BEUDO

From: Patrick Barrett
Date: May 29, 2022

Dear Cambridge City Council,

I am writing to you with many questions regarding the changes proposed to the Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance (“BEUDO”). I have read the proposed changes now a few times over and must confess that I barely understand them. Some of the language is clear enough but the practical application, consequences for non-compliance, reporting, and potential hardships caused by this change cannot be gleaned from the language presented. I am also not alone in my confusion as many property owners whom this ordinance will glance are either unaware that BEUDO exists at all or at the very least have no idea that changes with serious financial ramifications could be passed. I fear the Council is using this issue to play politics and lip service to the very real and serious demands that climate change will have on all of us. It is a policy change as blunt as the one proposed that leads me to believe this has less to do with the environment and more to do with ideology. If you made it this far I am grateful and will spare you any further narration; my questions are thus:

• Eversource currently only feeds 800 amps of “network” power to buildings in Central Square and likely elsewhere. The International Building code which the state has adopted has a very conservative rubric for determining energy demands often overstating them by a significant factor when remodeling, changing use, building an addition, etc. To meet the demands of this ordinance one would have to introduce switch gear, transformers, and other electrical apparatus at ground level or below grade. For a new building this is problematic but solvable (usually) for an existing structure the demand could be next to impossible. The clearances required and 24 access requirements alone are usually non-starters. So what happens in a zero lot line scenario and there is no place for these required upgrades?
• Emergency backup power is required for buildings of a certain size with elevators. The current options for this type of service is gas or diesel only. Are we going to tax building owners for whom there is no other means of compliance? Section 29c seems to attempt to address this but the requirement if for owners to seek out alternative fuel suppliers which is essentially forcing owners to buy from only Cambridge approved sources. I see no other mention of back up emergency power in this document.
• Central Square currently has only a one-way feed from Eversource. Literally half the Square cannot make use of solar power. I see no pressure from this Council or the City on Eversource to upgrade their feeds or infrastructure. Is it the “plan” of the Council to foist the responsibility solely on property owners?
• What happens if it is impossible to comply? Currently there is an additional tax for non-compliance but after 2035 what happens?
• Data collection for BEUDO at the very least seems incomplete. How can CDD derive an algorithm for carbon usage with a complete and detailed dataset? Do they use a similar one-size-fits-all calc like Eversource and our building code does? Why is data collection so poorly presented? Can we no get similar devices to those the Water Dept uses to collect usage data without sending an analog fill-in-the-blank? Can we at least get data input online through either Viewpoint or some other service?

We all agree that the environment is an important issue. We all strive to make our buildings more efficient. Aside from being environmentally conscious it’s also just good business sense. The proposed amendments read like an attack written by someone who does not know how buildings work. I suggest we scrap it … start with Eversource and good data collection. Let’s get all of the people who for the past eight years never even heard of BEUDO all up to speed. We can teach people how to make their buildings more efficient but without Eversource in tow this entire endeavor is futile … which I feel at least someone has to know that or should. If this passes in its current form I fear that only lawsuits and bitterness will proceed. It really doesn’t have to be that way and if the Council truly means to foster better climate stewardship then this proposal does not reflect the seriousness of that mandate nor the absolute dire need of real consequential change.

Good Luck,
Patrick W. Barrett

From: Patrick Barrett
Date: June 18, 2022

Ordinance Committee and Cambridge City Council,

I am writing to you with several concerns about the proposed Council amendments to our BEUDO ordinance:

1. As currently written the amendment does not make any accommodation for federally mandated and state regulated emergency backup systems which either use diesel or gas.
2. The ordinance as written does not address the fact that currently Eversource provides about 52% of their electrical output through fossil fuels.
3. The ordinance as written illegally taxes “covered properties” under a euphemistic heading “Alternative Compliance Credit.”
4. The ordinance as written does not provide accommodation for buildings where transformers and switchgear, necessary to fully electrify, nor does it anticipate where to locate such devices where no exterior or code compliant interior space exists.
5. This ordinance as written does not provide accommodation for the costly and lengthy procurements through Eversource (current lead time ranges from 9 months to over a year) for devices that could cost small owners $1M-2M in retrofitting costs. Additionally, in most cases, the installation process will require buildings to shut down and evict tenants to upgrade. Please bear in mind that this will include residential tenants, hospitals, schools, restaurants, and just about any other commercial use housed in buildings that are considered a “Covered Property.”
6. The Ordinance as written considers a “Covered Property” to be:
   1. Buildings owned “singly or together” aggregating twenty-five thousand (25,000) sq ft or 50 dwelling units. Thus, this ordinance as written could include small residential property owners, any housing (public or private) aggregating 50 dwelling units “singly or together” and small commercial property owners all of whom would find the requirements impossible to comply with. (I do not see agreeing to pay a tax as “compliance.”)
7. Lastly and most importantly Councillors Zondervan and Nolan have activated an entire community likely filling your inboxes and social media with talking points based on the singular premise that this is all possible and that only greed and apathy keep us from achieving net zero. This is 100% false and not only a misuse of activist energy and worse; it upends the larger discussion that we all agree on: Climate Change is real, and we need to prepare. Further, up until a week ago, many of the “Covered Property” owners have been left out of the discussion. What I personally saw last week was a big table that only Harvard and MIT were allowed to sit at discussing a carbon tax credit system many of us know nothing about. For those of us not funded by billion-dollar endowments we would rather discuss the practical matter of tackling climate change without decommissioning our buildings, evicting tenants, paying an unjust and illegal tax, or being forced to spend resources on attorneys when we could be working together.

