We should all be thankful for the Planning Board’s rational deliberation on a rushed and very complex two-part multifamily housing zoning petition. One example of a rushed process was the removal of setback requirements that the Planning Board pointed out. The fire department should have been consulted before finalizing the draft petition, as with no side setbacks we could end up with row houses, never mind developers grabbing multiple properties to form one massive housing development. Think about fights between neighbors if one decides to expand a house right up to both sides of a property line, as of right.
Thankfully, the Ordinance Committee addressed some of the Planning Board’s concerns at its Thursday meeting. I am sure credit is due to city councillor Cathie Zusy giving members a brief summary of the board’s decisions. On Monday, councillors approved their late policy order for the city manager to direct the Community Development Department to update petitions and amend Residence C-1 Zoning, as recommended by the Ordinance Committee.
“Amending Residence C-1 zoning” is a curious wording in the policy order. Is this something new to be added to the petition? Did any of the people who found a way to sign up to comment realized the significance and impact of that phrase?
Instead of spelling out the committee’s recommended amendments, the order should have directed CDD to first reconcile the committee’s recommended amendments with Planning Board concerns, using meeting records to guide their work. Only then should the department update multifamily housing petitions and amend Residence C-1 zoning. Additionally, the department should update its presentation to the Ordinance Committee dated for Nov. 19 to reflect the changes. The updates should state the goal of the petition clearly and be based on the 2024 affordable housing stock update. Accurate accounting of housing developments in the pipeline including all the Affordable Housing Overlay developments; all the recent property acquisition using Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust funding for affordable housing; and realistic, projected post-Covid-era housing development growth rate.
Young Kim, Norris Street, Cambridge
This post was updated to correct that a presentation was made to the Ordinance Committee on Nov. 19.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
This author has commented in opposition to the proposal what, half a dozen times over the past year? Yet he still calls it “rushed.”
The Planning Board itself held three meetings, plus 3 or 4 Housing Committee meetings, Economic Development Committee, multiple CDD-led public meetings and open houses, and multiple Ordinance Committee and City Council meetings.
Not only that, there are already several more Ordinance Committee meetings scheduled for 2025.
The last thing this process has been is rushed.
Our housing goals are based on homes available to residents to live in, not proposals that may never materialize or could take a decade or more. Comparing the two is apples to oranges. CDD’s projections show we will still not meet our (too-low) 2030 housing goals (set in 2018) even if we enact this proposal tomorrow.
Qwerty, I truly appreciated you having followed my perspective on rational zoning amendments—it felt like the best Christmas gift. However, before posting comments, it’s crucial to ensure that claims are backed by the City’s public records. I’m more than happy to review the records and meeting documents with you, but I’d like to highlight a few key points.
When I refer to “rushed” process, I mean initiatives being pushed through without adequate consideration. For instance, the Cycling Safety Ordinance, though necessary, was passed without a clear budget or implementation plan. Similarly, the amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning Ordinance, which raised the building height to 12-15 stories in AHO corridors and squares, were fast-tracked during the pandemic when everyone was sheltering in place.
Just last week, the City scheduled the Ordinance Committee meeting only two days after the Planning Board meeting, and well past noon deadline for submitting City Council agenda items. According to Cambridge Day, the Planning Board voted unanimously to send a memo to the City Council detailing which aspects of the proposal lacked full support even though as Mary Flynn, Chair of the Planning Board, summarized, “We strongly recommend that multifamily housing be allowed in all districts.” Despite this, the City Council moved forward with a late policy order for the Community Development Department to proceed with updates to the Multifamily Housing Petitions (MFHP). If there was no rush, why not wait for the Planning Board’s report?
Additionally, we must revisit the foundation of our housing policies. Envision 2030, the City’s officially adopted Master Plan, provides the framework for housing development. However, the MFHP seems to be moving ahead without fully aligning with this plan. The CDD’s housing projections presented to the Ordinance Committee suggest that the City won’t meet its 2030 housing target until 2040, even with the proposed zoning changes. Unfortunately, this analysis was not provided to the Planning Board just a week earlier. Furthermore, the analysis is flawed—it was based on 2023 Affordable Housing Stock data, not the latest 2024 data; did not account for AHO developments; and used housing development growth rates since 2019, a period significantly impacted by the pandemic. Given these discrepancies, it’s clear that we should reassess the Envision 2030 housing goals and amend them through a proper process that includes public participation.
