Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutWatertown CDP 2009 0204 WATERTOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN July 2004 Prepared by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council for the Watertown Department of Community Development and Planning Funded under Executive Order 418 by the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development,Massachusetts Department of Economic Development,Executive Office of Transportation and Construction,and Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. Credits and Acknowledgements Town of Watertown: Director of Community Development and Gregory Watson Planning: Senior Planner: Mary Crain Conservation Administrator Bruce Roberts MAPC Officers: President: Richard A. Dimino Vice President: Gordon Feltman Secretary: Jeanne E. Richardson Treasurer: Grace Shepard Executive Director: Marc D. Draisen Credits: Project Manager: Mark Racicot Lead Project Planner: Joan Blaustein Project Planners: Mark Hunsberger Mapping: Allan Bishop Kevin Sears Kate Rosson Data Center Holly St. Clair David Holtzman Central Tom Nixon Transportation Hiral Gandhi Planning Staff Efi Pagitsas ICMetropolitan Area Planning Council 60 Temple Place M A PC Boston MA 02111 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION 1 VISION 2 NATURAL RESOURCES AND OPEN SPACE 5 Key Findings 5 Results of the Natural Resources and Open Space Forum 5 HOUSING 9 Key Findings 9 Assessment of Housing Demand 10 Housing Supply Inventory 13 Linking Supply, Demand and Affordability 18 Housing Profile Summary 25 Results of the Housing Forum 26 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 29 Key Findings 29 Economic Profile 29 Results of the Economic Development Forum 39 TRANSPORTATION 43 PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER 47 APPENDIX I—Results of The Visioning Session 75 APPENDIX II—Open Space and Natural Resources Strategies and Resources 91 APPENDIX III—Additional Housing Strategies and Resources 93 APPENDIX IV—Additional Economic Development Resources 107 APPENDIX V - Memo from CTPS on Transportation Study 109 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Watertown Population Past& Future 10 Figure 2: Number of Households by Type in Watertown 2000 11 Figure 3: Watertown Age Trends, 1990 - 2020 12 Figure 4: Vacancy Rates, 1990 and 2000 14 Figure 5: Housing Ownership for Watertown&the Region 2000 15 Figure 6: Age of Housing Stock in Watertown and Metro Region 15 Figure 7: Units in Structure 2000 16 Figure 8: Potential New Housing from Buildout Analysis 17 Figure 9: Potential New Housing Units Under Existing Zoning 17 Figure 10: Watertown Median Income &Median Home Value 1980 - 2000 18 Figure 11: Median Sale Prices in Watertown 1988-2003 20 Figure 12: Watertown Household Income 2000 23 Figure 13: Watertown Renters Paying Over/Under 30% of Income in Rent(with 24 share of those paying over 30%)by Income Figure 14: Watertown Renters Paying Over/Under 30% of Income in Rent (with 24 share of those paying over 30%by Age of Head of Household Figure 15: Median Income by Household Type, 2000 25 Figure 16: Number of Working Residents and Jobs in Watertown, 1985-2001 30 Figure 17: Watertown Unemployment Rate and Number of Residents in the 31 Workforce Figure 18: Occupations of Watertown Residents 32 Figure 19: Educational Attainment of Watertown Adults 1990 and 2000 33 Figure 20: Household Income in Watertown and the Region 33 Figure 21: Jobs in Watertown by Sector, 1985-2001 (Graph) 34 Figure 22: Number of Jobs in Watertown by Sector, 1985-2000 (Table) 35 Figure 23: Employment and Wages for Private Sector Jobs in Watertown by 36 Industry, 2003 Figure 24: Largest Employers in Watertown 2003 37 Figure 25: Wages and Employment in Watertown's Largest Private Sector 37 Industries Figure 26: Tax Valuation in Watertown by Property Class, Fiscal Year 1985- 38 2004 LIST OF MAPS Map 1 —Existing Conditions and Future Land Use 63 Map 2—Existing Natural Resources Identifications 65 Map 3 — Suggested Locations for Open Space and Natural Resource Protection 67 Map 4—Housing Opportunities Map 69 Map 5—Economic Development Opportunities Map 71 Map 6—Community Development Plan Map 73 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Proiect Overview In 2003, the Town of Watertown was granted $30,000 in planning services to create a Community Development Plan, pursuant to Executive Order 418. Executive Order 418 allowed communities to address future growth and development by creating visions, goals, and strategies in four topic areas: natural resources and open space, housing, economic development, and transportation. Four state agencies provided funding for this Plan: the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, the Department of Housing and Community Development, the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction, and the Department of Economic Development. Background Watertown is a densely developed community with a population of 32,986 people living in approximately four square miles. The majority of the Town's housing stock(60%) was built before 1950. Housing prices have increased sharply over the last decade, creating a significant affordability gap based on household median incomes. In the future, the need for housing in Watertown will be for smaller, affordable units which can accommodate empty-nesters and seniors who wish to remain in the community. Although Watertown is no longer as industrialized as it once was, manufacturing is still the largest private employment sector in Watertown and provides relatively high wages. Retailers and professional services firms are the next largest sources of employment. Over 80% of Watertown residents commute to other communities for work. Watertown residents are increasingly well educated, and more likely to pursue managerial and professional occupations than residents of the region. Residents also exceed the region in obtaining college degrees, and median household income is slightly higher than in the metro area. Business properties contribute over 20% of the Town's property value, which is above average for communities in Massachusetts. Very little business-zoned land remains vacant, but there is potential for redeveloping commercial properties in and around Watertown Square and along Pleasant Street. Watertown is a community that understands the importance of making the most of its limited open space resources. The major natural asset in Watertown is the Charles River. The residents expressed a strong interest in maintaining a"green" look to the Town by careful stewardship of its street trees. The Town has been preparing open space and recreation plans to maintain eligibility for funding for open space acquisition although there are few parcels of land remaining. The Town also understands that every development or redevelopment proposal must include consideration of opportunities for providing additional open space. Watertown has excellent access to the Massachusetts Turnpike and to public transit. Because of its proximity to the Turnpike, residents feel the impact of cut through traffic i from other communities and with speeding on local roads. The Central Transportation Planning Staff(CTPS)performed a roadway reconnaissance at four locations. They found that 45% of the traffic at all four locations originated from Watertown or Belmont, with Arlington and Waltham also being major contributors of traffic. Beyond those four communities, traffic from up to 119 other communities in Massachusetts made morning southbound trips. Speeding was observed but tended to be controlled as traffic became more congested. Communitv Development Plan Map The following recommendations are highlighted on Map 6, The Community Development Plan Map. 1. Restore the GSA property as a functioning wetland The GSA property, along with Sawins Pond and Williams Pond, is the drainage area for approximately one-third of the Town. The property was filled by the Army Corps of Engineers and covered with pavement and structures, further reducing its ability to function as a water storage/flood retention area. Restoring this property as a wetland by removing the structures and the asphalt paving, would be a cost-effective method for the Town to address flooding and be in compliance with the Phase II storm water regulations. 2. Ensure the maximum level of protection for Whitney Hills Park by transferring the property to the care and control of the Conservation Commission. Whitney Hills Park is an important open space and recreation resource for the Town but it does not currently enjoy the level of protection that it deserves. Although the property is already protected under Article 97 of the state constitution, its transfer to the care and control of the Conservation Commission would add an additional level of protection. 3. Develop the multi-use path from Watertown Square to the Cambridge line The development of a multi-use path along the railroad right-of-way for non-motorized recreation and transportation was a recommendation from the 1996 Open Space and Recreation Plan. The state sees this as a way to connect the very popular paths along the Charles River with the Minuteman Bikeway to create an important link in a regional trail system. This path would also be a much needed addition to the open space and recreational resources of the community. 4. Ensure public access to Walkers Pond Walkers Pond, located on the portion of the Gore Estate that is leased by Raytheon, is partially protected by the provisions of the Watertown Wetlands Protection Ordinance which establishes a 50 foot no build zone around the bank of the pond as defined by the Watertown Wetlands Protection Ordinance. The pond is currently fenced off and unavailable to the public for enjoyment. Although future development on this site is under litigation and the exact nature of the future development will not be known for ii some time, the Town should work carefully with any developers of the site to ensure that the site design permits public access to the pond. 5. Maximize visual and physical access to the Charles River Although much of the Charles River riverfront is under the control of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Town should ensure that all development and redevelopment along the river is sensitive to Watertown's greatest asset. This would include requiring that developments provide for visual access and physical access to the public space along the river. The Town should continue to work with DCR and private organizations such as the Charles River Conservancy and the Charles River Watershed Association to ensure that the river's natural assets are protected while allowing for active and passive recreation as appropriate. 6. Acquire additional land for open space and recreation Whenever the opportunity arises, the Town should seek to acquire (or otherwise protect) additional land for open space and recreation,with an emphasis on those areas identified for protection on Map 3. 7. Ensure the long term preservation of the Gore Estate The Town should take steps to ensure that the historic Gore Estate remains protected in perpetuity. 8. Revitalize Watertown Square by upgrading the streetscape, supporting the business community and selectively stimulating mixed use redevelopment This strategy includes improving the appearance of public spaces and private properties, making walking more pleasant and street crossing easier and safer, enhancing the mix of businesses, and amending the zoning to enable second floor offices and housing. 9. Encourage mixed-use redevelopment of the MBTA Car Barn Encourage redevelopment for a mix of residential and commercial uses. Work with the MBTA to develop a program of retail and residential uses that will provide an economic incentive for redevelopment while maintaining continued operation of MBTA service. 10. Improve the appearance of the public and private streetscape of Coolidge Square The town should work with business owners and residents to identify what improvements are desirable then develop and implement an action plan. Potential improvements should include enhancement of the public streetscape such as widening sidewalks, public seating and planting areas,upgrading street lighting, reviewing parking needs, and pedestrian safety. 11. Establish a plan for the redevelopment of the Pleasant Street Corridor The Town should develop an overall plan to encourage and guide the redevelopment of Pleasant Street to take advantage of commercial and residential opportunities while being sensitive to impacts on the Charles River and the neighborhood. iii 12. Reuse the Coolidge School for housing Adapt for use for affordable housing for seniors or families. 13. Redevelop the parking lot on Coolidge Hill Road with infill housing Encourage redevelopment with infill housing for families with 10% affordable. 14. Plan for the redevelopment of the Sacred Heart church site Develop preference for reuse based on community input, and work with the Archdiocese to shape the disposition of the property. The church was only recently designated for closure by the Archdiocese of Boston in May, 2004 and the town has not established a position as to its preferred reuse. It is on a trackless trolley line and within walking distance of a shopping center, and so could work for affordable housing for seniors or the disabled. 15. Install roadway speed limit signs on Waverly Avenue, Common Street, School Street and Arlington Street- CTPS recommended that roadway speed limit signs should be installed on the four streets they studied. Although posted speed limit signs by themselves, are not a strong deterrent to speeding drivers, they should be installed as a reminder to drivers of the residential character of the roadway. Any installation of speed limit signs will require close coordination with Town officials including the Superintendent of Public Works and local residents. 16. Undertake a traffic study of the intersection of Common, Church and Orchard Streets—From observation and community input, a particularly sensitive location that could benefit from further study is the complicated five-approach intersection at Common, Church and Orchard Streets. This study could determine if a traffic signal is warranted and if not, could analyze potential traffic calming measures to improve sight distances and reduce speeds. Any traffic study will require close coordination with Town officials and residents including the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works. Additional Strategies and Recommendations Natural Resources and Open Space • Adopt a policy of"no net loss" of street trees The Town will make every effort to adhere to a policy of"no net loss" of street trees on public and private property. This will entail a review and/or revision to the zoning ordinance with regards to landscaping on private developments as well as a Town commitment to care for and replace any street trees on public property iv Housing • Strengthen the Housing Committee/Housing Partnership - It is important to position a housing committee or partnership as a voice for housing in the community. The role of the committee could include advising local boards, strategic planning, advocacy,policy and program development, public education and information,building coalitions with other groups, etc. • Undertake a public education campaign - The Town could undertake a public education campaign to educate people about what's "affordable" and about how housing affects local citizens and the region's economy. • Adopt the Community Preservation Act (CPA) - Adoption of the CPA provides more locally controlled resources and helps communities balance housing, open space, and historic preservation. • Allow mixed-use zoning,including housing above stores in Watertown Square -Allowing a mix of residential, commercial, and other uses where there is infrastructure to support it is a prime example of"smart growth." In addition to expanding housing opportunities, it can strengthen retail businesses by expanding the number of customers in the trade area without requiring additional parking. • Revisit establishing an ordinance allowing accessory apartments or other accessory dwelling units accompanied by an "amnesty program" for existing units and affordability provisions - Watertown has previously operated an accessory apartment amnesty program, but does not presently have a mechanism for creating accessory units. Given the community's interest in maintaining the character of existing neighborhoods, it may be appropriate to revisit this means for creating more affordable housing. • Explore amending the bylaw regarding conversion of single family to two family homes in the T district- The Town currently allows single family parcels in the T district to be converted to two families. This has recently resulted in some conversions that were found objectionable by some attendees at the public forums in terms of physical appearance (structures too large for their lots), aggravation of parking problems, and loss of open space. At the same time, attendees expressed a need for more affordable home ownership opportunities in the town, and using less land per unit is one way to lower costs. • Establish a housing buy down program—A number of communities have established programs to write down the costs of condo purchases or to buy affordable condos or two-and three-family houses, rehabilitate them, and rent or sell them as permanently affordable housing. • Take steps to retain expiring use properties as affordable housing - Affordability in some privately owned, mixed-income developments is governed v by use restrictions that allow owners to sell or rent at market rates after a given number of years. These developments and their restrictions are referred to as "expiring use."Two developments in Watertown are listed as expiring use properties by CHAPA(Citizens Housing and Planning Advisory Association): 156 units in the Arsenal Apartments (expiring 2012), and 14 units at Beaverbrook STEP (expiring 2021). • Develop a plan for reuse of surplus municipally owned property, including a property inventory,priority list, and implementation steps -Use of public property for housing dramatically lowers acquisition and land costs, thus lowering the cost of housing built there. Surplus property provides an opportunity to address a range of local needs. Communities should view this property and their various needs comprehensively and develop a plan to balance the need for housing, open space, and other priorities. • Identify other potentially available public or institutional property as well as privately owned vacant and underutilized properties -Types of properties include those owned by state, federal, or county governments; authorities and quasi-publics; colleges and universities; and religious organizations. The soon to be closed Sacred Heart church is perhaps the highest priority for evaluation. Transportation • Enhance traffic enforcement along Waverly Avenue, Common Street, School Street and Arlington Street to reduce speeding—Enforcement involves altering driver behavior through police presence, warnings, and citations. Increasing enforcement along the four study roadways is recommended although it can be costly to the community and may not have a permanent effect on drivers if it is not continuous. Any discussions of enforcement will require input from the Police Department. • Explore traffic calming measures along the four study roadways—Traffic calming measures are roadway treatments that seek to reduce speed and volumes to "acceptable levels"by altering the physical characteristics and dimensions of the roadway. Traffic calming measures include speed tables, textured pavement, raised intersections, lateral shifts and neck downs. Any study of traffic calming measures will require the involvement of local residents, the Police Department, the Department of Public Works and the Planning Department. vi INTRODUCTION In 2003, the Town of Watertown was granted $30,000 in planning services to create a Community Development Plan, pursuant to Executive Order 418. Executive Order 418 allowed communities to address future growth and development by creating visions, goals, and strategies in four topic areas: natural resources and open space, housing, economic development, and transportation. Four state agencies provided funding for this Plan: the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, the Department of Housing and Community Development, the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction, and the Department of Economic Development. The Town will be using this plan as part of its on-going community development planning. The Town selected the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) as its consultant. The MAPC worked under the direction of the Planning Director. Over the course of a year, the Planning Department hosted five public forums: • Town-wide Visioning Forum, February 19, 2003 • Natural Resources and Open Space Forum, October 21, 2003 • Economic Development Forum, January 22, 2004 • Housing Forum, April 20, 2004 • Final Plan Forum, May 18, 2004 Throughout this report, we provide perspective on trends in Watertown by comparing the Town to larger geographic regions. Often we refer to the "MAPC region". This is the area covered by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council and includes the 101 communities of metropolitan Boston from Cape Ann to Duxbury and from Boston out to Bellingham, Marlborough, Littleton and other communities along Interstate 495. We also refer to the "subregion", which in Watertown's case is the Inner Core Committee. The Inner Core Committee consists of the following 24 communities: Arlington, Belmont, Boston, Braintree, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Holbrook, Lynn, Malden, Medford, Melrose, Milton,Nahant,Newton, Quincy, Randolph, Revere, Saugus, Somerville, Waltham, Watertown, and Winthrop. Note: Watertown is a city whose legal name is the City known as the Town of Watertown. Most commonly, the community is referred to as the Town of Watertown. The term Town will be used throughout this plan for ease of reference and to reflect common practice. 1 VISION This vision was developed using the results of the Town-wide visioning forum that was held on February 19, 2003. The vision statement was reviewed by the Planning Director. The Town of Watertown seeks to preserve and enhance the small town qualities that make it a desirable place to live. It will accomplish this vision by creating vibrant business districts, encouraging a range of transportation options, maintaining the character of existing residential neighborhoods while encouraging a range of housing types and, protecting and enhancing open spaces. The Town will create vibrant business districts. The Town will take advantage of each commercial area's unique strengths. • The Town will work to make Watertown Square a focus for the community and a lively destination for visitors by encouraging a mix of businesses that attract foot traffic and browsing such as restaurants, cafes and bookstores. • The Town will seek to take advantage of the potential for bio-technology companies moving into the Arsenal development in the wake of Harvard's presence. • The Town will examine the impacts of automotive-related businesses in the Town and seek to minimize further automotive businesses. • The Town will use its zoning powers to ensure that the transitions between commercial and residential zones minimize the impacts on neighborhoods. • The Town will encourage redevelopment along Pleasant Street to be particularly sensitive to the river. The Town will protect and enhance open spaces. • The Town will protect and enhance the Charles River,which is Watertown's greatest natural asset. The Town will work in partnership with the MDC (now DCR) to ensure that the Charles River is clean, physically and visually accessible and that it accommodates recreational benefits for people while maintaining the rivers' natural integrity. • The Town will explore all avenues to protect and replace shade trees. The Town will use incentives as well as regulations to ensure that private and public actions, including the reconstruction of streets, protect existing trees and replace lost trees with appropriate species. 