►
Description
Docket #0685 - Order regarding a text amendment to the Boston Zoning Code with respect to parking minimums for affordable housing
A
C
B
B
B
Good
morning,
everyone,
my
name,
is
lydia
edwards.
Today
is
it's
tuesday
june
22nd,
and
this
is
a
hearing
on
docket
0685,
an
order
regarding
a
text
amendment
to
the
boston
zoning
code
with
respect
to
parking
minimums
for
affordable
housing.
As
referred
to
the
committee
on
may
19
2021.
The
sponsors
of
this
docket
are
counselor
kenzie,
bock
and
councilman
o'malley.
B
B
A
Great,
thank
you
so
much
counselor
edwards
and
thank
you
for
holding
this
working
session.
In
the
midst
of
you
know,
I
I
feel
slightly
hypocritical,
because
it's
budget
season
and
I
have
generally
been
trying
to
encourage
folks
to
do
things
at
other
times,
but
you
know
what
prompted
counselor
o'malley
and
I
to
file.
This
was
really
an
emergency
that
we're
having
we're
talking.
It's
a
set
of
linked
emergencies.
A
Let
him
speak
to
the
particulars
there
more
be,
you
know,
be
blocked
by
a
kind
of
cynical
legal
strategy.
That's
based
on
the
fact
that
we
have
parking
minimums
associated
with
these
affordable
housing
developments,
even
affordable
housing
developments
where
everybody
who
knows
the
the
industry
and
the
residents
knows
that
like
in
that
it
doesn't
really
make
sense
to
have
them
any
parking
spots.
And
so
we
go
through
the
process
to
exempt
them
from
that.
A
And
then
it
creates
a
hook
for
these
legal
challenges,
and
I
just
I
you
know-
I
think
that
there's
a
broader
conversation
to
be
had
about
parking
minimums
in
the
city,
but
specifically
with
this,
where
we're
tackling
this
crisis
and
where
we're
seeing
these
lawsuits,
I
think
the
the
need
to
to
follow
some
of
the
state
action.
The
housing
choice
bill
last
year
and
really
try
to
remove
some
of
those
hooks
for
those
kinds
of
lawsuits
is
just
critical
to
achieving
our
policy
goals
here.
A
And
it's
the
spirit
in
which
I'm
grateful
to
you
for
holding
this
as
a
working
session
today
and
and
to
the
administration,
which
I
know
is
bringing
some
technical
comments
and
many
of
the
advocates
who
are
joining
us
as
well
today,
who
have
kind
of
first-hand
experience
of
of
what
how
what
these
requirements
cash
out
to
on
the
ground
and
the
way
that
they
can
delay
and
add
expense
to
our
affordable
housing
project.
So
grateful
to
you
and
and
my
co-sponsor
counselor
o'malley.
C
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair
good
morning,
friends
and
colleagues.
Thank
you,
of
course,
to
the
chair
for
this
quick
hearing
and
to
my
dear
colleague
and
friend,
and
co-sponsor
counselor
bach
for
her
leadership
and
partnership
on
this.
Very
simply
this
is
this
is
a
working
session.
So
I
look
forward
to
getting
more
into
the
level
of
specificity
that
this
change
deserves,
but
suffice
it
to
say.
I
wanted
to
give
a
little
background.
D
I
had
often
referenced
that
I
had
never
seen
in
11
years
or
at
that
point
10
years
a
neighborhood
project
have
as
much
support
and
from
as
many
desperate
voices
in
my
time
in
office.
Sadly,
literally
at
the
11th
hour
in
a
butter,
a
business
owning
a
butter,
not
someone
who
lives
in
the
city,
but
someone
who
owns
a
business
that
above
the
property
sued,
which
is
his
right
under
our
zoning
laws,
but
among
the
issues
that
helped
make
up
this
litigation
included
parking
minimums.
D
This
is
100,
affordable,
bill
unit,
obviously
or
units,
and
it
was
just
a
needless
and,
in
my
opinion,
a
reckless
and
frivolous
lawsuit
that
delayed
housing
for
individuals
in
the
midst
of
pandemic,
at
a
time
when
we
need
it,
sadly,
less
than
a
year
after
that.
So
going
back
now
to
I
guess,
april
or
may
of
this
year,
the
same
landlord
offered
the
same,
in
my
opinion,
frivolous
lawsuit
on
another
100,
affordable
unit.
This,
why?
D
This
was
a
unit
developed
by
the
jamaica,
plain,
neighbor
development
corporation,
perhaps
not
a
national
leader,
but
certainly
a
regional
leader,
and
this
was
senior
housing,
affordable,
senior
housing,
something
that
we
desperately
need
in
the
city
of
boston
and
again,
perhaps
tied
or
perhaps
even
surpassing
the
pine
street
end
project
as
something
that
had
universal
support
and
once
again,
parking
was
used
as
one
of
the
indicators
or
one
of
the
reason,
rationale
behind
the
lawsuit.
It's
wrong.
D
It's
unfair
and
it's
using
these
parking
minimums
as
a
weapon-
and
I
want
to
be
clear-
we're
talking
about
today-
is
100,
affordable
units,
we're
talking
we're
not
talking
about
doing
away
with
parking
restrictions
for
every
development
that
comes
down
the
pike
for
these
very,
very
small
number
of
100.
Affordable
developments.
Parking
should
no
longer
be
used
weaponized
by
one,
a
butter
or
a
business
owner
that
abuts
the
property
to
slow
progress
into
slow
development.
There
is
precedence
for
this.
D
This
isn't
the
first
time
these
two
instances
in
instances
in
jamaica,
plain
weren't,
the
first
time
that
this
was
used
odiously
40
plus
years
ago,
the
united
states
supreme
court
found
that
parma
ohio
had
used
parking
minimums
as
a
reason
to
uphold
housing
segregation
by
by
indicating
that
you
needed
several
extra
spaces
for
multi-fan
family
units.
So
we've
seen
how
this
has
been
used
negatively
in
the
past,
and
our
purpose
today
is
to
come
up
with
a
solution
so
that
it
will
not
be
used
erroneously
or
negatively
in
the
future.
D
E
Thank
you.
It
is
rare
that
I
perceive
counselor
flynn,
so
it
makes
sense
to
have
made
that
I
just
wanted
to
say
I'm
so
sorry
I
can't
stay
for
this,
but
wanted
to
offer
my
support
and
whatever
help
that
I
can
provide
to
the
sponsors
here.
This
is
an
issue
that
we
are
seeing
citywide
and
in
a
time
of
great
urgency
when
it
comes
to
housing,
stability
and
making
sure
we're
moving
things
along
fully
want
to
back
this,
and
thank
you
for
making
sure
this
conversation
continues.
C
F
Thank
you,
councillor,
edwards.
Thank
you,
councillor,
o'malley
and
council
book
for
your
important
work
on
this
issue.
I
agree
with
the
comments
made
by
my
colleagues.
I
just
want
to
add
one
one
slight
differing
opinion
residents
in
my
neighborhood,
especially
of
of
south
boston
and
chinatown
complain,
rightfully
so
to
me
every
day
about
the
lack
of
parking
in
my
community
oftentimes
driving
around
the
street
or
the
corner.
F
30
minutes
looking
for
a
spot,
so
just
want
to
highlight
that
one
neighborhood
might
be
different
from
another
neighborhood.
I
certainly
am
a
strong
supporter
of
building
affordable
housing
of
building
public
housing.
I
want
it.
I
want
it
more
in
my
neighborhood
as
much
as
I
can
get,
but
we
also
have
to
realize
that
one
size
may
not
fit
all
and
that
some
neighborhoods
are
desperate
for
more
for
more
parking
and-
and
that
includes
some
neighborhoods
in
in
my
district.
F
C
G
Yes,
good
morning
excited
to
have
this
conversation.
I
just
wanted
to
just
start
off
by
saying
that
I
definitely
support
this
initiative,
but
I
do
have
a
few
clarifying
questions
to
ensure
that
we're
creating
processes
that
not
only
help
affordable
housing
development
but
also
help
the
residents
who
occupy
these
sorry
who
occupy
these
affordable
units.
G
I
think
that
it's
really
important
and
the
more
that
I
engage
in
conversations
like
this,
the
more
I
realize
that
a
lot
of
our
zoning
laws
are
put
into
place,
oftentimes
with
good
intentions,
but
the
impact
of
those
intentions
really
do
hinder
the
process
if
you
will
to
to
build
across
the
city
with
the
the
residents
who
are
oftentimes
forced
out
of
their
neighborhoods,
that
they
grew
up
in.
So
I
think
that
this
is
a
timely
conversation
and
I'm
in
full
support
of
this.
Thank
you.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
thank
you
for
hosting
us
here
today
generally
in
support
of
this
measure
here,
but
but
similar
to
council
flynn.
I
think
that
we
have
to
use
some
some
caution
moving
forward.
Maybe
maybe
not
every
project
should
be
no
parking.
If
they
can
fit
it,
they
should
probably
have
some
spaces
but,
like
I
said
generally
and
generally
in
support
of,
but
I
don't
just
if
they're
a
way
that
we
could
manage
it.
H
So
we
wouldn't
lose
good
projects
like
what
happened
in
jamaica,
plain
that
one,
a
butter
shouldn't
have
that
sort
of
that
sort
of
sway
over
project
like
this,
the
the
the
benefits
far
outweigh
the
the
impact
of
the
of
the
parking
and
I'm
not
familiar
with
the
site.
But
so
thank
you,
everybody
for
coming
here
today
and
thank
you,
madam
chair,
looking
to
just
listen
in
here
and
learn.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you
and
I
had
misspoke
earlier
in
case
you
people
are
confused
or
might
be
confused.
This
is
a
working
session
and
so
we'll
get
into
the
language,
but
also
we're
going
to
go
to
the
administration.
First,
who
does
have
some
suggestions
and
then
go
to
the
public
are
around
the
questions
from
counselors.
I
just
real
quick
on
my
own
part.
B
You
know
we're
in
the
middle
of
a
massive
development
in
in
east,
boston
and
and
the
biggest
concern
is
that
we
already
don't
plan
for
cars,
and
so
the
the
issue
is
just
because
you
don't
zone
or
require
parking
doesn't
mean
that
you're
actually
accounting
for
the
amount
of
people
who
are
going
to
bring
cars.
It
just
means
that
this
building
may
be
adding
to
the
continued
issue
of
the
fact
that
there
are
more
cars
and
there
are
available
space.
B
And,
yes,
I
agree.
I
mean
you
want
to
get
ahead
of
frivolous
lawsuits
that
prevent
people
who
are
really
under
the
guise
or
under
the
pretext
of
it's
about
parking
when
it's
really
about
something
else.
But
this
is
this
is
an
issue
and
I
don't
know
that
it's
going
to
help
communities
that
already
feel
that
they're
on
fire
when
it
comes
to
over
development
and
and
lack
of
planning.
B
B
I
don't
know
too
many
families
or
people
who
have
children,
who
are
perfectly
fine
and
can
can
exist
without
a
car.
So
I
don't
think
that
this
is.
I
don't
know
that
this
is
striking,
that
right
balance
again,
I
I
agree
with
the
ultimate
goal.
You
do
not
want
some
nimby
person
who
doesn't
want
poor
people
to
be
near
them
to
be
able
to
sue
their
way
out
of
having
that
happen,
but
I'm
not.
B
I
don't
know
that
you
can
really
pass
this
without
district
article
53,
which
is
east
boston,
being
included
in
that
or
other
places,
but
I
can
assure
you
maybe,
unlike
your
districts
mine's
on
fire
when
it
comes
to
development,
we're
done,
and
this
and
the
parking
issue
is
only
adding
gasoline
to
it.
So
we're
going
to
turn
it
over
now
to
the
just
to
the
administration
and
they
they
can
go
through
some
points.
I
Okay,
great
good
morning,
chairperson
edwards
good
morning,
counselors.
Thank
you
for
providing
d
this
opportunity
to
comment
on
docket
number:
zero.
Six,
eight
five,
the
department
of
neighborhood
development
is
in
support
of
this
effort
and
welcomes
efforts
to
ease
the
approval
process
for
affordable
housing
projects.
