Re: Contract Zoning and Community Benefits – Lessons Learned from the 320 Charles Street Process

Dear Honorable Members of the Cambridge City Council,

As the City Council considers the September 8, 2025 Policy Order aimed at improving the process for allocating mitigation benefits, we would like to share insights gained from our recent involvement – as advisors to the East End House – in the up-zoning process for 320 Charles Street undertaken by BioMed Realty.

The 320 Charles Street process largely followed the City’s decades-old framework for contract zoning. This included developer-hosted public meetings, engagement with proximate neighborhood groups and residents, and collaboration with the community to identify neighborhood projects or non-profit organizations to receive benefit allocations. As with other recent contract zoning cases – Alexandria’s Moderna building, Boston Properties’ AstraZeneca project in MXD, and IQHQ’s Alewife development – BioMed adhered to long-established practices and complied with public notice requirements and with the February 4, 2019 Policy Order. That order directs developers to allocate payments commensurate with the increase in land value conferred by an up-zoning toward “development impact mitigation, infrastructure improvements, community public benefits, and/or fulfilling City Council goals/projects.”

However, the process became mired in an unavoidable conflict between two Council-approved pathways for allocating contract-zoning-related benefits:

1. The historical pathway for allocating “development impact mitigation” payments to the neighborhoods most directly affected by the development; and
2. The Community Benefits Stabilization Fund pathway, established by ordinance in December 2015 to distribute funds – primarily to non-profit organizations – through the Community Benefits Advisory Committee.

At the time of the 320 Charles Street up-zoning, the Stabilization Fund included an exclusion on the use of funds for capital projects such as infrastructure and equipment. These limitations may be lifted under the proposed Policy Order of June 23, 2025.

The lack of clarity about how these two pathways relate to each other created unnecessary and unhealthy tension among honorable parties in the City – particularly between non-profits and neighborhood groups.
To improve the process and avoid such conflicts in the future, it is important to work backwards from the goals the City, neighborhoods, and non-profit sector collectively seek to achieve. We offer the following articulation of these goals as a basis for process reform.

Goals and Needs of the Most Impacted Neighborhoods

For neighborhoods most affected by development, the primary goal is to receive meaningful mitigation to help maintain or improve their quality of life – often diminished by large adjacent developments. Impacts may include prolonged construction disruptions, increased traffic and parking pressures, noise, light and air pollution, loss of sky and light, diminished tree canopy, loss of open space, and more. (We also acknowledge the benefits of development such as job creation and increased tax revenues.)

Historically, mitigation funds have supported neighborhood priorities such as parks, community centers, job training, arts programming, tree planting, infrastructure upgrades – including substations – and scholarship programs.
The voice of the neighborhood and its residents – working with City staff and Council—has been essential in shaping such mitigation. Traditionally, this voice has been expressed through neighborhood groups, whether longstanding or ad-hoc.

Looking ahead, several questions arise for Council consideration:

• How can the neighborhood engagement process be strengthened and modernized?
• Could formalizing neighborhood group structures improve representation and continuity?
• Should CDD restore the former model of assigning a neighborhood liaison to manage review and mitigation processes?
• At what stage should the Council weigh in on proposed allocations?
• Should the Council set broad policy parameters or evaluate detailed project proposals?

Goals and Purpose of the Community Benefits Stabilization Fund

The 2015 ordinance establishing the Community Benefits Stabilization Fund defines “Community Benefits” as programs or services that directly benefit Cambridge residents, particularly in the areas of human services, the arts, cultural enrichment, sustainability, public health, housing, and STEAM education – all provided by community-based organizations.

The ordinance also outlines a process whereby the City Council periodically assesses funding priorities, based in part on a needs assessment conducted every 3–5 years. The City Manager then recommends appropriations to the Fund, presumably informed by the Community Benefits Advisory Committee.

It is unclear whether the Council intended in 2015 that all developer payments from contract zoning be routed exclusively through the Stabilization Fund. In practice, they have not. Several major projects – including the MXD electrical substation, gas transfer station relocation, and theater development at 585 Third Street – did not go through the Stabilization Fund or its process.

Moreover, the Stabilization Fund’s needs assessment appears to focus primarily – and narrowly -on human services delivered by non-profit organizations. It is not designed to identify or evaluate major urban infrastructure needs such as substations, community centers, or new parks.

An alternative to complete consolidation may be to preserve both pathways and establish a clear, predictable, and equitable percentage allocation for each. This would reduce competition between neighborhood groups and non-profits and help prevent conflicts such as those that arose during the 320 Charles Street process.

These observations and recommendations are offered in good faith, with the hope that thoughtful reforms will prevent the divisions and misunderstandings experienced during the 320 Charles Street up-zoning process.

Contract zoning and community benefit allocation are complex, nuanced, and high-impact systems. We deeply appreciate the work of the Council, City administration, and community organizations in seeking a more equitable, transparent, and effective approach. Should a task force be established to examine these issues further, we would be happy to serve.

Respectfully,

Peter Crawley
Environmental Sustainability Consultant and Past President of East Cambridge Planning Team

Dennis Carlone
Architect / Urban Designer
Former Cambridge City Council Member