2 • The Town will practice stewardship of existing open spaces and natural areas. The Town will obtain permanent protection status for existing natural areas and will enhance and restore those areas that have been degraded. • The Town will seek to protect additional open space, as opportunities become available. The Town will acquire open space where necessary and will use zoning provisions to retain open space in new developments. The Town will ensure that a wide range of housing alternatives exists. Watertown is already an extremely dense community and the key challenge in the area of housing will be to provide a mix of housing for low, middle and upper income people while minimizing the environmental and traffic impacts on existing neighborhoods. • The Town will explore options for increasing affordable housing without increasing density such as reusing existing structures. • The Town will explore the possibility of mixed-use developments that will increase housing while strengthening commercial areas. • The Town will explore the possibility of creating affordable housing through public- private partnerships. The Town will encourage a range of transportation options. The most noticeable impact of density in the Town is traffic congestion and inadequate parking. Watertown already has excellent public transportation. Therefore, in order to lessen the impacts of traffic, the Town will take steps to encourage people to walk or bicycle rather than drive, and will create additional transportation alternatives that lessens the need for car ownership. • The Town will work with the MBTA to preserve and enhance the excellent public transportation system. • The Town will actively promote walking and bicycling by providing paths, sidewalks, bicycle parking and improving the streetscape as well as traffic calming measures. • The Town will encourage innovative alternatives to the use of the automobile. This may include such things as water transportation and alternatives to car ownership such as zip cars. 3 4 NATURAL RESOURCES AND OPEN SPACE Kev Findings • The Charles River is Watertown's greatest natural resource but visual and physical access to the river needs to be improved. • Watertown's street trees are not being adequately cared for; dead trees are not being replaced. • There is a shortage of open space in general and specifically, there are not enough playing fields. • Residents are concerned that the Town is too focused on development and not enough consideration is given to open space. • Additional open space should be acquired but existing natural areas that have become degraded should be enhanced. Results of the Natural Resources and Open Space Forum The Natural Resources and Open Space Forum was held on October 21, 2003. The first task was to vote on priority goals and themes for open space and natural resource protection. The second task was to develop a list of the areas within the Town that should be protected because of their importance for open space/natural resources protection or recreational purposes. Overall Goals for Open Space and Recreation A list of nine themes was presented. These themes were taken from the Town of Watertown 1996 Open Space and Recreation Plan and the February 2003 Visioning Session. After discussion, two themes were added and several were slightly revised. Each participant was given four dots and was instructed that they could use their dots to vote in any way they wanted to (i.e. use all on one theme or spread them among any number of themes). The results were as follows: Theme Votes Acquire additional land for open space and recreation. 18 Protect private and public green space through zoning and street design that 17 maximizes shade tree planting. Enhance natural areas that have been degraded. 16 Work towards a vision of the Charles River in Watertown that accommodates a 11 variety of uses realizing human benefits as well as natural integrity. Ensure permanent protection of existing natural areas, in their natural state. 9 Improve environmental practices in the town. 8 Identify developed land available for reclamation as open space and recreation. 8 5 Theme Votes Improve the condition of Watertown's recreational resources and any public 4 lands. Work with surrounding communities on a regional approach to open space 2 protection. Improve the accessibility of Watertown's open space and recreational resources. 2 Clarify the status/level of protection of all open space and recreation properties. 1 Su22ested Locations for Open Space or Natural Resources Protection (Refer to Map 3 for locations) The second task was to develop a list of the areas within the Town that should be protected because of their importance for open space/natural resources protection or recreational purposes. The list began with parcels identified in the 1996 Town of Watertown Open Space and Recreation Plan(Parcels numbered I —6 on Map 3. These were listed on a chart. Next, individuals suggested parcels or areas that they felt should be protected. To help in identifying the natural resource characteristics of these areas, a map entitled "Existing Natural Resources Identification—Map 2"was produced and displayed during the forum. This map used statewide data sources to show the following characteristics: Protected open space and recreation land Aquifers Sub-basin boundaries Zone Its Wetlands Interim wellhead protection areas Pubic water supply Certified vernal pools Potential vernal pools Streams and water bodies BioMap core habitat BioMap supporting natural landscape Estimated habitats of rare wildlife Priority sites of rare species habitats Information on these data layers can be found at httn://www.state.ma.us/m2is/lavlist.htm. Because Watertown is a heavily developed community with little remaining open land, there was less emphasis on this map. The same procedure described above was used to vote on priorities for protection. The votes are recorded below. Map # Parcel Votes 1. Railroad ROW from Watertown Square to Cambridge border. 14 2. G.S.A. property(eastern side of Arsenal Street near intersection 22 of Greenough Blvd.) 3. Sawins Pond(near Coolidge Avenue) 8 4. Williams Pond(near Arlington and Elm Street). 6 5. Walkers Pond, other ponds and environs in the vicinity of the 11 Raytheon property at the western border with Waltham (including the proposed 40B development). 6 Map # Parcel Votes 6. Gore Estate 5 7. Oakley Country Club 12 8. Coolidge School property 14 9. Browne School property 1 10. Perkins School 4 11. Open space portions of the Arsenal office park 2 12. T car barn 3 13. Concrete aggregate 7 7 8 HOUSING Kev Findings • Watertown's demographics point to an increase of about 1,400 households between 2000 and 2020. • The Town has a relatively large proportion of non-family households, relatively few traditional families with children, and as a result, a fairly small average household size. • Aging baby boomers will create a need for more housing that is smaller and easier to maintain by empty nesters and younger seniors. • Over 60% of Watertown's housing stock was built before 1950. Reuse and rehabilitation of these units will become increasingly costly and lead paint may be a concern in many units. • About 36% of Watertown's households have incomes below the moderate income threshold potentially eligible for subsidized housing. • Home prices have increased tremendously in recent decades, making single family home ownership unaffordable to those below median income. • Watertown's subsidized housing stock is more than 600 units below the state's 10% affordability goal. In the absence of firm plans to reach the goal, the Town may be subject to development proposals under M.G.L. Chapter 40B that may not fit the community's vision for the future. 9 Assessment of HousinL Demand Recent Population Trends Population trends are key drivers of housing demand. Watertown's population declined almost 4%between 1980 and 2000. Over the 20-year period,both the Inner Core subregion and the MAPC region as a whole grew, although slowly(about 3% for the Inner Core and 6% for MAPC). Past and future population trends in Figure 1 show that Watertown is projected to lose about 850 residents between 2000 and 2020. Although Watertown's population declined 1% in the 1990s, the number of households grew by about 3% as average household size fell. With 2.25 people per household, Watertown's households are smaller than those of the Inner Core (2.47) or the MAPC region (2.56). The trend toward smaller households is a nationwide phenomenon, driven largely by the growing diversity of household types and lifestyle choices. People are marrying later, living in a greater variety of household configurations, living alone, and living longer, often outliving spouses as the overall population ages. In general, increases in the number of households drives up the demand for housing and leads to lower vacancy rates and escalating housing costs if the supply of housing does not keep pace. Figure 1 Watertown Population Past & Future 35,000 33,9RA 12,986 31,U5'I 3[,"I 3b 30,000 n 25,000 - a 20,000 0 a 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 Data Sources:U.S.Census and MAPC Changes in household size were accompanied by changes in household composition. For the region as a whole, the decade saw a decline in the proportion of family households 10 versus non-family households and an increase in the percentage of householders living alone. Only 22% of the region's households today are married couples with children, while 30% consist of a single person living alone. Although the number of single parents grew, they continue to make up only 7% of all of the region's households. Of Watertown's households, 50% are families and 50% are non-families. The proportion of families is down from about 55% in 1990 and is substantially lower than the 61% for the region as a whole. About 14% of Watertown households are two-parent families with children, 4% are single-parent families, and 12% are elders living alone. Compared to the region, Watertown has fewer two-parent families with children and fewer single-parent families, but more non-family households and more elders living alone. The number of single-parent families grew by almost 7% in the 1990s. Figure 2 shows the number and composition of family and non-family households. Figure 2 Number of Households by Type in Watertown, 2000 8,000 r,�z5 i,JU4 7,000 6,000 4,993 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,037 2,000 F1,812 1,000 5f 5 0 F—I Family Married Single Non-Family Living Living w/kids Parents Alone Alone 65+ Data Source: U.S. Census 2000 Changes in Watertown's age mix also affect housing demand and housing need. To show this relationship, we have clustered age groups to relate them loosely to various stages in the housing market(for past and future trends, see Figure 3). Thus in the last decade, the town has seen: • A very slight decline in the number of pre-school children and a small increase in school-age children, suggesting a fairly stable demand for family housing; • A relatively sharp drop in the household formation years (ages 20-34), signaling less demand for rentals and first-time homebuyer opportunities (and/or migration of young adults due to high housing costs); 11 • A rise in the middle years (ages 35-54), fueled by the baby boomers and putting pressure on the trade-up market; • An increase in the empty-nesters (ages 55-64) and early seniors (65-74) by 2020, resulting in increased demand for smaller units with less maintenance than large, single-family homes; and • An increase in the number of seniors, suggesting a need for small-scale housing and housing with services. Figure 3 Watertown: Age Trends, 1990-2020 ■ 1990 ❑2000 ❑2010 ❑2020 14000 12000 10000 c 0 8000 Q 0 6000 a 4000 2000 0 Preschool School Household Trade-up Empty Early Wiser (0-4) Age(5-19) Formation (35-54) Nesters Seniors Seniors (20-34) (55-64) (65-74) (75+) Age Groups Data Sources: MAPC 2003 and U.S. Census 1990-2000 This pattern is almost identical to the region, except that Watertown has seen a slight decline in empty nesters while the region has seen slight growth. By 2010, these numbers increase. Unlike many communities, Watertown's population of seniors declined in the 1990s; 17.1% of Watertown's people were age 65 and over in 1990, while 16.7% were in that age range by 2000. The median age in the town rose slightly from about 35 years to about 37 years 12 Housing Demand: What Will the Future Bring? According to MAPC's projections (also shown in Figure 3), the town's population is expected to continue to decline by another 3%by 2020. During the same period, the population will grow by about 5.5% for the subregion and 3.5% for the region. These estimates are based on past trends in birth and death rates, migration rates, and other variables. But, because the projections do not account for major changes in the housing supply, any future zoning changes that affect housing could alter the future mix of households. The trend toward more but smaller households is likely to continue in Watertown, the subregion, and the region as a whole. The number of households in Watertown is expected to increase by about 1,400 between 2000 and 2020. Over the next 15-20 years, Watertown can expect:' • a slight increase in the number of pre-school children; • a decline, followed by a slight increase, in the number of school-age children; • an increase, followed by a decline, in the household-formation years; • a decrease in trade-up demand; • significant growth in empty-nesters; • a decline followed by a steep rise for early seniors; and • a drop in the number of wiser seniors. The aging of the baby-boomers drove trade-up demand in the last decade, and in many communities the demand for larger houses will decline as many boomers swap single family homes for smaller units. While Watertown is projected to see an increase of over 1,200 households among empty nesters, the unusually large population in the household formation stage today could prevent a sharp decline in trade up demand in the coming years. And, even though the early senior group is projected to grow in 2020, the total number of people over 65 in that year is expected to be about 800 less than in 2000. Housing Supply Inventory Quantity and Characteristics of Watertown's Housing The number of housing units in Watertown— 15,008 units as of 2000—grew 9% in the 1980s and 2% in the 1990s for a 20-year growth rate of almost 11%. More than three times as many units were built in the 1980s (1,166) as in the 1990s (260), and another 250 units have been added since the last census. Watertown's growth rate is greater than the subregion (8%)but slower than the MAPC region (14%). The region as a whole saw much more housing growth in the 1980s than the 1990s, and communities farthest from Boston generally grew fastest in the 1990s 1 Some of these age categories aggregate more ages than others,which contributes to the visual difference in the proportions of the groups(i.e.,trade-up group includes the 20 years from age 35 to age 54,while empty nesters covers only the 10 years from age 55 to age 64). 13 Low vacancy rates indicate high demand and tight supply, generally leading to price increases. Vacancy rates in Watertown for both homeownership and rentals were already quite low in 1990, and declined further by 2000. Vacancy rates for rental units remained below the abnormally low statewide rates and homeownership vacancies fell below the statewide rate during the decade. By 2000,vacancy rates for both rental and homeownership were extremely low (see Figure 4). Figure 4 Vacancy Rates, 1990 and 2000 Watertown Vacancy Rates by Tenure 1990 2000 MA 2000 National Standard Rental 3.1 % 1.6% 3.5% 5% Homeowner 2.0% 0.4% 0.7% 3% Watertown's housing stock is 47% owner-occupied and 53%renter-occupied(see Figure 5). The rate of owner-occupancy is slightly greater than the Inner Core (44%)but lower than the region(57%). Conversely, there are fewer opportunities for renters in Watertown than in the subregion but more than in the larger region. The rental/owner mix has remained almost constant since 1980. 14 Figure 5 Housing Ownership for Watertown & the Region, 2000 100% 90% - 80% - 43% 70% 53% 56% 60% - ❑%Renter-Occupied 50% ■%Owner-Occupied 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Watertown Inner Core MAPC Region Data Source: U.S.Census Much of Watertown's housing stock is fairly old; 61% was built before 1950, and 82% was built before the 1970s, when lead paint laws were enacted (see Figure 6). This older housing may be in need of repairs, remodeling, or lead paint improvements. Because Watertown has been substantially developed for many years, the proportion of its housing stock that dates after 1960 is considerably less than for the region as a whole, which has continued to grow in the outer suburbs. Figure 6 Age of Housing Stock in Watertown & Metro Region ■Watertown ❑ Region 50% Y 45% 0 40% - 35% - y 30% - 0 25% - c 20% - 2,096 2,028 15% 1,092 1,097 1,133 448 L 10% m a 5% - 0 1939 or 1940-49 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990- Earlier March 2000 15 The proportion of single-family detached housing(22%)has grown slightly since 1990 (20%). This is comparable to the Inner Core (25%) but much lower than the MAPC region (44%). Over 40% of the town's housing units are in two-families, which is considerably higher than the Inner Core (19%) and region(I I%). The most significant growth in Watertown in the 1990s was in the 260 single family homes (+9%), 270 single unit detached houses such as town homes (+25%), and 200 units in structures of 20 units or more (+11%). Building permits issued for 2001-2002 were almost all multi family(153 units)with only 8 single-family permits issued, according to the U.S. Census. Figure 7 Units in Structure 2000 10 Units or More 1 unit detached 17% 22% 5 to 9 units 3% 1 unit attached 3 or 4 units_ 6% 11% 2 units Data Source: U.S. Census 2000 41% Housing Supply: What Will the Future Bring? Because Watertown is an established community with little vacant land, the 2000 MAPC buildout analysis for the town focused primarily on potential redevelopment of land currently in use. This analysis calculated that the town could accommodate as many as 803 additional dwelling units (see Figures 8 and 9). This would represent a 5.4% increase over the 2000 housing supply and house almost 1,797 additional residents including 145 school children. The analysis included development of 83 single family homes on the property of the Oakley Country Club. This land is not permanently protected in its current use, but the town considers it unlikely to be developed in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, single family homes could be built on the property as-of-right under existing zoning. However, the bulk of the units would be in the mix of commercial and residential redevelopment in areas along Arsenal and Pleasant Streets. Housing in these areas was assumed to be fairly high density multi-family structures of about 25 units per acre (perhaps 3-4 story multi-family) covering only a portion of the sites. At least two fairly large residential developments have been proposed for the Pleasant Street corridor. 16 Figure 8 Potential New Housing from Buildout Analysis Location Dwelling Units Residents Students Redevelopment Area#1 (Pleasant St) 470 1,052 85 Redevelopment Area#2 (Arsenal St) 250 560 45 Oakley Country Club (CR zone) 83 185 15 Total 803 1,797 145 Figure 9 Potential New Housing Units Under Existing Zoning M 900 - Y 800 - 83 Oakley Country Club 700 - Single Family Lots 600 - 500 - Arsenal Street Redvpt. One-quarter residential E 400 Z 300 Pleasant Street Redvpt. 200 470 One-third residential d 100 - O 0 a Dwelling Units At only 5% of the town's housing stock, the redevelopment envisioned in this analysis would not dramatically change the mix of housing in the town. However, the multi- family component would likely be less expensive than existing single family units because high land costs would be spread across more homes. Affordable Housing Inventory Watertown has 816 subsidized housing units according to the state's April 2002 Subsidized Housing Inventory, which tracks housing that qualifies under M.G.L. Chapter 40B. Of these, 589 (70%) are owned and managed by the Watertown Housing Authority, and 227 are privately owned. Forty percent of the public housing is for families and 60% is for the elderly and the disabled. Watertown's 816 subsidized units constitute 5.45% of its 14,959 year-round housing units, or 614 units short of the 10% goal established under M.G.L. Chapter 40B. A project under discussion by developer Beacon Residential would add about 50 more units, and more significantly, may put the town over the 1.5% land coverage threshold that would release the town from the requirements of 40B. Since the April 2002 inventory, the state has given Watertown credit for all 62 rental units at the Brigham 17 House and four units at Quimby Street(a project developed by Watertown Community Housing, Inc.). This brings the 40B total to 882 units or 5.9%. In any event, the 10% goal is an arbitrary number used statewide, and is not based on identified need at the local level. And, because there are currently170 subsidized units on the CHAPA (Citizens Housing and Planning Association) list for being at risk for expiring use, the town has work to do simply to maintain its current level. As we will see later in this report, about 36% of Watertown's households—an estimated 5,300 households --have low-to-moderate incomes that qualify for subsidized housing. As long as Watertown remains below the 10% goal and is not making substantial progress in reaching it, the town remains vulnerable to development proposals that may conflict with existing zoning and the town's vision for the future. Linking Suvvly, Demand, and Affordabilitv High demand and limited supply have cut vacancy rates and forced up the costs of both owning and renting a home. The Costs of Buying a Home A traditional rough rule of thumb is that housing is affordable if it costs no more than 2.5 times the buyer's household income. By this measure, even in 1980, the median-income Watertown household could not afford the median-home valued at 3 times median income (see Figure 10). By 1990, the ratio had risen to 4.5,where it stayed in 2000. Using this multiplier, the median-income household in 2000 could afford just over $149,000, while the median home value according to the census was $270,600. This implies that the household in the middle of the town's income range faced an "affordability gap" of over$120,000 in buying the mid-priced house. Figure 10 Watertown Median Income & Median Home Value 1980-2000 $300,000 $250,000 - Ratio:4.5 $200,000 Ratio:4.5 $150,000 $100,000 Ratio:3.2 $50,000 f $- 1980 1990 2000 Median Home Value $61,900 $196,600 $270,600 (Median Household $19,129 $43,490 $59,764 Income Data Source: U.S.Census 18 Clearly, housing prices have risen faster than incomes, making housing much less affordable. Watertown has the forty-sixth highest median housing value among the 101 MAPC communities, slightly above the median. Watertown's gap in dollars is also on the high side for the region, and its ratio of value to income is slightly above the regional median of 4:1 (the highest ratio in the region is 9:1). A second calculation of ownership affordability is provided by a recent housing analysis conducted by Northeastern University2. This study compared the ability of the median income household in each of 161 metropolitan Boston communities to afford the median priced home based on interest rates, single family sales prices, estimated taxes and insurance, and a 33% of income "affordability" cutoff. According to this study, Watertown was one of 87 communities in 2002 and 95 communities in 2003 considered not affordable for the median income household seeking a single family home, with a "gap" of almost $100,000 between what the buyer could afford and the median sales price of single family houses. Although home sale prices remained relatively flat during much of the 1990s, there has been a steep rise in recent years (see Figure 11).3 The median single-family home sale price in Watertown rose by almost 80%between 1998 and 2003. In 2003, the median single-family home sold for$411,000, the median condo for $324,000, and the median for all sales (including 2-4 family dwellings) was $376,500. Today,with interest rates rising, a Watertown household with the current regional median income for a family of four($82,600)would face a gap of about $51,000 between the 2003 median single family sales price and what it could afford,based on the assumptions of the Northeastern study4. A household at today's regional "moderate" family income level ($66,150) would face a gap of over$120,000 for the same house. In fact, a household would need an income of approximately $94,000 to afford the purchase. A household earning at the top of the "middle" income threshold of 150% of the regional median ($123,900 in 2004) could afford a purchase price of about $540,000, more than $100,000 over the Watertown median sale price. To bring the situation closer to home, we estimated how a family with two town-worker salaries might fare in today's market as a first time buyer. For example, a junior police officer and a clerical worker might earn around $70,000. Based on the assumptions for first time home buyers from the Northeastern study, updated with a current interest rate of 6.5%, we estimate this couple could afford a purchase price today of about $234,000. This is about $100,000 below Watertown's 2003 median condo sale price and $177,000 below the median single family home price. 