Council Updates, Multifamily Zoning, and More

Health and Environment Committee Schedule

• Net Zero Action Plan Annual Report: Tuesday, February 11, 12:30pm-2:30pm (meeting materials, recording). This was an important update, and I hold a similar meeting every year to monitor yearly progress on emissions reductions for buildings. Believe it or not, 2025 marks the beginning of the next 5-year evaluation. The last update began in 2020, but was not officially adopted until 2023 due to COVID related delays (sustainability dashboard).
• Net Zero Transportation Plan: Monday, February 24, 10:00am-12:00pm (meeting materials, NZTP webpage, draft actions) This meeting will happen before the official adoption of the Net Zero Transportation Plan. Similar to the Net Zero Action Plan (which only deals with emissions from buildings), NZTP provides for a suite of actions that seek to reduce transportation-related emissions by 2050. CDD and the Sustainability Department did a lot of outreach work last summer and fall in developing the draft actions.
• Zero Waste Master Plan 2.0 Update: March 25, 3:00pm-5:00pm (ZWMP webpage, meeting materials, when available) This is a meeting I have been building up to with DPW staff for several years now (Oct 2024 meeting materials) towards the launch of the ZWMP 2.0. In this meeting we will go through a suite of changes to the ZWMP, review progress on waste reduction, and discuss ordinance changes around single-use plastics (plastic bags, “skip the stuff”, and more), and mandatory food waste diversion.

Finance Committee Schedule
In addition to the statutorily required budget meetings later on in the Spring, I have worked with my co-chair, Councillor Toner, to schedule a number of earlier meetings that seek to improve Council and public input in the budget process and the long-term financial planning process of the City. The Roundtable Meeting with the School Committee on Monday will also add to that process.

• Council Budget Priorities: February 26, 3:00pm-5:00pm. The Finance Committee will have a public meeting to review and discuss City Council priorities and goals and discuss how these will shape and be incorporated within the City budget.
• ARPA Funding and Police Budget: March 27, 1:00pm-3:00pm. The Finance Committee will hold a public meeting to receive a status update on the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding in Cambridge, as well as to review and discuss the Police Department budget for FY26 before it is submitted to the City Manager, as required under Cambridge Municipal Code Chapter 2.74.040.
• Big Programs and Projects: Wednesday April 16, 3:00pm-5:00pm. The Finance Committee will have a public meeting to review and discuss capital and large-scale programs and projects currently underway and in the funding plan, and potential future programming and projects that would need to be planned and incorporated into medium- and long-term capital and operating budgets.

Multifamily Housing Zoning Petition
This section is an update regarding the multifamily housing zoning petitions. Thank you for writing and thank you for staying engaged throughout the process, which is the culmination of five years of on-again, off-again work to allow multi-family housing citywide. On February 10 the City Council passed zoning changes which will allow multifamily housing development in all residential zones of the city, greater density (which means how many units are in a building), and 4-story development on all lot sizes, with 6 stories allowed for inclusionary projects (which means 20% of units are affordable, most likely to middle income folks) on lots larger than 5,000 sqft. The zoning petition passed 8-1 and I voted in favor. I enthusiastically voted yes, even though I recognize that the process and the specifics could have been better. Voting for no change, which essentially endorsed the status quo, was unacceptable to me. After all, I take some pride in the fact that the process to allow multi-family housing citywide started with a policy order I sponsored in December of 2020. This zoning change is the most consequential in decades and represents an important compromise that will, on the whole, benefit the city. In addition to the changes in density and height, these petitions also included streamlined permitting and simplification of some of the zoning code. I worked hard on the compromise and respect all of us who worked collaboratively to amend the original proposal. I am glad those amendments gained broad council support, including mine. (Note: I preferred the 3+3 option presented by Councillors Ayesha Wilson and Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler, as I publicly stated.)

The evolution of this groundbreaking proposal involved extensive discussions over years. I’ve done my best to try to be responsive to the community: I wrote regular updates in my newsletter over the last year, I’ve communicated with and met many residents in person and virtually. I engaged with my colleagues, City staff, and experts from across the spectrum. The city did community outreach, holding a number of community meetings and mailing a postcard to every residence – and even so, I  acknowledge that many residents only heard about the zoning change for the first time very late in the process, through friends and neighbors. Communication and outreach is hard, and despite best efforts, having every resident know about such proposals is difficult if not impossible. And yet, more should have been done, and I understand the frustrations of residents who felt left out of the process. I worked to ensure some outreach – the process was extensive as outlined on CDD’s dedicated webpage. At a meeting of the Economic Development Committee in October 2024 a number of important concerns were discussed related to how upzoning would affect the City’s financials, infrastructure and utilities, tree canopy, schools, and transportation. That was an important meeting and will be important to return to as we analyze the impacts of this zoning change. One important aspect of this zoning change is a requirement for annual and five-year reporting on housing production in every neighborhood, which will help us understand how effective this zoning change is.

The research is not clear on whether zoning reform and building at the scale we are discussing in a place with Cambridge’s density will moderate housing costs. Housing costs will likely continue to rise, but this change, along with state-level action like the MBTA Communities Act, will provide more housing and hopefully will curb the rate of increase. I understand and appreciate the voices from across Cambridge urging for this zoning to pass in the hope of lower housing costs. There will still be a lot more work to do to achieve that. All communities should do more – if all did what Cambridge has already done and will do, our housing crisis would be less. Housing affordability is not uniquely a problem in  Cambridge: regional action is needed to reduce housing costs. Until demand is met throughout the greater Boston region, housing costs in Cambridge will continue to be high. It is important to be honest about expected results so that we can make good choices.

I appreciate the voices from all over the city who are concerned about these changes from the perspective of the impacts on local utilities and services, impacts to urban design, impact on tree canopy, on access to solar, and a myriad of other concerns. Those concerns led to many of the important changes to the original proposal. The work is not done. We will need to push to protect and expand our urban forest, to develop protections for residents who have invested in on-site renewable energy, and to implement design guidelines that can help create lively and comfortable neighborhoods and cityscapes. This zoning doesn’t answer all of those questions, which is why many residents asked us not to pass this zoning. Yet we have waited too long not to pass some bold changes. I will continue to push for solutions and monitor impact. The changes negotiated within the petition are meaningful: reducing the as-of-right development height from 6 stories to 4, adding side and rear setback requirements, lot size requirements, and increased open space were changes that came together through a collaborative process. It wasn’t clear these changes would get passed at the beginning of this process – since there appeared to be a majority of the council wanting even more aggressive change, which I opposed since it had no requirement for affordable units. I appreciate us all working towards a compromise and I urge residents to appreciate that this change is long overdue and potentially a great change, even if it isn’t perfect.

The work does not end with this petition. It will now be the responsibility of the City and the Council to monitor the effects of these changes: on housing production, on affordability, on open space, on tree canopy, and on transportation, utilities, and essential services. As noted, I am disappointed that we did not include protections for existing solar arrays. I will continue to work to push those forwards, because we need to support renewable energy production and protect investments in and commitment to renewable energy – and we can do it while supporting more housing. We will need to continue to advocate at the state level for building code improvements and for regional collaboration. We will need to advocate with our neighbors to add housing production. And finally, while this process was difficult and at times divisive, I was heartened to see so many in the community agree on so much. We agree on much more than just the fact of building multifamily housing everywhere, including the need to maintain and protect affordability, the need to support the affordable housing production of the Affordable Housing Trust with inclusionary development through private development, the need to protect and develop open space, and the need for design guidelines and design review while also streamlining the process by removing common variance issues. This broad agreement can be a huge benefit to the community as we continue through this process and monitor the effects going forward.