Council Updates, Citywide Zoning, Memorial Drive, And More

BEUDO Update
I will be chairing a meeting of the Health and Environment Committee on Tuesday, October 8, from 11:00am – 1:00pm to receive an update from city staff on BEUDO implementation and to review and discuss regulations, elements of BEUDO, and possible future updates. This meeting will be an important benchmark. The City Council passed amendments to BEUDO in June of 2023 which required large buildings throughout the city to reduce their emissions pollution to netzero over time. At this meeting we will hear about progress on promulgating regulations, outreach to building owners, and support for smaller building owners who want to make building upgrades.

FY25 Tax Hearing
As part of our regular Council meeting Monday night, we will vote to approve the new tax rate for FY2025. The new tax rates have been calculated based on the approved budget that we passed in June 2024. As co-chair of the Finance Committee I have worked closely with city staff to better inform the council and the public about the city’s financial planning and to try to bridge the gap between the decisions we make throughout the year and how they affect our long term financial planning, including their effect on property taxes. The clear sense is that we will have to prioritize spending, and be judicious in choices on spending, and find ways to economize in order to fulfill our goals. Throughout this fall, we will be holding a series of Finance Committee meetings that seek to build on that long term financial planning and outline many of the choices we will have to make as we enter a new macroeconomic climate. The good news is that the city administration and City Council are working collaboratively on a sustainable and appropriate financial plan for now and the future. During the Finance Committee meetings this fall, we will continue to have these discussions and develop that financial plan.

Memorial Drive
Memorial Drive has been in desperate need of safety improvements for over a decade at this point, and in the last ten years alone, there have been over 1200 crashes reported, including 109 crashes involving a vulnerable road user, 446 people injured, 4 fatalities (3 pedestrians/1 cyclist), and 29 incapacitating or serious injuries. Those statistics alone should indicate that the state should move with haste to make necessary improvements, but over the years, progress has stalled for a number of reasons. Before I was elected to Council, in April 2019 I went to a community meeting at the Morse School hosted by DCR  about their plans for a comprehensive design addressing the safety issues of Memorial Drive, based on the 2017 vision report. Way back then the indication was that plans were moving forward to address long-term safety issues and the need for a redesign in light of more modern urban planning. That planning for the whole of the Drive was shortly thereafter shelved, partly due to Covid, and the scope temporarily limited.

Across urban centers, cities are reclaiming the public way, which had been for all modes of transit and which then in many cities gave priority to cars in our public ways. Now, it is recognized that forward thinking cities are re-allocating part of the public space back to pedestrians and cyclists. And Cambridge and Boston should as well with the valuable Charles River parkland. I still believe in the future vision of the Memorial Drive redesign, and I hope that we can get there eventually. But while we wait for state leaders to take action, the roadway remains an incredibly dangerous place for all users, especially vulnerable users like pedestrians and cyclists. That is why I submitted a policy order last week that asks for a suite of short and long-term actions to improve safety on Memorial Drive. That policy order was subject to the charter right, so we will discuss it again on Monday night. I encourage you to read through the text of the policy order, but broadly, the order asks for a number of actions, including: lowering the speed limit on Memorial Drive (and all other state highways within Cambridge), implementing short-term safety improvements like jersey barriers, getting updates from DCR on the Greenway Improvement projects, and going on record in support of redesigning Memorial Drive to expand green space, improve road crossings and sidewalks, and replace two motor vehicle travel lanes with protected multi-use paths along the full length of Memorial Drive. Some of these actions can be taken immediately, and as the City Manager’s memo points out, some of these actions have already been discussed in the days since I filed the policy order, and I hope to hear about more progress in the coming days. But some of these actions will take more time to implement. If we are going to be serious about making transformational improvements to Memorial Drive, we need to reactivate the public process and work to make improvements to the roadway in line with public needs. I am fully supportive of that process and continue to urge state leaders to engage with the neighborhood and the broader community of people who live and work in the area.

