[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] And I wouldn't guess that we, some of us would have received that, SRA members.
[0:07] I do want to point out, I think we might have sent this meeting live, so it might be being recorded right now.
[0:12] Okay.
[1:04] And let the record show that Councilor Saeed is away on a family event.
[1:15] Councilor Wilson.
[1:17] Present.
[1:18] Thank you.
[1:20] All right, this is a joint meeting with the Summable Redevelopment Authority.
[1:23] This committee will stand in a German or in recess so they can conduct their business.
[1:29] We're in recess.
[1:30] On
[1:37] recess.
[1:38] Councilor Davis.
[1:40] Yes.
[2:18] Six.
[2:18] My name is Phil Ericklain.
[2:20] I'm chair of the son of a redevelopment authority and I call this meeting to order at.
[2:27] So with the chapter two of the acts of 2023, this public meeting of the SRE is being conducted by a remote.
[2:35] Participation as well.
[2:36] This session will be recorded, will be a public record.
[2:39] I will now ask the board members to confirm they are in attendance in an alphabetical order.
[2:44] Courtney Brunson, Ben-Yuan Kampen.
[2:48] Here.
[2:48] William Gage is
[2:55] not here.
[2:56] Patrick McCormick.
[2:57] Here.
[4:26] Mr. Chair, if you can hear me, I can, I don't know if this goes for everybody online, but there's no audio at the moment.
[4:36] I have the same problem, Patrick.
[5:40] These are related to 90 Washington Street. After that, we're going to have a presentation
[5:46] from the city about these items. We'll have questions, public hearing, and then we'll
[5:50] move on to other items. Any questions or comments? Please read items 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, please.
[6:00] Item number 5, mayors request ID number 25-1594, requesting approval of the amended 90 Washington
[6:07] Street Demonstration Project Plan.
[6:09] Item number six, ID number 25-1595, requesting approval of an amendment to the memorandum
[6:15] of agreement between the City Council and Redevelopment Authority regarding the redevelopment
[6:20] of 90 Washington Street.
[6:22] Item number seven, ID number 25-1596, requesting approval of the development objectives
[6:28] for the redevelopment of 90 Washington Street.
[6:31] Item number 8, ID number 25-1607, Executive Director of the Office of Strategic Planning
[6:38] and Community Development, conveying a summary of the 90 Washington Process Review and Development
[6:42] Objectives.
[6:44] All right.
[6:45] Thank you.
[6:45] So, I'm going to turn it over to the city for a brief presentation about these items.
[6:50] Let me make—
[6:50] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[6:52] Just give me one second to share screen, and I just want to reiterate thank you
[6:55] everyone for the patience this evening with logistics.
[7:47] I think we're in place.
[7:50] So, hello, everyone, through you, Mr. Chair, to the committee and to the redevelopment authority.
[7:55] My name is Ben DeMers.
[7:56] I'm a senior planner with the Economic Development Team within the Office of Strategic Planning
[7:59] and Community Development.
[8:01] And in this capacity, I also serve as the staff support liaison to the Summerville
[8:05] Redevelopment Authority.
[8:06] So, we're here this evening to discuss changes we are recommending to the 90 Washington
[8:09] Street Demonstration Project Plan, mostly to formally remove the public safety building
[8:13] component of the project and then to do a few other cleanup items.
[8:17] The change in the project direction has already been stated publicly by the administration
[8:20] in January.
[8:21] We want to make sure that the guiding documents also reflect this change.
[8:24] We also want to make sure that people have a chance to weigh in on these changes.
[8:27] And given that a public hearing between the City Council and the redevelopment authority
[8:30] or the SRA, as I'll refer to it this evening, was held when the plan was created, we want
[8:34] to make sure that this step was mirrored in any amendment.
[8:37] For anyone tuning in with less context on the project, I also want to mention
[8:40] so the City Council and the SRA are the two parties that adopted the 90 Washington
[8:43] Street demonstration project plan back in 2019.
[8:45] So there are also the parties that would need to agree to any amendment.
[8:53] So to walk through the agenda quickly, I'm going to start by reviewing some project background for anyone tuning in just to explain what led to this amendment.
[9:01] And then I'll walk through the actual amendments that we are proposing to the 90 Washington Street demonstration project plan, which would also be reflected in changes to a memorandum of agreement,
[9:09] which was entered into concurrently with the demonstration project plan back in 2019, again, between the City Council and the Redevelopment Authority.
[9:17] And then last, I'm going to talk about next steps in this process that these changes are going to tee us up for.
[9:22] So this is releasing an RFP to select a development partner.
[9:25] And I'm going to talk about some of the work that we've been doing to really get there around articulating the development priorities more specifically.
[9:33] The procedural focus of the first part of the presentation that was really on the demonstration project plan.
[9:38] Are there any questions up top?
