Trumping History - February 3, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Barring divine intervention, the ordination of The Bigger Cambridge Zoning is expected to happen next week (Feb 10) after being passed to a 2nd Reading at last week’s meeting. Having experienced a building fire this past Thursday just 10 feet from my house on Broadway, I have never felt the need for space between buildings more than I do right now. Urban planning in Cambridge is being steadily eclipsed by the urge to pack everything closer and stack everything higher. On the bright side, I suspect more than a few residents who rarely vote in local elections may have a change of heart this year now that new building heights and densities may soon be doubling or tripling in their neighborhoods.

Last week the second meeting of the “Special Committee of the Whole” looked at some of the more fringy proposals from some of the more fringy councillors. They dropped the proposal to double City Council terms from 2 years to 4 years when they heard some of the negative aspects that they should have understood all along had they been actually paying attention. The proposal to expand City Council authority in the City Budget process was soundly bashed by City staff, but its chief advocate (Sobrinho-Wheeler, DSA-Cambridge) chose to strategically withdraw it for possible revision rather than see it go down in flames. The proposal to have Department Head appointments be subject to City Council approval was mercifully put to sleep, but there will be another meeting on Feb 13 to continue discussion of some of the other problematic proposals. What they do after that is anyone’s guess, but I hope they will at least take a second look at the mechanisms for citizen redress as well as what appears to be a drastically watered down version of the Plan E prohibition of city councillors going around the city manager to direct or pressure City staff.

As for this week’s meeting, here are some things of possible interest:

Manager’s Agenda #1, #2, #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Surveillance Technology Impact Report (STIR). [#1 - Automated License Plate Recognition; #2 - Locked Cellular Device Access Software; #3 - Remotely Piloted Aerial Vehicle] (CM25#9)
pulled by Toner noting that these have already been through Public Safety Committee; Police Commissioner Christine Elow, Dept. Supt. John Boyle explain; Toner notes how drones may have been helpful in Faisal case, asks about circumstances when information gathered might be shared outside CPD; Boyle explains; Toner highlights unsolved murders and hesitancy of some people to come forward with information, trust in CPD; Zusy concurs with Toner, asks about use of surveillance in LA and in NYC, concerns about federal overreach; Elow explains how we have been at a deficit w/o these technologies, need to ask community with cameras, agrees that timing couldn’t be worse with new administration; City Solicitor Megan Bayer notes how policy is to protect residents in line with Welcoming City Ordinance; Yi-An Huang notes when it is appropriate to work with federal agencies in criminal investigations; Zusy asks about use of technologies to monitor protests; Boyle emphasizes that these would not be used to restrict speech but to monitor effects on traffic; Azeem comments, especially re: sharing of information; Megan Bayer explains about license plate recording and redaction of information; Azeem asks about “Proud Boys” illustration (suggesting that he would be OK with sharing info on some organizations but not others) and about joint investigation of extremist groups; Elow notes need for probable cause; Huang objects to these hypotheticals; McGovern notes that as a privileged white male he would not be subject to surveillance; Sobrinho-Wheeler says that only concept of surveillance was discussed at Public Safety Committee, wants to refer all 3 reports to Public Safety for further discussion; Huang notes uncertain times but says drone footage not high priority, real priority in keeping community safe; Wilson notes loss of friends to gun violence and how some technology might have been helpful in solving these crimes; Wilson motion to accept reports on license plate identification and cell phone data access; Siddiqui objects to Wilson motions, suggests that technology use overly broad, objects to use of drones; Nolan has concerns about drones, wants ACLU in conversation; Elow offers example of how technology would be used; Simmons offers additional explanation; Huang notes use of license plate readers to capture places in and out of the city; Nolan questions re: access to phones; Simmons notes Charlene Moore, Anthony Clay, Xavier Louis-Jacques murders and difficulty in bringing murder charges, reality that cameras and other technologies are already all around us, disproportionate effect of violence on Black and Brown communities and need to bring those most affected into conversation; Motion to approve license plate readers, cell phones access and to refer use of drones to Public Safety Committee Adopted 6-3 (BA,MM,PT,AW,CZ,DS - Yes; PN,SS,JSW - No)

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-69 regarding asbestos concerns with the MBTA’s Alewife construction. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, DPW Commissioner Kathy Watkins, Zusy, Sam Lipson (Senior Director of Environmental Health); Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $65,000 to be allocated to the Grant Fund Public Celebrations Other Ordinary Maintenance Account. This grant will support activities focused on the themes of revolution and independence, celebrating the significant historical milestones that have taken place in Cambridge.
Order Adopted 9-0

“This grant will support activities focused on the themes of revolution and independence, celebrating the significant historical milestones that have taken place in Cambridge.” … “Events will take place from April through June 2025, with a marketing campaign beginning in February.”

