CPC Voting Member list as of 12/5/13

The members of the CPC are as follow below (cut and pasted on 12/5/13) directly from the Town website:

Members as Appointed by their respective Boards and Commissions

Name	Designated By	Term Expires
Chris Toomey, Chair	Board of Selectmen	2015
Paul Mahoney, Vice Chair	Board of Selectmen	2016
Vacant	Board of Selectmen	2017
Toby Kramer	Board of Selectmen	2014
Geoffrey Taylor	Historical Commission	2014
Linda Escobedo	Housing Authority	2015
Dean Banfield	Natural Resources Commission	2014
Matthey Capofreddi, Treasurer	Planning Board	2015
Peter Hunter	Recreation Commission	2014

12/2/13 Comm. Preservation Comm. (CHDC Funding Request) Meeting Summary & 11/4/13 Minutes from CHDC presentation to CPC (Pre-WCAC meeting @ Thoreau public disclosure of intent)

There wasn’t a vacant seat in the conference room at 141 Keyes Rd Monday night. The Community Preservation Committee started their meeting with a packed house of onlookers. CPC Chair Chris Toomey warned the crowd that this was not a public hearing, but only a deliberation/discussion meeting — public comment would be limited to requests the CPC made in relation to information under review. 

The WinCom Neighborhood Association’s letter to the CPC was addressed in the first 45 minutes of discussion as the committee reviewed “new material/information received since last meeting.”  One committee member Ms. Toby Kramer recused herself from the conversation and stepped outside the conference room. Considering the points in the letter, some members noted that little was known about the scope of the project, or how the funds would be used. Others asked why money had to be allocated this year for a project that was still so unclear and unformed. 

Lara Kritzer, Sr. Planner in the Town’s Planning Department protested that if the CPC didn’t fund the CHDC’s request, the state might see the lack of funding as an indication of low community and Town support when appealing to the State for additional “matching funds” for this project to move forward. She asserted that time was of the essence to have an additional $125,000 “set aside to show support right now,” yet neither she nor any other members of the CPC could speak to how long the timeline for state match or process is (two years, five years, eight years…) or if additional funding would come from other sources. Ms. Kritzer also stated that “this land is deeded for affordable housing” and was politely corrected by another member to “affordable housing OR OPEN SPACE.” Multiple members then noted money from the CPC’s budget could be set aside for open space for the project (kayak launches, grassy areas), as only 8% of the 2014 CPC budget had been funded to open space thus far. One suggested that it could be a better use of the money, because the project clearly had not yet gained community support and it wasn’t clear how it would conform to the Long Range Plan.

After much discussion back and forth, members of the CPC ultimately came to the conclusion that at this point, with the lack of the developer or CHDC representation in the room to speak to the number of units and other scope-related questions, there was not enough information available about the project to “write a blank check” for $125,000. The CPC wants the CHDC to come back with answers on scope, funding details (line items for expenses i.e. engineering, legal, etc.) and more specifically the 9 points in the WinCom Neighborhood letter, which several members felt were valid concerns. The CPC asked to receive the CHDC’s response before the December 16^th CPC meeting to vote on distributions. In the meantime, they withheld making an allocation to the CHDC’s Junction Village project line item.

Meeting Minutes for this Committee are usually posted to the town website 2-3 weeks after the meeting has taken place which means we will not be able to review them before the Dec 12th voting meeting but once available, a link will be provided on this blog so subscribers can review them with one click.

