Jan 28 - Former Mayor Alice Wolf passed away on Thursday, January 26, 2023 after a short battle with leukemia at the age of 89.

WOLF, Alice K. (Koerner) - Former Democratic member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives (1997-2013), member of the Cambridge City (1984-1994), Mayor of Cambridge (1990-1992), member of the Cambridge School Committee (1974-1982) died on Thursday, January 26, 2022 after a short battle with leukemia. Alice Wolf worked to make government accessible to all and make it work hardest for society’s most vulnerable. Her focus was early childhood education, children at risk, and equality & equity for all people (especially women, racial and religious minorities, and the LGBTQ community). Her vision and compassion led her to pursue goals and policy solutions years, sometimes decades, ahead of common recognition of a need. For 67 years, she was the beloved wife of Robert A. Wolf. Loving mother of Eric J. and Adam N. Wolf. Adored grandmother of 4 and great-grandmother of 4. A private funeral for family & friends will be held on Tuesday, January 31st. A public celebration of Alice’s life and work will be announced at a later date. Shiva will be observed at the family home, Wednesday and Thursday from 4-7pm. (Per Alice’s wishes, masks will be required at both the funeral and shiva). In lieu of flowers, please consider a donation to Massachusetts Advocates for Children (MAC), www.massadvocates.org or the Cambridge Community Center, www.cambridgecc.org.
Published by Boston Globe from Jan. 28 to Jan. 29, 2023. https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/bostonglobe/name/alice-wolf-obituary?id=39091726

Alice Wolf Wikipedia page

Former Cambridge mayor Alice Wolf, an advocate for refugees and LGBTQ equality, dies at 89 (Boston Globe, by Bryan Marquard)

Alice Wolf, Evelyn Murphy - April 1990

Fred Salvucci, Alice Wolf - July 1990

Play Resumes - February 6, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

I hope this meeting proceeds as scheduled without the stamping of young socialist feet. If so, here are a few things under consideration this week:

[Note: The idiots from the Party for Socialism and Liberation once again disrupted the Cambridge City Council meeting - forcing them to run and hide and conduct the rest of the meeting in Zoom.]

Whose Choice?

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number #22-81, related to improving marketing and communication efforts and outreach for the Cambridge Community Electricity (CCE) program.
pulled by Nolan, Order Adopted 7-2 (Azeem, Carlone ABSENT)

Order #11. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Community Development Department and all other relevant departments to engage with community groups and the City’s existing multi-member bodies to design the next iteration of the Cambridge Community Electricity Aggregation program.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon
pulled by Nolan; Adopted as Amended 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

---

Picking Weed Winners

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Calendar Item No. 10 of 3/21/22 requesting that the City Manager amend all existing Host Community Agreements (“HCA”) previously issued by the City by reducing the Impact Fee to 0.05% of Gross Revenue and to refrain from placing this burden upon any future HCAs that may yet be issued, unless supporting evidence is provided by the City showing a finding that it incurred additional expenses and impacts upon its road system, law enforcement, inspectional services, permitting services, administrative services, educational services and public health services greater than the .05% of Gross Revenue collected from all the Economic Empowerment applicant and Social Equity applicant dispensaries annually.
pulled by Toner, Placed on File 7-2 (Azeem, Carlone ABSENT)

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to have the appropriate City staff establish the framework that will allow for the immediate elimination of the bicycle parking fees imposed upon Economic Empowerment and Social Equity applicants and cannabis dispensary operators in the City of Cambridge. [Charter Right – Zondervan, Jan 23, 2023]
Zondervan amendment to reimburse any such fees that have already been paid - Adopted 7-0-2; Order Adopted as Amended 7-2-0 (BA,DC Absent); Reconsideration moved by Simmons - Reconsideration Fails 0-7-2

---

In the Zone (including The Twilight Zone)

