City Council - Planning, Development, and Transportation Committee Hearing on Docket #0161

Meeting Date: December 09, 2025 at 02:00 PM Governing Body: Boston City Council - Planning, Development, and Transportation Committee Type of Meeting: Public Hearing Attendees: Sharon Durkan (Chair), Edward Flynn, Enrique Pepén, Erin Murphy, Benjamin Weber, John Fitzgerald, Henry Santana, Gabriela Coletta Zapata, Julia Mejia, Ruthzee Louijeune, Brian Worrell. Administration Panel: Devin Quirk (Deputy Chief of Planning), Jeff Thomas (Special Assistant to the Chief of Planning), Jim Fitzgerald (Deputy Director of Planner Review). Expert Panel: Eric Robinson (Architect), Jesse Kanson-Benanov (Executive Director, Abundant Housing Massachusetts), Henry Grabar (Journalist and Author), Adi Nochomovitz (Senior Transportation Planner, MAPC), Daniel Herriges (Policy Director, Parking Reform Network).

• Chair Sharon Durkan called the hearing to order at 2:04 PM.
• The hearing is being recorded and live-streamed.
• Written comments can be sent to ccc.plandev@boston.gov.
• Public testimony will be taken at the end, with a two-minute limit per speaker.
• Docket #0161: Order for hearing to explore amending the Boston Zoning Code to remove parking minimum requirements for new development.
• Chair Durkan (Lead Sponsor):
  • Highlighted the housing crisis in Boston and the need for affordable housing.
  • Stated that parking minimums in the zoning code create barriers to housing.
  • Emphasized that eliminating parking minimums does not ban parking, but removes outdated, arbitrary baselines.
  • Cited a Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) study finding nearly 30% of parking spaces in Boston are vacant at peak times, costing tens of thousands to build and increasing housing costs.
  • Mentioned other cities (Austin, Seattle, Minneapolis, Somerville, Cambridge, Salem, New Bedford) that have eliminated parking minimums.
  • Acknowledged former City Councilor Kenzie Bach's 2021 elimination of parking mandates for affordable housing, but stated it was not enough.
  • Stressed that this is a step-by-step process to address the housing crisis and economic challenges.
• Councilor Edward Flynn:
  • Expressed concern about exacerbating existing parking issues in neighborhoods like Chinatown, South End, and South Boston.
  • Stated that many working families, seniors, and persons with disabilities rely on cars.
  • Cited 29,000 active resident parking permits for only 10,000 on-street spaces in South Boston, leading to a BTD audit that removed 8,000 permits.
  • Advocated for supporting residents who need cars for work, family, and appointments.
• Councilor Enrique Pepén:
  • Viewed the change as promoting flexibility and affordability.
  • Stated that parking minimums force developers, especially small builders, to include expensive parking, with costs passed to residents as higher rents.
  • Clarified that eliminating minimums allows projects to include the "right amount" of parking for each neighborhood, not eliminate parking entirely.
  • Supported climate and mobility goals by not making people pay for unused parking.
  • Expressed hope that the hearing would debunk myths about eliminating all parking.
• Councilor Erin Murphy:
  • Believed eliminating all parking minimums citywide is "extreme" and ignores neighborhood realities.
  • Acknowledged the need for more housing but argued against a "blanket citywide elimination."
  • Stated that for many residents, a car is a necessity, not a choice (e.g., nurses, home health aides, tradespeople, grandparents).
  • Predicted that developers would stop building parking, leading to more cars on crowded streets, which is "not smart planning" or "equity."
  • Advocated for flexible parking requirements based on transit access, incentives for low-parking developments, and strong parking management plans.
• Councilor Benjamin Weber:
  • Echoed Councilor Pepén that the discussion is about flexibility, not eliminating parking.
  • Stated that parking minimums are used to block housing, citing the Turtle Swamp Brewery and Pine Street Inn projects in Jamaica Plain.
  • Suggested letting the market decide parking needs, noting that Back Bay residents may not need parking, while West Roxbury residents likely would.
  • Argued that the current "one size fits all" minimums are used to block needed housing.
• Councilor John Fitzgerald:
  • Expressed fear that developers would take advantage of eliminated minimums by building more units without adequate parking, leading to increased on-street parking in residential neighborhoods.