2 The Greater Boston Housing Report Card,Center for Urban and Regional Policy,Northeastern University, April 2004 3 Home values,as shown in Figure 10,are the amounts residents consider to be the value of their homes as provided to the Census.Home sale prices,as shown in Figure 11,are based on actual home sales as recorded at the Registry of Deeds and made available by the Warren Group. 4 10%down payment,30 year mortgage at a 2004 rate of 6.5%,insurance+taxes+private mortgage insurance of$487/month,and"affordability"at 33%of income. 19 A third way to analyze affordability is to see how many households are paying 30% or more of their income toward a mortgage—a traditional rule of thumb for issuing home mortgages. In 2000, Census data indicate that 7.1% of Watertown homeowners were paying 30-35% of their income for housing (mortgage+utilities +insurance+property taxes) and another 18.2%were paying 35% and higher. Figure II Median Sale Prices in Watertown, 1988-2003 t1 Family Condo tAll Sales $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 - $300,000 a $250,000 Cn $200,000 - $150,000 ~~* $100,000 $50,000 - $0- 00 O O N M 'ITLn (O � e0 O O N M 0 0 OD O O O M M M M M O O O O CD MS M M M M M M M M M M O O O O � � CONN N CON Data Source:The Warren Group The Cost of Renting The costs of rental housing also rose substantially during the 1980-2000 time period throughout metro Boston. In Watertown, the median rent jumped 131% in the 1980s and grew another 29% in the 1990s. By 2000, it had reached$1,048,requiring an annual income of$41,920, well within the $55,000 median income for Watertown renters. These census data were reported by tenants in 2000, and therefore are somewhat out of date. And,because they are medians (that is, the mid-points of the rent range), they understate the market rate rents paid for recently leased apartments and overstate the rents paid by long-term tenants that may have increased slowly over many years. Newcomers seeking market rentals today will most likely face higher rents than these median figures. Although accurate current local rent level data are limited, a recent national study found that Massachusetts had the highest rents in the country. The study found that the 20 statewide "fair market rent" (FMR)5 -- $1,165 —required an income of$46,582,while the metro Boston FMR-- $1,419—required an income of$56,760. Furthermore, 61% of Massachusetts renters and 64% of metro Boston renters cannot afford the FMR.6 In the recent Northeastern regional housing study no community showed a median advertised rent for two-bedroom apartments below $1,000 per month, and the median for Watertown was $1,300 (down 13% since 2001). There are some indications of a slight slackening in recent rents, especially for luxury rentals, but recent review of Watertown apartment listings in the Boston Globe showed a similar median to 2003 ($1,300 on 4/18/04 and $1,400 on 5/9/04). Housing Cost Impacts and Housing Need High housing costs have the most severe impact on those on the lowest rung of the income ladder. Of the renter households for which data are available, 30% (2,223 households)pay more than 30% of their income for rent; 21% (1,573 households) have incomes below $35,000 and pay more than 30% of their income for rent; and 50% of elderly renters (517 households)pay more than 30% of their income for rent. The 2000 census estimated that 2,000 Watertown residents (6.3%) were below the poverty level. An estimated 42% of Watertown's households, or more than 6,100, have incomes below 80% of the regional median for a family of four(see Figure 12). This is considered the "moderate income" ceiling that qualifies for affordable housing. Of these households, over 3,700 have incomes below 50% of median, considered"low income." Middle income households—those with incomes between 80% and 150% of median— make up 35% of the town's households or about 5,2008 This total is projected to increase to about 5,700 households by 2020 if the town's income distribution remains roughly the same. If today's rental/owner split is maintained, about 250 of the additional households would rent and 250 would own their homes. This income range has substantially more purchasing power than low-moderate income households, and consequently more housing options. For renters, the current$66,150 income floor for this group would translate into an affordable rent of about$1,650 at 30% of income, and run up to $3,100 at the upper end(DHCD considers a newly constructed rental unit affordable to middle income at$1,855 for the purposes of EO 418 housing certification). Recent sampling of advertised rents found that about 85% of the Watertown apartments advertised were listed below $1,650.9 Extended to the town's 5 FMRs are estimated annually by HUD.They determine the eligibility of rental housing units for the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments program and are used to calculate subsidies under the Rental Voucher program. 6 National Low Income Coalition,Out of Reach,2003. 7 Northeastern University Center for Urban and Regional Policy, The Greater Boston Housing Report Card 2003,April 2004. 8 This is a statistical estimate only and does not adjust for family size. Cut-offs used in chart are for the year 2000,coincident with Census data.Low income(50%of median)=$32,750;moderate income(80% of median)=$50,200;middle(81%-150%)=$98,250;upper income(over 150%)=over$98,251. 9 Boston Globe,April 18 and May 9,2004 21 7,000 rental units, this percentage would represent about 5,950 apartments, more than the total number of middle income households projected in 2020. In addition, rental units for middle income households are the current focus of most of the residential development in Watertown. A 134 unit project near Watertown Square is nearing completion and a 375 unit project on Pleasant Street has received zoning approvals. These two projects alone would roughly equal the projected increase in middle income households over the period. On the home ownership side, about 4 permits for single family homes have been issued per year since 1990, and about 8 condos have been built or converted per year. Over 20 years, this pace would total slightly less than half of the projected increase in middle income households in the town. This would be close to the projected increase in ownership demand if the town's current 50%rental/50% ownership mix is assumed. DHCD has identified$375,000 to be the highest housing price affordable to middle income buyers for the purposes of EO 418 housing certification. Analysis of the town's property assessment database reveals that perhaps 1,800 single family houses and condos in the town might be considered affordable by this measure.10 About 80% of these units are condos, which corresponds to input from the public that affordable single family homes rarely come on the market. The town has a relatively small base of single family homes, and the less expensive ones turn over slowly. Because the town is largely built out and remaining land is expensive, the largest opportunity for expanding the supply of ownership units would be in condo or townhouse developments or in condo conversions in the town's large supply of 2-4 family houses. Currently, about 2,500 units are located in 2- or 3-family houses that are valued at less than$250,000 per unit. Of course, conversion of rental apartments to condos would increase home ownership,but would not expand the overall housing supply. In sum, assessment of housing options for middle income groups indicates that the market is doing a better job of meeting this group's current and future needs than it is for low and moderate income households. Watertown has a large supply of rental housing affordable to middle incomes, and projects already in the pipeline are of the magnitude to address the projected increase in demand. For ownership, analysis of property values indicates that affordable single family home ownership opportunities are limited relative to the existing stock of condos and to the potential for future condo conversions. However, public input at the forum expressed frustration with the small number of houses that come onto the market that are affordable to families earning at the lower range of middle income—at the median and below. 10 The assessed values in the town's database were increased by 15%for the analysis to account for price increases after the evaluation date of January 2003. 22 Figure 42 Watertown Household Income 2000 Low Upper --------- - 26% 23% Middle Moderate 35% 16% Data Source: U.S. Census 2000 The most recent calculations from HUD for 2004 show a slightly smaller number of Watertown households eligible for assistance, with 5,316 (36%) estimated to be of low- to-moderate income. Lower-income households are almost by definition more likely to be burdened by high rents (see Figure 13). Over 70% of the Watertown renters paying over 30% of income earned less than $35,000 in 1999. Households in all age ranges are affected by high rents, but the most frequently rent- burdened households in Watertown are seniors, who comprise only 14% of the town's renters, but 23% of those who are rent burdened(Figure 14). Over half of all renters in Watertown(55%) are 25-44 years old and 44% of these pay more than 30% of their income in rent. In all of the other age categories,the percentage of those most burdened by rent payments is fairly evenly distributed with about 9-14% of each age range paying greater than 30% of their income in rent. The pattern of high impacts on young and old is fairly typical, although the impacts on 25-44 year-olds is more unusual. 23 Figure 13 Watertown Renters Paying Over/Under 30% of Income in Rent (with share of those paying over 30%) ■#Over 30% ❑#Under 30% 1,800 1,600 1,400 —' 1,200 - 1,000 — 800 600 400 200 /0° 20/0° 37/o 0 21% ■ 8% 0% 0°/, 14 0 Less than $10,000 to $20,000 to $35,000 to $50,000 to $75,000 to $100,000+ $10,000 $19,999 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 Data Source: US Census 2000 Figure 14 Watertown Renters Paying Over/Under 30% of Income in Rent (with share of those paying over 30%) ■#Over 30% ❑#Under 30% y 3,000 v 0 2,500 - d c 2,000 - c 1,500 L 1,000 0 Z 500 - 11% 22% 22% "0/o0%"0/014/0 0 15 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75+ Age of Head of Household Data Source: U.S. Census 2000 24 Overall, Watertown's median household income of almost $60,000 was 8%higher than the metro region's in 1999. Not surprisingly, median income of the town's home owners was higher than for renters, but only by 20%. This perhaps reflects a relatively large population of young professionals among renters and/or non-family households with more than one income (see Figure 15). These households likely also contribute to the unusually high median income for households headed by persons younger than 25 is only $8,000 below the town-wide figure and double that of the oldest seniors Figure 15 Median Income by Household Type, 2000 $70,000 a;G,4 fT $59,764 $60,000 $55,271 $51,806 E $50,000 0 _ $40,000 - $30,000 $24,250 $20,000 $10,000 - $0 Town Owner Renter 25 years 75 years Wide and under and over Data Source: U.S. Census Demand for subsidized housing greatly exceeds supply. The Watertown Housing Authority has 165 households on the elderly housing waiting list and 128 disabled, creating a wait of 1-1.5 years, which can be reduced to about 3 months in an emergency. For family housing, 755 families are on the housing authority waiting list, creating a wait of 2-3 years or 6 months in an emergency. Another 59 people are on the single-person Section 8 list and 102 families are on the family Section 8 list. The Section 8 waiting list is currently frozen due to federal regulations. Housing Profile Summary High demand and limited supply have cut vacancy rates and forced up the costs of both owning and renting a home throughout eastern Massachusetts. Watertown is experiencing the same effects, making it more difficult to buy homes and to pay rents for those with more modest incomes. In the future, the need for housing in Watertown will be for smaller, affordable units which can accommodate empty-nesters and seniors who wish to remain in the community. In addition, there is a need for more affordable housing for young households and families as housing prices continue to rise. The town is far from achieving the state's 25 10% affordability goal, and in the absence of substantial progress toward that goal, may experience development proposals under Chapter 40B that conflict with the community's desires. Results of the Housing Forum The housing forum was held on April 20, 2004. MAPC presented detailed background data and attendees brainstormed and prioritized overall goals for housing in Watertown. Attendees identified areas in the Town where housing needs could be met and described what they would like to see occur in those areas. MAPC then reviewed each area and concept and asked attendees to use dots to "vote" for those areas and concepts that they felt were the highest priority. Overall Housing Goals Attendees reviewed the housing-related goals and themes that were developed at the February 19, 2003 Town-wide visioning session. Following this, there was a discussion about goals with additional goals being suggested and some revisions to the wording of existing goals. The number in the right-hand column is the number of"votes"that goal received. Theme/Goal Votes Help the elderly stay in their house and/or in the community. 9 Help Watertown become a three generation town. 6 Help middle income residents (up to median income) with children buy 5 homes in Watertown. Increase the number of affordable rental and homeowner units for low 5 and moderate income. Preserve existing affordable units in small structures through 4 rehabilitation, deleading, expanding accessibility. Control tear-downs. 4 Expand higher density residential zoning into other areas to provide 4 more opportunities. Explore options for increasing affordable housing without decreasing 4 open space by reusing existing structures. Help Watertown residents afford to buy houses. 3 Help Town employees to live in the Town. 3 Address the needs of lowest income households due to potential loss of 3 vouchers. Explore the possibility of mixed use developments that will increase 2 housing while strengthening commercial areas. Explore options to increase affordable housing by increasing density in 1 agreed upon areas. Explore the possibility of creating affordable housing through public- private partnerships. 26 Potential Locations for Housing Development(Map 4) Based on the discussion of housing needs and themes, MAPC asked participants to identify on a map, locations that might be appropriate for additional housing and to suggest the type of housing or occupants that would fit best. Attendees again were given four dots with which to "vote" for their top priorities. The map numbers refer to locations identified on the Housing Opportunities Map (Map 4). Map # Votes Location & Uses 1 4 • Coolidge School re-use for elderly(55+) affordable. This was the recommendation of the Coolidge School Re-Use Committee and will require approval by the Town Council 4 • Coolidge School re-use for 28 affordable units, 10 market rate. This was alternative proposal but not selected. 2 4 • Hartz Mason — mixed use by the river. Contamination problem. 3 6 • Piroli Brickyard. Mixed residential and commercial. 4 5 • Nichols and Arlington. Brickyard — cement block. Abuts 2 families. 5 3 • Coolidge Hill Road. Parking lot for commercial use. Townhouse development is near by. 6 2 • Orchard and Waverly. Housing over retail. 7 2 • Sacred Heart Church. Not clear it will be closed. 8 4 • MBTA Car Barn 9 3 • Raytheon/Lincoln Site. Starter homes, affordable. 10 5 • Commercial parking areas—underutilized. Green space and housing. Seizing Opportunities and Overcoming Barriers During the final segment of the housing forum,participants were asked to respond to a number of questions including: • What factors limit Watertown's ability to achieve its housing goals? • What factors contribute to Watertown's achieving its goals? • Which ones can be changed? • What tools and strategies would help Watertown achieve its goals? In terms of limiting factors, residents felt that the zoning ordinance was inadequate and out-dated. They also felt that the building department needed to enforce the building codes more rigorously. Some residents identified the problem of tear-downs where single family houses are being torn down and replaced with 4-6 units. This practice is negatively impacting the character of the neighborhoods and adding to traffic and parking 27 concerns. Another negative impact on neighborhoods is the issue of illegal accessory apartments. Residents also were concerned about the financial implications of having more land being taxed at the lower residential rate. Residents felt that mixed use zoning that would allow residences over retail should be tried along streets that have bus routes including Mount Auburn Street, Arsenal Street, Galen Street and Main Street. It was felt that this would increase housing without the impact of additional cars. 28 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Kev Findings Watertown has a significant base of employment, with its 20,000 jobs equaling its workforce in size. While the manufacturing base has shrunk since the 1980s, manufacturing remains the town's largest employment sector, and redevelopment of the Arsenal area has added a number of retailers and professional services firms to create a fairly diversified local economy. Key findings on Watertown's economy include: • Watertown residents are increasingly well educated, and more likely to pursue managerial and professional occupations than residents of the region. Residents also exceed the region in obtaining college degrees, and median household income is slightly higher than in the metro area. • Watertown hosts less than about one full or part-time job for each resident in the workforce, and over 80% of its residents commute to other communities. Those who work in town fill 15-20% of local jobs. • Manufacturing is the largest private employment sector in Watertown and provides relatively high wages. Retailers and professional services firms are the next largest sources of employment. The average wage of local jobs is about 90% of the regions. • Business properties contribute over 20% of the town's property value, which is above average for communities in Massachusetts. Very little business-zoned land remains vacant,but there is potential for redeveloping commercial properties in and around Watertown Square and along Pleasant Street. Economic Profile Resident Workforce According to the census, Watertown's population declined by about 1% in the 1990s. The number of adults in the work force declined by 4.6%. Historical data from the state show that the number of Watertown residents active in the workforce has fluctuated between 19,000 and 21,000 over the last two decades. The number of jobs in town has shown more volatility, falling below 16,000 in the recession of the early 1990s before recovering strongly to over 20,000 by 2001. The ratio of jobs to working residents has risen gradually to around 1, indicating that there is about 1 part- or full-time job in Watertown for every working resident. This puts Watertown in the top third of the 101 MAPC communities (the median is about 0.75) in terms of the ratio of jobs to workers, well below larger job centers such as Cambridge and Waltham, but about equal with neighboring Newton. 29 Even with its significant job base, 82% of Watertown's working residents commuted to other communities in 2000, with the largest number(25%)working in Boston. Those residents who worked for Watertown employers filled 15-20% of the jobs in town. Figure 16 Numbers of Working Residents and Jobs in Watertown, 1985-2001 Residents in Ratio of Jobs Jobs Workforce to Workers 1985 20,673 19,230 0.93 1986 20,870 19,167 0.92 1987 20,933 18,993 0.91 1988 19,830 19,107 0.96 1989 19,935 18,613 0.93 1990 20,476 17,178 0.84 1991 19,575 15,914 0.81 1992 19,204 15,796 0.82 1993 19,167 15,692 0.82 1994 18,972 16,788 0.88 1995 19,485 17,624 0.90 1996 19,570 16,916 0.86 1997 20,049 17,236 0.86 1998 20,063 17,779 0.89 1999 19,993 18,458 0.92 2000 19,778 19,616 0.99 2001 20,120 20,392 1.01 Growth 1990-2001 -356 +3,214 -2% +19% Source:MA Division of Employment and Training Watertown residents have been relatively successful in the employment market in recent decades with the annual unemployment rate for residents having generally stayed between one and two percentage points below the annual statewide rate since 1985, although the gap has narrowed in recent years. 30 Figure 17 Watertown Unemployment Rate and Number of Residents in the Workforce Unemployment and Workforce, 1983-01 Source: MA DET Watertown Unemployment Rate o Mass Unemployment Rate Watertown Workforce 10.00% 21,500 9.00% — _ — 21,000 N 8.00% — c — — 20,500 7.00% w 6.00% — -� — 20,000 a� c 5.00% — - 19,500 4.00% — 3: — 19,000 C 3.00% — 3 — 18,500 V 2.00% — 1.00% — — 18,000 0.00% - 17,500 CO V LO O � 00 O O N M V U') fD r� W O O CO 00 00 00 CO CO CO O M M M M M M O O O O O M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M O O � � � � � � � � - � 14 � � N N The occupational profile of Watertown residents mirrors that of the region,with the 2000 census showing the greatest number of residents in managerial and professional occupations, followed by sales and office work. The proportion of Watertown workers in managerial occupations is considerably higher than the region's at 55%, but that category grew less quickly in the 1990s in the town(22%versus 32%regionally). Growth in managerial and professional occupations is consistent with national trends toward "knowledge-based"work and away from production of goods. Production and construction categories declined in Watertown in the 1990s and represent a smaller proportion of the local workforce than region-wide. The median age of Watertown residents increased in the 1990s from 35 to 37 years, slightly above the regional median of 36. 31 Figure 18 Occupation of Watertown Residents Occupations in Watertown and Greater Boston, 2000 Source: US Census Management, Professional +22% Change in Watertown Sales & Office -29% 1990-2000 Service 1-22% ■Watertown Prdctn, Transport., Mater. Moving -10% ❑MAPC Construction & Maintenance -39% Farming, Fishing, Forestry -86% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Percent of Working Residents The growth of managerial and professional occupations accompanies rising educational levels. While Watertown's population over age 25 increased by less than 1% in the 1990s, the number of residents having a college degree jumped by 26%. The town's residents are more likely to have a college degree (47% of residents, compared to 4 1% for the region),both for bachelors and advanced degrees. It is noteworthy that the metropolitan Boston work force is one of the most highly educated in the U.S. The number of adults having high school degrees or less fell and is lower than the region. 