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Council Order No. O-8 of 1/23/2023, regarding (1) whether there is a two year bar on considering repetitive zoning petitions that have been unfavorably acted upon by the Council, (2) if so, whether that bar on repetitive petitions would prohibit the Council from moving forward with a Council initiated lab use zoning petition if there is unfavorable action on the pending Callender, et al. Petition, and (3) if so, what types of changes to zoning petition would be necessary for it to no longer be considered a repetitive petition.
pulled by Toner, Referred to the Petition to be discussed at Feb 7 committee meeting; Toner moves Reconsideration “hoping the same will not prevail”; Reconsideration Fails 0-7-2

Unfinished Business #5. An Ordinance has been received from Diane P. LeBlanc City Clerk, relative to Ordinance #2022-23 Removing the Limit on BZA Compensation. [Passed to 2nd Reading Jan 9, 2023; To Be Ordained on or after Jan 30, 2023; Expires Mar 14, 2023]
Ordained 7-0-2

Committee Reports #7. The Ordinance Committee met on Jan 26, 2023, to continue the discussion on proposed Ordinance #2022-9, Climate Resilience Zoning. The Committee Voted favorably to send the Petition to the Full Council with a favorable recommendation to pass to a second reading. [text of report]
pulled by Zondervan; remarks by Nolan; Passed to 2nd Reading; Report Acceepted, Placed on File 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

Communications & Reports #3. A communication was received from Diane LeBlanc, City Clerk, regarding the Douglas Brown Petition. (COF23#27)
pulled by Nolan (early) - asks why defective; City Solicitor Glowa says petition affects entire city and not just the property of the petitioner; Nolan and Mallon seem peeved at City Solicitor for apparently contradicting what she said at the previous meeting; Mallon moves to Rescind Previous Vote, but Zondervan exercises Charter Right first; Charter Right - Zondervan
Zondervan makes additional (new) motion asking for legal clarification; Motion Adopted 7-0-2; Communication Placed on File 7-0-2

---

Envision Danehy

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to relative to a request for approval to seek authorization from the Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General (the “IG”) for the City to use the Construction Manager at Risk (“CMaR”) procurement and construction method (the “CMaR Method”) in connection with the Danehy Park Gateway Pavilion project. (CM23#25) [Attachment A] [Attachment B]
Order Adopted 7-2 (Azeem, Carlone ABSENT)

---

Well Appointed - and other tales

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment and reappointment of members of the Recycling Advisory Committee.
Appointments Confirmed 7-2 (Azeem, Carlone ABSENT)

Committee Reports #6. The Government, Operations, Rules, and Claims Committee held a public meeting on Jan 11, 2023 for the purpose of reviewing recent report of Boards and Commissions from the City Manager which are subject to City Council approval, and to discuss the City Clerks request for a dedicated email address for City Council communications. [text of report] [EXTRA - Full Info Sheets from Oct 24, 2022 City Manager Communication]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

Note: The report suggests that several city councillors would like to further change the City Charter in order to transfer even more executive authority into their entirely inappropriate legislative hands - specifically to get control of any remaining boards for which they do not currently have confirmation authority. A few lessons in history illustrate that while proportional representation may be a good model for legislative representation, it has a terrible record in terms of actual governance. This is why it’s important that PR be coupled with a strong city manager and why city councillors need to be prohibited from directing City staff or having appointing authority.

---

Police and Police-Related (with the hope that none of these be referred to the Public Safety Committee unless the Mayor replaces its Chair)

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Police Review and Advisory Board quarterly reports.
pulled by Zondervan, QZ noved suspension to take with #8 and #9; Zondervan moves to refer to Public Safety Committee; Referred to Public Safety Committee 7-0-2 (Azeem, Carlone ABSENT)

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a report on an itemized statement of all materials, tools, and property owned by the Cambridge Police Department. (CM23#28) [Cover Letter] [Materials, Tools, and Property as of 6/30/21] [Photographs of Inventory as of 6/30/21]
pulled by Zondervan, Referred to Public Safety Committee 7-0-2 (Azeem, Carlone ABSENT)

