CGMAC PRESENTATION OVERHEADS:
Cambridge Community Development Department
January 16, 1998
CRGM PETITION TOPICS ACTIONS |
|
A. |
Reduce
FAR, height, & density |
Adopted
120' height limit in RC-3, 03, BB, lB; 65' limit for C-2B residences. |
B. |
Affordable
housing linkage & inclusion |
Strengthened
linkage, deferred inclusionary requirement. |
C. |
Establish
district transition rules |
Deferred. |
D. |
Enhanced
public & design review. |
Adopted
some review refinements, deferred others. |
E. |
Open
space protection |
Rezoned
21 locations to OS, Deferred on-lot open space & OS district FAR changes. |
F. |
Revise
nonconformity rules |
Deferred. |
Incompletely Addressed Petition Purposes
Prevent congestion
Scale compatibility, avoid overshadowing
Minimize disruptive district transitions
Prevent worsening of flood risk
Encourage inclusion of affordable housing
Preservation of green space [added at meeting]
1. REDUCE FAR, HEIGHT & DENSITY
Purpose: congestion
Prior Proposal: reduce business & residential FARs
Impact Observations:
- Adoption would reduce traffic volumes near development.
- Impact Citywide depends upon:
- where "displaced" jobs & housing actually locate.
- how much "outside" traffic would be attracted;
- how much lower densities would lower transit share.
- Adoption would probably result in:
- fewer building "tear-downs;"
- more nonconforming buildings (unless special provisions avoid that);
- uncertain impact on housing affordability;
- uncertain impact on job types.
Evaluative Observations:
- There are many powerful causes of traffic increases in Cambridge besides development in
Cambridge.
- 14.5% per year auto registration increase in Cambridge;
- 0.3% per year increase in households;
- 1.0% per year increase in jobs;
- 2.0% per year increase in regional traffic potential;
- Life style changes.
- Simple FAR reduction reduces trips only by reducing future jobs, housing, and taxable
floor area.
- Bulk control inexactly addresses traffic: trips vary hugely in relation to floor area
among business uses & locations.
- Performance-based zoning controls could more sensitively address congestion and less
heavily impact jobs, housing and taxes
Purpose: scale compatibility, avoid overshadowing
Prior Proposals:
Reduce FARs
Reduce heights
Establish uniform cornice line.
Impact Observations:
- Height reduction consequences vary in complex ways by district.
- Appropriate heights may vary within present districts.
Purpose: scale prevent worsening of flood risks
Prior Proposals:
Apply 100-year flood zone rules to 500-year flood zone
Reduce flood zone FAR to 0.5.
Impact Observations:
- Proposals might result in lower larger footprint buildings.
- Proposals substantially reduce Alewife area building potential.
Evaluative observations:
- Alewife flooding is a real but complex problem, and these proposals don't address real
causes.
- FAR only indirectly relates to flood displacement or groundwater recharge.
- 500-year flood zone controls provide small risk reduction at large "cost."
- 500-year flood zone poorly describes the relevant drainage area.
- More effective techniques are available.
2. ESTABLISH DISTRICT TRANSITION RULES
Purpose: minimize disruptive district transitions
Prior Proposal:
establish Transition Control Plane
Impact Observations:
- The proposal is highly complex in application.
- Creates large disparities between height and FAR as allowed and that which is feasible.
Evaluative Observations:
- Appropriateness varies among district boundary conditions.
- Likely to increase variance requests.
- Deferral risks objectionable buildings being "locked in." Acting before
adequate study risks damaging later reversals.
3. PROTECT OPEN SPACE
Purpose: avoid excessive impervious surfaces, loss of open space
Prior proposal:
Revise on-lot open space dimensional rules.
Reconsider Open Space District FAR rules.
Impact Observations:
- On-lot dimensional rules address concerns directly.
- Dimensional rules significantly reduce achievable FAR on some parcels.
- Proposed Open Space District rules may constrain recreational facilities.
Evaluative Observations:
- Housing cost increases resulting from open space rules on small parcels might hurt
housing affordability.
- Dimensional proposal is likely to increase demands for relief by variance and for staff
interpretation of complex rules.
4. AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCLUSION
Purpose: encourage inclusion of affordable units in housing
developments
Prior proposals:
- [Petition] Provide 25% density bonus as incentive if half "extra" units
are affordable.
- [Department] Require developments over some size to include affordable units,
compensated by density increase.
TOPICS AND ITEMS
Topic 1. Reduce FAR, Height & density
Reduce FAR in Residence A, B, and C-1 zones.
Reduce FAR in Commercial zones.
Topic 2. Establish district transition rules.
- Transition and height rules.
Topic 3. Protect Open Space
- Revise Residential open space rules.
- Reconsider Open Space District FAR rules.
Topic 4. Affordable Housing Inclusion
###