CAN Unofficial Notes on City Council Meeting
Monday, December 9, 2024 @ 6:00 PM
Commission Chambers – 305 Gay Street Cambridge, MD 21613

Attendance: All ward commissioners are present. Mayor Rideout is not present. President and Ward 2 commissioner Lajan Cephas conducts the meetin

1.Agenda: Commission to approve or amend agenda as presented.

Motion raised to approve Agenda and seconded. Approved by all commissioners 5-0.

Presentations from the Approved Guests: None

Consent Agenda:
2. Meeting Minutes, November 25, 2024, Regular Session
3. Doug Kyle from Blue Ruin will hold “New Year’s Eve Party” on Tuesday December 31, 2024, from noon to 2am at 322 Gay Street. Please see application for additional details.
Motion raised to approve Consent Agenda and seconded. Approved by all commissioners 5-0.

Ordinances for First Reading: None

Ordinances for Second Reading
4. ORDINANCE NO. 1242 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF CAMBRIDGE, MARYLAND TO AMEND CHAPTER 2 (ADMINISTRATION) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ABOLISHING THE CITIZENS’ ADVISORY COMMITTEE, MARINE FACILITIES COMMITTEE, AND HUMAN RELATIONS COMMITTEE; PROVIDING THAT THE TITLE OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE DEEMED A FAIR SUMMARY AND GENERALLY RELATING TO COMMITTEES OF THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.

a. Second Reading motion raised to open public hearing and seconded. Approved by all commissioners 5-0.
b. Public Hearing
• Charles McFadden opposes closing the Marina Facilities Committee. Putting the Marina under the Engineering Dept will lower the focus on the marina. Engineering Dept has so many projects going on. Afraid that Marina Project will be overlooked.

Marina needs:

o 3 Docks replaced at a cost of $1mm each
o Resize some slips
o Change 2 docks to floating docks
o Needs to hook up with the shoreline resiliency project
o Replace decking
o Fix electrical outlets
o Wave action reduction

• Raising the rates to help pay for the updates needed
• This project is going to have to be self-financed because no money is coming by way of city funds. This funding will have to come from the slip holders, and they will have to be sold on the project. That is not what the engineering department does. Suggest that 2 members from the Yacht Club,
• 2 members from the city marina be maintained on the committee along with Scott Fitzhugh.

 Cheryl Hannan responded that the Marina Facilities committee is archaic in the city code and that’s why they wanted to abolish it. The committee that oversees the things that Mr. McFadden was talking about is the Ad Hoc Committee (not the Marina Facilities committee). The Ad Hoc committee is still relevant and should be working.
 Mr. McFadden responded back that the Ad Hoc committee was not currently meeting. However, CAN would be glad to support the Ad Hoc committee.

Motion raised to close public hearing and seconded. Approved by all commissioners 5-0.

Motion raised to approve abolishing Citizen’s Advisory Committee and Human Relations Committee and seconded. Approved by all commissioners 5-0.

Discussion
Brian Roche, Ward 5 – Sympathetic to the things that Mr. McFadden was talking about. There needs to be a mechanism in place to attend to the Marina and for the people who use the Marina. The Ad Hoc committee is not part of the city charter but people who have something to say will certainly be heard and listened to.
Mr. McFadden – He can say that CAN will support the Marina Ad Hoc Committee but he needs to know that when he comes to the city council for help, he will be supported by the commissioners.
Laurel Atkiss, Ward 1 – Reiterated that the Marina Facilities Committee is a non-working committee and not the Ad Hoc committee that is still in place and needs to be activated again and functional.
Sputty Cephas, Ward 4 – The Marina Facilities committee has not been staffed since the 70s?
Cheryl Hannan replied that it has not.
Lajan Cephas, Ward 2 – Asked the city manager to see what needs to be done to get the Ad Hoc committee reengaged. Someone will reach out to Mr. McFadden when the Ad Hoc committee is reactivated.

Motion raised to approve abolishing Marine Facilities Committee and seconded. Approved by all commissioners 5-0.