  • Described a scenario where increased on-street parking would aggravate homeowners and potentially drive families out of the city.
  • Believed that while transit-oriented developments might not need parking, a blanket elimination would be detrimental to homeowners.
• Councilor Henry Santana (Co-Sponsor):
  • Supported eliminating parking minimums, citing Austin, Texas's successful experience.
  • Acknowledged opposition but stated the current system is not working for Boston's housing crisis.
  • Reiterated that elimination allows for appropriate parking amounts, not zero parking.
  • Agreed with Councilor Weber that current minimums are "one size fits all."
  • Believed eliminating minimums would create more affordable housing and that parking needs a separate conversation (e.g., municipal lots).
• Councilor Gabriela Coletta Zapata:
  • Referred to Plan East Boston as an example of simplifying parking control by consolidating use categories and regulating spaces per square foot for residential units.
  • Noted that Plan East Boston proposed eliminating minimum parking ratios in mixed-use squares.
  • Expressed interest in understanding the real-time impacts of these changes on businesses and residents.
• Administration Opening Statement (Devin Quirk):
  • Stated that the administration believes affordability is central, and unnecessary parking increases housing costs.
  • Aimed to address arbitrary parking restrictions in the zoning code.
  • Supported incentivizing public transportation usage.
  • Noted that parking minimums have already been eliminated in some areas (downtown core, South Boston, East Boston, Mattapan, Roslindale Square, Charlestown) and are generally working.
  • Emphasized the importance of community engagement and nuanced conversations about neighborhood-specific impacts.

• City Councilor Burhan Azim (Cambridge):
  • Stated that many families need cars, but parking minimums "flatten diversity."
  • Cambridge, Somerville, Salem, Manhattan, and Austin have removed parking minimums.
  • Cited an example of an 80-year-old woman in Cambridge who converted her large paved parking lot into a garden after minimums were removed, demonstrating flexibility.
  • Argued that parking minimums force elderly residents to pay for unused parking.
  • Compared parking to closets: not required by code, but still built to meet demand.
  • Noted that most developments in Cambridge still include parking, but it's flexible.
  • Stated that the removal of parking minimums passed almost unanimously in Cambridge and Somerville, and no city has repealed or re-added them.
• Peter Spellios (Principal, Transom Real Estate):
  • Recalled seeking permission in 2013 to remove all parking requirements for a project at Lovejoy Wharf, which was approved and led to Converse's world headquarters and Boston's first parking-free high-rise residential condominium.
  • Stated that parking minimums are a "quiet but most powerful driver" of housing unaffordability.
  • Argued that developers build parking based on actual demand, not mandates, to ensure project viability.
  • Emphasized that mandatory minimums force overbuilding, increasing costs passed to tenants.
  • Believed removing minimums aligns interests by allowing demand-based design, reducing housing production costs, and lowering resident costs.
• Letter from Councilor Liz Breadon (read by Chair Durkan):
  • Expressed support for removing off-street parking minimums for new residential development.
  • Reasons for support:
    • Construction cost: De facto parking ratio for Article 80 projects in Allston-Brighton is approximately 0.5, and the Boston Transportation Department (BTD) has maintained maximum parking ratio guidelines since 2001. Small residential projects are still subject to underlying zoning, placing cost burdens on "missing middle" housing.
    • Prior elimination for affordable housing: The 2021 amendment eliminated off-street parking minimums for affordable housing, allowing determination based on resident need (e.g., Faneuil Gardens project still includes 154 spaces).
  • Acknowledged that the hearing is the "start of the conversation."

• Chair Durkan:
  • Asked why Boston hasn't moved forward on eliminating parking minimums given that over 100 cities have and Boston is in a housing crisis.
  • Devin Quirk:
    • Stated that parking minimums have been eliminated in some areas (downtown core, South Boston, East Boston, Mattapan, Roslindale Square, Charlestown) through "squares and streets" rezoning.
    • Acknowledged that the pace of change might not be fast enough for housing needs.
    • Emphasized the importance of community conversations and addressing other zoning factors to avoid risks.
  • Chair Durkan: Asked about the number of projects going to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for parking variances.
  • Jeff Thomas: Roughly one-third of all ZBA cases are directly parking-related.