I
I
I
I
We
often
have
senior
or
supportive
housing
projects
that
may
contain
one
or
two
manager
or
support
staff
units,
so
they
would
not
be
100,
affordable,
also,
projects
that
are
largely
income
restricted,
but
where
the
community
has
requested
that
some
units
be
market
rate
to
create
a
mixed
income
community.
A
really
good
example
of
this
are
the
standards
set
out
in
nubian
square
in
the
roxbury
strategic
master
plan,
where
two-thirds
of
the
units
are
income,
restricted
and
one-third
of
market
rate.
I
I
Currently,
this
policy
has
a
maximum
of
70
percent
of
area,
median
income,
ami
for
rental
units
and
100
of
ami
for
home
ownership
units
as
the
idp
income
limits
may
change
in
the
future
and
may
vary
by
zoning
districts
or
even
within
a
zoning
district
that
has
a
special
planning
area.
We
would
recommend
using
area
median
income
units
that
is
more
consistent
with
dnds
funding
sources
and
also
hud's
funding
sources.
I
So
the
income
limits
for
many
of
our
rental
funds,
such
as
a
community
development
block
grant
or
the
neighborhood
housing,
trust
or
housing
boston.
2030
money
are
set
at
80
percent
of
area
median
income
with
homeownership
units
at
100
of
area
median
income.
So
we
would
recommend
that
this
maximum
be
set
at
a
percentage
at
the
100
percent
of
area,
median
income
rather
than
70,
and
then
finally,
I
just
wanted.
You
know
really
state
that
dnd
has
an
ongoing
commitment
to
work
with
local
neighborhoods
on
behalf
of
the
administration.
I
So
we've
long
been
committed
to
working
closely
with
local
neighborhoods
throughout
our
land.
This
position
and
affordable
housing
development
activities
on
every
issue,
which
includes
parking
so
moving
forward
under
either
current
or
future
zoning
changes.
We
would,
of
course,
continue
this
practice
of
partnering
with
the
local
neighborhoods
to
prioritize
local
issues
and
the
neighborhood
context
to
determine
what's
appropriate
for
each
individual
project.
I
We
believe
that
none
of
these
changes
will
undermine
the
spirit
of
this
initiative
as
projects
even
projects
with
with
60
of
income.
Restricted
units
are
not
viable
without
a
public
funding
source,
so
all
of
these
would
qualify
as
affordable
housing
projects
under
under
the
kind
of
definition
and
the
spirit
of
the
proposed
change.
I'm
happy
to
walk
through
the
specific
recommendation
in
the
text
of
the
proposed
change
and,
of
course,
I'm
happy
to
take
any
questions.
Thank
you.
B
B
I
J
J
We
see
around
the
country,
cities
are
re-examining
their
parking
requirements,
we've
boston's
been
long,
you
know
long
moving
towards
eliminating
parking
minimums
and
we
recognize
that
we
have
the
benefit
of
having
at
least
the
framework
of
a
of
a
decent
transit
system.
Maybe,
if
not
fully
operational,
the
framework
is
there
and
the
opportunity
is
there
to
move
away
from
the
car
centric
world
just
to
start
off
with
we've.
We
discussed
this
internally
counselor
edwards.
J
J
J
I
think
that
there
are
some
opportunities
for
projects
to
go
through
large
project
review,
for
instance,
where
the
parking
minimums
are
sort
of
set
aside
and
we're
able
to
sort
out
through
the
transportation
access
plan
agreement
process
figure
out
what
the
right
amount
of
parking
is,
because
there
isn't
a
you
know
the
one-size-fits-all
of
parking
minimums
that
we've
had.
You
know
for
for
many
many
years
does
it
doesn't
necessarily
play
out.
Certainly,
elderly
housing
senior
housing
doesn't
need
as
much
parking
parking
people
who
are
in
recovery.
J
For
instance,
transitional
housing
may
not
need
as
much
parking
as
as
other
other
uses.
So
you
know
it's
much
easier
to
deal
with
that
on
a
case-by-case
basis
and
the
large
project
review
process
does
provide
for
and
provide
for
that.
I
think
that's
the
you
know.
We've
been
fairly
successful
at
doing
that
in
the
past
one
other
issue
that
we
and
we
certainly
deferred
to
dnd's
judgment
on
synchronizing,
the
the
the
the
numbers
for
affordability.
J
The
one
question
we
had
was:
if,
if
we
limit
to
a
hundred
percent
of
the
units
being
affordable
for
some
types
of
projects,
there
may
be
a
manager's
unit
or
you
know,
site
supervisors
unit
that
was
not
necessarily
affordable
doesn't
fall
into
that
bucket,
and
it
would
be
a
shame
if
you
know
if
that
was
something
that
sort
of
knocked
this
out
of
this
provision.
So
you
know
we'd
suggest
maybe
let's,
let's
think
a
little
bit
about,
is
there?
J
Are
there
development
you
know
otherwise,
affordable
developments
where
there
are
it's,
not
100,
but
it's
pretty
close.
So
I'm
not
sure
what
that
is.
If
it's,
if
it's
90
or
whatever,
that's
something
we
want,
we
want
to
sort
through
a
little
bit.
I
think
the
the
way
of
looking
at
that
maybe
is
to
look
backwards
at
otherwise
100,
affordable
projects
and
see
you
know,
are
there
units
there
that
are
really
don't
exactly
qualify
because
they're
for
the
site,
supervisors
or
something
it's
sort
of
a
technical
point.
J
B
K
I
am
I,
I
think
that
brian
thank
you
counselors
and
thank
you
for
having
us
on
this
important
hearing.
I
think
brand
did
a
really
good
job
in
summarizing
many
of
the
transportation
department's
issues
as
well,
but
in
brief,
we
definitely
have
support
affordable
housing,
and
if
the
cost
of
parking
is
having
an
impact
on
affordability,
then
we
need
to
consider
having
less
parking.
E
B
I
guess
we
can
go
through
a
round
of
counselors
or
points
if
you'd
like,
and
then
we
can
go
to
some
public
folks
from
advocates
is
that
okay,
counselor
brock,
o'malley,
okay,
council
we'll
just
go
ahead
and
start
with
the
co-sponsors
counselor
bach
and
council
o'malley.
I
think
counselor
wu
had
to
go.
Go
to
flynn
mejia
baker
than
myself.
A
A
What
I
found
is
that
our
predecessors
in
the
80s
did
this,
but
they
described
specifically
like
hud's
senior
housing,
with
this
very
particular
description
that
doesn't
now
apply
to
most
things
right,
so
I
think,
like
we
can
learn
from
that
and
try
to
make
it
as
capacious
as
possible
to
sort
of
get
the
spirit
of
the
thing.
So
I
I'd
consider
that
a
friendly
amendment-
and
you
know
I
think
that
the
the
gist
of
this
thing
is
to
your
point,
to
try
to
try
to
think
about
these.
A
What
we
would
really
characterize
as
affordable
projects,
but
but
certainly
agree
that
you
know
if
there
I
mean
there
can
be
the
manager
unit
issue,
I
think
also
sometimes
like
you're
saying
there
might
be
a
kind
of
like
we've
seen
in
nubian
square.
Oh,
we
want
to
transfer
kind
of
a
moderate
income
like
issue
and,
if
yeah,
I
guess
I
guess
to
me-
widening
the
category
a
bit
makes
sense
to
just
again
make
sure
everything
we're
thinking
about
is
captured.
A
With
the
caveat
that
I
don't
think,
I
think
we've
all
been
really
clear
that
we're
not
we're
not
trying
to
apply
this
to
kind
of
development
projects
that
might
if
we
get
a
development
project
up
to
20
on
idp
we're
not
trying
to
have
them
fall
into
this.
So
I
think
it's
important
that
it's
up
in
that
category,
where
it's
only
happening
with
affordable
housing,
support
assistance,
but,
frankly
everything.
That's
everything.
That's
more
than
half
affordable
housing
is
totally
unfeasible
without
a
bunch
of
that
type
of
financial
support.
A
So
appreciate
that
and
then
I
wondered
if
you
could
just
expand
a
bit,
because
I
think
I
think
that
the
main
challenge
that
I'm
hearing
from
my
colleagues-
I
think
you
sort
of
addressed
in
your
comments
about
dnd
scrutiny.
But
you
know,
I
think
it's
really
important
to
specify
that
there
is
a
difference
to
counselor
edwards
and
counselor
flynn's
point
and
counselor
bakers.
A
A
It
just
does
everybody
know
like
the
idea
that
then
you
would
be
set
up
for
this
kind
of
a
lawsuit,
I
think,
is
just
I'm
very
counted
or
possible.
So
I
I
don't
know
jessica
if
you
could
speak
a
little
bit
and
then
I'll
stop,
but
just
a
little
bit
more
to
that
point
of
like
us.
Taking
this
off
the
table
as
a
way
for
coming
to
sue
projects
would
not
mean
that
you
guys
would
then
look
at
every
affordable
housing
project
and
say:
oh,
we
don't.
We
don't
want
parking
and
affordable
housing
projects
anymore.
I
I
Who
is
the
project
going
to
be
housing
and
and
what
are
the
services
those
people
are
going
to
be
receiving?
So
you
know,
in
the
case
of
a
pine
street
project
or
a
senior
project,
we're
going
to
be
working
really
closely
with
the
developer
to
understand.
What's
that
population,
what's
their
likely
parking
need?
What
has
their
parking
need
been
in
similar
projects
that
they've
that
we've
seen
in
other
places
in
the
city?
I
We
also
have
staff
at
dnd
that
do
a
pretty
extensive
design
review
of
projects
and
parking
is
an
important
part
of
that
conversation.
So
so,
as
you're
saying
you
know,
regardless
of
what
happened
in
a
specific
zoning
change,
I
don't
think
dnd
would
have
any
intention
of
changing
that
iterative
process
of
working
with
neighborhoods
and
developers
together
to
understand
both
what
a
neighborhood
needs
and
also
what
a
specific
development
needs
in
terms
of
the
potential
population
of
that
future
development.
A
B
F
D
Yeah,
thank
you.
Ma'am,
chair
briefly
agree
with
many
of
the
sentiments
by
the
previous
speaker
and
obviously
thank
you
jessica
for
your
great
work
and
partnership
and
and
look
forward
to
crafting
something.
That's
even
better
and
again.
I
I
appreciate
the
concern
and
and
like
like
every
district
councilor,
and
we
know
you're
feeling
it
acutely,
particularly
in
east
boston,
council,
chair
edwards,
there's
no
shortage
of
development
in
district
six,
we're
seeing
it
the
impact
and
certainly
parking
is,
is
a
huge
issue
everywhere
and
again.
What
we're
talking
about?
D
But,
quite
frankly,
this
is.
This
is
something
that's
warranted
and
we've
seen
now
parking
being
used
to
prevent
progress
and
to
prevent
housing.
Many
vulnerable
bostonians.
So
I
appreciate
the
concern
that's
been
raised
by
you,
madam
chair
and,
and
virtually
every
other
counselor.
I
don't
disagree
with
it.
I
just
don't
want
us
to
conflate
the
issues.
B
B
Just
for
for
folks
to
know
there's
another
hearing,
that's
also
going
on
with
regards
to
the
zba
reform
at
the
state
house
that
myself
and
other
counselors
we
might
be
in
between
the
two
testifying.
So
I'm
I'm
assuming
my
my
fellow
counselors
are
fighting
the
good
fight,
maybe
in
the
in
the
state
house
councillor.
I
don't
know
if
councillor
baker's
still
with
us.
B
I
just
wanted
to
also
be
be
clear:
we're
not
fixing
the
park,
the
the
too
many
car
problem
with
this
either
right,
so
you
you,
I
I
think,
for
those
people
who
are
parking
advocates
this.
This
will
become
a
a
bargaining
and
something
that
they
point
to
as
an
example
of
the
city,
not
planning
for
the
practical
realities
of
people
who
live
here.
B
I
think
that
they'll
be
able
to
point
to
this.