Many of us we are still struggling against the damage Covid has wrought on our families and businesses. We were locked down when most were not, we were forced to operate with at least one hand tied behind our backs while many you turned their backs on us. We are only now seeing a bit of daylight. I ask the Council to strike this amendment and vote to work with us. Let’s create incentives and take Eversource to task not new taxes and ill will. Lastly, I ask Councillor Zondervan to stop misleading his constituents, his ideology over people/reality methodology needs to be called out; eventually even his most ardent constituents will catch on and in the end all we get for his “glory” are inaction and wasted time. Vote no on these amendments and let’s unite for a better cleaner future.

Patrick W. Barrett

Linkage Increases - June 22, 2022 Ordinance Committee
To: Cambridge City Council
From: Patrick Barrett

Dear Ordinance Committee,

Attached is a brief synopsis of my point of view on the proposed linkage increases on the table for June 22. When the change was made in 2015 I made the sole protest of going down to 30k sq ft and thought the idea of tallying existing square footage would funnel development toward only the “highest and best use” which was laboratories and R&D. The 2019 nexus study shows exactly this. In an effort to capture dollars from the gold rush of lab uses throughout the city we have squelched infill development, repurposing existing sq ft for anything other than lab use, and obliterated the entertainments uses for the City. Further that this nexus study was done in December of 2019 should at least give some pause as the pandemic has changed this real estate landscape for decades to come. I kept it to one page … but I urge any of you concerned about livability and providing a fertile landscape of ideas and development in this city to read it and rethink what linkage is and what its actually supposed to do. I also urge this Council to expand their thoughts on what this city needs beyond simply affordable housing and to see this city from 30,000 feet not 2".

Good Luck,
Patrick W. Barrett III
617 778 3521

Incentive Project. Any new development that consists of at least thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of Gross Floor Area devoted to one or more of the following uses listed in Section 4.30 of the Zoning Ordinance: Sections 4.31 i-2 (Hotel or motel), 4.32 f (Radio and television studio), 4.33 b-5 (College or University not exempt by statute, specifically including those uses and facilities listed in Subsection 4.56 c-4, c-5, and c-6), 4.33 c (Noncommercial Research Facility), 4.33 d (Health Care Facilities), 4.33 e (Social Service Facilities), 4.34 (Office and Laboratory Use), 4.35 (Retail or Consumer Service Establishments), 4.36 (Outdoor Retail or Consumer Service Establishments), 4.37 (Light Industry, Wholesale Business and Storage), and 4.38 (Heavy Industry). For the purpose of this definition, new development shall mean (1) construction of new buildings or additions to existing buildings to accommodate uses in the above list, (2) substantial rehabilitation of buildings to accommodate uses in the above list for which the buildings were not originally used, or (3) Gross Floor Area whose use is changed from a use not included in the above list to a use included in the above list. In no case shall Gross Floor Area devoted to a Municipal Service Facility or Other Government Facility be considered an Incentive Project.

As the Council contemplates the change in linkage fee I ask that they review the policy and its effect on all uses allowed in our business and industrial districts other than just focusing solely on lab uses. In the 2019 nexus study which reviewed the effect of changes made to the inclusionary ordinance shows succinctly that 79.9% of all commercial development was categorized as “office/RD.”  The Council should ask for a further breakdown of this number as our ordinance that conflates Lab and Office uses as essentially the same category of use. Further of that commercial build 0% was in the hospitality area and only 4.7% of this was in the retail category, which includes anything from a shoe store to an opera house. I believe this heavily weighted development scheme is by design and to further increase linkage would not only hurt the city it would continue to funnel all development towards lab use. This is an unsurprising result coming from a study that claims restaurants have a 5 times greater impact on housing cost than R/D and lab.¹

In the pursuit of extracting a maximum tax on commercial development in the City of Cambridge the City has employed a “scorched earth” methodology where a restaurant, a hotel, a gym, a level 3 lab, and an opera house all have the same impact on the costs of housing and lack of supply, and all pay the same rate. As part of the change in 2015 Cambridge lowered the project threshold to 30,000 sq ft; based on the 2019 nexus report nine (9) projects were built under 30k sq ft for a total of 167k sq ft and twenty eight (28) projects were built over the 30k threshold of which each individual project was more than the total combined sq ft of the 9 under 30k.² Thus no one even attempted to build a project within the 30-50k threshold. Imagine trying to build a 30-50k sq ft theatre in the Cultural District of Central Square or trying to take the tens of thousands of commercial office space abandoned due to Covid and trying to make the math work for anything other than a lab use which currently can command as high as $200/sq ft? Why are we discouraging owners to “substantially rehabilitate” existing buildings? Further the date of this study is December 2019! At the very least two years plus of a pandemic ought to prompt some questions from this Council on the viability of an increase in the post Covid world.