Ballot Question 2: On Repealing the MCAS Graduation Requirement
There is a policy order on the City Council agenda for Monday that asks that the City Council go on record in support of 2024 ballot Question 2, which would “repeal the requirement that students must achieve a certain competency level on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) exam to graduate high school”. I understand and share the concerns with MCAS; however, from my long time observing education in the city and the state, MCAS as a graduation requirement helped bring accountability into our education system. If there was a better alternative to MCAS I would support it. We should not end MCAS without an alternative, and Question 2 does not include a replacement. The reforms made in Massachusetts including the MCAS requirement have contributed to our state’s standing among the states as among the best educationally. I have seen firsthand how having the MCAS meant that students often overlooked – low income students, students with disabilities, students of color – were no longer overlooked. Plus to have a different diploma standard for all districts in the state is wrong. We all – students, families, employers – deserve to know what a Massachusetts diploma represents. Massachusetts would be going backwards in this respect.

We owe it to our students to educate them so they do pass the MCAS. If it is a good test, teaching to the test is not a bad thing. Again, improve the test if there are issues; don’t abandon it. Only 1% of students statewide fail to get a diploma solely because of MCAS. That is true in Cambridge as well: only 2 CRLS students in 2019 (the last year before Covid) failed to get a diploma due to failing MCAS. If opponents had spent time developing and proposing a robust, proven replacement and that was included in the ballot question, I could support it. For example, the MCIEA https://www.mciea.org/ work is inspiring, and I would love to see that work turn into a vetted, robust replacement, but until then, I cannot vote to eliminate the requirement. That is why I, along with many I respect, including our Governor and education leaders in the state, want to keep MCAS as a graduation requirement. I will be voting no on this policy order.

Multifamily Citywide Zoning Proposal
As many of you in the community are no doubt aware, there is currently a proposal in the City Council to upzone all residential areas of the city to allow six stories of housing by right. Officially, after being discussed in the abstract a few times through the Housing Committee this petition was brought forward by a vote of the Housing Committee and prepared by City staff. After a few discussions by the entire council, the proposal was then adopted by the City Council as a zoning petition, which will then be heard and discussed by both the Ordinance Committee and the Planning Board. In addition to those meetings, the Council has also voted to request that City staff hold a number of community meetings to discuss the proposal with the broader community. You can read the text of the petition here. In terms of process, there will be a number of meetings in Council and in the community over the next few months to hash out this specific proposal, and hopefully a number of other ideas. I will keep you apprised of the schedule of those meetings through my regular newsletter, and I encourage you all to stay engaged in this discussion, because it is one that will affect much of the city.

First, some background on why we are here. Zoning in most of the country, including in Massachusetts, had mixed rationale, and many of the zoning changes were sought to keep certain people (read: poor, immigrant, people of color) out of some neighborhoods. (If you haven’t read The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein, I highly recommend it.) Currently, Res A districts only allow one unit of housing per lot, Res B districts allow two units per lot, and Res C districts allow three or more units per lot. The lines between which neighborhoods can have multifamily housing were historically drawn to be exclusionary, largely to the benefit of wealthy landowners and the detriment of poorer families who lived in apartment buildings. Many people across the country are coming to understand that these historical exclusionary and overly restrictive zoning practices are to the detriment of healthy residential development and even the ability of residents to make improvements to their own homes. I have been thinking about exclusionary zoning for many years and in 2020 was the lead on a policy order that started this long overdue process of Cambridge allowing multi-family zoning across the city. The order asked the City to begin a community process and work to end exclusionary zoning. At this point, after many years of discussion, everyone agrees that it is time for a citywide zoning change in order to build more housing and make it easier to have higher density and more units on lots. Practically and morally we should eliminate those restrictions and allow more equitable development throughout the city.

How we unwind those restrictions is a complicated discussion, because we are not only talking about ending exclusionary zoning – we are also balancing and supporting a number of other city goals: housing goals, transportation goals, sustainability goals. Allowing for increased housing density along a transportation and retail corridor gives residents good housing options near essential goods and services. Recognizing that we need to assess carefully the potential impact of zoning changes might lead us to develop zoning the same across the board in all areas. Or it may not.