I
also
while
I
appreciate
that
this
is
removing
potentially
a
legal
standard
and
hopefully
preventing
someone
from
blocking
an
entire
affordable
unit
and
building,
which
I
don't
think
anyone
could
challenge
my
heart
or
my
dedication
to
affordable
housing
or
wanting
to
have
it.
I
do.
I
am
concerned
that,
if
that
there's
there's
there's
got
to
be
a
better
way
to
be
able
to
remove
that
legal
standard
and
not
signal
to
developers.
You
don't
have
to
build
parking
for
poor
people.
B
Which
is
my
my
my
other
concern
too?
I
know
you,
I
know,
and
maybe
the
the
robust
standards
in
the
back
and
forth,
or
some
of
your
neighborhoods
is
maybe
just
stronger
than
east
boston's,
but
we
have
found
that
too
many
times
the
financial
interest
of
developers
overruns
and
runs
roughshod
over
the
practical
realities
and
necessities
of
the
neighborhood.
B
So
there's
the
legal
concerns,
there's
the
practical
realities
and
then
there's
what
developers
are
what
they
will
do,
which
is
anything
to
make
money.
So,
let's,
let's
be
clear
about
that,
I
believe
in
the
goal
of
preventing
frivolous
lawsuits.
I
wonder
if
there's
got
to
be
a
way
where
you
bake
into
something
with
this,
that
there's
other
obligations
that
must
be
then
put
in
on
behalf
of
the
developers.
B
If
they
choose
to
build
no
parking,
then
you
must
do
blah
blah
blah
blah
blah
blah
and
it
shouldn't
just
be
based
on
every
single
neighborhood
did
not
negotiate
that
standard
that
replacement
standard,
because
it
depends
on
how
robust
and
how
strong
and
how
resourced
your
neighborhood
is
to
be
able
to
fight
it
back.
So
I
think
it
would
be
great
if
dnd
or
bdd
could
come
up
with
that
standard.
If
there
is
going
to
be
a
100,
affordable
building
or
a
building
that
does
not
have
any
parking.
B
The
tapa
agreement
needs
to
involve
minimums
of
and
then
put
that
in
there
you're
paying
for
public
transportation
for
the
entire
building
or
your
building
is
located
within
a
quarter
mile
walking
distance
of
public
transportation.
There's
just
there's
just
got
to
be
something
that
you
fill
in
the
gap
or
you
are
sure
that
their
gap
will
be
filled
in.
So
I'm
not
comfortable
with
this
as
it
is,
and
I'm
just
I'm
being
totally
transparent
about
that.
A
A
A
I
think
it's
worth
underscoring,
though,
that
this
is
we're
talk.
We
are
talking
about
affordable
housing
and
when
we
save
money
on
affordable
housing
by,
for
instance,
not
building
structured
parking
like
the
number
one
thing
that
we're
trying
to
achieve
there
is
funding
to
build
more
affordable
units
right,
like
that's
the
thing
we're
trying
to
achieve,
and
that's
where
to
me.
A
This
is
a
very
different
conversation
than
if
we
were
talking
about
removing
parking
minimums
in,
like
you
know,
in
market
development,
and
I
think
it's
important,
you
know
I
hear
you
on
the
well.
What
does
the
equity
look
like
of
you
know
we're
not
saying
that
we
need
parking
for
low-income
people,
but
what
we've
just
seen
I
mean
when
you
think
we
need
to
take
the
whale
street
example,
which
was
a
denial
at
the
zba.
A
That
was
a
case
of
saying.
Low-Income
people
can't
have
housing
here,
because
you're
not
providing
the
parking
right
so
to
me,
there's
like
a
much
deeper
equity
issue
in
terms
of
who
are
we
creating
a
home
for
in
the
city
when
parking
minimums
are
ending
up
as
a
reason
that
we
are
not
green
lighting,
affordable
housing
and
that
really,
I
think,
is-
is
cutting
at
the
heart
of
keeping
low
income
people
in
the
city.
A
B
Maybe
you
are
not
dealing
with
this,
but
it's
gasoline
for
me,
and
so
when
I
say
my
colleagues,
my
district
should
easily
fire
me
if
this
goes
this
way.
I
am
telling
you
also
about
the
practical
political
implications
in
my
district,
so
I'm
not
dismissing
this,
I'm
just
being
totally
transparent
about
it.
So
I'll
turn
it
over
now
to
the
advocate.
D
B
N
Thank
you.
I
apologize.
I
had
another
meeting.
This
is
a
very
important
issue.
I
echo
counselor
edward's
concerns
in
our
district
and
I
look
forward
to
hearing
what
folks
have
to
say,
and
I
I
think
this
is
the
beginning
of
the
conversation.
I
think
we
we
need
to
get
into
the
weeds
a
little
more
going
forward,
but
I
am
interested
to
hear
what
the
advocates
have
to
say.
N
B
A
K
O
Point
something
percent
consensus
that
we
achieved
on
that.
I
very
much
agree
on
the
overall
goal
of
limiting
frivolous
lawsuits
and
expediting
affordable
housing
development.
Certainly
our
project
was
delayed
unnecessarily
and
it's
very
positive
that
the
council
is
looking
at
public
policy
teams
to
expedite
projects
like
3368
washington
street.
O
But
I
did
learn
a
good
amount
about
sony.
Morocco
lawsuit
at
3368,
washington
street,
and
I
guess
the
technical
point
that
it's
important
to
mention
about
3368
washington
street
is
that
we
didn't
actually
seek
a
variance
related
to
parking
minimums.
As
people
have
mentioned,
the
parking
are
already
under
the
zoning
process.
That's
set
in
the
article
80
process
and
we
certainly
the
proposal
that
we
had
did
have
parking,
and
there
was
a
lot
of
work
that
we
did
and
others
said
about.
O
You
know
the
track
record
of
how
much
parking
on
other
pine
street
end
projects
is
actually
used.
So
that
was
all
really
more
part
of
the
article
80
process
and
as
as
I
understand
it,
at
least
as
a
technical
matter,
the
actual
the
parking
minimums
was
not
technically
challenged
in
court.
We
did
seek
a
haptic
variances
related
to
a
number
of
different
items:
floor
area
ratio,
the
height
of
the
building
and
even
the
use,
and
these
were
all
challenged.
O
The
site
is
currently
zoned
for
light
industrial
use
and
it
only
allows
for
one
story
and
a
fairly
low
floor
area
ratio.
So
my
non-lawyer
understanding
of
this
is
that
even
if
the
minimum
parking
requirement
is
removed,
somebody
could
still
at
least
at
this
site
because
of
the
underlying
zoning.
Somebody
can
still
relate
it.
Sue
the
project
related
to
floor
area
ratio
or
height,
you
know
even
or
the
use,
even
if
there's
not
a
minimum
parking
requirement.
O
B
B
P
P
I
personally
have
been
working
on
affordable
housing
in
mission
hill
for
almost
40
years,
which
is
a
bit
scary
to
me,
and
I
just
want
to
say
it's:
it's
not
getting
any
easier
to
build,
affordable
housing
in
the
city
of
boston
and
just
to
some
of
the
other
comments
made,
we
also
are
very
active
in
looking
at
mitigations
and
impacts
for
private
development
and
institutional
development
in
our
neighborhood.
So
we
definitely
have
those
impacts.
Don't
think
there
is
any
neighborhood
that
doesn't,
but
we
clearly
have
traffic
and
parking
impacts
in
mission
health.
P
P
It's
not
getting
easier
to
build
housing
in
the
city
of
boston.
If
we
all
say
that
it
is
a
priority
for
us
to
provide
affordable
housing
units,
then
we
have
to
get
creative
and
we
have
to
take
affordable
housing
development
out
of
the
broader
development
framework.
In
my
opinion,
I'm
lucky
to
live
in
a
neighborhood
that
still
supports
affordable
housing
that
plans
for
affordable
housing
that
sees
affordable
housing
as
a
stabilizer
in
our
neighborhood.
P
In
fact,
mission:
hills,
diversity,
racial,
cultural,
language,
economic
is
all
owed
to
the
fact
that
we
have
affordable
housing
in
our
neighborhood
that
we
built
over
many
years.
The
truth
is
that's
where
our
our
families
live.
We
don't
have
families
in
market
rate
housing
for
the
most
part
in
mission
hill.
We
have
families
in
our
affordable
housing
and
we
were
lucky
at
one
point
to
have
large
slots
of
land
and
worked
with
the
city
of
boston,
on
disposition
of
properties
to
build
affordable
housing.
P
City
lien
was
tremendous
in
helping
affordable
housing
be
affordable,
but
that
is
not
our
reality
anymore.
We
now
have
to
compete
for
market
rate
opportunities
in
our
neighborhood.
Acquisition
is
extremely
high.
Site
conditions
are
extremely
difficult:
topography,
ledge,
more
ledge
environmental
issues
that
are
remnants
of
previous
destruction,
left
for
us
to
clean
as
part
of
affordable
housing
development
budgets,
it's
extremely
expensive,
expensive,
just
to
get
out
of
the
ground
on
affordable
housing
projects,
surface
lots
for
parking
are
temporary,
they're,
bad
urban
design,
and
there
are
poor
use
of
our
scarce
resource,
structured
or
underground
parking.
P
P
If
we
look
at
what
the
needs
are
for
affordable
housing
projects,
even
at
very
tod
sites,
like
the
ones
we
do
in
mission
hill,
it
means
millions
with
an
ass
are
going
to
create
places
to
park
cars
rather
than
places
to
house
a
family
or
house
a
senior,
and
we
are
often
constrained
on
our
total
unit-
counts
based
upon
what
we
can
fit
on
a
site
related
to
parking
or
what
we
can
afford
to
build
related
to
parking
spaces.
So
parking
spaces
are
literally
driving.
P
The
unit
counts
in
many
affordable
housing
projects
still
so
we
need
to
get
more
creative.
I
see
this
as
a
great
opportunity
to
start
the
discussion
across
the
board
on
ways
we
can
make
affordable
housing
development,
different
from
market
rate,
housing
development
and
speed
up
production
and
produce
more
units
of
housing.
P
I
think
this
order
is
an
important
opportunity
to
rethink
and
truly
prioritize,
affordable
housing
production
in
our
city
and
granted.
It
needs
to
be
balanced
with
equity
and
accessibility
and
other
forms
of
or
other
mode
modes
of
transportation
that
need
to
be
linked
to
these
affordable
housing
projects,
but
I
think
this
is
a
wonderful
first
step
to
look
at.
How
are
we
looking
at
affordable
housing
differently
and
allowing
for
more
units
to
be
produced
in
a
quicker
period
of
time?
Thank
you.
Q
Thank
you
sherwood,
edwards
and
counselors
for
this
opportunity
to
speak.
My
name
is
jesse
canton
benanov,
I'm
the
executive
director
of
abundant
housing
massachusetts
statewide
pro
housing
coalition,
just
to
clarify
comment
that
councillor
bach
made
I'm
no
longer
with
ben
abreuth
housing,
although
I'm
proud
to
have
spent
a
number
of
years
before
this
role,
working
for
bennet
housing
and
other
nonprofit
developers
in
and
around
the
city
of
boston.
So
I
speak
to
this
both
as
an
advocate
and
someone
with
background
in
affordable
housing
development.
Q
I
I
want
to
thank
councillors,
bach
and
o'malley
for
continuing
to
dig
into
this
important
issue
of
around
the
permitting
appeals
on
construction
of
100,
affordable
housing
in
all
neighborhoods
of
boston.
In
order
to
achieve
the
vision
of
a
progressive,
equitable
and
sustainable
city,
we
have
to
align
our
municipal
ordinances
with
our
vision
and
values,
and
I
believe
this
is
an
important
step
in
that
direction.
Q
You
know
I
want
to
address
some
of
the
things
that
I
have
heard
and
then
I'll
get
to
my
other
comments,
I
think
it's
very
important
to
state
that
eliminating
parking
minimums
doesn't
mean
developers
can't
build
parking,
and
certainly,
I
I
believe,
was
counselor
baker
earlier
who
talked
about
well.