[9:41] Okay.
[9:45] And I will say also for city councilors who saw this presentation a few weeks ago, this is very similar to what we discussed that evening.
[9:49] I want to make sure everybody at home has this context.
[9:53] So to orient us, this is the site that we're talking about, 90 Washington Street.
[9:57] This is an approximately four-acre site located just east of the East Somerville MBTA station,
[10:02] really at the intersection of Washington and New Washington streets, which is also
[10:06] at the intersection of the Interbelt neighborhood East Somerville and Brick Bottom.
[10:10] As you can see, the parcel has a slightly awkward shape kind of triangular coming
[10:13] back from the intersection and also has this tail portion that really wraps around the southern
[10:20] portion of the parcel, which also is close by to the adjacent Cobble Hill apartments,
[10:27] which is an apartment complex to the east.
[10:34] The SRA took this property by Eminent Domain back in 2019
[10:37] with the intention to have it serve as the site of a new public safety building.
[10:41] So this was going to be the combined new fire headquarters, police headquarters and 911 dispatcher center.
[10:48] And this was meant to be paired with transformative private development
[10:51] and to remove the existing Cobble Hill Plaza that was vacant at the time on the site.
[10:56] So the SRA and the city have paid a total of $39 million for this site.
[11:00] The SRA initially took the site for just under $9 million in 2019,
[11:04] but then was successfully sued by the former owner for the value of the taking
[11:07] and was required to pay about $30 million more between the land value and the interest.
[11:12] So the SRI and the city have paid this judgment, but this unexpected expense obviously impacts the city's ability to offer key services
[11:18] and pursue other vital capital projects.
[11:20] Because of this, we shifted course and we released a statement in January of this year stating that the city was removing
[11:25] the public safety building component of the project and focusing on sale of the full parcel for private redevelopment
[11:30] with an added goal being to recoup funds paid towards the judgment.
[11:33] So the hearing tonight is about really moving us in that direction.
[11:37] So this change needs to be reflected in the planning documents which lay out the high-level objectives and the process for 90 Washington Street.
[11:45] So these are the 90 Washington Street demonstration project plan.
[11:48] As I said, this was adopted by the Council and the Redevelopment Authority in 2019.
[11:52] This is really the more substantive of the two documents that I'll describe.
[11:55] And then the second is the Memorandum of Agreement, or the MOA that I referenced, which the City Council and the Redevelopment Authority entered around the same time.
[12:02] It just lays out some additional expectations for the bodies, but largely more of the detail
[12:05] is in the demonstration project plan.
[12:10] So I'm going to talk through the high-level objectives and the process that these documents
[12:13] lay out, and then we'll look through the amendments that we have proposed.
[12:18] So looking at the objectives, the first objective was to eliminate blight.
[12:22] So this is a common objective with the use of urban renewal as a reminder at the
[12:25] time that the site was taken, the Cobble Hill Plaza, which was a vacant commercial
[12:29] shopping center, was on the site.
[12:31] At that point, it had been vacant for several years when the redevelopment plan had stalled.
[12:37] So that was kind of core to the definition of blight at the time.
[12:40] The second goal in the plan is the creation of a new public safety complex, as I described earlier.
[12:44] So this was meant to be a new Fire and Police Headquarters, a 9-1-1 dispatcher center.
[12:48] And then given that the public safety complex would only need a portion of the parcel,
[12:52] it was also meant to be paired with transformative development,
[12:54] and especially given how close this site is
[12:57] to the East Somerville MBTA station
[12:59] that at the time had been planned, but had not yet opened.
[13:02] So in terms of amendments to the document,
[13:04] the first and third goals here,
[13:05] so the elimination of blight
[13:06] and the transformative development opportunity
[13:08] are still remaining a part of the document.
[13:10] These are still main goals in the process.
[13:17] However, as I referenced at the beginning,
[13:19] we're looking to amend the plan
[13:20] to remove the second objective
[13:22] of creating a public safety complex.
[13:24] So we understand that there's still a need
[13:25] for improved conditions for the city employees,
[13:27] But that project has really been separated off from the disposition of this property
[13:31] and is on its own track.
[13:33] We would also like to add an explicit objective to recoup funds used to satisfy the judgment
[13:37] for the taking of 90 Washington Street.
[13:40] And we just want to make sure that we are explicit about this in the document given
[13:42] that the SRA has committed to helping to recoup these funds.
[13:45] So these two changes are what we're recommending for high-level objectives in the Demonstration
[13:48] Project Plan.
[13:52] For the other part of the Demonstration Project Plan, the process, the document
[13:55] lays out five phases.
[13:57] So, the first two of these, which are the approval of the demonstration project plan
[14:02] and then the actual acquisition of 90 Washington Street, these were both completed in 2019.