Thus we have an overly aggressive tax scheme that disincentivizes any use other than lab, punishes restoration of existing parcels for anything other than lab, and overburdens arts, entertainment, and uses that could enhance and bring life to our business districts and communities. Please reject the increase in linkage fees, exempt existing sq ft for uses other than lab, and retore the project threshold to 50k sq ft as the current scheme doesn’t draw any revenue and it forces developers to make bad decisions that will greatly impact our business and cultural districts for decades to come.

1  Cambridge Nexus Study       pg 61 (Table 35)     Karl F. Seidman Consulting Services

2  Cambridge Nexus Study       pg 60     Karl F. Seidman Consulting Services

…their power came from the existence of a problem. Without a problem, their power would vanish.…

July 4, 2022 - As the battle between Red and Blue rages on in Washington, DC, I often find myself recalling the wisdom of friends with the ability to understand seemingly complicated things in simple terms. One example of this was an observation from my friend David Goode many years ago in the immediate aftermath of the demise of rent control in Cambridge and the rest of Massachusetts. In describing the neverending inability of the two dominant factions of the Cambridge City Council to find compromise (CCA and the Independents), David noted that “their power came from the existence of a problem. Without a problem, their power would vanish.” This was one of the most profound political observations I have ever heard, and I think it remains applicable today in a range of issues ranging from abortion rights to immigration to gun control. It’s not that compromises are unavailable. It’s just that if some of these nagging problems were actually solved using some version of Solomonic wisdom, more than a few political players might just wither away and be gone in the next gentle breeze.

David wrote metaphorically about this in an Open Form piece in the February 23, 1995 issue of the Cambridge Chronicle:

Rent control as the unhealthy offspring of a dysfunctional family
BY DAVID GOODE
Cambridge Chronicle, February 23, 1995

Rent control is dead. Speculation remains rampant on both sides of the issue, but the next two years will amount to little more than a long funeral. While all the players in this melodrama continue to bicker about the funeral arrangements, perhaps it’s time to step back and understand what caused the death of this unique child of Cambridge.

We all know that from the birth of rent control, property owners have been trying to kill it. This is not to say that their actions were wrong. In fact, they were natural and expected. If property owners killed rent control, we must admit that it died of natural causes. However, a death by natural causes does not necessarily mean that treatment was not possible.

The parents of rent control had two options to protect the life of their child. First, they could water down rent control to limit the amount of resistance generated by property owners. Conversely, they could make rent control so strict that property owners would be forced to sell out to non-profit cooperatives that would keep housing affordable in perpetuity. This second treatment is known in rent control breeding circles as the “decommodification” of housing.

The parents of rent control in Boston, and to a certain extent Brookline, choose the first treatment. They weakened rent control to the point where property owner opposition was not life threatening. In Cambridge, the parents of rent control could never decide on an appropriate treatment to save rent control. The reasons for their indecision stems from the roots of their relationship as a family.

Cambridge rent control was born of parents from two different cultures. One parent represented the socially progressive, fiscally conservative Yankee tradition. Bom and raised in West Cambridge and a product of Harvard University, he learned that capitalism meant prosperity. However, he also learned that the most successful were obligated to provide for the less fortunate.

As he grew to maturity in the late sixties, this future rent control parent became attracted to a young, attractive movement that grew up in Mid-Cambridge, Cambridgeport and East Cambridge. He was fascinated by her upstart social progressiveness and her burning desire to change the system to protect the unfortunate. Although they disagreed on occasion, they knew that their marriage would provide the political power both needed to accomplish their goals. They fell in love and were married.

Cambridge rent control was born of this marriage. However, as they tried to raise their child as a family, trouble soon began. Property owners relentlessly attacked their child. The parents knew the available antidotes but could not decide which would be the cure. The Yankee capitalist could not accept the anti-American decommodification treatment. Conversely, the socially progressive upstart could not “sell out” the cause to a weakened version of rent control.

The fight became so bitter that the couple often considered divorce. However, divorce would mean losing the power their marriage had gained for them. At all costs, they had to preserve the appearance of a happy marriage.

They knew they had a problem and decided that election day would be their new beginning. To reach this goal, they sought the advice of counselors. The couple searched for someone who would heal their child. These counselors always produced the same advice. “Your child is only as strong as your marriage.” “Stay together and your child will be fine.” Election day after election day passed, and the answers always stayed the same. As often is the case, it’s the children who suffer from their elders’ denial.

Years passed, and the child grew weaker and weaker. Yet even when death was imminent, the parents could not come to agreement on an acceptable treatment. In panic they turned again to their counselors for advice. “Tell us what to do, we must do something,” the parents cried. “Stay together, you must stay together,” said the counselors.

The counselors knew that their power came from the existence of a problem. Without a problem, their power would vanish. As each election day approached with an opportunity to heal the child, the counselors convinced the family not to change anything. By doing so, they knew that they would maintain their powerful positions as advisors and policy makers. “Slay together,” they said to the family, “if you stay together everything will be fine.”

