Just Another Manic Monday – March 3, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

There’s also a meeting earlier in the day (10am) to (presumably) approve a contract extension with the City Manager.

Here are the items that grabbed my attention:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update regarding Federal funding.

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update on Supplier Diversity. (CM25#29) [text of report]

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of David Freilach, Rachel Dowley Alexander, and Chris Herlich as members and the reappointment of Kai Alexis Smith as a member of the Public Art Commission for a term of three years.

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-63 regarding recognizing and honoring the Massachusett Tribe. (CM25#31) [text of report]

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to changes in the Clerk Department ordinance regarding a fee increase. (CM25#32) [text of report]

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to direct the appropriate City staff to explore potential actions the City can take to mitigate the impact of Eversource price hikes.   Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toner

Order #2. That the City Council go on record reaffirming that Cambridge is a Sanctuary City not only for immigrants but also for all marginalized communities, including transgender and nonbinary individuals.   Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to direct the appropriate City staff to coordinate with the MBTA in finding ways in which to strengthen safety measures.   Mayor Simmons, Councillor Azeem

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to work with all appropriate Departments to develop language to create an “Affordable Rent Incentive Program” program for Cambridge and to report back to the City Council with option, including the percentage of possible tax abatements.   Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Azeem, Mayor Simmons

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to commit to prioritizing snow removal from crosswalks and pedestrian islands for the rest of this and future snow seasons and direct appropriate City staff to generate a policy for prioritizing snow removal from crosswalks and pedestrian islands after snow storms.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson

Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Law Department to draft a home rule petition allowing Cambridge to end the practice of property owners passing on broker’s fees to tenants.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern

Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant staff to present a zoning petition to the City Council for consideration on maximum unit size.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern

Order #10. That the City Council go on record in support of HD.2996/SD.1305 An Act to Regulate Junk Fees in Housing and HD.238/SD.35 An Act Eliminating Forced Broker’s Fees.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson

Order #13. The City Manager is requested to work with relevant departments to create a plaque to be placed at the entrance of or inside City Hall that demonstrates the values that the Cambridge City Council upholds of the separation of church and state and gender equality.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson

294 Communications - mainly from the previous regular meeting re: either municipal broadband (pro and con) and the citywide upzoning (pro and con).

Committee Report #1. The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on February 11, 2025 to review and discuss the update to the Cambridge Net Zero Action Plan (NZAP) Annual Report. [text of report]

Comments and additional details may follow

The Other Shoe Drops - February 10, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

It should be noted that this Regular City Council meeting will be preceded by a 3:00pm Special Meeting relating to negotiations to extend the contract of City Manager Yi-An Huang. Public comment will permitted at that meeting prior to going into Executive Session.

The Big Items (other than any developments on the City Manager’s contract) are the inevitable ordination of the ill-begotten Multi-Family Housing zoning (better characterized as the Gargantuan Upzoning Amendment) and an Order to move ahead on Municipal Broadband - regardless of cost.

Here are the items on the Regular Meeting that drew my attention this week:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Cambridge Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan final adoption. (CM25#26) [text of report and Order]
Order Adopted, Placed on File 9-0

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to create a plan with a schedule and milestones to move forward with the creation of a Municipal Broadband Network and present it for consideration by the Council at a Finance Committee meeting in the context of capital projects for coming years.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by JSW dismissing concerns about feasibility claiming much consultation with City officials; Nolan notes that service would not be free, says this Order in not a mandate to move forward, notes importance of net neutrality, says this is a necessary utility, calls it a manageable investment; Toner notes opposition due to range of “Whereas” statements, $150-250 million cost and changing technologies, other ways to address Internet equity; McGovern says he has been supportive of this, but notes different financial circumstances now, refers to “Trump-Musk administration” and federal cuts, proposes amendment to strike to “to move forward to the creation…” clause; Zusy concurs re: current financial circumstances, notes other ways digital equity is being addressed; Siddiqui OK with amendment; Wilson says conversation is important; Simmons says affordable Internet now not a luxury but a necessity, need for greater digital equity, notes that proposal doesn’t assure lower cost; McGovern amendment to remove “to move forward” Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 8-1 (Toner-No)