While the Council is considering one proposal that would upzone all residential zones to allow six stories of residential building by right – in essence, equalizing zoning regulations throughout the city – that is not the only way to undo the ills of exclusionary zoning and support multifamily development citywide in order to support our housing goals. During the discussions over the last few meetings, I worked with Councillor Toner to put forward a compromised request of City staff to analyze another strategy to end exclusionary zoning and support housing development. That analysis would end exclusionary zoning and include a focus on supporting more density on primary and secondary transportation corridors and in major squares, while allowing up to four stories in the rest of the residential districts. The basis of that proposal is found throughout the Envision document and I look forward to seeing the results of that analysis. The central question and reason for why we asked for this analysis is to assess as best we can whether there are ways to get the same effect with different elements, and to help identify and avoid any unintended consequences to such zoning changes. Part of the analysis will hinge on getting a sense of where potential new housing will likely be built. Even if we zone the entire city to six stories on every street, we know that development like that may well not happen equally across the city since the most attractive lots are most likely on corridors and in squares. If all or even most of the anticipated new building would happen along corridors and in squares, we should understand that and zone accordingly to improve development along those trend lines. And the same is true for the six-story proposal. We should have an analysis to understand how many of the expected additional units would be on side streets or deep within existing neighborhoods.

I also have concerns about affordability and about truly promoting multifamily housing in otherwise difficult areas of the city. If we rezone the entire city to the same standard, the land-value in parts of west Cambridge will likely still be higher than in other areas of the city, and increased development will still tend to happen where economics work best. And it could raise the cost of land even higher. As we all state, Cambridge alone is not big enough to address the housing crisis alone, no matter how much we build. I worry about the impact that would have on already dense areas of the city where we see most of the naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH). In an incentivized development climate, the people in those units are at risk of displacement. NOAH housing could turn into market rate housing with an inclusionary aspect, and at worse, would turn NOAH housing into luxury housing. If the only effect of this zoning change is that existing NOAH housing is redeveloped into market rate multifamily units, that will have been a huge step backward. I worry that the net effect will be significant teardowns in the most dense areas of the city and little to no multifamily development in the areas of Res. A and B where we do want some increased multifamily development. CDD’s model suggests the 6-story proposal will result in approximately 360 teardowns over a number of years. I have asked City staff to be transparent about where they expect those redevelopments to occur. I hope that with the additional analysis, we will be able to review the model from CDD on likely impact by neighborhood, so we can understand the potential effects of this zoning. The basis for the requested analysis is not perfect and isn’t intended to be a fully fleshed out proposal. It is meant to be a start to understanding potential outcomes. I am committed to continuing to work with the entire community to find a solution that ends exclusionary zoning, prioritizes development along transportation corridors, and protects existing residents from potential displacement. These are difficult plates to balance, but I hope a transparent process and deep analysis will help us understand the issues with more clarity.

We absolutely need to build more housing. And we have to protect low-income residents from displacement. We also have to support our transportation and climate goals. That was some of the rationale for developing the corridors in Envision – housing density should be complemented by transportation options. My street, for example, can and should support more density. We have bus service, retail and food options, and are a more central transportation corridor than other streets. Other, smaller streets may be less likely to be attractive to developers and less amenable to increased density. Those streets might be well served (the existing residents, also future residents) by four story density. Our climate goals, and our public health goals should be considered as part of this effort. Part of the six-story proposal makes changes to setbacks – we need to understand how those changes can affect the potential for future open space and the effect they will have on existing tree canopy and street trees. I don’t doubt that in some areas it makes sense to reduce setbacks to lessen the burden on development, especially in areas where there are large sidewalks and streets to support more street trees, but on smaller streets without the luxury of space, reducing setbacks could seriously hamper our ability to expand the tree canopy using street trees.

If we are to engage in bold citywide zoning in order to spur housing production and end exclusionary zoning, which I support, it seems we should be exploring a number of ideas. The six-story proposal is not the first attempt to end exclusionary zoning. It’s not even the first attempt this year – I was supportive of the Ronayne Petition that we discussed this spring that sought to rezone Res A and B districts to end exclusionary zoning and allow multifamily development. The bottom line is that I am committed to having this conversation and working through the complicated concerns of residents and advocates.

We, as a Council, are all committed to seeing this multifamily conversation through, so I am focused on making sure we have the data needed for a comprehensive and transparent approach. We should be clear about the models and the assumptions we are using to ensure it is robust, replicable, and understandable. I hope that by demanding that kind of transparency, the entire community can better participate in this process. For me, this conversation is not six-stories or nothing. I am committed to ending exclusionary zones and upzoning all areas of the city, but it’s a question of strategy and expected results. Important to restate the goals: ending exclusionary zoning districts, and jump-starting housing production. There’s not only one way to do that, and I think the Council owes it to the residents to work through the different ways we can accomplish those shared goals.