  • Chair Durkan: Asked about legal battles over parking variances.
  • Jeff Thomas: Cited the Turtle Swamp Brewing and Pine Street Inn projects as examples of delays and legal challenges due to ZBA variances for parking.
  • Chair Durkan: Asked how parking minimums create legal vulnerability for the city.
  • Jeff Thomas: ZBA decisions can be challenged by abutters, leading to significant delays and costs (six-figure to millions of dollars).
  • Chair Durkan: Asked about the cost to build a parking spot in Boston.
  • Jim Fitzgerald: Up to $50,000 for above-grade structured parking; below-grade is even more ($70,000+).
  • Chair Durkan: Confirmed that this impacts housing prices.
• Councilor Flynn:
  • Asked if most ZBA parking cases are approved.
  • Jeff Thomas: Noted that most city administration recommendations are supported, but not all.
  • Councilor Flynn: Stated that the BPDA encourages developers not to include parking, but his constituents need it.
  • Devin Quirk: Agreed that parking is necessary in many cases and that the administration sometimes advocates for eliminating or reconfiguring parking (e.g., moving underground).
  • Jim Fitzgerald: Clarified that Article 80 projects supersede parking minimums, so those projects would still have similar discussions regardless of citywide changes.
  • Councilor Flynn: Expressed concern that eliminating minimums would force families who need cars out of the city.
• Councilor Pepén:
  • Countered Councilor Flynn, stating that many low-income families cannot afford cars and rely on public transit.
  • Emphasized that parking minimums are correlated with housing, transportation, and zoning, requiring a holistic approach.
  • Cited Roslindale Square and Mattapan Square as examples where zoning and parking minimums were addressed together, leading to predictable development.
  • Asked if eliminating parking minimums would make it easier for local developers.
  • Devin Quirk: Confirmed that parking has a cost and that the "one size fits all" approach doesn't work for diverse neighborhoods.
  • Jim Fitzgerald: Noted that the impact is greatest on small-scale existing buildings and infill development, not Article 80 projects.
  • Councilor Pepén: Stressed the need for proactive messaging to counter the myth that the proposal eliminates all parking.
• Councilor Weber:
  • Compared parking minimums to historical discriminatory labor laws, suggesting they are an outdated barrier.
  • Asked why parking minimums were implemented.
  • Devin Quirk: Stated that some zoning code elements are well-thought-out, others are not, and some are intentionally restrictive. The administration aims to make zoning enforceable and intentional.
  • Councilor Weber: Asked about the impact of flipping the presumption (no minimums, but require variances for other reasons).
  • Jeff Thomas: Explained the difference between parking minimums (mandated) and maximums (policy advanced by BTD), which are tied to mobility scores.
  • Jim Fitzgerald: Added that parking minimums have the most impact on small-scale projects, not Article 80.
  • Councilor Weber: Asked about the cost and delay impact of ZBA challenges.
  • Jeff Thomas: Confirmed significant costs (six-figure to millions) due to legal fees, inflation, and holding costs.
• Councilor Fitzgerald:
  • Expressed personal dislike for cars but reiterated concerns about developers taking advantage and increased paving for driveways.
  • Asked who would decide parking requirements if minimums are eliminated.
  • Jim Fitzgerald: Stated that for Article 80 projects, it's the planning department and BPDA board; for smaller projects, the building commissioner. If no other variances are needed, a development could proceed with no parking.
  • Devin Quirk: Clarified that the administration's current position is not citywide elimination but district-by-district work.
  • Councilor Fitzgerald: Asked how many projects would proceed if minimums were eliminated.
  • Jeff Thomas: No specific number, but proponents are reaching out to adjust projects.
  • Councilor Fitzgerald: Asked if lowering affordability percentages would build more housing than eliminating parking minimums.
  • Devin Quirk: Stated that both are important tools, and the impact of parking minimums varies by project.
  • Jim Fitzgerald: Noted that a third of ZBA cases are parking-related, but many more cases avoid parking violations by prioritizing them over other issues (e.g., open space).
  • Councilor Fitzgerald: Feared developers would build "as of right" with no parking, leading to less housing overall.
• Councilor Santana:
  • Argued that residents leave Boston due to unaffordability, not lack of parking.