Though I have no strong feelings on Municipal Broadband, I am aware of the significant costs associated with it as well as the risks and uncertainty of moving forward on an infrastructure proposal in an environment where emerging technologies may make this obsolete. I am also reminded of the various meetings and presentations on the tax levy over the last year and the repeated advice that the City needs to be more fiscally prudent in the near term. Perhaps Councillors Sobrinho-Wheeler, Siddiqui, Nolan, and Wilson didn’t get the memo. Or maybe this is being introduced strategically right now as the City Manager’s contract extension is being negotiated. Or maybe it’s just another municipal election year bauble to be dangled in front of the electorate even though there is little or no indication that this will yield any cost savings for consumers. For the record, I deeply dislike Comcast/Xfinity - but mainly because of the crappy Cable TV options which, by the way, never enter into the discussions about Municipal Broadband.

Unfinished Business #1. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to Ordinance 2025 #1 Multi-family Zoning Petition-Part 1. [Passed to 2nd Reading Jan 27, 2025; Amended Feb 3, 2025; Eligible to be Ordained Feb 10, 2025; Expires Feb 17, 2025] (ORD25#1) [Final Version as Ordained]
pulled by Azeem; Azeem amendment to footnote as suggested by CDD staff Adopted 9-0; McGovern amendment re: required abutters meeting that would have required notification to Planning Boards in adjacent towns (not viewable in recording of meeting); Nolan comments on electronic notification; McGovern amendment Adopted 8-0-1 (Toner-Absent); Zusy comments on this proposal producing most luxury units, raised real estate values, displacement, and other negative outcomes, suggests delaying this or reconsidering “3+3” alternative and establish funding mechanisms, community land trust; Azeem praises himself and Siddiqui; Siddiqui calls this her “birthday present”, suggests even more aggressive changes and “being intentional”, dismisses concerns of others as “fear of change”; McGovern addresses concern about “luxury units” and that target population is people who make too much money to be eligible for Inclusionary Housing units, calls this “good government”; Toner concurs and acknowledges that many people will be upset with his vote in favor, dismisses concerns about over-building on small lots, wants to now move forward on Squares and Corridors; Wilson emphasizes “crisis”, says she preferred “3+3” alternative; Nolan credits herself for initializing process for eliminating single-family zoning, says she preferred “3+3” alternative claiming it would have yielded more units and more affordability; Sobrinho-Wheeler notes that all current single-family housing sell for at least $1.5 million, says this change will yield 60% of all new buildings having affordable units; Simmons notes long process and suggests this will yield affordability for generations, says “leadership means making difficult choices”, says Squares and Corridors, housing vouchers next targets, says “we are a role model”; Petition Ordained as Amended 8-1 (Zusy-No); Reconsideration Fails 0-9

Unfinished Business #2. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to ORDINANCE 2025 #2 Multi-family Zoning Petition-Part 2. [Passed to 2nd Reading Jan 27, 2025; Eligible to be Ordained Feb 10, 2025; Expires Feb 17, 2025] (ORD25#2) [Final Version as Ordained]
pulled by Azeem; Petition Ordained as Amended 8-1 (Zusy-No); Reconsideration Fails 0-9

Late Order #6. That the City Manager direct the Community Development Department and Law Department to draft an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would make the provisions of Section 11.207.5.2.1, Paragraph (e), which allow qualified increases in building height under the Affordable Housing Overlay, not applicable in the Residence C-1 district.   Councillor Toner (PO25#16)
Late Order Adopted 9-0

Other than the allowance of multi-family housing in all residential districts (which is not controversial), I think this gargantuan zoning change is a huge mistake. The existence of varying heights and densities in different parts of Cambridge is a feature - not a bug. I am also acutely aware of the value of setbacks and access - especially in regard to fire safety. Sometimes I think some of our city councillors are just robots created as part of an MIT project – programmed to solve some maximum packing problem set with no sense of aesthetics, liveability, or community. Meanwhile, the activists promise benefits like cheaper rents and lower costs that will most likely never be realized - at least not as a result of these zoning changes. Sometimes the call of “crisis” is just a tool to ram things through - both nationally and locally.