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a report on an itemized statement of all materials, tools, and property owned by the Cambridge Police Department. (CM23#29) [Cover Letter] [Materials, Tools, and Property as of 6/30/22] [Photographs of Inventory as of 6/30/22]
pulled by Zondervan, Referred to Public Safety Committee 7-0-2 (Azeem, Carlone ABSENT)

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to take immediate steps to begin the process of obtaining police body worn cameras for the Cambridge Police Department, and to work with all appropriate Departments to produce policy recommendations that would allow body worn camera usage while also not violating civil liberties in compliance with the City’s Surveillance Ordinance.   Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toner, Councillor Simmons
pulled by McGovern; additional remarks by Nolan, Mallon, Toner, Simmons, Siddiqui; Zondervan opposed to body cameras and anything that adds to Police budget; Order Adopted as Amended 6-1-2 (QZ - No; BA,DC - Absent)

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to direct Police Commissioner Elow to work on providing publicly-accessible traffic stop, arrest and citation police data on a new Procedural Justice Dashboard as soon as possible.   Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Azeem, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern
pulled by Mallon; additional remarks by McGovern; Order Adopted 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

Order #5. That the Finance Committee convene a meeting on Police Budget including body camera discussion.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to look into the feasibility of automated traffic enforcement in Cambridge as well as using unarmed CPD traffic details for future discussion Automated/Unarmed Traffic Enforcement.   Councillor Azeem, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone
pulled by McGovern; Charter Right - Toner (McGovern was going to do it as well)

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Police Commissioner to explore additional less-than-lethal alternatives that pose the smallest risk of injury when deployed for standard issue in the Cambridge Police Department.   Councillor Azeem, Councillor Toner, Councillor Simmons
Order Adopted 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to engage a third party, independent firm/consultant or university partner to review and examine the Cambridge Police Department’s policies and practices regarding de-escalation methods, mental health calls for service, training, and more.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Azeem
pulled by Siddiqui; additional remarks by Mallon, McGovern, Toner, Nolan, Simmons, Zondervan; Order Adopted 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

Order #12. That the City Manager is requested to work with staff in the Cambridge Public Health Department to review the current state of mental health resources, particularly for underserved communities, within the Cambridge Health Alliance.   Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Azeem, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toner, Councillor Zondervan
pulled by Siddiqui; additional remarks by McGovern (Human Services Committee meeting to follow), Zondervan (add all as sponsors); Adopted 7-0-2 as Amended (BA,DC - Absent)

---

The Ongoing BEUDO Saga

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to instruct the Community Development Department to draft amendments to the proposed BEUDO language to change the net zero deadline from 2050 to 2035 and to propose language to meet that deadline throughout the document (From the Apr 20, 2022 Ordinance Committee).   Councillor Zondervan
Rules Suspended 7-0-2 to take up early; Toner asks Iram Farooq if this Order is helpful at this time; Farooq says they have initiated some conversations with affected property owners, “trying to build trust” as she emphasizes the “climate crisis” as justification for just about anything; Charter Right - Toner

Committee Reports #5. The Ordinance Committee met on Apr 20, 2022, to continue the public hearing on proposed amendments to the Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance (Ordinance #2021-26). The Committee voted favorably to ask the City Manager to instruct the Community Development Department to draft amendments to the proposed BEUDO language to change the net zero deadline from 2050 to 2035 and to propose language to meet that deadline throughout the document. [text of report]
pulled by Zondervan; Report Accepted, Placed on File; Minutes Amended to correct attendance 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent); Mallon attempts to exercise Charter Right; Clerk suggests this is proper - but THIS IS NOT NEW BUSINESS; Mallon says “the Order that we charterwrote” - which is not an actual word, nor is the make-believe word "charterwritten". Siddiqui also rules that committee reports are subject to the Charter Right; Zondervan suggests referring report to the Order contained therein. Clerk suggests taking no action on the report which will move it to Unfinished Business.

