Planning Board urges City Council not to adopt petition limiting paved paths in Cambridge parks

The Cambridge Planning Board voted 5-0 on Sept. 30 to recommend that the City Council not adopt a citizen petition to amend sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the zoning ordinance to prohibit paved ways greater than 10 feet wide in open-space districts and to limit increases in paved lanes to 2% of a contiguous open-space area every two years.

The petitioners, led by petitioner Martin McCall, said the proposal aims to preserve trees and reduce heat-island effects by restricting new or wider paved paths in parks. McCall told the board the change was consistent with the Urban Forest Master Plan and that “wider is faster and faster is not safer,” urging the board to act to protect mature trees and lower speeds on multiuse paths.

Board members and city staff said the issue raised important concerns about trees, stormwater infiltration and safety but concluded zoning is not the right tool. Mary Flynn, chair of the Cambridge Planning Board, read staff and board discussion into the record and said the board’s recommendation to the council should explain potential unintended consequences and preserve the city’s flexibility to design parks and pathways through neighborhood processes.

Why it matters: The petition would have imposed a dimensional limit in the zoning ordinance that petitioners said would curb expansion of paved corridors in public parks and open spaces, preserve canopy, and discourage high speeds by bicyclists and motorized micro‑vehicles on shared paths. City staff and multiple board members countered that the petition’s language was broad and ambiguous, could unintentionally include plazas or courts, and would restrict the city’s ability to balance multiple uses and site-specific design trade-offs.

What petitioners proposed and why: The petition seeks to add to the zoning use table a prohibition on “paved way greater than 10 feet wide” in open-space districts and to define “paved” to include permeable and impermeable surfaces, pavers, stone dust and other surfacing. The petition’s footnote would also cap the increase of paved lanes in a contiguous open-space area to no more than 2% of that area within a two-year period.

Petitioner Martin McCall (petitioner) emphasized connections to the Urban Forest Master Plan and examples of canopy loss, telling the board that “trees are essential infrastructure” and citing a city task‑force finding that the city lost 18% of canopy between 2009 and 2018. Attorney Heather Hoffman (counsel for petitioners) told the board that concerns about litigation should not prevent legislative action, saying “the legal standard for bringing a lawsuit is whether you have standing.”

Public comment: Thirty-one written comments had been filed by 5 p.m. the day before the hearing; three speakers made live public comments at the hearing. Jeb Mays (resident) of North Cambridge, who said his neighborhood is a heat-island, said widening Linear Park’s path would “encourage more people to take the path and to make it less safe.” Marina Grow Atlas (resident, environmental health scientist) urged the board to consider permeable pavers and other green‑infrastructure techniques that support infiltration and biodiversity. Tom Goro (resident) raised groundwater concerns and said Cambridge needs a long-term groundwater monitoring strategy as the city faces more intense rainfall and rising groundwater tables.

Staff and board concerns: Jeff Roberts, director of zoning and development in the Community Development Department (CDD), noted that “way” is not defined in the zoning ordinance and the petition’s draft definition is expansive and could capture plazas, courts and other paved park elements. Board members said the petition would constrain the city’s ability to design site‑specific open-space projects and that zoning is a blunt tool for addressing canopy, stormwater and speed on multiuse paths. Member Ted Cohen said the proposal “ties the hands of the city” and recommended a negative advisory vote. Several members encouraged petitioners and staff to continue working on tree preservation and stormwater solutions through neighborhood design processes and other city programs.

Board action and next steps: After discussion, the board voted to send a negative recommendation to the City Council on the petition and asked staff to record the board’s reasoning in the memo to council. The petition now proceeds to the City Council, which will decide whether to adopt or amend the proposal. Staff noted that written comments received after 5 p.m. the day before the hearing would be entered into the record.

Votes at a glance: - Motion to accept certified transcripts from the June 10 and July 8, 2025 Planning Board meetings as meeting minutes. Moved by Carolyn Zurn; seconded by H. Theodore Cohen. Roll call: Ted Cohen (yes), Mary Liedecker (yes), Diego Macias (yes), Carolyn Zurn (yes), Mary Flynn (yes). Outcome: approved (5–0). Note: vote limited to full board members.

- Motion that the Planning Board recommend the City Council not adopt the petition to amend sections 4.3 and 4.4 (paved ways >10 feet in open-space districts). Moved by H. Theodore Cohen; seconded by Miss Berry. Roll call: Ted Cohen (yes), Mary Liedecker (yes), Diego Macias (yes), Carolyn Zurn (yes), Mary Flynn (yes). Outcome: approved (5–0). Board asked staff to include the comments and concerns expressed during the hearing in the memo to the council.

Context and limitations: The petition is a citizen zoning petition filed under state law by at least 10 registered Cambridge voters. The board and staff noted limits on municipal authority where state-owned lands or state highways are involved. The board’s recommendation is advisory; the City Council has the decision authority on zoning amendments. The board cited the Urban Forest Master Plan and a range of city council orders on tree canopy and climate resilience as relevant context but concluded that the specific dimensional and process constraints sought by petitioners are better addressed through other city processes and design review rather than a uniform zoning prohibition.

The Planning Board adjourned after concluding the public hearing and making its recommendation to the City Council.