  • Asked about the pros and cons of eliminating parking minimums in neighborhoods where it's already happened (East Boston, Charlestown).
  • Jim Fitzgerald: Stated that for small projects (under 6 units in Charlestown, under 3 in East Boston), eliminating minimums has worked well, preventing paving over backyards and encouraging historic preservation.
  • Devin Quirk: Noted that in lower-density areas, accommodating housing, open space, and parking is difficult, and current minimums incentivize parking over open space.
  • Devin Quirk: Reiterated the administration's approach of neighborhood-by-neighborhood engagement and mapping "squares and streets" districts.
  • Councilor Santana: Asked about safeguards to prevent developers from taking advantage.
  • Devin Quirk: Emphasized "writing good zoning" that considers the built form and design of neighborhoods.
  • Jim Fitzgerald: Suggested "surgical things" like lowering minimums in older zoning articles where ratios are high (e.g., two per unit).
• Councilor Coletta Zapata:
  • Asked about the impact of removing off-street parking minimums for structures with six or fewer housing units in Charlestown.
  • Devin Quirk: Stated it functioned well as a historic preservation change, discouraging tearing down houses or paving backyards.
  • Jim Fitzgerald: Noted that it helps with ADU zoning, as existing units adding ADUs can be flagged for parking violations.
  • Councilor Coletta Zapata: Highlighted East Boston's density and limited space, where residents understand parking difficulties.
  • Asked about the MAPC study on parking oversupply and mismatch with demand.
  • Adi Nochomovitz: Confirmed it was an MAPC region-wide study (Perfect Fit Parking, 2019) that included Boston, finding 69% average parking utilization.
• Councilor Worrell:
  • Emphasized that parking is a constant concern in his district (District 4) during development discussions.
  • Stated that every district is different, with varying amenities and transportation access, making cars a necessity for many.
  • Advocated for more parking and applauded the administration's prescriptive approach, hoping it considers mobility and amenities.
• Councilor Julia Mejia:
  • Emphasized the need to consider the "layers of privilege" in the conversation, prioritizing low-income communities.
  • Stated that low-income individuals and people of color are often not the fierce advocates in these discussions.
  • Supported removing parking minimums to prevent "NIMBYs" from using them to block housing for "undesirables."
  • Asked how the rollout would center equity.
  • Devin Quirk: Applauded the 2021 elimination of parking minimums for affordable housing, which prevents challenges on bigoted grounds. Noted that parking minimums don't apply to large-scale Article 80 projects.
  • Councilor Mejia: Asked about the breakdown of affordable units in large-scale projects.
  • Devin Quirk: Stated that inclusionary zoning requires 20% affordable units.
  • Councilor Mejia: Clarified that the hearing is not a vote on a zoning amendment but an exploration.
• Council President Ruthzee Louijeune:
  • Expressed belief in "people over profit and in people over parking."
  • Emphasized the need for clearer data on how housing creation, even market-rate, leads to more affordable housing.
  • Stressed the importance of community engagement to counter the narrative of "elimination of parking."
  • Suggested new language to frame the discussion affirmatively (e.g., "legalizing apartment buildings").
  • Asked for examples of cities where elimination of parking minimums led to more affordable housing or data on how people's mobility choices changed.
  • Devin Quirk: Stated that the city's parking maximums report footnotes research on affordability impacts.
  • Devin Quirk: Identified problems with parking minimums: cost, risk of delay, legal risk, and poorly designed neighborhoods (paving backyards, losing trees).
  • Jim Fitzgerald: Noted that planners are finding more ZBA cases where proponents prioritize parking compliance over other violations (e.g., open space).
  • Jim Fitzgerald: Offered to provide research on other cities' experiences with parking minimums and housing delivery.

• Eric Robinson (Architect):
  • 25-year Dorchester resident, former ZBA architect, owner of a 40-person architectural firm.
  • Stated that parking takes up a disproportionate amount of community conversations.
  • Believed in finding the "right balance" for each project, as was done on the ZBA.
  • Noted that developers do market research for parking needs and aim for viable projects embraced by communities.
• Jesse Kanson-Benanov (Executive Director, Abundant Housing Massachusetts):
  • Presented survey data from Mass Inc. Polling Group (550 Boston residents, English and Spanish, Summer 2023).