Rent control is dead and the family of rent control must decide if it can survive to support other children. The counselors are frantically looking for new clients hoping to avoid being revealed as self-centered witch doctors. So many families, so little time.

David R. Goode is a Cambridge native and campaign manager for City Councilor Sheila Russell. He now works as assistant town manager for the town of Provincetown.

Ad Hoc Selection Committee Announces 15 Charter Review Committee Members

July 1, 2022 - The Ad Hoc Selection Committee (Alanna Mallon, Sumbul Siddiqui, Patricia Nolan, Paul Toner) reviewed 122 highly qualified applicants and has selected 15 Charter Review Committee members: Kaleb Abebe, Jessica Dejesus Acevedo, Mosammat Faria Afreen, Kathleen Born, Nikolas Bowie, Kevin Chen, Max Clermont, Jennifer Gilbert, Kai Long, Patrick Magee, Mina Makarious, Lisa Peterson, Ellen Shachter, Susan Shell, and Jim Stockard.

All Committee members are registered Cambridge voters as required by the Charter. Per the passage of the ballot initiatives in November 2021, the Committee will review the current Plan E Charter, hold community forums, and gather input from all stakeholders and residents. The Committee will recommend changes they believe will improve and modernize Cambridge’s structure and governance to the City Council. Any recommendations the City Council accepts will be put before all voters in a municipal election prior to adoption. The Committee is expected to take up to one year to complete its work with the first meeting to be held at the end of this month or beginning of August.

More information will be available on a dedicated City webpage in the coming weeks.

Please direct any questions to the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, Michael Scarlett at mscarlett@cambridgema.gov.

Current (Plan E) Cambridge City Charter (as amended)

There was an Ordinance Committee meeting on April 13 “to conduct a public hearing on Ordinance #2022-2 charter change municipal code amendments.” At this meeting the following language was proposed by the City Solicitor and amended by the City Council:

Be it ordained by the City Council as follows:
That Cambridge Municipal Code Chapter 2.02 entitled “City Council” shall be amended by the addition of the following two sections:

Section 2.02.090 Annual Review of City Manager’s Performance

A. As provided in G.L. c. 43, § 116(a) the City Council shall prepare and deliver to the City Manager an annual written performance review of the City Manager’s performance.

B. The annual written performance review shall address the City Manager’s performance during the prior year and the issues work that the City Council would like to be addressed performed by the City Manager in the following year.

C. The written report of the annual performance review of the City Manager conducted by the City Council should be based upon written information submitted to the City Council by the City Manager in the regular course of the business of the City, and upon an oral performance review meeting conducted individually or severally by and between the City Councillors and the City Manager.

D C. The annual written performance review shall be completed and delivered to the City Manager by no later than March 30 of each year and shall encompass the City Manager’s performance during the preceding calendar year.

Section 2.02.100 Special Committee to Review the City Charter Every Ten Years

A. As provided in G.L. c. 43, §116(b), no later than July 1 in each year ending in 2, beginning in 2022 and every 10 years thereafter, the City Council shall establish a special committee tasked with reviewing the City Charter and recommending any proposed changes the special committee deems necessary or desirable.

B. The special committee shall:

(i) be made up of [NUMBER] 12-18 of registered voters of the City, not currently holding any elective office in the City;

(ii) include [NUMBER] [be made up of members selected by an ad hoc committee of four councillors appointed by the Mayor] of special committee members appointed by the Mayor, [NUMBER] of special committee members appointed by the City Manager, and [NUMBER] of special committee members appointed by the Superintendent of Schools;

(iii) hold all of its meetings in accordance with the requirements of the Open Meeting Law and keep written minutes of all meetings which shall be submitted to and approved by the special committee at its next meeting;

(iv) hold not less than [NUMBER] of duly posted and advertised public meetings to seek input from members of the community on whether any changes to the City Charter should be made and the reasons why any proposed changes would be desirable, the beneficial effects that any such changes would have upon the electorate and the community in general, and the beneficial effects that any such changes would have upon the reasonable operation and effectiveness of City government;

(v) submit a written report to the City Council within one (1) year of its appointment, unless the special committee seeks an extension of the one-year period for enumerated reasons stated by the special committee and the City Council approves the requested extension of the one-year period by majority vote. The written report shall include any charter changes the special committee recommends as necessary or desirable by a two-thirds vote of the special committee, and shall include the reasons for the recommended changes to be made and the anticipated effects of the changes as set forth in subsection (iv) above; and

(vi) dissolve once it files its written report with the City Council.

C. Action on any proposed Charter changes shall be as authorized by law.

Both sections (as amended) were forwarded unanimously to the full City Council with positive recommendations.

Photo by Mutsuko

Linh Phan: Project Manager, Cambridge Jazz Foundation; Larry Ward, Executive Director, Cambridge Jazz Foundation; Robyn Culbertson, Executive Director, Cambridge Office For Tourism; Ron Savage, Artist Director & Co-founder Cambridge Jazz Foundation, Dean of the Professional Performance Division, Berklee College of Music.