32 Figure 19 Educational Attainment of Watertown Adults, 1990 and 2000 Highest Degree Attained by Adults Over 25,2000 Source: US Census Graduate/Prof'I +26% Change in Watertown +7% 1990-2000 Bachelor's Some +22% ■Watertown College/Assoc. ❑MAPC High School -22% Less than High -22/0 School 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Percent of Adults over 25 Median household income in Watertown rose by 37% in the 1990s to $59,764 or 8% above the regional median of$55,200. When adjusted for inflation, Watertown's median income grew by 2.5% over the decade, slightly faster than the 2% regional rate. Watertown's income distribution is skewed slightly toward the upper-middle brackets relative to the region, having higher proportions of households in the categories between $35,000 and $150,000. The number of residents who lived in poverty increased 8% in the 1990s to 2,000 or 6.3% of the town's population in 2000. Figure 20 Household Income in Watertown and the Region Household Income, 2000 Source: US Census $150,000 or more 1 I $100,000-149,999 i I $75,000-$99,999 1 I $50,000-$74,999 � I ■Watertown 2000 $35,000-$49,999 , � I ❑MAPC 2000 $25,000-$34,999 1 I $15,000-$24,999 $10,000-$14,999 Less than$10,000 i I , 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Percent of Households 33 Job Base While not one of the largest job centers in the metro area, Watertown has a significant, relatively diversified base of jobs. The town hosts roughly 20,000 jobs today, having added 4,000 jobs since the trough of the recession of the early 1990s. The number of employers has likewise grown, although more slowly, to about 1,000. The average number of employees working at each establishment has fluctuated between 15 and 20 over the last two decades and is around 19 according to the most recent annual data. This is smaller than is usually seen in major job centers with many large companies, but 2-3 times that seen in residential communities dominated by small retailers. The list of Watertown's largest employers is notable for including several manufacturers, which are increasingly rare in the region, as well as professional service firms. Figure 21 Jobs in Watertown by Sector, 1985-2001 Jobs in Watertown by Sector, 1985-01 Source: MA DET 25,000 20,000 ■Agri., Fish., Forest. ❑FIRE 15,000 ❑Construction ❑Government ❑TCPU 10,000 ❑Services ❑Manufacturing ■Trade 5,000 0 LO O r` 00 O O N CO LO co I- 00 O O 00 CO Co 00 O O O m O O O O O O O O O M 6� 6� O) 6� 6� M 6� O) 6� 6� 6� 6� 6� 6� O O N N Historic employment data show that services has taken over the role of the largest employment sector during the 1990s. As of 2001, the services sector provided 31% of the town's jobs, having added over 2,000 since 1990 to total over 6,400. Manufacturing provided another 4,000 jobs which was down about 1,500 from 1985. Loss of manufacturing jobs has been common across the region as manufacturers have increased productivity and relocated operations to lower labor cost locations. Yet, Watertown's manufacturing decline was, in fact, less severe than in some other communities. 34 Wholesale and retail trade is about the same size as manufacturing, and has likewise experienced a substantial decline from its peak of nearly 5,000. Figure 22 Number of Jobs in Watertown by Sector, 1985-2001 Go ofy, o rA C Year c o w 0 Cl % c � zW o d F� F" U F7, ■ 1985 934 19,230 3,400 6,569 4,063 681 1,661 1,068 1,652 1986 1,011 19,167 3,595 5,166 4,977 606 1,704 1,342 1,616 1987 1,013 18,993 3,787 4,989 4,752 559 1,801 1,563 1,498 43 1988 1,049 19,107 4,076 5,178 4,894 446 1,335 1,842 1,282 48 1989 1,028 18,613 4,399 4,958 4,910 373 1,054 1,481 1,389 49 1990 1,029 17,178 4,403 4,281 4,456 314 1,208 1,058 1,417 41 1991 995 15,914 4,405 4,112 4,008 287 913 750 1,398 41 1992 960 15,796 4,555 4,076 4,042 309 818 638 1,328 30 1993 989 15,692 4,647 3,999 3,943 321 960 547 1,241 34 1994 1,028 16,788 5,392 4,097 4,101 321 1,094 562 1,173 48 1995 1,085 17,624 5,481 4,530 4,314 329 1,189 742 993 46 1996 1,093 16,916 5,132 4,589 3,689 338 1,333 958 833 44 1997 1,024 17,236 5,276 4,580 3,859 333 1,292 981 856 1998 1,054 17,779 5,442 4,595 3,911 349 1,489 1,044 877 72 1999 1,068 18,458 5,540 4,231 3,995 1,006 1,540 1,175 884 87 2000 1,061 19616 5,667 4,333 4,168 1,592 1,562 1,239 960 95 2001 1,055 20392 6,420 4,035 3,964 1,977 1,534 1,322 1,021 119 2002 953 12,622 O of 2001 Jobs 31% 20% 19% 10% 8% 6% 5% 1 Growth 1990-2001 +26 +3,214 2,017 -246 -492 1,663 326 264 -396 78 +3% +19% +46% -6% -11% +530% +27% 25% -28% +190% Source: MA Division of Employment&Training *Confidential In the most recent annual industry-level job data from 2002, manufacturing emerges as Watertown's largest employment sector, accounting for 3,000 of the town's 19,000 private sector jobs. This represents 16% of private jobs in the town, considerably above the 10% average for the region. About one third of these jobs involve the manufacture of computer and electronics products. Jobs in manufacturing pay well, with Watertown jobs averaging almost $63,000, roughly the same as the regional average for this industry. Retailing is the second largest employment sector in Watertown as it is in the region with over 2,600 jobs. The redevelopment of the Watertown Arsenal and adjacent properties as a shopping mall and power retail center serving surrounding communities should solidify the retail sector for the immediate future. While retailers employ many part-time workers 35 and pay relatively low wages, they provide numerous entry level opportunities for low- moderate income workers, students, and seniors. Professional and technical services are the third largest industry with 2,200 jobs. It is also the best paying, with an average wage of$70,000, and is among the fastest growing knowledge-based industries in the region. In Watertown, architecture & engineering, computer system design, and research& development are among the largest employers in this category with about 1,800 jobs combined. Watertown also has 1,000 in the information industry, again, at fairly high wages. Finance & insurance, health care, and construction offer another 4,600 jobs as well as a wide range of salary levels. The latter two traditionally provide jobs over a wide range of skill levels including opportunities for low-moderate income and part-time workers. The average wage of all private sector jobs in Watertown is about $46,000, which is about 10%below the average for the region. Figure 23 Employment and Wages for Private Sector Jobs in Watertown by Industry, 2002 Average Industry Number of Annualized Employees Wage Manufacturing 3,029 $62,972 Retail Trade 2,661 $28,444 Prof &Tech. Services 2,243 $70,772 Finance& Insur, 1,994 $43,784 Health Care 1,530 $33,436 Construction 1,294 $57,512 Information 1,010 $67,080 Educational Services 943 $33,644 Accom. & Food Svcs. 891 $16,484 Wholesale Trade 626 $54,444 Other Private Services 572 $29,016 Admin.&Waste Svcs. 454 $43,108 Arts, Enter., & Rec. 437 $16,016 Real Estate & Leasing 234 $51,584 Transport. &Warehs'g 118 $29,432 Watertown Average Private Job Wage $46,228 Metro Boston Average Private Job Wage $50,752 Source:MA Division of Employment&Training 36 Figure 24 Largest Employers in Watertown, 2003 Employer Number of Industry Employees Boston Scientific Corp 1,000-4,999 Phys. & Surgeons Equip &Supplies-Mfrs Boston Turning Works 1,000-4,999 Wood-Turning Ionics Inc 500-999 Water Treatment Equip Svc& Supplies Perkins School For The Blind 500-999 Special Industry Machinery NEC (Mfrs) Doble Engineering 250-499 Instrs-Measuring/Testing Elec. (Mfrs) Harvard Business Review 250-499 Publishers Itt Industries Cannon 250-499 Switches-Electric-Manufacturers Microsemi Corp 250-499 Semiconductors & Related Devices (Mfrs) Sasaki Associates Inc 250-499 Architects Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc 250-499 Engineers-Consulting Source: Reference USA. Figure 25 Wages and Employment in Watertown's Largest Private Sector Industries Wages of Watertown Private Sector Jobs Relative to Greater Boston, 2002 Source: MA DET ■Watertown Ave. Wage ❑Metro Ave. Wage ■Number of Watertown Jobs (Right Axis) $100,000 _ 3,500 $90,000 — Watertown — 3,000 $80,000 — Ave. $70,000 — Metro $46 228 — 2,500 ; A ve. o $60,000 — $50,752 / — 2,000 m $50,000 — 16 $40,000 — — 1,500 $30,000 — 1,000 c $20,000 — $10,000 — 500 $0 0 of a iu o o aa)i 'aa U N (6 U j M U U a) L (n to O C0 O N � N QS' C L = O = C L.L N N j +li a) US a) c U O US O ,> > W Ya L 06 v E � c_ i W n OU N E Q N C a w Q 0 ¢ O F Property Tax Base The total valuation of Watertown real estate for tax purposes reached almost $4.8 billion in Fiscal Year 2004. Of the total, 21.5% ($1 billion) was contributed by business property ("CIP" or commercial and industrial buildings and land,plus personal property such as business equipment). This proportion is at the high end of the range for communities in the region as well as statewide. The town's CIP share has gradually 37 eroded since the early 1980s when it was about 5 percentage points higher, a decline that has been shared by most communities across the state. The drop in Watertown has actually been much less severe than in many metro communities. Over 60% of Watertown's CIP value is contributed by commercial properties (stores, offices, restaurants) and about one fourth by industrial. While the value of business property in Watertown has grown over the last two decades, CIP's share of valuation has been reduced by the much larger increase in residential value. Since 2000, the total value of Watertown residences increased by $1.6 billion—or almost 4 times the growth in valuation of business property. While new construction contributed to the residential increase, the dominant factor was the surging value of individual properties. The average price of a single family home sold in Watertown rose 138% from 1990 to 2003 to $411,000. This reflects the soaring values of residences throughout Eastern Massachusetts over the last two decades which has dramatically increased the residential portion of the tax base in most metro Boston communities. Over 500 acres of land in Watertown are zoned for commercial or industrial use, but there are very few parcels that have not already been developed for some purpose. Potential opportunities to increase the commercial tax base lie in stimulating redevelopment to create higher valued properties,perhaps at higher density as has been done very successfully over the last decade with the former Watertown Arsenal complex. Areas of additional opportunity include the Pleasant Street corridor and areas in and around Watertown Square. Figure 26 Tax Valuation in Watertown by Property Class, Fiscal Year 1985-2004 CIP%of Valuation Residential Commercial Industrial of 1985 26.2% $650 M $123M $85 M $18 80 MM 1990 22.8% $1,855 M $291 M $224 M $2,402 M 1995 21.9% $1,590 M $244 M $169M $2,036 M 2000 22.1% $2,114 M $381 M $179 M $2,714 M 2004 21.5% $3,753 M $645 M $250 M $4,780 M Change over Period 1985-1990 -3.4 pts + $1,206 M + $168 M + $139 M + $1,523 M 1990-1995 -0.9 pts - $265M - $48 M - $55 M - $366 M 1995-2000 +0.2 pts + $524 M + $137 M + $10 M + $678 M 2000-2004 -0.6pts + $1,639 M + $264 M + $71 M + $2,065 M Source:MA Department of Revenue 38 Economic Development Profile Summary Watertown is an established inner suburb with a substantial, relatively diverse economy. Its resident workforce is fairly affluent and well educated, and primarily works elsewhere in the region. The local economy has a significant manufacturing base including a substantial high tech sector. Retailing and professional services have replaced manufacturing jobs, contributing to a fairly diverse employment base. The commercial tax base is larger than average, and while there is almost no vacant land in the town's business districts, the community has significant experience with redeveloping commercial property to revitalize the business sector. Results of Economic Development Forum The Watertown Planning and Community Development Department sponsored an economic development forum on January 22, 2004. MAPC summarized historical and current data on economic trends in terms of the community's land use, tax base,jobs, and workforce. Attendees brainstormed and prioritized overall goals for economic development and then identified areas in town that would be suitable for future economic development. Overall Goals and Themes for Economic Development Economic development themes identified in the February, 2003 town-wide visioning session were presented, and several were refined through brief discussion. Five additional themes were added by attendees (denoted by italics below). Each person in attendance was given three stickers, and then asked to place them next to the items they identified as top priorities in economic development. The participants' ranking of themes is summarized below: #Votes Economic Development Goal/Theme 8 Make Watertown Square a lively destination for the community 7 Encourage redevelopment of Pleasant Street to be sensitive to the Charles River and to the neighborhood 7 Improve the quality of the school system 5 Take advantage of the Arsenal's potential for commercial development 4 Designate areas for business use only, to maintain the commercial tax base 4 Examine the impacts of converting commercial areas to residential 3 Minimize impacts of automotive businesses 2 Use zoning to minimize impacts of commercial areas on residences 2 Explore opportunities for live/work developments (e.g., artist lofts, small service businesses with fewer than 10 employees) 0 "New Urbanist"mix of residential and commercial development in Watertown Square and other shopping areas 39 Based on these results and further discussions summarized below, MAPC recommends amending the draft Economic Development vision to read as follows (changes in italics): The Town will create vibrant business districts. The Town will take advantage of each commercial area's unique strengths. • The Town will work to make Watertown Square a focus for the community and a lively destination for visitors by encouraging a mix of businesses that attract foot traffic and browsing such as restaurants, cafes, and bookstores. • The Town will take advantage of the potential of the Arsenal to attract additional commercial development. • The Town will examine the impacts of automobile-related businesses in the Town and seek to minimize further automotive businesses. • The Town will use its zoning powers to ensure that transitions between commercial and residential zones minimize conflicts between businesses and residents. • The Town will encourage redevelopment along Pleasant Street to be particularly sensitive to the river and to affected neighborhoods. 40 Potential locations for economic development (Map 5) Participants were asked to identify on a map locations that should be improved through economic development initiatives implementing the themes. Individuals advanced suggestions for four areas, which were discussed by the larger group. Comments are summarized below with reference numbers relating to locations on Map 5 —Economic Development Opportunities. Map Location & Suggested Uses 1 Watertown Square Create a more attractive environment for walking, browsing, and shopping. Attract businesses such as cafes,bookstores, and ice cream parlors to generate foot traffic, and develop a pleasant streetscape with seating areas. Re-examine the market potential of the square to see if the town's demographics will support more specialized, high-end retail businesses. Town is pursuing a plan for sidewalk/streetscape improvements in the center of the square with a $450,000 appropriation. The overriding issue is the high volume of traffic funneled through the square, which has eliminated on-street parking and creates an environment unfriendly to pedestrians. The Town needs to explore ways to improve pedestrian access across the main streets and to the open space in the "delta" and along the Charles River. Suggestion to explore the possibility of re-orienting businesses away from the main traffic corridors toward off-street parking areas, which is the way most people approach the existing businesses. 2 MBTA Car Barn Site is controlled by the MBTA. A movie theater was once proposed,but the opportunity did not move forward. 3 Pleasant Street corridor 375 acre housing development has been proposed for 13 acres on the north side of the street near the Waltham line. Participants did not reach agreement on desired future uses. Discussion centered on displeasure with the high volume of traffic, especially trucks on the narrower section of the street near Watertown Square. There is a Mass Highway plan for rebuilding the street, but participants suggested that the Town also develop a plan for land use along the entire corridor. Coolidge Square 4 Has the basic ingredients of a lively commercial center,but needs cosmetic improvements to the streetscape (especially places to sit), and businesses (e.g. alter zoning to allow sidewalk cafe seating). May be potential to widen the sidewalk in front of the Town Diner to create a sitting/pedestrian area by removing the "V" in the street. 41 42 TRANSPORTATION Kev findings • Much of the traffic carried by Waverly Avenue, Common Street, School Street and Arlington Street is appropriate to the functional classification of these roads as collectors. • Over 45% of the combined traffic at all four locations originates from homes in Watertown and Belmont. When Arlington and Waltham are included, over 60% of the traffic is accounted for. The predominance of these four towns is true for all four individual locations, as well. • Out of state cars contribute between 2.9% and 3.4% of the observed traffic. • The highest number of vehicles was observed traveling at the Common (1,525) and Arlington(1,463) street locations, followed by the School (948) and Waverly Avenue (852) locations. Scope of Transportation Analysis The transportation analysis was performed by the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS). CTPS designed and performed this short study with the consultation of Watertown's Planning and Community Development Department and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. The Planning Department is aware of"cut through" and "speeding" concerns from residents along Arlington Street, School Street, Common Street and Waverly Avenue. The study was designed to verify the basis of these concerns and also serve as a starting point for Watertown to begin addressing them. The complete text of the study prepared by CTPS can be found in Appendix V. Discussion Analysis showed that a high proportion of the traffic observed at the four study locations originates in towns outside Watertown. Belmont, Arlington, and Waltham alone contribute about 35% of the combined traffic at the four locations. The highest percentage of out-of-town origins was observed at the Arlington Street and Waverly Avenue locations, the most eastern and the most western locations. Much of the traffic observed at the four locations may not be "cut-through"traffic because the roads are classified as collectors. The purpose of collector roads is to collect traffic from neighborhoods and channel it to the arterial roadway system, in this case Mount Auburn Street and Main Street. Besides, it appears that many drivers do not have better alternatives in order to reach their desired destinations. For example, this may be the case with Belmont traffic, which does not appear to have other choices to reach the 43 West Newton Mass Turnpike interchange other than by traveling along Waverly Avenue and Common Street. Recommendations In general, it is not easy to address "high volume" concerns, especially when the roadways affected are collector roads whose function is to collect traffic to arterial roads like Mt. Auburn and Main streets. Therefore, the recommendations below focus on speed control measures, which can also have a side impact on volumes. Speed control measures aim at bringing speeds to "acceptable levels". Acceptable speed levels are defined through engineering studies but for the four study roadways, it appears that these are probably 25 to 30 mph. The most well-known measures are signing and pavement markings (speed limit, school speed limit, pedestrian crossing signs, pedestrian paddles, and others), enforcement, and traffic calming. • Speed limit and other signs are posted at intervals along the roadway to remind drivers of the speed limit or to inform them of downstream pedestrian crossings. The reconnaissance study showed that along the four Watertown roadways there are sufficient school speed limit signs (20 mph)to inform drivers of school crossing nearby. However, roadway speed limit signs are lacking. Although posted speed limit signs, by themselves, are not a strong deterrent to speeding drivers, it is nevertheless recommended that they be installed as a reminder to drivers of the residential character of the roadway. • Enforcement involves altering driver behavior through police presence,warnings and citations. Enhanced enforcement along the four study roadways is recommended although it can be costly to the community and may not have a permanent effect on drivers if it is not continuous. • Traffic calming measures are roadway treatments that seek to reduce speed and volumes to "acceptable levels". The underlying assumption behind these treatments is that people drive at the speed that they feel safe to drive. In other words, they drive at the speed that the roadway's physical characteristics allow them to drive. So, instead of posting a speed limit, the best approach is to alter the physical characteristics and dimensions of the roadway so that drivers feel that they have to lower their speed and pay attention. Traffic calming measures include speed tables (flat-top speed humps), textured pavement, raised intersections, lateral shifts, and narrowings (neck downs). Although the budget of this study does not allow for specific recommendations at specific locations, traffic calming measures ought to be explored by Watertown as a form of speed control and pedestrian mobility. • From observation and from community input, a particularly sensitive location that could benefit from further study is the complicated five-approach intersection at Common, Church and Orchard streets. During reconnaissance, CTPS observed that traffic operations are difficult due to sight distance problems for drivers out of Orchard Street and excessive vehicle speeds from the Common Street southbound approach to Church Street. The recommended traffic study should include, at a minimum, turning movement data collection, safety analysis, and 44 traffic signal warrant analysis. If this location does not warrant the installation of a traffic signal, alternative solutions may be sought including the installation of a flashing traffic beacon or traffic calming devices. Traffic calming measures appropriate for this location may include the realignment of the intersection(with lateral shifts and separation islands)to improve sight distance and reduce speeds or even a small roundabout. All of the above recommendations would require extensive discussion with local officials including the Police Department, Department of Public Works, the Planning Department as well as local residents. Conclusion In closing, through observation and license plate data collection, this study showed that speeding and high volumes are concerns along Waverly Avenue, Common Street, School Street, and Arlington Street. Much of the traffic carried by these roadways appears to be legitimate for the functional classification of these roads. However, speed reduction measures can be taken to reduce speeds and improve safety,pedestrian mobility, and the quality of life for Watertown residents. 45 46 PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER Putting it all Together"refers to the process of taking the recommendations from the individual topic areas,reconciling conflicts that may have arisen between the topic areas, and identifying how the elements fit together. Map 6, the Community Development Plan Map, is the product of this process. Additional strategies are discussed in this section as well. Strategies include mapped strategies where the town envisioned and described the future of specific areas in town and non-mapped strategies that, if implemented, would not necessarily result in a change in the land use of a particular area. In all cases, implementing these recommendations will take a number of steps, many of which would involve public processes and reviews. Community Development Plan Mau The Community Development Plan Map (Map 6) shows those recommendations that entail a change in land use in the Town including zoning changes, ownership changes or physical changes such as new facilities. The recommendations for these areas are described below and on the map. These recommendations are ways to reach a vision for a specific area and in some cases a way to meet a specific need that the Town is facing such as housing needs. 