---

Trains, Planes, and Automobiles (actually just Cars & Bikes)

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager continue our current policy of towing cars on street cleaning days and come back to the Council with a plan to create an annual fund to reimburse economically disadvantaged residents who are unable to pay the towing fee before the beginning of towing season. [Charter Right – Zondervan, Jan 23, 2023]
Zondervan notes many communications on this topic, claims that he speaks for low-income residents; Toner calls this a “solution without a problem” - wants to create a fund to reimburse fees and expresses concern for tow companies; McGovern bristles at Zondervan’s characterizations, says City should do more outreach about towing days (as if the announcements somehow aren’t heard); Nolan likes pilots - even though they are often actually not just pilots; Siddiqui aligns with Nolan; Order Fails of Adoption 3-4-2 (MM,DS,PT - Yes; AM,PN,QZ,SS - No; BA,DC - Absent)

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to determine the best ways to promote bike safety with a particular focus on expanding the distribution of bike lights throughout the City.   Councillor McGovern, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Zondervan
pulled by McGovern; additional remarks by Toner (about penalties for not having a light), Nolan (on safe distance); Order Adopted 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

---

Remembering Alice

Resolution #13. Resolution on the death of Alice Wolf.   Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Nolan
pulled by McGovern; remarks by McGovern, Simmons, Nolan, Siddiqui, Zondervan, Toner, Mallon; Resolution Adopted 7-0-2

---

Late Resolution #15. Resolution on the death of Jane Richards who died on Jan 31, 2023 at the age of 86.   Councillor McGovern, Councillor Toner, Councillor Simmons
Resolution Adopted 7-0-2

---

Next Steps toward Universal Pre-K

Order #9. That the City Council and the School Committee will hold a joint roundtable on Tues, Feb 14, 2023, at 5:00pm to receive an update from the City Manager, Superintendent, and the Cambridge Office of Early Childhood on the next steps towards the implementation of universal Pre-K in Cambridge.   Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

---

Looking Back In Time

Committee Reports #1. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Sept 26, 2019 to discuss the petition by Stephen R. Karp, Trustee of Cambridgeside Galleria Associates Trust, to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge by adding a Section 13.100 that creates a new PUD-8 District and to amend the Zoning Map of the City of Cambridge by adding the new PUD-8 District, which District would include the property located at 100 Cambridgeside Place (currently zoned in the Business A and PUD-4 Districts). [text of report] [Note: This meeting was already reported Nov 25, 2019]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

Committee Reports #2. The Ordinance Committee met on Nov 14, 2019 to continue discussions on the petition by Stephen R. Karp, Trustee of CambridgeSide Galleria Associates Trust, to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge by adding a Section 13.100 that creates a new PUD-8 District. [text of report not yet available] [Note: This meeting was already reported Nov 25, 2019]
Referred to Unfinished Business due to lack of report

Committee Reports #3. The Ordinance Committee met on Mar 30, 2022 to conduct a public hearing on, Ordinance #2022-3, the Wage Theft Ordinance. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

Committee Reports #4. The Ordinance Committee met on Apr 13, 2022, to hold a public hearing on proposed ordinance number 2022-2, Charter Change Municipal Code Amendments. The Committee voted favorable to send the following language to the Full Council with a recommendation to pass to a second reading. [text of report]
pulled by Zondervan; Report Accepted, Placed on File; Ordinance Amendments Passed to 2nd Reading 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

Comments?

Members Sought for City of Cambridge Planning Board

Feb 6, 2023 – The City of Cambridge is seeking members to serve on the Planning Board. All Cambridge residents are invited to apply.

The Planning Board is made up of Cambridge residents who make recommendations and decisions about urban development on behalf of the City of Cambridge. The Planning Board has seven full members and two associate members who are appointed by the City Manager, and then approved by the City Council. Members generally serve a 5-year term. All members can participate in Planning Board discussions.

The Planning Board meets regularly in a public forum to discuss the city’s urban planning objectives, and apply them in the following ways:

• Reviewing major urban development proposals, granting certain types of special permits when they are needed, and putting conditions on special permit approval. The Planning Board reviews about 20-25 special permit cases each year.
• Reviewing proposed amendments to the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance, which sets rules for urban development, and making recommendations to the City Council. The Planning Board reviews about 10-15 proposed zoning amendments each year.
• Making recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeal (BZA) on some cases. The BZA is a different board that grants some special permits and variances.
• Discussing other city planning efforts.