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of members of the Broadway Street Safety Improvement Project Working Group.
pulled by Zusy - notes timing of these appointments after most conclusions already made, imbalance of appointments tilted toward cycling advocates; Jeff Parenti (TPT) says Cycling Safety Ordinance dictates most except for finer details, esp. use of side streets to make up for loss of parking (which is beyond ridiculous from point of view of resident parking); Parenti deflects concerns about representativeness of the committee; Zusy suggests there should have been a commercial representative on the committee, lot of concern from residents about loss of parking, asks about use of parking lots (which is essentially irrelevant for Broadway); Owen O’Riordan notes recent amendments to TPDM ordinance; Wilson asks how many applications were received (over 30), also has concerns about representativeness of the appointments; Parenti says you don’t want too few or too many people on the committee; Wilson wants to hear from all people; Toner suggests mailing to all property owners w/parking lots (which is a deflection and fails to not potential exorbitant cost); Nolan notes limitations on what the committee can affect (the implication being that there will be no changes to the CSO); Appointments Approved, Placed on File 9-0

First, it’s just “Broadway”, not “Broadway Street”. We’ll see how this advisory process goes, but what many residents of Mid-Cambridge really want is to simply remove Broadway from the list of streets to be reconfigured in this manner, and that tide is rising.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to prepare a report on the use of M.G.L. Ch. 40U to determine which local statutes can be enforced by the local-option procedure in order to better collect fines in violation of Cambridge ordinances and provide a recommendation to the City Council for implementation of Ch. 40U procedures.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toner, Councillor Zusy
Order Adopted 9-0

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department to install “Bicycles Must Yield” signs along the Linear Park Parkway, Russell Field, Cambridge Commons, and any other shared use pathway determined appropriate by the City Manager and staff. [Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler, Jan 27, 2025]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler w/concerns about staff capacity and who would be putting up/removing (A-frame) signs; Jeff Parenti would prefer to not deal with these and to use only fixed metal signs (Share the Path; Keep Right); Toner, Nolan, Zusy, Wilson supportive of improved signage; Azeem asks what exactly would change; Owen O’Riordan explains; Order Adopted 8-1 (JSW-No)

Charter Right #2. Condolences to the family of Janet Rose. [Charter Right – Simmons, Jan 27, 2025]
Resolution Adopted as Amended by Substitution 9-0

Charter Right #3. That the City Council Amend Petition One, Section 5.40, Footnote (2) to add paragraph (c) to read: (c) If the building does not require a Planning Board Advisory Consultation per Section 19.40 of this Zoning Ordinance and does not require any special permit from the Planning Board, then before applying for a building permit, the applicant shall schedule an in-person or virtual meeting to answer questions and gather feedback from abutters and shall prepare a notification including, at a minimum, a general description of the project, the date, time, location, and other information necessary for people to attend the meeting, and contact information (telephone and e-mail, at minimum) for the developer and shall provide that notification by mail to abutters, owners of land directly opposite on any public or private street or way, and abutters to the abutters within three hundred feet of the property line of the lot, and to others whom the applicant may choose to contact, and shall include with the building permit application a copy of the notification and mailing list, a summary of the meeting, who attended, and what questions and feedback were received. [Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler, Jan 27, 2025]
taken up with Unfinished Business #4; McGovern comments, motion to amend by substitution; Nolan also proposes amendment; comments by Jeff Roberts (CDD); Zusy suggests that is neighborhood associations can do hybrid meetings then developers should also be able to do so; Simmons, Toner, Wilson comments - keep it simple; Nolan amendment Adopted 9-0; Megan Bayer clarifies language; Simmons comments; Sobrinho-Wheeler amendment to allow online notifications Adopted 9-0; Megan Bayer notes that this amendment is a new footnote to proposed ordinance; City Clerk LeBlanc clarifies votes; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0; Additional Amendment to add footnote #37 and to strike previous amendment 9-0; Zusy asks about proposal change 75' height to 74' height in Res. C-1 districts (due to AHO concerns) and to have 40% open space requirement (up from 30%), at least half permeable, for buildings over 75,000 sq ft; Toner seeks examples of where these apply; Jeff Roberts, Melissa Peters explain; JSW concerned about how this might affect unit count; Simmons withdraws this for now.