1. Restore the GSA property as a functioning wetland The GSA property, along with Sawins Pond and Williams Pond, is the drainage area for approximately one-third of the Town. The property was filled by the Army Corps of Engineers and covered with pavement and structures, further reducing its ability to function as a water storage/flood retention area. This action will require close coordination between the Town, the GSA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the EPA. Rationale-Restoring this property as a wetland by removing the structures and the asphalt paving would be a cost-effective method for the Town to address flooding and be in compliance with the Phase II storm water regulations. 2. Ensure the maximum level of protection for the Whitney Hills Park by transferring the property to the care and control of the Conservation Commission under MGL 40,8C for conservation, open space and passive recreation purposes Whitney Hills Park is an important open space and recreation resource for the Town but it does not currently enjoy the maximum level of protection that it deserves. Although the property is already protected under Article 97 of the state constitution, its transfer to the care and control of the Conservation Commission would add an additional level of protection. 47 Rationale—In a densely developed community like Watertown, every parcel of open space is important and should receive the maximum level of protection. 3. Develop the multi-use path from Watertown Square to the Cambridge line The development of a multi-use path along the railroad right-of-way for non-motorized recreation and transportation (with the exception of motorized wheelchairs)was a recommendation from the 1996 Open Space and Recreation Plan. The state sees this as a way to connect the very popular paths along the Charles River with the Minuteman Bikeway to create an important link in a regional trail system. This recommendation requires a three-pronged approach because of the different ownership issues along the right-of-way. a) Continue to work with private property-owners to secure easements and construct the path from Watertown Square to School Street. —The Watertown Department of Planning and Community Development should continue to work with property- owners to negotiate easements and to design new developments so that the path can be developed into Watertown Square. b) Work with the Department of Conservation and Recreation to design and construct the segment from School Street to Grove Street. —A design contract has been signed with VHB and the Department of Conservation and Recreation to design the entire path to the Cambridge line. The Town should continue to work with DCR as design goes forward. c) Pursue the development of a dual use path along the section still used for freight from Grove Street to the Fresh Pond in Cambridge. The section of the railroad from Grove Street to Fresh Pond is still in use to accommodate freight deliveries to Newlywed Foods. The track is in very poor condition and the trains make deliveries primarily at night and at very slow speeds. It is possible to develop a dual use path that accommodates both the railroad use and a path. The primary obstacles are safety and liability concerns on the part of the railroad although similar"rails with trails"projects have been successfully constructed. Rationale—Construction of this path would provide an off-road link between two major bike paths would provide options for safe, non-motorized transportation within the Town and would add to the open space and recreational land in this densely developed community. Resources For general information on the planning and design of bike paths see the following links: httD://www.railtrails.or2 http://www.trailsand2reenways.ora For information on the Transportation Enhancements Program: httD://www.state.ma.us/mhd/Dublications/other.htm 48 httD://www.fhwa.dot.2ov/environment/te—final.htm 4. Ensure public access to Walkers Pond Walkers Pond, located on the portion of the Gore Estate that is leased by Raytheon, is partially protected by the provisions of the Watertown Wetlands Protection Ordinance which establishes a 50 foot no build zone around the bank of the pond as defined by the ordinance. The pond is currently fenced off and unavailable to the public for enjoyment. Although future development on this site is under litigation and the exact nature of the future development will not be known for some time, the Town should work carefully with any developers of the site to ensure that the site design permits public access to the pond. Rationale—Individual developments and neighborhoods are enhanced by the presence of water bodies and new development should not be allowed to degrade or deny the public access to those features. 5. Maximize visual and physical access to the Charles River Although much of the Charles River riverfront is under the control of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Town should ensure that all development and redevelopment along the river should be sensitive to Watertown's greatest asset. This would include requiring that developments provide for visual access and physical access to the public space along the river. The Town should continue to work with DCR and private organizations such as the Charles River Conservancy and the Charles River Watershed Association to ensure that the river's natural assets are protected while allowing for active and passive recreation as appropriate. Rationale—Residents indicated that the Charles River was by far, the most important natural feature of the community. The river is important for active and passive recreation but must also be protected from degradation. 6. Acquire additional land for open space and recreation Whenever the opportunity arises, the Town should seek to acquire (or otherwise protect) additional land for open space and recreation, with an emphasis on those areas identified for protection on Map 3. Rationale—Watertown is densely developed and cannot afford to miss any opportunities to acquire additional open space that remains. 7. Ensure the long term preservation of the Gore Estate The Town should take steps to ensure that the historic Gore Estate remains protected in perpetuity. Rationale—Historic resources are irreplaceable. The Gore Estate is both historic and an important open space resource for the Town. 49 8. Revitalize Watertown Square by upgrading the streetscape, supporting the business community and selectively stimulating mixed use redevelopment This strategy includes improving the appearance of public spaces and private properties, making walking more pleasant and street crossing easier and safer, enhancing the mix of businesses, and amending the zoning to enable second floor offices and housing. • Establish a public-private group to lead efforts to define a vision and plan for the Square o Work with property owners and store operators to identify barriers and opportunities for improving properties and strengthening businesses o Engage residents in refining the vision for the types of physical improvements and businesses desired o Establish cooperative marketing efforts to raise the visibility of businesses ■ Event programming ■ Advertising/promotion/image enhancement o Access downtown revitalization resources and expertise as appropriate • Stimulate redevelopment in accordance with the plan o Upgrade public spaces ■ Complete the planned streetscape improvements (sidewalks, plantings, etc.) ■ Plan and pursue funding for additional phases (e.g., traffic calming, sidewalk expansion, street re-alignment) ■ Leverage the library expansion and location of other public facilities to facilitate use of the Square o Allow greater intensity of use ■ Allow 2-3 stories of residential use above ground floor retail under current zoning ■ Explore extending the Revitalization Overlay District to cover appropriate portions of the Square ■ Actively pursue affordable housing opportunities, e.g., converting underused upper floor commercial space o Institute fagade/signage improvement program ■ Explore efficacy of developing a revolving loan/grant program rather than establishing stricter regulations o Attract/support desired businesses ■ Analyze the demographics of the downtown trade area and identify matches with the "wish list" of businesses desired by the community ■ Identify potential candidate companies and local entrepreneurs in desired categories ■ Recruit businesses ■ Facilitate approvals for location/relocation of businesses Rationale- The dominant goal from the economic development forum was to make Watertown Square a lively destination for the community—a place with an interesting 50 mix of businesses and activities and a pleasant environment for walking and strolling that would attract residents from throughout the community. The Square has good transit connections, but also tremendous through traffic, which makes peak travel times a frustrating experience for drivers and a somewhat unpleasant environment for pedestrians. The town is pursuing a plan to improve sidewalks and street plantings, and in the longer term to more directly address the complicated and heavy flow of vehicle traffic. The area has a comfortable scale of 2-3 story buildings, but the streetscape, buildings and mix of businesses lack a distinctive character and appeal. In the short term, the town can support the business community in improving the marketing of the Square to attract residents, and in the longer run can help recruit new businesses and stimulate redevelopment to bring more residents and increase walk-in traffic. 9. Encourage mixed-use redevelopment of the MBTA Car Barn Encourage redevelopment for a mix of residential and commercial use. Work with the MBTA to develop a program of retail and residential uses that will provide an economic incentive for redevelopment while maintaining continued operation of MBTA service. Rationale-Watertown is a hub for MBTA bus service to a number of other suburbs as well as to downtown Boston, which brings hundreds of riders to the Square every day. While the MBTA's service is an asset to the Square, the site's large, unattractive paved areas are a poor use of a well positioned site directly across the river from Watertown Square. The site is located in the town's Revitalization Overlay district, which has stimulated development of housing over retail shops directly across the street, and this type of mix would work well for the car barn site as well. 10. Improve the appearance of the public and private streetscape of Coolidge Square Work with the community to enhance the appearance of the public and private streetscape for the commercial district. The town should work with business owners and residents to identify what improvements are desirable then develop and implement an action plan. Potential improvements should include enhancement of the public streetscape such as widening sidewalks, installing and maintaining public seating and planting areas, upgrading street lighting, reviewing parking needs, and better managing pedestrian safety through improved crosswalks and traffic calming measures. Opportunities and interest in assisting business owners with facade/signage improvements through a loan or grant program should also be explored. Rationale-This is a thriving neighborhood retail center with a distinct local flavor that the town should assist, but not burden with onerous regulations and aesthetic controls. While public input suggested the area might be appropriate for second floor housing over retail, it does not appear that it is in need of redevelopment, and an effort to stimulate 51 major changes may disrupt an area that already works well, but could benefit from improvements to its appearance and friendliness for pedestrians. 11. Establish a plan for the redevelopment of the Pleasant Street Corridor The Pleasant Street Corridor includes the following sites: Hartz Mason, Raytheon/ Lincoln Properties and parking lots fronting on Pleasant Street. The Town should develop an overall plan to encourage and guide the redevelopment of Pleasant Street to take advantage of commercial and residential opportunities while being sensitive to impacts on the Charles River and the neighborhood. Planning for the area should: • Define the relative mix and location of commercial and residential uses o Identify the needs of businesses for future expansion, parking, etc. o Set goals for amount and types of housing for the area(e.g. public suggestion for affordable starter homes on the Raytheon site) • Strengthen site plan review for identifying and mitigating impacts, e.g. on the river, Walker Pond, and traffic • Establish guidelines/process for the future streetscape by taking advantage of the reconstruction of Pleasant Street to create a more coherent appearance for the corridor Rationale- Two substantial residential developments have been proposed in the Pleasant Street corridor, and the street itself is about to be reconstructed. The area is served by bus service to Watertown Square that makes it suitable for residential development, and already has a mix of retail, office, and light industrial uses. Current zoning allows a wide range of uses and in the absence of a specific vision, the opportunity to improve the overall area may be squandered in piecemeal development. The town needs to act quickly to establish general guidelines for projects already in the discussion stage. 12. Reuse the Coolidge School for housing Adapt for use for affordable housing for seniors or families. Rationale-At the time of this report, the town's intention was to renovate the school for housing, but a final decision had not been made as to whether the units would be age restricted housing for residents over 55, or a mix of market rate and affordable units. Public discussion during the reuse process and in the EO 418 forum was closely divided as to the more appropriate use. The site is within walking distance to a trackless trolley route,playing fields, and the Coolidge Square retail district and would be suited to either residential type. Detailed analysis of the better proposal for this site is beyond the scope of this planning study, but it should be noted that the town has a demonstrated need for affordable housing for both seniors and families, and public ownership of the site represents an opportunity to ensure affordability of at least some units, whatever the mix. The town should be guided in its decision by its overall goals for creating affordable units of various types as well as the economics of reuse. 52 13. Redevelop the parking lot on Coolidge Hill Road with infill housing Encourage redevelopment with infill housing for families with 10% affordable. Rationale- The site is in a predominantly residential neighborhood of two family and small multi-family buildings. It is some distance from transit and retail services,but quite near a large park. Affordable family housing is in short supply, and the public forums indicated support in particular for more affordable ownership opportunities. The owner of the site is reportedly exploring opportunities for development of the site. 14. Plan for the redevelopment of the Sacred Heart church site Develop preference for reuse based on community input, and work with the Archdiocese to shape the disposition of the property. Rationale-The church was only recently designated for closure by the Archdiocese of Boston in May, 2004 and the town has not established a position as to its preferred reuse. The site is in a neighborhood business district which is a mix of businesses and residences and could potentially be reused for either. It is on a trackless trolley line and within walking distance of a shopping center, and so could work for affordable housing for seniors or the disabled. The town has drafted a zoning map and ordinance amendment that would allow redevelopment of the former St. Theresa's Catholic Church on Mt. Auburn Street. The ordinance is currently undergoing the review process. The language of the overlay district would also be appropriate for other former Church sites and the Coolidge School. 15. Install roadway speed limit signs on Waverly Avenue, Common Street, School Street and Arlington Street- CTPS recommended that roadway speed limit signs should be installed on the four streets they studied. Although posted speed limit signs by themselves, are not a strong deterrent to speeding drivers, they should be installed as a reminder to drivers of the residential character of the roadway. Any installation of speed limit signs will require close coordination with Town officials including the Superintendent of Public Works and local residents. 16. Undertake a traffic study of the intersection of Common, Church and Orchard Streets—From observation and community input, a particularly sensitive location that could benefit from further study is the complicated five-approach intersection at Common, Church and Orchard Streets. This study could determine if a traffic signal is warranted and if not, could analyze potential traffic calming measures to improve sight distances and reduce speeds. Any traffic study will require close coordination with Town officials and residents including the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works. If such a study is undertaken, it would complement, not supersede, any existing work that is planned. 53 Additional Strategies Natural Resources and Open Space Appendix II contains sources of information on open space funding opportunities. Adopt a policy of"no net loss" of street trees The Town will make every effort to enforce a policy of"no net loss" of street trees on public and private property. This will entail a review and/or revision to the zoning ordinance with regards to landscaping on private developments as well as a Town commitment to care for and replace any street trees on public property. In order to enforce such a policy on private property, it would be necessary to enact a separate tree ordinance. The City of Newton has such an ordinance and would be a good model for the Town to review. Rationale—Street trees provide a number of benefits including better air quality, more comfortable temperatures due to shading and improve the look of the community, with a positive impact on property values. With limited public open space, it is critical to maintain every bit of green landscaping. Resources-Newton Tree Preservation Ordinance http://www.ci.newton.ma.us/leaal/ordinance/Chapter 20.htm#art4 Additional Strategies Housing Private housing projects currently in the development pipeline are expected to put Watertown over the 1.5% of land area threshold under Ch. 4013, relieving Watertown from the pressure of facing project proposals that override zoning requirements. Yet, independent of 40B, the town has demonstrated needs for affordable housing serving seniors and families, as well as an active housing authority and non-profit (Watertown Community Housing) with established plans,projects, and programs which should and will continue. The town's current housing priorities are focused on the needs of"very low", "low" and "moderate" income households, and of special populations in particular need of assistance,particularly the elderly and special needs population. The greatest perceived needs are to: • Increase the number of affordable rental and homeowner units for low and moderate income households • Preserve existing affordable units in small structures through rehabs, deleading, expanding accessible housing, and helping elderly stay in their homes • Address the needs of lowest income households due to potential loss of vouchers and longer waiting lists 54 Public input at the housing forum indicated an interest in expanding the town's efforts to provide assistance to homebuyers in the "middle" income category as well, perhaps up to the level of median income. However, in light of the limited resources currently available to housing programs and the relatively few options available to those at the lowest income levels, it is appropriate to continue to focus most funding on the low income levels, and explore low-cost regulatory and zoning modifications that do not require subsidies to address any additional priorities. The town has very little remaining undeveloped land, so most options to improve housing opportunities for a range of income groups will be through preservation, redevelopment, or more efficient use of existing residential stock and adaptive reuse of existing non- residential property. We recommend the following strategies for priority consideration in addition to activities already underway. The appendices include a matrix with a broader menu of possible strategies for further consideration as well as additional resources. Strengthen the Housing Committee/Housing Partnership. It is important to position a housing committee or partnership as a voice for housing in the community. The role of the committee could include advising local boards, strategic planning, advocacy,policy and program development, public education and information,building coalitions with other groups, etc. Participants should include not only those officials who deal with housing (planning board, housing authority)but local citizens with relevant background and expertise (e.g., developers, lenders, real estate professionals, chambers and business leaders, religious leaders). This committee/partnership could quantify the town's housing goals for specific types of households and units, as well as a timeframe for the town to meet the goals. Although the impetus should come from interested citizens, active support from chief elected officials is essential. They should appoint qualified members, determine the committee's mission, reinforce the importance of housing goals in public statements, and maintain ongoing dialogue regarding progress. The town should also assign sufficient staff time to support the committee. The Massachusetts Housing Partnership Fund (www.mhD.net) can provide guidance on establishing a committee. Undertake a public education campaign Many people have misperceptions about what"affordable housing" is, who lives in it, and who cannot afford market-rate housing in the current market. Local governments or citizen groups can undertake a public outreach campaign to educate people about what's "affordable" and about how housing affects local citizens and the region's economy. Many of the materials in this Community Development Plan, including the full set of slides presented at the Housing Forum, are a good start. The local press could publish these materials and supplement them with additional information and human-interest stories of affected citizens. Organizers could also contact local cable TV for assistance. 