[00:00:04]
ALRIGHT.A CITY STAFF COULD PLAN TO COME UP TO WHO ARE PRESENTING, COME UP, COUNT STAFF AND COUNSELORS.
THANK EVERYBODY FOR BEING HERE.
THE TIME OF THE MEETING HAVE ARRIVED AND A QUORUM OF BOTH COMMITTEE MEETINGS BEING PRESENT.
I AM GONNA CALL TODAY'S JOINT HOUSING COMMITTEE AND NEIGHBORHOOD AND LONG-TERM PLANNING PUBLIC FACILITIES ARTS AND CELEBRATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING TO ORDER.
THE CALL OF TODAY'S MEETING IS TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF THE 2025 MULTIFAMILY ZONING AMENDMENTS AND CONSIDER POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS.
IN ADDITION, THE COMMITTEES WILL ALSO BE REVIEWING POR 20 26 1 23 RELATIVE TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH WAS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE HEARING AT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 8TH, 2026.
THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS A ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS PRESIDENT.
PRESENT FOR THE HOUSING COMMITTEE.
PRESENT, COUNCILOR SABRINA WHEELER.
PRESENT, PRESENT, COUNSELOR ZUI.
PRESENT, THAT'S FOUR MEMBERS PRESENT.
ONE RECORDED IS ABSENT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND LONG-TERM PLANNING COMMITTEE.
UH, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER TWO OF THE ACTS OF 2025, ADOPTED BY MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL COURT AND APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR, THE CITY IS AUTHORIZED TO USE REMOTE PARTICIPATION AT MEETINGS OF THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL AND ITS COMMITTEES.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDS THIS MEETING AND MAKES IT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC FOR FUTURE VIEWING.
THIRD PARTIES MAY ALSO BE AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDING THIS MEETING.
IN ADDITION TO HAVING THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL PARTICIPATE REMOTELY, WE HAVE ALSO SET UP ZOOM TELECONFERENCE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE ONE MINUTE, AND SIGNUP IS AVAILABLE UNTIL 1:00 PM.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE VISIT THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION OF THE CITY'S WEBPAGE, INSTRUCTIONS FOR HOW TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK OR POSTED THERE.
ONCE YOU HAVE COMPLETED SIGNUP PROCEDURE, YOU'LL RECEIVE A LINK TO THE ZOOM MEETING.
YOU CAN ALSO EMAIL WRITTEN COMMENTS FOR THE RECORD TO THE CITY CLERK AT CITY CLERK@CAMBRIDGEMA.GOV.
TO WATCH THE MEETING, PLEASE TUNE INTO CHANNEL 22 OR VISIT THE OPEN MEETING PORTAL ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
WITH THAT, ALL OF TODAY'S VOTES, IF ANY, WILL BE BY ROLL CALL.
IN TERMS OF ORDER OF OPERATIONS FOR TODAY, UM, WE WILL FIRST GO TO THE CITY STAFF PRESENTATIONS.
UH, AFTER THE STAFF PRESENTATIONS, WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
UH, AND THEN, UH, GIVEN, DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH TIME THERE IS AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT, WE WILL HAVE QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.
UH, AND THEN AT THE END OF THE MEETING TODAY, UH, UH, UH, TWO HOURS AFTER IT STARTED, SO 2:30 PM WE WILL HAVE A MOTION TO, UH, RECESS, UH, IN WHICH TIME THE MEETING WILL END FOR THE DAY, BUT THE MEETING WILL PICK BACK UP, UH, AT THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING AS A CONTINUATION.
UM, SO WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO CITY STAFF FOR THE PRESENTATIONS FOR TODAY.
MELISSA PETERS, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
I'M JOINED BY JEFF ROBERTS, WHO WILL RUN THROUGH THE PRESENTATION DIRECTOR OF ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT, UM, AS WELL AS JEN KYRA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF PLANNING, AND CHRIS KOTTER, UH, CHIEF OF HOUSING, AS WELL AS SOME ADDITIONAL STAFF, UM, BEHIND ME WHO ARE HAPPY TO JUMP IN AND ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
AND COULD YOU DO, UH, QUICK INTROS BEFORE YOU GET STARTED, JUST OF THE FOLKS, CITY STAFF MEMBERS AT THE TABLE? UM, AND I ALSO JUST WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THAT MAYOR SIDIKI, WHO IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEES, IS HERE.
UH, BUT YOU JUST WANNA, DID YOU, SORRY, DID YOU JUST INTRODUCE EVERYBODY? I JUST DID, BUT IF YOU WANT THEM TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES OR NO, NO, I THINK THAT THAT'S FINE IF YOU JUST DID.
I, UH, I'M GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF.
UM, SO, UH, EXCITED TO BE HERE TODAY.
THIS IS THE THIRD, UH, OF A SET OF JOINT HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD LONG-TERM PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
UH, JUST PROVIDE A, A REMINDER AND, AND SOME BACKGROUND FOR, UH, FOLKS LISTENING WHO MAYBE HAVEN'T BEEN, UM, FOLLOWING THE WHOLE PROCESS.
UM, THE FIRST MEETING WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CDD TO PRESENT THE ANNUAL HOUSING REPORT, SINCE IT HAD BEEN ONE YEAR SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ZONING IN FEBRUARY, UH, TO GIVE A CHECK IN ON HOW THINGS ARE GOING, ARE WE, UH, UH, GETTING THE RESULTS THAT WERE ANTICIPATED AND MEETING THE GOALS OF, OF THE ORDINANCE CHANGES.
UM, THE SECOND WAS TO HEAR FROM A SET OF DIFFERENT EXPERTS IN DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES, ARCHITECTS, DEVELOPMENT, ECONOMICS, UH, HOUSING, UH, PROFESSIONALS, UM, AND AS WELL AS, UH, TO GET PUBLIC FEEDBACK.
AND WITH THAT, ALONG WITH, UM, FEEDBACK WE'VE RECEIVED FROM BOTH DEVELOPERS FROM, UH, FROM CITY, UM, FROM THE COMMUNITY AND CITY STAFF
[00:05:01]
WHO HAVE BEEN DOING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW VIEW PROCESS, WE'VE COME UP WITH, UM, SOME VERY MODEST CHANGES THAT WE THINK, UH, STAY TRUE TO THE HEART OF THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING ORDINANCE.SO IT'S ABSOLUTELY TRUE THAT THIS MULTIFAMILY ZONING ORDINANCE IS A TRANSFORMATIVE POLICY THAT WE SHOULD BE REALLY PROUD OF.
UM, IT, UH, INCENTIVIZES INCLUSIONARY ZONING, UH, TO GET AFFORDABLE UNITS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
IT HELPS TO ACTIVELY DISTRIBUTE HOUSING PRODUCTION THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND NOT, UH, IN CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS.
THAT WAS THE PAST PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT.
UM, WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO SAY THAT IT IS BEEN EFFECTIVE IN CREATING INTEREST IN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, UM, AND HAS RESULTED IN, IN MORE ACTIVITY ACROSS THE CITY.
AND THOSE ARE GOOD POSITIVE THINGS, AND WE DON'T WANNA CHANGE THAT.
UM, WHAT WE HAVE BEEN NOTICING, UM, AND CERTAINLY THERE'S COMMUNITY SENTIMENT THAT CONCERN AROUND, UM, IMPACT TO OPEN SPACE AND TREE CANOPY AND, UH, IMPACTS ON ABUTS.
UM, BUT, BUT MORE THAN THAT, WHAT WE'VE BEEN FOUNDING IS THAT THERE'S JUST A LACK OF, UM, THERE'S SOME CONFLICT BETWEEN WHAT PEOPLE EXPECT TO ACHIEVE, BOTH DEVELOPERS AND THE PUBLIC IN TERMS OF WHAT'S LIKELY TO BE BUILT IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, WHICH WILL BE BUILT WHEN OTHER REGULATIONS ARE MET.
SO THE ZONING ENVELOPE WAS SET INTENTIONALLY TO BE VERY, UM, PERMISSIVE AND FLEXIBLE SO THAT WE COULD ENCOURAGE MORE HOUSING PRODUCTION, BUT THAT DID NOT NEGATE THE NEED TO MEET OTHER IMPORTANT REGULATIONS.
SO DEVELOPERS STILL NEED TO MEET THEIR STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS.
THEY STILL NEED TO MEET GREEN FACTOR.
AND SO THERE'S, RIGHT NOW THERE'S THIS EXPECTATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY THAT I CAN BUILD A BUILDING TO THE FULL ZONING ENVELOPE TO MEET THE SETBACKS, WHICH ARE, ARE VERY GENEROUS, AND THEREFORE I DON'T HAVE TO MEET OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD INEVITABLY REQUIRE THAT THE BUILDINGS GET A LITTLE BIT SMALLER TO ACCOMMODATE FOR STORM WATER TANKS, FOR TREES, FOR OPEN SPACE.
AND SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IN THIS RECOMMENDATION IS TO REALLY BE MORE HONEST WITH HOW ALL THOSE, WHEN YOU LAYER ALL THOSE OTHER REGULATIONS ON TOP OF THE ZONING, HOW WE CAN GIVE A BETTER EXPECTATION OF WHAT COULD BE RESULTED.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE, WE TRY TO DO.
THERE'S, THERE WERE SOME, UM, EMAILS GOING AROUND THAT WE WERE CHANGING.
WE WERE AT ADDING IN, UM, PARKING MINIMUMS. WE'RE NOT TOUCHING PARKING MINIMUMS THAT WE, WE ARE MOVING TO A DISCRETIONARY PERMANENT PROCESS.
ALL OF THE, UM, THINGS THAT MAKE THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING SO GROUNDBREAKING AND IMPORTANT REMAIN.
WHAT THIS DOES IS IT ADDS A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY TO BOTH DEVELOPERS THAT THEY APPRECIATE AND RESIDENTS ABOUT WHAT THEY CAN EXPECT TO SEE, UH, BY MAKING THE ZONING ENVELOPE MORE, UM, REFLECTIVE OF WHAT IT WOULD BE WHEN OTHER REGULATIONS ARE MET.
UM, SO JEFF WILL WALK THROUGH, UH, KIND OF THE PRESENTATION OF HOW WE CAME TO THAT.
UM, I DO WANT TO MAKE ONE POINT IS THAT AS WE WERE THINKING THROUGH WHAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND, IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE DIDN'T MAKE ANY CHANGES THAT MADE IT LESS LIKELY THAT, UH, FIVE OR SIX STORY BUILDINGS WOULD GET BUILT.
SO THE GOAL WAS WE DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE IT HARDER TO BUILD INCLUSIONARY ZONES.
'CAUSE THAT WAS A KEY COMPONENT OF, OF THE CRAFTING OF THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.
UM, AND SO ANY CHANGES THAT WERE MADE, UH, FOR SIX STORY BUILDINGS WE'RE MADE FOR FOUR STORY BUILDINGS.
AND THAT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT TO US.
UM, AND, UM, I, I THINK I'LL END THERE AND PASS IT ON TO JEFF, BUT, BUT REALLY THINK THAT THESE, UM, AND MAYBE I'LL JUST END BY SAYING THE, WHEN WE DID OUR PROJECTIONS, WHEN WE WERE COMING UP WITH THIS PROPOSAL, WE HAD ASSUMED, UM, A CERTAIN LOT COVERAGE, UM, WHICH WAS MORE GENEROUS THAN THE SETBACKS ALLOWED, BECAUSE WE KNEW DEVELOPMENT WOULD NEED TO MEET THESE OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
IF WE WERE TO DO THOSE PROJECTIONS AGAIN AND SAID, THIS IS HOW MUCH HOUSING PRODUCTION WE WOULD GET WITH THIS NEW REVISED ZONING, THOSE PROJECTIONS WOULD BE THE SAME.
THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT ALL SITES ARE GONNA BE TREATED EQUALLY, BUT ON A WHOLE, WHEN WE DO PROJECTIONS AS THAT SCENARIO PLANNING IS DONE, THOSE ASSUMPTIONS WOULD BE THE SAME.
[00:10:01]
ZONING MORE HONEST, UM, AND ALSO ALLOWS FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY SO THAT BETTER DESIGN DECISIONS CAN BE MADE.SO WHEN THERE IS CONCERNS FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU CAN SCOOT YOUR BUILDING OVER A LITTLE BIT, BUT WITHOUT LOSING ANY BUILDABLE FOOTPRINT.
SO THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE.
AND SO I'M EXCITED TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AND HAPPY TO, UM, GET STARTED.
UM, JEFF ROBERTS, DIRECTOR OF ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT, HAPPY SUMMER.
UM, GONNA START WITH A SORT OF SLIGHTLY MORE EXPANDED SUMMARY OF, UH, WHAT I'LL GO OVER IN MORE DETAIL.
AND I SHOULD NOTE, AS MELISSA SAID, THIS IS WORK THAT'S INVOLVED INPUT FROM MANY DEPARTMENTS.
WE'VE BEEN MEETING REGULARLY SINCE THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING WAS ADOPTED LAST YEAR, TO COMPARE NOTES ON WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING.
IT'S BEEN A VERY REAL TIME KIND OF CONVERSATION WITH LOTS OF INPUT, YOU KNOW, HEARING WHAT'S GOING ON WITH PARTICULAR CASES, HEARING FROM DEVELOPERS AND FROM, AND FROM RESIDENTS.
SO IT'S BEEN AN ONGOING LEARNING PROCESS.
IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE AN ONGOING LEARNING PROCESS.
AND, UM, WE, YOU KNOW, HAVE A LOT OF SUPPORT FROM, UH, WITHIN CDD, THE URBAN DESIGN STAFF IN PARTICULAR, INSPECTION SERVICES, HISTORICAL COMMISSION, PUBLIC WORKS HOUSING AMONG MANY OTHERS HAVE, HAVE BEEN PROVIDING INPUT.
UM, TO START OFF, UM, BROADLY SPEAKING, WE'VE SEEN THAT THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING AMENDMENT HAS DONE AS ADVERTISED.
WE'VE SEEN A REAL SURGE OF INTEREST IN MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ACROSS THE CITY.
THERE'S STILL A LOT OF CITY SUPPORTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS IN THE PIPELINE, AND THAT PIPELINE IS STILL GROWING SEEMINGLY ON A, ON A, A WEEKLY OR EVEN DAILY BASIS.
WE'VE SEEN SMALLER MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS, UM, BREAKING GROUND, UM, MAINLY LESS THAN 10 UNITS.
YOU KNOW, THE PREVIOUS ZONING WAS RESULTING MOSTLY IN SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND NOW WE'RE SEEING THAT EXPAND TO, TO SMALLER MULTIFAMILY OFTEN, UM, CONDO OR TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENTS.
UM, USUALLY BELOW THE INCLUSIONARY THRESHOLD, WE ARE SEEING PROJECTS BEING PROPOSED, UH, ABOVE THAT INCLUSIONARY HOUSING THRESHOLD.
UM, WE KNOW THAT THOSE ARE, HAVE BEEN A BIT SLOWER TO MOVE INTO CONSTRUCTION.
UM, WE KNOW THAT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ARE, ARE CHALLENGING RIGHT NOW AND PRETTY UNCERTAIN FOR, FOR PROJECTS OF A LARGER SCALE.
AND WE ALSO, UM, ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING STUDY UNDERWAY, AND THERE'S, THERE'S SOME AMOUNT OF, UM, WAITING TO SEE WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN AND WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THAT MIGHT BE.
UH, ONE THING WE TALKED ABOUT, AND, AND MELISSA TOUCHED ON THIS DURING THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING PROCESS, IS THAT THE, THE BASE ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR THINGS LIKE SETBACKS AND OPEN SPACE ARE NOT THE ONLY REGULATORY FACTORS THAT AFFECT DEVELOPMENT.
UM, WITH, UH, THE CHANGE IN ZONING PROJECTS STILL NEED TO MEET ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS, BOTH IN ZONING AND OUTSIDE OF ZONING, UH, BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS.
WE KNOW OR MAJOR FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE DESIGN AND AND OUTCOME OF HOUSING.
AND SO WE EXPECTED THAT WITH MORE FLEXIBLE ZONING STANDARDS LIKE SETBACKS, SOME OF THESE OTHER REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS WOULD START TO BECOME MORE LIMITING FACTORS WITH DEVELOPMENT.
AND IN SOME CASES, THAT'S BEEN TRUE.
UM, AND WE'VE SEEN DEVELOPERS AND DESIGNERS, YOU KNOW, APPROACH THIS IN A, A MORE HOLISTIC WAY, BUT WE'VE ALSO SEEN PROJECTS COME FORWARD PRIMARILY DESIGNED TO THE ZONING ENVELOPE AND THEN, UM, RUNNING INTO MORE DIFFICULTIES WHEN THESE OTHER REQUIREMENTS COME INTO PLAY AND THE REVIEW PROCESS BECOMES MORE CHALLENGING.
UM, ALSO WE, WE KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN CONCERNS RAISED BY RESIDENTS THAT ARE, UH, NEIGHBORING, UH, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS.
UM, PART OF THAT IS, IS THE QUESTION OF POLICY BALANCE, WHICH WE TALKED ABOUT QUITE A BIT, UM, OVER THE, THE PAST COUPLE YEARS DURING THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING PROCESS.
AND JUST DIFFERENCES OF OF OPINION AROUND THAT.
UM, THERE HAVE BEEN, UH, CONCERNS AROUND SPECIFIC IMPACTS, THINGS LIKE TREES, DISTANCES FROM PROPERTY LINES.
SOME OF THAT ALIGNS WITH SOME OF THIS, UH, DISCUSSION OF, YOU KNOW, WHERE DO OTHER REGULATORY, UM, REQUIREMENTS COME INTO PLAY.
UM, THERE'S ALSO BEEN CONCERNS ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, SOMETHING NOT REGULATED DIRECTLY BY ZONING, BUT SOMETHING WHERE WE'VE SEEN, UM, CHANGES AS A RESULT OF THE, THE TYPE OF HOUSING NOW ALLOWED IN NEIGHBORHOODS.
UM, AND WE'VE ALSO HEARD, UM, YOU KNOW, AS, AS MIGHT BE EXPECTED, AS WE'VE SEEN A SHIFT AWAY FROM THE PREVIOUS ZONING, WHERE A LOT MORE DEVELOPMENT, EVEN MODEST DEVELOPMENT, WOULD REQUIRE SOME KIND OF, UM, VARIANCES OR, OR PROCESSES THAT INVOLVE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
NOW, UM, SINCE THAT'S NOT THE CASE ANYMORE, THERE'S, THERE'S AN INTEREST, UM, IN JUST UNDERSTANDING MORE, UH, GETTING MORE INFORMATION ABOUT PROPOSALS, UM, AND, AND, UH, AND UNDERSTANDING, YOU KNOW, WHAT, HOW THE PROCESS WORKS.
UM, AS MELISSA, UH, NOTED, WE WOULDN'T ADVISE MAKING MAJOR CHANGES TO THE APPROACH TAKEN WITH
[00:15:01]
THE ZONING.UM, GIVEN THAT THAT SEEMS TO BE MOVING IN THE DIRECTION THAT THE COUNCIL WANTED IT TO GO, WE STILL NEED MORE TIME TO UNDERSTAND LONG-TERM TRENDS.
UM, BUT IF THE COUNCIL IS INTERESTED IN CONSIDERING ADJUSTMENTS, THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE COULD LOOK AT THAT WOULD ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT CAME UP WHILE STILL MAINTAINING THAT BROADER EFFORT OF ENABLING MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, UM, THROUGH AND AS OF RIGHT PROCESS AND IN A WAY THAT'S EFFECTIVE AND EQUITABLE ACROSS THE CITY.
SO, UH, JUST FOR A, FOR A FEW MOMENTS, I WANTED TO BRING EVERYONE UP TO SPEAK BECAUSE I THINK IT'S RELEVANT TO, TO GO BACK OVER SOME OF THE BACKGROUND TO UNDERSTAND, UM, SOME OF THE, UH, UPDATES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.
UM, UH, SINCE LAST YEAR, CAMBRIDGE HAS BEEN AT THE FOREFRONT OF ZONING REFORM TO LESSEN RESTRICTIONS ON MULTIFAMILY HOUSING.
UM, WE DIDN'T INVENT THE IDEA.
UM, THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH EFFORTS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKING PLACE AT THE METROPOLITAN LEVEL AROUND BOSTON AS WELL AS THE STATE AND THE NATIONAL LEVEL, UM, OVER NOW THE BETTER PART OF A DECADE.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN, BEEN VERY ACTIVELY IN DISCUSSION.
UM, WE'VE BEEN PURSUING THESE EFFORTS REALLY SINCE WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY, WHICH WAS SORT OF A VERSION OF, OF THIS, AND SET A TEMPLATE FOR HOW, UH, EFFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL ZONING REFORM COULD WORK.
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT MORE BROAD BASED ZONING REFORM SINCE, UH, 2021 AT AT LEAST WE WENT THROUGH SEVERAL YEARS OF DISCUSSION WITH CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING BOARD, BOTH AS A GENERAL CONCEPT, UM, OF ALLOWING MULTIFAMILY CITYWIDE.
WE ALSO REVIEWED SEVERAL ZONING PETITIONS THAT, THAT HAD GONE THROUGH AND ULTIMATELY NOT ADOPTED.
UM, OTHER MAJOR CHANGES TOOK PLACE DURING THAT TIME.
THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS WERE REMOVED IN 2022.
