If you’ve been paying even a small amount of time paying attention to local politics in the last two years, you know about the Multifamily Zoning that passed earlier this year. Here’s the short of it: the zoning passed and allows 4-story residential buildings on every lot with minimal setback requirements. It also allows 6-story residential buildings on large lots (5,000 sq. ft.) but only for buildings with 20% affordable units.

The zoning passed 8-1, and I voted for it. Is it perfect? No –far from it, I think.

The details of the story matter here, and I hope you’ll read to understand exactly how I worked to improve a flawed proposal that had the votes to pass from day 1.

When the original proposal was floated almost two years ago, the plan looked very different: 6 story buildings everywhere in Cambridge as of right, eliminating all FAR restrictions, eliminating much of the open space requirements and setbacks, included no provisions for community review, and no requirements for housing affordability.

We heard arguments from proponents that “building code will protect residents concerned with setbacks and design reviews.” That wasn’t ok with me, but that proposal was clearly supported by at least 5 councillors. That means it had sufficient support to be passed, even though it was extremely problematic in my, and many people’s, opinion.

So, I got to work improving it – fighting an uphill battle and working for compromise that was never guaranteed. I worked to increase open space requirements, from 10-15% up to 30%. I pushed to reintroduce setbacks, from 5’ front yard setbacks and no side or rear yard setbacks to 10’ front and 5’ side and rear with exceptions for row houses. I worked to limit heights on typical lots to 4 stories, except for projects on large lots, but only if they included 20% affordable units. I worked hard to convince colleagues who didn’t need my vote and could have passed anything they wanted (read a joint op-ed about the collaboration here). Is 4 stories everywhere perfect? No. I also pushed for a version that used 3 stories and further incentivized affordable development. I came close, but it failed in a 4-5 vote. I also pushed to reintroduce community review and design oversight. That mostly failed. I was able to maintain NCD and Historical Commission reviews, and I was able to ensure that any developer building over 3 stories is required to have a neighborhood meeting, which was not in the original proposal. It’s non-binding, but does require developers hold a public meeting for neighbors to present design plans and listen to concerns. And finally, I demanded that we get regular reporting on the new zoning. I fought for a yearly reporting requirement for new development and a 5-year review of longer-term trends and impacts so we can clearly see what the market is doing and if it is actually leading to the positive community results of more housing and more affordable housing, while not impairing other City goals related to environmental impact and community-building.

I won some and I lost some. That’s the nature of any compromise. But the differences between the original and the final compromise version – for example, the requirement for 30% open space vs. 10-15% and a lot-size restriction so 6-story buildings cannot be built on more than 2/3 of the City’s lots – will make a substantial difference.  I’m disappointed that we could not pass the 3 vs. 4-story version, though; it would have been less disruptive and, by the the City’s estimates, would have produce more affordable housing.  Without these and the other hard-fought compromises, the Council would have passed the original proposal of 6-stories citywide with no incentives or requirements for affordable housing.

I worked hard on a compromise, but my work didn’t end when the zoning passed. My job was not just to advocate and work to improve the zoning; it included monitor the effects going forward. That ongoing monitoring and oversight is something on which I am leading.

I voted for the zoning, but not because I thought it was perfect, but because I believed in the principles of ending exclusionary zoning, and I believed that a compromised approach was better for the city.

Are you upset about the vote? A lot of people are, and I understand that. But I hope you will understand the long and arduous process I went through to improve the zoning. You can vote for someone who just agrees with you but did not have impact on what finally passed, or you can vote for someone who does the hard work of negotiating with the rest of the council and can win at the bargaining table. Every councillor only has one vote on any-given issue. A simple up and down vote ensures that only the majority has a say in our government. I used my one vote to get substantial compromise and gather votes from the rest of the Council to improve the zoning.