If
they
have
the
space,
they
should
do
it
and-
and
you
know,
affordable
housing
developers
take
into
account
a
variety
of
calculations
in
designing
their
projects,
including
marketability,
their
ability
to
attract
the
residents
that
they
need
for
their
development.
Q
They
won't
do
zero
parking
and
eliminating
parking
minimums
just
eliminates
the
requirement.
That's
often
cumbersome
and,
as
other
panelists
have
said,
limits
the
total
number
of
units,
and
so
this
doesn't
mean
that
no
new
off
street
parking
will
be
built
in
the
city
of
boston.
Also,
just
you
know,
we
like
to
you
know,
throw
mud
at
the
developers,
and
I've
heard
that
in
this,
in
this
conversation
you
know
we're
talking
about
primarily
affordable.
Q
You
know,
as
as
the
resolution
order
stated,
100,
affordable
housing
development
for
the
most
part
in
the
city
of
boston,
100,
affordable
housing
is
developed
by
nonprofits
by
community
development
corporations
or
non
regional,
non-profit
international
non-profits
like
the
community
builders
or
poa,
and
you
know
their
fees
they're,
not
driven
by
profit,
their
fees.
Developer
fees
are
closely
regulated
by
massachusetts.
Department
of
housing,
community
development
and
the
department
of
neighborhood
development,
so
you
know,
I
think
this
concern
about
the
developers
of
primarily
affordable
housing
being
driven
by
profits
is
misplaced.
Q
Q
I
know
the
policy
order
mentions
the
housing
choice
law
passed
earlier
this
year,
which
gives
judges
the
option
to
impose
a
fifty
thousand
dollar
bond
when
abutters
are
appealing
zoning
decisions,
just
to
be
clear,
housing
choice
does
not
apply
to
the
city
of
boston,
which
is
not
governed
by
mass
general
law.
48,
I'm
not
an
attorney,
so
I
just
want
to
make
that
clear.
Q
But,
like
andy,
I'm,
you
know
a
trained
urban
planner
and
I
have
some
experience
with
zoning
section
11
of
boston's
own
zoning,
enabling
does
allow
judges
in
housing
or
city
court
to
impose
a
twenty
five
thousand
dollar
bond.
In
appeal
cases.
However,
that
does
not
align
with
the
requirement
or
the
allowance.
Q
I
guess
I
should
say
in
the
rest
of
the
state
which
allows
a
fifty
thousand
dollar
bond
in
such
appeals
in
the
other
350
cities
and
towns
outside
of
boston,
given
the
impact
of
appeals
against
affordable
housing
development
here
in
the
city
of
boston,
which
is
among
the
highest
costs
of
construction
in
the
entire
commonwealth
or
all
of
new
england
really
much
of
the
east
coast.
You
know,
I
think
we
should
have
another
conversation.
Q
I
know
today
is
not
about
looking
into
this,
but
we
should
consider
bringing
the
boston
ordinance
in
line
with
the
rest
of
the
state,
increasing
that
that
requirement
when
the
butters
are
appealing
and
thinking
about
how
to
formalize
it
and
not
just
leave
it
at
judges
discretions.
So
that's
just
an
aside.
Q
Homes
built
in
our
neighborhoods
help
stem
that
displacement
that
we're
seeing
across
the
city,
and
this
is
because
the
cost
of
construction
as
the
previous
panelists
talked
about
the
cost
of
constructing
parking,
surface
level,
parking,
structure,
parking
or
underground
park
parking
is
a
significant
development
cost
and,
depending
on
the
type
of
parking
it
could
range,
I
don't
know,
maybe
anywhere
from
40
or
50
thousand
dollars
per
space
for
for
surface
parking
to
much
much
higher
for
structured
parking.
So
even.
Q
Scale
we're
talking
that
you
know
the
cost
of
building
a
parking
space
is,
maybe
you
know
a
a
tenth
or
or
or
more
of
the
cost
of
a
single
unit.
I
would
ask
us
today
what
is
more
important
and
lives
up
to
our
values
of
building
an
equitable
and
sustainable
city
of
boston,
one
additional
home
for
a
low-income
family
in
a
dune
development
or
10
off
street
storage
spaces
for
private
vehicles,
I
would
say
unequivocally:
affordable
homes
are
more
important.
Q
I
would
also-
and
I
guess
this
gets
back
to
the
conversation
earlier
with
dnd
and
bpda.
I
would
encourage
us
to
think
about
how
mixed
income
or
idp
projects
play
into
this
sort
of
zoning
change
to
reduce
parking
minimums
just
as
building
private
vehicle
storage
spaces
is
a
cost
that
reduces
the
total
number
of
units
that
can
go
into
100,
affordable
housing.
So
too,
it
might
have
a
similar
impact
on
the
number
of
affordable
units
in
idp
or
mixed
income
developments.
Q
So,
with
this
type
of
policy
change,
I
believe
we
should
also
consider
reducing
parking
minimums
for
mixed
income
projects.
Potentially,
if
the
developers
can
demonstrate
that
they'll
use
the
savings
directly
to
increase
the
total
number
of
affordable
units
in
their
development
above
and
beyond,
idp-
and
this
isn't
just
theoretical-
we
have
a
great
example
of
a
sustainable
transit
oriented
mixed
income
development
that
was
just
approved
by
bvda
at
4198
washington
street,
that
is
building
over
three
times
the
number
of
affordable
units
required
under
idp.
Q
This
is
4198
washington
street
in
roslindale,
and
you
know
they're
being
they're
able
to
to
build
over
three
times
the
number
of
affordable
homes
in
this
mixed
income
project
in
part,
because
they
include
no
off
street
parking
in
this
highly
transit
area
area.
So
I
just
hope
that
the
arbitrary
nature
of
zba
decisions
in
in
recent
years
doesn't
kill
this
project
moving
forward.
Q
Finally,
I
do
you
know,
want
to
just
encourage
the
council
to
not
consider
this
conversation
and
future
action
or
policy
change
on
the
order
of
hand
to
be
the
end
of
the
conversation.
I
know
there
is
great
concern
around
parking
across
the
city
and
we've
heard
that
from
from
councillor
edwards-
and
I
I
take
that
to
heart,
I
would
I
would
state
that
if
we
truly
want
to
be
a
sustainable
carbon
neutral
city,
we
must
grapple
with
the
impact
that
our
transportation
infrastructure
has
on
our
carbon
emissions.
Q
Key
to
that
is
reducing
or
disincentivizing
the
use
of
private
vehicles
across
the
city
by
maintaining
off-street
vehicle
storage
in
any
development,
even
primarily
market
rate
housing.
We
are
simply
exacerbating
our
number
one
source
of
fossil
fuel
emissions
in
boston,
which
is
transportation.
So
from
an
ecwid
equity
standpoint,
we
are
much
more
likely
to
get
more
affordable
housing
units
if
we
eliminate
parking
minimums
in
all
housing.
Q
Construction
and
research
has
shown
that
the
furman
center
at
nyu
has
demonstrated
that
reducing
parking
minimums
for
all
new
housing
makes
construction
of
new
housing
more
affordable
and
that
savings
is
passed
on
to
future
renters
and
owners
in
the
form
of
reduced
housing
costs.
So
I
recognize
this
is
a
broader
conversation
today.
We're
talking
about
the
policy
at
hand-
and
you
know
I
just
think
it's
important-
to
make
sure
that
this
is
a
broader
conversation
as
well
after
we
take
this
immediate
action.
Q
C
B
You
just
want
to
recognize.
We
were
joined
by
council
flaherty,
he
may
have
stepped
away
and
we
also
been
joined
by
council
arroyo,
councillor
flaherty,
if
you're
still
here
any
brief
remarks
and
if,
if
you're
not,
I
understand
he
had
joined
us
a
while
ago
and
two
speakers
ago,
and
I
forgot
failed
to
mention
that
council
royale.
If
you
wanted
to
quickly,
say
hello
and
then
we're
going
to
go
on
with
the
panelists.
L
Thanks
manchester
I'll
make
it
very
brief.
I'm
just
here
to
say
that
I
do
support
this
initiative.
We've
had
projects
in
district
five,
most
recently,
one
on
city
parking
municipal
parking
lot
where
it
was
100,
affordable
and
the
issue
was
a
handful
of
parking
spaces
would
be
lost
and
that
project
ended
up
not
going
forward
and
when
I
say
a
handful,
I
I
literally
mean
a
handful,
and
so
these
are.
These
are
issues
that
we
have
in
a
city
where
people
are
being
priced
out.
L
That
impact
is
disproportionate
when
it
comes
to
neighborhoods
and
communities
of
color,
and
if
we're
going
to
really
be
serious
about
that,
we're
going
to
have
to
do
some
things.
That
may
seem
politically
onerous
like
removing
parking
requirements
from
affordable
housing.
But
I
don't
know
how
else
we
do
this
if
we
don't
get
serious
about
making
it
easier
and
more
affordable
to
do
this
process
because,
frankly,
there's
not
a
huge
rush.
I
fight
with
every
developer,
who
comes
into
my
district
about
how
much
affordable
housing
they're
going
to
put
in.
L
I
think
that's
something
shared
by
almost
every
counselor
here:
who's,
a
district
counselor,
where
we
have
set
standards
that
we
have
way
beyond
the
city
of
what
we
expect.
These
projects
to
be
and
always
to
come
back,
is
parking
the
cost
of
parking
the
length
of
time
for
this
process
and
how
much
that
adds
to
the
bill,
and
so,
if
there's
ways
for
us
to
sort
of
alleviate
that
process
to
get
more
affordable
housing.
L
I
think
that's
a
win
for
the
city,
and
I
would
see
that
as
a
win
for
accounts
as
a
counselor
in
what
I
want
to
see
happen
with
my
district
and
the
creation
of
affordable
housing,
where
people
from
this
community
can
live
in
this
community
and
continue
to
live
in
this
community.
So
thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
to
the
makers,
council,
o'malley
and
counselor
bob
for
bringing
this
forward.
B
R
Hi
everyone,
my
name,
is
kendall
feynman.
I
am
here
today
with
the
nonprofit
housing
forward
m.a,
but
so
excited
to
be
back
in
this
new
capacity
and
seeing
lots
of
familiar
faces.
The
discussion
today
has
been
great
so
far.
A
lot
of
wonderful
points
have
been
made,
so
I'm
not
going
to
belabor
too
much,
but
I
will
briefly
just
say
that
we
are
very
supportive
of
this
initiative.
R
As
a
nonprofit
research
and
education
organization
focused
on
providing
data-backed
policy
solutions
to
reducing
the
commonwealth
housing
shortage,
we
support
the
removal
of
unnecessary
obstacles
and
costs
that
hinder
the
creation
of
affordable
workforce
housing
across
markets
and
housing
types.
Mandatory
parking
minimums
have
proven
to
be
a
significant
barrier,
an
artificial
constraint
that
increases
the
cost
of
housing
disproportionately
affecting
middle
and
low-income
households.
R
An
abundance
of
research
proves
how
municipal
parking
requirements,
inflate
the
costs
of
new
homes
and
create
an
excess
supply
of
parking
compared
to
actual
demand.
One
study
from
2016
found
that
the
cost
of
garage
parking
increases
a
household's
rent
by
approximately
17,
whether
or
not
the
tenant
owns
a
car.
R
And
I
know
this
has
kind
of
been
one
of
the
crux
of
the
discussions
today,
and
I
just
want
to
also
kind
of
build
on
on
what
has
already
been
said
that
it's
important
to
remember
that
reducing
or
eliminating
mandatory
parking
minimums
does
not
eliminate
parking.
On
the
other
hand,
it
allows
the
parking
ratio
to
be
determined
by
the
context
of
a
project
and
the
actual
demand
of
those
who
will
live
there,
with
a
move
toward
active
transportation
and
the
rise
of
shared
mobility
options.
R
We
really
thank
counselors
o'malley
counselor
bach,
for
bringing
this
forward
for
acting
so
quickly.
After
we've
seen
we've
all
seen
over
the
last
couple
months,
how
parking
minimums
are
being
used
in
the
courts?
There's
a
lot
of
other
cities
and
towns
across
the
country
and
massachusetts
who
are
re-examining
their
parking
minimums.