UM, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY WAS AMENDED IN 2023, SO IT HAS BEEN A VERY ACTIVE, UM, FIVE YEARS OR SO.
UH, THEN, UM, THE ZONING THAT WAS ULTIMATELY ADOPTED LAST YEAR STARTED WITH A POLICY ORDER.
UM, THE, UH, COUNCIL PUT SOME VERY SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES ON THE TABLE, UM, TO BOTH ALLOW AND ENABLE MULTIFAMILY ZONING, CITYWIDE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING CITYWIDE.
UM, THAT LED TO A HOUSING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PROCESS, WHICH, UH, LASTED FOR A FEW MONTHS LEADING TO A, UH, SET OF ZONING PETITION HEARINGS, WHICH TOOK ANOTHER SEVERAL MONTHS, AND ULTIMATELY LED TO THE ADOPTION OF MULTIFAMILY ZONING IN FEBRUARY OF LAST YEAR.
SO LESS THAN 15 MONTHS, UH, SINCE WE'VE HAD THIS ZONING IN PLACE, UH, ONE OF THE MAJOR OUTCOMES OF THIS ZONING, AND, AND PROBABLY IN IN MY VIEW THE MOST IMPORTANT, WAS ELIMINATING MANY OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS THAT, UM, ARE KNOWN, YOU KNOW, BOTH IN CAMBRIDGE AND, AND MANY OTHER COMMUNITIES TO PRODUCE INEQUITABLE OUTCOMES.
THINGS LIKE LOT SIZE, DENSITY LIMITATIONS, YOU KNOW, LEAVING US REALLY WITH THREE ZONING REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE, THAT ARE STILL RELEVANT FOR HOUSING.
UM, THE HEIGHT, THE SETBACKS AND OPEN SPACE, UM, ALL REQUIREMENTS BASED AROUND BUILDING SIZE AND SHAPE.
UM, WE REMOVED A LOT OF THE KIND OF DISCRETIONARY PERMITTING, WHETHER IT'S EITHER, EITHER EXPLICIT OR ASSUMED IN ZONING, REALLY LEAVING IN PLACE, JUST THE PROJECT REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE, THE LARGER OF THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS OF 75,000 SQUARE FEET OR MORE.
EVERYTHING ELSE SUBJECT TO, UM, IT, IT SUBJECT EITHER TO JUST, UH, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OR IN SOME CASES ADVISORY REVIEW.
UH, AND AS WE ALL KNOW, THE MAP WAS REDRAWN AS PART OF THIS EFFORT FROM A VERSION WHERE NEIGHBORHOODS MOSTLY IN THE WESTERN HALF OF THE CITY WERE, UH, TREATED MORE RESTRICTIVELY THAN NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE EASTERN HALF OF THE CITY.
UM, THE NEW ZONING MAP APPLIED THE SAME ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS ACROSS THE CITY, EAST TO WEST.
UM, THERE'VE BEEN OTHER MAP CHANGES SINCE THEN AS WE'VE, WE'VE TURNED OUR ATTENTION, UM, TO MORE, UH, MIXED USE CORRIDORS AND SQUARES AND PLANNING FOR THOSE AREAS.
UM, IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, UH, THE HEIGHT LIMITS WERE ONE OF THE MOST CLOSELY SCRUTINIZED ISSUES DURING THAT, UH, COUNCIL HEARING DISCUSSION, ULTIMATELY SETTLING ON AN APPROACH THAT WOULD ALLOW FOUR STORIES FOR HOUSING AT BASELINE AND ALLOWING AN INCREASE OF SIX STORIES FOR DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO INCLUSIONARY HOUSING AS A WAY TO INCENTIVIZE MIXED INCOME DEVELOPMENT.
UH, WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT SETBACKS IN THE NEXT SECTION, BUT I WANTED TO KIND OF PUT THIS UP AS A REMINDER THAT IN THE PRIOR ZONING, THE REQUIREMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS FOR SETBACKS RANGED FROM VERY RESTRICTIVE IN, IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, TO SOMEWHAT LESS, BUT STILL PRETTY RESTRICTIVE, UM, IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND THE CURRENT ZONING, UM, AS MELISSA POINTED OUT, IS MUCH MORE PERMISSIVE, YOU KNOW, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THAT OTHER REGULATIONS
[00:20:01]
WOULD BE A FACTOR IN SITE DESIGN.UM, ALSO SOMEWHAT OF AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT EXISTING CONDITIONS IN NEIGHBORHOODS OFTEN HAVE VERY SMALL SETBACKS TO BEGIN WITH, SO IT CAN, IT CAN BE SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT TO FIGURE OUT, UH, A, A ZONING THAT REALLY MATCHES THE EXISTING PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT.
UM, BUT THIS WAS ONE OF THE MAJOR CHANGES.
AND, UM, WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT OPEN SPACE AS WELL.
UM, THIS IS, AS I'VE POINTED OUT, ONE OF THE AREAS WHERE THE ZONING CHANGED THE LEAST IN, IN SOME INSTANCES IN, IN THE RESIDENCY ONE DISTRICTS.
BUT, UM, SOME DISTRICTS THAT HAD A VERY HIGH OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT TO BEGIN WITH, THOUGH THOSE MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONING DISTRICTS, UM, HAD A, A DECREASE IN THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE WHEN IT MOVED TO THE RESIDENCY ONE STANDARDS.
UM, THIS IS ALSO A REMINDER, UH, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE TIME.
OPEN SPACE IS, IS A MORE OF A MORE NUANCED CONCEPT THAN, THAN SOMETIMES IT, IT SEEMS TO BE.
IT'S NOT JUST, UM, UNBUILT SPACE, UNBUILT AREA THAT COUNTS AS OPEN SPACE.
OPEN SPACE HAS TO SERVE A PARTICULAR FUNCTION UNDER ZONING, UM, AND IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, THERE ARE SEPARATE REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH PERMEABLE OPEN SPACE, WHICH IS AT GRADE SPACE THAT ABSORBS WATER AND SERVES AN ENVIRONMENTAL FUNCTION, AS WELL AS REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT WE CALL PRIVATE OPEN SPACE, WHICH IS SPACE OF BY, THAT'S USABLE BY RESIDENTS OF THE BUILDING TO MEET THEIR, THEIR OUTDOOR NEEDS.
UM, JUMPING AHEAD A LITTLE BIT TO LAST MARCH WHEN WE HAD THE, THE FIRST OF THE MEETINGS THAT MELISSA MENTIONED, UM, THE FINDINGS WERE STILL VERY PRELIMINARY.
UM, BUT WE ARE SEEING, UM, IN OUR, OUR FIRST ANNUAL HOUSING REVIEW THAT NEW PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN COMING FORWARD OF ALL TYPES WITH THE MOST, UH, APPARENT TREND BEING A SHIFT TO MORE SMALL AND MID-SCALE, UH, MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, WHICH WAS, UH, LESS COMMON, UH, PREVIOUS TO THE ZONING CHANGE.
AND WE SAW, UM, THAT THOSE PROPOSALS AND, AND THAT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED THROUGH MANY NEIGHBORHOODS OF THE CITY AS, UM, AS EXPECTED AND AS INTENDED.
UM, THE SMALLER PROJECTS HAVE BEEN MOVING, UH, MORE QUICKLY TO BUILDING PERMIT THE MID, MID-SIZE PROJECTS STILL IN MANY CASES IN REVIEW OR PERMITTING PHASE.
SO NOW, UH, WE'LL TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE MIGHT LOOK AT, AND WE BROKE THIS DOWN INTO FOUR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.
UH, THE FIRST CATEGORY HAVING TO DO WITH SITE DESIGN, JUST KIND OF DESIGN AND PLACEMENT OF BUILDINGS ON A LOT IS THE ONE THAT WE HAVE THE MOST TO TALK ABOUT.
THE REST ARE, ARE A LITTLE BIT, UM, A LITTLE BIT LESS TO TALK ABOUT, A LITTLE BIT MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD, BUT STILL, UM, RELATED TO SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE, HAVE COME OUT, UH, IN THE PAST YEAR.
SORRY, SOME OF THE SLIDES ARE ADVANCING A LITTLE SLOW.
UM, SO FIRST, UH, WE CAN LOOK AT THE SETBACK AND OPEN SPACE STANDARDS IN RESIDENCY ONE.
UM, THOSE ARE THE, THE, UM, REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE THE IMPACT ON SITE DESIGN.
WE DO THIS WITH AN EYE TOWARDS CONTINUING TO ENABLE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT RELYING ON DISCRETIONARY PERMITS, UM, MAKING THEM A BIT MORE REALISTIC IN TERMS OF WHAT WILL BE NEEDED TO MEET ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, BUILDING CODES, AND OTHER STANDARDS.
UH, WE SHOULD NOTE THAT EVERY SITE CONDITION IS GONNA BE UNIQUE.
UH, WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SOLVE EVERY CONFLICT, UH, ON EVERY SITE, BUT WE CAN CONSIDER, UM, DIFFERENT WAYS TO SET THE BALANCE AMONG, UH, DIFFERENT TRADE OFFS.
THIS IS A CHART, UM, WHICH IS, UH, MAKE A LITTLE MORE SENSE WHEN WE GET TO THE DIAGRAMS THAT SHOWS HOW SETBACK STANDARDS COULD CHANGE.
THE CONCEPT THAT WE WOULD SUGGEST THINKING ABOUT IS A SUM TWO APPROACH.
UM, THIS ACTUALLY WAS, HAD BEEN USED IN THE PRIOR ZONING TOO.
UM, THIS, IN THIS CASE WOULD BE USED IN A, A MUCH LESS RESTRICTIVE WAY.
UM, BUT WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT THE SIDE SETBACKS IN THE FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS WOULD NEED TO SUM TO A MINIMUM DISTANCE, MEANING THAT BUILDING FOOTPRINTS COULD BE MOVED OR RESHAPED, UM, WITHIN LIMITATIONS ON A LOT, UM, WITHOUT AFFECTING THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT.
UM, AND WE WOULD ALSO SUGGEST A MORE CONSISTENT FIVE FOOT SETBACK FROM, FROM ALL LOT LINES.
UH, THERE MIGHT BE A FEW EXCEPTIONS FOR UNIQUE CASES, UM, BUT THIS IS MAINLY TO REDUCE SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT MIGHT COME WITH MEETING BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS AND IMPACTING CONDITIONS ON A BUDDING LOTS WHERE BUILDINGS GET CLOSER THAN THAN FIVE FEET TO THE PROPERTY LINE WITH OPEN SPACES, OPEN SPACE.
ONE OF THE, UH, CHANGES THAT THE COUNCIL MIGHT CONSIDER IS ADJUSTING THE BALANCE OF
[00:25:01]
PERMEABLE AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE THAT'S REQUIRED.UM, GIVEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT OUR REDUCTION IN PERMEABLE AREA, THIS IS A CHANGE THAT MIGHT HELP ADVANCE THOSE PLANNING GOALS.
WE STILL THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AND CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S PLANNING TO CONTINUE TO REQUIRE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE, WHICH CAN INCLUDE AC GRADE SPACE AND ABOVE GRADE BALCONIES AND DECKS.
UM, GIVEN THAT RESIDENTS WILL HAVE A NEED FOR THAT KIND OF SPACE, ESPECIALLY WITH A SHIFT TOWARD MORE MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS THAT WILL HAVE AN NEED FOR OPEN SPACE GOING BEYOND BUILDING BACKYARDS.
UM, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, UH, THAT WE THINK IS IMPORTANT, BUT WE THINK THERE, THERE CAN BE A CONSIDERATION OF A, A SHIFT IN THE BALANCE TO PRIORITIZE MORE OF THE, THE PERMEABLE AREA AT GRADE.
SO, UH, WE HAVE SOME DIAGRAMS TO SHOW A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEARLY HOW THE CHANGE COULD WORK, UM, UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING SETBACKS IN, IN FRONT AND BACK.
UH, THE WAY IT'S, IT'S CURRENTLY WORKS, AND THIS IS ALL RESIDENCY ONE, UM, WOULD SUM TO 15 AND THE SIZE WOULD SUM TO 10.
UM, WE'RE SUGGESTING LOOKING AT THE SIDE SETBACK INCREASE TO A SUM OF 15 FEET AND FRONT AND REAR SUM TO 25 FEET.
THIS CREATES, UM, A BIT MORE, UM, UH, SORT OF DIMENSION, OPEN SPACE, YOU KNOW, SPACE THAT'S LARGE ENOUGH THAT IT COULD ACCOMMODATE THINGS LIKE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND TREES.
UM, ON THE SIDES, UH, THAT ADDITIONAL SPACE, IN ADDITION TO THE, THE SUM TWO REQUIREMENT ALLOWS FOR SHIFTING OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT.
SO IF YOU LOOK ON THE RIGHT, IT COULD, UM, CREATE A 10 FOOT BUFFER ON ONE SIDE, UM, OR EVEN SHIFTED TO CREATE MORE ARTICULATED MASSING ALONG THE SIDES, UH, IN WAYS THAT CAN, CAN BOTH HELP WITH, WITH SOME OF THOSE ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS.
AS WELL AS, UM, UH, AS WELL AS JUST HELPING ADJUST TO DIFFERENT SITE CONDITIONS THAT MIGHT EXIST EITHER ON THE LOT OR ON A BUDDING LOTS.
UM, THIS WOULD ALSO, UH, HAVING UNDER THE, UH, THE SUGGESTION THERE WOULD STILL BE THE FIVE FOOT, UM, KIND OF BUFFER FROM, UH, PROPERTY LINES TO ENSURE SOME, UH, DISTANCE FROM THE SURROUNDING LOT AND AVOID SITUATIONS WHERE A BUILDING CODE MIGHT FORCE REDUCED WINDOW OPENINGS OR OTHER MEASURES.
UM, WHERE THE NEW BUILDING'S CLOSE TO THE LOT LINE.
WE THINK THERE COULD STILL BE EXCEPTIONS, WHICH WE'LL WE'LL TALK ABOUT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
BUT IN INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, SITUATIONS LIKE TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT WHERE YOU HAVE, UM, ADJACENT BUILDINGS ALONG A PARTY WALL CONDITION IN THE FRONT AND REAR, UM, THE FRONT SETBACK COULD STILL BE REDUCED TO, TO MATCH THE EXISTING CONTEXT.
WE THOUGHT IT MIGHT EVEN BE, UM, SIMPLIFIED IN A WAY.
SO IT COULD BE REDUCED TO MATCH ANY EXISTING BUILDING, YOU KNOW, TO AVOID THE COMPLICATION OF HAVING TO CALCULATE THE AVERAGE SETBACK, WHICH CAN SOMETIMES RESULT IN, IN KIND OF SOME STRANGE OUTCOMES.
UM, ALSO DEALING WITH SCENARIOS WHERE THERE MIGHT ACTUALLY JUST BE ONLY ONE ADJACENT BUILDING.
UM, LIKE ON CORNER LOTS, THERE'S SOMETHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, UM, BECAUSE THE FRONT REAR SUM TWO APPROACH, UM, IF, IF THE FRONT TWO FRONT REAR, UH, SOME APPROACH WERE APPLIED, THIS COULD ALSO RESULT IN, YOU KNOW, MORE SPACE BEHIND THE BUILDING.
UM, SO THE A A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A TRADE OFF FOR BEING ABLE TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO MATCH THE EXISTING, UM, THE EXISTING SETBACK.
THERE MIGHT BE SOME, UM, CONSIDERATIONS WE WANT TO THINK ABOUT, LIKE EXISTING STREET TREES.
UM, BUT OVERALL THIS WOULD CONTINUE TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY WHILE KEEPING THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING MORE CONSTANT AND PREDICTABLE.
UM, THIS IS JUST AN ILLUSTRATION OF HOW THE PERMEABLE OPEN SPACE MIGHT FIT WITH, ALONG WITH A, A POTENTIAL NEW SETBACK SCHEME.
UM, KEEP IN MIND A, AGAIN, A A SITE MIGHT NEED TO ACCOMMODATE A LOT OF THINGS THAT WOULD NOT COUNT AS PERMEABLE OPEN SPACE LIKE ENTRYWAYS AND STAIRS.
AND IF, UH, PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS WERE INCLUDED, THAT DOESN'T COUNT AS OPEN SPACE.
SO THERE DOES NEED TO BE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THE SITE DESIGN AND, UH, NOT ASSUME THAT EVERY PORTION OF THE LOT THAT'S NOT A BUILDING WOULD BE PERMEABLE OPEN SPACE.
UM, BUT THIS WOULD, BUT THIS WOULD HELP TO AGAIN, UH, SORT OF REBALANCE A LITTLE BIT TO, TO HAVE MORE OF THAT PERMEABLE AREA EXISTING ON THE LOT.
AND, UH, THIS NEXT PART IS JUST A BROAD OVERVIEW OF HOW WE MIGHT LOOK AT EXCEPTIONS.
UM, EXCEPTIONS COULD, YOU KNOW, SORT OF SERVE TWO PURPOSES.
ONE IS, UM, TO PROVIDE A BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY TO, UH, DESIGNERS IN, IN LOOKING HOW AT HOW TO, UH, DESIGN A BUILDING ON A LOT, BUT ALSO, UH, WAYS TO INCENTIVIZE THE KINDS OF DESIGN OUTCOMES THAT, THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO PREFER.
UM, SOME OF THESE ARE EXCEPTIONS THAT EXIST IN CURRENT ZONING.
IN SOME CASES THEY MIGHT BE TWEAKED OR THEY MIGHT NEED CLARIFICATION.
THERE'S A LOT OF DETAIL TO BE WORKED OUT HERE, BUT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GIVE A GENERAL SENSE OF THE, THE THINGS THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO THINK
[00:30:01]
ABOUT, UM, IN TERMS OF USING INCENTIVES TO, TO ACHIEVE THOSE OBJECTIVES.UM, SO ENCLOSED PROJECTIONS, LIKE BAY WINDOWS ARE ONE EXAMPLE, UM, ALLOWING THOSE TO ENCROACH INTO SETBACKS CAN INCENTIVIZE MORE BUILDING ARTICULATION.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS WE OFTEN HEAR ABOUT IS COMPLAINTS ABOUT HOW MODERN BUILDINGS ARE, ARE TEND TO APPEAR SORT OF BOXY.
UM, REALLY, YOU KNOW, ALL BUILDINGS ARE, ARE KIND OF MOSTLY BOXES JUST IN, IN SOME CASES.
AND WITH OLDER BUILDINGS THAT PREDATE ZONING, THEY TEND TO HAVE THINGS ATTACHED TO THEM THAT, UH, GIVE THEM A LITTLE BIT MORE VISUAL INTEREST.
SO SOME OF THE DETAILS WE'D, WE'D WANT TO THINK ABOUT HERE ARE HOW, HOW WOULD WE WANT TO DEFINE PROJECTIONS, THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY PROJECT, IF THEY'RE ALLOWED JUST ABOVE OR BELOW GRADE UP TO WHAT HEIGHT.
THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE NOT ALWAYS THAT CLEAR IN THE CURRENT ZONING.
SO WE CAN, UM, WE CAN THINK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT AS WELL AS HOW DO WE DO, DO WE WANT TO HAVE SOME DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO THE FRONT AND THE REAR VERSUS SIDE TO SIDE? THERE ARE ALSO OPEN PROJECTIONS, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THINGS LIKE PORCHES AND BALCONIES.
AGAIN, THOSE PROVIDE VISUAL INTEREST TO BUILDINGS, BUT THEY ALSO SERVE SOME OF THOSE NEEDS FOR USABLE OPEN SPACE, UH, THAT I TALKED ABOUT.
UM, ALSO STAIRS, RAMPS AND, AND, AND, UH, AREA WAYS LIKE WINDOW.
WELL OPENINGS ARE IMPORTANT FOR MEETING BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS, UH, PROVIDING DISABILITY ACCESS IN MANY CASES, FLEXIBILITY IN, IN, UH, TREATING THOSE KINDS OF FEATURES IS IMPORTANT TO ACCOMMODATE, UH, FLOOD RESILIENCE.
FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THERE'S A, THE BUILDING THAT NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED FROM FUTURE FLOOD RISK, THAT MIGHT MEAN HAVING TO MOVE, UM, ABOVE GRADE A BIT MORE, WHICH REQUIRES A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY IN HOW YOU DEAL WITH THOSE, THOSE TRANSITIONS VIA STEPS AND RAMPS.
UM, THIS IS A, JUST A DEPICTION OF SOMETHING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING, WHICH WE WOULD, UM, PROPOSE TO KEEP, WHICH IS ALLOWING VERTICAL ADDITIONS, UM, TO EXISTING BUILDINGS, EVEN IF, UH, THEY FURTHER VIOLATE A SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
SO THIS MIGHT MAKE ENLARGEMENTS, UH, BIT EASIER WHERE THEY KEEP WITHIN THE CURRENT FOUNDATION LINES OF A BUILDING.
THE CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS THIS, BUT IT ACTUALLY, THE LANGUAGE IN THE CURRENT ZONING ONLY ALLOWS THE SETBACK REDUCTION IN THE SIDES AND REAR IT DOESN'T PROVIDE A REDUCTION IN THE FRONT SETBACK.
THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD ACTUALLY THINK ABOUT AS, AS A CLARIFICATION IF WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE THIS KIND OF APPROACH.
HORIZONTAL ADDITIONS STILL NEED TO CONFORM TO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS AS THEY DO NOW.