[14:07] The third phase of the project is project delineation and design, and this has been
[14:10] ongoing.
[14:11] So, this includes forming the public safety building committee to really focus on the
[14:15] design elements of the public safety component of the project when that was intended
[14:18] to be a part of it.
[14:19] And then also a public engagement process to learn more of what people wanted to
[14:22] from the transformative development element of the project, which would ultimately need to be
[14:27] approved by the City Council. The Public Safety Building Committee is no longer meeting since
[14:30] this portion of the project hasn't advanced, but otherwise these three phases are largely completed
[15:08] The fourth phase is developer selection. This involves drafting an RFP or a similar
[15:13] solicitation process for proposals. After we get responses back, what is called a technical
[15:20] advisory committee would narrow proposals down to two. The city council could vote to either
[15:24] move those two forward or shift one of them out. Two recommendations would be made by
[15:29] the council to the redevelopment authority who will select a final proposal as a development
[15:33] partner.
[15:34] And from that point, the SRA will then negotiate a land development agreement, which again
[15:38] will need to be approved by the city council.
[15:42] And then the last step is project implementation.
[15:44] So this is really a future phase.
[15:46] There's a little less detail about this in the plan.
[15:48] This is really ongoing staff and redevelopment authority work with the development team.
[15:53] What they do mention is that the project needs to break ground within three years
[15:56] of the date of a transfer.
[15:57] So that's just one of the few details that it does call out.
[16:03] So on these upcoming two phases on phase four and phase five,
[16:07] we are recommending a few changes to the document.
[16:10] The first of these is substituting the technical advisory committee with the 90 Washington Street Civic Advisory Committee.
[16:16] So the 90 Washington Street Civic Advisory Committee or the CAC is a group of neighborhood stakeholders that have been meeting since 2023 to discuss project implementation.
[16:24] The CSE format is the current standard that the City Council has set for SRA projects, which was established in 2021 under the Winterhill Urban Anual Plan project.
[16:32] So this is really just making sure that the document reflects the process that we have already been using for ongoing engagement and which is the standard for SRA Council projects.
[16:43] And then the second change that we have recommended is that rather than requiring a selected developer to break ground within three years from the date of transfer,
[16:51] we would like to change this to requiring a selected developer to apply for permits within that timeframe.
[16:54] The intention here is really that it gives the SRA more flexibility in the negotiation process, which can help them secure a higher value for the land or other benefits.
[17:02] So really just looking for a bit of flexibility in the process.
[17:06] So to summarize, the main changes that we're recommending to the demonstration project plan and the MOA are removing the objective of developing a public safety building and then adding an objective or recouping funds spent on the taking.
[17:17] And then updating the process to replace the technical advisory committee with the civic advisory committee to match current SRA and city council standards and lengthen the time in which a developer can break around on a project to allow for flexibility in developer negotiations.
[17:30] For next steps, the amendments would then need to be approved by both the city council and the redevelopment authority who are the two parties that approved the documents initially.
[17:40] So, I have a second part of this which is discussing the more specific development goals for the RFP process.
[17:47] But given this first part's focus on the demonstration project plan,
[17:50] I wanted to pause here and see if there are any questions specifically on these updates to the plan, if that's okay.
[17:56] Yes, do we have any questions from the council or the redevelopment authority?
[18:02] Seeing none, please proceed.
[18:08] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[18:11] Okay, so I'm also going to talk for a moment about what the next step will be if the Council
[18:15] and the SRA do approve these changes, which is preparing an RFP for development.
[18:19] The item in the hearing are really focused, like I said, on the amendments to the plan,
[18:22] but we do want people to understand where we're headed and kind of broaden the discussions
[18:26] we've been having at the Civic Advisory Committee.
[18:28] So staff conducted engagement primarily from 2022 to 2023 to learn what people wanted
[18:33] to see from the transformative development element of the project, so really the
[18:36] private portion of the project.
[18:37] We then worked with the Civic Advisory Committee to shape these into priorities for an RFP.
[18:42] And given that most of the work was done before the judgment, we then also discussed with the Civic Advisory Committee
[18:46] adding goals that prioritize recouping funds to help preserve the city's overall financial health, which you'll see in a moment.
[18:52] So let me walk through the current set of priorities.
[18:55] We're still considering various strategies for how the RFP can be structured to help meet these priorities.
[18:58] And we're discussing these with the city's on-call real estate advisor.
[19:02] But the idea is that the priorities themselves could be included in that RFP.
[19:06] So, the first priority, as mentioned, is recouping a significant portion of funds paid for the taking of 90 Washington Street.
[19:12] So, we want to be explicit about this.
[19:14] Again, the SRA has committed to repaying at least a portion of the funds paid for the taking.
[19:18] So, we want to be explicit in this ask that they will be considering heavily how the financial portion of any offer made for the project.