5. ORDINANCE NO. 1243 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF CAMBRIDGE, MARYLAND TO AMEND § 4.2.3(D)(10) OF THE CITY’S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (“UDC”) FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING THAT SMALL-SCALE AND COMMUNITY SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS MAY BE LOCATED ON MOSTLY WOODED LOTS, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS; PROVIDING THAT THE TITLE OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE DEEMED . A FAIR SUMMARY AND GENERALLY RELATING TO ZONING IN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.

a. Second Reading

b. PowerPoint Presentation from Director of Planning, Brian Herrmann
 The City’s Planning Commission passed this staff-initiated text amendment (7-0) at their November 6th meeting. The proposal impacts Small-scale Solar Energy Systems and Community Solar Energy Systems. Medium-scale Solar Energy Systems and Large-scale Solar Energy Systems are not impacted.
 As proposed, a Small-scale Solar Energy System and a Community Solar Energy System may be located on a mostly wooded lot if the proposal complies with the stricter of either the City’s Forest Conservation Ordinance or the Model Forest Conservation Ordinance (COMAR), and the total area to be cleared does not exceed 10 acres.
 A Small-scale Solar Energy System is located on the owner’s property, utilizes less than (1) acre of land, is often installed on the rooftop of one’s home, and has a rooftop generating capacity of less than two hundred Kilowatts.
o Essentially, the small-scale system is geared toward occupants of single-family homes that want solar as an energy option.
 A Community Solar Energy System is an “offsite” system that provides power to (and may be owned by) the residents of the community. In the State of Maryland 30 to 40% of the output of such a system must serve low to moderate income residents.
o The system is ideal for those who might want to install Small-scale Solar on their parcel, but due to roof constraints, the fact that they do not own the property, or other financial considerations are unable to do so.
o Each kilowatt hour of electricity produced in a community solar system results in a net metering credit that is roughly the same as the value of a retail cost of a kilowatt hour of electricity. (E.g. If a net metering credit has a value of $ .15, a community solar subscriber might receive the net metering credit at a discount cost of $ .135. This would be a savings to the subscriber.

Subscribers are typically:
 Renters
 Those individuals without a sunny roof or sun access on their property.
 Those who can’t afford the upfront cost of installing a small-scale solar system.
 In addition, the City’s Unified Development Code (UDC) states, “only 350 acres within the City’s incorporated limits may be approved for Medium-Scale Solar Energy Systems, Large-Scale Solar Energy Systems, or Community Solar Energy Systems.” Currently, two projects are in the final stages of the development review process. If constructed, nearly 325 of the original 350 acres (mentioned above) will have been utilized. As a result, only 25 acres will remain for future solar fields in the City of Cambridge.
 The medium scale and large-scale solar projects are not addressed at all in this ordinance.