AND, UM, AND SO THAT'S WHAT ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS.
AND ANOTHER THING THAT WE'VE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT REALLY IN, MOSTLY IN RECENT MONTHS, UH, UH, PARTICULARLY WITH THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION, IS, UM, SITES WITH HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT BUILDINGS, UM, THE, THE COMMISSION AND, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT COMMISSIONS HAVE HEARD CASES WHERE THE DESIRED OUTCOME WAS TO, UH, PRESERVE A HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT BUILDING ON THE STREET FRONT AND BUILD AN ADDITION BEHIND IT.
ZONING COULD SUPPORT THAT KIND OF OUTCOME BY ALLOWING SOME REDUCTION IN SETBACKS OR OTHER INCENTIVES, UM, POSSIBLY SUBJECT TO SOME, SOME HISTORIC FINDINGS TO ENSURE THAT THE PRESERVATION IS, IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
SO THAT'S, UH, THE SITE DESIGN PIECE.
AND NOW JUST MOVING ON TO CATEGORY NUMBER TWO ON OUR LIST, AND THEY, THEY GET A BIT EASIER AND SHORTER FROM HERE.
UM, THIS IS SOMETHING WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT A LOT WITH COUNCIL IN RESPONSE TO A POLICY ORDER ASKING ABOUT HOW TO AVOID THE NEW ZONING RESULTING IN SIMPLY LARGER SIZE UNITS RATHER THAN MORE UNITS BEING CREATED.
UM, WE, WE PROVIDED A POLICY ORDER RESPONSE THAT LAID OUT, UM, SOME OF THE VARIOUS ISSUES AND LIMITATIONS THAT, THAT MAKE IT CHALLENGING TO DEAL WITH THAT, BUT THE COUNCIL COULD CONSIDER SOME APPROACHES THAT WOULD PUT SOME ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS ON DEVELOPMENT WITH LARGER, UM, AVERAGE UNIT SIZES TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MORE MODERATELY SIZED UNITS.
UM, LOOKING AT THE, THE FACTS OF THIS A LITTLE BIT, THIS IS AN UPDATE TO SOME INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE ANNUAL HOUSING REPORT.
WE BROUGHT IT AS, AS CLOSE TO UP TO DATE AS WE COULD.
UM, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT MOST OF THE PERMITS ISSUED TO DATE HAVE BEEN FOR, UH, ON AVERAGE MORE MODERATELY SIZED UNITS.
UM, MOST PROJECTS HAVE ADDED GFAA GROSS FLOOR AREA PER UNIT, LESS THAN 1600 SQUARE FEET.
UM, THE PROJECTS WITH LARGER UNITS HAVE BEEN PRIMARILY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, UM, WHICH CONTINUE TO BE BUILT IN SOME CASES, IN, IN MORE CASES, THE, THE NEW DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES HAVE BEEN ADDITIONAL UNITS ON A LOT RATHER THAN DEMOLITION AND REPLACEMENT OF BUILDINGS OR CONVERSIONS OF BUILDINGS WITH MORE UNITS TO FEWER UNITS.
UM, SO WE, WE THOUGHT ABOUT, WELL, WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IF WE SET SOME THRESHOLD OF, SAY, 2000 SQUARE FEET, UM, OF GFA PER UNIT AND LIMITED THE HEIGHT IN THOSE CASES TO THREE STORIES.
WE, WE DIDN'T COME UP WITH SPECIFICS, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE COULD INCREASE, CONSIDER INCREASED SETBACK OR OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS
[00:35:01]
IN THOSE CASES AS WELL TO BE A LITTLE BIT, UM, CLOSER TO THE, THE EARLIER ZONING AND, AND REDUCE SOME OF THE INCENTIVE FOR THOSE LARGER SIZE UNITS.UM, ONE THING THE COUNCIL MIGHT ALSO CONSIDER IS THE, LOOKING AT THE GROSS FLOOR AREA EXEMPTION FOR BASEMENT SPACE.
THIS WAS PUT IN PLACE A LONG TIME AGO, UM, BY THE COUNCIL TO, UH, HELP EXISTING HOMEOWNERS FINISH THEIR BASEMENTS AND MAKE BETTER USE OUT OF THEM.
THAT'S REALLY NOT A FACTOR ANYMORE FOR THOSE KINDS OF CASES BECAUSE THERE'S NO FAR LIMITATION ON HOUSING UNDER THE NEW ZONING.
SO HOMEOWNERS WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THIS EXEMPTION DOES IS IT MAKES IT HARDER TO GET A, A KIND OF REALISTIC ACCOUNTING OF WHAT THE, UM, GROSS FLOOR AREA PER UNIT IS BECAUSE THE, THE, THAT BASEMENT SPACE, IF IT'S ENTIRELY FINISHED SPACE, KIND OF DISAPPEARS FROM THE GROSS FLOOR AREA CALCULATION.
AND IT ALSO MAKES IT A BIT MORE COMPLICATED TO APPLY THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING THRESHOLD.
SO THAT'S, SO THOSE ARE THE AREAS WHERE GROSS FLOOR AREA IS STILL RELEVANT IN ZONING.
IT'S, IT'S NOT AS A LIMITATION ON THE TOTAL SIZE OF THE BUILDING.
AND WE TOOK A LOOK AT THIS COMPARED TO PERMITS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED, UM, WITH AN AVERAGE GROSS FLOOR AREA PER UNIT OF 2000 SQUARE FEET.
SO WE FOUND 29 BUILDING PERMITS THAT KIND OF FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY.
MOSTLY NEW SINGLE FAMILY BUILDINGS THAT ARE THREE STORIES OR LESS.
EARLIER WE TALKED ABOUT HOW WE, THERE'S LIMITATIONS ON RESTRICTING THE SIZE OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ANYWAY, SO WE'RE KIND OF CONSTRAINED IN HOW MUCH WE CAN REGULATE THAT.
THERE WERE MANY CASES OF ADDING UNITS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS THAT WERE ALREADY LARGE.
UM, SOME CASES PUTTING IN AN ACCESSORY UNIT AND STILL THE AVERAGE IS, YOU KNOW, OVER 2000 SQUARE FEET.
UM, A NEW LIMITATION WOULD KICK IN ONLY IF THE BUILDING WERE BEING INCREASED IN HEIGHT OR SIZE IN SOME WAY.
SO A LOT OF THOSE CASES OF CONVERSIONS WOULDN'T REALLY BE IMPACTED BY, BY A PROPOSAL.
UM, UH, LIKE WE WERE, LIKE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, UM, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF CASES OF CONVERSIONS OF TWO FAMILY TO ONE FAMILY, MUCH, UH, MANY FEWER OF THOSE THAN WE'D SEEN IN THE PAST.
UM, THOSE WOULD ALSO BE DIFFICULT TO REGULATE IF THERE'S NO ADDITION TO THE BUILDING BEING CONTEMPLATED.
ANYTHING GOING ON WITHIN THE EXISTING BUILDING IS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S DIFFICULT TO CONTROL.
THERE WERE A FEW CASES, UM, UH, THAT INVOLVED DEMOLITION OF A BUILDING AND REPLACING WITH A LARGER BUILDING WITH THE SAME NUMBER OF UNITS.
AND WE KNOW THOSE CASES THAT ATTRACTED SOME, UH, PUBLIC ATTENTION.
BUT I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBERS, THEY'RE REALLY MORE THE EXCEPTION THAN THE RULE.
UM, THERE WAS ONE CASE WHERE AN ADDITION OF A FOURTH STORY WAS PUT ON A SINGLE FAMILY TO CONVERT TO A TWO FAMILY, AND THE RESULTING AVERAGE UNIT SIZE WAS, WAS MORE THAN 2000 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT.
SO THOSE KINDS OF CASES, YOU KNOW, IF THERE WERE RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE, THOSE MIGHT BE IMPACTED, BUT THEY WOULD BE IMPACTED SORT OF IN, IN, IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THIS, THIS WOULD, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS WOULD BE AN APPROACH THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD AVOID SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE CAN'T REGULATE.
AND WHAT IT WOULD ULTIMATELY DO IS, UM, IN SOME CASES COULD, UH, LEAD TO, UH, DEVELOPERS EITHER RECONFIGURING SOME PROJECTS SO THAT THERE WOULD BE MORE UNITS.
SO IF THEY WERE EXCEEDING THAT SIZE THRESHOLD BUT STILL WANTED TO BUILD TO FOUR STORIES AND, AND LARGER, THEY'D HAVE TO HAVE MORE UNITS.
IT COULD ALSO MEAN SOME, SOME CASES MIGHT GO THE OTHER WAY AND, AND REDUCE THE OVERALL SIZE, BUT STILL KEEP, KEEP LARGER UNIT SIZES.
AND WE, IT'S HARD TO TELL WHICH, YOU KNOW, DIRECTION MOST OF THEM WOULD GO, BUT IT WOULD, IT WOULD AVOID THE KINDS OF SCENARIOS THAT HAVE SOMETIMES ATTRACTED NEGATIVE ATTENTION OF LARGE BUILDINGS WITH, WITH FEW UNITS.
AND JUST QUICKLY TOUCHING ON, UH, THE, THE ISSUE OF NOTIFICATION AND PROCESS.
THE COUNCIL ADDED THE REQUIREMENT IN RESIDENCY ONE DURING MULTIFAMILY ZONING FOR PROJECTS OF OVER THREE STORIES AND 35 FEET IN HEIGHT.
UM, IT'S REALLY A PROCESS SET UP MEANT TO INFORM, 'CAUSE THESE ARE FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE SEEKING A BUILDING PERMIT.
IT'S ONLY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.
THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT TO A HEARING PROCESS THAT INVITES PUBLIC COMMENT AND, AND THAT LEVEL OF INPUT.
AND WE'VE SEEN IN SOME CASES THAT THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN HELPFUL, UM, AS A WAY TO COMMUNICATE WITH NEIGHBORS ABOUT THINGS LIKE CONSTRUCTION TIMING AND EXPECTATIONS.
IT'S, IT'S, IT RESULTED IN A MORE CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE.
UM, THERE'VE ALSO BEEN, UM, A FAIR NUMBER OF CASES WHERE THERE'S BEEN CONFUSION OR NEGATIVE REACTION FROM NEIGHBORS WHO EITHER ARE, ARE HAVING A MORE DIFFICULT TIME GETTING THE INFORMATION THEY WANT, UM, THROUGH THIS PROCESS, OR IN SOME CASES, CREATING AN EXPECTATION THAT THERE IS A PROCESS FOR THE PUBLIC TO REVIEW AND INFLUENCE THE PROJECT DESIGN, WHICH IS, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE.
SO FOR THIS, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD LOOK ON THE ONE SIDE FOR SOME, YOU KNOW, SOME ADMINISTRATIVE IMPROVEMENTS.
SOME OF THIS IS, IS, UM, WORK THAT WE'VE ALREADY ASKED, BEEN ASKED TO DO BY COUNCIL, AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON, UM, PROVIDING RESOURCES TO HELP EXPLAIN THE PROCESS AND WHAT IT MEANS.
[00:40:01]
CREATING SOME MORE STANDARDIZED, UM, EXPECTATIONS FOR WHAT INFORMATION THE DEVELOPERS WOULD PROVIDE AS PART OF THE, UM, PART OF THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS.AND WE CAN WORK TO IMPROVE WAYS FOR PEOPLE TO FIND INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ABOUT PROPOSALS.
UM, AGAIN, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING, MOST OF THESE CASES ARE SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.
THEY'RE NOT A PARTICIPATORY DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS.
UM, IF THE COUNCIL WANTED TO CONSIDER CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE, UM, ONE APPROACH THAT WE THOUGHT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IS TO, UM, CLARIFY SOME OF THE LANGUAGE TO FOCUS ON THE STATEMENT OF THE INTENT OF THE PROCESS.
UM, MAYBE LESS EMPHASIS ON SOME OF THE PROCEDURAL DETAILS, WHICH CAN SOMETIMES LEAD TO CONFUSION AND, AND BE DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE.
UM, THE COUNCIL COULD ALSO REVISIT THE QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT THIS PROCESS IS INTENDED TO ACHIEVE, AND IF THERE ARE OTHER OBJECTIVES IN MIND, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WOULD WANT TO TALK MORE ABOUT AND PUT MORE WORK INTO.
AND FINALLY, UM, IF WE PROCEED WITH ANY CHANGES, THERE ARE SOME CLARIFYING EDITS WE MIGHT WANNA MAKE.
UM, WE DIDN'T WANNA SPEND TOO MUCH TIME GOING OVER THESE IN DETAIL.
UM, A LOT OF THESE ARE BASED ON QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP FROM PROPERTY OWNERS AND DEVELOPERS AND ARCHITECTS AND OTHERS THAT WE'VE, WE'VE RECEIVED AND, AND SPOKEN TO OVER THE PAST YEAR.
UM, FOR EXAMPLE, WE'VE HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT CORNER LOTS, YOU KNOW, THE, UM, WITH LOTS THAT HAVE FRONTAGE ON TWO STREETS.
UM, GENERALLY I, I WOULD KIND OF RECOMMEND AT THIS POINT AN APPROACH THAT WOULD MOVE AWAY FROM THE PREVIOUS MODEL OF TREATING THOSE LOTS AS HAVING TWO FRONT YARDS, AND INSTEAD HAVE A WAY TO DESIGNATE ONE STREET AS THE PRIMARY STREET AND THEN APPLY THE FRONT SIDE AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS THE SAME AS ANY LOT.
AND THE DISTRICT BASICALLY JUST, YOU KNOW, MAKING A CORNER LOT FOR, FOR DIMENSIONAL PURPOSES, THE SAME AS ANY OTHER LOT IN, IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, AND, AND NOT HAVE TO, TO WORRY ABOUT WHETHER, UM, DEVELOPMENT IS BEING EITHER REWARDED OR PENALIZED JUST JUST BY BEING A CORNER LOT.
UM, AND THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER THINGS WHERE WE CAN MAKE ADJUSTMENTS THAT WOULD HELP THE DESIGN PROCESS GO MORE SMOOTHLY.
UM, WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AS WELL TO, BECAUSE THIS HAS COME UP A FEW TIMES TO BE CLEAR AS TO THE INTENT OF THE ZONING AND THAT IT'S NOT INTENDED TO SUPERSEDE APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES AND OTHER REGULATIONS.
YOU KNOW, WE, WE MADE THAT PRETTY CLEAR WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THAT WITH THE COUNCIL, UM, LAST YEAR, BUT IN SOME CASES THAT'S BEEN THE SOURCE OF SOME CONFUSION, UM, WHEN THE, THE CODES DON'T NECESSARILY ALIGN.
UM, WE DID WANT TO TOUCH ON A COUPLE OF THINGS, UH, BEFORE WE END THAT WE WERE ASKED ABOUT.
UH, ONE IS A POLICY ORDER THAT WAS RECEIVED RELATIVELY RECENTLY.
UM, UNFORTUNATELY WE, WE HAVEN'T HAD A LOT OF TIME TO UNPACK AND STUDY ALL OF THIS, UM, BUT SOME OF IT DEFINITELY DOES RELATE TO THE WORK THAT, THAT I JUST PRESENTED.
UM, THE FIRST ITEM HAVING TO DO WITH SETBACKS WE TALKED ABOUT, AND THE, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THE SUM TWO APPROACH IS SOMETHING THAT WE THINK HAS, UH, HAS SOME GOOD ADVANTAGES.
UM, THE THIRD ONE ON THE LIST, UH, OPEN SPACE WE TALKED ABOUT, UM, I WOULD AGAIN EMPHASIZE MY CONCERN ABOUT TAKING AWAY REQUIREMENTS FOR BALCONIES AND DECKS, WHICH COUNT AS PART, BUT NOT ALL OF THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT.
GREEN ROOFS ACTUALLY DON'T COUNT AS PART OF THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT.
THEY ONLY COUNT AS PART OF THE GREEN FACTOR.
UM, BUT I STILL THINK THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE.
WE'VE ACTUALLY SPENT, UH, A BIT OF TIME WITH COUNCIL TALKING ABOUT WAYS TO ENCOURAGE GREEN ROOFS, AND I THINK WE'RE ACTUALLY SEEING A LOT MORE GREEN ROOFS NOW SINCE THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING THAN THAN WE HAD PREVIOUSLY.
UM, AND IF WE TOOK THOSE REQUIREMENTS OUT, I EXPECT WE'D PROBABLY SEE FEWER GREEN ROOFS AND LESS USABLE OPEN SPACE FOR RESIDENTS IN, IN THESE NEW BUILDINGS.
UM, THE FOURTH ONE ON THE LIST, AND I AM SKIPPING AROUND A LITTLE BIT, UM, I, UH, WITH, WE'RE HAVING TO DO WITH BUILDING WALL LENGTH.
THE, THE ONE THING, WE HAVEN'T REALLY STUDIED THIS, BUT THE ONE THING I'D CAUTION HERE IS THAT SOMETIMES WE CAN THINK OF NEW STANDARDS THAT ESSENTIALLY JUST BECOME DIFFERENT WAYS OF FRAMING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
UM, AND ONE OF THE PROBLEMS UNDER THE, THE PREVIOUS ZONING WAS HAVING TOO MANY OVERLAPPING REQUIREMENTS FOR THINGS LIKE SETBACKS WOULD, YOU KNOW, EVENTUALLY MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT OR IN SOME CASES NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DESIGN A BUILDING THAT COMPLIES WITH ALL OF THEM.
SO I THINK WE, WE HAVE TO BE CONSCIOUS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF LAYERING REQUIREMENTS AND THINKING ABOUT, WELL, IF WE, IF WE WANT TO HAVE A DIFFERENT SETBACK REQUIREMENT, LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT A DIFFERENT SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
UM, BACK UP NOW TO, TO NUMBER TWO ON THE LIST WHERE IT GETS A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLICATED.
UH, WE DIDN'T GET INTO HEIGHT, UH, BECAUSE, AND MELISSA, UM, ALLUDED TO THIS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE CONCERN ABOUT HOW HEIGHT WOULD HAVE A DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT, HEIGHT LIMITS WOULD HAVE A DISPROPORTIONATE
[00:45:01]
IMPACT ON ONE OF THE COUNCIL'S PRIMARY GOALS OF INCENTIVIZING INCLUSIONARY DEVELOPMENT.SO THERE'S A BROADER POLICY DISCUSSION THAT WE'D WANT TO HAVE AND, AND GET GUIDANCE FROM COUNCIL BEFORE GETTING INTO ANYTHING RELATED TO HEIGHT.
AND THE LAST ONE ABOUT PARKING.
UM, AND I GUESS THAT IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO READ ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW, UNFORTUNATELY, UM, BUT I'LL JUST SAY IT, UM, LOOKING AT, UH, REINSTITUTING PARKING REQUIREMENTS WOULD HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT ON HOUSING FEASIBILITY.
UM, IT WOULD BE A FAIRLY ABRUPT REVERSAL OF THE POLICY THAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL FOUR YEARS AGO.
SO AGAIN, THERE WOULD NEED TO BE A BROADER POLICY DISCUSSION AROUND THE GOALS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THAT.
UM, BEFORE WE WOULD GET INTO IT TOO MUCH, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID START TO LOOK INTO, UH, BUT HAVEN'T REALLY LOOKED INTO TOO MUCH YET, ARE CHANGES TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PARKING.
SO EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR OFF STREET PARKING THERE, IF YOU, IF OFF STREET PARKING IS PROVIDED THERE STANDARDS NEED TO BE MET, LIKE SETBACKS FROM PROPERTY LINES OR DRIVEWAYS, AND THOSE ARE THINGS WE COULD LOOK AT.
UM, WE'D WANNA BE CAREFUL ABOUT THE IMPACTS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE ON OPEN SPACE AND, AND URBAN DESIGN, BUT IT COULD BE A WAY TO PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR CASES WHERE THERE'S A DESIRE TO HAVE SOME, YOU KNOW, OFF STREET PARKING OR SOME ADVANTAGE TO HAVING OFF STREET PARKING.
AND FINALLY, I JUST WANT TO TOUCH BRIEFLY ON MANY OF THE OTHER EFFORTS UNDERWAY, UM, TO LOOK AT ISSUES, NOT, NOT ALL EXCLUSIVELY RELATED TO HOUSING, BUT ALL IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER RELEVANT TO HOUSING.
UM, THE INCLUSIONARY, UM, STUDY WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, I THINK EVERYONE'S WELL AWARE OF THAT, UM, THE WORK, UM, THAT JEN IS LEADING UP HAVING TO DO WITH THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND, AND LOOKING MORE AT STREAMLINING THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
THOSE ARE BOTH VERY RELEVANT TO, TO HOUSING.
WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME OTHER STANDARDS AS WELL, YOU KNOW, KIND OF SEPARATELY, UM, GREEN BUILDING REQUIREMENTS, UH, DESIGN STANDARDS.
SO THE, THE REQUIREMENTS IN ARTICLE 19 THAT HAVE TO DO WITH, UM, THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, MORE OF THE DETAILED ELEMENTS OF, OF BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN, UM, BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS WE'RE LOOKING AT AS WELL.
AND THE, UM, ALTHOUGH I, I'VE, I'VE NOT HAD THAT MUCH DISCUSSION ABOUT IT, YOU KNOW, THE CITY COUNCIL IS ENGAGED ALONG WITH PUBLIC WORKS AND, AND OTHERS ABOUT THE TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE.