[19:27] Second, staff have heard various land uses that stakeholders would like to see included in the project.
[19:31] These include new housing available to a range of incomes and sizes, new commercial space, and the CAC has really talked a lot about a desire for more ground floor retail.
[19:40] So the neighbors have also been interested in something that replaces the Cobble Hill Plaza that was there previously.
[19:45] So this is standard, which we often hear in engagement processes for redeveloping land in Somerville.
[19:51] Then also looking at new civic space, and in this case civic space kind of meaning broader space for nonprofit organizations, for community groups, et cetera.
[19:57] and then also new green space, which we know is especially important to
[20:01] Cobble Hill residents who live next door, given the green space that
[20:05] exists currently on the site.
[20:07] And then third, we have listed development principles that give a better
[20:10] sense of the type of project that people want to see here.
[20:13] So this is really getting into more detail.
[20:15] They want to see mixed use building formats, which again this reflects
[20:17] what I described in terms of ground floor retail with significant housing
[20:20] above.
[20:22] They also want to see a desire for dense development on the site that
[20:24] introduces significant new housing.
[20:26] So we've given the guidance that the density on the site should match the density within
[20:30] our densest zoning districts, mid-rise and high-rise.
[20:33] And then we've also noted that if possible, a respondent should orient that density towards
[20:36] the western portion of the site closest to the MBTA station, considering the adjacent
[20:41] call to the Hill Apartments.
[20:44] Relatedly, we also want to allow for flexibility in form or massing.
[20:47] And this is really to encourage respondents to think uniquely about how they can achieve
[20:50] that density while respecting the existing neighbors and, again, taking into account
[20:55] the unique shape of the parcel. We then also heard a strong desire for leadership in sustainability
[21:00] and compliance with the city's stretch energy code, so want to see how somebody can show that
[21:04] leadership. We heard a desire for no surface parking, giving the proximity to the green line
[21:11] station just to the west. We want to achieve a robust urban canopy in natural landscape,
[21:16] so we've heard a desire to create an appropriate buffer to Cobble Hill apartments
[21:18] and to also preserve viable existing trees where possible.
[21:22] And then lastly, we also heard a desire to incorporate diversity, equity and inclusion into various stages of the development process.
[21:28] And so this is really talking about women and minority-owned business enterprises being involved within financing, design, and various parts of the process.
[21:38] So again, we'll be discussing these priorities again with the City Council at the time that they take up the amendments to the demonstration project plan and the memorandum of agreement.
[21:47] but I also want to open up if there are any questions specifically about these development
[21:51] priorities at this time.
[21:53] All right.
[21:54] Thank you.
[21:54] I'm going to open it up to questions and also keep in mind we're going to have a public
[21:57] hearing.
[21:58] I do not intend on having any votes tonight, so there will be more time for questions
[22:02] later as well.
[22:04] Any questions from the land use committee or the redevelopment authority?
[22:12] No one's gone twice.
[22:15] Seeing no comments, thank you very much.
[22:18] I will now open up public hearing. If anyone in the audience wishes to speak, please come
[22:24] forward and testify. We also have a sign-in sheet right in front. If anybody wants to line
[22:28] up to speak, I'm going to recognize people in the audience first, and then I'm going
[22:33] to go to people remotely. So I now declare this publicly here and open. Is anyone in
[22:38] the audience who wishes to testify?
[22:43] Once, or twice? How about remote? If anyone
[22:47] If anyone is remote, please use a little hand emoji icon and I will call upon you to speak.
[22:52] I'll give that one a second for technical difficulties.
[22:57] When I'll comment in on the 90 Washington Street presentation,
[23:04] please use a little hand icon.
[23:09] Anyone, Madam Clerk?
[23:13] I now declare this public hearing closed.
[23:15] Please keep in mind, you can always email the city.
[23:18] You don't want to comment, Bill?
[23:19] You can talk if you like.
[23:21] like, the only one. All right. I doubt it, Claire, this public hearing closed. You can
[23:27] still send comments to, can you please say the email again, Madam Clerk, that I always
[23:32] mess up on?
[23:36] I'm going to ask for some help here, Maddie, if I could.
[23:39] Public comments.
[23:40] Public comments.
[23:41] That email is public comments at SummableMA.gov. Counselor, you and Cameron, you had a comment.
[23:47] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a question through you. Can someone just lay out the anticipated
[23:51] a timeline here for, like, when we're being asked to approve these changes when the RFP
[24:00] is expected to be wrapped up, to the extent that you can tell us tonight.
[24:14] Yes, through you, Mr. Charada, Councilor Ewing-Kampen.
[24:17] So our intention would be to have these come back to the City Council for a vote as soon
[24:22] as possible.