June 29, 2022
After a two-year interruption, Cambridge Office for Tourism and Cambridge Jazz Foundation are thrilled to announce the return of the 7th Annual Cambridge Jazz Festival on Saturday, July 30th and Sunday, July 31st. This free outdoor festival features live music from 12 pm–6 pm at Danehy Park in Cambridge.

GRAMMY-winner Eguie Castrillo headlines Saturday’s line-up. Eguie has performed with Tito Puente, Steve Winwood, Michael Brecker, Ruben Blades, along with many other greats. Chelsea Green and The Green Project will follow as Sunday night’s headliner. Often described as passionate, vivacious, electrifying and innovative, Chelsea soloed in New York’s prestigious Carnegie Hall at age 16. Her resume includes performances at the GRAMMY Awards, CBS Late Show, NPR Tiny Desk and The Smithsonian National Museum of African American History’s grand opening.

“We are delighted to help present this year’s talented line-up,” says Robyn Culbertson, Executive Director of Cambridge Office for Tourism. “Cambridge is home to a vibrant music scene; these two days will really showcase that. We’re excited to welcome jazz fans to Cambridge and share the city’s culture with them!”

In addition to performances, a college scholarship will be presented at the festival as well as Cambridge Jazz Foundation’s very own CAMMY Awards. The festival weekend also includes a jazz museum, music therapy, food trucks, plus a kids’ area with face painting. The MIT Museum will even display an interactive pop-up exhibit around the science of sound.

Exit, Stage Left - June 27, 2022 Cambridge City Council meeting

This will be the last regular City Council meeting until the Aug 1 Midsummer Meeting and then in the fall on Sept 12. This will also be Louis DePasquale’s last regular meeting as City Manager. Here is my first pass at the interesting stuff:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a COVID-19 update.
Placed on File 9-0

The case numbers and other statistics are already easily accessible. I would really like to hear more from the experts about what we might expect for the rest of the summer and into the fall - especially in regard to some of the newer Omicron variants.

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to new appointments and reappointments of the following persons as members of the Cambridge Health Alliance Board of Trustees. New Appointments: Danielle Allen (Cambridge, 1-year term), Joseph Curtatone (Somerville, 3-year term) Reappointments: Lori Lander (Cambridge, 3-year term), Claire Laporte (Cambridge, 3-year term), Bryan Simmons (Somerville, 3-year term)
pulled by Zondervan; Placed on File 9-0

A former gubernatorial candidate and a former Somerville mayor - not your typical Board appointments.

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a request from the Board of Election Commissioners recommending the relocation of polling sites, in accordance with Chapter 255 of the Acts of 2020, as amended by Chapter 5 of the Acts of 2021 and Chapter 29 of the Acts of 2021.
Order Adopted 9-0

These are relatively simple changes in polling sites. I have heard that there are some people associated with the Cambridge School Department who object to the use of school buildings as polling sites, and that’s just ridiculous. School buildings are used for this purpose just about everywhere.

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 22-32 relative to an update on progress made in regard to LGBTQ+-Friendly Housing efforts.
pulled by Simmons; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #7. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $500,000, from Free Cash to the Public Works Public Investment Fund Extraordinary Expenditures account to fund the purchase of a Mack LR Electric rubbish packer.
pulled by Nolan; Order Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #8. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of appropriation and authorization to borrow $4,500,000 to provide funds for the design and construction of building renovations to the vacant City owned property at 105 Windsor Street.
pulled by Simmons; Charter Right - Zondervan
[Note: Councillor Simmons has been seeking a site for a Cambridge history museum for a number of years. Whether this site is appropriate for this use (among other uses) is an open question. An ideal site would be one that would draw a critical mass of visitors, and it's not clear that this would meet that criterion.]

“Possible uses include community meeting spaces, spaces for public art, education and exhibitions, as well as a Cambridge history museum and City offices.”

Manager’s Agenda #11. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the authorization of a spending limit of $1,650,000 for Fiscal Year 2023, for the Renewable Energy and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction revolving fund (Revolving Fund), pursuant to Chapter 3.24 of the Municipal Ordinance titled “Departmental Revolving Funds.”
pulled by Zondervan; Order Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a request from Boston Properties Limited Partnership (“Boston Properties”) asking to modify two existing open space restrictive covenants on two parks, Broadway Park (also known as South Park) and Binney Park (also known as North Park). Boston Properties has indicated that this request is being made to facilitate the relocation of Eversource’s proposed electrical substation from its property at 135 Fulkerson Street to the so-called “Blue Garage” site within the Mixed-Use Development (MXD) District in Kendall Square owned by affiliates of Boston Properties Limited Partnership (“BPLP”), as contemplated by the zoning amendment ordained by the City Council on February 3, 2021 as Ordinance No. 2020-17 (the “2021 MXD Amendment”) and the further build-out of this site as described below and will include replacement of the open space that will be lost due to this project. [12A Late Order] [12B Late Order] [12C Late Order]
pulled by Zondervan; 3 (Late) Orders Adopted 9-0; Reconsideration Fails 0-9

I look forward to hearing what neighbor Heather Hoffman might have to say about this. The Manager’s letter notes: “The current Broadway and Binney Park covenants total 21,785 square feet of public open space in the area. This plan will increase the overall amount of publicly dedicated open space to 28,455 total square feet, resulting in a new open space that is larger in area and more functional for the public than the existing Broadway and Binney Parks.” I have to also note the following: “Broadway Park (also known as South Park)”. I have a few interesting ideas now that I know Cambridge has within it a place called “South Park.”