Unfinished Business #4. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to Ordinance 2025 #1 Multifamily Zoning Petition-Part 1. [Passed to 2nd Reading Jan 27, 2025; Eligible to be Ordained Feb 10, 2025] (ORD25#1)
taken up with Charter Right #3; Amended 9-0

The general trend with recent City Councils is to limit most neighborhood and abutter feedback on development proposals and, in the case of the AHO to eliminate or greatly limit the roles of the Planning Board and BZA. They see the book “Neighborhood Defenders” as the last word and that all feedback is inherently NIMBYism. My sense is that if Sobrinho-Wheeler and several others could have their way, the only permissible objections would be from renters.

205 Communications: 73 pro-upzoning, 106 opposed, 15 for the “3+3” alternative (Councillor Wilson commented last week that “the community” supports the “3+3” proposal - based on what exactly?), and 11 others on various topics.

Resolution #4. Congratulations to Robyn Culbertson on the occasion of her retirement as Executive Director of the Office for Tourism.   Mayor Simmons

Committee Report #1. The Finance Committee and Housing Committee held a joint public hearing on July 10, 2024 to review and discuss the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust and to discuss the City’s relationship with the Trust, consider funding priorities, and ways to fund affordable housing development in Cambridge. [text of report]
Comments by Nolan - meeting recessed, now closed, possible future meetings on topic; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Comments?

It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Flushing - January 27, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

In the spirit of issuing problematic Executive Orders by the bushel, our intrepid city councillors are expected to move The Bigger Cambridge Zoning forward this week en route to a swift ordination in mid-February. Hey, a 5 foot-wide backyard is plenty, right? Only a capitalist NIMBY could possibly want more. So feel free to shout “Urban Renewal!” from the rooftops, but you had better yell loudly so that they can hear you down at ground level. I also encountered this week a proponent of A Bigger Cambridge who publicly declared that only people with driveways should be allowed to own cars in Cambridge. You can’t make this stuff up.

There is also a Special City Council meeting at 4:00pm to discuss strategy in preparation for negotiations with the City Manager relative to his contract. Perhaps most importantly, there is an 11:00am Monday meeting of the “Special Committee of the Whole”, i.e. all 9 councillors, to take up some of the more problematic suggestions for Charter changes proposed by some of its more radical members. There are also rumors of a possible ballot question campaign from Cambridge’s most problematic clown-car (DSA or “Democratic Socialists of America” - Cambridge Chapter) to throw out Cambridge’s Council-Manager form of government in favor of a strongman (or strongwoman or strongsomething) form of local government. Should the ballot question materialize, there is little doubt that it would be paired with the City Council campaigns of one or more socialist candidates in search of a Big Issue. Perhaps someone named Stalin or Castro will throw his hat in the ring. Then again, perhaps a couple more incumbents will hop in the clown-car.

On the matter of the proposed Cambridge Charter, I noticed that the current draft lacks at least two notable provisions that have been a part of the Plan E Charter since it was adopted in 1940: (1) the provision for citizen-initiated referendums and initiative petitions, and (b) the felony prohibition of councillors from going past the City Manager to pressure City department heads and other employees. These are Very Large Omissions.