Everyone should review the meeting minutes from 11/4/13 regarding the CHDC's presentation to the CPC. This meeting was held before the public WCAC meeting at Thoreau Elementary where we first learned of the crushing inflation of this project. I have cut and pasted the Junction Village Portion below but the full notes can be reviewed at:

http://concordma.gov/Pages/ConcordMA_CPCMin/I01C27F39

Broadening Affordable Housing in Concord, Concord Housing Development Corporation – Concord Housing Development Corporation (CHDC) Co-Chair Barbara Morse presented the application to fund two aspects of the CHDC’s ongoing affordable housing program.  The first was to contribute to a reserve fund to be used as needed to buy down or update/renovate existing affordable housing units.  Ms. Morse explained how the existing affordable housing program functioned and how the CHDC was occasionally asked to step in if an eligible buyer could not be found in the allotted timeframe.  She noted that the Town had asked about using these funds only a few weeks ago for a unit at Elm Brook Lane and that CPA funds were the primary source of the CHDC’s funds for these actions.   Members discussed the process with Ms. Morse who provided more details on the affordable housing process and how CHDC had stepped in to “buy down” houses when the market rate or restricted price was beyond what an affordable buyer could pay.  She explained how the CHDC had grown out of the Concord Housing Trust and been given legislative ability to work more freely to gather funds and develop affordable units.  The CHDC currently had about $80,000 in reserve and worked with the Concord Housing Foundation to raise additional funds when needed. The second aspect of this year’s application was for funding to begin work on the Junction Village project.  The CHDC had sent out an RFP in June and received 12 responses for potential developments ranging from homeowner townhouses to rental apartment buildings. The number of units could be anywhere between 30 and 150 depending on which project moved forward, but all of them were expecting some CPA funding from the Town.  The CHDC currently had $75,000 in previous CPA funds set aside for the project and were requesting at additional $125,000 for this project to have an even $200,000 for developers to use as the local contribution when they asked the State for more funds.   The CHDC was meeting with the West Concord Advisory Committee on November 13th to present these plans to the public and get a sense of what the Town needs and would like to see here.  Ms. Morse noted that this was only the first meeting on this issue and that they would show some schematics to give a sense of the possibilities for the site.  She went on to explain that the CHDC wanted the Town’s help in narrowing down the parameters of the project and developing more guidelines.  The challenge would be to balance the Town’s needs with the Developer’s abilities.    Lastly, she noted that the transfer of the land from the State required that all of the housing be at 140% AMI or less.   Mr. Toomey expressed concern that the existing Reserve Fund was low and that a developer might take the funds provided now and just ask for more.  Ms. Morse stated that they had spoken with Housing professionals and there was agreement that $200,000 was enough to get the process started with the State.  She stated that they might come back in the future and could also decide that a developer expecting a lot of Town funding was not the best one for the site.  She explained that this could be an ongoing negotiation between the CHDC and the developer but that it was important to show that the Town had a stake in the funding.  Members discussed other Housing projects and noted that a similar process had been followed by the Housing Authority for the Peter Bulkeley project.  In that case, $1 million in CPA funding was used to raise over $5 million from the State and other sources.  It was suggested that the Commission anticipate also funding 15% of this project and that it could be closer to $1 million in CPA funds before the work was done. Ms. Morse stated that they hoped to decide on a developer by early 2014.  Ms. Cookman asked if there were architectural guidelines for the development.  Ms. Morse answered that they wanted to develop the project to fit into the neighborhood but that they were not necessarily restricted to a specific design.  She also noted that about half of the site would be Open Space.  Ms. Cookman asked for information on the CHDC’s other development.  Ms. Morse explained how Lalli Woods had been developed and that they were looking at a different management structure for this project.  Ms. Escobedo asked if there was potentially State funding available now for the project and whether the Regional Housing Services Office was involved.  Ms. Morse stated that they were working with the RHSO on this project.    Ms. Morse also noted that once a developer was chosen, they would still be 2-3 years away from construction as they would need time to develop the plans and raise funds.  They were gathering informal feedback right now and might move away from the assisted living concept.   Mr. Mahoney asked if the CHDC had consulted the Housing Production Plan and Ms. Morse stated that they had.  She added that they were also looking at traffic, engineering studies, and school projections in developing the project.  She invited the Committee to attend their meeting on November 13 in the Thoreau School Auditorium as well. Mr. Toomey asked how much funding was usually needed to buy down a unit.  Ms. Morse stated that they more commonly spent $25,000-30,000 maybe three times a year.  Ms. Morse discussed how units themselves had been purchased in the past and Members discussed whether a higher reserve would be more useful to those goals.  Mr. Toomey asked how the CHDC made the decision to spend their reserve funds and Ms. Morse explained that they looked at the available options for the unit and how the funds could best be used to retain its affordability.  She added that it made sense to build up their reserve fund now when there were fewer Housing projects, and explained how they were now working with the Housing Foundation and Housing Authority to collaborate on upcoming projects and funding requests.  Ms. Morse noted how the need to buy down a unit often came up without warning and thought that it was important to have the reserves in order to be prepared.   Mr. Mahoney suggested that it might be helpful for the CHDC to develop a long term financial plan around what they might need or want to do in the future.  He thought that it was logical for the CHDC to annually request CPA funding but that it might be easier for the Committee to review if they understood the CHDC’s long range plans.  He also asked that the CHDC present information on all of their programs.  Ms. Morse stated that they had tried that approach in the past but that not all of their initiatives, such as the Small Grants Program, had been well received by the Committee.  Ms. Cookman thought that it would be helpful to understand what types of scenarios the CHDC might pursue in the future.  Ms. Morse stated that the CHDC was just beginning to realize that there was a lot of confusion as to which housing groups did what in Concord and that they needed to increase their public presence. Discussion of Public Hearing Presentation and Process Committee Members discussed potential locations for the public hearing and agreed to hold it in the regular meeting location of the First Floor Conference Room at 141 Keyes Road.  Members briefly discussed the usual process and presentation to be made. Approval of Minutes   No Minutes were reviewed at this time. Other Business   Mr. Banfield raised concerns about the use of CPA funding as a match for existing projects.  Members discussed whether CPA funding should be noted in the match for the project or as a separate line item.  Mr. Banfield also recommended that any matches be clearly related directly to the CPA funded portion of a project.  Members discussed how a project with several components might be divided or how the description could be designed to provide the best information. Mr. Taylor moved to adjourn the meeting.  Ms. Cookman seconded the motion and ALL VOTED IN FAVOR.  The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lara Kritzer Senior Planner                  Minutes Approved on:   December 2, 2013          Paul Mahoney, Clerk