  • Key Finding: Over 70% of Boston residents support increasing parking flexibility (eliminating costly parking mandates).
  • Support is broad across neighborhoods (e.g., 67% in Dorchester) and demographic groups (income, renter/owner, families, age).
  • Cited Sarah Bronin's research (2023) identifying Boston's zoning code as "severely broken" and recommending elimination of parking minimums as the #1 reform.
  • Key Points:
    • Increases parking flexibility, unlocks more homes (affordable and market-rate).
    • Better utilizes land, promotes sustainable development.
    • Broad support from city residents.
• Henry Grabar (Journalist and Author, Paved Paradise):
  • Stated that "nimbyism" is often a concern about traffic and parking.
  • Argued that parking minimums encourage car ownership, creating traffic.
  • Identified costly externalities: impede new businesses, raise housing costs, eliminate small infill homes, waste resources, inject uncertainty, force residents to pay for unused parking, and make historic buildings illegal to build today.
  • Attributed these laws to the city's inability to properly price and manage street parking.
  • Suggested targeted policies for street parking (e.g., for families, low-income workers, disabled).
• Adi Nochomovitz (Senior Transportation Planner, MAPC):
  • Managed MAPC's "Perfect Fit Parking" work for a decade.
  • Flagship study (2019) included 55 multifamily sites in Boston across 16 neighborhoods.
  • Findings:
    • Average 3 in 10 parking spaces sat vacant overnight.
    • Average supply: 0.78 spaces/unit; average demand: 0.53 spaces/occupied unit.
    • Parking supply outstripped demand in every Boston neighborhood studied.
    • Parking supply is the primary driver of parking demand (more parking built = more cars attracted).
  • Stated that excess parking reduces land for housing, increases housing costs, and is passed to renters/homeowners.
  • Recommended reducing or removing parking minimums.
  • Cited Salem's recent ordinance to remove minimums.
  • Acknowledged Boston City Council's 2021 leadership in removing minimums for affordable housing.
  • Urged the council to expand this to all new development.
• Daniel Herriges (Policy Director, Parking Reform Network):
  • Stated that the prevailing approach (mid-20th century) was abundant, convenient, free parking, leading to oversupply.
  • "Never such a thing as free parking" – costs are always borne by someone (e.g., $200+ in monthly rent).
  • Parking crowds out housing and makes projects infeasible.
  • Over 100 US cities have fully eliminated minimums, and thousands more have partially.
  • Showed a chart from Minneapolis: parking still built, but the average ratio shifted left (70% of prior average).
  • Stated that a "sizable minority" of new projects are built with little or no parking (e.g., near transit).
  • In Seattle and Buffalo, the majority of new homes permitted after reforms were illegal under prior codes.
  • Cited a Colorado study finding parking reform was the most impactful of six land-use policies, making 71% more units market feasible.
  • Noted that change is incremental, not sudden or disruptive.
• Chair Durkan:
  • Asked Adi Nochomovitz if current policies encourage bringing cars to Boston.
  • Adi Nochomovitz: Yes, more required/built parking attracts more cars.
  • Asked Daniel Herriges why eliminating minimums matters if it's not a "silver bullet."
  • Daniel Herriges: It's an impactful reform that creates possibilities, allowing the market to adjust to demand. It reduces costs, delays, and legal risks.
  • Asked Henry Grabar about the politics of parking reform and the "third rail" analogy.
  • Henry Grabar: Parking affects design, affordability, mobility, and open space. It's hard to measure what isn't built due to minimums. Low-income people and people of color are less likely to own cars and benefit from housing flexibility.
  • Asked Eric Robinson about the impact of parking minimums on project costs and as a "veto point."
  • Eric Robinson: Parking is a significant factor for developers. Rectilinear parking layouts don't fit many irregular Boston sites, making projects unfeasible. Flexibility is needed.
• Councilor Pepén:
  • Asked why parking minimums were implemented.
  • Henry Grabar: To manage perceived chaos of street parking, with the idea that new buildings would alleviate pressure.
  • Asked about approaches cities use to combat lack of parking after eliminating minimums.
  • Henry Grabar: Somerville residents in a no-parking building are not entitled to street permits.
