Council Updates, Spring Equinox, March Madness, and More

Flexible Parking in City-Owned Lots – let the council know your thoughts on this idea.
I am sponsoring a policy order which asks the City to work with the School Department to consider the use of City-owned lots like the King Open/Cambridge Street Upper School and to make them available for residential parking or commercial parking during “off” hours. Protected bike lanes provide essential transportation safety for residents getting around town, commuters getting to work, and children traveling to school, and it’s important to recognize that these bike lanes, as well as other pedestrian safety improvements, lead to a loss of resident and business parking that many residents rely on for mobility, access, and convenience. I believe that we need to work towards net zero transportation options and we have a responsibility to residents to help that transition by providing alternative parking options. One of those options is to better utilize existing parking facilities. In December, the Council passed ordinance changes that would allow businesses to open up their existing parking spaces to residents or other businesses. This policy order asks the City to take similar action with our existing lots. This is not a novel solution – Cambridge anticipated such a program when the building was built. And Boston allows residents to utilize parking in many municipal lots, including at schools. This would be a good option for our city.

Fare-Free Citywide Shuttle – let the council know your thoughts on this idea.
I am sponsoring a policy order which asks the City Manager to consider next steps towards a municipally operated citywide shuttle – in conjunction with existing shuttles. This idea is not new, but has never been fully explored. Investment in fare-free transit options is a key recommendation of the Climate Crisis Working Group, the stated purpose of the Fare-Free Bus Pilot Working Group, and a goal within the Vehicle Trip Reduction Ordinance. There are a number of various programs in Cambridge that provide some free transportation (for example the CambridgeSide shuttle), and Harvard, MIT, Lesley, and other employers currently operate shuttle services throughout the city for their students and employees, and the City provides some subsidized transportation options for seniors and people with disabilities, but working with existing transit providers to coordinate some of these programs might streamline services and provide for better citywide transportation. More convenient, reliable, and less costly transit alternatives are essential to supporting the reduction of single-occupancy vehicle trips, reducing traffic congestion, and improving accessibility for all residents. A fare-free citywide shuttle is an option that can supplement existing MBTA offerings, consolidate dozens of existing programs, and better provide for equitable transportation within the city.

Half Crown Marsh Neighborhood Conservation District
In accordance with Cambridge ordinance, all neighborhood conservation districts (NCDs) require a decennial review by the Historical Commission and a vote by the City Council to re-approve the NCD. In recent years, the City Council approved some changes to NCDs to ensure that city goals of more housing are incorporated into decisions. In September 2024, the Historical Commission began their review of the Half Crown-Marsh NCD. CMA 2025 #66 presents the full review report by the Historical Commission and their recommendation to re-approve the Half Crown-Marsh NCD. The data shows that the NCDs have never rejected an application for more housing. Therefore, I am inclined to follow the recommendation of the Historical Commission to reaffirm the existing Half Crown-Marsh NCD: “the actions of the Half Crown-Marsh Commission have enhanced the unique character of the district, conserving the architectural qualities of buildings and their settings while allowing necessary changes to adapt to modern living expectations. The Commission has tempered the development of its constituent neighborhoods without impeding necessary housing rehabilitation and without limiting new housing construction or arbitrarily impeding property owners’ desires for upgrades.” In digging into the report, the vast majority (96.78%) of applications processed by the Historical Commission staff over the last ten years were approved, which shows the process is working as intended – preserve where appropriate and allow development. One of the important goals of the City is to increase housing stock to alleviate market stress on existing housing, so it’s important to consider whether this NCD tends to hamper development of additional housing units. According to the report, “no projects that would have added to the city’s housing stock have been denied since the district was designated in 2007.” Digging into the details a bit more on how exactly applications tend to work through the NCD system: “Of the total 117 applications heard by the Commission between 2014-2024, 99 (85%) were approved as submitted or with conditions to mitigate adverse impacts of the project; 3 (2%) were granted Certificates of Hardship; 7 (6%) were withdrawn by the applicant, and 8 (7%) were denied. About half of the denials involved inappropriately tall fences; others prevented architecturally inappropriate alterations.” This summary shows a process that works effectively through development issues without disrupting development potential or the rights of property owners. There is no data that this process has prevented multifamily housing development.