Concerns about the Junction Village housing project: an open letter

26 November 2013

To:   Members of the Concord Community Preservation Committee
From: Winthrop St. – Commonwealth Ave. Neighborhood Association (wincom.neighbors@gmail.com)
cc:   Concord Housing Development Corporation Members
       Board of Selectmen
       Planning Board Members
       West Concord Advisory Committee Members

Subject: Concord Housing Development Corporation (CHDC) CPA Funding Request

The Concord Housing Development Corporation (CHDC) has applied for $250,000 of Concord Community Preservation Act funds to continue development of an affordable housing project on former state prison land in West Concord. The Junction Village project as it was initially conceived (20 units plus open space) had neighborhood support. However, on November 13, 2013, the community learned that the CHDC is now pursuing a project that would be five times as large – 90-110 rental units.

The Winthrop St. – Commonwealth Ave. Neighborhood Association strongly opposes this expansion in scope, which:

1. does not fit within the guidelines of Concord's Housing Production Plan
2. increases the demands on town services by nearly $500,000 per year
3. doubles the traffic on Winthrop St and (together with the Beharrell St project already under construction) increases traffic by 9% on the already congested Commonwealth Ave
4. adds an average of one child to each classroom at Thoreau or Alcott Elementary Schools, depending upon whether the students are bused
5. overwhelms the scale of an existing neighborhood of one- and two-family houses
6. further concentrates moderately affordable housing in one of the few areas of Concord that already has it, rather than distributing it throughout the town
7. does not support "Smart Growth" development principles
8. subsidizes the development of housing for people with higher incomes than the majority of Concord residents, and
9. presents long-term risks of unit marketability, with additional potential costs to the Town

The Junction Village project should serve the comprehensive interests of the Town, rather than CHDC's narrower objective of maximizing affordable housing stocks. Yet the CHDC does not operate in a public process, so there is little opportunity to influence its plans, other than through funding decisions. The WinComm Association urges the Community Preservation Committee to condition its Junction Village funding upon maintaining the project at its original 20-unit scope, consistent with Town documents such as the 2010 Housing Production Plan and the 2013 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. Otherwise, there's the growing risk that the CPA funds could be wasted, as opposition continues to grow from neighbors, taxpayers throughout the town, drivers and pedestrians in West Concord as well as Concord Public School parents.