Anyone who lives in Cambridge can apply to serve on the Planning Board. You don’t need to be a homeowner. The city is committed to advancing a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. All board and commission members in Cambridge must have the ability to work and interact effectively with individuals and groups with a variety of identities, cultures, backgrounds, and ideologies. Women, Black, Indigenous and other people of color, veterans, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply.

No specific professional background is needed to serve on the Planning Board. However, since a big part of the Planning Board’s role is reviewing building plans and designs, it is important that members have a strong interest and enthusiasm for urban design and how it shapes the community. Successful members of the Planning Board will be able to:

• Engage in a constructive discussion of urban planning topics, including urban design, transportation, housing, infrastructure planning, public space, and other topics
• Listen to people from diverse backgrounds and perspectives and consider different points of view
• Visit and learn about different parts of Cambridge, and bring experience from other cities that members have visited, lived in, or learned about
• Ask critical questions and make sure to get clear answers
• Work toward constructive solutions to complex problems
• Collaborate and build consensus with a group of people
• Learn about and understand the laws related to planning and zoning
• Make reasonable decisions on behalf of the City that follow those laws

We strongly suggest that people who are interested in the Planning Board attend or watch a Planning Board meeting. Visit www.cambridgema.gov/planningboard to learn about upcoming meetings. Archived video of meetings can be found on the city’s website here (then scroll to “Available Archives” / “Planning Board”).

By state law, all board members need to complete training in ethics and conflict-of-interest laws. The city’s Law Department also provides training and assistance to Planning Board members on legal issues. The city provides training to employees on topics including Preventing Sexual Harassment and Valuing Anti-Racism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. These trainings will be available to Planning Board members and may be required.

The Planning Board is supported by professional planning staff in the Community Development Department, with added support from the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department, the Department of Public Works, and others. Staff give written reports to Planning Board members on cases that are before them, and are also available if members have questions. Staff may also develop training on other topics that are relevant to the Planning Board’s work and may direct Planning Board members to training offered by outside organizations.

The Planning Board usually meets 2-4 times each month on Tuesday evenings at 6:30pm. Meetings can last about 3-4 hours. Members are expected to attend most meetings.

The Massachusetts Open Meeting Law usually requires meetings to be in person. However, the Planning Board has been meeting remotely under the temporary Open Meeting Law provisions established during the COVID-19 pandemic and may continue to meet remotely through March 2023. For remote meetings, Planning Board members will need to have a computer or other device with an internet connection, camera, and microphone that can support video conferencing. It is also helpful to have a private place to attend remote meetings without distractions.

Members can expect to spend about 2-4 hours before each meeting reviewing materials such as plans and documents, which are sent to members about 5 days before each meeting. Some members find it helpful to visit sites that they are reviewing in person, but it is not required.

Starting in January 2023, Planning Board members will get $6,000 per year as a stipend. This stipend is meant to offset the annual out-of-pocket costs that members might need to pay to make it possible to serve on the Planning Board, such as child care, transportation, and other expenses.

People interested in being considered should apply by using the city’s online application system at www.cambridgema.gov/apply and selecting “Planning Board” in the list of Current Vacancies. You can also obtain a paper application in the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue. During the application process, you should provide a cover letter to explain why you are interested in being on the Planning Board, and a résumé or summary of applicable experience. Experience can include both professional and volunteer work.

The deadline for submitting applications is Monday, March 6, 2023.

If you have questions, contact Swaathi Joseph in the Community Development Department at 617-349-4668 or sjoseph@cambridgema.gov or visit www.cambridgema.gov/planningboard.