Meanwhile, the Regular 5:30pm Meeting of the Ringwraiths has these notable agenda items:

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments and reappointments of members to the Transit Advisory Committee. [The official report notes 14 new appointees, but there are actually 16, in addition to the 8 reappointments.]
pulled by Nolan who states that women underrepresented in these appointments; Simmons concurs; Yi-An Huang notes limitations of the applicant pool; Appointments Approved, Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to PO24#154, regarding the City’s Sanctuary/Trust Act City status, the protections provided by the 2020 Welcoming Community Ordinance, and the importance of ensuring non-citizens are treated with dignity and respect. (CM25#14) [text of report]
pulled by Siddiqui; comments by Siddiqui, Carolina Almonte (Comm. on Immigrant Rights & Citizenship), Simmons, McGovern, Toner (asks what may be coming), Yi-An Huang, Megan Bayer (Law Department), Sobrinho-Wheeler, Nolan (notes possibility of loss of federal funding), Simmons, McGovern (on what City cannot do), Wilson; Placed on File 9-0

When the Feds descend on Cambridge (and they will), this will likely be The Big Story.

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update on negotiations with Harvard University regarding PILOT payments.
pulled by Toner; updates by Yi-An Huang (50 year agreement in 2004, City option to terminate at end of 20 years, 1 year extension in Sept 2023, expired at end of 2024), Harvard now negotiating in good faith, many changes over 20 years, expectation of increased commitment from Harvard, proposals have been exchanged but still being negotiated, issue of how to value in-kind contributions, seek agreement by July 2025, existing agreement was $4.7 million PILOT in 2024); comments/questions by Toner (asks if we need to terminate the existing agreement); Huang notes one extension already, acknowledges risk of losing current PILOT funding, notes that it is interest of both Harvard and the City to come to an agreement; Sobrinho-Wheeler wants increased PILOT w/o counting in in-kind contributions, prefers shorter (20-year) term; Wilson asks who is involved in the negotiations, what happens if no agreement by July, status of MIT PILOT agreement (50-year agreement with no opt-out provision); Siddiqui emphasizes priorities for PILOT $ (does she want to earmark?); Azeem suggests City has leverage via zoning, I-90 project (is he suggesting quid-pro-quo?), wants more graduate student housing; Nolan says in-kind should not be valued in PILOT but also calls it critically important, also suggests that PILOT $ have earmarks for Council priorities; Zusy emphasizes graduate student housing; McGovern concerns about withholding in-kind contributions, esp. w.r.t. schools, notes that you cannot force graduate students to live on campus and rent levels in graduate student housing needs to be attractive, old Vellucci story of taking Harvard Yard by eminent domain and turning it into parking; Owen O’Riordan notes that a major sewer line goes under Widener Library; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an updated drought regulation ordinance. (CM25#16) [text of report]
pulled by Toner; Nolan comments; Mark Gallagher (Managing Director, Water Dept.) comments; Zusy comments, notes email from Nicolai Cauchy re: water levels; Simmons concerned about gender-neutral language; comments by Megan Bayer re: proposed fine schedule; Referred to Ordinance Committee 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-54, regarding a review of Curb Cut Policies. (CM25#18) [text of report]
pulled by Toner w/hope that Council can be removed from process entirely and completely a staff decision; Megan Bayer notes that there is no legal requirement for abutter feedback; Kathy Watson (DPW) notes proposed process and proposal role of City Council only an case of an appeal; Azeem agrees that there should be no City Council role, no appeal mechanism; Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler concur; Megan Bayer explains that the delegation of power should be done via ordinance, suggest referral to Gov’t Operations because language not yet drafted; Toner Referral to Gov’t Operations Adopted 9-0

The bottom line is that the City Council can delegate this to City departments if it wishes - similar to how the License Commission handles some matters that once were under City Council authority.

