Proposal to end parking minimums gets 7-1 vote on way to council, despite Planning Board fears
A proposal to eliminate parking minimums citywide is making its way to the City Council from its Ordinance Committee, where eight of nine councillors were present Sept. 21 and all but one voted in favor.
Though the change looks likely to pass, it needs two council votes to become law before expiring Nov. 1. It will be back before the council Monday and Oct. 17.
Developments must have a minimum number of parking spaces depending on a number of factors, such as building and lot size. The policy order from councillor Burhan Azeem would eliminate any requirement for parking spaces.
“Not a single spot of parking will go away. It really is about giving people the option and to not build more than people actually use,” Azeem said in presenting about the policy, which he introduced in February. “Developers will in fact continue to build parking, because it is highly valued by a lot of homeowners and landlords and tenants.”
Parking minimums add unnecessary costs, drive up housing prices, create heat islands and keep buildings vacant, Azeem said. In his presentation, he cited examples of cities that have adopted similar measures such as Buffalo, New York, which eliminated its own parking minimums in 2017.
Planning Board qualms
The Planning Board said in a Sept. 1 letter to the committee that it couldn’t recommend implementation.
“Members had a range of different views on the petition. There were some members who expressed support in concept, but there was a common concern shared among all the board members that there should be additional study in order to fully understand the effects,” said Jeff Roberts, zoning and development director at the Community Development Department, during the meeting.
Many board members did not think eliminating parking minimums “would have a meaningful impact” on housing costs, considering the high desire for housing in Cambridge regardless of parking, the letter said. Members acknowledged that there could be other benefits, such as more housing and green space, but were concerned about adding competition for on-street parking where off-street parking is already less common and demand for on-street parking is already high.
Board members suggested “more nuanced approaches,” such as focusing on areas close to transit or places “where there is less demand for on-street parking.” Another approach could be removing requirements for small developments while giving large developments more scrutiny. With a separate parking study underway, some members preferred to wait for its end to make recommendations.
Amendment to simplify
The board also expressed concern that many other parts of city zoning law would be affected; councillor Quinton Zondervan responded by proposing an amendment to simplify the proposal and give more time for zoning language to be changed to match its intent. The Community Development Department “could come back and give us further amendments that would clean up the language, but we would be able to effectuate immediately the elimination of parking minimums,” Zondervan said.
Roberts agreed there would not otherwise be enough time to review all of the zoning ordinance and recommend amendments before the rule must be voted on by the council. “There’s a lot of provisions in the zoning, and it’s about 500 pages,” noted his boss, assistant city manager for community development Iram Farooq.
With a warning from city solicitor Nancy Glowa of “some risk of having ambiguous or contradictory or unaddressed issues within the text of the zoning ordinance,” councillor Dennis Carlone was the only vote against the amendment and against sending the order back to the full council.
“I firmly believe that this really has to be done right,” Carlone said. “Setting a policy is one thing, but proposing the changed zoning – that sounds like it’s going to be passed – is just wild, in my mind.”
Councillor Patty Nolan was frustrated that eliminating parking minimums has been discussed for so long without being acted upon. It was recommended in the Envision Cambridge plan in 2018.
“I am ready to move this forward. I really hope we can get to a point where we can approve it before it expires,” said Nolan, referring to the current petition. “And if not, let’s reintroduce it the next day and get it done as soon as we can.”
Fantastic news, great job Cambridge City Council
Well done. Common sense prevails. Parking is a constraint on cities.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/11/27/parking-dominates-our-cities-but-do-we-really-see-it
I’m kind of flabbergasted that anyone would think that developers are going to make the decisions that are best for the community. They are going to build to maximize their profits.
I think this is good news, provided the city provides a range of reliable transportation options year round.
@q99 … so NOT good news then.
“Many board members did not think eliminating parking minimums “would have a meaningful impact” on housing costs, …”
I typically side with the planning board but this comment has been bothering me. If having an impact on the costs of housing were the metric by which a project or zoning change were to be adjudicated not a single PUD or residential or commercial project could get approved in the City. We are so far behind on housing development that this anachronistic mantra seems more a reflexive expected comment where no real thought has been applied. This isn’t about reducing the cost of housing it’s about whether or not housing and commercial projects this city needs get built at all. By removing the requirement the protester activist class merely loses an arrow in their nimby quiver. This isn’t a one size fits all proposition and where desirable developers will most certainly build parking.
Translation…. “MORE STEALTH AirBnB Hotels”!
“Parking minimums add unnecessary costs, drive up housing prices, create heat islands and keep buildings vacant”.
With or without parking, housing will continue to be expensive. The amount will not change that equation because of the bio/ tech influx of employees. parking spaces have been used as open space- gardens, patios etc. This is about denser building which jeopardizes trees regardless of any tree ordinance.
This is irresponsible and poorly written. It is one thing to wave an ideological hand for a wish list. It is another to implement the finer details that council seems to ignore. It is for the developer.
PS- that is a massively ugly house… no context or review. Do the same thing but make it something people want to live near and see everyday.
Councilor Akeem says that “parking…. is highly valued by a lot of homeowners and landlords and tenants.” If so, why would he want to eliminate it without other means of transportation in place, such as mini-buses?
This is fantastic news. Part of what makes this city so special is that it has avoided becoming a parking lot jungle.
So much fear over this. Existing parking is going no where. Developers can still build parking. There is a need for better transit options but there needs to be demand for it! If we keep building parking spots, there will never be (and has not been) demand for.
If anything, this is the best way to cause that change. The increased demand for transit will be slow and gradual, allowing the city to meet demand.
People who move here will actually, on average, have to make a choice. People who value Cambridge over their cars will move here, others will not. Look at all those parking lots around the city and think about how many homes and businesses could be there.
Fewer cars on our streets, more homes and businesses. I’m all for it