Volunteer Opportunities - Cambridge Boards & Commissions (click for details)

Members Sought for City of Cambridge Planning Board - Deadline Mon, Mar 6, 2023

Volunteers Sought to Serve on the Cambridge Commission on Immigrant Rights and Citizenship - Deadline Mon, Feb 6, 2023

Cambridge LGBTQ+ Commission Members Sought - Deadline Mon, Feb 6, 2023

Members Sought for Three Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District Commissions - Deadline Mon, Feb 6, 2023

• Mid-Cambridge NCD, Cambridgema.gov/midcambridgencd
• Avon Hill NCD, Cambridgema.gov/avonhillncd
• Half Crown-Marsh NCD, Cambridgema.gov/halfcrownmarshncd

Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang Seeks Volunteers to Serve on New LGBTQ+-Friendly Housing Task Force - Deadline Mon, Feb 6, 2023

Members Sought for Cambridge Citizens’ Committee on Civic Unity - Deadline Mon, Feb 13, 2023

City of Cambridge Seeking Members for Cambridge Climate Committee - Deadline Mon, Feb 27, 2023

An Idea Whose Time Has Come Again - Redress of Grievances

Jan 26, 2023 – In this year when charter review is underway and possible charter revision may be on the horizon, it is perhaps valuable to look back at some provisions of previous Cambridge City Charters for some guidance. For example, in the original 1846 Cambridge City Charter, there’s this:

Sect. 19. General meetings of the citizens qualified to vote may, from time to time, be held, to consult upon the public good, to instruct their representatives, and to take all lawful measures to obtain redress of any grievances, according to the right secured to the people by the Constitution of this Commonwealth; and such meetings may, and shall be duly warned by the mayor and aldermen, upon the requisition of thirty qualified voters.

Perhaps “the requisition of thirty qualified voters” may not be the appropriate standard today in a city of 120,000 people, and perhaps the procedure should be modified to be more aligned with the way our City Council and School Committee is constituted under the current charter, but there should be a reasonably attainable standard that would allow for “redress of grievances.” The current situation is that a group of hundreds of citizens could send a petition to the City Council (or, presumably the School Committee) asking for reconsideration or change in some policy or ordinance, or action of the City or School administration, but that petition would likely only appear as a “Communication” on an agenda that could, and generally is, simply “Placed on File.” A better system would be to have the respective elected body or City department be required to respond and vote on any reasonable question or request in a timely manner, e.g. within thirty days.

It is a deficiency in the current Plan E Charter that other than begging a city councillor to file a policy order (which could well end up under “Awaiting Report” for months or years), there is no effective way for citizens to hold their elected officials or the City Administration (or any specific department) or the School Department accountable. Requiring a positive or negative response - on the record - would go a long way toward addressing the problem expressed by so many Cambridge residents that they “are not being heard.” - Robert Winters

Comments?

January Tidings - Featured Items on the January 23, 2023 Cambridge City Council Agenda

I’ll have a few words to say soon about the January 18 Special Meeting “to discuss protocols, processes, and training of the Cambridge Police Department”, but in the meantime here are some interesting items for the regular Monday meeting:

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Policy Order 2022 #283, regarding the feasibility of banning turns on red signal indications.
pulled by Mallon; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Siddiqui ABSENT)

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Policy Order #312, regarding the feasibility of conducting street cleaning without towing. [text of response]
pulled by Carlone; Placed on File 5-3-0-1 (BA,AM,PN,QZ,SS-YES; DC,MM,PT-NO; DS-PRESENT); Toner Late Order - Charter Right (QZ)

Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $390,000 from the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Extraordinary Expenditures account. These mitigation funds have been received from the sources below and will be used for the design of a transportation connection between Terminal Road and Wheeler Street.
pulled by Carlone; Order Adopted 9-0

---

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board report recommending that the City Council adopt the Climate Resilience Zoning Petition.
Referred to Petition 9-0

Charter Right #2. That the City Council adopt the Specialized Stretch Code, as outlined in 225 CMR 22.00 and 225 CMR 23.00, with an effective date of July 1, 2023. [Charter Right – Toner, Jan 9, 2023]
Toner motion to Table Failed 2-7 (DS,PT-YES); Order Adopted 7-1-0-1 (DS-PRESENT, PT-NO)

