A Planning Board recommendation not to adopt the Missing Middle Housing (Fuller, et al.) Zoning Petition

CITY HALL ANNEX, 344 BROADWAY, CAMBRIDGE, MA 02139

Page 1 of 4 Date: Subject: Recommendation: The Planning Board does NOT RECOMMEND adoption. To the Honorable, the City Council, On March 30, 2021, the Planning Board (the “Board”) held a public hearing to discuss the Missing Middle Housing (Fuller, et al.) Zoning Petition (the “Petition”). Representatives of A Better Cambridge, a housing advocacy group, presented the Petition at the hearing. Staff from the City’s Community Development Department (CDD) also attended the hearing and answered questions from the Board. Following a presentation by the Petitioners, Board members posed a number of questions to the Petitioners and City staff, and discussed the merits of the Petition. At the conclusion of the March 30, 2021 hearing, the Board did not vote to make a recommendation, but requested that CDD staff draft a report summarizing the comments made by Board members, to be reviewed by the Board at a future meeting prior to taking a vote. On May 11, 2021, the Board held a continued public hearing at which they reviewed a draft report of Planning Board comments, prepared by CDD staff, and a brief summary of suggestions that were raised by the Ordinance Committee at its hearing on April 8, 2021. In addition, representatives of A Better Cambridge provided and spoke about potential amendments to the Petition. The Board also heard public comment. Following deliberation, the Board voted to recommend that the City Council not adopt the Petition, with five members voting in favor and three opposed. Members voting not to recommend adoption expressed general support for the goal of promoting housing affordability, but did not believe that this specific Petition was the appropriate vehicle to achieve that goal. Members voting against this recommendation argued that while the Petition may not be ideal, it still represents an improvement over the status quo, which restricts multifamily housing development in many parts of the City and is tied to a history of exclusion. Some Board members suggested that further study may lead to a better proposal, while some urged for more immediate action. Members also raised concerns that it may not be possible to amend the Petition in the ways the Petitioners suggest without filing a new petition.

Petition Overview

The Petition seeks to allow multifamily housing in all zoning districts in Cambridge and to reduce barriers in the Zoning Ordinance to increasing the number of dwelling units that can be

Page 2 of 4 constructed on a parcel. To accomplish this, the Petition proposes consolidating the Residence A-1, Residence A-2, Residence B, Residence C, and Residence C-1 Districts into a new zoning district, Residence N, which would allow the same range of uses as Residence C and C-1, including single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and multifamily dwellings. The Petition also proposes revised dimensional standards for Residence N that would be more permissive than for any of the current districts that it would encapsulate. In addition to changes specific to the proposed Residence N District, the Petition would eliminate the minimum lot size and lot width requirements in all residential districts, and eliminate the minimum requirements for off-street parking accessory to any nontransient residential use in all zoning districts.

Board Member Comments

The Board had a broad and diverse discussion at its two hearing sessions and Board members expressed varying views.

The following is a summary of the main comments made by Board members: • All Board members recognized the importance of encouraging a diversity of housing typologies in Cambridge, including those that reflect the existing development patterns in the city. • Many, but not all, members of the Board expressed support for allowing multifamily residential uses in all zoning districts with the appropriate dimensional controls.

Some Board members expressed enthusiastic support for change, noting the history of zoning as promoting race and class exclusion, and questioned why the City should continue to make multifamily housing illegal in many areas given this legacy of discrimination. Some Board members were more comfortable allowing up to three-family residential uses citywide but were concerned about larger buildings. • Some Board members questioned how well the Petition aligns with the City’s policy and planning objectives.

They noted that attention should be paid to studying what we actually need and how to get it. They noted that the scale of change proposed by the Petition requires careful measuring. Other members noted that studies are not always conclusive and can delay action, and that action is needed now given the lack of available housing in Cambridge. • Some Board members were concerned that the outcome of implementing the amendments identified in the Petition would not meet the goals of the Petition.

In particular, they did not believe that the Petition would result in greater housing affordability, but that it would only serve higher-income households by promoting larger buildings with a higher density of market-rate units. Some Board members believed that an increase in allowed density should include affordability requirements.

Other Board Members expressed support that the Petition would reduce the amount of nonconforming buildings and uses and promote development patterns that are more consistent with existing development in many parts of Cambridge.