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-31 regarding an update to the Municipal Facilities Improvement Plan (MFIP) including revised cost estimates to help inform the FY26 and ongoing capital budget priorities. (CM25#19) [text of report]
pulled by Zusy w/questions about $23.5 million for Windsor Street and status of Kennedy-Longfellow building; Owen O’Riordan that there will be no students at K-Lo next year, expect $50 million on schools over next 5 years including $10-12 million toward K-Lo building, to be part of this year’s budget hearings; First Street project (parking garage) expected; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-60 regarding federal grant funding. (CM25#20) [text of report]
pulled by Siddiqui for comments; Zusy comments re: difficulties of contractors doing Cambridge projects (lay-down areas, parking challenges); comments by Chris Cotter re: off-site construction, role of MAPC; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to potential amendments to required setbacks for additions and alterations to existing buildings in the Multifamily Housing Zoning Petitions. (CM25#21) [text of report]
pulled by Siddiqui; Committee Report #3 also taken up (9-0); Committee Report #3 Accepted, Placed on File 9-0; McGovern lays out proposed amendments and votes; on Petition #1 setback amendments for existing buildings, comments by Siddiqui, Azeem, Toner, Jeff Roberts (CDD), Amendment Adopted 9-0; on amendment re: procedures and abutter feedback for projects not requiring a special permit, comments by Sobrinho-Wheeler (wants to limit legal recourse for abutters), Megan Bayer, JSW wants to table this and replace “abutters” to “abutting homeowners and renters”, Megan Bayer explains, McGovern suggests JSW exercise his Charter Right; Nolan notes that any building permit can be challenged, notes that this only requires people to listen to feedback; Toner concurs re: right to challenge and Bayer agrees but notes new restrictions in state law to baseless challenges; Toner notes that there is no majority vote here to allow legal challenge, cautions against extending right to challenge to anyone who feels aggrieved; Charter Right by JSW on this amendment; on amendment decreasing heights from 4 to 3 stories and 6 for inclusionary projects; Wilson aligns with JSW re: DSA “3+3” proposal without any minimum land area, notes her history growing up in public housing, advocates more public housing, calls support for “3+3” “overwhelming” (which is ridiculous); JSW concurs re: “3+3” proposal, claims it would yield more market rate and subsidized housing, notes his opposition to lot size limitations, objects to suggestion to delay this, claims that of all new housing other that AHO projects only 1% is “affordable”, says these changes would provide affordable units in 60% of projects; Nolan supports “3+3” amendment even without the proposed lot size limitations, will vote to ordain this proposal; Azeem will not support “3+3” proposal “in spirit of compromise”; Toner will not support “3+3” proposal, notes that developers suggest this would only yield 3-deckers being torn down and replaced by single-family homes, notes public objection to 6-stories on all residential lots; Zusy feels MFH proposal is problematic and will not make housing more affordable, will create havoc in neighborhoods, make homeowners feel vulnerable, notes failure of similar changes in other cities, willing to support “3+3” proposal rather than “4+2” suggesting less backlash; Siddiqui comments on CDD projections, says whatever we pass is better than the status quo, housing developers OK w/“4+2”; Simmons says “4+2” language represents compromise, says CDD estimates 3500 new homes over next 15 years including 660 income-restricted homes; McGovern on “affordable housing piece”, notes rationale of doing AHO first (which sounds like a restatement of the stated ABC strategy), extols virtue of increasing inclusionary percentage to 20%, suggests that proposal primarily about middle-income housing, dismisses suggestion that 6-story buildings would appear on a tiny lot but then suggests it would happen w/o the restriction on lot size, says the “3+3” proposal would add in 15 years produce 550 more housing units and 260 more inclusionary units, says we can make up those numbers by going very tall in Squares and Corridors and even taller with AHO projects, will oppose “3+3” amendment; Zusy says some developers believe 5000 sq ft minimum requirement might not be necessary, suggests this might be rescinded when a 6-story building appears on a street with 2½ stories; Melissa Peters suggests that either option will be impactful in terms of number of units produced “in a positive direction”; Wilson comments suggesting that “the community” supports 3+3; AW,JSW “3+3” amendment Fails 4-5 (PN,JSW,AW,CZ-Yes; BA,MM,SS,PT,DS-No); Nolan comments on Squares and Corridors, etc., bemoans lack of Planning Board advice on petitions; Petition #1 Passed to 2nd Reading 8-1 (Zusy-No); Petition #2 Passed to 2nd Reading 8-1 (Zusy-No); Reconsideration of #1 and #2 Fails 0-9; Placed on File 9-0.