There’s also this thoughtful request from Patrick Barrett:

Mayor Siddiqui and Cambridge City Council,

Last year a policy order was unanimously passed in November requesting CDD to “report in a timely manner” on the effect of linkage increases, parking minimum reductions, BEUDO, and other legislation that may be passed considering its impact on development, the effect on cost, competitiveness with other cities, and the overall consequence of putting all of these regulations in place all at once. To date no report has been provided and yet we passed a reduction in parking minimums and have tried to pass the specialized stretch code without so much as a presentation to anyone about how that might impact housing construction or anything else. I am asking that no further regulations be passed until the Director of CDD and City Manager provide this requested report. Further I’d like the Director of CDD to give her professional opinion on the stretch code, BEUDO, lab ban, gas hookup ban, linkage increases, and climate resiliency zoning and how she feels we compare to other cities and towns and what effect these proposals will have on development in our city. It seems a very low bar that we at least understand the impact of something prior to passage especially when we have market conditions that do not comport to those anticipated through older studies and competing interests such as the need for housing and viable small and large businesses, and support for our cultural district in Central Sq which, when under so many competing pressures, will undoubtedly feel the impact of these proposals disproportionately to any other district.

Regards,
Patrick W. Barrett III

---

Unfinished Business #5. An Ordinance has been received from Diane P. LeBlanc City Clerk, relative to Ordinance #2022-23 Removing the Limit on BZA Compensation. [Passed to 2nd Reading Dec 9, 2022; To Be Ordained on or after Jan 9, 2023; Expires Mar 14, 2023]

Lotsa Communications on the Brown Zoning Petition and the police-involved fatal shooting in Cambridgeport and related matters.

---

Order #1. That the City Manager ask the City Solicitor to provide a legal opinion concerning (1) whether there is a two-year ban on considering repetitive zoning petitions that have been unfavorably acted upon by the Council, (2) if so, whether that ban on repetitive petitions would prohibit the Council from moving forward with a Council initiated lab use zoning petition if there is unfavorable action on the pending Callender, et al. Petition, and (3) if so, what types of changes to zoning petition would be necessary for it to no longer be considered a repetitive petition.   Councillor McGovern
pulled by McGovern; Rules suspended to take with Committee Report #6; Order Adopted 9-0; Referred to Economic Development & University Relations Committee and to NLTP Committee 9-0

Committee Report #6. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Jan 4, 2023 regarding the Citizens Zoning Petition from Duane Callender, et al. Cambridge Lab Regulation Zoning Amendment – AP22#53. The Committee voted favorably to forward this petition to the full City Council with a recommendation to forward to the Economic Development and University Relations Committee and to the Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebration Committee. The Committee voted favorably to request a legal opinion concerning (1) whether there is a two-year ban on considering repetitive zoning petitions that have been unfavorably acted upon by the Council, (2) if so, whether that ban on repetitive petitions would prohibit the Council from moving forward with a Council initiated lab use zoning petition if there is unfavorable action on the pending Callender, et al. Petition, and (3) if so, what types of changes to zoning petition would be necessary for it to no longer be considered a repetitive petition. [Note: This request appears on this agenda as a policy order.] [report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File; Referred to Economic Development & University Relations Committee and to NLTP Committee 9-0

---

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to direct the appropriate City personnel to explore the special permitting fees and bicycle parking requirements that are required of local recreational cannabis dispensaries, to provide a report on how these requirements may impact these businesses, and to determine whether these requirements may need to be modified or eliminated.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toner
pulled by Simmons; Order Adopted 9-0 as Amended

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to direct the appropriate City staff to determine the feasibility of purchasing the property located at 37 Brookline Street, former home of Peter Valentine, with the intent of utilizing this as a community arts space.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Azeem
pulled by Simmons; Order Adopted 8-1 (Toner-NO)