Unfinished Business #4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $49,000,000 to provide additional funds for the construction of the Tobin Montessori and Vassal Lane Upper Schools project located at 197 Vassal Lane. [Passed to 2nd Reading June 13, 2022; To Be Adopted on or after June 27, 2022]
pulled by Carlone; Order Adopted 8-1 (Zondervan NO); Reconsideration Fails 0-9

This will simply finalize the appropriation vote from two weeks ago.

Multiple Communications re: bikes lanes, the Cycling Safety Ordinance, and lawsuit filed by Cambridge Streets for All.

Resolution #8. Congratulations to Louis A. DePasquale on his retirement from his position as City Manager for the City of Cambridge.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Simmons
pulled by Toner; Resolution Adopted 9-0

Resolution #11. Congratulations to James P. Maloney on the occasion of his retirement from the position of Chief Operating Officer of the Cambridge Public Schools.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui
pulled by Toner; Resolution Adopted as Amended 9-0

Resolution #14. Congratulations to Arthur Goldberg on his retirement from the position of Deputy City Solicitor for the City of Cambridge.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui
pulled by Mallon; Resolution Adopted as Amended 9-0

Resolution #15. Congratulations to James Monagle on his retirement from the position of City Auditor for the City of Cambridge.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui
pulled by Mallon; Resolution Adopted as Amended 9-0

I have known all of these men for a long time and they all deserve praise for all that they have contributed over the years.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to more fully review the dramatically growing need for expanded Traffic Calming, Traffic Signals and Vision Zero infrastructure through the city.   Councillor Carlone, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan
pulled by Carlone; Amended 9-0; Charter Right - Simmons

What the Order really should say is: “ORDERED: That the City Manager, along with his staff, be and hereby is requested to more fully review the dramatically growing need for expanded Traffic Calming, Traffic Signals and Vision Zero infrastructure through the city; etc.” Not everything the City has done in recent years has been without criticism and much of it could have been done better. The Order as stated simply wants to spend another $5,000,000 on more of the same, and I hope City staff is willing to evaluate what has been done before prior to simply spending more money.

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department, the Harvard Square Business Association, the Office of Tourism, and the Harvard Square Advisory Committee, and other area stakeholders on a plan for piloting more street closures for pedestrianization.   Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

I’m interested in seeing where this might lead. Selective street closures can make for better venues for events and street entertainment, but it could simply relocate traffic to other streets or create more obstruction than opportunity. This is also something we talk about in Central Square (you know, that other Zip Code).

Committee Report #1. The Transportation and Public Utilities Committee met on Apr 5, 2022 to conduct a public hearing on Ordinance #2022-8, an ordinance amending Parking minimums and maximums. [Transcript of meeting]
Accept Report, Placed on File 9-0; One Order Adopted 9-0; 2nd Late Order (zoning petition) referred to Planning Board and Ordinance Committee 9-0

Nothing like a 25-page computer-generated meeting transcript to really cut to the chase. Let me know how the novel turns out. Relevant quotes from staff: (1) “The parking study will take about a year.”; (2) “…one change could be to make it easier for people to use that parking. So that even if the number of spaces is reduced, it doesn’t make people’s daily lives any harder.” [Now there’s a shockingly sensible thing to hear.]. All of the Public Comment was from the density boys of ABC. Personally, I think there are parts of the city where it makes sense to eliminate parking minimums and other parts of the city where it makes sense to keep them. Such a nuanced point of view - very out of fashion. - Robert Winters

Late Order #6. That the Cambridge City Council go on record stating its enduring commitment to the protection of abortion rights, reproductive health care rights, and individuals' rights to make reproductive decisions about their own bodies; and that the Cambridge City Council declare its support for the Executive Order signed by Governor Charlie Baker on June 24th, 2022.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Toner, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Late Order #7. That Chapter 5 of the Municipal Code be amended to ban “limited services pregnancy centers” that present themselves as providing pregnancy related services but instead seek to persuade people against having an abortion.   Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Comments?

Cambridge Streets for All et al vs. City of Cambridge (filed June 10, 2022)

This action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the Defendant City of Cambridge to rescind and prevent the additional implementation of its Cycling Safety Ordinance, as amended in 2020 (“CSO”).…

Text of lawsuit (PDF original)

Link to court documents
[Click on “Click Here”; Search criteria – Court Department: “The Superior Court” (dropdown menu) – Court Division: “Middlesex County” (dropdown menu) – Company Name: Type “Cambridge Streets for All”]

July 1 Update:
Judge rules that Cambridge bike lanes can roll on, at least for now (July 1, 2022, Boston Globe)
A lawsuit seeks to halt construction on Cambridge’s Cycling Safety Ordinance, but a judge said Friday the action is unlikely to succeed.