114 Communications - mostly taking sides on The Bigger Cambridge Zoning.

Committee Report #1. The Neighborhood & Long Term Planning Committee held a public hearing on best practices for urban planning Wed, Jan 8, 2025. The meeting will feature MIT’s Chris Zegras Department Head of the Department of Urban Studies and Planning and Professor of Mobility and Urban Planning and Jeff Levine, Associate Professor of the Practice of Economic Development & Planning and Harvard’s Maurice Cox, the Emma Bloomberg Professor in Residence of Urban Planning and Design at the Harvard Graduate School of Design. [text of report]

Committee Report #2. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Jan 8, 2025 to continue the discussion on two Multifamily Zoning petitions. [text of report] [communications]

Committee Report #3. The Ordinance Committee met on Thurs, Jan 16, 2025, at 3:00pm to continue the discussion on Multifamily Zoning Petition Part One and Multifamily Zoning Petition Part Two. [text of report] [communications]

The Council is expected to pass these to a 2nd Reading with ordination likely a couple of weeks later. Personally, I see no reason why such a substantial change is being zipped through the ordination process, but we are in one of those Progress At Any Cost moments in history - kind of like when the West End of Boston was leveled in the name of urban renewal or when Robert Moses ran roughshod over everything that Jane Jacobs defended. I guess it all comes down to your definition of “progress”, but you can count me among those who still prefers human-scale buildings and consistent scale in established neighborhoods. On the issue of the “housing crisis”, I would just remind everyone that Cambridge is not the problem – and we should not necessarily be sacrificing what is good in our city so that other cities and towns can continue to do little or nothing.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with a update on the status and timeline for the completion of the Grand Junction Multi-use Path and how implementation between Gore Street and Little Binney could coincide with Phase 2 of the CSO implementation on Cambridge Street.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Zusy, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Toner; add all councillors as sponsors; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Order #3. City Council opposition to Congressional Voter-Suppression SAVE Bill.   Councillor Nolan, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

I agree with this Order - mainly because of the burden it would place on our Election Commission and election workers. I will add that if I now had to register to vote for the first time I might run into a problem because I never got a passport and finding my birth certificate might take a Herculean effort. I do think, however, therefore I am.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department to install “Bicycles Must Yield” signs along the Linear Park Parkway, Russell Field, Cambridge Commons, and any other shared use pathway determined appropriate by the City Manager and staff.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zusy, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; Toner, Nolan, Zusy, Sobrinho-Wheeler comments; Charter Right - Sobrinho-Wheeler

Yeah, I’m sure those signs will be scrupulously obeyed.

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to develop zoning recommendations, pursuant to M.G.L. c.40A §9B, for regulations to encourage the use of solar energy systems and protect solar access for Registered Solar Energy Systems that have been in existence for one year, per Ordinance Ch. 22.60, specifically on structures over 4 stories.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Zusy
pulled by Azeem; Nolan explains how this Order came about, add Wilson, Zusy as sponsors 9-0; Azeem asks for examples, Melissa Peters (CDD) responds; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Charter Right #1. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $2,500,000, from Free Cash, to the Finance Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($1,500,000), and to the Finance Department Extraordinary Expenditures account ($1,000,000), to support the continued operation and needed capital and equipment improvements to Neville Center, a 5-star skilled nursing facility with 112 beds, which is part of Neville Communities Inc. [Charter Right – Nolan, Jan 6, 2025]
McGovern says “charter-written”, Nolan says “charter-wrote” (Sheesh, do they understand the English language?); Nolan goes on about financial details, concerns about high interest rate and profit by Rockland Trust, etc., wants to bifurcate vote into $1.5 million and $1 million votes; Toner asks what would happen if Council did not support this, Chair of Neville Board notes that this would make things difficult; Zusy wonders why Neville didn’t get any ARPA funds, etc.; Solicitor says it’s OK to bifurcate vote; $1.5 million appropriation from Free Cash (for debt service) Adopted 8-1 (Nolan-No); $1 million appropriation from General Fund (for capital improvements) Adopted 9-0; Reconsideration Fails 0-9.

Resolution #4. Thanks to Iram Farooq for her 25 years of commitment, service, and leadership at the City of Cambridge Community Development Department and best wishes as she joins Harvard University.   Councillor Siddiqui, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Wilson
pulled early by Siddiqui; comments by Siddiqui, Azeem, Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Toner, Zusy, Wilson, McGovern, Simmons, Yi-An Huang, Iram Farooq; all councillors added as sponsors; Adopted as Amended 9-0

Resolution #5. Condolences on the death of Robert V. Travers.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Zusy, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Toner; add all councillors as sponsors; Resolution Adopted 9-0 as Amended

Resolution #6. Condolences on the death of Henry Edward (Ted) Tierney.   Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor McGovern

Resolution #7. Condolences to the family of Janet Rose.   Mayor Simmons
pulled by Simmons; Charter Right - Simmons (to add more details)

Comments?