I
mean
just
to
say
that
I
know
we're
not
the
same
as
other
other
cities
and
towns,
but
it's
always
good
to
learn
from
from
what's
being
done
elsewhere
and
to
see
the
outcomes.
R
Some
housing
projects
actually
had
more
than
the
former
required
minimums
based
on
where
they
were,
but
they're
definitely
seeing
a
lot
less
in
transit,
oriented
places
and
it's
kind
of
showing
how
it
plays
out.
Where
context
can
be
brought
into
the
discussion
of
each
project
and
yeah.
That's
all
I
have
for
you
guys,
I'm
happy
to
answer
questions
happy
to
go
in
any
of
this
deeper,
but
I
didn't
want
to
take
too
much
time,
I'm
pretty
aligned
with
the
folks
who've
already
spoken.
A
Great,
thank
you
so
much
kendall,
I'm
going
to
take
the
chair
for
a
minute
from
councillor
edwards
I
and
I'll
go
to
colleagues
for
questions
and
comments.
I
think
just
I'll
just
quickly
say
on
my
own
behalf
to
answer
andy's
question.
So,
although
the
the
lawsuit
was
not
hung
on
the
parking
for
the
pine
street
and
tcb
project,
that
is
one
of
the
core
variances.
A
Although
the
hook
was
different,
the
goal
was
very
much,
as
you
know,
trying
to
get
more
parking
secured
and
I
think
just
trying
to
shift
the
conversation
into
a
world
where,
where
that's
not
one
of
the
things
that
we
hold
affordable
developments
hostage
over,
I
think
I
think
it's
important
to
kind
of
shifting
that
conversation.
But
but
I
do
appreciate
you
raising
that
and
I'll
just
say,
we'll.
My
office
will
share
with
everybody,
because
I'm
sure
we'll
have
continuing
conversation
about
this.
A
Some
work
that
council
o'malley's
office
in
mind
did
to
look
at
to
kendall's
last
point.
Some
of
the
comparisons
of
other
cities
around
the
country,
so
cambridge
across
this
across
the
river
from
us
just
did
no
parking
minimums
for
their
affordable
housing
overlay
projects
la
is
providing
parking
relief
depending
on
the
type
of
housing,
affordability
and
proximity
to
transit,
seattle's
eliminated
parking
requirements
for
all
non-profit,
affordable
housing
developments,
portland
has
eliminated
them
for
new,
affordable
housing
near
transit.
A
So
there's
a
form
of
of
kind
of
eliminating
or
dramatically
reducing
parking
minimums
that
has
happened
or
is
happening
right
now
in
minneapolis,
seabrook,
new
hampshire,
hartford,
connecticut,
hudson
new
york
buffalo,
as
was
mentioned,
berkeley
and
san
francisco,
and
then
austin's
got
another
kind
of
affordable,
focused
one.
So
I
think
what
we're
proposing
is,
on
the
more
modest
end
of
of
some
of
the
the
action
that's
been
happening
on
this
lately.
So
those
would
just
be
some
comments
from
me.
Counselor
o'malley
did
you
have
comments
or
questions
for
the
panel.
D
No
thank
you
all
for
your
great
advocacy
and
work
in
this
space
and
I'm
looking
at
it.
You
know
between
andy
and
jesse.
You
know
working
on
so
many
projects
and,
of
course,
pat
flaherty,
one
of
my
favorite
people
in
boston,
working
with
her
in
ward
10
in
the
back
of
the
hill
and
kendall,
who
served
such
a
incredible
distinction
for
your
predecessor,
counselor
box,
for
so
many
years.
It's
just
great
to
see
you
all!
Thank
you
for
you
for
your
great
work
in
this
space.
D
I
I
have
no
further
questions
again,
I'm
very
comfortable
with
our
ordinance,
obviously
or
our
rule
change,
and
certainly
welcome
and
value
the
input
from
dnd.
It
does
sound,
like
our
some
of
our
colleagues,
may
have
some
more
questions,
so
I
want
everyone
to
get
to
a
comfortable
space
with
this,
but
but
I
have
no
further
questions
to
the
panel
or
to
to
my
colleagues.
So
thank
you.
A
B
G
Yes,
I
do
just
a
few
I'm
just
these
are
kind
of
these
questions
are
more
for
the
makers,
but
I'm
curious
for
the
input
from
the
administration
as
well
in
a
lot
of
community
meetings.
People
who
want
to
see
reduced
parking
often
advocate
for
things
like
they
would
like
to
see,
instead
of
instead
like
either
green
space
or
more
affordable
units
or
public
space.
How
are
we
making
sure
that
the
needs
of
the
people
who
will
be
occupying
these
spaces
will
be
able
to
design
a
space
that
works
best
for
them?
G
G
I
don't
think
that
this
should
make
us
put
aside
tackling
an
issue
like
this,
because
we
need
to
find
ways
to
create
more
demand
for
public
transportation.
But
we
obviously
know
that
doing
this
ordinance
in
a
vacuum
will
create
problems
for
the
commute
of
a
lot
of
low-income
families.
And
how
do
we
make
sure
that
we're
working
with
the
state
and
with
ptd
to
create
more
public
trans
transportation
options
for
low-income
pres
residents?.
L
Thank
you
manager.
I
actually
only
have
one
question
that
might
might
be
easily
answered
or
might
not
be
something
we
track,
but
does
anybody
know
whether
or
not
the
city
tracks
how
many
hundred
percent
affordable
housing
projects
the
city
has
ongoing
at
any
given
time
or
how
many
have
been
proposed
in
a
year?
Do
we
have
that
data.
B
A
L
L
That
would
and
I'd
also
be
interested
if
we
can
get
the
data
on
how
many
of
these
projects
have
not
happened.
So,
for
instance,
like
the
one
in
my
district,
how
many
of
these
projects
have
ended
up
falling
through
and
not
reaching
completion
would
be
interesting
to
me
as
well.
I
do
believe
this
is
something
that
sort
of
has
an
urgency
to
it.
Only
because
I've
been
I'm
in
my
first
term.
I
now
have
one
project
that
has
been
sort
of
not
made
to
the
finish
line.
L
That
was
a
proposal
for
100
affordable,
and
then
we
just
had
one
on
washington
street.
That
is
a
minimum
of
40,
but
trying
to
reach
100
that
has
no
parking,
and
so
I'm
trying
to
just
get
a
gist
of
what
neighborhoods
are
seeing
sort
of
call
for
100,
affordable
housing
or
where
developers
are
putting
these
and
where
they're
they're
not
succeeding
or
where
they
are.
I
Sure
yeah,
I
will
I'll
figure
out
a
way
to
put
something
together.
Sometimes
the
data
isn't
the
best
way
to
tell
the
story,
because
a
different
projects
take
different
amounts
of
time
for
different
reasons,
but
but
we'll
figure
out
a
way
to
to
make
sure
that
you
both
get
some
numbers
and
some
descriptions
so
that
we
can
answer
your
question.
B
A
J
A
I
think
that
was
one
of
their
their
suggestions
and-
and
you
took
that
as
a
friendly
amendment
yeah,
I
would
take
that
as
a
friendly
amendment.
I
think
I
think,
like
I
said
before
the
last
time,
someone
did
this
20
or
30
years
ago.
They
provided
a
sort
of
very
specific
definition
that
doesn't
align
now
with
a
bunch
of
the
affordable
projects.
We're
doing
so.
It
would
seem
to
me
that
we
would
want
to
avoid
being
so
specific
that
we're
stuck
there
again
in
five
or
ten
years
so.
B
I
I
B
B
Excuse
me
about
some
of
our
carbon
net
neutral
and
some
of
the
comments
from
jesse.
One
of
the
things
I
agree.
Traffic
is
by
far
one
of
the
things
that
adds
to
it.
I
would
also
say
looking
for
parking
and
circling
and
driving
and
the
tolling
and
the
consistent
and
moving
around,
for
that
also
adds
to
to
this,
and,
and
so
my
concern
is
this-
is
this
is
yet
another
example
of
of
planning
or
zoning,
without
seeing
and
planning
with
for
all
the
effects
that
that
come
with
it?
B
There's
there's
congestion
that
is
going
to
come
from
reducing
certain
amounts
of
parking.
We
already
are
dealing
with
congestion
issues,
we're
dealing
with
traffic
issues,
and
so
you
know
I
know
btd
is
on
here,
and
it
would
be
great
if
they
could,
and
I
know
that
they
are
supportive
in
certain
sense
of
this,
but
I
mean
we,
we
have
a
problem
and
so
how
to
not
acknowledge
that
this
doesn't
add
to
that
or
to
not
acknowledge
that
this
could
act.
B
That
is
is
well
I'm
just
not
going
to
let
that
not
be
in
this
space.
I
I
don't.
I
agree
with
you.
I
don't
like
people
thinking
it's
parking
over
housing
or
housing
versus
parking.
I
don't
like
that
narrative
and
I
I
think
it's
it's.
Let's
be
clear.
I
don't
believe
for
one
second,
the
person
who
was
suing
about
parking
really
cared
about
parking.
I
think
that
person
or
those
entities
cared
about
certain
income
levels
of
certain
racial
diversity
being
near
and
around
them
in
larger
concentrations.
B
I'm
the
only
one
who's
saying
that,
but
I
think
that
that's
what
it
was
so
removing
the
parking
as
a
potential
lawsuit
or
potential
legal,
whatever
doesn't
obviously
remove
the
bigotry
or
the
attempts
for
someone
who's
going
to
file
a
frivolous
lawsuit
to
block
concentrations
of
lower
middle
class
people
of
color
coming
into
their
neighborhoods.
Sorry
to
keep
it
so
incredibly
real,
but
I'm
not
going
to
pretend
that
this
is
really
a
parking
versus
housing
kind
of
conversation.
B
Or
am
I
going
to
feel
or
no
am
I
going
to
like,
allow
people
to
to
walk
away
thinking,
I'm
putting
parking
over
housing
the
other.
I
want
to
just
echo
some
of
the
points
that
counselor
mejia
said
which
really
hit
me,
which
was
so-
and
I
appreciate
you,
know
the
pushback
on
developers
and
who's
going
to
be
doing
this.
B
A
A
B
Right
and
so
that's
my
pushback,
I
think
time.
Jesse's
comments
is,
though,
that
there's
a
non-profit
developers
who
are
just
doing
that
building
that
they're
not
part
of
a
larger
team
of
developers,
at
least
on
a
whole
corridor
in
east
boston
or
our
entire
waterfront,
that
aren't
already
congesting
and
already
building
a
bunch
of
stock
market
units.
B
Honestly,
a
single
family
or
excuse
me
of
studios
for
three
thousand
dollars
right
so
they're,
using
that
to
claim
that
that's
the
only
way
you
can
get
100,
affordable,
building,
plus
whatever
lie
tech
and
so
on,
and
so
forth,
down
the
road
and
then
this.
So
this
would
then
say
parking
minimums
are
eliminated
for
just
that.
Building
the
luxury
units
still
would
have
to
provide
parking
right.
A
E
J
A
B
Have
to
apply
the
parking
right
and
I
think
what
I'm
I'm
giving
you
like.
What
is
actually
happening,
not
what's
proposed,
what's
happening,
what
will
happen?
What
does
happen
right
now
in
east
boston,
so
I'm
giving
you
that
it's
the
public-private
kind
of
dance,
which
is
somewhat
required
bait
and
switch
for
many
of
us
that
allows
for
a
concentration
of
a
dense
density.
B
D
D
D
Well,
I'm
thinking
about
in
also
on
washington
street
jamaica
plain.
We
have,
I
want
to
say
it's
3200.
I
may
have
the
number
wrong,
which
is
mostly
market
rate
and
mixed
use,
and
then
the
developers
actually
worked
with
dnd
to
buy
two
lots
that
abutted
it
and
built
that
with
it
were
butters
and
built
their
affordable
units
deeply
affordable
on
those
sites.
It
was
almost
a
campus
approach,
so
I
don't
think
that's
what
we're
talking
about
here
if
it's
part
of
the
same
the
same
overall
campus
approach.
