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 344 Broadway, Cambridge MA. Tanya L. Ford, the Election Commission Executive Director, has been designated as the Director of the Count for this purpose.

The following is a list of candidates on the 2021 School Committee Ballot who were not elected:

• Caroline M. Hunter, 23 Rockwell Street
• Daria A. Johnson, 2 Leighton Street
• Christopher Lim, 48 Pleasant Street

Dec 1 Update - Caroline Hunter was elected to replace Akriti Bhambi. See how the transfers proceeded (tabulated in Nov 2021).

1994 Vacancy Recount

Featured Items on the Nov 14, 2022 Cambridge City Council Agenda

I suppose more fur will fly when they take a second pass at last week’s Order re: traffic disruptions caused by the partial one-way conversion of Garden Street for bicycle comfort (as well as the new questionably executed Brattle St. bicycle facilities). Predictably, there were zillions of communications both last week and this week both from less frequent commenters caught by surprise as well as the usual suspects who can always be counted on to toe their particular party line regardless of actual facts.

Here are the items that seem most interesting to this toeless observer:

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

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Climate Resilience Zoning. [cover letter] [draft zoning]
pulled by Nolan; Referred to Health & Environment Committee 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 22-72, regarding a report outlining the efficacy of the Private Property Rodent Control Program and the SMART Digital Rodent Control Boxes, and any changes being contemplated to these current programs; and the status of the Rat Liaison position. [report]
pulled by Mallon; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #4. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $586,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Public Works Other Ordinary Maintenance account to support the continuation and expansion the City’s rodent control program utilizing SMART box technology and to fully fund the residential property rodent control program. [letter and order]
pulled by Mallon; Placed on File, Order Adopted 9-0

It would be great if they sold smaller indoor units for mice - ones that actually work.

---

Charter Right #1. Policy Order Regarding Traffic Flow on Garden Street. [Charter Right – Simmons, Nov 7, 2022]
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

87 Communications - all but two of which focus on the Garden Street “experiment”. It’s worth noting that only 13 of the 87 communications arrived after the Nov 7 meeting, but since the relevant Order was delayed via Charter Right they’re all still timely.

Let me guess - 100 people will Zoom in during Public Comment reading scripted comments about how wonderful the bicycle comfort lanes are, or how the Traffic, Parking & Transportation lives to make driving as difficult as possible (true), or how if anyone disagrees with any aspect of the Bicycle Safety Ordinance they must be passively trying to kill people. There are good reasons why I generally skip Public Comment these days.

---

On the Table #2. Policy Order Seeking Development Analysis. [Charter Right – McGovern, Oct 17, 2022; Tabled Oct 24, 2022]
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

---

Order #1. Improved Marketing for Green Plus Cambridge Community Electricity.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toner
pulled by Nolan; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

I'll take the cheapest one, thank you.

Order #2. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the appropriate departments to extend the Outdoor Dining Policy and continue to allow winter outdoor dining as has been the case in the last two years.   Councillor Zondervan
pulled by Nolan; Order Adopted 9-0

Many of the Covid-inspired street patios are really past their prime and should be phased out or scaled back to sidewalk-only. That said, the Central Square patios on the south side of Mass. Ave. have become a real destination - even if some reconfiguration and scaling back is in order. Other Covid-inspired accommodations such as Starlight Square need some revision or relocation as we return to more normal times. A blocked-off area with little or no active use most of the time adds little to the vitality of Central Square.

Late Order #3. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the appropriate departments to consider extending the current reduced fee schedule for another year and to report on this matter by Nov 30, 2022.
Order Adopted 9-0

Committee Report #1. The Government Operations, Rules & Claims Committee met on Oct 25, 2022, to discuss potential changes to the City Council Rules. [text of report]
Moved to Unfinished Business 9-0

As I noted several weeks ago, former Mayor Frank Duehay once told me that the death knell of any organization is when they spend excessive time and emphasis on their by-laws instead of their mission. I am also reminded of those annoying kids in high school who obsessed over “rewriting the student constitution.” I guess they grow up and become city councillors.

Committee Report #2. Health & Environment Committee [to discuss and amend the draft Net Zero Action Plan update, and next steps in implementing and updating the City’s NetZero Action Plan including setting SMART goals for action items, accelerating timelines in line with the Climate Protection Action Committee review and the Climate Crisis Working Group discussion and any other issues related to the Plan] - Oct 28, 2022, 9:00am [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

I expect even more unfunded mandates from “progressive” councillors who feel obliged to tell you how to think, what you can and cannot do or say, what you should or should not buy, what vehicle you should or should not drive, what you should or should not eat, how you should heat your home or cook your food, and pretty much anything else that used to go under the category of “choice”. All they have to do is say there’s an emergency and anything goes.

Wed, Dec 14 (Hearing Schedule)
3:00pm   The Public Safety Committee is holding a public meeting to discuss the implementation of the new Community Safety Department and integration with HEART.