If our goal is to expedite housing development, it must be done with thoughtful, long-term urban planning. The right approach is to revisit Envision 2030, update the housing goals, and ensure a more transparent process with broad public engagement rather than this MFH Petitions which will alter our historical neighborhoods forever.
One last point – Affordable Housing Stock Data 2024 Update, which must be reported to the State, includes “units under construction or completed as of June 30, 2024.” In projecting housing developments to 2030, CDD must consider all developments that are in the pipeline as well as potential developments factoring in that they “may never materialize or could take a decade or more.”
Because of inequities in our land-use laws and our severe shortage of housing, our elected City Council has made a number of changes to the zoning code over the past several years. They’ve considered a great deal of information, public comment and discussion, and they’ve done all this in an open and fair process.
Young Kim has made his individual disagreement with the results very clear in many broadsides sent through various channels. In this one, he would like to reassign some of the Council’s policy-setting authority to the City Manager’s staff (contradicting the City Charter) and some of its zoning-law-enacting authority to the Planning Board (contradicting the State Legislature).
In addition, he has single-handedly elevated the 5-year-old Envision Cambridge report to a new status as “foundation of our housing policies” and our “Master Plan,” describing it as “officially adopted.” (It wasn’t).
Fortunately for the integrity of the City of Cambridge and the well-being of its residents, the Council will probably have completed its work on multi-family zoning by its mid-February deadline before the ambitious Young Kim manages to revamp parts of Cambridge’s (and the Commonwealth’s) laws and policies to suit his preferences.
Calling this process “rushed” is misleading, given the multiple public meetings, analyses, and discussions that have taken place.
Claims of rushing often mask the “delay, delay, delay” tactic, a common NIMBY strategy.
The urgent need for housing can’t be ignored. The current crisis stems from exclusionary zoning and overly restrictive regulations. Continuing these practices won’t solve the problem.
To those who support MrNice and Mr. Zall’s comments, I’d like to clarify my position.
If you’re still unsure about my concerns regarding the “rushed” amendment process for MFH petitions, I encourage you to review my response to Qwerty’s initial comment.
James, I appreciate your perspective, but I believe you’ve overestimated my influence on the revision of Cambridge’s laws and policies. My goal is simply to highlight the issues with the current Zoning Amendment process based on facts I can back up with public records.
I fully agree that Council has “the policy-setting authority” to achieve a goal and direct the City Manager to report back on alternatives to achieve that goal. However, the goals outlined in POR 2024 #37 that created “zoning language that effectively promotes multi-family housing, including income-restricted affordable housing with the goal of having viable housing for everyone especially lower-income residents” are broad, unmeasurable and endless. The urgent need for housing can’t be solved by Policy Order with such open ended goals.
Furthermore, POR 2024 #35 for Law Dept and CDD “to study whether the City Council could add maximum lot area per dwelling unit, maximum setback requirements, and minimum floor area ratios in some districts or as part of an overlay in the Zoning Ordinance and whether the City Council could require a special permit for a down conversion in developments that would result in a net loss of housing units” remained on the Awaiting Response list until it was dropped from that list on 12/2 without CM having reported back. Without Law Department’s determination, is it even legal to remove such requirements from the Zoning Ordinance?
As for me reassigning “zoning-law-enacting authority to the Planning Board “, all I said was to give them the respect they deserve and i consider their recommendation when amending the Petitions.
Finally, “Envision Cambridge is a roadmap to the year 2030, setting out a plan to promote inclusive and sustainable growth…The goal of Envision Cambridge is to guide the city’s future in line with the community’s Core Values: Livability, Diversity & Equity, Economic Opportunity, Sustainability & Resilience, Community Health & Wellbeing, and Learning.” NLTP Committee held a public hearing on 11/13/2019 “to discuss the final Envision Report” and James, you were there, remember? On 12/9/2019, then Councillor Zondervan submitted POR 2019 #383 that “the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide a summary report of the Envision goals for consideration by the City Council” was adopted unanimously but never appeared on the Awaiting Report List. At the same meeting, CRT 2019 #83, the report from Co-Chairs was accepted and placed on file. By these Council action/inaction Envision Cambridge was adopted by City Council.