55 Adopt the Communitv Preservation Act(CPA) To date, 65 Massachusetts communities have adopted the CPA, raising $55 million. Of this, 42%has been used for housing and has produced about 260 housing units. Adoption of CPA provides more locally controlled resources and helps communities balance housing, open space, and historic preservation. For information on local campaigns to adopt CPA and success stories about how funds have been used, visit www.communitvnreservation.or2 and www.tpl.org. Allow mixed-use zoning,including housing above stores in Watertown Square Allowing a mix of residential, commercial, and other uses where there is infrastructure to support it is a prime example of"smart growth." In addition to expanding housing opportunities, it can strengthen retail businesses by expanding the number of customers in the trade area without requiring additional parking. In fact, it is often possible to reduce offsite parking requirements for residences in mixed use projects that are well served by public transportation. The Lincoln Institute recently published an excellent working paper with examples of how this concept has been used in various types of settings in metro Boston. See James C. O'Connell,Ahead or Behind the Curve?: Compact Mixed-Use Development in Suburban Boston, available at www.lincolninst.edu Revisit establishing a bvlaw allowing accessory apartments or other accessory dwelling units (ADUs), accompanied by an "amnesty program" for existing units and affordabilitv provisions Watertown has previously operated an accessory apartment amnesty program, but does not presently have a mechanism for creating accessory units. Given the community's interest in maintaining the character of existing neighborhoods, it may be appropriate to revisit this means for creating more affordable housing. An accessory apartment is generally a second, subordinate dwelling unit within a single- family house. Accessory units provide rental opportunities for tenants, added income for owners, and more efficient use of space. For older homeowners, tenants may offer additional benefits by assisting with chores or yard work and providing a sense of security. Other accessory dwelling units (ADUs)may involve the reuse or adaptation of secondary structures—e.g.,barns, garages, or carriage houses—on the same lot but in a separate structure. The same general principle applies to the conversion of large, single-family residences to two or more unit structures. In all these variations, units provide similar benefits. Many communities allow accessory units in some or all residential zoning districts, sometimes by right and sometimes by special permit,usually with some restrictions on 56 size and appearance, and occasionally with provisions to encourage affordable rents, income eligibility of tenants, and inclusion of units in the state's Chapter 40B Subsidized Housing Inventory. There are also illegal accessory units that remain"under the radar." Some communities have taken steps to legalize these units by enacting "amnesty"provisions to encourage code compliance and more affordable housing. The examples below show how local communities have used these approaches and how they have designed programs to ensure that units "count"toward Chapter 40B. Lexington: amnesty and encouragement. Lexington set up an amnesty program as part of a larger program to encourage accessory apartments. According to Lexington's 1983 by- law, the purpose of accessory units is to: • increase the number of small dwelling units available for rent in the town, • increase the range of choice of housing accommodations, • encourage greater diversity of population with particular attention to young adults and senior citizens, and • encourage a more economic and energy-efficient use of the town's housing supply while maintaining the appearance and character of the town's single- family neighborhoods. When Lexington passed the by-law, the amnesty provision allowed a two-year period in which to get a certificate of occupancy for a non-conforming second dwelling unit. In 1988, it provided for a way to legalize a dwelling unit in an accessory structure. According to the building commissioner, by June of 1987 the Town had received and reviewed 265 applications, and 234 were determined to be legal units. The remaining 31 were awaiting either special permits, repairs to bring them into compliance with the State Building Code, or additional research to verify their history. Of the 265 units, only 27 would be considered accessory apartments; the others were classified as two-family houses. Lexington also has fairly lenient rules regarding existing units and creation of new units. Their requirements, for example, limit the accessory unit to two bedrooms but do not specify the number of people who may live in it. They require only one parking space for the accessory unit and specify that only one parking space have direct access to the street. How Affordable Accessory Apartments can "Count" on the 40B Subsidized Housing Inventory To encourage local affordable housing initiatives, the state has designed a Local Initiative Program(LIP) setting forth requirements and standards for units that will qualify as low or moderate income housing on the Subsidized Housing Inventory. Under this program, affordable accessory apartments would be considered"Local Initiative Units" or"LIP Only"units and would need to meet State Sanitary Code requirements, be occupied by a 57 household earning no more that 80 percent of the area median income, and be subject to a Use Restriction of at least 15 years. The latter may be revocable upon sale of the principal residence. Requirements are detailed in state regulations—760 CMR 45.00 (especially 45.03). They cover the need for local action, income and asset limits, affordability, use restrictions, reporting, and nondiscrimination in tenant and buyer selection. Barnstable: affordability. Barnstable has a by-law that links accessory dwelling units to affordability and is designed to ensure that the units "count"toward the 40B Subsidized Housing Inventory. It applies to both new and existing accessory units. New units are limited to single units in single-family homes, while existing units may also include more than one unit in a multi-family structure or in a detached structure such as a barn, carriage house, or garage. The original by-law was amended to allow construction of new units attached to existing structures as well as conversion of existing structures. The text of the by-law appears in the Appendix at the end of this report. The intent of the law is to bring unpermitted units into compliance and to encourage the use of existing dwellings to create additional affordable housing. To comply with state law, Barnstable established a local Chapter 40B program which helps owners of accessory units by waiving certain fees, assisting with the process, and identifying funds for rehabilitation. To qualify for amnesty or to receive a permit for new units,properties must meet several criteria and owners must agree to rent to people with incomes under 80% of median, charge affordable rents, and execute a deed restriction to ensure affordability. Barnstable also uses CDBG money for grants to assist with code compliance and to monitor program compliance (i.e., income verifications and rent restrictions). In the three years of the program, over 60 units have been approved for inclusion in the 40B Inventory. The program is spurring creation of new units, with the greatest interest in the conversion of detached structures.I' Scituate: affordability. More recently, Scituate has proposed revisions to its Zoning By- Law to encourage affordable accessory apartments and to ensure that they will "count" on the Chapter 40B Subsidized Housing Inventory consistent with the most recent regulations and guidance from the state's Department of Housing and Community Development(DHCD). The proposed revisions, drafted by consultant Judi Barrett, appear in the Appendix to this report. They are probably the most up-to-date in terms of consistency with DHCD guidance. " Source:Paulette McAuliffe&Kevin Shea,Town of Barnstable. 58 Explore amending the bvlaw regarding conversion of single familv to two family homes in the T district Current zoning allows single family parcels in the T district to be converted to two families as-of-right. Some recent conversions under the bylaw were found objectionable by some attendees at the public forums because of their physical appearance (structures too large for their lots), aggravation of parking problems, and/or loss of open space. A moratorium on conversions has been proposed and will be publicly discussed in the near future. While forum attendees expressed the need to protect the character of existing single family neighborhoods, they also expressed a need for more affordable home ownership opportunities in the town. Because the conversion bylaw can lead to lower cost housing by spreading the land cost over two units, the town should explore ways to modify the current bylaw to address the concerns about impacts rather than completely extinguish the opportunity to create additional units. Alternatives to explore in reviewing the bylaw include identifying areas of the T district that are too congested to accommodate conversions, establishing special permit requirements to address potential impacts of conversions, and analyzing district height limits to assess whether impacts could be reduced by allowing owners to build up rather out. Establish a housing buv down program Communities still have some relatively low-cost housing, for example, in two- and three- family homes or condominiums. A number of communities have established programs to write down the costs of condo purchases or to buy affordable condos or two- and three- family houses, rehabilitate them, and rent or sell them as permanently affordable housing. Boxborough and Bedford have condo programs of this type: Boxborough is using a town appropriation to purchase the units, and Bedford is using CPA and HOME funds. The condo programs generally involve the purchase of units by income-eligible buyers, with deed restrictions to keep the units affordable over time. Arlington's non-profit has a buy down program for the purchase of two-family homes, retaining the properties and renting units to low-to-moderate-income families at affordable rents. The non-profit has purchased several properties to date, using HOME and other funds plus bank financing. Take steps to retain expiring use properties as affordable housing. Affordability in some privately owned, mixed-income developments is governed by use restrictions that allow owners to sell or rent at market rates after a given number of years. These developments and their restrictions are referred to as "expiring use." Two developments in Watertown are listed as expiring use properties by CHAPA: 156 units in the Arsenal Apartments (expiring 2012), and 14 units at Beaverbrook STEP (2021). While these expiration dates are rather distant, the town should be aware of the situation and maintain good relations with the owners to ensure continued affordability. 59 It is almost always preferable and more cost-effective to preserve existing affordable housing rather than build it anew. Also, these properties typically are good, well- maintained developments that serve long-term community residents. These are too important a resource to risk losing. The list of expiring use properties and information about maintaining affordability is available at www.chapa m. Expert guidance is available at CEDAC at(617) 727-5944 or www.cedac.ora. Develop a plan for reuse of surplus municipally owned property, including a property inventorv,priority list, and implementation steps. Use of public property for housing dramatically lowers acquisition and land costs, thus lowering the cost of housing built there. Surplus property provides an opportunity to address a range of local needs. Communities should view this property and their various needs comprehensively and develop a plan to balance the need for housing, open space, and other priorities. With an overall plan, communities can prepare in advance for timely implementation actions. The reuse of the Coolidge School is an example of an opportunity that is best addressed through a comprehensive assessment of housing needs and available assets. Identifv other potentially available public or institutional property as well as privately owned vacant and underutilized properties. Types of properties include those owned by state, federal, or county governments; authorities and quasi-publics; colleges and universities; and religious organizations. The soon to be closed Sacred Heart church is perhaps the highest priority for evaluation. Economic Development No additional strategies have been identified in this area. Appendix IV contains sources of information on economic development. Transportation • Enhance traffic enforcement along Waverly Avenue, Common Street, School Street and Arlington Street to reduce speeding—Enforcement involves altering driver behavior through police presence, warnings, and citations. Enhancement enforcement along the four study roadways is recommended although it can be costly to the community and may not have a permanent effect on drivers if it is not continuous. Any discussions of enforcement will require input from the Police Department. • Explore traffic calming measures along the four study roadways—Traffic calming measures are roadway treatments that seek to reduce speed and volumes to "acceptable levels". The underlying assumption behind these treatments is that 60 people drive at the speed that they feel safe to drive. In other words, they drive at the speed that the roadway's physical characteristics allow them to drive. So, instead of posting a speed limit, the best approach is to alter the physical characteristics and dimensions of the roadway so that drivers feel that they have to lower their speed and pay attention. Traffic calming measures include speed tables (flat-top speed humps), textured pavement, raised intersections, lateral shifts, and narrowings (neck downs). Although the budget of this study does not allow for specific recommendations at specific locations, traffic calming measures ought to be explored by Watertown as a form of speed control and pedestrian mobility. Any study of traffic calming measures will require the involvement of local residents, the Police Department, the Department of Public Works and the Planning Department. 61 62 E❑-41 8 MAP 1 : e�rt� uxen�w'p .�. Nam_ EXISTING CONDITIONS AND FUTURE LAND USE �..a . . . .. .a., � -.. � ... -._ WATERTOWN z l5 L i..-. �. '4" 77 tee. � _"'"'•� y— -.�� � - 63 64 E❑-4 1 8 MAP 2: ©r�. ��� o�.• w•[^,, „,� ,,— „M M NATURAL RESOURCES ��..�. w.�.�. ..e�....,, .��-• AN❑ OPEN SPACE ---- WATERTOWN 1 65 66 "'..' E❑-4 1 e MAP 3 ©,Fs iw....... POTENTIAL AREAS F❑R ❑PEN SPACE ' ,_ Ir-' �. .i _IF IIII .� AcgUISITI❑N AND PROTECTION WA T E R T O W N 13 �aaraar..wv io naw aw. — r......W.wdww.n...r w.w.... a - _ ( t rcco rocs s 67 68 IUNlNv WAr.R BCHeeL. �.rvr.. e�e rveee rA,L. E❑—4 1 8 MAP 4: �-LIMIa[a B.,ei..Las 6rRc,.ne H❑usiNG ❑PPORTUNITIES s `/• �r i — � WATERT❑WN —31 9 iNoi[F.w i�r Oorv'+[.e�ory �V Ceuetria• �� { Lnriee.... ernervr�,erRim e� F� �.F�F�^� � -ioc. mere.a � • «..•a�..aor woo���w•w.•rr.�..._r•.w.aoxaw � _� � .w.ao«u..cw.orv..rm au•••�•�.n woxo. f _ yrI \ II i T A-== _ �r 70 Ooei°ie°w�rei era ,... W.— RGACS E ❑-4 1 S MAP 5: voTer�TlwiiT oeveLov,.e�e L"Rn oven avwee `'' rr cunnrert rorrlrrd EC❑N❑MiC DEVELOPMENT Cxle—m L—Duce CATCGCRIC• ' OPPORTUNITIES .. .a, `s_ WATERTOWN boo b R.*.II� ......�....m Wem.r c Wrw�.....�....,...... - - ..... .....�.. m ...�...�.,�� .. � f~ � rex...sx.ueeax asir.n.uw�ee..°w«..n.anew. f '��'�, � ; `�•�.. ?-r Y. 77. a r '.' - -----._=n�__' -- -------- '- _= - __ -- -�- _"=~s-- ----= z•=max-�� 72 r�e�..o.a. W..,■. Qe.,e. "'p�` m ■„�.. .�w.ra.aow. E O-4 1 8 MAP G■.,.,.,...a,a ca.a. ■ ■...nu.�....eu.e 'V LOO'" C O M M U N I T Y DEVELOPMENT PLAN a.�u.as rrn , w WATERTOWN t ',000 i c wenui mew J � wrc�„w.. ceeue.c o.u— h �, :e4�.new� n,.. � ._.... �- - ._ � j ,1 � � .�..o.,�o,Y■ ,e,.l C �oar..c.�.�i.���~ -i� _..._�� �+..`'•'.- t E i . r� t• rs Enau u..�c.ccr, •r► �]�•. 7,_ �. �...1- .yrtr ... ...... w,ae-u�w wc�ec.■n.eu..e -- ,L ---- � �.�-- _-. :'jam__`_._-"_: a _-,J'`- �.. fie:�a'„■Y.� .�" � - , : � -:__�_____�---- - ------- ---- - :------__ _ - _- --- __::_ -- -----� � - _ � .u�.In.W .Ic9u,.�new I3 74 APPENDIX I RESULTS OF THE VISIONING SESSION JUDY'S GROUP Strengths/Assets • Small town feel/feels like a community (7) • Vibrant school system(6) • River(5) • Rich in small local businesses (5) • Good citizen involvement(5) • Safe (3) • It's a walking town(3) • Good public transportation (2) • Nice town events (concerts, fair on the square, MLK breakfast) (2) • Rich history(1) • Bike paths (1) • Public services (police, fire, DPW) (1) • Good libraries (1) • Location • Ethnic diversity • Arts center • Big income from Harvard • Watertown children's theatre • Pool • Small neighborhoods • Trees for Watertown • Affordable housing • Charitable town bank • Mall (especially Target, Home Depot) • Many coffee shops • Restaurants • 3 beautiful roads along the river • Location • Ethnic diversity • Location Weaknesses/Liabilities • No vision; no long-term development plan; no mission statement(9) %rking We're subject to the whims of random development • &traffic (8) • Center faces outward(7) • "No there there" 75 • Square faces the wrong way • Divisive school committee (4) • Dilapidated public service buildings (3) • Falling apart industrial area(2) • No farmers' market(2) • Limited adult recreation(2) • Limited opportunities for youth(2) • Don't promote/enable public access to river(1) • Outdated zoning (1) • Large transient population(1) • Absentee landlords allow deterioration • Losing pedestrian quality(1) • No place to put snow • Divisiveness within community—"townies"vs. "new" folks • Overdevelopment • Lack of integration of new people • Shortage of open space—lack of playing fields • Don't take advantage of river as much as we could • No movie theater • Illegal accessory apartment • Low occupancy at the Arsenal • Rising cost of housing • Lot of through traffic (Pike, Rt. 20, Rt. 16) • Becoming more urban(this is both a plus & a minus) Opuortunities • Infrastructure is there for small town and pedestrian friendly life (8) • River(7) • Opportunities for coming together& collaboration (4) • Arts center(3) • The square (3) • Harvard(2) • Schools (continued improvement) (2) • Abandoned industrial buildings (2) • Coolidge School (2) • Car barn (2) • General services administration land(1) • Continue to make this a welcoming community for immigrants (1) • Location/proximity/ease of access (1) • Ethnic diversity(1) • Abandoned railroad track(1) • Brown School • More understanding of national and international issues • Library 76 Ranked Priorities (Judv's group) Strengths • Small town feel • Vibrant school system • River • Rich in small local businesses • Good citizen involvement Weaknesses • No vision, no long-term development plan, no mission statement • Parking& traffic • Center faces outward(no there there) Opportunities • Infrastructure is there to support small town&pedestrian friendly life • River • Opportunities for coming together/collaboration GROUP REPORT-OUT—HOUSING ITEMS Strengths • Diverse population Weaknesses • Illegal apartments • High housing costs • Housing too expensive for low and middle income Opportunities • Expand affordable housing through public-private partnerships • Vacant Coolidge School 77 HOUSING GROUP Themes (sequenced) • Find ways to increase affordable housing without increasing density(9) �esearch Reuse existing structures • affordability and availability(7) • Compare costs of rental and homeownership with incomes • Compare cost increases �esign How much is available at various cost levels? • housing so as to minimize traffic, numbers of cars, environmental impacts (7) • Mix commercial and housing • Design for energy efficiency • What is the impact on costs of conversion of 2-family homes to condos? (3) • How to get a balance, good distribution of high, middle, low (3) • Create a residential community in the square (2) �lderly Building up second stories above stores—one solution • issues (2) • Low income senior citizens who own homes (Watertown has high% of seniors) • Seniors with extra space 4enness Aging in place • to diversity(1) • Promote more ownership, more investment (1) • Tenants may also be invested • Illegal apartments increase cars (1) • Town could help preserve 2 families as affordable for moderate income families (1) • Example: Arlington • What is affordable housing and for whom—rental vs. ownership • More housing in general • What is affordable to town workers? • Need a housing approach—what we want in terms of families, children, elders, etc. should drive housing planning • Tight market in the region • Planning department staffs non-profit housing partnership—Arlington does this • Shared housing HEIDI'S GROUP Strengths/Assets Charles River is a resource (7) Good fiscal management of town by Town Manager(5) Public transportation (5) Safe community(5) 78 Decent town center(restaurants,banks, post office) (3) Public library (3) Wide variety of people in town(2) Good business location (2) Variety of housing options (2) Very compact and easy to get places (2) Mt. Auburn Cemetery(1) Town service providers (e.g., police) (1) Active Chamber of Commerce (1) Public willing to participate (1) Perkins Institute (0) Town government is accessible (0) Harvard connection (0) Wide variety of churches/church participation(0) Country club golf course as resource (0) Wonderful shopping area on Mt. Auburn and East Watertown(0) Close to Boston for jobs (0) Weaknesses/Liabilities Town is focused on development rather than open space (4) Police Dept. building not sufficient(4) School Committee doesn't work well together(3) Declining urban forest(3) Lack of parking(especially Watertown Square), impacts merchants (3) Housing too expensive for existing middle and lower income people (3) Lack of open space, passive recreation(2) Watertown Square pedestrian difficulty(2) Town Council doesn't work well as a group (1) Public works building is condemned(1) Lack of good book store (1) Lack of economic diversity (1) Lack of opportunities for community interaction (1) Lack of community gardens (1) Not enough recycling(1) West end of town/Pleasant Street too much pavement(1) Bus frequency not as much as desired in western part of town (1) Need more shade street trees (1) Too middle-class, not enough working class (1) Too much salt on public roads (0) Better north—south public transportation(0) Need more bike paths (0) Streets are not well-maintained(0) High school needs work Poor maintenance of MDC paths (0) Lack of an art movie theater(0) 79 Lack of incentives to preserve trees (0) Lack of money (0) Unnecessary permitting and registration fees (0) Sidewalk maintenance in winter/ snow Opportunities Expand affordable housing through public/private partnerships (5) Vacant Coolidge Street School (4) Harvard's contributions to the town(4) When reconstructing streets do redesign of street including parking(4) Town needs to be more active with regard to natural open space (3) Parking garage—add to Watertown Square Lot (2) Get more public access with yacht club (2) Tap into the town's diversity (2) New main library(2) Energy conservation—green buildings especially town buildings (2) MBTA car ban on South Side (2) Whitney Hill Park—preserve it(2) Renegotiate trash contract to have recycling options (1) Town newly-appointed energy commission(1) Pond in East Watertown(Sawin Pond)—clean it up (1) Watertown Center for the Arts (1) Traffic calming (1) Underutilization of Pleasant Street(0) Give people incentives to preserve trees in town(0) MDC—Greenough Blvd could be worked with (0) Improve schools (0) Opportunity to create community gardens (0) Opportunity for new police department building (0) Maximize the use of recycling center(0) Charles River Conservancy—increase maintenance along river(0) Open up Gore Society's pond access (0) Ranked Priorities (Heidi's group) Strengths Charles River is a resource (7) Safe community(5) Public transportation (5) Good fiscal management of town by Town Manager(5) Weaknesses Town is focused on development rather than open space (4) Police Dept. building not sufficient(4) 80 School Committee doesn't work well together(3) Lack of parking(especially Watertown Square) impacts merchants (3) Housing too expensive for existing middle and lower income people (3) Declining urban forest(3) Opportunities Expand affordable housing through public/private partnerships (5) Harvard's contributions to the town(4) When reconstructing streets do redesign of street including parking(4) Vacant Coolidge Street School (4) GROUP REPORT-OUT—TRANSPORTATION ITEMS Strengths Town has strong infrastructure Bike paths are an asset Location/access to nearby areas is an asset Public transportation is a strength Weaknesses Parking and traffic problems Lack of parking, especially in Watertown Square Opportunities Opportunity for traffic calming Street reconstruction should include parking, shade trees, etc. TRANSPORTATION GROUP THEMES Definition of Transportation How people get from point A to point B (foot, car, bus, etc.), including: • Facilities to allow you to do that(bike rack,parking, streets, sidewalks); • The experience of getting from Point A to Point B (quality, aesthetics, speed); • Safety; and • Cost. Addition to items in "Report Out" Street reconstruction should also include bike and pedestrian improvements, and other quality of life improvements. Need defined truck routes Need better north—south transit Zip car should come to Watertown Need decent alternatives to cars Ban on overnight parking in winter is a benefit 81 Water ferry possibility Themes Identified (report-out items placed under applicable theme(s)) A. Watertown Square Parking is an Issue • Parking and traffic problems • Bike paths • Public transportation • Lack of parking is an issue B. Traffic Congestion • Parking and traffic problems • Bike paths • Public transportation C. Diverse Transportation Options to Mirror Diverse Population • Bike paths • Location/access to nearby areas is an asset • Public transportation • Need better north—south transit • Zip car • Need decent alternatives to cars • Water ferries D. Transportation Planning Should Include Quality of Life for Individuals and the Community as a Primary Value • Bike Paths • Opportunity for traffic calming • Location/access to nearby areas is an asset • Public transportation • Street