  • Adi Nochomovitz: Recommended unbundling parking from housing costs and offering lower rates for affordable housing residents.
• Councilor Fitzgerald:
  • Asked Jesse Kanson-Benanov about the neighborhood with the lowest "strongly supports" for parking flexibility.
  • Jesse Kanson-Benanov: Dorchester.
  • Asked the panel to respond to his previous questions about developers taking advantage and the impact of lowering affordability percentages.
  • Jesse Kanson-Benanov: Both parking reform and affordability levels are important tools.
  • Adi Nochomovitz: Cited Salem's tiered system for affordable housing and parking reductions.
  • Eric Robinson: Stated that most projects require variances, and the current process is long and costly. Developers are smart and build to market demand.
  • Daniel Herriges: Developers still need to rent/sell units, so they will build parking if needed. Cited Minneapolis and Austin, where parking is still built, but less.
  • Eric Robinson: Clarified that Article 80 projects are arbitrated by the BPDA, but smaller projects are most affected by minimums.
• Councilor Coletta Zapata:
  • Asked if eliminating minimums translates to overall affordability.
  • Daniel Herriges: Parking costs directly translate to rent. Removing minimums removes that cost. New construction is still expensive, but parking reform is one piece of the puzzle.
  • Jesse Kanson-Benanov: Stated that Boston's housing production is disproportionate to population/job growth, driving up costs. Parking mandates add $10-50k+ per unit.
  • Councilor Coletta Zapata: Noted that East Boston's luxury units didn't translate to affordability despite new development.
  • Jesse Kanson-Benanov: Emphasized that 80% of Boston homes are market rate, and most residents can't afford them.
  • Councilor Coletta Zapata: Raised a concern about potential conflict with Article 85 Coastal Flood Zone Overlay District, which suggests parking on ground floors.
• Councilor Mejia:
  • Thanked Henry Grabar for his "solution-focused framework" on targeted parking for specific populations.
  • Asked how to ensure equity and prevent unintended consequences.
  • Henry Grabar: Buildings without parking are cheaper to rent/buy. Cited Los Angeles ADU example: permits jumped after parking requirements were eased, creating naturally occurring affordable housing.
  • Adi Nochomovitz: Reiterated unbundling parking from housing costs and lower rates for affordable housing residents.
  • Councilor Mejia: Reaffirmed her support for the reform, citing her commitment to fighting for those who can't afford to live in the city.
• Council President Ruthzee Louijeune:
  • Thanked Daniel Herriges for data visualization and asked for more on Minneapolis's housing market outcomes.
  • Daniel Herriges: Confirmed that projects are built that would have been illegal before. Minneapolis and Austin saw falling rents after reforms. New market-rate housing alleviates demand for higher-priced housing, freeing up lower-priced options.
  • Council President Louijeune: Asked for clearer language beyond "the market responds accordingly."
  • Henry Grabar: Emphasized that Boston has an extreme shortage of homes, driving competition and impacting low-income people and people of color. Exclusionary zoning, including parking mandates, makes the city less accessible.
  • Cited Austin (22% rent fall) and Minneapolis (lower inflation) as examples of positive outcomes from parking reform.

• Letter from NIOP Massachusetts (read by Chair Durkan):
  • Strongly supported eliminating parking minimums.
  • Cited a 44% decline in new housing units permitted in 2025 compared to 2021.
  • Stated that structured parking costs a minimum of $50,000 per space.
  • Cited evidence from Buffalo, Seattle, Chicago, and Minneapolis showing positive impacts on housing production and demand-driven parking.
  • Believed minimums are "archaic, expensive" and should be eliminated.
• Cheryl Pavlik (Brighton resident):
  • 76-year-old, licensed driver but car-free.
  • Stated that current policy forces payment for parking through housing costs, disproportionately affecting seniors, disabled, and fixed-income residents.
  • Argued that disabled seniors often cannot drive and need door-to-door services, not personal cars.
  • Believed parking minimums force developers to spend on garages instead of elevators, wider hallways, green space, and affordability.
• Liam Maxon (Boston resident):
  • Lives in a triple-decker that would be illegal today due to parking minimums.
  • Only uses 1-2 parking spaces for three units.