[24:23] So from my understanding, I know there will be at least one more discussion within
[24:27] the land use committee. And then, depending on how that moves forward, the hope would be that
[24:32] they would come back to the City Council in November, December for a vote of approval. So that
[24:36] would be looking for a vote for the updates to the demonstration project plan, the updates to
[24:42] the memorandum of agreement, and then also for the development objectives and program of uses
[24:47] so that those could then be included in an RFP. We would then be looking to release an
[24:51] RFP early next year. There's not kind of an exact pin-down timeline, but early next
[24:54] year is currently our goal. We want to make sure that we're moving expeditiously on this,
[24:59] just kind of considering the city's financial health and the impact of this project.
[25:06] Thank you. And I do intend on Council, well, I do intend on having another land use committee
[25:10] meeting probably this month, two weeks from now, so we'll be able to get to it then.
[25:15] Councilor Wilson.
[25:17] Yeah, thanks, Mr. Chair. I just want to take the opportunity to, you know,
[25:20] first of all, thank you for the presentation. It's good to see that a lot of that looks
[25:23] familiar. Something we have heard a lot about, Councilor McLaughlin, I have heard a lot about
[25:29] is from the residents of Cobble Hill, the real desire to – I know the presentation mentioned
[25:36] doing the massing on the western side closer to the tea station away from Cobble Hill Apartments,
[25:40] the other side of that being we'd love to see – I'll speak for myself – I would love to
[25:45] see the required green space, open space in this concentrated around Cobble Hill, ideally
[25:52] really making excellent use of that space right there.
[25:57] Thank you.
[25:58] Thank you.
[25:59] All right.
[25:59] And also, I'm going to weigh the readings of item 2.4 and mark that work complete.
[26:04] That was the notice for the public hearing.
[26:06] So this public hearing is closed.
[26:08] Thank you very much.
[26:09] Let's get back to the regular order of business.
[26:12] Madam Clerk, please read the next item.
[26:22] We're going to stand in recess so the redevelopment authority can adjourn.
[26:25] We're in recess.
[26:26] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[26:28] Seeing that there are no other items on the agenda, I'll entertain a motion that we close our portion of the public hearing.
[26:38] Second. Okay, I will roll call vote. Courtney Brunson, Venu and Kampen.
[26:43] Yes.
[26:44] William Gage is not here. Patrick McCormick, Christine Stone. Yes, and Philore Kalene. Yes, we have a quorum and we have approved the motion to adjourn.
[26:54] Thank you.
[26:54] All right, and we are back to recess.
[26:56] All council is present, so no need to call the roll.
[26:59] Please read the next item.
[27:02] Agenda item three, ID number 25-0085
[27:06] by Councillor McLaughlin,
[27:07] Councillor Davis and Councillor Wilson,
[27:09] but the director of planning, preservation and zoning,
[27:11] draft an amendment to the zoning ordinances
[27:13] for transit-oriented height and density bonuses
[27:16] for additional affordable housing
[27:18] and other enumerated community benefits.
[27:21] Let's lay that on the table, actually.
[27:22] So I'd like to skip to the public hearings.
[27:37] I think we're going to do 2.1.
[27:42] 2.1.
[27:45] 2.3, got it, we're going to go ahead.
[27:50] All right, ready?
[27:52] Please read item 2.1.
[27:53] Item 2.1, ID number 25-1554,
[27:57] requesting ordainment of an amendment to sections
[27:59] 10.10.3, 15.1.2, 15.1.6, 15.1.8, 15.2.1,
[28:07] 15.2.2, 15.2.3, 15.2.4, 15.3.1, 15.3.2, and 15.5.2 of the zoning ordinance to make pre-submittal
[28:20] meetings optional for most permits and to improve clarity and consistency.
[28:24] All right.
[28:25] This is a request from the mayor.
[28:26] Hi.
[28:27] I see Mr. Bartman here.
[28:28] Hello, Mr. Chair.
[28:30] That legal notice pretty much sums up what this amendment is about, so I do have
[28:35] short presentation that we provided, if somebody's pulling that up,
[28:42] that is only two slides.
[28:46] And the proposal would make pre-submitted meetings optional for special permits, site
[28:54] plan approvals, variances, landplating, and wireless communications.
[29:00] It would maintain that a required pre-submitted meetings still was on the books for subdivision
[29:06] plan approvals and master plan special permits, which are probably our two most intense type
[29:10] of permit.
[29:13] A couple of quick statistics.
[29:17] We've tracked every pre-submitted meeting we've held since 2024 over the full year and
[29:23] then also this year in 2025 up to the current date.
[29:26] 42% of pre-submitted meetings in 2024 involved people who were already familiar with the
[29:33] zoning ordinance, such as engineering firms, architecture offices, legal offices, designers,
[29:40] and contracting and construction firms that we regularly see.