The so-called “H.E.A.R.T. proposal” (Holistic Emergency Alternative Response Team) was first introduced in May 2021 by activists who were openly hostile to police and who repeatedly referred to police as “slave-catchers”. Everyone, including Cambridge Police, agree with the idea that not all emergency calls need to be or should be handled by uniformed and armed police. The City came back with a more rational proposal with the creation of a new Community Safety Department along with a system called CARP (Cambridge Alternative Response Program) that would integrate alternate emergency response with Emergency Communications - in contrast with the activist proposal that would have created a completely separate system divorced from City government (except for the funding). The availability of federal ARPA money with minimal strings attached led to the activists seeking an alternate way to justify their existence. Since then I have heard rumors that the people behind the HEART proposal had an inside track to get a contract under the new department - something some of us consider highly problematic. I hope this is just an unfounded rumor. Some city councillors, Mr. Zondervan in particular, continue in their effort to assume an executive role by asserting that the Community Safety Department will be integrated with HEART even though there is no such reference in the FY2023 Budget. It continues to astound me that Mayor Siddiqui chose to appoint Councillor Zondervan as Chair of the Public Safety Committee. - Robert Winters

Comments?

Plague Report (Dec 6) - 39 new Covid cases today and 2 new deaths - and the BQ.1 variant is on the rise

There were 39 new COVID positive tests reported today and the 7-day daily average again jumped upward to 19.1. The total number of residents who have tested positive is now 34,096 (not including me and possibly thousands of others who have tested positive at home). The Cambridge total increased by 39 today, and 52 (covering 3 days), 22, 15, 20, 18, 48 (covering 5 days), 13, 18, 20 (covering 3 days), and 8 in recent days. Time will tell where this is headed, especially as the BA.4&5, the BF.7, and the newer BQ.1 variants work their way through. The 7-day averages are now back at the high end of the 10-20 range. The percentage of positive tests (measured over the last two weeks) stands at 4.9% (previous rates 4.73%, 5.03%, 5.38%, 6.50%, 7.65%, 7.38%, 7.27%, 6.75%, 5.65%, 5.91%, 6.40%, 6.05%, 5.94%, 6.15%, 5.72%, 6.87%, 7.32%, 7.55%, 7.69%, 6.88%, 5.98, 6.47%, 7.66%, 7.41%, 7.08%, 7.45%, 7.36%, 6.11%, 4.65%, 4.2%, 3.85%, 3%, 2.3%, 1.94%, 1.63%, 1.71%, 1.56%, 1.09%, 0.87%). Most importantly, the effects of the latest virus variants (along with vaccinations) appear to be much milder.

A new coronavirus variant has taken over, sparking concerns of a winter surge (Boston Globe, Nov 21, 2022)
Scientists expect a rise in infections but say the vaccines should still protect against severe disease.

Click on graph above for latest Cambridge data.

Dec 6, 2022 Breakdown of Cases:
34096 tested positive (total) - an increase of 39 since Monday
[includes 4481 Harvard (0 new) and 2792 MIT (7 new)]
179 confirmed deaths - 91 in long-term care facilities, 88 in general community
2 new deaths reported Dec 6 - one in long-term care and one general community

Thanks to vaccinations, even though the 7-day averages were dreadful
the impacts were not as bad as they could have been.

City of Cambridge Covid Information     Harvard University COVID-19 data     MIT COVID-19 data

High vaccination rates have helped to blunt what might have been a larger surge and far more deaths.

Covid Cases by Age Group - through Dec 5, 2022

(click on above graph for the latest)
MWRA Biobot wastewater data - Dec 1, 2022

MWRA Biobot recent wastewater data - North System - Dec 1, 2022
The 7-day average reached as high as 8644 (copies/mL) in January 2022 before dropping to as low as 101 in March.
The BA.2 variants brought it back up to 1273 in May. The wastewater figures had been moderating but have been rising recently
due to the latest variants. BQ.1 is now dominant locally is and the 7-day average now stands at 912 (copies/mL) and rising.

Sample Date	11/14	11/15	11/16	11/17	11/18	11/19	11/20	11/21	11/22	11/23	11/24	11/25	11/26	11/27	11/28	11/29	11/30	12/1
North System (copies/ml)	293	397	447	414	394	583	504	304	435	524	763	727	1156	682	747	1292	1075	879
Northern 7-day Avg.	401	404	395	408	410	424	425	427	433	443	483	527	581	607	690	806	893	912

The fastest-growing Omicron variant right now appears to be the BQ.1 variant. The percentages detected in wastewater samples in
Middlesex County are now BQ.1 at 56.7%, BA.5 at 31.4%, BA.4 at 11.5%, and 0.4% other as of week of Nov 28. [updated Dec 2]

Omicron Variant Overview - week of Nov 14, 2022

Region	BA.2*	BA.4*	BA.5	BF.7	BQ.1*	Other
Nationwide	5.8%	2.6%	57.2%	6.3%	27.2%	0.9%
Midwest	9.3%	2.2%	65.3%	3.6%	18.4%	1.3%
Northeast	6.6%	2.9%	57.4%	8.6%	23.8%	0.6%
South	3.5%	3.5%	56.1%	4.0%	31.8%	1.1%
West	5.8%	1.3%	53.5%	7.7%	31.2%	0.5%

An asterisk (*) indicates that sub-lineages are included. “Other” indicates all other lineages of SARS-CoV-2.