SO MOST OF THESE ARE ON A TIMELINE TO, TO COME UP AND, AND BE DISCUSSED AT SOME POINT LATER THIS YEAR AT DIFFERENT TIMES.
UM, SO TO WRAP UP, UM, I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S A DEFINITIVE RANKING OF, OF ZONING BY PERMISSIVENESS, UM, IN THE STATE, BUT I THINK DEFINITELY THE, THE FOUNDATIONAL CHANGES THAT WERE MADE TO THE, UH, CAMBRIDGE ZONING OF, OF SIMPLIFYING REQUIREMENTS FOR HOUSING AND ZONING CONSISTENTLY, UM, ACROSS THE CITY FOR MULTIFAMILY ZONING HAVE HAD A MAJOR IMPACT AND HAVE PUT US IN THE FOREFRONT IN, IN DISCUSSIONS OF, OF ENABLING MULTIFAMILY HOUSING.
UM, IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO CONSIDER ADJUSTMENTS, I THINK WE COULD DO THAT AND STILL HAVE ONE OF THE MOST PRO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING APPROACHES TO ZONING ALMOST ANYWHERE.
UM, BUT WE DO WANT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT CHANGES THAT ARE, ARE TOO SIGNIFICANT AT THIS STAGE, GIVEN THAT THERE'S STILL, UH, UNCERTAINTY AROUND HOW THINGS WILL, WILL MOVE FORWARD IN THE FUTURE.
WE STILL NEED TIME TO GET A, A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THIS EFFORT WILL PLAY OFF IN THE LONG TERM.
THANK YOU TO CITY STAFF FOR THAT PRESENTATION.
WE ARE GONNA GO DOWN TO PUBLIC COMMENT, UH, FOLLOWED BY QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSIONS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, ACCORDING TO CITY COUNCIL RULE 31 B, WHEN THERE ARE 31 OR MORE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT A COMMITTEE MEETING.
THE AMOUNT OF TIME PER SPEAKER SHALL BE ONE MINUTE.
UH, I'LL GO NOW, ASK TO THE CITY CLERK, UH, TO CALL THE ROLE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
HOW MANY FOLKS DO WE HAVE? CENTER FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? WE HAVE 38 SPEAKERS SIGNED UP.
AND ALSO COUNCILOR SIMMONS HAS BEEN ONLINE DURING THE PRESENTATION.
THANKS FOR JOINING COUNCILLOR SIMMONS.
WE'LL GO NOW TO A PUBLIC COMMENT.
OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS KELLY TITLE, FOLLOWED BY PATRICK BARRETT, THEN YOUNG KIM KELLY, YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE.
IF YOU CAN TURN THE MIC ON, PLEASE.
WE ARE ELECTED MEMBERS OF THE GRADUATE STUDENT COUNCIL AT MIT, UM, AND WE ARE BOTH HERE TO REPRESENT THE 7,000 GRADUATE STUDENTS AT MIT.
THE GRAD STUDENT COUNCIL SUPPORTS POLICIES AND INITIATIVES TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE QUALITY HOUSING.
UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS CRITICAL TO ENABLE GRADUATE PROGRAMS TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN TALENTED STUDENTS, STRENGTHENING THE WORKFORCE AND DEVELOPMENT, UM, AND DRIVING INNOVATION ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH.
MIT'S GRADUATE HOUSING CAPACITY IS APPROXIMATELY 2,700 BEDS, WHICH CAUSES, UM, OVER HALF OF GRADUATE STUDENTS TO LOOK OFF CAMPUS IN CAMBRIDGE, BOSTON, AND SOMERVILLE.
[00:50:01]
ROUGHLY 30 TO 50% OF THEIR INCOME ON HOUSING COSTS, EVEN WHEN SHARED WITH ROOMMATES.AND ANECDOTALLY, THE SLEEVES GRADUATE STUDENTS AT RISK OF, UM, UH, BEING IN ABUSIVE ROOMMATE SITUATIONS OR DELAYING KEY LIFE MILESTONES LIKE MARRIAGE OR FORMING A FAMILY FOR FEAR OF BEING UNABLE TO FIND AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS.
UNSURPRISINGLY, ROUGHLY 75% OF GRADUATE STUDENTS REPORT FEELING STRESSED ABOUT HOUSING.
UM, THEREFORE WE THANK YOU, KELLY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS PATRICK BARRETT.
IF WE CAN JUST REMIND FOLKS TO SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MIC, JUST SO FOLKS ON ZOOM CAN HEAR YOU AS WELL.
I'M A PROPERTY OWNER IN CAMBRIDGE.
I'M ALSO A DEVELOPER AND ATTORNEY, AND ALSO HAVE WANTED SIGNS POSTED OF ME THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF A HOST OF CLIENTS, BUT I ALSO REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF THE IZ PROJECTS YOU CURRENTLY HAVE IN THE PIPELINE.
IF YOU PASS ANY ONE OF THESE SUGGESTED CHANGES, YOU WILL ABSOLUTELY GO TAKE ALL THESE PROJECTS BACK TO REDEVELOPMENT.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THE COUNCIL OR THAT IT'S BEEN REALLY PROPERLY ILLUSTRATED HERE, HOW LONG IT TAKES TO GET A PROJECT IN CAMBRIDGE APPROVED, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S ABOVE A CERTAIN THRESHOLD.
ABOUT A YEAR OF PLANNING, ABOUT 12 TO 18 MONTHS IN PERMITTING.
JUST LAST WEEK I HAD TO JUMP ON A PROJECT IN EAST CAMBRIDGE, WHICH IS THE ONLY IZ PROJECT YOU HAVE PERMITTED TO GET A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THEM.
'CAUSE YOU CHANGED THE ZONING TWICE ON THEM.
AND IN THAT PROCESS MADE THEM NONCOMPLIANT.
I GOT THE SPECIAL PERMIT, BUT NOT THROUGHOUT WITH MUCH HEADACHE.
AND, AND AUDRA, I UNDERSTAND PEOPLE ARE UPSET, BUT YOU'VE ONLY BEEN AT THIS FOR 15 MONTHS.
YOU DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'VE DONE OR WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THROUGH THE PROCESS, AND YOU NEED TO SPEND MORE TIME, DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS YOUNG KIM, FOLLOWED BY ROBERT O'NEILL, THEN IAS HAMID YOUNG.
YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
YOUNG KIM, I SPENT UNTIL TWO O'CLOCK LAST NIGHT, TRIED TO CHANGE MY PRESENTATION TODAY BASED ON LATE, UH, SOME, UH, PUBLISHED, UH, PRESENTATION MATERIAL.
AND, UH, I'VE, I'VE BEEN WORKING ON MY, UH, SPEECH JUST UP TO NOW, BUT I'M THROWING ALL THAT.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, I DON'T HAVE MY LAPTOP WITH ME.
THIS IS RIDICULOUS ON A VERY IMPORTANT SUBJECT LIKE THIS.
HOW I CAN'T EVEN BARELY SAY MY NAME IN THAT ONE MINUTE.
AND EVERYTHING THE CDD PRESENTED, I CAN GIVE YOU TWO HOUR, UH, UH, PRESENTATION ON WHAT IS WRONG WITH THEM.
THE ENTIRE MFH PROCESS WAS WRONG.
THEIR, UH, UH, ANALYSIS WAS COMPLETELY WRONG AND THEY EXCLUDED A HO DEVELOPMENT AND NOW THEY TOUT THE GREAT PIPELINE THAT'S, UH, PRODUCING THOUSAND UNITS.
WHERE IS THE, UH, WHERE IS THE LOGIC REASON AND WHY? THANK YOU YOUNG.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ROBERT O'NEILL, FOLLOWED BY AAS HAMID, THEN DAVID HALBURN.
ROBERT O'NEILL, 1 75 HALLWORTH STREET.
I SECOND MR. KIM'S CONCERN REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF ALLOTTED TIME.
IT IS PREPOSTEROUS THAT, THAT, THAT YOU TRIED TO BOIL IT DOWN TO SHOULD BE THREE MINUTES.
I SUPPORT AND URGE THE COMMITTEE TO, TO SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF REASONABLE THOUGHTFULLY CONSIDERED MODERATING AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ORDINANCE.
THE CURRENT MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ORDINANCE IS A BUILD HOUSING AT ALL COST APPROACH UNLEASHED ON THE CITY, APPARENTLY WITHOUT ANY UNDERSTANDING OR PERHAPS CARE OF THE COSTS AND IMPACTS.
THE CITY LACKS THE NECESSARY METRICS EVALUATION CRITERIA AND TOOLS REQUIRED TO ASSESS THE IMPACTS AND OUTCOMES OF THE ORDINANCE.
AS IS DOCUMENTED WITH RECENT CALLS FOR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, INCENTIVE ZONING AND HOUSING NEEDS STUDIES, A FULL ONE AND A HALF TO TWO YEARS AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORDINANCE.
UM, THEY, THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN, THEY, THEY WON'T EVEN BE AVAILABLE UNTIL LATE SUMMER OR EARLY 2027.
UM, THE COMMITTEE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY NOW TO TAKE A DEEP BREATH.
PLEASE EMAIL THE REMAINDER OF YOUR COMMENTS.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS IAS HAMID.
AGAIN, FOLKS, YOU CAN MOVE THAT MIC SO THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING DIRECTLY INTO IT.
WE HAVE ABOUT 50 PEOPLE THAT ARE ON ZOOM IN ADDITION TO THE ROOM SO THAT EVERYONE CAN HEAR YOU AAS.
I'VE BEEN DEVELOPING HOMES, SMALL HOMES FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS, THE KIND OF HOUSING THAT CAMBRIDGE WANTS.
I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE SERIOUSNESS, SERIOUSNESS OF THE CITY'S WORK.
UH, THE 2025 REFORM WAS NOT RUSHED.
THE CITY TOOK YEARS TO CREATE A MORE PREDICTABLE CITYWIDE HOUSING FRAMEWORK.
[00:55:01]
WE'RE NOW BEING ASKED TO AMEND IT ONLY AFTER 16 MONTHS BEFORE A FULL DEVELOPMENT CYCLE IS HAD TIME TO COMPLETE.THESE, UH, CHANGES MINOR TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
I WANT TO RESPECTFULLY CHALLENGE THAT THE 2025 REFORM REDUCED SETBACKS AND RELAXED OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS TO PRODUCE MORE HOUSING.
THESE CHANGES REVERSE THOSE EXACT MECHANISMS. CALLING THE MINOR DOES NOT CH UH, CHANGE WHAT THEY DO, ESPECIALLY WHEN CD'S OWN DATA SHOWS.
THE REFORM IS WORKING ACROSS THREE ACTIVE CAMBRIDGE PROJECTS.
WE ARE PLANNING APPROXIMATELY 15 HOMES WITH THESE CHANGES.
THAT NUMBER GOES DOWN TO NINE ON PAPER.
BUT ECONOMICALLY SPEAKING, BECAUSE FIXED COSTS DO NOT FALL WHEN BUILDABLE ENVELOPE SHRINKS, SEVERAL PROJECTS MAY STOP.
NOT TO MENTION, WE HAVE COMPLETELY ABANDONED FOUR PROJECTS.
WE'RE CONTEMPLATING FOR 25 MORE HOUSES BECAUSE OF THIS UNCERTAINTY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DAVID HAL HALPERIN, FOLLOWED BY KAREN BURETTE, THEN LIZA OLIVER.
DAVID HOPIN 14 VALENTINE STREET, UNIT THREE.
UM, I CAN SUPPORT SOME OF THESE TWEAKS, BUT I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO SETBACKS.
UH, MOST SLOTS IN CAMBRIDGE ARE VERY SMALL.
AND, YOU KNOW, EVEN SMALL CHANGES TO, UH, TO SEEMINGLY SMALL CHANGES TO SETBACKS CAN HAVE LIKE VERY BIG IMPACTS ON LET'S BUILD A MODEL, A SMALL LOT ON A TRIPLE DECKER, LOT LIKE WHAT I LIVE IN AND JUST TWO OF THEM NEXT TO ME.
UM, IT WOULD REDUCE LIKE THE FLOOR PLATE YOU'D BE ABLE TO BUILD BY ABOUT A THIRD.
UM, SO THESE DON'T SEEM LIKE SMALL TWEAKS TO ME.
UM, I'D REALLY BE INTERESTED IN MORE DETAIL ON HOW LIKE THIS ALREADY WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IS WORKING AND, UM, I, YOU KNOW, HOUSING CONTINUES TO BE THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE FOR, UH, RESIDENTS OF THE CITY.
UM, COUNCIL TOOK HISTORIC STEP IN ENDING EXCLUSIONARY ZONING IN CAMBRIDGE, AND I HOPE WE CAN'T, UH, WE NOT PULL THE RUG OUT FROM UNDER THAT PROCESS.
PLEASE DO NOT WATER DOWN MULTIFAMILY HOUSING.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS KAREN BETTE, FOLLOWED BY LIZA OLIVER, THEN JOE ALTA.
HI, I'M KAREN BRUT, 51 CUSHING STREET.
IT'S GREAT TO HEAR FROM MELISSA PETERS THAT EVEN WITH THESE CHANGES, THE PROJECTIONS OF HOUSING GROWTH UNDER MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ZONING ARE UNCHANGED.
I COMMEND THE CDD FOR STRIKING THE TRICKY BALANCE BETWEEN HOUSING DENSITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESILIENCE.
EVEN WITH TODAY'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, EVERY DISTRICT WILL STAY MORE PERMISSIVE THAN EVEN OUR MOST DENSE PRE-FORM BASELINE.
THESE ARE VERY MODERATE PROPOSED CHANGES, BUT THEY'RE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
THE PROPOSED SETBACK ADJUSTMENTS STRIKE A THOUGHTFUL BALANCE.
WE DON'T NEED THE BLACK AND WHITE CHOICE BETWEEN A HOUSE AND A TREE.
SECONDLY, UTILIZING AN AVERAGE UNIT SIZE THRESHOLD TO TRIGGER A BONUS FLOOR IS SMART ZONING.
IT INCENTIVIZES UNIT PRODUCTION.
WITHOUT BANNING FAMILY SIZE HOMES, THE KEY IS TO BASE THE THRESHOLD ON THE HOUSING NEEDS STUDY.
ADDITIONALLY, GETTING RID OF THE BASEMENT GROSS FLOOR AREA LOOPHOLE IS A GREAT IDEA TO INCREASE OUR AFFORDABLE UNIT COUNTS.
TO CONCLUDE, I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THE SETBACK BALANCE GREEN AREA AT GROUND LEVEL AND ALLOWING FOUR PLUS STORY BONUS PROVIDED THE THRESHOLD IS TIED TO A COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING NEEDS STUDY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS LIZA OLIVER.
LIZA, YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE PLEASE.
I AM IN SUPPORT OF THESE CHANGES TO THE MFHO.
UM, WE, I LIVE ON A SMALL PRIVATE WAY, CUL-DE-SAC.
UM, AND THE END OF IT HAS BEEN PURCHASED FOR, UM, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO BE TURNED INTO 56 CONDO UNITS, WHICH WILL TEAR DOWN ALL 23 TREES ON THE LOT AND PUSH THE SETBACKS THAT ARE PRACTICALLY AT OUR NEIGHBOR'S WALLS.
UM, I THINK THAT TO HAVE 56 UNIT CONDO BUILDING GOING ONTO A STREET THAT ISN'T EVEN BIG ENOUGH TO BE CONSIDERED A PUBLIC WAY, AND THE CITY SPEAKS TO EVERYTHING THAT IS WRONG WITH THIS CURRENT ORDINANCE IN ITS CURRENT FORM, WE CAN HAVE MODERATION AND UM, WE CAN HAVE MODERATION, AND WE CAN STILL HAVE MUL, MULTIFAMILY HOUSING AND UPZONING, WHICH I SUPPORT, JUST NOT IN THE CURRENT FORM.
JOE, YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE, PLEASE.
HI, JOAN LETTA, 68 WALKER STREET.
UM, I WANT TO ECHO MR. KIM'S CONCERN ABOUT THE INABILITY TO RELAY ANYTHING MEANINGFUL IN, UH, IN A MINUTE.
UM, THE COUNCIL'S PLAN TO LET PROFIT PROMPT PRODUCTION, UH, GOES AGAINST EVERYTHING PROGRESSIVES REALLY HAVE FOUGHT FOR, UH, OVER THE LAST DECADES.
MEANWHILE, A, B, C, D, UH, BETTER CAMBRIDGE FOR DEVELOPERS CONTINUES TO PROLIFERATE LIES ABOUT POLICY AND SUPPORT OF THIS PROFIT DRIVEN AGENDA.
AS TO MR. BARRETT, WE'RE ALL QUITE CLEAR AS TO WHAT HAS HAPPENED AND WHAT HE'S ATTEMPTING TO USHER INTO THE CITY.
CONCERNING OF ALL IS THE MAGNITUDE OF PUBLIC PUSHBACK ASSOCIATED WITH WHAT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INNOCUOUS AND RELATIVELY MEANINGLESS.
AMENDMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS PUT FORTH IN THE CDD RECOMMENDATIONS.
PROFIT ABOVE ALL SAYS CAMBRIDGE MAGA.
PASS THE FIRST IN A LONG LINE OF AMENDMENTS, SAVE
[01:00:01]
THE CITY.OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS SUZANNE ER, FOLLOWED BY LOUISE VENDEN.
SUZANNE BLEIER FIVE FULLER PLACE.
I'M WEARING MY CCC CAP IN PART BECAUSE WE WERE THE FIRST CITIZENS GROUP TO PUT FORWARD A ZONING PETITION TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THE GENTRIFICATION OF THE CITY GONE HAYWIRE.
WE'RE SEEING THIS IN RIVERSIDE, CAMBRIDGEPORT, NORTH CAMBRIDGE STRAWBERRY HILL.
IT'S NOT IN WEST CAMBRIDGE OR NEIGHBORHOOD NINE.
THE BLUE AREA, THE BLUE COLLAR AREAS.
WHO'S PAYING FOR THIS OUTSIDE? DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS.
MULTIPLE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON EACH OF THESE.
IT'S VERY PERMISSIVE, CHEAP MATERIALS.
WE NEED TWO AND THREE BEDROOMS. I URGE MY MIT STUDENT FRIENDS TO GET MIT TO BUILD HOUSING.
YOU'VE GOT IT ZONED FOR HOUSING.
WE CAN'T SUPPORT STUDIOS FOR HARVARD AND MIT STUDENTS.
A HO DEVELOPERS CAN'T COMPETE WITH THIS.
AS TO MR. BARRETT, HE'S SUED THE CITY.
HE'S GIVEN MONEY TO CITY COUNSELORS WHO ARE NOT EVEN SUPPOSED TO VOTE ON THIS BECAUSE BARRETT.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS LOUISE VENDEN.
LOUISE, YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE PLEASE.
LOUISE VENDEN, IF YOU CAN UNMUTE YOURSELF.
WE'RE GONNA MOVE TO LIZ LOYA, FOLLOWED BY EMAR TURNER.
I'M SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THOUGHTFULLY AMENDING THE ZONING.
I WANNA FIRST START BY FINISHING MY PUBLIC COMMENT FROM JUNE 8TH, WHICH WAS CUT SHORT AND IS RELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION.
WE ARE ASKING COUNSELORS, MCGOVERN AND SIMMONS TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM VOTING OR DISCUSSING OR SHARING THEIR OPINION.
AT MINIMUM, FULLY DISCLOSE YOUR DEVELOPMENT RELATED FUNDING BEFORE YOU PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR OR AGAINST ANYTHING REGARDING HOUSING.
ACCORDING TO PUBLICLY AVAILABLE RECORDS FROM THE MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE OF CAMPAIGN AND POLITICAL FINANCE COUNSELORS, MCGOVERN AND SIMMONS RECEIVED MORE CAMPAIGN FUNDING FROM REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION AND LAND USE LAW INTEREST THAN ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL.
OF THE APPROXIMATELY $150,000 IN RECENT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE LEADING CAMBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE FIRMS, MCGOVERN SIMMONS HAVE RECEIVED 92% OF THE TOTAL SHARE OF CONTRIBUTIONS.
THAT IS TEXTBOOK APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
WHETHER OR NOT ANY LAW IS BROKEN, THE PUBLIC CANNOT.
PLEASE EMAIL THE REMAINDER OF YOUR COMMENT.
WE'RE GONNA GO BACK TO LOUISE VENDEN, FOLLOWED BY EMAR TURNER CHARRING.
AGAIN, IF YOU CAN UNMUTE YOURSELF.
I SEE THAT YOU HAVE YOUR HAND RAISED.
ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO I'M ON MUTE.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? WE CAN HEAR YOU.
UM, STATE, GO AHEAD WITH SOMETHING ELSE.
NOW I'VE GOTTA FIND MY LOUISE.
LOUISE, SPEND IN 10 ROGERS STREET.
MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT MFH WAS ADOPTED TO ADD HOUSING TO INCREASE THE AVAILABILITY OF LOWER END MIDDLE INCOME PRICE HOUSING, WHICH HAD DECLINED OVER THE PAST 15 TO 20 YEARS.
THOSE AGAINST PROPOSED MFH DOCUMENTS OR AMENDMENTS CLAIM THAT ADDING HOUSING AT ANY PRICE LEVEL BENEFITS LOWER AND MIDDLE INCOME RESIDENTS BASED ON A TRICKLE DOWN THEORY AND VARIOUS BY PRESIDENT REAGAN, THAT NOT ONLY FAILED TO LIFT UP THE MIDDLE CLASS BUT FUELED ITS DECLINE.