A
D
A
Yeah
to
cancel
o'malley's
point
sorry
just
to
clarify
madam
chair.
I
think
if
it
were,
if
it
were
a
situation
where
they're
all
being
permitted
together,
but
there's
a
100,
affordable
building
in
the
mix
like
I
think
that
would
not
qualify
because
it
wouldn't
be.
It
wouldn't
be
in
100
project.
What
I
was
alluding
to
was
the
fact
that,
as
you
know,
because
you
sit
on
the
neighborhood
housing
trust,
there
is
hardly
an
100,
affordable,
building
built
right
now.
A
That
is
not
converting
linkage,
money
or
idp
money
from
market
development
projects
in
the
city
into
support
for
affordable
housing,
and
sometimes
those
things
are
directly
linked
and
they're.
The
offset
right,
they're
like
sort
of
adjacent
to
each
other
or
off-site
or
whatever.
Sometimes
it's
just
going
through
your
trust
city-wide,
but
obviously
in
the
in
those
cases,
even
though
the
subsidy
is
coming
from
a
for-profit
development,
it
is
being
the
project
itself.
Is
an
affordable
development,
that's
being
permitted
as
such.
That
was
the
distinction
I
was
trying
to
make.
B
Yeah-
and
I
think
it's
interesting
because
it's
what
we're
finding,
for
example,
it's
very
clear
that
the
approval
of
the
market
rate
right
building
in
one
case
in
east
boston,
right,
the
approval
of
the
entire
project-
was
dependent
on
them
spending
money
and
and
making
sure
there
was
an
affordable
building
or
affordable
units
down
the
street.
So
the
connection
is,
is
there's
a
legal
connection.
There's
the
zoning
connection,
there's
the
actual
connection
too,
either
way.
My
point
is:
there's
there
is
a
there's.
D
I
would
I
would
be
concerned
with
that,
because
that
would
likely
remove
jamaica,
plain,
particularly
washington
street,
which
has
been
under
the
jp
rocks
corridor
study,
which
has
been
a
a
herculean
task
not
yet
ratified
by
the
zoning
commission.
So
I
would
worry
that
we
would
literally
pass
this
with
that
amendment
and
could
omit
two
of
the
larger
incidences
which
helped
get
us
to
this
place.
B
A
So
I
think
I
think,
madam
chair
it
I
mean,
I
think
it's
it's
worthy
of
further
conversation,
whether
there's
like
some,
I
think
again,
the
thing
that
you
want
to
do
is
a
durable
zoning
amendment
right
like
something
that
is
doesn't
kind
of
require
finicking
and
going
back.
So
I
think
the
question.
Certainly
we
could
talk
with
brian
and
others.
You
know
in
greater
detail
about.
Are
there
are
there
ways
to
say?
Oh
there's
something
that
would
trump
this
on
the
neighborhood
level.
C
B
My
I
guess
my
overall
question
too
would
be,
is
the
goal
I
mean
there's
nothing
you
could
the
smartest
person
on
the
planet
can't
write
something
so
well
that
it
would
prevent
a
frivolous
lawsuit?
Let's
be
clear,
and
I
say
that
as
a
lawyer
right
so
is
the
real
goal
of
this
to
just
make
affordable
to
incentivize
developers
of
affordable
housing.
To
just
make
them
more
dense
and
put
in
more
units
is
that
is
that
the
ultimate
goal.
A
I
think
the
sorry
are
you.
I
think
the
ultimate
goal
of
this
is
to
make
it
easier
for
us
to
get
affordable
units
built
in
the
city
and
that
this
would
do
that
on
a
couple
of
fronts.
It
would
do
that
on
the
front,
yes
of
removing
this
hook
for
frivolous
lawsuits.
It
would
also
do
this,
as
pat
flaherty
alluded
to
in
terms
of
like
what
affordable
housing
developers
could
even
sort
of
plan
on
as
they
spec
things
out,
and
I
think
there's
a
difference
between
our
affordable
housing
developers.
Specking
things
out
based
on.
A
Oh
I'm
going
to
be
housing,
this
population,
and
I
could
expect
this
many
accessible
units
and
so
we'll
probably
need
this
many
parking
spaces
versus
them.
Pulling
up
zoning
code
and
saying,
oh,
I'm
gonna
have
a
fight
on
my
hand.
If
I
don't
do
this,
many
and
I
think
that,
in
terms
of
like
neighborhood
driven
development
and
thinking
about
how
we
house
our
low-income
families,
seniors
folks
who
need
supportive
housing
in
the
city
that
we
are
better
served
if
folks
are
starting
from
getting
to
think
in
that
first
way,
and
not
that
second.
B
A
So
I
think
I
mean,
and
just
in
general
right
I
mean
when
we
talk
about
it's
funny,
like
I
think,
densifying
has
a
certain
valence
for
folks,
but
like
obviously
when
we
talk
about
getting
more
more
affordable
units
in
the
city
of
boston.
Right,
like
density,
is
a
measure
of
numerator
over
denominator.
So
like
yes,
the
goal
is
in
that
sense
to
densify,
affordable
housing
like
we.
I
think
we
want
to
meet
our
housing
crisis
with
more
units
in
some
cases
to
your
point.
A
A
Trade-Offs
between
you
know,
structured
parking
building
just
on
a
per
unit
basis
and
building
additional
units,
but
I
so
in
some
cases
it
might
be
an
opportunity
to
build
an
extra
couple
of
units
out
of
sight,
but
in
some
cases
it's
a
question
of
you
know.
Those
23
units
that
were
not
approved
on
whale
street
are
gone
right.
So
that's
you
know,
that's
more
units
in
the
sense
of
getting
things
to
the
finish
line,
approval
wise.
E
A
Yeah,
I
think
just
I
mean,
and
and
forgive
me
it's
a
little
repetitive
counselor
edwards,
our
whole
exchange
was,
I
think,
cut
out
off
of
the
of
the
video
earlier.
So
I
I'm
a
little
repetitive
here,
but
I
just
want
to
stress
that
like
and-
and
I
will
say,
I
don't
think
that
that
district
one
is
at
all
the
only
one
experiencing
the
pressures
of
trafficking
congestion.
I
think,
like
counselor
o'malley
said,
we
all
feel
that
and
it's
intense
I
only
distinct.
A
I
know
I
know,
but
you
did
assert
its
superlative
status
on
that.
So
I'm
just
saying
I
think,
they're,
you
know
it's
a
city-wide
issue
that
we
face,
but
what
I
will
say
is,
I
think,
when
we
follow
things
to
their
logical
conclusion
like
we
all
know
that
we
can't
like
we
can't
stop
building
affordable
housing
when
we're
in
a
housing
crisis,
because
it
will
add
traffic
like
we
just
we
can't
like.
A
Then
we
will
like
continue
to
have
people
on
houzz,
like
prices
will
continue
to
spiral
upwards,
and
I
know
that's
not
the
solution
that
any
of
us
want.
So
it
seems
to
me
like,
therefore,
in
that
equation,
if
you're
not
gonna,
just
cut
off
more
affordable
units
at
the
knees,
then
the
place
you
have
to
push
in
that
equation
is
the
con
solutions
to
congestion
right
and
it's
that
some
of
the
stuff
that
you
brought
up
about.
You
know
how
are
we
creating
like
transit
access?
A
You
know,
I
think
it's
really
promising
that
btd
has
started
getting
people
to
say
yeah,
we'll
do
blue
bikes,
yeah
we'll
do
transit
passes.
I
also
think
last
mile
service
right,
like
I
know,
in
austin
brighton.
I
was
on
a
call
last
night
about
the
mission
hill
link,
which
is
the
last
mile
service
in
mission
hill,
like
thinking
about
how
we
get
people
to
transit.
If
they
don't
live
near
it.
A
These
are
the
key
things
I
think
you
and
I
councilor
edwards
speaking
of
districts,
1
and
8
are
strong
proponents
of
the
red
blue
connector
and
thinking
about
how
we
enable
people
to
get
where
they
need
to
get
more
easily.
I
mean
I
am
of
the
opinion
that
the
red
blue
connector
alone
would
cut
a
whole
bunch
of
car
trips
out
because
it
would
just
make
a
bunch
of
trips
more
reasonable
for
people.
A
So
I
guess
my
point
is
like
it's
true
that
we're
in
a
congestion
crisis
and
a
housing
crisis
that
and
they
are
interlocked-
and
so
I
I
kind
of-
and
I
hear
you
saying
like-
we
can't
pretend
that
isn't
true,
and
I
agree
with
you
that
we
can't
pretend
that
isn't
true.
But
I
also
think
that
when
we
look
at
those
interlocked
things-
and
we
say
which
of
these-
do
we
have
to
solve
for
like
the
solution
where
we
tamp
down
on
affordable
housing
development's
an
unacceptable
solution.
A
B
I'm
just
not
going
to
pretend
that
this
doesn't
impact
it
and
that
it
doesn't
like
the
the
backlash
or
whatnot
that
maybe
I
I
maybe
the
only
one
who
receives
it,
who
will
have
it
so
I'm
bringing
things
in
I'm
brought
up
race.
I
brought
up
the
fact
that
it
was
really
classy
and
racist
of
the
person
to
sue
on
the
under
the
guise
of
parking.
B
I'm
talking
these
real
truths
and
you
will
have
the
same
elitism,
elitism,
racism
and
so
on
and
so
forth
and
forever,
whatever
fake
lawsuit
that
comes
down
the
pipe,
because
we
do
not.
As
a
city,
we
are
highly
segregated.
Financially,
we
are
highly
segregated
racially
and
anything
that
looks
like
a
threat
to
certain
segregation
or
certain
isolation
of
certain
communities
will
be
sued
upon.
B
B
B
I
also
want
to
be
clear
that
it
is
not,
I
don't
believe
in
the
false
choice,
but
I
I
think
if
you
don't
come
with
the,
if
we're
going
to
eliminate
this,
it
is
because
we
expect
the
affordable
housing
developers
to
actually
make
truly
affordable
housing,
which,
for
for
many
of
us
we've
all
heard
the
70
is
not
70.
Ami
is
not
my
average
ami
in
east
boston
based
on
our
studies,
is
50.
B
We
are
70
renters.
We
cannot
afford
70
ami,
so
this
is
happening
under
a
standard
that
is
not
defined
and
not
defined
by
the
people,
who
will
benefit
benefiting
from
this
that
we
studied,
who
would
benefit
from
this
if
it's
not
defined
by
them,
if
they're,
not
the
ones
who
are
going
to
be
part
of
leading
this
conversation,
then
yeah,
I'm
hella,
skeptical
and
concerned
that
we
are
talking
about
logical
conclusions
instead
of
practical
realities.
A
A
I
think
that,
like
we've
seen
and
we've
seen
it
not
just
in
boston
all
over
the
region,
I
mean
mapc
just
came
out
with
their
report
on
the
number
of
parking
spots
that
are
going
unused,
but
we
we've
seen
it
used
to
exclude
families
being
exact
in
exactly
the
way
that
you
want
to
prevent
from
happening.
So
I
I
take
the
point,
but
I
just
I
think
we're
I
think,
we're
all
actually
rolling
in
the
same
direction
here.
M
I'm
very
sorry
for
being
in
and
out,
I
had
to
jump
to
another
zoom
meeting
and
I
didn't
realize
the
timing
involved.
I
don't
know
if
you
need
for
the
record
richard
giordano.
I
work
at
fenway
cdc,
I'm
also
on
the
board
of
two
other
cdc's
in
mission
hill
and
just
a
few
things
about
the
idea
of
changing
the
zoning
and
the
parking
restrictions
for
100,
affordable
housing.
M
I'm
not
sure
that
we
know
the
complete
answer
for
the
entire
city,
but
I
think
it's
something
that
needs
to
be
addressed
and,
in
addition,
there
is
something
that,
while
it's
outside
the
scope
of
parking,
we
need
to
remember,
which
is
that
affordable
housing
projects
are
often
treated
by
the
various
city
departments
as
the
the
bandwagon
on
which
they're
going
to
hitch
everything
else
that
they
want
to
have
happen
so
often
affordable,
housing
developments
are
asked
to
fix.
