Council updates – another busy week!

City Manager Agenda item #14 – I charter righted this item last week because I did not believe the response from the City Solicitor was sufficient. This is what I wrote to the Solicitor in an attempt to get a clearer answer on Monday:

This agenda item (a response to an earlier policy order) stated that the 7 affordable units in the proposal (15% affordable) stem from Article 11, section 11.203 of the ordinance, does not directly answer the question from PO #265; namely, shouldn’t all developments and requests for special permits be required to follow all zoning at the time of the extension? The order states that projects seeking extensions should be required to follow standards – inclusionary, environmental, and any others –  in place at the time of the extension. In the response, it is asserted that it is legal to NOT ask for additional affordable units. The question posed is different: what the council should know is how we CAN ask for adherence to existing zoning. This opens the possibility of asking for more.

There is also the question of whether granting three separate one-year extensions is legal. The zoning code states that permits expire except if construction doesn’t start for good cause, how is it possible that extensionS are granted? And if granted for longer than the initial two years of any permit, wouldn’t it make sense that multiple extensions are counter to the intent of our special permit ordinance guidelines which require construction to start within two years?

PO #23 – Hostile architecture – I charter righted an item seeking to eliminate all “hostile architecture” from city outdoor spaces. The term refers to concerns that much of public space includes some elements that are expressly meant to make it difficult for people to lie down and sleep – which many in the unhoused community see as unwelcoming. I also heard from people that some of the elements such as armrests can be helpful to those with mobility issues and that we should mindful as we address this issue of all residents – and include folks who are senior, disabled, and young families – in the discussions. Since the hour was late, instead of debating the changes on the floor I thought it best to work on more inclusive language to present at the next meeting. The changes I am proposing are simply to include acknowledgment of the needs of all residents.  

PO #26 – Universal School Meals – One of the wonderful things in our city is that Cambridge several years ago made sure that all students regardless of income could access meals without the stigma of anyone knowing who was on a subsidized plan. And under Mayor Marc McGovern, meals were provided free to folks who were on reduced lunch, as opposed to free lunch status. This order supports similar efforts at the national level. No one, including of course children, should go hungry.  

PO #27 – Support for Lifting Our Kids Out of Deep Poverty – So much of the support that we know people need comes from the state and federal government. The state has programs that offer cash grants to low-income families through Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children (TAFDC), and to disabled or elderly residents through Emergency Aid to the Elderly, Disabled and Children (EAEDC). A 10% increase was implemented earlier this year in response to the pandemic, but Governor Baker’s proposed FY2022 budget would eliminate that increase. This is not the time to pull back our support – Cambridge is restricted in our ability to respond to the pandemic by state law, and programs like these are vital to our most vulnerable residents. 

PO #28 – Redesigning “I Voted” stickers – there are numerous languages spoken in Cambridge, and as we continue our efforts to increase voter turnout, ensuring there are materials in all languages is an important step. 

Ordinance meeting on Green Roofs:

Mothers Out Front has worked steadfastly to develop a petition with a mandate for green roofs wherever possible – both literally green as in vegetation and green as in solar panels – on new developments ad major renovations.  As was pointed out in the hearing, Cambridge has had a green roof ordinance for a decade, allowing such structures.  And it has been entirely ineffective at getting green roofs built – so if we want more green roofs, we need to do something different.  I am fully supportive of this mandate – I do not want us to continue with only voluntary measures.  And, the petition stayed in committee – which may be confusing – but it seemed to be the best way to ensure eventual passage.  There are some changes that need to be made to make it as effective and useful and legal an ordinance as possible.  By keeping the petition in committee, we can review such changes and pass to the full council language that can be adopted without the need for further changes.  I know that Ordinance co-chairs Dennis Carlone and Marc McGovern are also fully supportive and will do all they can to ensure timely passage of this exciting petition.