WinComm Neighborhood Association

Attachment: Supporting details for each of the concerns listed above.

1)      Housing Production Plan – Recommended Scope of Affordable Housing Projects
The Housing Production Plan adopted by the Board of Selectmen and Planning Board in August 2010 provides guidance for future residential development in Concord. Section 2.3 details how projects should be defined once the 10% affordable housing threshold is met. The document states: "Even after reaching the 10% threshold, the Town plans to continue creating affordable housing, though at a smaller scale." It goes on to say that "These units will be created incrementally with smaller projects (5 units) moving forward regularly every year and three or four larger projects (15-20 units) making greater gains in the years they are approved."

At the bottom of Page 53, the Housing Production Plan includes a table of potential projects, where the project that has now become Junction Village is listed as having 20 units.

2)      Lifetime Project Cost
Each incremental unit of housing at Junction Village would consume approximately $9,600 in town services each year. Of this amount, approximately $4,300 would be recovered through property taxes, resulting in a burden to the town of approximately $5,300 per unit each year. By taking a "big bang" approach to building 110 units of affordable housing inventory in advance of the actual amount required to maintain the 10% affordable housing threshold, the project will create a negative impact on the Town budget of nearly $500,000 per year for the first 5 years after it is built. Over the total planning horizon presented by CHDC, the aggregate incremental cost of CHDC's "big bang" project over the multiple-small-project approach proposed in the Housing Production Plan would be approximately $7 million, with a net present value of approximately $5.4 million. Any cost estimates for a "big bang" affordable housing project should consider these extra Town costs.

3)      Traffic Impact
By CHDC's own estimates, 110 units of housing would more than double the traffic on Winthrop St., which is so narrow that visitors often park on the sidewalk. The limitations of Winthrop St. as an access point to the site were previously documented in a letter to the Planning Department on December 4, 2010. When combined with the traffic from the new Beharrell St housing project, it would also increase the traffic on the already congested Commonwealth Ave. by 9%. That reduces its level of service grade from "C" (stable flow) to "D" (approaching unstable flow).

4)      Impact on Class Sizes at Thoreau or Alcott Elementary School
If CHDC's preferred 110 rental unit proposal goes forward, the CHDC estimates that 4.23 students per grade will be added to the public school system. At the elementary school level, there are currently four classes per grade at both Thoreau and Alcott. The Junction Village property is currently in the Thoreau school district, but according to School Superintendent Diana Rigby, the Junction Village students are anticipated to be bused to Alcott School, in the same manner as the children in the Concord Mews development have been. The result would be an average of one additional student in each classroom at Alcott Elementary School.

5)      Project Character and Scale Relative to the Surrounding Community
The Community Preservation Committee encourages mixed-income developments that are harmonious in design and scale with the surrounding community.  Winthrop Street and Commonwealth Avenue have a total of 53 one- and two-family units. CHDC's preferred proposal would build 90-110 units – approximately twice as many units as in the surrounding neighborhood. This is clearly out of scale. The proposed project also disregards the Town-sponsoredVillage Centers Study of 2010, which recommended that the Town "Consider a mix of uses that includes commercial, industrial and residential, which also takes into account the impact of increased traffic and change in intensity of use on the existing residential neighborhood on Winthrop Street."