  • Argued that current trends replace low-parking homes with expensive structures or fewer units due to parking requirements.
  • Encouraged living in existing housing, not legislating changes that increase parking and unaffordability.
• Zach DeClercq (Eggleston Square resident):
  • Stated that many people he loves have felt the brunt of the housing shortage.
  • Noted that most families at his BPS school (93% low-income) do not arrive by car.
  • Expressed desire for his children to be able to stay in Boston.
  • Argued that zoning reform is needed to ease long-term tax burden.
  • Highlighted solutions like electric cargo bikes for a less car-dependent city.
• Hayden Seeger (Constituent of Chair Durkan):
  • Argued that developers will build parking if needed for a neighborhood.
  • Stated that one-third of ZBA cases are parking-related, which is "ridiculous."
  • Noted that 99% of Boston buildings cannot be built under current zoning.
  • Cited Cambridge's elimination of minimums without negative consequences.
  • Questioned the mayor's neighborhood-by-neighborhood approach as incentivizing broad parking requirements.
• Abe Menzen (Principal, Samuels Associates):
  • Mixed-use developer focused on medium-to-large projects near transit.
  • Supported reducing/eliminating parking requirements for affordability, production, and sustainability.
  • Confirmed that parking is a significant obstacle to feasibility.
  • Observed steady decreases in parking demand over two decades in his portfolio.
  • Stated that below-grade parking can cost up to $150,000 per unit.
  • Argued that overbuilding parking adds to project costs and rent.
  • Believed that parking reform is a "controllable element" to address the housing crisis.
  • Suggested Article 80 as a safeguard for context-appropriate development.
• Pam Beale (Resident and small business owner):
  • Supported amending the zoning code to remove parking minimums.
  • Believed it gives flexibility to build the right amount of parking and allows the market/community to decide.
• Jack Perry (Boston resident):
  • Recalled a Jamaica Plain development that was rejected for not enough parking, then approved with 26 spots for 14 units, despite being near transit.
  • Stated that 44% of Boston renters don't own a car.
  • Argued that parking requirements are "arbitrary and regressive barriers."
  • Urged following Cambridge and Somerville's lead.
• Daylen Kelting (Resident):
  • Stated that academic literature does not support parking minimums as a solution for street parking.
  • Argued that parking minimums do not help with street parking.
  • Suggested reframing the narrative to focus on real solutions for street parking (e.g., increased cost for non-residents, more off-street parking).
• Timothy DiMaio (Resident):
  • Strongly supported eliminating parking minimums to increase housing supply.
  • Stated that parking adds tens of thousands per unit, increasing rents or reducing building.
  • Cited Buffalo, NY, where 60-70% of new homes after 2017 reforms would have been illegal before.
  • Argued it's a pedestrian safety issue, as prioritizing parking encourages driving.
• Nate Stell (Roslindale small business owner):
  • Supported removing costly parking mandates for all residential development.
  • Cited Roslindale Square rezoning as positive but too slow and hyper-local.
  • Believed removing parking mandates is the most impactful housing reform for 2026.
  • Suggested solutions for street parking demand: more meters, demand-based pricing (San Francisco), modernized resident permits (Portland, OR), better enforcement.
• Laurie Radwin (Roslindale resident, UMass Boston faculty):
  • Argued that disparities are created through public policy.
  • Stated that the city's actions have led to unequal treatment in parking for people of color and immigrants in Roslindale.
  • Called for a closer examination of impacts on protected classes before moving forward.
• Diane Valley (Resident):
  • Recommended community participation from the beginning of hearings.
  • Asked to stop using "flexibility" and comparing Boston to other cities.
  • Urged listening to Boston residents over developers.
  • Stated that the crisis is not parking but the BPDA building unaffordable housing and giving tax breaks to developers.
  • Called for abolishing the BPDA.
• Kaliga (Resident):
  • Urged further discussion with data from Lori Radwin and Diane Valley.
  • Stated that Boston is different from other cities, and neighborhoods are diverse.
  • Advocated for project-specific studies with neighborhood input.
  • Believed some minimal parking requirements are needed for certain projects/areas.
  • Argued that "affordable" housing is not truly affordable for those who need it.
  • Called for attainable homeownership and universities to house their own students.