The
sidewalks
in
within
blocks
of
the
project.
M
They're
often
asked
to
take
on
maintenance
of
parks
around
them.
They're
often
asked
to
do
a
whole
bunch
of
other
things,
and
yet
the
different
departments
don't
admit
that
these
things
all
add
costs
and
make
it
more
and
more
impossible
to
stay
within
the
development
limits
that
have
been
set
for
total
development
cost
by
the
city
in
the
state
and
parking
is
one
of
those
problems
that
is
created,
especially
in
the
fun
way.
M
So
you
know
I
I
realize
this
is
a
fairly
complex
issue
and
it
plays
out
differently
in
different
neighborhoods,
but
I
can
assure
you
that
in
mission
hill
we've
had
a
history
of
local
people
using
every
available
tool
to
sue
and
block
housing
left
and
right.
Fortunately,
that's
tapered
off
in
the
last
year
or
two,
but
it
has
delayed
dozen
or
so
housing
projects
and,
in
fact,
has
probably
killed
one
or
two
completely.
M
So
the
reality
in
some
neighborhoods
is
that
the
zoning
tools
which
were
meant
to
regularize
and
make
development
reasonable,
are
also
used
to
stop
development
in
fairly
deleterious
ways.
So
you
know
the
parking
requirements
kind
of
fit
into
this
bigger
picture
of
affordable
housing
being
asked
to
do
more
and
more,
and
yet
the
subsidy
system
does
not
admit
that
parking
being
one
of
them
and
then
the
reality
on
the
ground
is
that
in
certain
neighborhoods
the
parking
requirement
is
used
to
stop
affordable
housing
and
also
in
the
fenway.
M
Of
course,
we
are
doing
subsidies,
as
I
think
was
recommended
earlier
on
the
blue
bikes
and
on
transit
passes,
which
that's
a
very
reasonable
trade-off,
but
you
know
the
the
issue
that
I
think
counselors,
o'malley
and
bach
are
addressing
still
need
to
be
resolved
and
that
it's
you
know
this
parking
situation
is
tricky,
but
that
there
are
folks
who
really
want
to
stop
the
production
of
affordable
housing
and
they
do
it
through
this
kind
of
requirement.
So
it's
it's
complicated.
M
A
A
B
S
Did
I
start
yeah
yeah
your
counselor
thanks
for
hosting
this
working
session,
hi
councilor
o'malley?
Who
represents
our
district
council
for
buck?
I
work
at
a
community
development
corporation
in
jamaica,
plain,
jp
and
dc,
and
I
think
to
this
point
I
appreciate
the
conversation
from
our
perspective.
We
appreciate
the
conversation
around
equity.
We
know
that
with
our
family
housing
development
there
is
a
need
for
for
cars
and
for
parking
a
lot
of
times
because
of
the
lack
of
investment
from
the
city
and
the
state
and
public
transportation.
S
Better
roadways,
it's
just
impossible
for
folks
to
afford
child
care
in
one
part
of
the
city
and
make
our
way
to
the
job
in
another
part
of
the
city
and
by
the
virtue
of
the
wages
we
pay
like.
That's
just
where
folks
are
working,
they're
less
likely
to
have
access
to
daycare
if
they
have
families
or
what
not
in
one
central
location,
in
the
way
that
folks
who
make
more
money
can
so
it's.
It
really
is
essential
that
families
have
parking.
S
So
I
don't
think
that
we
should
eliminate
minimums
for
affordable
family
housing.
Seniors
is
a
whole
different
story.
A
lot
of
our
senior
developments
have
like
one
or
two
people
who
park
cars
so,
like
obviously,
that's
a
very
different
situation,
same
thing
for
folks
who
are
coming
out
of
chronically
homeless
housing.
We
have
very
low
parking
ratios
for
those,
but
I
just
wanted
to
speak
to
to
that
point
and
say
that
you
know
we
can't
create.
We
can't,
I
think
the
biggest
problem
is
on
washington
street.
With
plan
jp
rocks.
S
We
haven't
codified
it,
so
we
haven't
created
any
sort
of
like
strength
behind
it
and
the
only
two
affordable
housing
developments
that
have
developed
on
that
corridor.
In
the
last,
like
five
six
years
have
been
sued
and,
as
andy
said
before,
theirs
wasn't
a
parking
issue,
but
jp
dc's
is
a
parking
issue
and
it's
kind
of
it's
something
is
going.
S
Something
is
not
a
meeting
and
making
ends
meet
if
the
only
two
affordable
housing
developments
in
a
plan
that
was
supposed
to
allocate
like
3,
500,
affordable
housing
units
or
something
are
getting
sued
and
we've
clearly
failed
at
that
intersection
and
creating
sort
of
like
any
teeth
behind
that
plan.
So,
just
just
that,
it's
it's
I
think
in
in
my
mind,
parking
is
an
equity-based
issue.
S
T
Yeah,
my
name
is
eric.
Harrett
live
in
jamaica
plain.
I
firstly
just
wanted
to
push
back
quickly
on
a
little
bit
of.
Firstly,
obviously
thank
you
so
much
kenzie
bach
and
matt
o'malley
for
hosting
this
hearing.
It's
it's.
It's
awesome
to
hear
something
that
is
so
near
and
dear
to
my
heart
being
talked
about
in
such
a
public
capacity.
T
Sorry,
yes,
council,
council,
o'malley,
council,
bach,
counselor
edwards,
and
thank
you
for
calling
the
hearing
the
bit
about
70
ami
is
a
limit.
70
ami
units
have
a
rent
set
at
50
percent
ami.
If
you
were
to
set
the
limit
at
70
at
50
ami,
it's
likely
that
most
of
the
people
in
your
district
wouldn't
be
able
to
live
in
those
units
anyway,
I
definitely
want
to
push
back
strongly
on
the
notion
that
is
not
parking
over
housing.
T
Everything
in
city
politics,
especially
when
it
comes
to
zoning,
is
about
space
so
and
space.
How
we
set
space
is
about
how
we
set
our
priorities.
If
we
have
said
we
want
affordable
housing
but
and
the
but
includes
a
list
of
things
that
happens
to
also
includes
park
include
parking,
it
doesn't
really
matter
how
you
finagle
the
wording.
There
are
times
when
you
are
going
to
be
saying.
T
We
are
okay
with
not
building
these
affordable
units
because
we
want
the
parking
first
of
all
and
second
of
all,
there
is
not
a
single
neighborhood
in
any
thriving
city
in
the
world.
That
does
not
have
a
parking
problem.
You
cannot
address
this
problem
by
building
more
of
it.
In
fact,
all
you
get
by
building
more
of
it
is
more
people
driving
into
the
same
neighborhood
bringing
more
traffic.
Yes,
I
understand
the
concept
that,
if
you
could
just
get
to
a
certain
to
a
magical,
high
level
of
parking,
that's
just
enough.
T
Maybe
you'll
have
so
many
places
to
park
cars
that
you
won't
need
to
worry
about.
The
fact
that
you
have
to
drive
around
looking
for
empty
parking
spaces,
but
frankly,
I
don't
even
think
that's
likely
to
happen
because
the
parking
in
the
buildings
and
the
parking
on
the
street
they're
not
even
part
of
the
same
pool
really
like
you,
can
build
all
the
parking
you
want
in
a
building
and
it
will
not
address
your
parking
on
on
the
street.
T
And
lastly,
just
you
know,
I
feel
like
it's
a
little
bit
weird,
that
as
a
city
council
we're
considering
the
idea
that,
like
we
know
better,
the
city
knows
better
what
the
needs
of
the
parking
the
parking
needs
are
of
the
residents
of
affordable
housing
than
the
various
cdc's
we've
charged
with
building
this
stuff
and
with
being
experts
on
the
topic.
So
you
know
we
don't
require
every
unit
to
be
a
two-bedroom
unit.
We
don't
make
them
build
two
bathrooms
in
every
unit
and
we
don't
do
that.
T
U
U
I
really
just
wanted
to
come
here
and
give
you
my
personal
opinion
about
the
impact
of
not
providing
parking.
Spaces
is
on
the
existing
residence
in
a
neighborhood,
and
I
know
that
this
bill
specifically
addresses
100,
affordable
units
exclusively,
and
I
know
that
is
not
the
majority
of
affordable
housing
in
the
city,
but-
and
I
don't
want
to
take
away
at
all
from
the
importance
of
providing
affordable
housing
for
people
who
need
it
or
the
importance
of
addressing
climate
change.
U
But
we
have
an
extraordinary
income
in
a
quality
problem
in
this
country,
and
the
impact
of
that
is
that,
rather
than
addressing
it
at
a
national
level,
cities
and
towns
are
forced
to
deal
with
it
on
a
local
level,
and
so
when
we
try
to
create
more
housing
in
existing
overcrowded
neighborhoods,
where
there
are
already
more
and
more
people
trying
to
move
into
those
neighborhoods,
the
existing
residents
suffer
a
degree
of
quality
of
life.
Change
that
creates
a
lot
of
resentment
and
anger
in
the
community.
U
It
personally
has
affected
me.
I
do
pay
for
off-street
parking.
It
is
not
uncommon
for
me
to
come
home
to
park
my
car,
because
I
do
provide
supplemental
elder
care
and
to
find
somebody
else
who
is
a
complete
stranger
parked
in
my
parking
spot
that
has
happened
at
times.
I
have
had
to
go
to
funerals
for
co-workers.
U
It
has
happened
at
two
o'clock
in
the
morning
and
I've
gotten
into
arguments
with
people
about
it.
Now
I
know
that's
just
anecdotes,
that's
not
data.
I
did
look
at
the
study
that
was
linked
in
the
description
of
the
docket
hearing
that
was
performed,
and
even
in
that
study
you
know
the
the
city
councils
proposing
to
have
zero
parking
spots
in
affordable
housing
units,
but
even
in
that
study
I
think
it
was
0.55,
so
about
half
of
the
affordable
units
actually
did
have
tenants
or
residents
who
own
cars.
U
U
U
I
don't
understand
why
we
need
to
kill
him,
as
you
know,
mosquito
with
a
bazooka.
I
just
think
that
the
proposed
amendment
is
too
broad
a
brush
like
it
can't
be
for
every
neighborhood
and
it
can't
be
across
the
board
if
what
the
city
council
is
trying
to
do
is
address
the
the
circumstances
that
created
a
frivolous
lawsuit-
and
you
know
to
counselor
edward's
point
that
lawsuit
very
may
well
have
have
been
triggered
by
the
demographics
of
the
people
that
were
moving
into
that
affordable
unit.
U
You
know
there
are
other
options
here
than
just
removing
parking
minimums
in
entirety.
You
know
the
city
council
could
pass
an
ordinance
that
50
of
a
budders
need
to
join
the
lawsuit
or
that
the
you
know
the
property
owner
needs
to
prove
some
sort
of
you
know,
like
I
don't
know
harm
done
to
them.
I'm
not
100
sure,
I'm
not
a
legal
expert.
U
But
to
me
that's
just
it's
it's
too
much,
and
you
know
from
from
day
to
day
living
in
the
city
as
somebody
who
wants
to
stay
in
south
boston
and
doesn't
want
to
leave.
I'm
just.
I'm
just
really
really
concerned
that
that
the
long-term
vision
here
is
more
so
about
you
know
allowing
people
to
live
with.
You
know
greater
inconvenience,
greater
discomfort
without
a
real
vision
like
we're
just
going
to
let
this
get
as
as
bad
as
possible
for
local
residents
until
eventually
people
just
get
rid
of
their
cars.
U
I
I
know
that
public
transit
is
super
important.
I
would
pay
higher
taxes
to
support
greater
expansion
of
public
transit
in
this
city.
I
would
have
no
problem
with
that
whatsoever,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
these
are
all
still
multi-year,
potentially
multi-decade
projects
and
people
who
live
in
my
neighborhood
have
kids.
They
also
have
to
provide
elder
care.
They
also
have
they
have
to
transport
heavy
goods
from
location
a
to
location
b.