Meeting of the Special Committee of the Whole on the City Charter – Monday, January 27, 2025, 11:00am-1:00pm [Agenda]

I was the only person who gave public comment at the previous meeting in December. Presumably there will be others this time, but the unfortunate truth is that even though this is perhaps the single most significant matter now before this City Council, it has been flying almost completely under the radar.

This meeting features 5 additional proposed Charter changes from several city councillors, but the most interesting part of the agenda is the master class response from City Solicitor Megan Bayer that lays out with remarkable clarity the major problems with each of these proposals.

The new proposals are:

(1) give the City Council the power to increase parts of the annual budget by up to 10% compared to what is initially proposed by the City Manager

(2) City Solicitor would be appointed by the City Council

(3) Popularly elected mayor alongside a City Manager similar to Worcester

(4) 4 year (staggered) terms, with elections every 2 years

(5) Department heads appointed by the City Manager and approved by the Council

It is also worth noting, and I will likely address these during Public Comment, that:

(a) At the previous meeting of this Special Committee of the Whole, the councillors dismissed proposals for Resident Assemblies as well as proposed mechanisms for citizen-initiated referendums and initiative petitions. What they perhaps failed to realize is that citizen-initiated referendums and initiative petitions are part of our current Plan E Charter (by reference) and the apparent intention of the Charter Review Committee was to incorporate those provisions (with some changes) into the new proposed Charter. The action of the Special Committee effectively threw out an existing right to a mechanism for redress by citizens.

(b) The current Plan E Charter imposes severe penalties for Interference by City Council:

Section 107. Neither the city council nor any of its committees or members shall direct or request the appointment of any person to, or his removal from, office by the city manager or any of his subordinates, or in any manner take part in the appointment or removal of officers and employees in that portion of the service of said city for whose administration the city manager is responsible. Except for the through the city manager, and neither the city council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinate of the city manager either publicly or privately. Any member of the city council who violates, or participates in the violation of, any provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, and upon final conviction thereof his office in the city council shall thereby be vacated and he shall never again be eligible for any office or position, elective or otherwise, in the service of the city.

The Proposed Charter addresses Interference by City Council, but conveniently removes all penalties:

3.3 (d) Interference by City Council Prohibited – Except as provided in Section 2-7 and by this charter, neither the city council nor any of its committees or members shall direct or request the appointment of any person to, or their removal from, office by the city manager or any of their subordinates, or in any manner take part in the appointment or removal of officers and employees in that portion of the service of said city for whose administration the city manager is responsible. Except as otherwise provided by this charter, the city council and its members shall not give orders to any subordinate of the city manager either publicly or privately and shall direct all requests for service through the city manager. Nothing in this section shall prevent city council or its members from discussing matters generally with city staff, presuming the city manager is kept informed.

Without severe penalties against improper Council interference, it is likely that councillors would routinely blow past guardrails that protect against political meddling within City departments. I am of the belief that we should have better mechanisms for inquiry into policies and actions taken within City departments, but removal of these necessary guardrails is definitely not the remedy. - Robert Winters

Comments?

Special Committee on Charter Review Meeting – Monday, December 9, 1:00pm-3:00pm [Agenda]

December 5th, 2024
To Mayor Simmons and Members of the Cambridge City Council:

As Co-Chairs of the Special Committee on Charter Review, we have scheduled a meeting on December 9th, 2024, from 1 to 3pm for the full Council to discuss the status of Charter Review process and develop a timeline and plan for advancing recommendations to put forward on the November 4th, 2025 ballot.

In advance, we ask that you review the discussions and materials from the June 5th and June 25th, 2024 Government Operations, Rules, and Claims Committee meetings. Both meetings began with public comment and were followed by discussions on the Charter Review Committee recommendations, challenges of some of the recommendations, and strategies for moving the process forward.