Committee Report #1. The Transportation and Public Utilities Committee held a public hearing on Jan 28, 2025 to discuss inter-jurisdictional projects that are in play that may impact mobility in Cambridge. The discussion was focused on the Community Development Department’s report of Nov 14, 2024 to the City Council, Awaiting Report 24-36. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

I attended this meeting primarily to alert the councillors (at least those who actually listen) to some alternative approaches to pedestrian and bicycle-friendly crossings of the Charles River.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with appropriate departments to prepare a communication to DCR Commissioner Arrigo, urging that a study of traffic conditions at the intersections of Western Avenue and River Street at Memorial Drive and Soldiers Field Road (commonly referred to as “the box”), be included in their FY26 Capital Plan.   Councillor Zusy, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0

This was one of the priorities discussed at the above meeting. Many of the current crop of activists only see merit in lane reductions and obstructions that make automobile use as difficult as possible. Reality sometimes has to intervene. - RW

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.

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?

Thurs, Feb 13 - Special Committee of the Whole

3:00pm   The Special Committee of the Whole will hold a public meeting to resume the review and discussion of recommendations from the Charter Review Committee and any additional suggestions from the full City Council pertaining to the Cambridge City Charter. This is a continuation of the public hearing that began on Dec 9, 2024, that reconvened and recessed again on Jan 27, 2025.  (Sullivan Chamber and Zoom) [Agenda & Attachments]

This meeting primarily focused on several proposed alternatives for the election of the mayor with the consensus being that this should best be left to the City Council Rules rather than be enshrined in the City Charter. They did not discuss several alternate proposals involving City Council taking greater control of the City Budget process and the matter of whether or not the City Solicitor should be appointed by the City Council or if the city manager’s chosen city solicitor should be subject to City Council approval or removal. There will be another meeting on February 24. It is also expected that the Law Department will very soon make available a marked-up draft of a proposed City Charter based on votes taken to date. - RW

Mon, Feb 24

1:30pm   The Special Committee of the Whole will hold a public meeting to resume the review and discussion of recommendations from the Charter Review Committee and any additional suggestions from the full City Council pertaining to the Cambridge City Charter. This is a continuation of the public hearing that began on Dec 9, 2024, that reconvened and recessed again on Jan 27, 2025, and reconvened and recessed again on Feb 13, 2024.  (Sullivan Chamber and Zoom) [Agenda (contains red-lined DRAFT of proposed Charter)

The Cambridge City Charter: From Town Meeting to Plan E premiered on Monday, May 15, 2023 at 5:30pm on CCTV Channel 9 and is viewable on YouTube.

Created by writer-narrators John Pitkin and Robert Winters, both long-time Cambridge residents, and director Gregorio Leon, a 2016 graduate of CRLS and Emerson College, the video is introduced by WGBH’s Jim Braude. The Cambridge’s City Charter: From Town Meeting to Plan E combines historical documents, images, maps, and statistics to present a provocative half-hour overview of Cambridge’s first 94 years as a city and the origins of the current Plan E charter.

The episode examines our shared history through the lens of the City Charter and local elections. It shows how the Town Meeting style of government became impracticable and led to the consolidation of Old Cambridge, the neighborhood around Harvard College, with the villages of Cambridgeport and East Cambridge to create the city of Cambridge, chartered by the Commonwealth in 1846. The half-hour video presents a visually engaging review of the expansion of Cambridge as bridges linked Old Cambridge to Boston in the 18th and early 19th century, as migration drove population growth, suffrage expanded, and participation in local elections increased.

A second episode of Cambridge Civic View is planned that will look at the history of the current Plan E charter. Since 1940, Plan E has defined our local government, given us the existing system of nine City Councillors with a City Manager as our chief executive, and established the ranked-choice proportional representation voting system used to elect our Councillors and School Committee. It is hoped that these videos will provide necessary perspective on how the current City Charter came to be and how it might be modified.

Comments?

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

Cambridge Commission on Immigrant Rights & Citizenship - deadline Mon, Mar 10, 2025

Human Services Commission - deadline Mon, Mar 24, 2025