Press Release from Plaintiffs:
Cambridge Residents and Small Businesses File Lawsuit Against City of Cambridge Over Razing of Street Parking on Cambridge Streets

Cambridge Streets for All (CSA), a diverse group of stakeholders comprised of retail store owners, medical offices, restaurants, neighborhood residents and more, filed a lawsuit today against the City of Cambridge seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Defendant City of Cambridge to rescind, restore and prevent the additional implementation of the city’s Cycling Safety Ordinance as amended in 2020.

The action describes a developing situation in Cambridge in which storefronts can’t serve customers because there is nowhere to park, where quiet side street neighborhoods will become de facto parking areas and loading docks, and where medical patients won’t be able to access the offices of their providers.

“Despite a series of packed City Council meetings, the message from residents and businesses that they are being harmed has continued to fall on deaf ears, CSA determined that taking legal action against this ordinance was our only recourse to be heard,” said CSA board member and Cambridge bakery owner Lee Jenkins. “They didn’t consult local businesses and residents when they drew up these plans in the middle of a pandemic and they’re not listening to us now. We believe improved bike lane access to be an excellent goal, but not when the parking for business customers and staff, as well as for neighborhood residents and patients of local medical providers is being completely gutted, which will clog side streets where people live.”

“It is surprising how many people across the City are totally unaware of the mandate to install separated bike lanes. That tells me there was not enough outreach from the city nor any meaningful citizen engagement. All people want is a chance to participate in a meaningful way,” said Joan Pickett, a homeowner in mid-Cambridge since 1998.

“I have lived and raised my family in Porter Square for over 25 years and have seen the area develop into a thriving neighborhood with a diverse middle-class community and business district,” said John Hanratty, Cambridge resident and homeowner. “When the city removed virtually all street parking for businesses and dedicated travel lanes for buses in North Cambridge, the installation appeared almost overnight and caught residents by surprise.”

Hanratty continued, “After seeing the negative impact the implementation of the quick-build bike lanes has had on businesses and traffic patterns on North Mass Ave, I am extremely concerned about how the imminent plans for Porter Square will irreparably harm the vibrant business community that exists here.”

“My business is a minority-owned barber shop that has been in business for 21 years in Cambridge,” said Harold Gilmer, owner of a barber shop on Mass Ave. “My shop, which specializes in razor cuts, has a broad clientele, the majority of whom come from outside Cambridge. More than 50% percent of my customers come by car.”

Gilmer added, “Past employees left because they could no longer afford paying parking tickets on top of their salary and tips. I estimate that my business has experienced about a 50% decline since installation of the quick-build bike lanes because people can no longer park near my shop.”

Longtime civic and environmental activist​​ and mid-Cambridge resident John Pitkin said, “For years I’ve witnessed how reductions in street parking have drained diversity and local business activity from Harvard Square, Inman Square and Cambridge Street. Streets make city life possible. They are essential infrastructure for residents and businesses.”

“This is not just about Porter Square or one neighborhood. The City’s plan to install cookie-cutter bike lanes across the city excludes too many people and has already done too much damage. The City needs to take a hard look at how the new lanes are actually working and come up with a fairer plan that more people can support,” Pitkin said.

Jenkins concluded, “If the City of Cambridge continues moving forward with this process, which will effectively close many small, locally-owned businesses, what do we think will happen to the vacant spaces left behind? Cambridge is already over-developed with out-of-town and deep-pocketed interests having their way with the City Council. We need the people we elect to stand up for us, but instead they’re making decisions that will shut us down.”

About Cambridge Streets for All

CSA is a newly formed education and advocacy 501(c)3 founded by residents and businesses frustrated by the lack of responsiveness of Cambridge’ City Council to concerns raised by the implementation of the Cycling Safety Ordinance (CSO).

Plague Report (July 19) - New Covid cases are still relatively low, but let’s see where the BA.5 variant takes us.

There were 73 new COVID positive tests reported on Tuesday, and the 7-day daily average increased to 37.7. The total number of residents who have tested positive is now 31,033. The Cambridge total increased by 73 on Tuesday, 57 on Monday (covering 3 days), and 80, 54, 41, 30, 96 (covering 3 days), 46, 74, and 69 in recent days. Time will tell where this is headed, especially as the BA.4&5 variants work their way through. The 7-day averages had been dropping for the last 5+ weeks, leveled in the 45-50 range, and now appear to be settled into the 35-45 range. The percentage of positive tests (measured over the last two weeks) increased to 7.69% (previous rates 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 virus appear to be much milder than previous variants.

Experts expect subvariants to cause ‘substantial’ summer cases of COVID-19 (June 26, 2022, Boston Globe)
Dr. Dan Barouch, director of the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, said he anticipates the subvariants will spawn a summer of “substantial infections,” but low rates of hospitalization and death.… “I expect that BA.5 will likely become the dominant virus in the United States this summer,” Barouch said. Barouch published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday that found that BA.4 and BA.5 are far better at avoiding antibodies than any prior strains — three times better than BA.1 and BA.2, and 20 times better than the “original” COVID-19.… Omicron and its subvariants also tend to be less severe than variants like Delta, said Mokdad, who estimates 80 percent of infections with Omicron are actually asymptomatic.