6)      Distribution of Affordable Housing Units in Concord
According to the Concord Long Range Plan and the Housing Production Plan, affordable housing should be distributed throughout the town. The Winthrop St. – Commonwealth Ave. neighborhood is one of the few in Concord that already meets the "moderately affordable" criteria that the CHDC intends to use for most of the units in its project. Over 75% of the existing units on Commonwealth Ave. and Winthrop St. are assessed at below the 150% threshold that will be used for the "moderately affordable" units in Junction Village project, and all residential properties in the area are below Concord's median assessed value. The project, as conceived, would further concentrate rather than distribute moderate affordable housing in Concord.

7)      Junction Village vs. Smart Growth Development
Smart Growth concentrates development near city centers and transportation corridors to reduce the impact of commuters and enable shopping and other daily activities within walking distance. However, Junction Village is not intended for users of the commuter rail, but for people who already reside in, work in or are employed by the Town. The only significant local workplace within walking distance is the prison, so virtually all of the residents will commute to work by car. There is also no grocery store nearby, so residents will do most of their food shopping by car as well. Finally, due to capacity problems at Thoreau Elementary School, elementary school students in the complex will likely be bused across town to Alcott Elementary School. The Junction Village design routes all of this vehicular traffic through a residential area, rather than directly onto the Route 2 transportation corridor, compromising the walkable nature of the neighborhood that Smart Growth is supposed to promote.

8)      Implications of "broadening" affordable housing to people with above-average incomes
The CHDC has defined 150% of the state median income as the threshold it would apply to the 75% of units that would become "moderately affordable" housing at Junction Village. That would include families of four making up to $141,600 per year. As CHDC points out, 52% of Concord's families would qualify for this "moderately affordable" housing. Put another way, the threshold is above most Concord families' median income, so even families with above average incomes could live in rentals whose design and construction was subsidized by many less-well-off taxpayers through CPA funds. 

9)      Long-term Marketability of "Moderately Affordable" Rental Units
As of June 2013, Concord had 1,157 rental housing units, with a median monthly rent of $1,572. The "moderately affordable" units at Junction Village would be more expensive: maximum rents could range up to $2,471 for a 1-bedroom, and up to $3,088 for a 3-bedroom, according to the CHDC's presentation. Rents in the surrounding area are substantially below these levels. While there are attractive attributes to the site (rail trail, river and proximity to West Concord Center) that might enhance demand, there are negative aspects as well (clear field of view from the prison required by deed, former brownfield site, more transient nature of a 100% rental property) that could hurt marketability, particularly as the units age. The CHDC has not presented any plan to contain this potential long term liability to the Town.

The World's Oldest Winecellar

Congratulations to Commonwealth Ave. resident and archaeologist Andrew Koh for helping to uncover a 3700 year old wine cellar in Israel - the world's oldest. I heard him speak on National Public Radio this evening. Here's the article that NPR posted.

The CHDC Presentation to West Concord Advisory Committee

Posted today 11/19/13 by Nancy @ Planing Board

http://www.concordma.gov/pages/ConcordMA_BComm/Junction_Village_Presentation_11_13%20_2013_(2).pdf

The engineering firm that was used is as follows:

Bayside Engineering, Inc.
600 Unicorn Park Drive
Woburn, MA 01801

Phone: 781 932-3201

Fax: 781 932-3413

Community Preservation Committee - Public Hearing Tonight

The Concord Community Preservation Committee is holding a public hearing at 7:30 PM tonight at 141 Keyes Road. At the meeting, each applicant for preservation funds will make a presentation of their project.

The Concord Housing Development Corporation has 20 minutes set aside for its proposal: "Broadening Affordable Housing for Concord."

Following each project presentation, the Chair will open the discussion for any questions or comments on that application.  Questions can be addressed to either the applicants or the Committee.