[29:44] In 2025, that number increased to 64 percent and 17 percent of all pre-submitted meetings
[29:51] were involved, Adam Dash and associates.
[29:54] So one of the things that we've learned over five years is that required pre-submitted
[29:59] me
[30:00] We already know what they're doing and don't need to come and sit down and talk to the city
[30:04] staff.
[30:05] Sometimes those recent middle meetings involve 12 other departments and a lot of coordination
[30:10] to get them all in the room together at the same time, only to have a person who already
[30:14] knows what they're doing sit down and say, I don't know why we have to be here.
[30:17] So that's really the inspiration for this amendment.
[30:20] There's also some cleanup that goes on in the articles while we had them open.
[30:25] So we clarify the language of 1516, application review and staff report and public hearing.
[30:33] Remove language referencing a manual submittal or inferring a manual submittal of a permit
[30:40] extension request to the city clerk.
[30:42] That just happens at CitizenServe now.
[30:45] We use the same language for a permit duration and extension for all of the permits.
[30:51] So, 1523, 1531, and 1532 had their language brought to similarity with other permits.
[30:58] And then we corrected language for administrative appeals so that it's consistent with state
[31:03] law.
[31:03] That should have said 30 days, and it said 20.
[31:05] And that's this amendment, Mr. Chair.
[31:07] All right.
[31:08] Any questions from the land use committee?
[31:13] Seeing comes to you and Kevin.
[31:15] Through you, Mr. President, doesn't Mr. Dash charge by the hour, so just give him.
[31:21] Well, that last hearing went very quickly, so he's not going to pay much tonight.
[31:26] No actual questions?
[31:29] Seeing none, I now declare this public hearing open.
[31:32] We need this public hearing correct.
[31:34] I now declare this public hearing open.
[31:35] Anyone in the audience who wishes to testify, please step forward.
[31:38] Anyone who would testify remotely, please use the little hand icon and I'll call up
[31:42] on you.
[31:47] I see no one in person.
[31:48] Anyone remote?
[31:50] Adam Dash, please step forward.
[31:56] Attorney Adam Dash, 48 Grove Street, Somerville, since you called me out.
[31:59] Yeah, I was a little surprised by those statistics.
[32:02] I think I'm a glutton for punishment or something.
[32:04] But I do know that sometimes at pre-sum middle meetings I would probably want one,
[32:09] but certainly most of the time we don't because I can read the code
[32:12] and I know what I need and it takes a month or so to get through that process,
[32:16] which adds extra time and expense for the clients.
[32:19] So even though I may bill for the hour for the pre-sum middle meeting,
[32:21] I think it drags the project out and some people already feel like the process is long
[32:26] enough and for us to do this sort of spur where we don't really need to have the meeting
[32:31] on a project where I know any of the special permit for X, Y, Z makes some sense, so I would
[32:35] be in favor of this change.
[32:37] Thank you.
[32:38] Anyone else in the audience?
[32:41] No one remote?
[32:43] All right.
[32:43] Seeing none, I declare this public hearing closed.
[32:46] We'll keep the public comment period open until November 21st.
[32:49] That's the day after our next land use committee meeting.
[32:53] And this item will remain in committee.
[32:54] Next item, please.
[33:02] Item number 2.2, requesting ordainment of an amendment
[33:05] to tables 4.1.13, 4.2.13, 4.3.13, 4.4.13, 5.1.14, 7.2.7, 7.4.8,
[33:18] 8.4.16c, and 9.1.1 of the zoning ordinance
[33:22] permit home-based child daycare
[33:25] accessor uses and make corrections.
[33:27] Mr. Barman.
[33:29] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[33:30] We also have a presentation for this
[33:32] item that is just as short, just
[33:34] two slides.
[33:36] So, the State of Massachusetts
[33:38] amended MGL 40A,
[33:40] section 3, which is the
[33:43] chapter of the Zoning Act
[33:45] that tells us what we have to
[33:46] permit is the same chapter
[33:48] that has the MBTA communities
[33:50] communities portion included in it, and they added family child care homes and large
[33:55] family child care homes to the required uses that we have to permit in Somerville.
[34:00] Every community has to permit these.
[34:02] In Somerville, we have both of those under the definition of a home-based child day
[34:08] care accessory use.
[34:09] So that covers both of the uses as they're named in state law.
[34:13] And so the amendment changes the home-based child daycare accessory use to permitted in every district that has residential housing as a permitted use because this is an accessory use to residential housing.
[34:29] So that makes a number of changes to the MR districts in high-rise.
[34:34] And while we were editing the summary use table in article 9, we noticed some discrepancies that were caused by amendments that we made to individual districts without a corresponding change to the main use table in article 9.
[34:49] And so while we were making the home-based daycare change, we looked over that table to find any other discrepancies and included those corrections in this while we were doing that.