Click on graph above for latest Cambridge data.

July 19, 2022 Breakdown of Cases:
31033 tested positive (total) - an increase of 73 since Monday
167 confirmed deaths - 86 in long-term care facilities, 81 in general community
(1 new death recorded July 14)

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 July 19, 2022

(click on above graph for the latest)
MWRA Biobot wastewater data - July 14, 2022

MWRA Biobot recent wastewater data - North System - July 14, 2022
The 7-day average reached as high as 8644 in January before dropping to as low as 101 in March. The recent
rise due to the BA.2 variants brought it back up to 1273. BA.5 is now dominant and the 7-day average now stands at 749.

The main Omicron wave crested over three months ago, and the Omicron BA.5 subvariant is now the predominant threat, though the percentages detected in wastewater samples in Middlesex County are now BA.2/2.12 at 72.3%, BA.5 at 24.3%, BA.4 at 0.9%, and 2.5% other as of June 29.

Omicron Variant Overview - week of June 29, 2022

An asterisk (*) indicates that sub-lineages are included. BA.2.12 includes BA.2.12.1 and other sublineages. Excepting BA.2.12 and its sublineages, BA.2 sublineages are aggregated with BA.2. “Other” indicates all other lineages of SARS-CoV-2.

Featured recent stories in the Cambridge Chronicle (the paper of record) - with some comments:

If you would like to subscribe or pick up a free paper copy at various sites, I encourage you to do so. It really is The Paper of Record.

What went wrong with single-stream recycling? (June 19, 2022, subscribers only)
‘The magic blue bin’: Unfulfilled promise of single-stream recycling… The rise of single-stream simplified recycling, but there are significant downsides, too.

As Maine limits landfill use, Massachusetts seeks answers and trash issues pile up (June 19, 2022, subscribers only)

THE CHRONICLE COMPANION: Mimosas, wine going down fine (July 18, 2022)

Get the kids out of the house: Cambridge Parks and Playgrounds guide (July 18, 2022)

Monkeypox cases are growing in Massachusetts. Here’s what to know. (July 15, 2022, updated July 18)

Mini golf has held secure place in Americans’ hearts for a century (July 14, 2022, subscribers only)
“It’s survived because it’s the one thing that you can do with your children, you can do with your grandparents, you can go on a date, you can go with a bunch of people. It’s the one thing that’s still family oriented. It’s something that all demographics do and enjoy and is still affordable.”

15-member review team to take first look at the Cambridge town charter (July 13, 2022)

Conserve your water: ‘Significant’ drought conditions in Bay State (July 13, 2022)

Cambridge gives ‘Michael’ a proper sendoff; unhomed man touched many (July 6, 2022)

DePasquale’s 45-year career in Cambridge marked by fiscal excellence (July 5, 2022)

Antisemitic map targets local Jewish community, security now the focus (July 6, 2022)

Facial recognition: Civil rights groups argue racial bias, inaccuracy (June 30, 2022)

Cambridge cuts ribbon on transformed Foundry 101 building, a new space for artists (June 29, 2022)

Group takes Cambridge to Superior Court over bike lanes (June 24, 2022)

Cambridge stages inaugural Juneteenth parade (June 21, 2022)

Can you score a hole in one? Mini-golf courses to try this summer (June 17, 2022)
Note: We could really use one in or near Cambridge. A small portion of the Volpe Center property in Kendall Square would be a great location.

For Juneteenth, learn about court cases that helped end slavery in MA (June 17, 2022)

Weekend of hiking, paddling, art planned at 23rd annual Riverfest (June 16, 2022)
RiverFest to celebrate Sudbury, Assabet, Concord Rivers with hiking, paddling and more

Harvard Square at the center of Cambridge native’s new novel (June 15, 2022)

Cambridge to celebrate Juneteenth with citywide events (June 15, 2022)

Cambridge Public Library celebrates Juneteenth (June 15, 2022)

Historic industrial building transformed into Cambridge arts center (June 15, 2022)
The Foundry will become a new creativity hub for Cambridge. Ribbon-cutting set for June 22.

The Chronicle Companion: Week of June 13-19, 2022 (posted June 13, 2022)

Harvard President Lawrence Bacow to step down next year (June 10, 2022)

PHOTOS: CRLS graduates Class of 2022 (June 10, 2022)

Full text of the 2022 CRLS valedictorian address (June 10, 2022 by Jade Backwater)

Cambridge nonprofit left in the dark about City-owned building (June 8, 2022)

New Moderna COVID-19 booster is showing superior response to Omicron (June 8, 2022)

Nonprofit executive Yi-An Huang to be next Cambridge city manager (June 6, 2022, updated June 7)

Justice still being sought for Charlene Holmes 10 years after fatal Willow Street shooting (June 6, 2022)

The Chronicle Companion: Week of June 6-12, 2022 (posted June 5, 2022)

Harvard Square cobbler, Felix Shoe Repair owner, discusses life at 87 (June 7, 2022, subscribers only)

Taking a trip this summer? Don’t get stuck in traffic because of road work on these routes (June 2, 2022)