Questions
Brian Roche, Ward 5 – Why was community solar part of the 350 acres in the ordinance? Remove community solar from the ordinance.
Brian Hermann – Not sure why community solar was included in the 350 acres. He was not here at the time the solar legislation was formed. You can have a significant community solar system on 20 acres or more. The original legislation was probably concerned about the acreage.
Brian Roche, Ward 5 – He would not want to see limitations put on solar energy for townhomes, low-income households using community solar. This would be restricted by the 350-acre ruling. Seems foolish to put limits on community solar. Is there conflict with state laws?
Brian Hermann – If the city wanted to amend the 350 acres in the ordinance, they certainly could do that. The amendment proposed now is related to this point but is more concerned with allowing community and small solar projects on a wooded lot.
Brian Roche, Ward 5 – Can’t the reference to the community solar being part of the 350 acres be stricken from the ordinance? I would not like to think that our proposals for housing and land banking would not be eligible for community solar because of the 350-acre restriction in the ordinance. I would hate to think that a low-income housing project or historical district project could not set aside a parcel of land within their property lines for solar because of the 350-acre limit in the ordinance.
Brian Hermann – Understood. The 350-acre limit could be removed or changed in the ordinance. So in addition to the amendment proposal we bring to you tonight, you would like to see the reference to community solar within the 350-acre limit removed.
Brian Roache, Ward 5 – Yes
City Attorney – The change that is being proposed [by Brian Roche] goes beyond the scope of amendment to the ordinance brought by the Planning Commission. The text amendment removing the community solar projects from the 350-acre limit needs to be addressed separately.
Lajan Cephas, Ward 2 – The text amendment that Brian Roche is proposing requires another discussion after the Planning Commission discusses themselves.
Brian Roache, Ward 5 – I would like to know what the other commissioners think of this. Why can’t the community solar be removed from the 350-acre limit now and we can vote on that amendment too?
City Attorney – Because the change you are proposing is substantive. This ordinance is a zoning ordinance governed by state laws. That is why the Planning Commission must discuss again, have a public hearing and make a recommendation.
Brian Roche, Ward 5 – Could there be a conflict with state laws? They are very strict about solar projects.
City Attorney – Not the text amendments that we are proposing. State laws are more concerned with regulatory rules and practices (such as a Certification of Public Convenience or Necessity (CPCN) which supersedes local zoning. The Egypt Road project needed a CPCN and their project has abided by local zoning. There is not always a hurdle to overcome between state laws and local laws.
Brian Roache, Ward 5 – I just want to make sure there are no limits on community solar in Cambridge.
Laurel Atkiss, Ward 1 – [To Brian Roache] The text change you are recommending will not be forgotten. The text amendment will be voted on when it goes through the necessary process.
Lajan Cephas, Ward 2 – Yes. You [Brian Roche] were voted back to the city council so you will be voting on it.

Motion raised to approve opening public hearing and seconded. Approved by all commissioners 5-0.

c. Public Hearing
Tony Coppersmith from Easton, MD. He represents a company that is doing a community solar project on Leonard’s Lane. This text amendment is important to them because it will have a direct bearing on the Leonard’s Lane project which is ready to go forward. We respectfully would like the city council to adopt this text amendment tonight.

Motion raised to approve closing public hearing and seconded. Approved by all commissioners 5-0.

d. Council Action
Discussion – Sputty Cephas, Ward

Motion raised to approve text amendment change [approved by Planning Commission] and seconded. Approved by all commissioners 5-0.

Old Business
6. Honorary Street Name for Mrs. Shirley Jackson.
 Ms. Jackson named to the Maryland Senior Citizens Hall of Fame in 2021 and received the prestigious GERI award.
 The Maryland Senior Citizen Hall of Fame serves to recognize, acknowledge, and honor the volunteer civic and humanitarian accomplishments and achievements of individual Maryland senior citizens.

a. Council Agenda Report from Director of Public Services, Wayne Suggs
Brandon Hesson talked about this because Mr Suggs was not present.

Questions
Jamison Harrington, Ward 3 –
Sputty Cephas, Ward 4 – The correct name is Shirley S. Jackson.

New Business – none

Meetings
Motion raised to approve all meetings and seconded. Approved by all commissioners 5-0.

Public Comment
 Charles McFadden – Thanked commission for last 4 years. Thinks that Cannery Park will be the commission’s legacy.

Department/Division Head Reports –
No comments from Fire Chief, Finance, Police, Engineering

City Manager Comments
7. Administrative Report from City Manager, Glenn Steckman from December 6, 2024
 Vacancy on CWDI for city member. Wants resumes from interested people
 Mayoral swearing in ceremony on January 13, 2025

Commissioners’ Comments
Lajan Cephas, Ward 2 – thanked Jamison Harrington and Laurel Atkiss- gave them key to the city Laurel Atkiss, Ward 1 – honor and privilege to serve on the city council
Jamison Harrington, Ward 3- thanked everyone
Sputty Cephas, Ward 4 – thanked Laurel and Jamison for their service
Brian Roche, Ward 5 – thanked Laurel and Jamison for their service

Motion raised to approve adjournment and seconded. Approved by all commissioners 5-0.

City council meeting adjourned at 6:55 PM

Notes taken by Alison Kennedy, CAN member

Download (DOCX, 36KB)