---

Just a Little Late…

Committee Report #1. The Ordinance Committee conducted a hearing on Sept 10, 2019 at 12:00pm regarding AP19#75: Refiled Zoning Petition - Grand Junction Pathway Overlay District. [report] [Note: This meeting was already reported Sept 23, 2019.]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Ordinance Committee conducted a hearing on Sept 26, 2019 at 2:00pm regarding PO19#206: Zoning Petition on Special Permit Criteria. [report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #3. The Ordinance Committee conducted a hearing on Nov 12, 2019 at 12:00pm, regarding a proposed amendment to Article 22 of the Zoning Ordinance – Green Building Requirements. [report] [Note 1: This meeting was already reported Nov 18, 2019.] [Note 2: The report actually shows testimony from “Councillor Patricia M. Nolan” - even though she did not assume office until January 2020.]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Comments on agenda items?

Plague Report (Feb 7) - 32 new Covid cases reported today, and wastewater levels are generally falling.

There were 32 new COVID positive tests reported today, and the 7-day daily average increased from 5.0 to 8.0. The total number of residents who have tested positive is now 35,169 (not including me and possibly thousands of others who have tested positive at home). The Cambridge total increased by 32 today, and 9 (covering 3 days), 5, 7, 10, 19, 19 (covering 3 days), 15, 12, 17, and 8 in recent days. Time will tell where this is headed as the BA.4&5, the BF.7, the BQ.1, and the even newer XBB variant continue to work their way through. The 7-day averages are now in the 5-10 range. The percentage of positive tests (measured over the last two weeks) stands at 7.84% (recent previous rates 9.06%, 11.22%, 11.99%, 8.82%, 8.29%, 8.5%, 5.84%, 4.90%, 4.73%). Most importantly, the effects of the latest virus variants (along with vaccinations) appear to be much milder.

Click on graph above for latest Cambridge data.

Feb 7, 2023 Breakdown of Cases:
35169 tested positive (total) - an increase of 32 since Monday
[includes 4496 Harvard (0 new) and 2827 MIT (1 new)]
183 confirmed deaths - 93 in long-term care facilities, 90 in general community
one new death reported Feb 3 (long-term care)

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 Jan 23, 2023

(click on above graph for the latest)
MWRA Biobot wastewater data - Feb 2, 2023

MWRA Biobot recent wastewater data - North System - Feb 2, 2023
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 before dropping to under 400.
Recently it rose as high as 2023 due to the latest variants, but now stands at 800 (copies/mL).

Sample Date	1/15	1/16	1/17	1/18	1/19	1/20	1/21	1/22	1/23	1/24	1/25	1/26	1/27	1/28	1/29	1/30	1/31	2/1	2/2
North System (copies/ml)	2229	1370	1363	1009	1505	763	939	787	965	465	871	448	773	685	767	689	1169	706	906
Northern 7-day Avg.	1058	1179	1264	1228	1262	1278	1241	1069	1017	872	854	718	720	688	685	653	745	723	800

The percentages detected in wastewater samples in Middlesex County are now XBB* at 55.1%, BA.5* at 15.4%,
BQ.1* at 13.0%, and 16.5% other as of the week of Jan 16. [updated Feb 3]

Omicron Variant Overview - as of Jan 18, 2023 [updated Feb 3]

Region	BA.2*	BA.4*	BA.5	BF.7	BQ.1*	XBB*	Other
Nationwide	9.2%	1.4%	15.7%	0.4%	28.5%	42.9%	1.9%
Midwest	16.1%	1.1%	20.5%	0.2%	38.2%	22.9%	1.0%
Northeast	4.1%	1.5%	13.4%	0.1%	18.2%	61.2%	1.5%
South	8.6%	1.6%	17.5%	0.8%	30.4%	38.6%	2.5%
West	13.0%	1.1%	13.0%	0.4%	34.2%	36.0%	2.3%

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

Destroying a City is as Easy as ABC: The AHO Behomoth Proposal Returns on February 8 (excerpts from - Nov 2022)

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.

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 #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.

Comments?