reconstruction should also include bike and pedestrian improvements, and other quality of life improvements. • Need defined truck routes • Ban on overnight parking in winter is a benefit E. Safety • Parking and traffic problems • Opportunity for traffic calming • Public transportation F. Environmental Impact • Bike paths • Public transportation • Street reconstruction should also include bike and pedestrian improvements, and other quality of life improvements • Zip car 82 G. Adequate Balance of Business and Commerce with the Community • Location/access to nearby areas is an asset • Public transportation • Need defined truck routes • Need better north—south transit JOAN'S GROUP Strengths/Assets Location (mass transit, access to the Turnpike, etc.) (7) On the Charles River(4) Multicultural, diversity, tolerant (3) Compact(2) Pedestrian- friendly(2) Good schools (1) Good housing stock(variety) (1) Sense of community Weaknesses/liabilities Charles River vista and access needs to be improved(4) Trees are dying and not being replaced(3) Housing is expensive (2) Overly lenient with developers (2) Zoning code and enforcement needs review(2) Some areas not pedestrian and bike friendly(2) Unbridled taxes (1) Too much traffic (1) Traffic too fast(1) Overdeveloped(1) Road surfaces and sidewalks poor(1) Watertown Square not an attractive place to go (1) Lacks national hotel/banquet hall Too reliant on outside "experts" Lack of realism on services vs. taxes i.e. residents expect higher level of services than they are willing to pay for. Opportunities Replace lost trees with tall, hardy shade trees to provide filtered sunlight(7) Traffic calming (4) Provide incentives and regulations for creation of shade tree canopy(3) Harvard provides opportunity for courses (2) Be proactive with tree planting(2) Become more environmentally conscious (re: road salt, energy efficiency) (2) Coolidge School re-use for housing (2) Upcoming improvements to Watertown Square (1) 83 Bike path (1) Protect, enhance and provide access to Sawins Pond (1) Arts Center as a community asset (1) Open Space Comments from the report-outs Strengths River(tied for 3rd place) Charles River Bike paths Charles River and walkways Charles River as a resource Weaknesses Charles River access and vista needs improvement Trees dying and not being replaced Focus on development rather than open space Decline of the urban forest Opportunities River Replacing lost trees with tall, hardy shade trees Developers plant trees/incentives and regulations Better streetscapes including trees Redesign of streets to include more trees Open Space Themes Ensure permanent protection of existing natural areas, in their natural state. Enhance natural areas that have been degraded. Protect privately owned green space through: Strengthening and better enforcement of zoning provisions protection open space. Review urban street design and sidewalk placement to maximize unpaved areas. Work towards a vision of the Charles River in Watertown that accommodates a variety of uses realizing human benefits as well as natural integrity. Town policy on minimizing impervious surfaces Town should be proactive in acquiring open space 84 Shade trees—Establish town policy which maximizes shade tree planting in street renovations. Improve environmental practices in the town. Granite curbs to protect existing trees (0) Group 4 (Mark's Group) Group 4 Community-wide Strengths Location: Close to Boston, 128, etc (12) Diverse population/culturally diverse (6) Charles River(4) Two bus lines (MBTA) (3) Can walk to lots of things (2) Safe (2) Sense of Community(1) Urban/Suburban mix (1) Harvard University (1) Good Services Fire Department and Police Department(1) Mature Community (1) Diverse Retail/Well Stocked (1) Near Mount Auburn, Vanguard Nice Parks Good schools Concerts on the Common Mt. Auburn Cemetery/Nature Preserve Recycling curbside Great ethnic food Diverse Housing Stock Group 4 Community-wide Weaknesses Weak zoning (7) Need general food store that can be accessed @ center of town(5) High housing cost(3) Lack of spirit of cooperation between town officials & citizens (3) Inadequate Recycling(2) Poor streetscape/sidewalks/trees/medians -parking (2) Overhead wires excessive (2) Not enough environmental awareness @ municipal. Government level (2) 85 Traffic Management(2) Lack of attention to historical assets (2) Unsafe pedestrian areas (streets not marked) (1) Lack of open space (potential for pocket parks conversions?) (1) Schools not good(HS, deteriorated?) (1) Commercial sector too much automobile stuff(1) No bookstore (1) No movie theatre (1) Need more management/maintenance of CVS pkg lot—time allocation issue (1) MDC maintenance of Charles River path—Cambridge side is poorly maintained(1) Hard to identify when you're in Watertown- signage, streetscapes need to be unique to Watertown(1) Lack of zoning enforcement Proliferation of illegal apartments No enforcement of 5-minute idling on vehicles Not enough retail diversity/browsing type Not really pedestrian friendly square Absentee landlords/maintenance problems Group 4 Town-wide Opportunities Revise zoning and enforce zoning (6) Increase energy efficiency save money and the environment(5) 60%recycling goal (4) Improve Schools (3) Community Preservation Act-Open space 10%, aff. housing 10%, hist. pres. 10%, 70% other(3) Better capital improvements for streetscapes (3) Have local businesses build/maintain green space & streetscapes (2) More creative use of existing structures - mixed use zoning (2) Better traffic management in the Square(s)more "calming", wider sidewalks, more lights(2) Increase affordable housing (2) Shared services options with other towns (1) Better bike/pedestrian paths on Charles River. (1) Citizen participation in design&management of landscaping (1) BRA-style linkage w/permits to developers (1) Infrastructure for economic development 86 Use Cooledge School for housing (1) New public works dept./more effective (1) Arts Center Harvard University Infrastructure for economic development Utilize Coolidge School for educational purposes Notes on Report-outs from all Groups relating to Economic Development + = asset or strength - = liabilities or weaknesses 0 = opportunities Strengths/Assets Small Town Feel Small Businesses—diverse Mass Transit& Turnpike Access Charles River/Bikepath Location Bos/128/T Charles River+Paths Diversity- Residential+Retail Charles River Transit Weaknesses/Liabilities Parking/Traffic City Center not inward looking Lack of River Vista&Access Need General Food Ctr of Town Weak zoning Lack of Parking @ Watertown Sq. Decline of urban Forest Opportunities Strong Infrastructure Business Traffic calming Incentives for Businesses/residents to plant trees Regulations encouraging Redevelopment Better streetscapes/management Amend Zoning Harvard's Contribution to Town Redesign Streets-Parking & Trees 87 Economic Development Discussion Themes for Economic Development Goals for Watertown: Watertown Square- Make more of focus for community-try to enhance Pedestrian/Browsing activities By parks, types of businesses (movie theatre, benches, cafes,bookstores, grocery store, fresh foods) Possible Shuttle bus to businesses - does not duplicate "T" routes Improve Quality/Diversity of Business Arsenal Area Take advantage of potential for BioTech opportunities accompanying Harvard moving into Arsenal area Arsenal St. - School St. -Newton Corner This is a automotive business area- May not behighest&best use for area Throughout Watertown- Pay attention to details @ transitions between commercial and residential zones using buffers, streetscapes, sideyard buffers Evaluate impacts of specific business on town (Aggregate, hot top companies) Evaluate tax impact/env impact of the businesses to determine if the reduction in quality of life is worth the tax revenues generated by having specific types of businesses in town, make necessary changes to zoning to discourage certain types of businesses Take environmental responsibility for vehicular impacts of businesses development (for example,promote transit by having a maximum number of parking spaces and participation in transit by new/expanding businesses) Evaluate the impact of new development or redevelopment on abutting parks Examine impacts of increasing manufacturing base Need to provide public improvements to encourage private development (maybe on private lands) Buffer/transition from redevelopment to residential areas Pleasant St.Area Redevelopment should be modeled along the lines of Boston Scientific or Sasaki &Associates & emphasize river access/character East Watertown Existing good mix of businesses Parking/pedestrian issues/traffic in Coolidge square Emphasize hybrids/bikes as part of auto areas—explore carbon tax Emphasize the need for "Something back to town" for all development 88 Final wrap-up questions What town would you like Watertown to be more like? What Watertown "used to be" shopping in Watertown Sq„ walkability overarching shade trees (need to replace) fewer cars Watertown Square used to be a shopping destination. You could walk there. Watertown is one of the oldest communities. It has lost many structures. It's not a cultural/historic tourist destination. There is not enough parking. Need to reconsider policies If you were Watertown's Queen/King for a day,what would you do first? More people who live in Watertown would also work in Watertown Change the high percentage of absentee landlords The Red Line would go to Watertown Square Watertown Square would be improved by matching the state's funding to renovate the library. Overhead wires underground Not expand Auto Dealerships Better zoning for businesses-controls Maintain diversity of income of residents enable folks to buy in/live here Trash - More beautiful Trash cans-have Kids/arts community decorate trash cans Watertown Sq vibrant place to go Theatre, Restaurants Find a way to divert traffic away from Watertown Square Ferry on the Charles If you could write tomorrow's headline about this visioning session,what would it say? Watertown is Green Citizens See Greener Future for Watertown Visioning Session Headline in tomorrows paper: Watertown Citizens gather and decide to...... Revise Zoning Regulations Citizens Unite 89 90 APPENDIX II OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL RESOURCES STRATEGIES AND RESOURCES There are three programs administered by the state Division of Conservation Services that fund land acquisition and development. In order to apply for these programs, the community must have an approved Open Space and Recreation Plan. If full acquisition is not necessary, the Town may wish to consider obtaining conservation restrictions on some of these properties. For more information on these programs,use the following links: Self-Help: http://www.mass.Rov/envir/dcs/selfheli)/default.htm. Urban Self-Help: http://www.mass.Rov/envir/dcs/urban/default.htm. Land and Water Conservation Fund: http://www.mass.aov/envir/dcs/LandWater/default.htm. Conservation restrictions: http://www.mass.aov/dcs/restrictions/default.htm. Other Resources: ■ The Massachusetts Environmental Trust awards grants to municipalities, nonprofits, and educational institutions for a variety of environmental protection programs and projects. www.massenvironmentaltrust.or2. ■ The Manomet Center for Conservation Services has a comprehensive grants directory for open space conservation. This includes government sources and private funding sources. www.manomet.ora/regional/resources. ■ The Rivers and Harbors Grant Program is a statewide program of matching grants from DCR's Office of Waterways to towns and municipalities for design and construction to address problems on coastal and inland waterways, lakes and great ponds. ■ Communities often establish land acquisition accounts. Sources of funds used (or proposed) for these funds include: o Annual allocations from general operating funds o Proceeds from the sale of municipal properties o Proceeds from the sale of Tax Possession Land o Community Preservation Act fund o Local portion of hotel/motel room tax o Cell tower lease fees on municipal property o Reexamine town leases to see if lease rates should be raised to generate more revenue for the town. 91 92 Appendix III Additional Housing Strategies and Housing Resources This matrix lists a comprehensive menu of strategy opportunities that the town may wish to refer to in the future. This matrix includes some strategies that the Town is already undertaking. Develop leadership and organizational, planning, and administrative capacity Strategy Description/Rationale Establish a strong public Obtain strong and visible support from elected leaders to commitment to housing meet housing needs for all income levels Form a housing committee or Ideally, impetus should come from interested citizens, housing partnership with active support of chief elected officials. Committee should be appointed& endorsed by these officials & its mission agreed upon. Staff should be assigned. Hire housing professional or To assist& guide housing committee, liaison to other designate staff person planning functions, coordinate & lead housing efforts, & responsible for housing enable community to proactively promote housing Build coalitions with other E.g., chambers &business associations, religious groups, groups &partners social service &human service providers, & advocates Develop a proactive housing Policy establishes commitment& guides action. Should policy be integrated with other local policies & inform zoning goals &provisions Housing Development Non- Form a housing development non-profit or work with an Profit existing non-profit with skills in housing development, rehabilitation, & financing. A non-profit would provide access to additional funding sources &provide development expertise Form a Community Land Trust A CLT is a member-controlled non-profit that acquires & (CLT) holds land but sells or rents housing on it to residents. Reduces cost of housing by removing land costs from housing equation; limits increases in future housing costs. Ensures permanent affordability Undertake a public education Educate people about what is "affordable,"how housing campaign affects local citizens & the region's economy, ability to attract&retain workers Simplify, streamline regulations Can aid production generally or act as incentive for and procedures affordable housing. E.g., reduced fees. Include explicit housing goals Goals set the stage for specific provisions in zoning bylaw 93 Preserve existing housing stock, including existing affordable units, and adapt existing housing stock to meet changing needs Strategy Description/Rationale Develop a system to track and The town can abate up to 75% of the taxes and 100% of pursue tax title property the interest if tax delinquent properties are turned into affordable housing (for households earning up to 120% of the area median income and kept affordable for at least 45 years). Stricter penalties and Bring enforcement issues up to state legislators. Provide enforcement of illegal additional staff, at least temporarily to spearhead this apartments where safety program. Public education campaign of hazards. hazards are created. Facilitate production of new housing units through redevelopment of vacant or underutilized buildings Strategy Description/Rationale Explore feasibility of re-use of The relatively small size of the site poses challenges. The Community Building town could seek technical assistance from the state to study potential re-use. Work with the Housing If federal funding is not available, the town may need to Authority to see if there are seek funding sources. opportunities to add units at current developments. Allow accessory apartments, Makes more efficient use of existing buildings; promotes accompanied by an"amnesty affordability. Helps tenant& owner: owner gets added program" for existing units & income,potential upkeep assistance. Can be structured affordability provisions with incentives for affordability. Amnesty could also apply to undeclared duplex &multi-family. Allow mixed uses along Crest This would allow smaller units above retail and offices. Avenue and Revere Street business districts. Develop an Affordable Communities develop a plan pursuant to DHCD Housing Plan under 40B guidelines and request certification of compliance by Planned Production Program demonstrating that low and moderate income housing has increased by at least 3/4 of I% of total year round housing units during the calendar year for which certification is requested. Once certified, the town may deny comprehensive permit applications for a year; if they have produced 1.5%, they may deny applications for 2 years. 94 Local Initiative Program(LIP) Local control of progress toward 10%. Could be used with accessory apartments, housing above stores, infill, substantial rehabilitation, other housing development alternatives so units count toward 10%. Units must meet affordability requirements &be deed-restricted; residents must be income eligible. Allows communities to tailor programs to local needs. The community must apply to DHCD for approval. Work Regionally to Meet Housing Needs Strategy Description/Rationale Regional Coalitions Regional coalitions advocate for housing,undertake public information/education campaigns, & serve other purposes. The MetroWest Affordable Housing Coalition, formed by clergy, legislators, & others, has over 50 members from 25 community& faith-based organizations, local businesses, etc. They have been raising awareness & stimulating public dialogue about the lack of affordable housing& encouraging solutions. Regional cooperation among To eliminate redundancies or fill service delivery gaps. non-profits or housing Some local housing authorities provide services to authorities neighboring communities. E.g., Hudson Housing Authority provides rental assistance, LIP program resales, & lotteries services to Stow on a fee basis. Housing authorities also informally share equipment, computer technical assistance, etc. Statewide legal & supportive services are available centrally to housing authorities. Regional non-profits, housing Community Land Trust of Cape Ann(CLTCA) is a private partnerships, land trusts, & non-profit to create affordable housing&provide housing trust funds stewardship of land. It retains title to the land, keeping housing permanently affordable. CLTCA has purchased several buildings, rehabbed them, & sold or rented units at affordable prices. There is also a North Shore Housing Trust Fund. Regional funding campaign Could tap private donations, businesses &business associations, private foundations, religious organizations, etc., for specific clientele or development or for regional trust fund. Housing services consortiums Some housing support services are provided regionally through regional non-profits, CAP agencies, etc. Potential opportunities under Option 1 is project-specific; contiguous communities could 40B proposed legislation collaborate to share infrastructure costs associated with housing growth&benefits of housing growth, as reflected in attainment of housing goals. Option 2 is a broader opportunity for contiguous communities to plan proactively 95 & collaborate in addressing regional housing needs. It creates a pilot program for up to 3 housing regions. Additional Resources ■ MAPC,Local Housing Checklist, at www.manc.orR ■ Citizens' Housing &Planning Association(CHAPA)provides many useful resources, especially Taking the Initiative:A Guidebook on Creating Local Affordable Housing Strategies. Call (617) 742-0820 or visit www.chamora. ■ Department of Housing and Community Development, www.state.ma.us/dhcd ■ For information on expiring use properties, contact CEDAC at(617) 727-5944 or www.cedac.oriz. ■ Local Banks (e.g., East Boston Savings Bank Meridian Charitable Foundation, www.ebsb.com/communitv/meridian foundation.cfm. ■ Mass. Housing Partnership (MHP) for project-specific technical assistance, identification&packaging of financial resources, rental financing, homeownership programs, technical publications, examples of local strategies, etc. Visit www.mhD.net or call (617) 338-7686. MassHousing is the state affordable housing bank. It lends at below market rates to support rental and homeownership opportunities for low-to-moderate income 96 COMPREHENSIVE MATRIX OF HOUSING STRATEGIES A check(✓) in column 3 indicates strategy appropriate for your community. Use columns 4 & 5 to identify map locations & to set priorities Strategy Description/Rationale Fits Map Priority Town # Level Leadership, Organizational, Planning, & Administrative Resources • Establish a strong public Get strong &visible support from elected commitment to housing leaders • Form a housing committee Ideally, impetus should come from interested or housing partnership citizens, with active support of chief elected officials. Committee should be appointed& endorsed by these officials & its mission agreed upon. Staff should be assigned. 