THE MOST IMPORTANT WAY TO EVALUATE THE IMPACTS OF MFH ON CREATION OF ADDITIONAL HOUSING IS TO MEASURE THE REPLACEMENT OF LOWER PRICED MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING WITH HIGHER PRICED HOUSING DISPLACING TENANTS.
THE CDD DATA SHOWS HOUSING WITH PERMITS ISSUED SINCE FEBRUARY, 2025.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MEASURE THE IMPACT OF MFH WITHOUT LOOKING AT A SIMILAR CHART SHOWING PERMITS FOR THOSE TYPES OF HOUSING IN THE PREVIOUS 12 MONTH PERIOD, FEBRUARY, 2024 THROUGH 2025.
ALSO, THE CDED DOESN'T INCLUDE A CATEGORY OF THE LARGE NUMBER OF PROJECTS UNDER REVIEW.
PLEASE EMAIL US THE REMAINDER.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ITAMAR TURNER TRO, FOLLOWED BY CARRIE SAUNDERS.
[01:05:01]
ALPER ITAMAR.HI, MY NAME IS EMAR TURNER TRO.
UH, SO THOSE CDD OPENING SLIDES TALKED ABOUT CONCERNS RAISED BY RESIDENTS.
UH, AND I'M SORT OF CURIOUS WHO EXACTLY THEY MEAN.
UH, SO LIKE THE BUILDING NEXT TO ME IS UP FOR SALE.
UH, MY CONCERN IS THAT IT'S NOT LIKE WE, IF IT WAS EIGHT STORIES, YOU COULD BUILD EVEN MORE UNITS.
I'M GONNA NOT ENJOY THE CONSTRUCTION, BUT EIGHT STORIES MEANS EVEN MORE UNITS, EVEN MORE INCLUSIONARY UNITS.
MY CONCERNS ARE NOT BEING ADDRESSED.
THE RENTERS ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME, LIKE THEIR BUILDINGS DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY SETBACKS.
UH, BASED ON THESE CHANGES, THOSE BUILDINGS WOULD BE STILL ILLEGAL TO BUILD.
THEY CARE ABOUT HOW MUCH RENT THEY HAVE TO PAY.
THE CONCERNS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING HEARD ARE A VERY SPECIFIC DEMOGRAPHIC.
UH, THEY TEND TO BE FROM THE 6% OF RESIDENTS WHO OWN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
UH, REDUCING INCREASING SETBACKS IS GONNA MAKE IT HARDER TO BUILD MORE UNITS.
LIKE WE SHOULD NOT BE MAKING CHANGES OR DECREASED UNITS, AND THERE'S NO CALCULATION HERE ON IMPACT AND INCLUSIONARY.
OUR MARKET CHANGES SHOULD COME WITH NUMBERS ON THE IMPACT OF NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WILL GET BUILT.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CARRIE SAUNDERS.
I WANNA THANK THE CDD FOR PRESENTING THIS, UM, THESE MODEST EFFORTS AT, UM, MAKING AMENDMENTS, WHICH I APPRECIATE AND I DO SUPPORT MANY OF THEM.
I WOULD ASK THAT IN BULLET POINT NUMBER FIVE UNDER YOUR KEY POINT SLIDE, THAT YOU CHANGE THAT FROM NEIGHBOR CONCERNS TO RESIDENT CONCERNS BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST NEIGHBORS OF THESE BUILDINGS, IS THAT IMPLIES WHO ARE, WHO ARE YOUR HEARING FROM? AND I THINK THAT THAT CALLING IT NEIGHBORS BELITTLES AND UNDERSTATES, THE BACKLASH AND ALARM THAT THE ZONING LAW HAS BEEN MET WITH IN ALL PARTS OF THE CITY, NOT JUST CERTAIN AREAS.
I WANNA ADDRESS THE SETBACK QUESTION AND SAY THAT A FIVE FOOT SETBACK IS NOT BIG ENOUGH.
AND I HOPE THAT YOU'LL CONTINUE TO PURSUE THAT.
AND I DO THINK THAT SETBACK SHOULD BE ADJUSTED TO THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING AND THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING NEEDS TO BE RELATABLE TO THE WIDTH OF THE STREET.
LET'S PUT ALL OF THOSE THINGS TOGETHER IN A THOUGHTFUL WAY.
AND I DO WANNA ADDRESS THE ASPECT OF DEMOLITIONS, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED HERE.
THAT EVERY PROJECT THAT I KNOW OF SO FAR IS RESULTING IN THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING THAT HAS ALREADY NATURALLY.
PLEASE EMAIL THE REMAINDER OF YOUR COMMENTS FOR EVERYONE.
YOU CAN EMAIL YOUR COMMENTS TO CITY COUNCIL@CAMBRIDGEMA.GOV.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CAROLYN ALPERT, FOLLOWED BY MARYLEE MEYER, THEN DANIEL MASCO.
ALL THE PERCEPTION IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS IS THAT A WELL FINANCED, PROFESSIONALLY STAFFED DEVELOPER'S LOBBY IS PUSHING THROUGH A LUXURY CONDO BUILDING RAMPAGE IN THE NAME OF PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THEIR MESSAGING IS QUITE STRIDENT AND QUITE CONFUSING.
YES, WE VOTED FOR MULTIFAMILY ZONING AND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WE DID NOT VOTE FOR A PROFIT DRIVEN RAMP PINCH THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOODS DEMOLISHING SO MUCH THAT WE CHERISH EVICTING LONG-TERM RESIDENTS AND PROVIDING SO LITTLE IN THE WAY OF AFFORDABILITY.
WE NEED THESE MODERATING AMENDMENTS AND MORE.
WE NEED TO PROVIDE THOSE WIDER SETBACKS AND LESS ELEMENTS, FEWER ELEMENTS ALLOWED IN THOSE SETBACKS, BUT ONLY THE OVERRIDING CONCERN OF ADDING MORE HOUSING UNITS IS WHAT'S DRIVING THIS.
MOST OF THEM ARE IN THE $2 MILLION RANGE, BUT AT THE, IT IS COMING AT ANY COST TO THE CURRENT RESIDENTS OF OUR CITY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MARYLEE MEYER MARYLEE.
AND I'M INTERESTED TO READ THAT THE HOUSING BILL STUCK IN WASHINGTON WANTS TO STOP PRIVATE EQUITY FROM BUYING UP PRIVATE HOMES IN CAMBRIDGE.
IT IS CORPORATE AND FOREIGN INVESTORS AND AMBITIOUS DEVELOPERS BUYING AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS PER BLOCK, DEMOLISHING THEM FOR LUXURY H UM, CONDOS.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE MULTIFAMILY GAVE DEVELOPERS UNFETTERED RIGHT TO DEVELOP AS THEY SEE, UH, FIT DISPLACING TENANTS.
WE NEED TO REEXAMINE A ACTIVE USE OF ORIGINAL HOUSING, WHICH DOESN'T CONTRIBUTE TO THE CARBON FOOTPRINTS.
UH, LIKE, UM, DEMOLITION DOES.
THE CITY CREATES DEMAND FOR LOCATION AND AMENITIES, WHICH DO NOT BRING PRICES DOWN.
UH, STRIPPING ANY OVERSIGHT DOES, DOESN'T MAKE DEVELOPERS MOVE FASTER.
UM, YOU ARE GETTING MORE UNITS WITH PROJECT REVIEW.
[01:10:01]
FOOT SIDE, UH, SETBACKS TURN INTO PAVED ALLEYS, NOT FOR TREES.BALCONIES, UH, ARE NOT PUBLIC OPEN SPACE.
WE'RE MOVING ON TO SPEAKER NUMBER 17, DANIEL MACO, FOLLOWED BY MARTHA BEDELL.
I ASKED THE COMMITTEE TO SET ASIDE C'S CURRENT PROCESS AND RESTART WITH THE PROCESS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ACTUALLY REFLECT COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS.
CD'S PROCESS IS BASED ON THE PREMISE THAT EVEN BEFORE ANY OF THE BENEFITS OF THE MULTIFAMILIES OWNING ARE REALIZED, WE MUST IMMEDIATELY WORK TO REIGN AND IT CHANGES.
IT COMPLETELY IGNORES THE NEIGHBOR CONCERNS THAT MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DOES NOT DO ENOUGH TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL HOUSING, ESPECIALLY ON SMALLER LOTS.
I MYSELF AM UPSET WHEN ONE OR TWO FAMILY HOUSES ARE REDEVELOPED INTO LARGER ONE OR TWO FAMILY HOUSES.
SOME OF THE WAYS TO ADDRESS THIS WOULD BE BY ALLOWING LARGER SIX-STORY BUILDINGS ON SMALLER LOTS, REDUCING SETBACKS AND REDUCING OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS.
THESE MECHANISMS WERE THE BASIS FOR MULTIFAMILY ZONING AND SEEMED TO DO A BETTER JOB ENCOURAGING MORE UNITS AND INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ON LARGER LOTS.
WHY DID CDD NOT CONSIDER EXPANDING THESE TO SMALLER LOTS? THE PROPOSALS ALSO RELY ON OUTDATED AND ANTI-URBAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES SUCH AS SETBACKS AND BREAKING UP FACADES.
THE PROPOSALS REVISIT ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED, DEBATED, AND DECIDED THROUGH ARDUOUS PUBLIC PROCESSES AND ALSO INTRODUCED NEW CONSTRICTIONS THAT WERE NON-ISSUES.
PLEASE REWORK THEM AND REEVALUATE THE PREMISES THAT LED TO THEM.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MARTHA BEDELL, FOLLOWED BY MARY JANE KKI.
HI, I AM MARTHA BEDELL, CAMBRIDGE ARCHITECT AND RESIDENT FOR OVER 50 YEARS.
I BELIEVE THAT IF WE HAD FOLLOWED THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY THE CDD IN DECEMBER, 2025, WE WOULD'VE PREVENTED MOST OF THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
I ASSUME THAT THE ADVISORY ROLE OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WOULD INFLUENCE HOW PROJECTS WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE CITY'S EXISTING BUILDINGS AND NEIGHBORHOODS.
MINIMIZE NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORS AND BEST RESPOND TO THE SCALE FORMING CHARACTER OF THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS.
I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN BOTH ADD HOUSING, ESPECIALLY FOR FAMILIES, AND ALSO BUILD A CITY THAT IS CONNECTED THROUGH ITS RESPECT FOR THE SCALE AND IMPORTANCE OF BUILDING NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES.
I HAVE FULLY SUPPORTED THE CITY'S COMMITMENT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE I WAS SO REASSURED BY THE IMPORTANT GOALS AND MET POINTS MADE IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES WHERE WE ALL JUST SOLD A BILL OF GOODS BECAUSE NONE OF THE PRINCIPLES IN THAT, IN THOSE DESIGN GUIDELINES SEEMED TO BE INFLUENCING ANY OF THE DESIGNS.
FINALLY, COULD YOU PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE STAKEHOLDERS WITH CONNECTIONS AND CONFLICTS AS INVESTORS, ARCHITECTS, AND DEVELOPERS RECUSE THEMSELVES? THANK YOU, MARTHA.
WE WILL GO TO MARY JANE KKI, FOLLOWED BY CAROL ALEXANDRO, THEN TODD BREWBAKER, MARY JANE.
HELLO, MARY JANE KKI, 1 0 3 AVON HILL STREET, AND THE BIG PROPONENT OF THE ENVISION CAMBRIDGE REPORT.
I SUBMIT THAT CAMBRIDGE AS IT'S EVOLVING, UM, IS NOT THE CITY ENVISION CAMBRIDGE DESCRIBED HOUSING.
UBER ALL IS NOT THE PLAN TO MAKE CAMBRIDGE A GREEN SOCIALLY JUST PLACE TO LIVE.
IT'S A DEVELOPER'S DREAM COME TRUE.
THE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE PIPELINE AREN'T GOING TO HELP THE YOUNG PROFESSIONALS WHO WANT TO STAY IN THE CITY AND RAISE FAMILIES.
THERE'S TOO MUCH DEMAND FOR THOSE WITH REALLY BIG BUCKS WHO WANNA LIVE HERE TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
BAKED INTO THE M-F-A-M-F-H ORDINANCE ARE INCENTIVES THAT ARE NOT WORKING TO BUILD HOUSING FOR THE MISSING MIDDLE, FOR EDUCATORS, FOR NURSING NEEDS, FOR OUR POLICE PERSONNEL.
MORE LUXURY HOUSING THAT TAKES AWAY TREE CANOPY AND IMPER AND PERMEABLE SPACES.
IT THE IMPACTS OF WATER SUPPLY, TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION ISN'T WHAT THE CITY NEEDS.
PLEASE INCORPORATE THESE AMENDMENTS THAT MOVE SLIGHTLY CLOSER TO WHAT ENVISION CAMBRIDGE HAS IN MIND.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CAROL ALEXANDRA, FOLLOWED BY TODD BRUBAKER.
THEN SEAN HOPE WHAT WE CAMBRIDGE RESIDENTS AND ESPECIALLY THOSE FAMILIES WITH KIDS ARE LOOKING FOR IS BALANCE.
BALANCE BETWEEN HOUSING GREEN AND PARKING ALL THIS WHILE MORALLY NOT DOING WRONG TO YOUR NEIGHBOR BY BEING TOO TALL AND TOO CLOSE BY TAKING AWAY SUNLIGHT AND PRIVACY.
THESE FACTORS HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED MEANINGFULLY, OR YOU CAN'T CALL THIS MULTIFAMILY HOUSING.
IT'S, OR GEORGE ORWELL COULDN'T COME UP WITH A BETTER PHACO TERM BECAUSE FAMILIES ARE GONNA BE MOVING OUT IF THESE THREE THINGS ARE NOT ADDRESSED.
NUMBER ONE GREEN MUST MEAN REAL GREEN YARDS, NOT SILLY BALCONIES OR ROOFTOP STUFF THAT WE KNOW WILL NOT, WILL NEVER BE GREEN, NOT IN THIS WINTERY CLIMATE, AND THEY'LL NEVER BE MAINTAINED TO STAY GREEN.
TWO, THE WAR ON PARKING HAS TO END ONE OF THE MAJOR WHITE ELEPHANTS THAT HAS TO BE ADDRESSED WITH THE REAL SOLUTION.
[01:15:01]
SETBACKS HAVE TO BE FLEXIBLE WHENEVER POSSIBLE IN THE FRONT AND THE BACK, ESPECIALLY ON THE SIDES.DO YOU EVER TRY TO FIX ANYTHING FIVE FEET FROM YOUR NEIGHBOR? AND I'M GONNA EMAIL THE REST OF MY, MY SPEECH.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS TODD AB BRUBAKER, FOLLOWED BY SEAN HOPE.
TODD, YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
I LIVE AT, UH, 2 2 5 ALSTON STREET AND I AM IN FAVOR OF THE MO MODIFICATIONS.
A PREVIOUS SPEAKER TALKED ABOUT HOW IT'S ONLY BEEN 15 MONTHS SINCE THIS ALL BEGAN, BUT IN THAT TIME I'VE SEEN SWIFT AND ALARMING CHANGE IN MY LITTLE WORLD ON AUSTIN STREET.
EVERY SINGLE PROJECT ACROSS THE STREET, A STREET BEHIND ME, UH, ON NEIGHBORING STREETS, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES HAVE BEEN RIPPED DOWN AND REPLACED BY LUXURY APARTMENTS THAT THAT SELL FOR OVER $2 MILLION PER UNIT.
WE NEED MORE HOUSING FOR TEACHERS, NURSES, POLICE FIREFIGHTERS, AND TRADESPEOPLE WHO SUE FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT DOES FEEL LIKE A RAMPAGE FROM DEVELOPERS.
UH, ALL THE GREEN SPACES DISAPPEARING.
UH, I GET CALLS, UH, FIVE TIMES A WEEK FROM DEVELOPERS 'CAUSE I HAVE A BACKYARD.
EVENTUALLY I'M GOING TO BITE IN ANOTHER GREAT OLD HOUSE WITH GREEN SPACE WILL BE LOST.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS SEAN HOPE, FOLLOWED BY JACOB SILVERSON.
SEAN, YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE, PLEASE.
UM, GOOD AFTERNOON, SEAN HOPE THREE 50 WASHINGTON STREET IN CAMBRIDGE.
UM, I'VE BEEN LISTENING TO ALL THE COMMENTS AND I WANNA PREFACE THIS, BUT I THINK I HAVE A UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE.
UM, AS A CAMBRIDGE RESIDENT, I OWNED A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE.
I LIVED IN A THREE STORY WALK UP WITH TWO SMALL KIDS.
I'VE DEVELOPED AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND DEVELOPING IT UNDER THE A HO AND I'VE ALSO DEVELOPED MARKET RATE HOUSING.
UM, I WANT TO THANK JEFF ROBERTS AND MELISSA PETERSON FOR THEIR EXPLANATION ON THE ZONING 'CAUSE IT DID HELP SOME OF THE RATIONALE.
UM, BUT I'M VERY CONCERNED BY THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND SPECIFICALLY ITS IMPACT ON LOTS THAT ARE LESS THAN 3000 SQUARE FEET.
UM, THE FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACK WILL ESSENTIALLY STOP, UH, DEVELOPMENT OF THE THREE, SIX, AND SEVEN UNITS, WHICH, UH, WAS PART OF THE MEMO THAT SAID WAS WORKING UNDER THE A HLI STRONGLY URGE THE COUNCIL TO LOOK AT, UM, THE SETBACKS, ALLOWING FOR FLEXIBILITY.
I THINK THAT IF THERE WAS GONNA BE CHANGES FOR SOME OF THE LARGER, OVER 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, THAT MIGHT BE ACCEPTABLE.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JACOB SILVERSON.
JACOB SILVERSON, 1 0 3 AVON HILL STREET, CAMBRIDGE.
IF WE CAN PULL THE MIC DOWN AND SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO IT.
JACOB SILVERSON, 1 0 3 AVON HILL STREET, CAMBRIDGE.
UH, I URGE THE COUNCIL TO PASS THE AMENDMENTS THAT AS THEY WERE PROPOSED TODAY AND DISCUSSED INTELLIGENTLY, UH, I I AM VERY MUCH CONFUSED BY THE, BY THE RESISTANCE.
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ENSURING A LIVABLE CITY WHERE, WHERE THERE ARE TREES AND BREATHABLE AIR AND PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO PARK THEIR CARS.
ARE WE TALKING ABOUT PRE GIVING ALL OF THAT UP TO MAKE MORE HOUSING, LUXURY HOUSING? I AM ALL FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I'M PROUD TO SAY THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE A THOUSAND AFFORDABLE UNITS, INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS THAT ARE EITHER BEING BUILT OR ON TRACK FOR BEING BUILT.
THAT IS SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF, BUT I WILL NOT BE PROUD OF CREATING MORE MARKET RATE HOUSING AND THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR CITY AND ITS LIVABILITY AND ALL OF ITS CHARM.
PLEASE PASS THE AMENDMENTS AS DISCUSSED EARLIER.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS LEE GILMORE.
WE ARE GONNA GO TO ELIZABETH LISTER, FOLLOWED BY RICHARD KNICK, THEN JEFF SINGER ELIZABETH.
HI, I'M LI ELIZABETH LISTER, 62 CANARD STREET.
I'M A MEMBER OF THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL COMMISSION, BUT I'M SPEAKING AS A RESIDENT.
ONLY IN MY COMMENTS DO NOT REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION.
I'M SO RELIEVED THE CITY IS CONSIDERING REASONABLE AMENDMENTS TO OUR ZONING.
WE MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT EVEN THE BEST PLANS NEED TO BE CAREFULLY EVALUATED AS THEY'RE ENACTED AND MAKE CONSIDERED ADJUSTMENTS TO IMPROVE THEM.
THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT PEOPLE WANNA LIVE IN CAMBRIDGE AND THERE'S NOT ENOUGH HOUSING.
BUT I KEEP WONDERING IF WE BUILD IN SUCH A WAY THAT CAMBRIDGE BECOMES UNRECOGNIZABLE, WHAT ARE WE ACCOMPLISHING AS A REAL ESTATE AGENT, I AND MY COLLEAGUES KEEP SEEING DEVELOPMENTS JUST UNDER THE THRESHOLDS THAT WOULD TRIGGER INCLUSIONARY HOUSING.
AND IT'S OFTEN THREE OR FOUR LUXURY UNITS THAT WILL COST A MINIMUM OF TWO AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS.
WE'VE ALSO SEEN THE VALUE OF A PARKING SPACE SKYROCKET TO BETWEEN TWO AND $400,000.
THERE'S SO MUCH MORE TO SAY, BUT IF NOTHING ELSE, PLEASE CONSIDER THE DRAMATIC IMPACT OF ELIMINATING PARKING.
IF THE GOAL IS MORE DENSITY THAT BENEFITS FROM PUBLIC TRANSIT AND BIKE LANES, THEN DO NOT ISSUE STREET PARKING PERMITS TO BUILDINGS OVER
[01:20:01]
A CERTAIN SIZE WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE OF PUBLIC TRANSIT.OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS RICHARD KNICK.
WE WILL GO TO JEFF SINGER, JEFF SINGER, 29 BUCKINGHAM STREET.
MELISSA AND JEFF, YOU USE THE TERM, BE MORE HONEST.
YOU'RE GONNA BE MORE HONEST IN THIS PRESENTATION.
