Council Updates, Multifamily Zoning, And More

Multifamily Housing Zoning Updates
As I mentioned above, the conversation around the multifamily zoning petition has started to round into form. After much anticipation, we have gotten a number of important reports from CDD. I would encourage you especially to review the documents on economic and public impacts of the zoning proposal from the Economic Development Committee meeting on October 31, as well as the presentation from the Ordinance Committee meeting on November 19, which outline not only the 6-stories proposal, but also project a number of other zoning options which would increase development and allow multifamily housing citywide.

I wrote about the background of multifamily zoning in a previous newsletter, here, and especially the discussion around ending exclusionary zoning, which has been ongoing for a number of years. I believe that we should undo some of the limits on multifamily zoning development which would ensure fairer housing codes – and  undo some of the historical ills of exclusionary zoning which led in certain circumstances to lines being drawn between wealthy people and people who lived in apartment buildings and were largely poor, immigrants, or people of color (another reminder of a past recommendation to read The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein). And there are important benefits of modern zoning that seek to protect open green space, prevent fire and other public health accidents, and preserve significant historical buildings. Overly restrictive zoning laws can curb housing growth and even prevent homeowners from making improvements to their own homes. Or encourage large homes to continue to be large single family homes.  Many of the largest homes in Cambridge were built at a time when families were larger AND had live in help, which no longer applies to most.  Let’s allow those homeowners to subdivide their homes.

The other piece of this conversation is housing affordability and rising demand for housing in Cambridge. Cambridge and the greater Boston area has had significant job growth over the last several decades and that has led to much greater demand for housing units within the city and within the region. The Greater Boston Housing Report Card (GBHRC) provides some good context for that regional issue. When people talk about a housing crisis, or an affordability crisis, they are not only talking about Cambridge, but our entire region, which has largely struggled to build enough housing to curb demand and has led to much higher costs across the board. Also important to note, however, is the significant work that Cambridge has done to combat this crisis. As the GBHRC notes, the vast majority (86%!) of the new housing built in greater Boston in the past nine years, come from just the top six cities: Boston, Revere, Quincy, Cambridge, Everett, and Somerville. That is not to say that we can’t do more  – but to advocate for other municipalities to do more and match us.  We need to continue to pressure regional partners and the state to incentivize housing in neighboring cities and towns.

We can and should address some of those issues, and that we can do that by rezoning to allow more multifamily housing development. There is not one solution to all those problems and we will need to balance any housing solutions with our other citywide goals of livability, transportation, sustainability, and green space. After several Council meetings with CDD, we now have a better picture of what those changes can look like. I am including a few relevant charts below from the November 19 Ordinance Committee that show the potential impact of a number of different multifamily zoning scenarios. The Council is currently considering scenario #1 , 6 Story as-of-right, and after passing policy orders asking to analyze other possible multifamily zoning scenarios, we now have projections for 5 other zoning ideas. The chart outlines projected housing production outcomes in residential areas based on total units as well as affordable units constructed as a part of the inclusionary housing requirement. As a reminder, inclusionary housing requirements for market rate housing kick in at 10,000 sq ft or ten units and require 20% of units to remain affordable. What is not included in those projections is the production of units developed using the Affordable Housing Trust, which the Housing Department roughly estimates at 100 units per year. The additional charts below show housing growth potential in transit corridors and squares as compared to potential housing growth in residential areas. It is clear that no matter what we do that the vast majority of multifamily housing development will still occur in squares and along corridors, which is important context. The additional data within the presentation suggest that through a number of the multifamily residential proposals, that we can meet the Envision goal for 2030 housing production by 2035, even despite the drastic upheaval of construction due to COVID. And a reminder that the 2030 goal of 12,500 more units represents a dramatic – 25% – increase in housing units in the city.   It does seem that that goal was not from the Housing Committee of Envision, or the City Council, yet it is being accepted by most on the council.  However the 2030 housing goal came about, it is important to recognize the significant progress that is towards healthy housing development.

As I have been considering the zoning changes proposed, I am particularly interested in the potential for scenario #6, which would allow 4 story development as-of-right citywide. It would also allow a 2 story bonus only if the project was inclusionary – meaning 20% of the units were affordable. According to the projections provided by CDD, this scenario would lead to over 90% of the 2030 housing production promised by the 6 story proposal with the same number of affordable units through fewer projects. By maintaining 4 story limits in residential neighborhoods we will fully allow for multifamily development and by incentivizing inclusionary zoning projects we can hopefully take advantage of private development to maintain affordability within the city. No proposal is perfect, and the projections of numbers are as of now unproven – we have asked for those assumptions to be publicly available.  It’s great to see some options to consider. Additionally, the zoning changes will change the special permit and project review process. The streamlining of development standards is essential as our zoning code is overly complex and difficult to navigate. This is true for small developers as well as homeowners looking to make changes to their current buildings. I think that the design standards, advisory review process, and special permitting review are important parts of healthy development and should be clearer and easier to navigate. One other piece of this zoning which I am considering is the change to open space and setback requirements. The zoning proposal does streamline open space requirements, which could be beneficial, but not if open space and green space disappear. We should be applying more regular requirements so that doesn’t unnecessarily hinder development; however, I am not convinced that the standards proposed are in the best interest of our sustainability and climate resilience goals. I would prefer to preserve a higher percentage of open space required as permeable. In terms of required setbacks, I am comfortable with a 10-foot front setback, as that is functional for streetscape construction and protects sunlight access for street trees. We have heard from DPW staff that this setback is sufficient to maintain public street stress. Which means we need to understand the potential impact of a  lack of side and rear setbacks. Concerns about fire safety with a zero lot line setback have not been sufficiently answered. The building code in conjunction with review by our Fire Department will protect new buildings and keep them safe; however, the building code only interacts with new buildings and I would want to ensure that existing building stock is sufficiently protected. Additionally, I am concerned about zero setbacks as it relates to solar energy systems on existing units. Our current zoning ordinance protects existing solar energy systems when a special permit or variance is requested, but not for as-of-right construction.  We should have protections for residents who have invested in solar energy systems that could be affected by high rise construction or zero lot line setbacks.