[34:59] So, primarily home-based child daycares, but also some corrections.
[35:03] Thank you.
[35:05] Thank you.
[35:06] Any questions or comments from the council?
[35:09] Seeing none, I now declare this public hearing open.
[35:12] Anybody who wishes to testify, please step forward.
[35:14] If you are remote, please use a little hand icon.
[35:22] Seeing no comment, I declare this public hearing closed.
[35:24] The public comment period will be kept open until November 21st.
[35:28] You're going to email us at public comments at SummableMA.gov.
[35:33] Next item, please.
[35:38] Item 2.3, ID 25-1539, 12 registered voters requesting a zoning map amendment to change
[35:46] the zoning district of 363 Highland Avenue from mid-rise 4 MR4 to mid-rise 5 MR5 and
[35:53] from MR4 to mid-rise 6 MR6 and 110 Willow Avenue MR4 to MR6.
[36:00] Yes.
[36:00] Council Davis.
[36:01] Mr. Chair, I'm going to recuse myself for this item as I live across the street.
[36:05] Very good.
[36:06] All right.
[36:06] This is a public communication from 12 registered voters.
[36:09] I see Mr. Dash in the audience who must be representing them.
[36:12] Please proceed.
[36:14] Attorney Adam Dash representing Altitude Properties LLC, the owner of the property
[36:18] 363 Highland Avenue, which is currently at least a recorded future.
[36:23] If you're familiar with that, going into Davis Square on Highland Avenue between
[36:26] West and Whipple.
[36:29] So with me are Gorka Bravo and Lorenzi Bravo, who are the principles of altitude properties.
[36:35] And with me is the architect Peter Quinn, also in Davis Square.
[36:38] So we have the whole Davis Square crew here.
[36:41] We're here tonight to talk about a proposal to change the zoning map for 363 Highland Avenue,
[36:46] along with the NSTAR facility, which is adjacent to it, which faces Willow,
[36:51] but actually also faces Whipple.
[36:54] And this is, and that's 110 Willow, which is across the street from us.
[36:58] So if we can have the slides pulled up for the application that we filed and start on page 6,
[37:05] we can show you what we're thinking of.
[37:08] And then I can explain to you why we're doing that.
[37:13] While we're doing that, I would note that we have had several meetings with the Davis Gray Neighborhood Council.
[37:17] The most recent one, perfect.
[37:18] And the most recent one, they voted overwhelmingly to support the application, and we're going
[37:23] to be sending something in writing.
[37:24] I don't know if you've received it or not, but you probably will at some point.
[37:29] So that is the property.
[37:30] You can see there the big, well, per minute ago you could see there.
[37:34] The big dark building there to the left that's outlined in red is the 363 property.
[37:41] Whipple sort of goes vertically down the middle of the screen and to the right in
[37:44] the back.
[37:44] you can see the, well, it was to the right, now it's to the left. Yeah, now it's to the
[37:49] right. That's the old end star facility. So, Peter, do you want to walk through? Sure.
[37:56] For the record, Peter Coyne, Peter Coyne Architects, Davis Square.
[38:00] Yeah, so we are just looking at this as a massing model, if you will, to see what the
[38:05] impact would be for a combination of five and six stories on the site, the Whipple Street,
[38:11] not the Willow Street site, but the one where altitude is now or was.
[38:19] Just to orange you further, the community path is the green bar along the top of that image
[38:26] and Highland Ave is near the bottom.
[38:30] Next slide.
[38:34] Yep.
[38:34] So, this is showing you the two districts that are currently present.
[38:40] And right now, the site that we're talking about primarily is zone MR4, and the Boston
[38:51] Edison slash Eversource site is zone Civic.
[38:55] So we're proposing to make most of this MR6 toward the community path with a smaller
[39:04] building out at Highland Ave at an MR5.
[39:08] So that small rectangle that is kind of at the bottom of our zone is an MR5 building.
[39:17] So next slide.
[39:22] This is a little hard to read, I understand, but the idea is to show you that following
[39:29] the MR6 rules and the MR5 rules for lot size and maximum building footprint and so forth,
[39:36] Because we are able to develop two buildings, could be three, that would be, the MR-5 would
[39:47] have a commercial on the ground floor and then some amenity space for the units.
[39:53] And then the building behind would be 100% residential, that would be a likely scenario.
[40:01] Although there could be some commercial in it as well.
[40:03] And then we imagine that somewhere in here we would have a direct link to the community path for bikes and people.
[40:12] Interestingly, if you just pull up the screen just slightly higher, you'll see that there's a small area that is a kind of a small triangle,
[40:22] which is a direct connection that the owners hope to offer the city to gain access to the community path right off the extension of Whipple.