• June 5th Government Operations meeting (VIDEO)
• June 5th Meeting Agenda and Documents
• June 25th Government Operations Committee Meeting (VIDEO)
• June 25th Meeting Agenda and Documents

At this time, the only decision that has been made is that a two-thirds majority of the Council will be required to advance any recommendations to the Attorney General and/or Legislature, and residents on a future ballot.

Our goal for the December 9th meeting is to review each of the recommendations from the Charter Review Committee. We will schedule a follow-up meeting in January 2025 for items that require more discussion, as well as any additional recommendations from the City Council.

Sincerely,

The Committee met for 2¼ hours and recessed until a to-be-scheduled next meeting in January. All votes taken were recommendations to the full City Council, held for further discussion, or referrals to the Government Operations Committee for possible future action independent of the Charter revision process.

A. City Manager or Strong Mayor form of Government
Vote was 7-2 to in favor of retaining city manager form. (Siddiqui and Sobrinho-Wheeler preferred strong mayor form.)

B. Maintain an at-large city council elected by proportional representation.
Vote was 8-0-1 to retain PR (Simmons Absent).

C. Maintain an at-large city council of 9 members.
Vote was 7-1-1 in favor. (Nolan expressed preference for a mixed system with some district councillors and some at-large. Simmons was Absent.)

D. Enfranchise non-citizens in municipal elections.
Vote was 8-0-1 to refer to Gov’t Ops. Committee for possible future separate Home Rule Petition (Simmons Absent). There were actually two parts to this: (1) allowing non-citizens to vote, and (2) allowing non-citizens to be candidates in municipal elections. Only Councillor Zusy expressed the view that voting rights are intertwined with citizenship.

E. Enfranchise 16- and 17-year-olds in municipal elections.
Vote was 8-0-1 to refer to Gov’t Ops. Committee for possible future separate Home Rule Petition (Simmons Absent).

F. Move municipal elections to even years.
Vote was 8-0-1 to refer to Gov’t Ops. Committee for possible future separate Home Rule Petition (Simmons Absent).

G. Create more flexibility and modernize election voting and tabulation methods in charter language.
Vote was 8-0-1 in favor with directive that Law Department draft appropriate language (Simmons Absent).

H. Participation in and Accessibility of Government for all Residents by creating Resident Assemblies.
Vote was 1-7-1 with only Sobrinho-Wheeler in favor (Simmons Absent).

I. Public tracking mechanisms of council policy orders.
Vote was 1-8 with general view expressed that this is already done and if any further direction is necessary it would be better in incorporate it into the City Council Rules rather than in the City Charter. Only Sobrinho-Wheeler was in favor.

J. Effectiveness of Government through Measurable Goalsetting.
Vote was 0-9 with general view expressed that this is already done and if any further direction is necessary it would be better in incorporate it into the City Council Rules rather than in the City Charter.

K. Maintain 2-year terms for city councillors.
This was held for further discussion at a later meeting. Some councillors expressed view that extending terms might be viewed as self-serving (obviously).
Note: None of the councillors seemed to understand that staggered 4-year terms (5 and 4) would fundamentally change the nature of our PR elections with a much larger election quota and diminution of minority representation. They also failed to understand the need for a recall provision with longer terms - something that is not compatible with our PR elections.]

L. Responsiveness and Accountability through delineating budget process and priority setting.
Vote was 0-9 with general view that this is already done and if any further clarity is needed it would be better in incorporate it into the City Council Rules rather than in the City Charter.

M. Give the City Council the power to add or increase line items in the budget.
This was held for further discussion at a later meeting.

N. Enshrine resident initiative provision.
Vote was 0-9.

O. Enshrine group petition provision.
Vote was 0-9.

Note: An Idea Whose Time Has Come Again – Redress of Grievances (posted Jan 26, 2023)

P. Campaign finance study committee.
Vote to refer to Gov’t Ops. Committee was 2-7.

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

Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Commission - deadline extended to Mon, Jan 27, 2024 (but apparently still open)

Half Crown-Marsh Neighborhood Conservation District Commission - deadline extended to Mon, Jan 27, 2024 (but apparently still open)

Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District Commission - deadline extended to Mon, Jan 27, 2024 (but apparently still open)

Cambridge Historical Commission - deadline extended to Mon, Jan 27, 2024 (but apparently still open)