What Responsible Zoning Entails

Image Sources: Left - Somerville Zoning Ordinance: HERE and Right - City of Cambridge: HERE

We address below some of the facts regarding city up-zoning with the aim to promote more responsible zoning changes in Cambridge  and comparisons elsewhere. 

This is important because, as a recent NPR report makes clear, the impact of expanded luxury apartments on overall community housing prices is a complex and highly contested issue among economists and housing researchers, with local experts at MIT and Tufts underscoring that additional luxury housing often actually increases community wide housing prices: HERE

We have divided the Cambridge-specific issues into three parts: A. ADDRESSING DESIGN CRITERIA & IMPACTS; B. QUESTIONS THAT CDD MUST ANSWER BEFORE ANY VOTE IS TAKEN; C: WHAT COUNCIL PROPONENTS MUST ALSO ADDRESS. 

​                                                                                 A. ADDRESSING DESIGN CRITERIA AND IMPACTS

1. ANY ZONING CHANGE MUST COME WITH 5 YEAR AND 10 YEAR REVIEWS (as we did for AHO) to determine: 1) How many SFH, TFH, 3-unit, 4-unit etc structures have been undertaken under this zoning change; 2) Has this plan decreased city housing costs - and if so (or if not) by how much?; 2) what percentages (and numbers) of inclusionary housing have been added? 3) what neighborhoods and zoning districts have new units been added in (delimited by unit and resident number increases in each neighborhood); 4)  how many demolitions and lease terminations/evictions have taken place and where?; 5) How many of these new units are currently occupied by full time tenants? 6) What impacts has this zoning ordinance had (or will have) on private and public green spaces and current trees numbers?; 6) what are the impacts of this new up-zoning change on adjacent and nearby home valuations and tax increases; 7) What impacts has this zoning change had on infrastructure factors - traffic impacts, water and electrical use, school attendance, and other. 

2. SOMERVILLE HAS ALREADY PROVIDED A MODEL TO ADDRESS ALL THESE ISSUES WITH ITS "FORM-BASED" ZONING AND RELATED CRITERIA. CAPE COD HAS FORM-BUILT DESIGN CRITERIA, WHY NOT CAMBRIDGE? 
Somerville looked at all these issues and created the means to hugely increase the stock of housing in the city while preserving and reinforcing its character.  There is no reason why Cambridge cannot follow that model.  It is a rational way to preserve the historic, social and architectural character and life of the city without succumbing to a fantasy of market forces solving our affordable housing shortage.  It allows development where it can be supported by transportation, utilities, and wider streets for light and air. Read the Somerville Zoning Ordiance HERE 
 
3.      DESIGN REVIEW IS NECESSARY FOR ARCHITECTS AND DEVELOPERS ALIKE 
Without design review, architects have no real control of design, short of resigning.  There will always be someone willing to create a featureless simple box of uniform exterior materials with repetitive windows as dictated by their developer client. Cambridge has a large population of sensible people who can be recruited to serve on citizen design boards.  Architects need a representative board with some control, and with design guidelines who will demand higher design standards than the simple bottom line of the market place. Developers cannot be trusted to challenge their investors who are concerned mostly with profits.  Many towns have form-based design standards which are successful models of this. Good Form-based design guidelines have been introduced in Cape Cod: HERE

4.  ANY MAJOR ZONING CHANGE MUST AWAIT A CAMBRIDGE-SPECIFIC TARGETED ZONING MASTER PLAN: This is the only rational course for the city.  The model of how to do it is right next door.  The shortage of affordable housing in Cambridge is not going to be solved by accelerating the passage of a uniform housing overlay district when a sensible targeted rezoning across the city could be achieved with unquestionably better results for everyone in the city.  In the current plan, there is currently no required design overview or other controls l (compare Somerville and Cape Cod Plans above). CDD must come up with design guidelines for different kinds of residences in different neighborhoods in the city as they did for AHO-1.

5. A SPECIAL PERMIT MUST BE REQUIRED WHEN TWO OR MORE PROPERTIES ARE COMBINED to create a new development or if a new structure is over 1/3 the height or size of the existing structure. This is the only way we get local professional input on plans.

6 . ANY NEW PLAN MUST BE ONLY FOR PROJECTS WITH 3 OR MORE UNITS; otherwise we will simply be promoting more McMansions across the city.

7.      RELATIVE COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION HEIGHTS; 6 STORIES ARE NOT THE ANSWER 
a.       3-story multifamily buildings do not require elevators.  If a 3-story building has only 4 units per floor, then only one stair is required.  This may be type 5 construction, and sprinklers may be PVC.  This makes 3-story, 12-unit buildings the least expensive form of construction.
b.      4-story residential buildings may also use type 5 construction.  This requires one-hour rated floor structure, but no rating of exterior walls.  2 fire stairs are required and so is an elevator, so these are more expensive and less efficient than 3-story buildings.  
c.       5-story residential buildings may be made of wood, but must be built of Type 3 construction which requires 2-hour rated exterior walls.  The entire construction of the building is more expensive by 10+ percent as special connections are required between floors and exterior walls, and set-backs require special rated construction.  
d.      6-story residential buildings require the first floor be steel or concrete construction supporting 5 stories of Type 3 construction.  This adds yet another 10 % to the overall cost of construction of the building.
                    NOTE: These facts weaken any argument that affordable housing has to be built 6-stories high; In fact, small 3-story buildings (with 12 units) are the most economical to build.
 
