Developers will have to explain their decisions, but law to abolish parking minimums proceeds
The elimination of parking minimums citywide took another step Monday toward becoming law. It got an 8-1 vote by the City Council to go to a second and final reading despite the addition of two amendments – but those also passed, one 6-3 and the other unanimously.
The amendments from councillor Paul Toner say that developers putting up four or more units of house or seeking a residential special permit must give an informational written report explaining how they decided on the number of parking spots and loading spaces to provide; and that the Community Development Department will report to the council no later than July 2025 on how the elimination of parking minimums has affected the city.
“We’ll have a a record of how they made the decision that they needed either zero parking spots or 100 parking spots, just so we can see if the analysis of the contractors is in line with reality, if they have done a full-blown study or they have a market study,” Toner said, and CDD would be able to use those reports in three years’ time as part of their work.
The amendments were written in consultation with Community Development, said Toner and Burhan Azeem, the councillor who proposed the latest order setting the minimum number of required parking spaces to zero for all uses. Staff assured that the impact report may be written with colleagues in Traffic, Parking & Transportation and endorsed asking developers putting up four or more units for their analyses, the councillors said.
Councillors Patty Nolan and Quinton Zondervan and vice mayor Alanna Mallon were wary of asking a justification of parking plans as “onerous or a not-very-useful exercise that puts an extra burden on developers,” and they voted against the idea.
“I shared their initial skepticism, and I was won over through the conversations we’ve had,” Azeem said. “These are reasonable asks, and they’re not weakening [the original order] in any discernible way.”
With the second change accepted unanimously, the proposed change to parking limits took its second-to-last procedural step and was moved to a second reading. That is expected Oct. 17. The petition expires Nov. 1 if not passed.
The vote against was the same as from the Ordinance Committee’s hearing Sept. 21: councillor Dennis Carlone, who said the change from requiring no parking at all from requiring one parking space for each unit of housing was “too much of a leap” all at once. “It should be half a space instead of one space per unit so you gradually get to the point of zero,” Carlone said. “We know 30 percent to 60 percent of parking at buildings is used.”
While he thought the amendments presented Monday were “intelligent, realistic and not an onerous task” for developers, and needed because “we have to learn from what we’re doing,” Carlone agreed with Planning Board members who feared a zero-parking minimum would lead to fights for on-street parking and wild variations in the cost of housing based on whether it came with space for a car. “I know of a developer of over 100 units, and he will be putting in only four or five [required] spaces for disabled parking,” Carlone said.
It’s already the case that renters pay more for getting a parking space, said Azeem, a first-term councillor who spent much of last year essentially homeless as he searched for an adequate, affordable apartment in the city he helps lead. And Somerville eliminated its parking minimums in December 2019, “and I don’t think that they’ve regretted it.”
While the effects of the parking change is unlikely to be felt overnight, Nolan agreed with Carlone – but because making parking in Cambridge harder is a deliberate policy.
“It means that we are making it more obvious that car ownership is not something that we want to have more of in the city … The message will be that yes, it is more expensive and more trouble than in the past to own a car here,” Nolan said. “I am fully owning that and recognizing that and I think it’s the right way to go.”
Great news!
This will make parking more of a premium and add to the street’s congestion. If no viable public transportation options are implemented, you are just taking away an existing solution without providing an alternative. The 20-year-old students will be fine, but good luck to the elders and families needing a car. The future demographic of Cambridge will skew even younger.
I am so tired of debunking the outright lie that our zoning requires one parking space per dwelling unit. It does not. It does in residential zones, where there is usually street parking and normally not a lot of dwelling units on mostly small lots. In those places, there’s quite a lot of support for reducing parking requirements.
However, where the vast majority of housing has been built in recent years, in mixed use areas, the large buildings containing dozens of apartments are not only not required to have one parking space per apartment, but there are usually maximum parking allowances lower than that. Developers are taking account of actual usage figures for other buildings in the area to justify to lenders and other people they answer to why they don’t need to build that much parking. This has been the law and the reality for years in Cambridge, but the ignorant claim that we require one parking space per dwelling unit continues to be thrown around by people who should know better, including City Councillors writing zoning petitions.
“It means that we are making it more obvious that car ownership is not something that we want to have more of in the city … The message will be that yes, it is more expensive and more trouble than in the past to own a car here,” Nolan said. “I am fully owning that and recognizing that and I think it’s the the right way to go.” My neighbor is a Cambridge fireman and his wife is an engineer in Marlborough. Both of them require cars and they are dependent on off-street parking. They are both African Americans. Are these the kind of people we want to make it more expensive and more trouble to own a car here? Even with parking minimums the amount of on-street parking permits have increased more than 30% in our neighborhood because residents of new developments and condo conversions need more parking than is provided or they don’t want to pay to park. Eliminating parking minimums just puts the burden on people who need on-street parking. It is not going to eliminate cars or reduce housing costs.
I dont think this is a bad idea, but maybe instead of mandating parking, they should mandate either parking or redirect a %age toward public transit- a shuttle bus to T stations, or have them build a tunnel from the behemoth new developments behind trader joes to get to Alewife station that they could contribute to.
The City is engaging in a purposeful and deliberate reduction of parking spaces, either through the removal of minimums or removal of actual existing spaces for bike lanes. The message is clear — if you require a car, then Cambridge is not for you
— If you are a senior who doesn’t ride a bike or pubic transportation doesn’t work for your needs, then Cambridge is not for you.
— If you are a family with children in need of a car for large grocery trips, doctor’s appointments, children’s activities, etc., then Cambridge is not for you.
— If you love living in Cambridge but work in a location not serviced by public transportation, then Cambridge is not for you.
— If you have any mobility issues that require you have a car, then Cambridge is not for you.
— If you are young, do not have any children, and work in Kendall Square, then Cambridge is for you.
I’ll add another:
— If you enjoy riding your bike for your transportation needs, but not in the pouring rain, when the ground is covered with wet leaves, when it’s 10 degrees, when it’s snowing, when it’s dark at 4:00 pm, then Cambridge is not for you.
Feel free to add your own!
This City gets more and more difficult to live in. The City Council is throwing small businesses and restaurants under the bus, as well as the elderly or those who have impaired mobility. The current City Council continues to make living in Cambridge less desirable.