• Vivian Girard (Dorchester resident, small developer):
  • Completed a 14-studio apartment project (Compact Housing Pilot Program) at $750-870/month.
  • Stated that the project was only possible without parking requirements on a 3,000 sq ft lot.
  • Prioritized car-free residents and has a long waitlist.
  • Cited a non-profit developer project in Dorchester where increasing parking from 12 to 18 spaces would add $1 million ($167,000 per space).
  • Concluded that off-street parking is incompatible with cost-effective development.
• Barbara Parmenter (Brighton resident):
  • Supported getting rid of costly parking mandates.
  • Wished to build an ADU or convert her two-family home, but is limited by parking barriers.
  • Stated that city staff 30 years ago imposed barriers that only those with deep pockets can overcome.
  • Asked the city to manage the curb and let property owners decide parking needs.
• Eric Herrett (Jamaica Plain resident):
  • Agreed that eliminating minimums is one of the simplest, most concrete, and politically feasible ways to impact development and housing prices.
  • Argued that current requirements are a "one size fits all approach" that is wasteful.
  • Stated that we don't mandate bathrooms or closets, so we shouldn't mandate parking.
• Elvira Mora (Resident):
  • Supported removing parking minimums for flexibility, enabling homes, and maintaining main streets.
  • Stated that forced minimums are an obstacle to abundant, affordable housing and sustainable communities.
  • Cited Roslindale's strides in rapid bus lanes, affordable housing, and the "squares and streets" plan.
  • Reiterated that removing minimums does not remove parking, but allows home builders to provide it as needed.
• Fred Watts (Dorchester resident):
  • Supported removing parking minimums.
  • Played "devil's advocate": questioned if more driving is expected in 50-100 years, citing Gen Z's lower car ownership, elderly reducing cars, and rising car costs.
  • Argued that cars are waning as an "appendage of adulthood."
  • Asked for a city with flexibility to evolve based on future needs.
  • Believed developers will charge market value regardless of parking costs.
• Aman (Cambridge resident):
  • Car-free, bike commuter for three years in Cambridge and Somerville.
  • Stated that car ownership never "added up" for him and colleagues, leading to sustainable lifestyles.
  • Argued that parking minimums make it harder to choose sustainable options and force car dependency.
  • Believed removing minimums is a step towards "healing from car dependency."
  • Stated that developers will do their due diligence and build parking if needed.
• Kobe Frangillo (Boston resident):
  • Lives in Boston without a car, in a building without on-site parking.
  • Argued that parking minimums increase rent, reduce homes, increase pollution, and break up walkability.
  • Stated that zoning acts like everyone must own a car.
  • Believed it's "common sense" to stop mandating excessive parking.
• Javier Colandro (Fenway resident):
  • Supported removing parking minimums as a "matter of trade-off."
  • Stated that friends leave Boston due to unaffordability, not parking issues.
  • Argued that the city's unaffordable housing stock prevents immigrants and others from staying.
  • Believed it's a "no-brainer" to drop minimums, build more houses, and let the market handle parking long-term.
• Linda Kanowich (Resident):
  • Believed developers would "take full advantage" of dropped minimums in South Boston.
  • Stated that residents are forced out by taxes and inability to afford homes.
  • Argued that "affordable homes" are not being built, but "luxury condos" (ugly boxes).
  • Expressed concern about poor quality construction by developers.
  • Feared developers would use this as a "scam" to offset costs, with affordable units not being built or funds being diverted.
• Rick Yoder (Co-chair, Mount Hope Canterbury Neighborhood):
  • Described his neighborhood as mostly blue-collar, black and Hispanic, with terrible public transportation.
  • Stated that residents rely on cars for work, family, and shopping due to lack of amenities.
  • Could not support a blanket elimination; argued it "has to be nuanced."
  • Believed developers would not lower rents and would charge market value, telling residents to find street parking.

• Chair Durkan thanked all participants and acknowledged the extensive discussion.
• Clarified that this was a hearing order, not a zoning amendment.
• Stated that the docket would remain in committee for a few weeks.
• Announced that the discussion would resume in the new year, starting January 5th.
• Emphasized the importance of listening to experts and having nuanced, data-backed conversations.
• Chair Durkan adjourned the hearing on Docket #0161.