97 Strategy Description/Rationale Fits Map Priority Town # Level • Make existing housing Add members with greater expertise or committees more effective contacts with key constituencies; provide more official government support; increase publicity. Membership might include lenders, clergy, developers, real estate professionals, business leaders. • Hire a housing professional Staff would assist& guide housing ✓ or designate a staff person committee, act as liaison to other planning responsible for housing functions, coordinate & lead housing efforts, & enable community to be proactively promote housing • Build coalitions with other Examples might include chambers &business groups &partners associations, churches & synagogues, social service &human service providers, & advocates • Develop a proactive housing Policy establishes commitment& guides policy action. Should be integrated with other local policies & should inform zoning goals & provisions 98 Strategy Description/Rationale Fits Map Priority Town # Level • Form a housing A non-profit would provide access to ✓ development non-profit or additional funding sources &provide work with an existing non- development expertise profit with skills in housing development, rehabilitation, & financing • Form a Community Land A CLT is a member-controlled non-profit that ✓ Trust(CLT) acquires &holds land but sells or rents housing on it to local residents. Reduces cost of housing by removing land costs from housing equation; limits increases in future housing costs. Main advantage: ensures permanent affordability Public Information & Outreach • Undertake a public Educate people about what's "affordable," ✓ education campaign how housing affects local citizens &the region's economy, ability to attract&retain workers 99 Strategy Description/Rationale Fits Map Priority Town # Level Financial Resources • Join a consortium to receive Enables community to have greater control ✓ an annual allocation of over housing development, more affordable federal HOME funds housing resources, &predictable funding to plan. Must be contiguous to consortium member community • Adopt the Community Provides more locally controlled resources & ✓ Preservation Act (CPA) more partners with resources & expertise; helps community balance housing, open space, historic preservation, & other priorities • Appropriate local funding Especially helpful as seed money &to fill gaps • Set up a housing trust fund Sources may include inclusionary zoning in- lieu payments, private donations from individuals &businesses, foundation support Zoning & Subdivision Laws • Include explicit housing Goals set the stage for specific provisions goals • Mixed use zoning, including Smart Growth ✓ housing above stores • Inclusionary or incentive Promotes community control; scattered, low ✓ zoning to require or impact means of achieving &maintaining encourage inclusion of 10%. Can also provide financial resources for 100 Strategy Description/Rationale Fits Map Priority Town # Level affordable units in new housing or off-site affordable units. market-rate residential developments • Linkage Similar to inclusionary zoning but applies to ✓ commercial& industrial development& produces $ contribution to affordable housing as mitigation. Works best where high commercial tax base. Increases financial resources for housing. • Additional density in some Promotes greater affordability. ✓ residential districts • Additional density via Makes more efficient use of existing ✓ "adaptive reuse," allowing buildings;promotes greater affordability& smaller units within larger smart growth residential structures or converting non-residential structures to residential uses • Adaptive reuse of accessory Allow conversion of barns, carriage houses, structures & garages to one or more affordable units • Encourage residential uses Encourage more affordable housing ✓ in underutilized industrial or commercial areas • Cluster zoning Promotes a balance of housing & open space; ✓ allows more efficient use of site &better protection of critical natural resources 101 Strategy Description/Rationale Fits Map Priority Town # Level • Reduce parking Facilitates development of housing and ✓ requirements, especially for greater affordability senior housing, housing near transit, &mixed used housing where shared parking possible • Accessory apartments, Makes more efficient use of existing ✓ accompanied by an buildings; promotes affordability. Helps "amnesty program" for tenant& owner: owner gets added income, existing units & potential upkeep assistance. Can be structured affordability provisions with incentives for affordability. Amnesty could also apply to undeclared duplex & multi-family. • Infill development Encourage development of lots in areas where development& infrastructure already exist • Overlay districts A special district, superimposed over regular zoning districts, designed to encourage more flexible planning or accomplish a special purpose such as resource protection or"smart growth" 102 Strategy Description/Rationale Fits Map Priority Tow # Level n • Simplify, streamline Can aid production generally or be used as regulations &procedures incentive for affordable housing. Incentives could include reduced fees. • Revise subdivision laws to Adjust dimensional requirements & other make housing less design practices where appropriate to reduce expensive unnecessary cost. Property Resources - Preservation • Take steps to retain expiring Some privately owned affordable housing is use properties as affordable subject to use restrictions that expire, freeing housing owners from affordability requirements. Communities should research property status &pursue retention strategies. • Enact the "residential At local option, communities may exempt a ✓ exemption" to offer tax % of average assessed value of residential incentive for owner parcels from owner-occupants' bills. Intent is occupancy to promote owner occupancy,providing proportionately greater benefit to lower valued homes. Is a disincentive to absentee ownership. • Offer rehab loans &/or Maintains & improves existing property grants with funds from state CDBG, HOME consortium, or other sources 103 Strategy Description/Rationale Fits Map Priority Tow # Level n • Solicit donated or reduced- May have tax or other benefits for existing price property owners • Identify vacant& ✓ underutilized properties • Identify surplus municipal Balance community needs for housing, open ✓ property& develop a reuse space, other priorities; prepares for timely plan, including a property implementation actions. Use of public inventory,priority list, & property for housing dramatically lowers implementation steps acquisition & land costs • Identify other potentially State, federal, county, MBTA, colleges & ✓ available public or universities, religious organizations institutional property • Develop a system to track& Encourages property maintenance & ✓ pursue tax title property improvement, affordable housing opportunities • Local Initiative Program Local control of progress toward 10%. ✓ (LIP) Could be used with accessory apartments, housing above stores, infill, other housing development alternatives so units count toward 10%. Units must meet affordability requirements &be deed-restricted; residents must be income eligible. • Develop a Planned Local control of progress toward 10% ✓ Production Program Infrastructure Resources • Target sewer or water Communities with limited additional sewer or 104 capacity to promote housing water capacity can use it as an incentive for goals housing, affordability, or locational preferences such as "smart growth" Sources of Information and Assistance • MAPC,Local Housing Checklist, at www.mamora • Citizens' Housing & Planning Association(CHAPA)provides many useful resources, especially Taking the Initiative:A Guidebook on Creating Local Affordable Housing Strategies. Call (617) 742-0820 or visit www.chapa.org • Department of Housing and Community Development, www.state.ma.us/dhcd • Mass. Housing Partnership (MHP) for project-specific technical assistance, identification&packaging of financial resources, rental financing, homeownership programs,technical publications, examples of local strategies, and more. Visit www.mhv.net or call (617) 338-7686. • MassHousing is the state affordable housing bank. Lends at below market rates to support rental and homeownership opportunities for low-to-moderate income households in Massachusetts. Call 617.854.1000 or visit www.masshousin2.com. • For information on expiring use properties, contact CEDAC at(617) 727-5944 or www.cedac.org. 105 106 APPENDIX IV ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Municipal Development 100 Cambridge Street, Boston (617) 727-7001 www.state.ma.us/dhed/components/dcs/downtown/default.htm DHCD is the Massachusetts state agency most directly responsible for technical assistance and funding programs (e.g. Community Development Block Grants and Action Grants) for revitalizing downtown business and retail districts. DHCD publishes an extensive list of information sources,Downtown Resources, as well as Organizing for Economic Development, an overview of the types of economic development organizational forms available for Massachusetts communities and its website offers links to numerous state agency resources and local economic development organizations. National Main Street Center of the National Trust for Historic Preservation 7 Faneuil Hall Marketplace Boston (617) 523-0885 www.mainstreet.ora The National Main Street Center provides education,publications, and technical assistance for revitalizing commercial areas,particularly downtown Main Streets. International Downtown Association 1250 H Street,NW, loth Floor Washington, DC 20005 www.ida-downtown.ora Membership organization that provides publications related to revitalizing commercial areas Downtown Research & Development Center 28 West 25th Street, 8th Floor New York,NY 10010 www.downtowndeveloDment.com Publications on downtown revitalization techniques and case studies. Public Works Economic Development Program (PWED) Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Construction 107 10 Park Plaza Boston (617) 973-7800 http://www.mass.2ov/eotc/pro2rams/programs pwedpal.html The PWED program was established to fund the design and construction of roads, roadways, and any other transportation-related projects deemed necessary for economic development. 108 APPENDIX V TRANSPORTATION MEMO 109 CTPS CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STAFF Staff to the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization MEMORANDUM TO: EO 418 Files,Watertown June 9, 2004 FROM: Tom Nixon,Hiral Gandhi, and Efi Pagitsas RE: Town-of-Origin Study at Four Locations in Watertown Background This study was performed as part of Executive Order(EO) 418. EO 418 directed the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA), the Department of Housing and Community Development, and the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction (EOTC)to provide funds to assist communities in planning for housing, open space, economic development, and transportation. This memo describes the data collection, analysis, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the transportation element of Watertown's EO 418 funding. Study Purpose CTPS designed and performed this short study with the consultation of Watertown's Planning Department and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). The Planning Department is aware of"cut through" and"speeding" concerns from residents along Arlington Street, School Street, Common Street, and Waverly Avenue. The study was designed to verify the basis of these concerns, make recommendations, and also serve as a catalyst for Watertown to begin addressing them. Data Collection To this end, CTPS performed roadway reconnaissance to record roadway and traffic flow characteristics and collected license plate data at four key locations along the aforementioned roads. The license plate survey was performed on April 29, 2004. Vehicle license plates were recorded with video cameras that were focused on southbound traffic at the following four locations (shown in Figure 1): • Waverly Avenue North of Main Street • Common Street at Katherine Road • School Street at Shattuck Road • Arlington Street at Maplewood Street Videotaping took place between 7:00 and 9:00 AM. Stale Transportation Building•Ten Park Plaza,Suite 2150•Boston,MA 02115-3968•(617)973-7160•Fax(617)973-8855•TTY(617)973-16B9•rips@gs.arg % ct V ' 1 \ hails uol-f?UIIJV 'v % I I F�-•1 I Ooj)s Ioo�'atto 1 r•♦ '1401 o i '•� b'`fjd� •♦♦ / ♦�' .% ♦♦ ♦ a~fi .\ ct •♦ 1 ♦ 1 '♦ 1 �♦ '♦ I ♦; EO 418 Files, Watertown 3 June 9, 2004 Analysis Findings The roadways at all four collection points are collector roads with one lane in each direction. Posted speed limits are between 20 and 30 mph. All locations include on-street parking. After the tapes were transcribed(read), each location's license plate data were matched against the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV)records that contain the name of the city or town where the vehicle is garaged. As can be seen in Table 1, a total of 4,788 vehicles were recorded on videotape. Of the 4,635 Massachusetts plates that were observed, 83%were matched to the town in which the vehicle was registered. Table 1 Traffic and License Plate Statistics at Four Watertown Locations April 29, 2004 Out-of Match Rate Observed Massachusetts Watertown Location Vehicles State Plates to a Mass. Plates Waverly Avenue North of Main Street 852 29 823 82.7% Common Street at Katherine Road 1,525 44 1,481 79.4% School Street at Shattuck Road 948 32 916 82.2% Arlington Street at Maplewood Street 1,463 48 1,415 87.3% Total 4,788 153 4,635 82.9% The following findings are a summary of the information presented in Table 2: • Over 45% of the combined traffic, at all four locations originated from homes in Watertown and Belmont. When Arlington and Waltham are included, over 60% of the traffic is accounted for. The predominance of these four towns was true for all four individual locations, as well. • Despite the concentration of origin-residences in Watertown and nearby towns, vehicles from between 84 and 119 Massachusetts towns made morning southbound trips through the four locations. • Out-of-state plates contributed between 2.9% and 3.4% of the observed traffic. • The highest number of vehicles was observed traveling at the Common Street (1,525) and Arlington Street(1,463) locations, followed by the School Street (948) and Waverly Avenue (852) locations. U r— 00 00 00 M M N N o 00 00 V.) N C1 r- r- "C Vo Vl M d1 M W') 00 O N 00 M M — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y N O l� 01 M l� M D1 a1 M 00 O V> O N O O O l� Lr) -- O `o O kn kn 00 M O —wn `o • � �,� M N M O CA ~ ~ N � ++ O O cn '� It a1 r- 00 N w r- O O C1 W) It m N `o N 00 l� O O oo N N Ln o, M It O W Qj .. 0 A CZS 00 � O N C\ 't 00 't 00 t \O M M N O I 4. I N O O cd \O N -- -� I bA 0 cM `O l� l� "D � C1 N -t � -t O l� C1 O N00 N C1 C1 M u7 N O -- -- -- -y •-- -- O 00 C 00 N C1 O ^- N N \o `O O ^- 00 `O l— M C1 N 00 M N It N N Vl 00 00 0 O � � Cl., bOA � H° o oLn � � aa � ¢� aaavz � 3aa30 0o � C,3o EO 418 Files, Watertown 5 June 9, 2004 Reconnaissance and videotaping findings by location are as follows: Waverly Avenue, North of Main Street • Belmont contributes the largest percent(23%) of traffic, followed by Watertown with 18%. • Waltham and Arlington each contribute just below 10%. • Traffic was light before 7:30 AM,but as volumes increased during the morning, southbound queues of six cars or more at the Main Street signal were common. Common Street at Katherine Road • Among the four locations, Common Street had the highest percent (44.8%) of local Watertown traffic; Belmont vehicles are the second largest component here, at 13.7%. • Speeds higher than the speed limit were observed, despite the presence of pedestrians and a nearby school. School Street at Shattuck Road • Like Common Street, School Street traffic consisted predominantly of local Watertown traffic (37.5%), followed by Belmont with 15.8%. • Like the Common Street location, the School Street location is in close proximity to a school. • Speeds higher than the posted speed limit were observed until sometime after 7:30 AM, when traffic congestion became significant. Arlin-aton Street at Maplewood Street • Arlington Street traffic is predominantly from Belmont(21.7%), followed by Arlington (14.9%), Waltham(8.1%), and Watertown(7.0%). Figures 2 through 6 (at the end of the text) show the town-of-origin distribution of the traffic observed at the four study locations (combined and by location). Discussion Analysis showed that a high proportion of the traffic observed at the four study locations originates in towns outside Watertown. Belmont, Arlington, and Waltham alone contribute about 35% of the combined traffic at the four locations. The highest percentage of out-of-town origins was observed at the Arlington Street and Waverly Avenue locations, the eastmost and westmost locations. Of the four locations, the highest traffic volumes were observed at the Common Street and Arlington Street locations. Speeding is more prevalent along Common Street and School Street; both of these streets are wide, tree-covered,pleasant to drive on, and direct. All of the observed southbound trips either turn onto or cross over Mt. Auburn or Main Street and the ultimate destinations of the drivers are unknown. However, it is likely that EO 418 Files, Watertown 6 June 9, 2004 the majority of them have destinations served by the Massachusetts Turnpike, Storrow Drive, or Memorial Drive. Much of the traffic observed at the four locations may not be "cut-through"traffic, because the roads are classified as collectors. The purpose of collector roads is to collect traffic from neighborhoods to the arterial roadway system, in this case Mt. Auburn Street and Main Street. Besides, it appears that many drivers do not have better alternatives in order to reach their desired destinations. For example, this may be the case with Belmont traffic, which does not appear to have choices for reaching the West Newton interchange of the Turnpike other than traveling along Waverly Avenue and Common Street. Recommendations In general, it is not easy to address "high volume" concerns, especially when the roadways affected are collector roads whose function is to collect traffic to arterial roads like Mt. Auburn and Main streets. Therefore, the recommendations below focus on speed control measures, which can also have a side impact on volumes. Speed control measures aim at bringing speeds to "acceptable levels." (Technically, defining an acceptable speed level requires engineering analysis, which is outside of the scope of the present study; however, for the four study roadways, it appears that the acceptable speed levels are probably 25 to 30 mph.) The most well-known measures are signing and pavement markings (speed limit, school speed limit,pedestrian crossing signs,pedestrian paddles, and other), enforcement, and traffic calming. • Speed limit and other signs are posted at intervals along the roadway to remind drivers of the speed limit or to inform them of downstream pedestrian crossings. Our reconnaissance showed that along the four Watertown roadways there are sufficient school speed limit signs (20 mph)to inform drivers of school crossings nearby. However, roadway speed limit signs are lacking.Although posted speed limit signs, by themselves, are not a strong deterrent to speeding drivers, it is nevertheless recommended that they be installed as a reminder to drivers of the residential character of the roadway. • Enforcement involves altering driver behavior through police presence, warnings, and citations.Enhanced enforcement along the four study roadways is recommended, although it can be costly to the municipality and may not have a permanent effect on drivers if it is not continuous. • Traffic calming measures are roadway treatments that seek to reduce speed and volumes to "acceptable levels." The assumption behind these treatments is that people drive at the speed at which they feel safe to drive (to say it another way, they drive at the speed at which the roadway's physical characteristics allow them to drive). So, more effective than posting a speed limit is altering the physical characteristics and dimensions of the roadway so that drivers feel that they have to lower their speed and pay attention. Traffic calming measures include speed tables (flat-top speed humps), textured pavement, raised intersections, lateral shifts, and narrowings (neckdowns). Although the budget of this study does not allow for specific recommendations at EO 418 Files, Watertown 7 June 9, 2004 specific locations, traffic-calming measures ought to be explored by Watertown as a form of speed control and an enhancement of pedestrian mobility. • From observation and from community input, a particularly sensitive location that could benefit from further study is the complicated five-approach intersection at Common, Church, and Orchard streets. During reconnaissance, we observed that traffic operations are difficult due to sight distance problems for drivers out of Orchard Street and excessive vehicle speeds from the Common Street southbound approach to Church Street.A traffic study should be conducted that includes, at a minimum, collection of turning movement data, safety analysis, and traffic signal warrant analysis. If this location does not warrant the installation of a traffic signal, alternative solutions may be sought, including the installation of a flashing traffic beacon or traffic calming devices. Traffic calming measures appropriate for this location may include the realignment of the intersection (with lateral shifts and separation islands) to improve sight distance and reduce speeds, or even a small roundabout. In closing, through observation and license plate data collection, this study showed that speeding and high volumes are concerns along Waverly Avenue, Common Street, School Street, and Arlington Street. Much of the traffic carried by these roadways appears to be "legitimate" for the functional classification of these roads. However, measures can be taken to reduce speeds and improve safety,pedestrian mobility, and the quality of life for Watertown residents. TN/tn Figure 2 Towns of Origin of Vehicles Observed: Composite of Four Locations Studied AMESBU RY SALISBU RY MERRIMAC NEWBURYPORT 9 WEST HAVERHILL NEWBURY NEWBURY v 0 5 10 Miles GROVELAND - METHUEN GEORGETOWN ROW LEY LAWRENCE DRACUT NORTH IPSWICH BOXFORD JOB ANDOVER �O �O LOWELL TOPSFIELD ESSEX GLOU ANDOVER HAMILTON TE W KSBURY MIDDLETON CHELMSFORD -- WENHAM WESTFORD NORTH READING MANCHESTER DANVERS BEVERLY �, d BILLERICA WILMINGTON CARLISLE READING LYNNFIELD 'YO PEABODY LITTLETON MARBLEHEAD WAKEFIELD SALEM BEDFORD BURLINGTON ACTON WOBURN TON4 CONCORD er SAUGUS LYNN SWAMPSCOTT Percentage of Observed Vehicles MELROSE LEXINGTON NcxesTen O 0%-1% MAYNARD NAHAtjT LINCOLN MEDFORD MALDEN 0 1.1%-2.5% REVERE e� �2.6%-5% 5.1%-10% SUDBURY �'e� WINTHROP More than 10% WESTON N WAYLAND NEWTON 0 o c - - �^ FRAMINGHAM 0 o BOSTON /� 0 WELLESLEY Cr 444 .p P HULL NATICK V-1'CJ NEEDHAM Oo ASHLAND v SHERBORN DEDHAM MILTON QUINCY DOVER HINGHAM COHASSET WESTWOOD HOLLISTON MEDFIELD BRAINTREE SCITUATE NORWOOD WEYMOUT RANDOLPH CANTON MILLIS NORWELL MEDWAY HOLBROOK ROCKLA WALPOLE MARSHFIELD STOUGHTON AVON HANOVER ABINGTON NORFOLK SHARON FRANKLIN WHITMAN BROCKTON HANSON PEMBROKE ^ Figure 3 Towns of Origin of Vehicles Observed on Waverley Street (Southbound), AMESBURY North of Main Street MERRIMAC SALISBURY NEWBURYPORT WEST HAVERHILL NEWBURY NEWBURY e 0 5 10 Miles GROVELAND METHUEN GEORGETOWN ROWLEY LAWRENCE DRACUT NORTH IPSWICH BOXFORD J0� ANDOVER �O 00 �a0` LOWELL TOPSFIELD ESSEX GLOU ANDOVER HAMILTON TEWKSBURY MIDDLETON WENHAM CHELMSFORD WESTFORD NORTH READING MANCHESTER DANVERS BEVERLY �. G WILMINGTON CARLISLE READING LYNNFIELD 'YO PEABODY LITTLETON MARBLEHEAD WAKEFIELD SALEM BEDFORD BURLINGTON ACTON R WOBURN qJE— SAUGUS CONCORD LYNN SWAMPSCOTT Percentage of Observed Vehicles MAYNARD v,�NwEsiER MELROSE NAHAI jT LEXINGTON O 0%-1% LINCOLN MEDFORD MALDEN 0 1.1%-2.5% ARLIN— REVERE EVERETr �2.6%'S% 6 -5.1%-10% 4FR' g1ELSEA SUDBURY �'eq WINTHROP More than 10% WESTON WAYLAND NEWTON dog FRAMINGHAM o��WELLESLEY BOSTON ///� o-O p a NI �P (� n HULL NATICK �--�CJ NEEDHAM Oo ASHLAND SHERBORN DEDHAM MILTON QUINCY DOVER HINGHAM COHASSET WESTWOOD HOLLISTON MEDFIELD BRAINTREE SCITUATE WEYMOUTh NORWOOD RANDOLPH CANTON MILLIS NORWELL MEDWAY HOLBROOK ROCKLA WALPOLE MARSHFIELD STOUGHTON AVON HANOVER ABINGTON NORFOLK SHARON FRANKLIN WHITMAN BROCKTON PEMBROKE FOXBOROUGH HANSON �{ Figure 4 Towns of Origin of Vehicles Observed on Common Street at Katherine Road AMESBURY SALISBURY MERRIMAC NEWBURYPORT WEST HAVERHILL NEWBURY NEWBURY 0 0 5 10 Miles GROVELAND METHUEN GEORGETOWN ROWLEY LAWRENCE DRACUT NORTH IPSWICH BOXFORD J0� ANDOVER �O �O 0`' LOWELL ESSEX GLOU ANDOVER HAMILTON TEWKSBURY MIDDLETON CHELMSFORD WENHAM WESTFORD NORTH READING MANCHESTER DANVERS BEVERLY a BILLERICA WILMINGTON CARLISLE READING LYNNFIELD Q PEABODY LITTLETON MARBLEHEAD q WAKEFIELD SALEM BEDFORD BURLINGTON ACTON ! WOBURN TONEHAM SAUGUS CONCORD LYNN SWAMPSCOTT Percentage of Observed Vehicles MELROSE LEXINGTON NCHESTEn O 0%-1% MAYNARD NAHAIJT LINCOLN MEDFORD MALDEN 0 1.1%-2.5% REVERE E� �2.6%-5% 5.1%-10% SUDBURY 'eB WINTHROP More than 10% o� a WESTON NEWTON WAYLAND A FRAMINGHAM 3" P� 0 o WELLESLEY BOSTON HULL NATICK �-�Cj NEEDHAM Do ASHLAND SHERBORN DEDHAM MILTON QUINCY DOVER HINGHAM COHASSET WESTWOOD HOLLISTON MEDFIELD BRAINTREE SCITUATE WEYMOUTH NORWOOD RANDOLPH CANTON MILLIS NORWELL MEDWAY _ HOLBROOK ROCKLA WALPOLE MARSHFIELD STOUGHTON AVON HANOVER ABINGTON NORFOLK SHARON FRANKLIN WHITMAN BROCKTON HANSON PEMBROKE = FnYP,nPnI IrH /a r Figure 5 Towns of Origin of Vehicles Observed on School Street, North of Shattuck Street AMESBURY SALISBURY MERRIMAC NEWBURYPORT WEST HAVERHILL NEWBURY NEWBURY e 0 5 10 Miles GROVELAND METHUEN GEORGETOWN ROWLEY LAWRENCE DRACUT NORTH IPSWICH BOXFORD J0� ANDOVER �O 00 �a0` LOWELL TOPSFIELD ESSEX GLOU ANDOVER HAMILTON TEWKSBURY MIDDLETON WE HAM CHELMSFORD WESTFORD NORTH READING MANCHESTER DANVERS BEVERLY �. G BILLERICA WILMINGTON CARLISLE READING LYNNFIELD O PEABODY LITTLETON MARBLEHEAD WAKEFIELD SALEM BEDFORD BURLINGTON ACTON R WOBURN gJEHAN SAUGUS CONCORD LYNN SWAMPSCOTT Percentage of Observed Vehicles lMNg1E51ER MELROSE NGTO O 0%_1/, MAYNARD NAHAI jT LINCOLN MEDFORD MALDEN 0 1.1%-2.5% REVERE EVERETr �2.6%'S% 6 -5.1%-10% yF�,, g1ELSEA A SUDBURY LTHAM WINTHROP More than 10% a� WAYLAND WESTON NEWTON d o N O p FRAMINGHAM WELLESLEY BOSTON ///� � o-O a NI �P (� n HULL NATICK �--�CJ NEEDHAM Oo ASHLAND SHERBORN DEDHAM MILTON QUINCY DOVER HINGHAM COHASSET WESTWOOD HOLLISTON MEDFIELD BRAINTREE SCITUATE WEYMOUTh NORWOOD RANDOLPH CANTON MILLIS NORWELL MEDWAY HOLBROOK ROCKLA WALPOLE MARSHFIELD STOUGHTON AVON HANOVER ABINGTON NORFOLK SHARON FRANKLIN WHITMAN BROCKTON PEMBROKE FOXBOROUGH HANSON �{ Figure 6 Towns of Origin of Vehicles Observed on Arlington Street, AMESBURY SALISBURY North of Maplewood Street MERRIMAC NEWBURYPORT WEST HAVERHILL NEWBURY NEWBURY 0 0 5 10 Miles GROVELAND METHUEN GEORGETOWN ROWLEY LAWRENCE DRACUT NORTH IPSWICH BOXFORD OJOB ANDOVER � �O LOWELL TOPSFIELD ESSEX GLOU ANDOVER HAMILTON TEWKSBURY MIDDLETON WENHAM CHELMSFORD WESTFORD NORTH READING MANCH ESTER DANVERS � BEVERLY a LERICA WILMINGTON y�.i o CARLISLE READING LYNNFIELD Q PEABODY LITTLETON MARBLEHEAD WAKEFIELD SALEM BEDFORD BURLINGTON ACTON ! WOBURN STONEHAM SAUGUS CONCORD LYNN SWAMPSCOTT Percentage of Observed Vehicles MELROSE LEXINGTON NCHESTER O 0%-1% MAYNARD NAHAIJT LINCOLN MEDFORD MALDEN 0 1.1%-2.5% REVERE E� �2.6%-5% CHELSEA -5.1%-10% s ysRL SUDBURY �'eB WINTHROP More than 10% o� a WESTON NEWTON n 0-- I Y WAYLAND A FRAMINGHAM 0 o WELLESLEY BOSTON HULL NATICK �-�Cj NEEDHAM Do ASHLAND SHERBORN DEDHAM MILTON QUINCY DOVER HINGHAM COHASSET WESTWOOD HOLLISTON MEDFIELD BRAINTREE SCITUATE WEYMOUTh NORWOOD RANDOLPH CANTON MILLIS NORWELL MEDWAY HOLBROOK ROCKLA WALPOLE MARSHFIELD STOUGHTON AVON HANOVER ABINGTON NORFOLK SHARON FRANKLIN WHITMAN BROCKTON HANSON PEMBROKE = FnYRnPnI IrH /I r