8.      SIDE-YARD SETBACKS SHOULD BE MAINTAINED 
a.       Setbacks are required by the building code only if there are openings in the wall on the property line.  The obvious solution for the developer to maximize the building size is to build units with no windows on the sides of the building next to a property line.
b.      An example could be an assembled site comprised of two 50’-wide properties with 2-family houses.  This 100’ wide site could have four 25’-wide units facing both the street and back yard on each floor with blank shear walls on the side property lines right next to a small 2-family house. The building could have 8 units per floor, and at just 4 stories high could total 32 units where there were previously 4.  (six stories could total 48 units)
c. Any new plan including  zero side and rear setbacks should be limited to  projects along corridors and/or squares
d. Allowing property line buildup will create irreversible environmental harm through increased heat island impacts and an increasing loss of trees and green spaces (see  current open space plan above). In the cases of A and B districts perhaps a formula is created limiting increases only to 1/3 below current open space.

9.      MORE ACCESSORY UNITS SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED. 
The construction of new accessory units are a way for a large number of people to contribute directly to alleviating the housing shortage.  Cambridge has already modified some zoning constraints to encourage the construction of accessory units.  It should follow Boston’s lead of offering $80,000 no-interest loans for the construction of new units, which only need to be repaid after a property is sold.  Accessory units are by their nature distributed throughout the community, and tend to be much less expensive to build and thus more affordable than new construction since no land purchase is required.
 
10.      LARGE UP-ZONING CHANGES CANNOT EASILY BE REVERSED, AND COULD LEAD TO EXPENSIVE LAWSUITS 
If a large increase in density becomes legal, then properties may be purchased at higher prices by developers depending on that increased project size.  If in a year or two, there is a change of heart by the city as a result of some bad examples, and zoning density is lowered, then the city may become the defendant in lawsuits by developers claiming loss of value, and that in lowering their development rights they are suffering from a “taking”.  This needs to be fully explored before any large-scale zoning changes are approved, which may turn out to be irreversible.
 
11.  IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THE CITY INFRASTRUCTURE HAS THE CAPACITY FOR  BLANKET ZONING INCREASES
What will the related financial costs entail? Is there the sewer and water capacity in all areas of the city for the spot increases in demand allowed by randomly placed large scale development?  If 60 units in a 6-story building can replace 6 in three two-family houses on the same size property, it doesn’t take much to imagine a sewer and water system on a side street having to be replaced.  Who is going to pay for this work? An inventory of existing infrastructure capacity should be undertaken immediately by the public works department so it is fully understood what city work will have to be undertaken for the most efficient development strategy to be undertaken, which can then be reinforced by zoning.
 
12. ANY ZONING LANGUAGE ALSO MUST INCLUDE CHANGES TO THE ACCOMPANYING AHO SECTION  11.207.5.2.1 Building Height and Stories Above Grade. We must not slip in (seemingly inadvertently) the allowance of 13 story AHO projects in existing residential areas because of changes to Table 5-1: Table of District Dimensional Standards.


                       B. QUESTIONS CDD MUST ANSWER BEFORE ANY ZONING ORDINANCE IS APPROVED

1. Would increasing the inclusionary percentage violate the MBTA Communities Act?
2. Would decreasing the inclusionary percentage mean that we could not increase back to where it is now without violating the MBTA Communities Act?
3. What analysis has been done on whether this proposal would cause displacement of currently housed residents? If the answer is none, why is that?
4. What analysis has been done on what effect this proposal would have on median rents? If the answer is none, why is that?
5. What analysis has been done on what sorts of properties would be demolished? If the answer is none, why is that?
6. .What analysis has been done on how this proposal would affect currently existing naturally occurring affordable housing? If the answer is none, why is that?
7. What analysis has been done on what is happening to currently existing naturally occurring affordable housing under current zoning? If the answer is none, why is that?
8. What analysis has been done on what effect this proposal would have on the market value of properties that would be upzoned by it? If the answer is none, why is that?
9. What analysis has been done on what effect this proposal would have on development under the AHO? If the answer is none, why is that?
10. What analysis has been done on how this would affect the city's finances, especially with respect to the city's ability to maximize tax shifting from residential to commercial properties under Prop 2-1/2? If the answer is none, why is that? Would the city have to find new commercial development prospects in order to maintain its Prop 2-1/2 balance?
11. What analysis has been undertaken of possible environmental impacts of this plan vis-a-vis loss of critical green spaces and trees, with attendant heat island and health impacts.
12. What has the city done to prepare for any infrastructure changes (electricity, water, sewage, traffic, schools, grocery accessibility etc) that this change might entail and what is the related financial burden likely to be on current residents. 
13. After the completed analysis of topography, districts, and feasibility that asked for by Council in a previous meeting are completed, will the theoretical numbers of units anticipated be the same or fewer?


                      C. WHAT CAMBRIDGE CITY-WIDE ZONING PROPONENTS MUST ADDRESS DIRECTLY

1. This plan essentially ends the city’s stated AHO priority that residents (and earlier councillors promoted), market rate housing developers will now be given a priority because this plan removes affordable developers from competition.

2. This plan counters Envision that we spent millions of dollars and thousands of resident hours to create (these goals emphasized greater height on corridors and squares). The plan also ends the North Mass Ave and Central Square discussions with residents re planning – thousands of hours wasted if you add together all who have participated. This is irresponsible and denigrates the work that residents do.