The Community Preservation Committee has set the following criteria for evaluating community housing projects this year (emphasis is mine):

1. Address objectives in the Comprehensive Long Range Plan or the Planned Production Housing Plan.
2. Contribute to the Town goal of 10% affordability consistent with Chapter 40B.
3. Ensure long term affordability through deed restrictions or other mechanisms.
4. Create new affordable housing opportunities through buying-down the purchase price of condominium and other housing units; new construction; the reuse of non-residential buildings, the use of Town or State-owned land; or the conversion of market rate housing to affordable units. The Community Preservation Committee recommends, whenever possible, the reuse of existing buildings or the construction of new buildings on previously developed sites.
5. Give priority to local residents, Town and school employees, Hanscom AFB military personnel and other groups with a “Concord Connection” in accordance with State guidelines.
6. Receive support from local organizations and institutions that advocate for affordable housing.
7. Distribute community housing throughout the town. Encourage mixed-income developments that are harmonious in design and scale with the surrounding community.
8. Leverage funds available for affordable housing through the utilization of state, federal, and other funding resources.
9. Avoid compromising resources identified on the Town’s Historic Resources Master Plan.

This is significant, because the Town of Concord Housing Production Plan 2010 Update Section 2.3 says “Even after reaching the 10% threshold, the Town plans to continue creating affordable housing, though at a smaller scale. There will continue to be needs for low-income rental, special needs, handicapped accessible, affordable homeownership, and moderate/workforce housing. These units will be created incrementally with smaller projects (5 units) moving forward regularly every year and three or four larger projects (15-20 units) making greater gains in the years they are approved.”

In the table below on Page 53, titled Annual Progress towards goals, the project is listed as “Walden Woods (CHDC)” and the number of units listed for it is 20.

Educational Zoning for potential "Junction Village"

I found this school zoning map on the town website today which clearly addresses what elementary school the children residing in the proposed "Junction Village" will be attending: Thoreau Elementary.

Please see below for the links to these maps (see block B3 in orange/tan as designated Thoreau zoning)

Site: 

http://www.mapsonline.net/concord/pdfmaps.html

Maps:

http://pdfmaps.concordma.s3.amazonaws.com/street_index_school_districts.pdf

http://pdfmaps.concordma.s3.amazonaws.com/school_districts.pdf

http://pdfmaps.concordma.s3.amazonaws.com/schools_letter.pdf

 I believe this is an important piece of information regarding a sure and absolute designation of what school will be impacted. The next step is to use the statistical data that David Hail, Co-Chair and Barbara Morse, Co-Chair from the CHDC (Concord Housing Development Corporation) provided as their estimates on additional elementary attendance, keeping in mind the amount of children that are currently ages 1-3 years old living in town. The numbers they proposed may not be entirely encompassing and it is our duty to ensure we research how this is going to impact our "much sought after" but close to capacity education system that we praise so highly.

Assessing the Traffic Impact

Traffic increases are a major concern that the Wincom neighborhood has about the new development proposed on the former prison land site. The Concord Housing Development Corp. is apparently aware of this, since they conducted a traffic study on Winthrop St. and Commonwealth Ave. last week. I expect that they will share the results at the WCAC meeting on Wednesday evening.

Most people aren't familiar with the in's and out's of traffic studies, so it might be worth looking at some resources on the Internet for some background. I found a web page from the University of Wisconsin useful. The most interesting table is 3.3, which indicates the number of peak trips per day (10.71) that a typical condo unit generates. (This is based on data from the Institute of Transportation engineers.)

According to the University of Wisconsin's table, if we assume 36 units are built, that would mean an additional 386 trips on our streets. If the number is 130, that would result in 1392 additional trips per day. Keep this in mind as you hear the numbers that are presented. CHDC may adjust the numbers, saying that residents will walk to West Concord center, ride the train, ride on the bike path, etc., but it's difficult to say what the actual reduction from these published "normal" rates might be.

Welcome to the WinCom Neighborhood Association blog!

This is a blog to keep everyone updated on what’s going on in the WinCom neighborhood.
First off, here’s an excerpt from Peter Fulton’s recent letter to us:

There is a West Concord Advisory Committee (WCAC) meeting on November 13, 2013 at 7:00 pm in the auditorium of the Thoreau School.
A presentation will be made by the Concord Housing Development Corporation (CHDC).
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss a proposed housing development on Massachusetts Correctional land declared surplus.

We should make sure we all know what’s going on with this and are able to have our voices heard.