These are my current thoughts. They may change over time as we get more answers and further analysis. We need to build more housing and I believe that allowing multifamily housing development citywide can help us do that. And we have a responsibility to listen to current residents and consider other citywide goals, which are sometimes difficult to balance. I encourage everyone to stay engaged in this process, because it is ongoing. As City staff outlined during the Ordinance Committee meeting, we are likely to vote on a proposal sometime in January, and it will continue to take shape throughout the coming months. I remain focused on making sure we have the data needed for a comprehensive and transparent approach.

Transportation Updates
A couple important notes in the transportation world from the last few weeks. On November 21, the Ordinance Committee met to discuss changes to zoning to allow for additional flexible parking along business corridors. It’s a complicated mechanism, but the basics are that it will now be permissible for local businesses to open up their underutilized parking to the general public for use. This change is meant to ameliorate the loss of parking due to the installation of separated bike lanes on some streets. We know a lot of our current parking is underutilized, and we also know that local residents and businesses can struggle to adjust to loss of on-street parking options. This change seeks to pair those two ideas together and hopefully mitigate the impacts of parking loss on local businesses and residents while continuing to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians. The Ordinance Committee will meet on December 3 to finalize the one year extension of the CSO to November 30, 2026. You can read my more detailed thoughts on that process here. Work on two additional sections of the CDO have been ongoing. The Transportation Department just announced a Cambridge Street Safety Improvement Project working group and announced the launch of the Broadway Safety Improvement Project. Both of these projects have been further broken down into individual sections as a part of the extension of the CSO, allowing for more focus on specific sections. I encourage anyone interested in either project to participate in the process. On traffic enforcement, the policy order I filed to continue to pursue automated parking enforcement in conjunction with Boston was passed unanimously on Monday. I have been working on this proposal for a long time now and I am excited that it is closer than ever to becoming a reality. The Harvard Crimson wrote about the proposal here.

Alewife Asbestos Concerns
This week I sponsored a policy order asking the City Manager to work with the MBTA to address local asbestos concerns in Alewife construction related to a new access tunnel for the Red Line. The Cambridge Asbestos Protection Ordinance (CAPO) was passed unanimously by the Cambridge City Council in 1999 in order to protect Cambridge residents from the hazards of asbestos, and was designed to fill in the gaps left by state and federal standards involving air pollution. The Alewife Study group has a helpful article on the history of the ordinance. At the time of its passing, the CAPO was the first of its kind in the nation and filled an important loophole in state and federal law, which only regulated asbestos in buildings and enclosed areas, rather than in the soil and open areas. The MBTA has begun to hold public meetings for the tunnel access project and concerns were raised about the tunnel’s location in a highly contaminated area. This project is very important to the continued effectiveness of the Red Line, but it can and should be done in accordance with the important protections of the Asbestos Protection Ordinance, and it’s important that we, as a city, enforce our ordinances to best protect the public health of our residents.

Finance Committee – City Budget
On November 20 I chaired a meeting of the Finance Committee to review and discuss the Operating Budget in advance of the FY26 budget season. As co-chairs, Councillor Toner and I are working to build upon the work of the last two budget cycles, which offered the council and the community opportunities to give input before the budget was presented and essentially finalized. Over the last two budget cycles, we have held meetings earlier in the fiscal year which have allowed for deeper discussions with City staff on budget priorities and long-term fiscal planning. This meeting built on some of the discussions we have had in the Finance Committee over the last few years and especially the Roundtable discussion we had together with the School Committee on October 28 discussing macroeconomic trends. As we continue to plan, we will not be able to fund everything we want. We will have to prioritize spending, be judicious in choices on spending, and be aware of options to economize. We have made significant, and important, investments in affordable housing, community safety, road safety, schools, and preschool education over the years, and so we will need to take stock of the continued financial impacts of those decisions. We were also able to discuss some of the financial planning decisions and debt management practices that help protect residents from increased tax burdens due to a slowdown in commercial growth. We will continue this discussion of short and long term financial decision-making with a Finance Committee meeting on December 11 where we will discuss the Capital Budget and public investment planning.