YO, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN FOR OPEN SPACE AND TREE CANOPY, BUT NO ONE'S REALLY TALKING ABOUT PRESERVING THE HISTORY AND THE CHARACTER OF CAMBRIDGE NEIGHBORHOODS.
I WAS HERE LAST YEAR WHEN COUNCIL FOUGHT TO KEEP GARDEN STREET ONE WAY BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL LOSS OF A COUPLE OF PARKING SPACES.
THIS PRESENTATION DIDN'T MENTION PARKING UNTIL PAGE 45, A SINGLE BULLET POINT.
WHY AREN'T PARKING SPOTS A REQUIREMENT? WHAT HAPPENS TO THE REQUIREMENT OF HAVING, YOU KNOW, OFF STREET PARKING IF IT'S MORE THAN FOUR UNITS, CREATE THAT REQUIREMENT AND THEN AT LEAST THE DEVELOPER HAS TO CONSIDER LOTS SIZES THAT SUPPORT THESE BIG FOUR AND SIX STORY COMPLEXES.
IN SUMMARY, I UNDERSTAND WHY CAMBRIDGE NEEDS MORE HOUSING, BUT YOU REALLY HAVE TO SLOW THIS DOWN AND THINK ABOUT HOW TO DO THIS IN A MORE PLANNED WAY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ENDER SKAY.
I LIVE AT 1 0 2 LEXINGTON AVE.
I SUPPORT THESE PROPOSED C-D-D-C-D-D AMENDMENTS.
I APPLAUD CDD STAFF FOR ITS THOROUGH, THOUGHTFUL DATABASE REVIEW OF WHAT'S RESULTING FROM THE MFH ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE SENSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS THEY PROPOSE START TO ADDRESS SOME SIGNIFICANT UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE CODE CHANGES WE'RE DISCOVERING WHILE NOT SACRIFICING HOUSING PRODUCTION.
THIS IS HOW I WOULD HOPE MY CITY GOVERNMENT WOULD WORK.
MAKE A BOLD FIRST ATTEMPT AT CHANGE, RECOGNIZE AND CELEBRATE EARLY SUCCESSES.
BUT JUST AS IMPORTANTLY, HAVE THE COURAGE TO REMAIN OPEN-MINDED AND HONEST AND RECOGNIZING PROBLEMS AND LESS DESIRABLE OUTCOMES AS THEY EMERGE.
RESPOND QUICKLY WITH ADJUSTMENTS BEFORE TOO MUCH LASTING DAMAGE IS DONE.
MAKING COURSE CORRECTIONS IS A SIGN OF CONFIDENCE AND SUCCESS, NOT FAILURE.
I URGE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER AND ACCEPT CD'S AMENDMENTS.
WE HAVE ABOUT EIGHT SPEAKERS LEFT.
WE WILL GO TO MICHAEL SELLERS.
MICHAEL, IF YOU CAN UNMUTE YOURSELF.
YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE, MICHAEL, YOU ARE UNMUTED.
MICHAEL, IF YOU CAN TRY UNMUTING YOURSELF AGAIN.
WE'RE GONNA GO BACK TO ALAN JOSCELYN.
I WAS, UH, DIDN'T FIND THE BUTTON.
I'M SPEAKING TODAY AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE KERRY CORNER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF POLICY ORDER NUMBER FIVE.
WE ALL AGREE CAMBRIDGE NEEDS TO INCREASE HOUSING, PARTICULARLY AFFORDABLE.
KERRY CORNER IS NOT ASKING TO STOP HOUSING.
WE'RE ASKING THAT IT BE BUILT IN A WAY THAT PROTECTS NEIGHBORHOODS, LIVABILITY, AND TRULY DELIVERS AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS THAT OUR COMMUNITY EXPECTS.
I PLEASE LOOK MORE CAREFULLY AT REFERENCES QUOTED AS SUCCESSES IN PORTLAND, MINNEAPOLIS, HOUSTON, AND RALEIGH.
THEY HAVE HANDLED THE CHALLENGE WITH A THOUGHTFULNESS IN CITY PLANNING NOT PRESENT IN OUR CITY'S BLANKET UPZONING, PARTICULARLY REGARDING HEIGHT RELATIVE TO STREET WIDTHS AND PARKING MINIMUMS. PLEASE TAKE SERIOUSLY THE AMENDMENTS ON THE TABLE AND SEE CLEAR DATA FROM PREVIOUS PRECEDENTS WHICH HAVE SHOWN SUCCESS.
RATHER THAN SIMPLY TOUT IN CITY OF CAMBRIDGE GOALS BEING NATIONALLY THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE, BRING HUMANE VALUES ONTO THE EQUATION FOR SUCCESS.
WE'RE GONNA GO BACK TO MICHAEL SELLERS.
MICHAEL, IF YOU CAN UNMUTE YOURSELF.
MY NAME IS MICHAEL SELLERS, 2 33 HARVARD STREET.
I AM HERE TO OPPOSE THOSE ZONING CHANGES AS THEY'RE CURRENTLY DRAFTED.
WE ARE ADVANCING ONE OF THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROJECTS IN THE CITY'S PIPELINE THAT WAS TOUTED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS MEETING.
IT IS A CURRENTLY VACANT SITE.
THERE'S NO BUILDING, NO CURRENTLY AFFORDABLE UNITS BEING REMOVED.
WE'VE BEEN AT THIS FOR OVER A YEAR.
[01:25:01]
ALREADY INVESTED SIGNIFICANT TIME AND MONEY INTO DESIGNS IN ACCORDANCE TO THE CURRENT ZONING.OUR PROJECT PROVIDES NEARLY 8,000 SQUARE FEET OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING.
THESE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED, THEY'RE NOT MINOR, THEY'RE NOT INNOCUOUS AS WRITTEN.
THEY WOULD MATERIALLY REDUCE WHAT WE CAN ACTUALLY BUILD, WHICH WOULD DIRECTLY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING WE CAN ACTUALLY DELIVER.
IF THE CITY DOES MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, THERE HAS TO BE SOME MEANINGFUL TRANSITION OR VESTING PROTECTION FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY DEEP INTO DESIGN AND PERMITTING.
OTHERWISE, YOU'RE PUNISHING EXACTLY THE TYPE OF HOUSING CAMBRIDGE SAYS IT WANTS TO ENCOURAGE.
THAT INCLUSIONARY PIPELINE THAT CAMBRIDGE IS RIGHTFULLY EXCITED ABOUT IS GONNA GO RIGHT BACK TO BEING EMPTY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS REBECCA, PRE OR PRIZE APOLOGIES.
WE WILL GO TO LEE FERRIS FOLLOWED BY JUSTIN SAFE THEN DIANA MACARTHUR LEE, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE PLEASE GO AHEAD.
I'M SPEAKING AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE CAMBRIDGE RESIDENCE ALLIANCE.
UM, I KNOW THAT THESE CHANGES WOULD RESULT IN THE SAME NUMBER OF UNITS AS ESTIMATED BEFORE PASSAGE OF MULTIFAMILY.
IN GENERAL, WE THINK THESE ARE WELCOME CHANGES ON SETBACKS AND OPEN SPACE, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ENOUGH.
I THINK THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO DISCUSS CHANGING THE ZONING TO REFLECT THE THREE PLUS THREE PROPOSAL FROM CHJC LAST YEAR, WHICH CDD SAID WOULD RESULT IN BOTH MORE AFFORDABLE AND MARKET RATE UNITS THAN WHAT WAS ACTUALLY PASSED.
IT WOULD ALSO MEAN FEWER TEARDOWNS.
CDD ASKS WHAT THE POINT OF THE COMMUNITY MEETING SHOULD BE.
I THINK IT SHOULD INCLUDE INPUT FROM RESIDENTS WHO OFTEN KNOW THINGS THAT THE DEVELOPER DOES NOT KNOW AND HE CAN CHOOSE TO LISTEN OR NOT REGARDING THE CONCERNS OF DEVELOPERS INCLUDING, UH, PATRICK BARRETT.
THE CHANGES CAN CREATE AN EFFECTIVE DATE THAT EXCLUDES PROJECTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THE PIPELINE.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JUSTIN SAFE, FOLLOWED BY DIANA MACARTHUR, THEN ANDREA SIMPSON.
JUSTIN, JUSTIN HAS NOT JOINED.
WE WILL GO TO DIANA MACARTHUR.
I JUST WANTED TO, UM, I'VE LIVED IN CAMBRIDGE.
I LIVE ON GROVE STREET AND, UM, WITH A LOT OF FRIENDS IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT, UM, ARE RIGHTFULLY CHANGED FROM SINGLE FAMILY ZONING.
THAT'S GREAT AND ALL FOR AFFORDABLE, HOW HOUSING.
BUT I DON'T LIKE THE, THE TALK THAT WE ARE NOT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I THINK THAT'S REALLY, UM, DISRESPECTFUL TO A LOT OF RESIDENTS.
UM, I JUST WANNA SAY THAT IN KEEPING OF THE FABRIC OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS, I THINK SOME RESTRICTIONS HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT AND TO BETTER KEEP IN LINE WITH WHY PEOPLE WANNA LIVE IN DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND I THINK EVERYONE CAN EXIST AND DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS CAN EXIST AND EVERYONE CAN LIVE WHERE THEY WANT AND NOT JUST KOWTOW TO, UM, GREEDY DEVELOPERS.
AND I'M MARRIED TO A DEVELOPER WHO HAS BEEN WORKING IN CAMBRIDGE FOR LIKE FIVE DECADES, SO HE'S ALSO A LITTLE, UM, THANK YOU DIANA.
A BOARD ABOUT THE WHOLE THING.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ANDREA SIMPSON.
NEIL, YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE PLEASE GO AHEAD.
UH, NEIL MILLER, 4, 2 5 MASS AVE ON JUST A MINUTE.
THERE'S A LOT THAT WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE NOTHING HAS BEEN BUILT ON THE $2 MILLION HOMES THAT OTHERS HAVE TALKING TALKED ABOUT.
WERE BUILT UNDER THE OLD RULES, BUT HERE'S WHAT WE DO KNOW.
NUMBER ONE, THESE CHANGES WILL DELAY NEW HOMES.
EXCLUSIONARY ZONING WAS ON THE BOOKS FOR A CENTURY AND WE SPENT YEARS DEBATING ZONING REFORM.
PREEMPTIVELY CHANGING THE RULES WILL FORCE PROJECTS BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD.
NUMBER TWO, IT WILL LEAD TO FEWER AND SMALLER HOMES.
IN ONE BREATH, WE SAY WE WANT HOUSING FOR FAMILIES.
AND IN THE NEXT WE'RE DISCUSSING LARGER SETBACK SETBACKS TO LITERALLY CHOP OFF THE BEDROOMS WHERE OUR KIDS COULD BE GROWING UP.
AND LASTLY, IT WILL MAKE IT HARDER TO ACHIEVE CITYWIDE GOALS.
NOT EASIER, MORE PRESCRIPTIVE RULES.
MAKE IT HARDER FOR NEW BUILDINGS TO GIVE US GREAT ARCHITECTURE, GOOD OPEN SPACE AND HIGHER ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
I APPRECIATE THE DATA THAT CDD PRESENTED LENTS, FOCUS ON THE FACTS BEFORE WE RUSH TO MAKING PREMATURE CHANGES.
[01:30:01]
THAT IS ALL THAT WE'RE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.THAT IS IT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
UM, WE HAVE 28 MINUTES LEFT FOR CITY COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION.
I HAD SEEN COUNCILLOR ZE AND THEN COUNCILLOR ZUI WITH HANDS UP.
UM, WE'LL GO FIRST TO COUNCILLOR ZI FOLLOWED BY COUNCILLOR ZUZI.
UM, WELL THANK YOU TO CDD FOR THE PRESENTATION.
I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF FEEDBACK IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS AND UH, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS TRYING TO DISTILL IT, UH, UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU GUYS THINK THE COMMUNITY WANTS YOU TO GO.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK OVERALL IT WAS, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, A GOOD, UM, SET OF LIKE DETAILS THAT YOU GAVE US AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO FIRST JUST START BY ADDRESSING, UM, YOU KNOW, THE ENERGY.
I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, THIS REMINDS ME KIND OF OF MY FIRST TERM.
UH, WHEN THE A O FIRST PASSED, YOU KNOW, IT WAS A BIG SHOCK TO THE SYSTEM.
IT WAS VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HAD BEEN HAPPENING BEFORE.
YOU KNOW, THE IDEA THAT WE WOULD BE BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING BY RIGHT THROUGHOUT OUR COMMUNITY, THAT THAT WOULD MEAN A LOT MORE DEVELOPMENT.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I I THINK THAT RIGHTFULLY, EVEN IF YOU END UP SUPPORTING THE HO NOW, IT WAS A BIG SHOCK, A BIG CHANGE.
AND THERE WERE RIGHTFUL QUESTIONS ABOUT LIKE, CAN WE TWEAK THINGS AROUND? AND WE ENDED UP TWEAKING THINGS AROUND, UH, TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BETTER, UM, GOING FORWARD AS WELL.
AND SO I THINK THAT SOMETHING PROBABLY SIMILAR WILL HAPPEN HERE.
AND I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IT IS A PROFOUND CHANGE.
I THINK THAT IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE THE DEVELOPMENTS ARE, YOU KNOW, UM, PRIOR TO THIS PASSAGE, I THINK ONE COMPLAINT THAT WE WOULD TALK OFTEN ABOUT IN CITY HALL WAS LIKE, HEY, A LOT OF THE HOUSING IS GOING TO BE BUILT IN EAST CAMBRIDGE.
AND THE POOR IN PARTICULAR WHERE THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT DEVELOPMENT DISPLACEMENT.
AND NOW IT'S KIND OF THE REVERSE.
IF YOU LOOK AT A LOT OF WHERE THE BUILDINGS ARE, THEY'RE IN PLACES THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVE NOT HISTORICALLY SEEN REALLY ANY SIGNIFICANT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
YOU KNOW, UH, AND I THINK THAT IT IS FOR ESPECIALLY THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS, THERE A PRETTY PROFOUND DIFFERENCE.
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE ARE DEFINITELY DISRUPTIONS AS YOU HAVE CONSTRUCTION, YOU HAVE NOISE TRAFFIC.
THERE'S A LOT OF REALLY REAL CONCERNS.
AND I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, UM, FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST TUNING IN ON THIS CONVERSATION, I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS NOT THE ONLY AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, RIGHT? THERE'S BEEN THOUGHTS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO THE TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE.
THERE'S BEEN CONVERSATIONS JUSTICE MONDAY ABOUT PARKING, RIGHT? I ACTUALLY THINK THAT WE NEED TO, UH, DO SOMETHING VERY STRONG ON PARKING, RIGHT? I THINK THAT THERE'S A REAL PROBLEM, WHEREAS IF YOU HAVE MORE RESIDENTS, YOU HAVE MORE CARS AND THEN IT BECOMES HARDER.
THE MORE CARS THERE ARE, THE MORE TRAFFIC THERE IS, THE MORE PARKING THERE IS, RIGHT? UH, THE MORE PARKING, UH, DIFFICULTIES YOU HAVE, I THINK THAT REMOVING OR LIKE RE ADDING PARKING MINIMUMS ADDRESSES THE FACT THAT YOU'LL HAVE MORE PARKING, BUT IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE FACT THAT YOU'LL HAVE MORE TRAFFIC STILL AS YOU HAVE MORE PEOPLE.
I THINK THAT ONE THING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT ON MONDAY NIGHT, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE EVERYONE HERE AWARE OF TODAY, IS JUST RESTRICTING PARKING PERMITS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT.
RIGHT? AND I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY REALLY POWERFUL TO SAY LIKE, HEY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING FROM ONE UNIT TO MAYBE THREE, BUT ACTUALLY THAT WILL IMPROVE THE STREET PARKING AVAILABILITY FOR YOU BECAUSE THOSE THREE UNITS WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR STREET PARKING.
AND SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THAT IS A PART OF THE CONVERSATION THAT IS GOING ON AS WELL.
UM, I GUESS LIKE THE QUESTION I KIND OF HAVE AS WE'RE ENTERING ALL THIS IS THAT, YOU KNOW, TO TAKE AN EXAMPLE OF A PROJECT ON CAMBRIDGE STREET, THERE'S BEEN TREMENDOUS AMOUNTS OF CHANGE, RIGHT? THERE WAS THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ORDINANCE AND THERE WAS A CAMBRIDGE STREET REZONING.
THEN THERE WAS PERHAPS, UH, THE FIRST LAYER OF RETAIL REZONING WE'RE GONNA DO.
UH, THERE MIGHT BE CHANGES TO THE TREE PRODUCTION ORDINANCE.
THERE MIGHT BE CHANGES TO PARKING PERMITS, WHICH ALSO BE A ZONING CHANGE, RIGHT? AND THEN THERE'S THIS SET OF ZONING CHANGES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND I GUESS, UH, A QUESTION FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, MY FELLOW CO-CHAIR ESPECIALLY, I WAS GOING TO ASK COUNCIL FLAHERTY AS WELL, UM, BUT IS IF WE SUPPORTED THE ZONING CHANGES BEFORE US TONIGHT, ARE WE GOOD IN THAT? LIKE, THIS IS KIND OF LIKE THE ONE YEAR REVIEW.
AND THEN LIKE, ARE WE GOOD UNTIL THE FIVE YEAR REVIEW SO THAT PEOPLE HAVE SOME STABILITY ABOUT WHAT TO EXPECT COUNCIL
UH, I, I, I SUPPORT THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED AND I, I WAS, AS I WAS EXPLAINING TO CDD EARLIER, I FEEL LIKE THIS, THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ORDINANCE AS PASSED, IT'S MESSED WITH HOMEOWNERS AND IT'S MESSED WITH DEVELOPERS.
I THINK IT'S BEEN VERY UNCLEAR AND I DON'T LIKE MESSINESS.
I THINK WE NEED TO SET CLEAR EXPECTATIONS FOR WHAT WE AND TEND TO DO AND WHAT WE WILL ALLOW.
AND I, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE NEXT REVIEW SHOULD BE.
MAYBE IT SHOULD BE IN TWO YEARS.
BUT, UM, I AGREE CDD HAS A LOT OF WORK AND I WOULD SUPPORT MAKING THESE AMENDMENTS AND THEN LIKE MAYBE HOLDING OFF ON AMENDMENTS FOR A YEAR OR TWO.
BUT I, I DO THINK WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO LEARN FROM, UM, POLICY THAT WE PASS AND IMPROVE IT AS AS NEEDED.
BUT LET ME, LET ME JUST GIVE YOU MY SPIEL.
I WAS GOING TO SAY, UM, FOR THE AMENDMENTS BEFORE US, I THINK THAT THE THREE ONES THAT I THINK ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT
[01:35:01]
ARE THE PARKING RESTRICTIONS, RIGHT? I THINK THAT RESTRICTING PARKING PERMITS IS REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT.I THINK THAT PEOPLE ARE RIGHTLY WORRIED ABOUT THAT.
AND I THINK THAT IT IS GOING TO BE MUCH MORE IMPACTFUL IF, YOU KNOW, WE ARE ABLE TO SAY THAT THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT IMPACT THE ON-STREET PARKING EVENT AVAILABILITY, ESPECIALLY IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN OFF STREET PARKING YOURSELF.
I WOULD SAY THE SECOND IS THAT I'VE HEARD A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT, UM, LARGER UNITS, AND I THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS.
I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, ALLOWING LIKE A THREE OR 4,000 NEW, UH, SQUARE FOOT NEW UNIT IS LIKE NOT IN ANYONE'S INTEREST IN THE CITY.
AND I FEEL LIKE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS.
I THINK SOME AMOUNT OF SETBACK FLEXIBILITY WOULD BE WELCOME AS WELL.
I DON'T THINK THAT, UM, THE NUMBERS PARTICULAR TODAY ABOUT DRAMATICALLY OR LIKE INCREASING THEM, I'M FULLY CONVINCED OF.
BUT I THINK SOME AMOUNT OF FLEXIBILITY.
I THINK WE'VE HEARD OF A LOT OF PROJECT WHERE, YOU KNOW, THEY HAD 10 FEET ON THE FRONT THAT THEY WERE REQUIRED TO DO AND FIVE FOOT ON THE FIVE ON THE BACK, BUT THE TREES WERE IN THE BACK, RIGHT? AND SO IF THEY WERE ALLOWED TO HAVE SOME OF THAT FLEXIBILITY, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE REALLY, REALLY HELPFUL.
UM, BUT I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, I AM NOT INTERESTED IN ANYTHING THAT REALLY RESTRICTS THE HOUSING REDUCTION.
AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO JUST PROVIDE STABILITY FOR PEOPLE SO THEY CAN ACTUALLY CONTINUE.
AND I'D SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST FOR ME, YOU KNOW, AS SOMEONE WHO WAS THE ORIGINAL SPONSOR OF THE LEGISLATION THAT, YOU KNOW, WAS A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING ORDINANCE, I THINK THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR IT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, RIGHT? FROM THE FACT THAT THEY WANTED MORE HOUSING IN GENERAL TO THE FACT THAT THEY WANTED MORE INCLUSIONARY UNITS TO THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY WHAT THEY WERE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT WAS THE FACT THAT, HEY, YOU COULDN'T ADD A BALCONY BEFORE, OR YOU COULDN'T CHANGE YOUR DECK OR ADJUST, MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO YOUR HOUSE BECAUSE THE REZONING WAS SO RESTRICTIVE AND SO MANY U UM, HOUSING UNITS WERE NONCONFORMING THAT I THINK, AT LEAST FOR ME, UM, IT'S PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT THAT EVERYONE WHO VOTED FOR THE ORIGINAL MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ORDINANCES BROUGHT ON BOARD WITH THESE CHANGES.
