https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qFF7Tu3XHyIo9OAb_27kojMnFKvdizXBq71agD3TGhw/edit?tab=t.0 The upzoning costs are considerable for the 700 plus homes and buildings in Cambridge that already have solar and which will be deemed unusable if shadows from a taller building block the sun*
As the above image (and google doc link) make clear, this is based on averages, so if 2,500 square feet is too big, divide the numbers in half for 1,225 sq feet. I can restructure it so that the numbers reflect cost saved per 1000 sq feet of living space powered by solar. And more significantly, the carbon that is NOT emitted because of solar panels is very significant. CURRENT solar panel owners will very likely eventually have their solar blocked by buildings and there are no protections for the owners or for the environment. We know that "If the City wishes to separately enact zoning regulations that provide protection to solar energy systems and solar access on residential properties, Section 9B authorizes such zoning regulations." Indeed, "The Council could consider a separate zoning petition pursuant to G.L.c.40A, 9B that uniformly imposes regulations to encourage the use of solar energy systems and protect solar access....the Council could also consider requiring the structures over 4 stories have some type of bulk plane restriction to protect solar access." This is important because a 1000 sq foot home in Cambridge powered by solar saves approximately $4,400 per year. This value increases incrementally (2,000 sq ft home = $8,800/yr). More significantly, for every 1000 sq ft. powered by solar, 5 metric tons of carbon are withheld from the environment. That is the equivalent of the amount of carbon 80 mature trees absorb in a year or flying between NYC and LA in 5 round trips. These values are conservative estimates, and over the course of 25 years, the positive impact on the environment and the savings to the homeowner are dramatic ($125,000+ per 1000 sq ft; Carbon savings of that of 2000+ mature trees). There is also a significant investment to own or lease panels and the cost to maintain them typically averaging $40,000 over a 25 year period. Cambridge has a goal of being carbon neutral by 2050. Not providing solar protection is a non-starter for solar panel owners and the environment. In addition, by not providing solar protection, you are disincentivizing buildings to get solar because of the inherent risk of losing access to solar if a taller building is constructed nearby. Allowing buildings twice the height of most solar-powered homes to be built anywhere creates erratic shadows and minimizes the number of homes that could have solar panels in the future. Zoning could be along corridors and squares, and the Envision housing goal can still be met. What is City Council going to do to ensure solar protection? Care Housing is seeking to meet with Councillors on this Issue. In addition to solar protections, they disagree with all "As of right" language, only 5-foot setbacks, and not zoning to build along the corridors. We support ending exclusionary housing and support increasing affordable housing. This proposal will result in more luxury units, is detrimental to the environment, and ignores the voices of voters. *from a Jan 16, 2025 letter to City Council from Care Housing.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |