Committee Report CR-10
The Ordinance Committee and the Housing Committee held a joint public hearing on September 3, 2003, beginning at four o’clock and thirteen minutes p.m. in the Sullivan Chamber. The hearing was held for the purpose of considering a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to gain dimensional relief in housing and mixed use projects in exchange for providing housing affordable to middle income housing owners and renters.
Present at the hearing were Councillor Anthony D. Galluccio, Chair of the Housing Committee, Councillor Brian Murphy and Councillor David P. Maher, co-chairs of the Ordinance Committee, Michael A. Sullivan, Vice Mayor Henrietta Davis, Councillor Kenneth E. Reeves, Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr. and City Clerk D. Margaret Drury. Also present were Beth Rubenstein, Assistant City Manager for Community Development, Susan Glazer, Deputy Director, Community Development Department (CDD), Lester Barber, Director of Land Use and Zoning, Community Development Department (CDD), Darcy Jameson, Director of Housing, CDD, and Nancy Glowa, First Assistant City Solicitor.
Councillor Galluccio convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He introduced Assistant City Manager Beth Rubenstein and invited her to begin the presentation.
Ms. Rubenstein described the petition, developed at the City Council’s request. CDD responded in December 2002 with a “thought piece” on the issue. At the August 2003 City Council meeting, CDD submitted this proposed language. It provides for a special permit process for dimensional relief in exchange for providing housing affordable to middle income residents. “Affordable for middle income residents” is defined as affordable for those with incomes up to 100% of the median income, paying no more than 30% of income for the housing. This proposal does not impact the current inclusionary zoning ordinance. Inclusionary units are for residents with incomes up to 80%. The ordinance calls for a public hearing at the Planning Board, based on a written application. Ms. Rubenstein said that CDD believes that the City will need some consultant services from experts familiar with the development world to assist in evaluating the applications
Ms. Rubenstein said that the kinds of dimensional relief which a developer may seek are set out in section 11.203.3 of the proposed ordinance and include additional FAR, additional height in accord with a schedule related to the maximum height of the zoning district in which the project is located, waiver of yard requirements and reduction of required open space.
The criteria for granting the special permits can be found in section 11.203.33. Criteria include a reasonable relation between the number of middle income affordable units to be provided and the value of the dimensional relief to be granted, service to households in a range of middle incomes, with a target of households at 90% of median, and units of a type, size and tenure that serve the needs of the city or neighborhood within which they are located. Larger units with three or more bedrooms are encouraged. In addition, the Planning Board must find that the building and site plans do not unreasonably negatively impact adjacent properties.
Vice Mayor Davis asked what the public process is likely to be. Ms. Rubenstein said it would be the same as for any special permit. It would include the same notice and advertising as for other public hearings before the Planning Board. Vice Mayor Davis said that she would like to see the program work but she is concerned that the public input be substantial enough for the public not to believe that granting the permits is a forgone conclusion. She said that is why the impact on adjacent properties is an important criteria.
Vice Mayor Davis asked what income constitutes “median income.” Ms. Rubenstein responded that the median income for a family of four is $80,000 and for a single individual; 100% of median income is $56,000. Vice Mayor Davis asked what is the minimum number of median income units that could be provided. Mr. Barber said that the lower limit is 5% of the base number of units, with a minimum of one unit, whichever is greater. However, the Planning Board will assess the number of units based on the relief sought and the appropriateness of the number of units to the value of the relief. For example, with a base project of 100 units, under the inclusionary zoning provisions, the total number of units would be 130. The minimum number of middle income units would be five units, 5% of the 100, but the Planning Board could require more middle income units. The Planning Board could say that the dimensional relief is not appropriate in the particular case, or that the dimensional relief means there should be more middle income units provided.
Councillor Galluccio thanked CDD for providing language for the general concept. He asked whether this ordinance represents a philosophic change in flexibility for the Planning Board. Ms. Rubenstein responded that this proposal provides some additional flexibility while retaining the core public policy value of providing housing for low income residents. The proposal keeps inclusionary zoning intact. The inclusionary zoning requirement is mandatory, not discretionary.
Councillor Galluccio asked how many affordable units inclusionary zoning has produced. Ms. Rubenstein said that 131 inclusionary units have been produced to date.
Councillor Galluccio urged developers to provide comment from their perspective and asked Ms. Rubenstein whether this special permit process could be part of the process for any other special relief sought. Ms. Rubenstein responded that when a development project needs multiple permits the applications are almost always considered together in one process. This would be treated the same way. The length of time required for the special permit process depends on the complexity, but generally it takes three to six months.
Councillor Maher asked whether there would be deed restrictions on homeownership of middle income units. Ms. Rubenstein said that there would be. He asked if any other communities are doing anything similar, and Ms. Rubenstein said that CDD does not know of any others with middle income incentives, but that there are other communities with inclusionary zoning provisions.
Vice Mayor Maher asked whether other jurisdictions give their Planning Boards more subjectivity and Ms. Rubenstein responded that the process by its nature is subjective.
Councillor Murphy noted the difficulties of having a more definite rule in a city with a variety of neighborhoods and housing values.
Elie Yarden, 143 Pleasant Street, stated that he had difficulty reading the proposed amendment because of the obscurity of the original language. He is very worried about the goal of housing being used for bad purposes. The first question that the community must answer most is what do we see as an optimal population. He sees that as quite high. Mr. Yarden noted some concerns with the lack of clarity in the language used to discuss zoning. He suggested not using “density” to mean FAR when talking to the public. He questioned the use of the term “trade off” in connection with open space reduction. “Trade off” generally refers to open space. It is generally understood that if you have more population, you need more open space, not less. He raised the issue of parking space requirements. Public transportation becomes an issue of importance in connection with what parking spaces are needed. He noted another issue he would call a political issue. He is committed to protecting the political integrity of Cambridge “Corporate barracks” do not help build a city.
Peter Steffian, 931 Massachusetts Avenue, stated that he is an architect who has done numerous projects in the City of Cambridge. The length of time it takes to get through the Planning Board can be pretty brief if you are prepared and prepared to design a good building. This proposal gives the designer/developer the flexibility to make a better building. It is a wonderful addition to the regulation.
John Moot, 44 Coolidge Hill Road, stated that his concern in Cambridge is the quality of life. Inclusionary zoning added a huge increase to the density
the citywide rezoning to lower the density. He gave the example of a development in Third Street. The height limit is 85 feet. The 20% open space required will be met with a park in the middle of a fort. The 85 foot walls rise straight up from the street. This project is creating units that no one will want to live in. It is essential to look very carefully at the issue of livability.
Stash Horowitz, 12 Florence Street, stated that the City has just rezoned North Point to allow for a great deal of housing. He believes that the Incusionary Zoning Ordinance actually requires a full 15% of total units to be affordable, not just 15% of the base units. Mr. Horowitz said that this ordinance does allow additional FAR. The City does have City staff with experience in evaluating housing costs. Even with big bonuses built in for housing over commercial, inclusionary zoning has only added 131 units. He stated that Cambridge does not need to strengthen the ordinance anymore, the City just needs to sit back and wait. He stated that the Planning Board should not have the right to discard as-of-right zoning in transitional areas.
Councillor Maher moved that the proposed amendment remain in committee. The motion passed on a voice vote without objection.