AND THAT I'M NOT INTERESTED IN, UH, CHANGES THAT LIKE BREAK THAT COALITION JUST 'CAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE TOOK A SHOT ON IT.
AND I FEEL LIKE FOR THE LONG-TERM DURABILITY OF THOSE CHANGES, THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT AS WELL.
ZUI, FOLLOWED BY COUNCILLOR NOLAN.
UH, THE CURRENT MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, UH, ZONING IS CONFUSING FOR RESIDENTS AND DEVELOPERS ALIKE.
AND WHILE IT IS PRODUCING HOUSING, HOUSING MOSTLY LUXURY UNITS, IT'S RESULTED IN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT I THINK THESE AMENDMENTS WILL HELP TO FIX.
SO IT'S RESULTED IN THE LOSS OF TREE CANOPY, THE REMOVAL OF GROUND LEVEL OPEN SPACE, AND THE INTRODUCTION OF POORLY DESIGNED OUT OF SCALE AND OUT OF CONTEXT BUILDINGS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE TOTALLY INSENSITIVE TO ABUTTERS AND IMPINGE ON THEIR LIGHT PRIVACY AND OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE.
IF THESE UNITS WERE AFFORDABLE ONES THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR MIDDLE AND LOWER AND MIDDLE INCOME RESIDENTS, THEY GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE HERE, THEY WOULD BE ACCEPTED.
BUT INSTEAD, MOST WILL BE 2.5 TO $3 MILLION UNITS OUT OF REACH OF THE VERY RESIDENTS WHO VOTED THIS COUNCIL IN, HOPING THAT IT WOULD SECURE THEM A FUTURE IN CAMBRIDGE.
I WANNA BE VERY CLEAR, I'M COMPLETELY SYMPATHETIC TO THE, THE DESIRE OF OUR YOUNG PEOPLE TO LIVE IN CAMBRIDGE.
AND I AM COMMITTED TO SUPPORTING WAYS TO BUILD MORE LOWER AND MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING IN CAMBRIDGE AS THE FIVE YEAR AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST.
AND A HO REPORT SHOW, CAMBRIDGE IS DOING A STELLAR JOB OF THIS.
UM, BUT THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT GONNA MAKE THIS HAPPEN.
UH, BUILDING MORE LUXURY UNITS IN CAMBRIDGE WILL NOT MAKE CAMBRIDGE MORE AFFORDABLE.
IT WILL MAKE IT MORE EXPENSIVE.
THERE IS AN INTERNATIONAL MARKET FOR CAMBRIDGE, UH, AND IT'S UNSATIABLE.
WE ARE NOT AUSTIN 326 SQUARE MILES WHERE MINNEAPOLIS 58 SQUARE MILES WE'RE LIKE LESS THAN SEVEN SQUARE MILES.
THE TASK WE FORCE US NOW IS TO AMEND THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ORDINANCE TO MAKE IT BETTER SO THAT IT CAN ENCOURAGE PRODUCTION OF HOUSING IN NEIGHBORHOODS IN A CLEARER, MORE BALANCED WAY THAT ALIGNS WITH OUR OTHER GOALS.
SO I, I SUPPORT, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO INCREASE AND, UH, THE, THE SIZE AND THE FLEXIBILITY OF SETBACKS.
I WONDER IF, IF IT, IF I HAD MY DRUTHERS I'D, I'D MAKE, I, I WONDER IF 25 FEET IS ENOUGH.
UM, BUT I REALIZE THERE MAY NOT BE SUPPORT FOR MORE.
I INCREASE THE REQUIREMENT FOR MORE PERMEABLE SPACE.
AGAIN, I WONDER IF 20% IS ENOUGH, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S SUPPORT HERE.
I THINK THE IDEA OF RELATING OPEN SPACE AND HEIGHT IS A GOOD ONE AND WE SHOULD BE EXPLORED FURTHER.
UM, I THINK THE IDEA OF ENCOURAGING MORE MODERATE SIZED UNITS IS A GOOD ONE AND LIMITING HEIGHT.
UM, IF, IF THE GFA EXCEEDS 2000 SQUARE FEET, I THINK BETTER NOTIFICATION AND A BETTER CLEARER PROCESS IS CRITICAL.
[01:40:01]
CLARIFY THE RULES.I THINK WE SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER, UM, DESIGN STANDARDS RATHER THAN GUIDELINES.
UM, CONSIDERING THE RELATIONSHIP OF HEIGHT TO THE RIGHT OF WAY PARKING REQUIREMENTS AS COUNSELOR ZE STATED.
AND, UH, REVIEW GREATER VIEW AT WHEN BUILDINGS ARE 25,000 SQUARE FEET OR 50,000 SQUARE FEET, NOT JUST DOING IT AT 75,000 SQUARE FEET.
FINALLY, I THINK WE NEED TO LOWER THE LEVEL OF NASTINESS.
I FIND IT SLIGHTLY HUMOROUS THAT I'VE BEEN CAST BY A, B, C AS A SUPERVI.
I'VE NEVER BEEN CAST AS A SUPERVI BEFORE.
AND, UH, BECAUSE I'M SO REASONABLE, I'M A VERY REASONABLE PERSON.
AND, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT DATA SHOULD BE SO THREATENING DATA.
THE DATA THAT WE HAVE IN OUR SPREADSHEET AND THE TRACKER, WHICH WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE, PLEASE, IF WE'VE GOT THINGS WRONG, YOU KNOW, HELP US MAKE IT CORRECT.
DATA SHOULDN'T THREATEN POL THREATEN US, BUT IT SHOULD INFORM BETTER POLICY.
SO HELP US MAKE THE DATA TRACKER BETTER.
WE'VE GOT COUNCILLOR NOLAN FOLLOWED BY COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN AND THEN MAYOR SADIKI, COUNCILLOR NOLAN.
I APPRECIATE ALL THE FEEDBACK WE'VE GOTTEN AND TOTALLY APPRECIATE THE STAFF WHO CAME FORWARD WITH THIS WORK.
UM, ALTHOUGH IT WOULD BE GREAT TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IMPACTS ANOTHER HOT TOPIC THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A NUMBER OF TIMES, WHICH IS IMPACT ON SOLAR PRODUCTION AND WHETHER THIS WOULD HAVE SOMETHING WE'VE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT A LOT.
IT'S, IT'S, IT'S THE CLASSIC BALANCING OF GOALS.
WE HAVE A BALANCE FOR HOUSING AND A BALANCE DESPERATELY NEEDED TO ADDRESS THE ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE OF ALL THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE.
SO AT SOME POINT, I'M NOT SURE WE CAN ANSWER IT TODAY, BUT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS, UH, WORKS WITH THAT.
UM, I AGREE ON, UH, ON THE PARKING MINIMUM, YOU KNOW, AS, AS THE PERSON WHO INITIATED THAT CHANGE WITH, UH, COUNCILLOR SABRINA WHEELER, UM, I STILL FULLY SUPPORT THE, THE NOT HAVING ANY PARKING MINIMUMS AND I FULLY SUPPORT, WHICH I WAS ALSO ON, WHICH I BELIEVE COUNCILOR ZUZI WAS THE LEAD ON TO SAY, CAN WE LEGALLY DO WHAT SOMERVILLE DOES, WHICH WAS LIMIT NEW RESIDENT PARKING PERMITS IN NEW CONSTRUCTION.
AND WE ALSO KNOW WE'VE ALSO, THIS COUNCIL HAS BEEN WORKING A LONG TIME ON PUBLIC TRANSIT, KNOW THAT IF PEOPLE DON'T HAVE CARS, WE NEED TO HAVE BETTER PUBLIC TRANSIT AND POSSIBLY WE'LL GET THAT STUDY FOR THE, UM, CITYWIDE SHUTTLE THAT WE'VE ALL BEEN BEEN EAGERLY AWAITING FOR.
UM, I DO HAVE A, A COUPLE, ONE COMMON IS, WHICH WAS REFERENCED, I THINK BY SOMEONE, IF THERE ARE CHANGES, I, IS IT, IF WE DECIDED TO CHANGE SOME OF THIS, CAN THE TIMELINE ENSURE THAT ANY, FOR INSTANCE, INCLUSIONARY ZONING PROJECT THAT IS ALREADY IN PROCESS WOULD NOT HAVE TO CHANGE ANYTHING AND REVIEW ANYTHING? IT, IT, WE HAVE SOMETIMES PASSED SOMETHING AND SAY IT DOESN'T TAKE EFFECT FOR CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME.
BUT CAN WE EXPLICITLY, PARTICULARLY FOR ANY INCLUSIONARY ZONING PROJECT THAT IS ANYWHERE ALONG THE PIPELINE, IS THAT SOMETHING WE COULD LEGALLY DO AND MAKE SURE THAT WOULD BE PROTECTED THROUGH YOU TO THE CHAIR? IF THAT'S A YEAH.
CITY STAFF WANNA SPEAK TO THAT.
I THINK THROUGH THE CHAIR, I'LL, I'LL TRY TO ADDRESS THAT.
IT'S SOMETHING WE, WE'VE THOUGHT ABOUT A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE REALLY ANYTIME WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEW REQUIREMENTS THAT MIGHT ADD A RESTRICTION OR MIGHT, YOU KNOW, INTRODUCE A NEW REQUIREMENT THAT WASN'T THE CASE PREVIOUSLY, WE WANT TO THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE PHASE THAT IN BECAUSE THERE, THERE MAY BE PROJECTS THAT ARE FAR ALONG THAT WE WOULDN'T WANNA BE IMPACTED.
THE ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES WITH, WITH THIS ZONING OF, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO RELY ON THE AS OF RIGHT PERMITTING RATHER THAN DISCRETIONARY, THERE'S REALLY, THERE REALLY ISN'T SORT OF A, A LOCK IN POINT FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR NOT BEING SUBJECT TO NEW ZONING REQUIREMENTS UNTIL THE BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED.
SO I THINK THE WAY THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO THINK ABOUT DOING THIS WOULD BE THROUGH, YOU KNOW, A, A APPROACH WE'VE USED BEFORE, WHICH IS HAVING KIND OF A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE.
SO SAYING, YOU KNOW, WE, WE'D HAVE TO MAKE SOME JUDGMENT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HOW LONG DO WE THINK IT WOULD TAKE FOR, UM, THE, UH, YOU KNOW, FOR A, A PROPOSAL THAT'S, YOU KNOW, CURRENTLY IN SOME STAGE OF THE PROCESS THAT WE THINK IS FAR ENOUGH ALONG TO THEN COMPLETE THE PROCESS, GET THEIR BUILDING PERMIT AND MOVE FORWARD AND THEN, YOU KNOW, TRY TO MAKE SOME JUDGMENT ABOUT WHAT THAT, WHAT A REASONABLE TIMEFRAME WOULD BE, AND THEN, AND SET AN EFFECTIVE DATE BASED ON THAT.
UM, WE COULD ALSO THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE BECAUSE INCLUSIONARY PROJECTS HAVE COME UP, YOU KNOW, WE COULD THINK ABOUT, AND WE'RE GONNA BE TALKING MORE ABOUT INCLUSIONARY, UM, OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT YEAR.
WE COULD THINK ABOUT, WELL, WHAT, WHAT ARE SOME DIFFERENT WAYS THAT INCLUSIONARY PROJECTS MIGHT BE, UM, TREATED COMPARED TO, TO NON INCLUSIONARY ANSWER ON, YEAH, THANK I, THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
I THINK THAT WE DON'T PUT AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON PROJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE PIPELINE, ESPECIALLY ONES THAT ARE ALONG THE INCLUSIONARY ZONING.
UM, ANOTHER QUESTION IS, DO WE KNOW OR
[01:45:01]
HAVE A WAY TO UNDERSTAND AND MAYBE, UH, QUANTIFY HOW MUCH DISPLACEMENT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING? I I TALK TO A PERSON WHO'S, UH, YOU KNOW, SPENDING 50% OF HER INCOME ON RENT, WHO IS FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT WHEN THE BUILDING GETS SOLD, WHICH IS ON THE MARKET, THAT THOSE EIGHT UNITS ARE GONNA DISAPPEAR AND THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE AFFORDABLE AT THE SAME LEVEL.IT'S THIS CLASSIC QUESTION OF NOAH, IT WILL BE MORE AFFORDABLE PERHAPS THAN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
BUT, BUT THOSE UNITS, DO WE HAVE ANY SENSE, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THIS COUNCIL HAS ASKED ABOUT BEFORE, OF UNDERSTANDING THE DISPLACEMENT FACTOR FOR EXACTLY THOSE MIDDLE INCOME PEOPLE THAT WE ARE HOPING WE KNOW WE'RE LOSING IN THE CITY, WE'RE HOPING TO MAINTAIN OUR SOCIAL HOUSING WORK IS GONNA GET THERE, BUT THAT'S, UH, A COUPLE YEARS AWAY, PRESUMABLY.
DO WE HAVE ANY WAY OF UNDERSTANDING, UM, THOSE NUMBERS? I WANNA SPEAK TO THAT THROUGH YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I'D SAY THE, THE, THE BEST INDICATIONS WE HAVE ARE, ARE, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE HEARING, UM, FROM RESIDENTS WHO ARE AT RISK IN THEIR HOUSING.
YOU KNOW, AND I, I'D SAY I, I DON'T THINK THAT WE'VE SEEN DRAMATIC CHANGES IN THE NUMBER OF FOLKS THAT ARE REACHING OUT TO THE MULTI-SERVICE CENTER OR THE OFFICE OF THE HOUSING LIAISON OR OTHER HOUSING SUPPORTS, BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO LOOK INTO THAT TO SEE IF THERE'S, UH, SOME INFORMATION THAT WE CAN SHARE IN THAT JUST TO, TO SHOW THAT I I, YOU KNOW, WE CAN TRACK, UH, E EVICTION FILINGS.
I DON'T THINK WE'VE SEEN DRAMATIC CHANGES IN THAT, BUT THAT MAY NOT BE THE BEST INDICATOR.
I THINK REALLY IT'S MORE WHAT WE'RE SEEING ANECDOTALLY.
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE SEEN A, A LOT OF CHANGE IN THAT.
BUT THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THAT'S NOT HAPPENING.
AND IF IT IS HAPPENING, THEN A SMALL SCALE, IT CAN CERTAINLY BE I IMPACTFUL FOR THOSE RESIDENTS.
COUNCIL NOLAN, IF YOU COULD TRY TO WRAP IT UP.
THE, UM, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO, AT SOME POINT UNDERSTAND HOW DESIGN GUIDELINES FIT INTO THIS.
AND ONE THING WE HEARD ABOUT AND TALKED ABOUT WAS, WHILE WE WOULD MAINTAIN IT, AS OF RIGHT, YOU KNOW, THAT WE DON'T HAVE A WAY THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE AUTHORITY FOR A VOTE FROM ANYBODY, BUT, AND I BELIEVE COUNCILOR MCGOVERN TALKED ABOUT THIS, LIKE, ALL RIGHT, SO THERE'S, THERE'S 12 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND YOU HAVE TO CHECK OFF EIGHT OF THEM AND THEN YOU'RE DONE.
YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY ADJUDICATES THAT.
SO THERE'S AT LEAST SOME DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT HAVE FORCE, BUT IT'S NOT A ONE SIZE FITS ALL, AND IT'S ALSO NOT SOMETHING THAT ANY OTHER GROUP WOULD, WOULD NEED TO WEIGH IN ON, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
SO OVERALL, ONE THING I'M VERY HEARTENED BY AND I AM GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE IS BECAUSE WHAT, WHAT WE'VE HEARD IS THAT THE NUMBER OF ACTUAL UNITS THAT WOULD BE PRODUCED BY THIS WOULD BE THE SAME THAT CD'S INITIAL, UM, REVIEW AND CALCULATION FROM THE INITIAL ROUND OF THIS, WHICH I VOTED FOR, WAS A CERTAIN NUMBER OF UNITS AND THAT THAT WOULD NOT CHANGE.
SO I, I WANNA MAKE SURE THE COMMUNITY, I DON'T THINK UNDERSTANDS THAT, THAT THEY'RE SAYING DON'T PASS ANYTHING BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF UNITS WILL GO DOWN.
AND WHAT WE'RE HEARING IS THE NUMBER OF UNITS GO UP, ALTHOUGH I STILL IN FAVOR OF THE THREE PLUS THREE, WHICH WOULD'VE PRODUCED EVEN MORE UNITS, BOTH AFFORDABLE AND REGULAR.
BUT, BUT AGAIN, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE GENERALLY IN THE RIGHT POSITION BECAUSE THIS DOESN'T, IT'S STILL BOLD, IT'S STILL INNOVATIVE AND IT WOULD ACTUALLY CLARIFY PLUS PRODUCE THE SAME NUMBER OF UNITS WE WERE EXPECTING.
WE'VE GOT 10 MINUTES LEFT IN THE MEETING.
WE'VE GOT COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN AND THEN MAYOR SIKI, COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN.
ALRIGHT, I'LL TRY TO SUMMARIZE THESE.
UM, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU FOR FOLKS WHO SPOKE.
UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A LOT HERE AND I THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE QUITE A FEW MORE MEETINGS TO, TO SORT OF DIG DEEPER.
UM, I DO CONTINUE TO THINK THAT THERE'S SOME GROUND CONVERSATION.
I DON'T KNOW IF I'M SAYING IT RIGHT, BUT SOME GROUND CONVERSATIONS, SOME BASIC CONVERSATIONS WE HAVE TO HAVE TO TRY AND, UM, DEAL WITH SOME OF THE CONFUSION.
I THINK THAT, THAT, THAT EXISTS.
I MEAN, EVEN IN THIS PRESENTATION, UM, THE A HO AND MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
THEY WERE DESIGNED TO DO TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
THE A HO WAS ONE TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX.
IT WAS DESIGNED TO BUILD LOW INCOME, SUBSIDIZED INCOME RESTRICTED, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DEFINE IT, HOUSING, RIGHT? AND IT'S DOING THAT AT GREAT SUCCESS AND I'M HAPPY TO THAT SO MANY FOLKS WHO OPPOSED IT ARE NOW SAYING WHAT A GREAT JOB IT IS.
'CAUSE IT SHOWS THAT IT CAN WORK.
UM, MULTIFAMILY HOUSING WAS DIFFERENT.
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING WAS NOT ABOUT, STRICTLY ABOUT LOW INCOME HOUSING.
NOW WE'RE GONNA GET SOME THROUGH INCLUSIONARY ZONING, RIGHT? AND THAT'S GREAT, BUT WHAT THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ORDINANCE WAS ABOUT WAS ADDING MARKET RENT HOUSING TO THE HOUSING STOCK.
SO THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS WITH TWO DIFFERENT GOALS THAT, AND I THINK, I MEAN, WE EVEN GOT EMAILS TODAY SAYING, I'M GLAD YOU'RE DISCUSSING AMENDMENTS TO THE A HO TODAY.
WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING AMENDMENTS TO THE A HO TODAY.
SO I JUST THINK WE HAVE TO DO A BETTER JOB OF EXPLAINING THAT THESE ARE
[01:50:01]
TWO DIFFERENT THINGS WITH TWO DIFFERENT PURPOSES.UM, I THINK WE HAVE TO DO A BETTER JOB OF DEFINING WHAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS BECAUSE THERE'S DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS WITH THE A HO.
IT'S INCOME RESTRICTED, LOW INCOME BELOW 80% A MI HOUSING.
THERE'S ALSO IN HOW, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT HOUSING AFFORDABLE IS DO YOU SPEND 30% OR LESS OF YOUR INCOME ON YOUR HOUSING? THAT IS DIFFERENT FOR EVERY SINGLE PERSON BECAUSE IT'S BASED ON INCOME.
THAT'S ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT IT.
ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT AFFORDABLE IS LESS EXPENSIVE THAN THE ALTERNATIVE, RIGHT? SO IF YOU TAKE A PROJECT WHERE BEFORE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, A DEVELOPER WOULD'VE BUILT A SINGLE FAMILY $3 MILLION HOME AND AFTER MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IS BUILDING SIX TOWNHOUSES AT 1.5, 1.8, TAKE 2 MILLION, RIGHT? THOSE ARE STILL SIX UNITS THAT ARE CHEAPER THAN WHAT THE ALTERNATIVE WAS BEFORE.
SO THERE'S ALL DIFFERENT WAYS THAT PEOPLE THAT TO LOOK AT THIS AND WE KIND OF USE 'EM INTERCHANGEABLY, BUT THEY ALL MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS AND THEY REQUIRE SORT OF DIFFERENT OUTLOOK.
SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, HAVING SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT, I KEEP HEARING ABOUT WE HAVE TO BUILD FAMILY SIZE UNITS.
WHAT'S A FAMILY? MY FIRST WIFE AND I LIVED IN A ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT FOR THE FIRST THREE YEARS OF OUR MARRIAGE WITH OUR SON.
WERE WE NOT A FAMILY BECAUSE WE WERE IN A ONE FAMILY UNIT, RIGHT? A COUPLE MARRIED OR NOT.