U
This
idea
that
affordable
housing
means
that
we
can't
incorporate
the
cost
of
parking
into
it
does
not
in
any
way
take
away
from
the
fact
that
people
still
need
it,
and
you
know
as
much
as
I
absolutely
support
people
who
are
currently
using
affordable
housing.
You
know
it
just
it
their
lives
change,
they
may
have
kids,
they
may
need
to
change
their
job.
U
On
a
tuesday.
I
just
don't
want
this
situation
to
continue
because
I
love
this
city.
I'm
really
happy
with
my
neighbors,
and
I
want
people
to
have
a
good
quality
of
life
here
and
continued
overcrowding
without
thoughts
to
people's
quality
of
life
is
really
concerning
to
me,
and
I
assume
the
best
motives
on
the
part
of
all
the
city
councillors.
U
E
U
B
Q
You
apologies.
Thank
you,
councillor
edwards.
I
just
wanted
to
drive
home
one
additional
point,
or
I
was
a
point
that
I
already
made,
and
I
think
it's
relevant
to
some
of
the
concerns
that
you
know
the
previous
member
of
the
public
mentioned
and
and
some
counselors
have
as
well
eliminating
parking
minimums
just
eliminates
what
is
potentially
an
onerous
requirement
for
a
developer.
It
does
not
prohibit
developers
from
building
parking.
Q
The
nonprofit,
affordable
housing
developers
want
to
build
a
project
that
will
work
that
will
attract
the
residents
that
they
want
to
serve
and,
if
you
know
in
the
case
of
let's
say
a
family
development
in
jamaica
plain,
they
realize
that
they
need
to
include
parking.
The
elimination
of
parking
minimums
does
not
prohibit
them
from
doing
this.
Q
B
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
just
want
to
touch
on
a
number
of
points
and
then
I
have
to
head
to
abcd
speaking
engagement,
but
in
terms
of
a
number
of
valid
concerns
that
the
chair
brought
up,
including
who
is
represented
here
and
who's
speaking
here.
I
do
think
that
if
we're
gonna
tell
honest
truths
about
our
housing
development
process,
it's
very
important
that
we
also
acknowledge
that
our
community
meetings,
our
butter
meetings,
the
folks
who
engage
in
these
processes-
don't
look
like
the
folks.
They
don't
look
like
me.
L
Certainly
don't
look
like
you
madame
chair
and
that's
a
real
issue
that
we
face
and
I
think
if
we
did
we'd
notice,
some
different
things
and
I'll
just
speak
from
my
own
district.
The
issues
that
I
have
had
brought
forward
to
me
from
constituents
of
color
over
development
in
the
past
two
years
have
revolved
around
environmental
concerns.
I
have
revolved
around
health
and
health
concerns
with
a
burger
king
in
my
district,
the
vast
majority
of
the
time
folks,
who
are
bringing
up
parking
folks
who
are
bringing
up
the
issue
of
parking.
L
If
that's
what
we're
doing
with
the
process,
I
think
there's
valid
concerns
here.
I
will
say
my
godfather
lives
in
south
boston
he's
had
serious
medical
issues.
He
lives
on
m
street
right
across
from
the
m
street
park.
He
has
serious
medical
issues
over
the
last
six
years
and
I've
gone,
for
instance,
during
the
coveted
pandemic,
to
help
him
with
groceries
and
things
of
that
nature,
and
I'm
very
aware
of
the
parking
concerns
and
the
parking
issues
that
south
boston
has.
L
It
can
be
impossible
to
find
a
spot
after
eight,
but
what
I
do
think
what
we're
talking
about
specifically
here
with
affordable
housing
at
100
level
rate,
the
reality
is
our
we
need
it.
We're
not.
We
are
in
a
housing
crisis
and
we
also
have
congestion
issues
and
we
have
very
real
issues
with
that,
and
I
will
just
say
this
is
not
a
easty
southie,
relying
issue.
If
you
want
to
come
to
roslindale
square
and
try
to
go
grab
something
really
quick,
you
know
you'll
figure
out
really
quickly.
L
That's
a
parking
is
an
issue
everywhere
specific
parts
of
high
park.
It
can
be
the
same
and
so
from
the
perspective
of
you
know,
speaking
on
who
has
voices
and
who
does
not
have
voices.
I
will
just
say
that
often
in
my
in
my
family's
history-
and
this
is
all
anecdotal,
I'm
sure
there's
data
one
way
or
the
other,
but
driving
is
incredibly
expensive.
It's
not
a
cheap
venture
in
the
city
of
boston
with
excise
taxes.
L
If
you
want
to
get
into
the
documentation-
and
I
would
just
say
this-
is
a
formal
public
defender-
the
criminalization
of
poverty
often
starts
with
moving
violations
and
driving
in
cars
like
that,
and
so
what
we're
talking
about
often
is
folks
who
don't
have
access
to
vehicles,
folks
who
do
have
access
to
vehicles,
but
can't
really
afford
it
they're
on
the
verge
of
affording
that
and
if
we're
trying
to
create
affordable
housing.
I
think
the
reality
is
if
we're
fighting
over
parking.
Yes,
some
families
doing
in
parking.
L
Some
folks
are
going
through
land
parking,
some
parts
of
our
city-
and
this
is
really
important
to
emphasize,
because
it's
part
of
district
five
have
real
public
transportation,
access
issues
and
equity
issues.
That's
just
real!
I
don't
have
a
single
truck.
I
don't
have
a
train
station
as
far
as
the
mbta
goes.
L
I
think
the
answer
is
yes,
because
they
do
it
right
now
and
I
think
the
reality
is
if
we're
creating
housing
for
them
to
live
in
that
they
can
actually
have
a
home
and
a
stake
in
the
community.
That's
only
we're
gonna
do
it,
because,
where
I'm
facing
rising
displacement,
I
mean
the
folks
who
live
in
my
community
will
tell
you
they've
been
displaced
from
other
communities.
Much
of
my
roslindale
community
has
come
from
jamaica
plain.
I
have
a
joke
at
the
roslindale
farmer
market.
L
When
I
see
somebody
from
jp,
I
say
a
future
resident
because
displacement
is
happening
and
it's
coming
to
the
southern
neighborhoods
and
the
reality
is
as
we
move
forward.
The
only
way
they're
going
to
be
able
to
and
when
I
say
that
I
mean
folks
within
limited
incomes
in
our
communities
to
exist,
is
if
we're
creating
these
kinds
of
housing
and
the
reality
is
every
development
project
that
I
have
if
we're
fighting
over
the
parking
and
the
and
the
affordable
housing
percentage.
L
But
if
we're
going
to
build
a
house,
a
development
because
it
it
has
a
certain
number
of
spots
and
20
to
25
affordability,
I
consider
it
a
much
bigger
win
for
us
as
a
city
if
we
get
much
higher
percentages,
affordability
with
less
parking-
and
I
think
most
folks
would
especially
folks
who
are
struggling
to
hold
on
to
a
place
in
a
residence
in
this
city.
So
thank
you.
I
think
those
are
valid
concerns,
though
council
edwards,
I
think,
there's
certain
loopholes.
L
We
can
try
to
make
sure
we
don't
we
we
write
out,
but
I
do
want
to
just
stress
that
when
we
fight
over
parking
over
affordable
housing,
we
are
fighting
over
a
house
in
a
car
over
housing,
a
human
and
that's
just
the
reality
of
that,
and
so
I'm
I'm
going
to
head
off
to
this
thing.
Thank
you.
Everybody.
Thank
you
for
the
comments
and
thank
you
for
the
residents
who
stayed
on
to
to
voice
their
opinions.
I
know
this
is
something
people
are
passionate
about.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
B
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I
I
will
keep
it
brief,
appreciate
everyone's
insights,
opinions,
thoughts
and
life
experience,
and
you
know
I
I
just
want
to
be
clear
here
and
this
this
may
be
a
bit
repetitive,
but
what
we're
talking
about
here?
I
don't
want
us
to
conflate
the
very
real
issue
that
parking
is
difficult
in
the
city
of
boston.
There's
no
question
that
the
downtown
neighborhoods
feel
it
acutely
more
acutely
than
perhaps
the
outer
lying
neighbors,
but
but
we
feel
it
too.
There's
no
question
about
it.
D
There
was
a
study
in
the
globe.
I
believe
yesterday
saying
that
traffic
is
now
returned
to
pre-pandemic
levels.
This
is
a
big
issue,
but
we're
not
talking
about
to
jesse,
kansas
and
benevolence
point
we're
not
talking
about
eliminating
all
parking
at
all
development
or
even
all
100
development.
What
we're
simply
talking
about
as
looking
at
these
really
unique
situations
where
parking
requirements
have
been
used
as
a
cudgel
to
prevent
progress,
so
we're
talking
about
quality
of
life
and
that's
important.
D
That's
what
I've
been
focused
on
in
11
years
as
a
district
city
councilor,
your
your
quality
of
life,
the
predecessor,
council,
royal
council,
mccarthy,
used
to
say
what
happens
in
front
of
your
front
door
is
what's
important
to
me,
meaning
him
as
city
council,
and
I
think
that
we
all
share
that.
But
I'm
also
concerned
about
the
quality
of
life
of
these
200
plus,
formerly
homeless,
individuals
who
have
had
their
housing
further
delayed
amid
pandemic.
At
a
time
when
it's
needed.
D
I'm
also
concerned
about
the
quality
of
life
of
these
30
plus
senior
citizens,
older
bostonians,
who
will
be
gentrified
out
who
will
be
displaced
by
the
high
high
cost
of
rents.
The
jp
ndc
has
worked
with
not
only
providing
a
home,
a
safe,
wonderful,
thriving
home
for
them,
but
also
two
beloved
businesses
to
be
able
to
keep
those
in
the
neighborhood.
These
quality
of
life
have
been
disregarded
in
under
the
guise
of
a
frivolous
lawsuit.
D
So
what
what
counselor
bach
and
I
are
trying
to
do
there
and
obviously
we
recognize
they'll,
be
further
working
session
or
further
hearing.
However,
the
chair
and-
and
we
decide
to
proceed
and
there'll-
be
more
conversation
on
this,
but
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
really
address
a
problem
that
is
impacting
people
and
it's
growing
people.
D
It
does
not
diminish
other
concerns
that
have
been
raised
by
so
many
other
folks
concerns
that
I
share
that
kenzie
shares
we
are
focused
on
this,
but
for
what
we're
specifically
trying
to
do
right
here
as
it
relates
to
100
deeply
affordable.
Far
beyond
the
70
or
50
percent
ami.
Looking
at
these
vulnerable
populations,
we
want
to
make
sure
they're
able
to
provide
for
them
and,
quite
frankly,
work
with
the
great
nonprofits,
the
the
community
builders
pine
street
in
jpnbc
urban
edge,
so
many
others
that
have
been
working
in
the
trenches.
D
Almost
almost
I
said,
everyone
was
in
favor
this
except
one
landlord
and
that
perhaps
that's
a
bit
of
a
overstatement,
but
but
suffice
it
to
say
these
were
incredibly
vetted
and
supported
projects,
and
I'm
just
going
to
continue
to
fight
to
make
sure
that
we
can
make
it
happen
to
make
sure
that
we
won't
allow
for
any
false
tools
to
be
used
against
them
so
appreciate
everyone's
time.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank
you.
Council.
A
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
counselors,
o'malley
and
arroyo
have
been
eloquent
and
so
I'll
keep
my
remarks
brief.
I
just
I
think
that
I,
I
think
a
lot
about
the
fact
that,
in
all
conversation
I
mean
there's
the
issue
that
counselor
arroyo
raised
about.
You
know
who
comes
to
a
better
meetings
and
neighborhood
meetings,
but
with
housing.
A
So
I
I
appreciate
all
the
comments
today
and
I
think,
obviously
you
know
we'll
work
with
you,
madam
chair,
and
think
about
ways
to
kind
of
edit
the
proposal
to
to
adjust
for
some
of
those
concerns
in
a
further
conversation.
But
I
I
do
hope
this
is
something
that
we
can
move
forward
because
I
think
it's
needed.
So
thank
you.