ARE THEY NOT A FAMILY IF THEY LIVE IN A, IN A, IN A ONE BEDROOM UNIT? SO WHEN WE HERE, WE HAVE TO BUILD FAMILY SIZE HOUSING THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO, TO LOOK AT THAT.
AND THE FLIP SIDE IS IF WHAT PEOPLE MEAN IS WE NEED TO BUILD THREE BEDROOM UNITS SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE A COUPLE AND KIDS, BUT THEN AT THE SAME TIME TURN AROUND AND SAY, THESE UNITS ARE TOO EXPENSIVE.
THE LARGER THE UNIT, THE MORE EXPENSIVE IT IS BECAUSE UNIT COST IS BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE UNLESS YOU BUILD LITTLE, YOU KNOW,
WE NEED SINGLE ONE BEDROOM, TWO BEDROOM, THREE BEDROOM.
WE NEED DIFFERENT INCOME ENTRY POINTS, RIGHT? FOR PEOPLE.
SOME PEOPLE CAN AFFORD THE MORE EXPENSIVE UNIT, SOME PEOPLE NEED A, A SUBSIDIZED UNIT.
SO WE NEED TO BUILD ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING.
UM, REGARDING THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS, THIS WAS AN AMENDMENT THAT I ASKED FOR WHEN WE GOT PUT IN THAT WE, THAT WE APPROVED.
UM, I ADMIT THAT THEY'RE A LITTLE PROBLEMATIC, UM, IN PART BECAUSE, UM, I DON'T THINK NO ONE'S MODERATING THEM, REALLY.
IT'S UP TO THE DEVELOPER TO DO THAT.
AND YOU GET SOME DEVELOPERS THAT MAYBE ARE OPEN TO FEEDBACK AND DISCUSSION.
YOU GET SOME DEVELOPERS WHO ARE NOT.
UM, AND SOMETIMES THOSE MEETINGS BECOME NOT PRODUCTIVE.
UM, THEY ALSO HAPPEN REALLY EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS WHEN THE DEVELOPER IS JUST PUTTING OUT A RENDERING OF KIND OF WHAT THEY'RE THINKING, WHICH IS NOT WHAT THE BUILDING IS GONNA BE AFTER IT GOES THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ONE AT THE BEGINNING IT SAYS, HERE I AM, INTRODUCE MYSELF, THIS IS WHAT I'M THINKING, THIS IS WHAT I'M DOING.
AND THEN YOU HAVE ONE LATER TO SAY, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND THIS IS THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE, BUT IT, IT HAPPENED SO EARLY THAT WHAT IS BEING DISCUSSED ISN'T EVEN WHAT IT'S GONNA COME OUT LOOKING LIKE.
AND MAYBE THERE'S A BETTER WAY TO DO THAT.
THAT WAS SOMETHING I RAISED AS A, AS A POSSIBILITY AFTER VISITING THE HAMILTON STREET, UM, BUILDING WHERE YOU CAN, MAYBE YOU DON'T NEED 10 FEET IN THE FRONT, BUT YOU NEED 10 FEET IN THE BACK.
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FLIP THOSE IF THAT'S WHAT THE LOT, UM, YOU KNOW, REQUIRES OR IT MAKES FOR A BETTER PROJECT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE, IF I'M ON BOARD WITH GOING FROM 25 SQUARE FEET TO 40 SQUARE FEET, UM, I STILL NEED TO HEAR MORE ABOUT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN SHRINK THE BUILDABLE LOT OF A BUILDING AND NOT LOSE UNITS, UH, IF YOU'RE, AND ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA INCREASE THE HEIGHT.
LIKE, I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND THAT BETTER.
UM, SO THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE FUTURE.
I I THINK LIMITING, YOU KNOW, NOT HAVING, I'M ON BOARD WITH NOT HAVING RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, UM, WITHIN, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN AMOUNT OF, UM, TRANSIT.
UM, AND THEN I'D JUST SAY ON THE DISPLACEMENT CONVERSATION, YOU KNOW, DISPLACEMENT'S BEEN HAPPENING A LONG TIME IN CAMBRIDGE LONG BEFORE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING.
AND IT HAPPENS THE MINUTE SOMEBODY SELLS THEIR HOME TO EITHER A DEVELOPER OR TO ANOTHER SINGLE PERSON, UH, WHO'S INVESTING.
BECAUSE IF YOU'RE CHARGING LESS RENT,
[01:55:01]
MOST OF THE TIME THOSE APARTMENTS, THEY'RE NOT UP TO DATE APARTMENTS TYPICALLY, RIGHT? THEY, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE, IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE SLUMS, BUT THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT STATE OF THE ART APARTMENTS AND SOMEBODY SELLS THEIR UNITS, WHOEVER.AND, AND OFTENTIMES IT'S FAMILIES THAT HAVE BEEN PROPERTY OWNERS FOR A LONG TIME AND MAYBE THEY DON'T HAVE A MORTGAGE ANYMORE AND THEY CAN AFFORD TO NOT CHARGE MARKET RENT, WHICH IS GREAT AND WE SHOULD INCENTIVIZE THAT.
UM, BUT THEN WHEN SOMEONE BUYS THAT FOR TWO AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS, THEY HAVE A BIG MORTGAGE AND EXPENSES THAT THEY HAVE TO PAY.
SO WHAT THEY DO IS THEY RENOVATE THOSE, EITHER THEY KNOCK IT DOWN AND BUILD SOMETHING ELSE, OR THEY RENOVATE THOSE APARTMENTS INTO MORE LUXURY APARTMENTS THAT THEY CAN CHARGE MARKET RENT.
SO THAT'S BEEN GOING ON IN CAMBRIDGE FOR YEARS.
UM, AND I DON'T, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A MUCH HARDER THING TO SOLVE, RIGHT? BECAUSE, UM, ANYBODY WHO'S INVESTING TWO AND A HALF, $3 MILLION TO BUY A PROPERTY IS NOT GONNA CHARGE $800 FOR AN APARTMENT.
THEY JUST DON'T, THAT'S NOT GONNA WORK.
UM, SO THAT'S INTERESTING AND SOMETHING WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT.
SO I, I'M HAPPY TO KEEP THE CONVERSATION GOING.
UM, I WILL SAY THAT I DO THINK WITH THE GOAL OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING BEGINNING TO BUILD MORE UNITS, IT IS, IT IS ACCOMPLISHING THAT.
UM, AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING.
UM, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE HERE WHO, UH, ABOUT TONING THE RHETORIC DOWN, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT ON BOTH SIDES, YOU CERTAINLY HEARD A LOT OF PEOPLE QUESTIONING MY CHARACTER AND MY ETHICS.
UM, AND SO I THINK THIS IS A HARD CONVERSATION THAT IS TALKING ABOUT MAKING CHANGES IN THE CITY WE ALL LOVE.
UM, THE CITY WE LOVE HAS CHANGED FROM WHAT IT WAS 50 YEARS AGO, A HUNDRED YEARS AGO.
SO, BUT I DO HOPE THAT EVERYONE CAN JUST ENSU BEST INTENTIONS EVEN IF WE DISAGREE ON THE SPECIFICS.
UM, WE HAD MAYOR SIDIKI, UH, LET'S SEE, AT TWO 30, THE, UH, COUNSELORS, I THINK THE, EXCUSE ME.
UH, YEAH, WE WE'RE GONNA, UH, EXTEND BY 10 MINUTES.
I THINK WE CAN DO THAT ON A VOICE VOTE.
I'M GONNA SHARE FROM COUNCILOR NOLAN TO EXTEND BY 10 MINUTES.
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
UH, ALL THOSE OPPOSED, MOTION OPPOSED? UH, WE'RE GONNA GO TO MAYOR SIDIKI.
I THINK A LOT OF THE, MY POINTS WERE, UH, SAID OR, UH, QUESTION ASKED.
I THINK AS A WHOLE, UH, IT SEEMS THAT THESE CHANGES THAT CDD HAS RECOMMENDED, YOU'RE QUALIFYING THEM AS SMALL CHANGES VERSUS BIGGER CHANGES THAT I THINK HAD BEEN DISCUSSED.
UH, THAT'S WHAT KIND OF MY READ OF, OR SMALL ENOUGH, THERE'S LIKE A CATEGORY I'M TRYING TO MAKE IN MY HEAD WHERE THERE COULD BE REALLY YOU, WE WERE, WE BASICALLY TASKED YOU TO GO AFTER THOSE TWO MEETINGS TO COME UP WITH A SHARE OF AMENDMENTS, UM, THAT YOU FELT THAT WOULDN'T IMPACT HOUSING.
THAT WAS KIND OF THE, THE GOAL, RIGHT? YEAH.
UH, ABSOLUTELY THE, THE UNDERMINING GOALS OF THIS ORDINANCE REMAIN FULLY INTACT, BUT THESE CHANGES, OKAY.
AND THEN, UM, YOU KNOW, I I, I THINK WE'RE IN THIS PHASE OF, IT SAYS MORE TIMES REALLY NEEDED TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THE EFFECTS OF ZONING CONSIDERING MAJOR CHANGES.
AND SO, BUT THEN THERE ARE THESE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING RECOMMENDED.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, OF COURSE THERE'S GOING TO BE QUESTIONS AROUND, UM, IMPACT AND QUESTIONS ON PEOPLE'S, UM, CURRENT PROJECTS AND, AND SO FORTH.
AND THEN I THINK MAYBE THERE'S A WAY TO FIGURE OUT THE, THE PAST PROJECTS AND AROUND THE EFFECTIVE DATE.
I MEAN, I THINK WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED SEEMS PRETTY REASONABLE BASED ON, UM, KIND OF THE MENU OF OPTIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED OR IN THE POLICY ORDER THAT MY COLLEAGUES HAD.
AND SO, UM, I THINK I'M, I'M OPEN.
I'M MUCH MORE OPEN TO THEM, UM, THAN I THINK, UH, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS, UH, FROM WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC.
SO I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD.
AT THE SAME TIME, I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER GOVERNOR, THERE MAY, THERE ARE SOME, MAYBE SOME OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS ON UNDERSTANDING THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION OF HOW IT ACTUALLY CONCEPTUALLY MAKES SENSE.
SO MAYBE YOU CAN EXPLAIN THAT FURTHER.
I THINK IT'D BE HELPFUL, UM, TO YOUR QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER GOVERN, ABSOLUTELY.
IF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT BECOMES SMALLER, THE ZONING ENVELOPE BECOMES SMALLER, THE YOU'LL HAVE LESS SQUARE FOOTAGE, LESS UNITS, THAT THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT.
[02:00:01]
THE POINT THAT WE ARE MAKING IS WHAT ALL OF THE REGULATIONS ARE MET AT THE END OF THE PERMITTING CYCLE.THE BUILDING'S GONNA GET TO THAT SIZE ANYWAY.
AND RIGHT NOW WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS YOU HAVE, UM, DEVELOPERS COMING FORWARD WITH, UH, CONCEPTUAL DESIGN THAT'S JUST PROPOSING THE ZONING ENVELOPE.
IT HASN'T CONFIRMED THAT IT'S MEETING ITS STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS, THE GREEN FACTOR SCORE, ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT IN OUR EXPERIENCE HAD BEEN PROVEN THAT THEY CAN'T DO IN THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT.
UM, IT HAS TO GET SLIGHTLY SMALLER.
AND SO THE ARGUMENT IS RIGHT NOW, NEIGHBORS ARE GETTING UPSET, DEVELOPERS ARE PUSHING BACK.
WE HAVE THIS NEGATIVE RHETORIC, AND THEN STAFF ARE NEGOTIATING WITH DEVELOPERS IN A, IN A, IN, IN NOT THE MOST EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE WAY.
SO WE THINK THIS IS BOTH EFFECTIVE ON BOTH ADMINISTRATIVELY ON THE CITY STAFF SIDE, BUT ALSO WITH THE PUBLIC AND THE DEVELOPERS' EXPECTATIONS OF WHAT IS MET.
SO WHEN WE SAY OUR PROJECTIONS AREN'T ESTIMATED TO BE LOWER, IT'S BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAD ACCOUNTED FOR THE FACT THAT WE KNEW DEVELOPERS NEEDED TO MEET ALL THESE OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
THEY'RE TRYING TO GET AROUND FROM NOT DOING THEM EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE TO DO THEM.
AND THIS, AGAIN, TRIES TO SQUARE THE BOX.
UM, AND I THINK THAT'LL BE HELPFUL FOR THE COMMUNITY TO MOVE FORWARD.
WHILE WE STILL CAN SAY WE'VE ENDED EXCLUSIONARY ZONING, WE'RE ALLOWING A MULTIVALENT HOUSING CITYWIDE, WE'RE GETTING THE HOUSING PROJECTIONS THAT WE WANTED.
UM, AND THAT'S NOT TO SAY SOME PROJECTS THAT HAVE CURRENTLY STARTED THE PROCESS.
AND AGAIN, I THINK A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE WOULD BE IMPORTANT BECAUSE I, I UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE HAVE GONE THROUGH SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT AND TIME, UM, AND THAT'S NOT THE INTENT OF THESE CHANGES.
THE INTENT IS TO TO SQUARE THE ROUND PEG AND, AND GET HOPEFULLY THE COMMUNITY AND ON TRACK IN UMM MORE COHESION AROUND THAT.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S OUR INTENT AND WE THINK THIS IS, UH, A GOOD WAY TO DO THAT.
I HAVE A TWO 30 THAT I GOTTA HAVE TOO.
I, WE'RE GONNA GO TO COUNSELOR ZUBIE AND THEN WE'RE GONNA START WRAPPING UP.
YEAH, I'M, I'M GONNA BE BRIEF.
I, I JUST WANNA FIRST START OFF BY SAYING THANK YOU TO CDDI MEAN, THIS WAS A VERY THOUGHTFUL PRESENTATION.
UM, I, I RECOGNIZE ALSO WITH MY COLLEAGUES THAT THIS ISN'T AN EASY CONVERSATION.
I THINK THERE IS DEFINITELY AN ELEMENT OF RECOGNIZING TOO THAT WE DID PASS THE ZONING AND WE'RE KIND OF IN THIS INTERESTING SITUATION WHERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AMENDMENTS, BUT WE HAVEN'T REALLY GIVEN IT AS MUCH OF A CHANCE TO GO THROUGH TO SEE, UM, THE IMPACTS.
SO IT'S DEFINITELY AN INTERESTING PLACE TO BE IN.
UM, I HAD ONE QUESTION REGARDING HOW YOU GUYS GOT TO THE NUMBERS.
SO THE SUGGESTION FROM THE POLICY ORDER, I, I SEE THE SETBACKS.
THAT WAS, IT'S GREAT TO SEE THAT CONSIDERATION REALLY APPROACH APPRECIATE THE, THE, THE SUM TWO APPROACH.
I'M CURIOUS ON THE OPEN SPACE PIECE, UM, THE SUGGESTED THERE WAS 30%, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE POTENTIAL CHANGES THAT YOU GUYS ARE OFFERING HERE DON'T SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING THAT COULD COME OUT OF THIS ZONING.
SO I'M CURIOUS, IF IT WAS 30, WOULD IT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT? LIKE HOW COME THE 20%, CURIOUS TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW YOU GUYS CAME TO THAT NUMBER AND IF THAT 30% WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT, UM, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT? SO I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
SO WHAT WE'RE CHANGING IS THE PERCENTAGE THAT'S PERMEABLE.
UM, AND I, JEFF, DO YOU WANNA PROVIDE MORE DETAIL ON THAT? AND I CAN QUICKLY CLARIFY MEANT THE 30% SUGGESTION ON OPEN SPACE SHOULD BE GREEN OPEN SPACE AT GRADE, NOT THE, I UNDERSTAND THAT 30% MINIMUM, BUT THE SUGGESTION FROM THE POLICY ORDER.
SO, UM, AND I, I WON'T GO BACK OVER WHAT I TALKED ABOUT BEFORE IN TERMS OF THE, WHAT WE THINK IS THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A, A COMBINATION OF DIFFERENT OPEN SPACE SERVING DIFFERENT PURPOSES, BUT JUST LOOKING AT PERMEABLE OPEN SPACE, THE THING WE NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF IS, UM, AND THIS KIND OF GOES TO WHAT, WHAT MELISSA WAS JUST SAYING, IS HOW ALL THE DIFFERENT REG REGULATIONS INTERACT TOGETHER.
SO YOU HAVE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ARE GOING TO RESULT IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF, YOU KNOW, UN UNBUILDABLE SPACE ON A LOT.
AND THEN YOU HAVE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS.
UM, ESPECIALLY SINCE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S SPECIFIC, UM, STANDARDS FOR WHAT CONSTITUTES PERMEABLE OPEN
[02:05:01]
SPACE.IF THEY'RE TOO GREAT, IF THEY, IF THEY'RE BIG ENOUGH THAT THEY START TO PUSH AGAINST, YOU KNOW, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS THAT THAT KIND OF DEFINE THE BUILDING ENVELOPE, THEN YOU RUN INTO THESE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
I WAS LIKE, WELL, YOU, YOU HAVE PERMEABLE AREA AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE TO PUT IN, YOU KNOW, STAIRS TO ACCESS THE BUILDING OR, YOU KNOW, A RAMP TO PROVIDE ACCESS AND OTHER THINGS THAT THAT COULD, YOU KNOW, CUT THAT ARE NECESSARY, BUT, YOU KNOW, COULD CUT INTO THE PERMEABLE OPEN SPACE.
YOU ALSO MAY HAVE RESIDENTS WHO WANT TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, A PATIO OR A PLACE TO SIT WITH SOME, WITH SOME PAVEMENT.
UM, YOU MIGHT HAVE PARKING THAT'S INCLUDED, WHICH, WHICH WORKS AGAINST THAT.
SO, UM, THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, 'CAUSE THEY'RE A PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT, THEY'RE SORT OF MORE FLEXIBLE.
YOU CAN ARRANGE IT WHEREVER YOU WANT ON THE LOT.
BUT IF THERE'S, IF IT'S SORT OF OUT OF BALANCE WITH THE, THE, THE ASSUMED BUILDING ENVELOPE, THEN YOU RUN INTO THESE QUESTIONS.
I WAS LIKE, WELL, I CAN'T, I CAN'T MEET ALL MY PERMEABLE OPEN SPACE WITH, YOU KNOW, JUST, YOU KNOW, BUILD DOING AROUND THE BUILDING ENVELOPE.
SO WHAT, WHAT IMPACT DOES THAT, THAT HAVE ON, ON THE BUILDING AND DOES IT RESULT IN THE KIND OF SCENARIO THAT MELISSA WAS MENTIONING WHERE YOU MIGHT LOOK AT A SITE OR SOMEBODY LOOKS TO, TO DEVELOP ON A SITE AND THEY SAY, OH, THEY, THEY LOOK QUICKLY AT THE ENVELOPE AND THEY SAY, HERE'S THE BUILDING I CAN BUILD.
AND THEN THEY FIND AS THEY GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, OH ACTUALLY NO WAIT, I CAN'T BUILD THAT 'CAUSE I HAVE TO CARVE THIS AWAY TO MEET THIS REQUIREMENT AND CARVE THAT AWAY TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.
AND SO THE EXPECTATIONS BECOME, BECOME MORE DIFFICULT TO MEET.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE MORE THERE, THERE'S NO, UM, LIKE I SAID UPFRONT, THERE'S NO SORT OF EXACT FIGURE YOU CAN ARRIVE AT BECAUSE EVERY SITE IS DIFFERENT.
ALL CONDITIONS ARE UNIQUE, BUT YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL HOW, HOW HIGH THAT PERCENTAGE GOES WHEN COMPARED TO, UM, THE EXPECTED BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR, FOR A BUILDING.
AND YOU, AND YOU WANNA LEAVE SOME WIGGLE ROOM TO ACCOUNT FOR SOME OF THOSE OTHER FEATURES THAT YOU NEED TO INCLUDE ON THE SITE THAT ARE, THAT ARE NOT JUST PERMEABLE OPEN SPACE.
I APPRECIATE SOME OF THAT CONTEXT.
I, I KNOW I'LL BE DIGESTING THIS, SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND YIELD.
UM, THE, I GOT A REMINDER FROM THE CLERK THAT WE, UH, DO NEED TO STILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.
UM, WE CAN DO THAT ON A VOICE VOTE ON A MOTION FROM COUNCILOR MCGOVERN.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED, THE COMMENT IS CLOSED.
WITH THAT, UM, THAT'S THE END OF THE MEETING TODAY.
WE'RE GONNA RECESS THE MEETING.
SO THIS MEETING WILL CONTINUE.
IT WILL BE A CONTINUATION OF THE MEETING.
SO THE NEXT TIME WE MEET, THERE WILL BE, UH, WILL NOW BE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THAT MEETING.
UM, WE CAN DO A MOTION, UH, TO RECESS FROM COUNCILLOR NOLAN, UH, A ROLL CALL ON THAT.
FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND LONG-TERM PLANNING.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE ONE POINT, WHICH IS I THINK THAT FOR ANYONE WHO'S BUILDING IN CAMBRIDGE, I THINK THAT THERE WAS ENOUGH PEOPLE I WAS KEEPING TRACK WHO WANTED A DELAY BEFORE ANYTHING CHANGES, THAT IF YOU'RE CURRENTLY BUILDING SOMETHING, I THINK THAT YOU KNOW, AS MUCH AS ANY ONE COUNSELOR CAN BE CONFIDENT, I FEEL CONFIDENT THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'LL TRY TO MAKE RULES THAT WILL INTERFERE WITH YOUR WORK.