[40:33] So, those are some things in play, but there, you know, it has a tremendous potential to
[40:39] create a relatively low-impact, high-volume project that's really keyed in and linked
[40:46] to a lot of the main features of Davis Square, namely Highland Ave., which of course is
[40:53] a main thoroughfare, and the community path as well, which takes you right to the
[40:58] and then on for the whole experience of the community path and in the other direction as well.
[41:05] So next slide, please.
[41:11] Yeah, this is a section.
[41:14] So what this is actually showing you is that even though the building in the front on Highland Ave,
[41:21] which is to the left here, is five stories and the other building is, we're proposing six stories.
[41:29] they come out to about the same height.
[41:31] And the reason for this is that the length of Whipple Street
[41:36] descends almost a whole story.
[41:40] I think it's at least eight feet.
[41:42] And the yellow area that you see here is what is allowed
[41:46] under the current zoning.
[41:47] So this amount of additional area that you get
[41:51] makes a huge difference in the development pro forma.
[41:54] But also the impact of this, as you'll see when I show you
[41:57] of the shadow studies is not that different
[42:00] from what's allowed already.
[42:03] Next slide.
[42:06] So these are just some massing models,
[42:09] the first, the aerial views.
[42:11] Looking at this, the upper right hand side
[42:15] is a view across the Boston Edison property
[42:19] where you can see the two,
[42:21] five, the five and six story buildings
[42:23] just as a massing block, side by side.
[42:27] And they appear approximately the same size,
[42:29] but in fact the one on the right is a one-story higher. Next slide.
[42:37] Then, yeah, these don't
[42:38] really show very well on screen, but these are just simply street views. I'm not sure they're
[42:44] illustrating much at the scale, because of course we did not develop these as a design,
[42:49] you know, with windows and doors and all the things they give at scale.
[42:55] Next slide, please. Yeah, so these are shadow studies, and if you can look carefully,
[43:01] There's two shadow lines on here.
[43:03] One is the, what is allowed under MR4?
[43:08] And then the second is what would be additional under either the MR5 or the MR6,
[43:16] depending on which building you're talking about.
[43:18] So there's, yeah, there definitely is an increase,
[43:21] but it's really quite minor compared to what is allowed there now.
[43:27] this is a, I believe it's the equinox there in the next slide. I think you could go to that.
[43:36] This is a believable summer or winter. I think that's summer. Yeah, thanks. Can't read it. So
[43:45] there's a very minor difference between the four and six story and then going on to the next
[43:52] slide. That's winter. There is some increase at the far edges of the site in the neighborhood.
[44:00] But again, you know, this is a time of year where everybody's shadowing everybody else anyways.
[44:07] But, you know, given how much this building could produce in terms of housing,
[44:13] including affordable units, I know I should mention that this impact is relatively minor.
[44:22] We think that based on the studies that I've done, if we can use the net-zero ratios,
[44:28] the two buildings together would produce over 250 units.
[44:33] There's probably a practical limit of a little less than that, so it's in the low 200s,
[44:38] but it would be, you know, producing, you know, almost 50 affordable units,
[44:44] which is really significant.
[44:45] And I think there's an opportunity here, especially under the net zero ratios, that we could offer smaller units that are, you know, somewhat more of better price.
[45:00] It's a great way of developing the site that's different from a lot of other developments
[45:04] that we've seen or participated in. So, I'll leave it at that. Yeah, back to Adam.
[45:14] Sorry.
[45:16] Councilman Campan?
[45:18] Mr. Chair, I'm happy to wait until the end of the presentation. I just have a couple
[45:20] of questions.
[45:22] Mr. Dash?
[45:23] Thank you. Thank you. Adam Dash again. So, we found that the project is not viable
[45:27] at the current four-story MR4 zoning.
[45:30] We feel this zoning map change would allow
[45:32] for more housing in the Davis Square,
[45:34] which is badly needed and will provide an ability
[45:36] for NSTAR to redevelop its site or some of it,
[45:41] if it wanted to shave some of it off
[45:43] because there's a part of it with a building
[45:44] and part that just seems like a wasteland over there.
[45:47] It does not require them to do anything
[45:49] by changing the zoning for them,
[45:50] but it does give them an incentive
[45:52] to hopefully someday do something
[45:54] should they choose to do so.
[45:55] So, keep in mind that even if the city council were to approve the zoning map change,
[45:59] the project still needs site plan approval and a special permit from the planning board to be built
[46:04] and there's a whole public process and neighborhood meetings and all of that.
[46:07] So, we're just – this doesn't approve a project.
[46:10] I should note that what Peter had said, what we're showing you is sort of the most that could be built
[46:15] if the zoning change were happening.
[46:17] That's obviously not the project we're proposing.
[46:19] We're going to be proposing a building that looks different and it's not just a white box that maxes everything out.
[46:23] But we felt, to be honest, just to show you what that would look like if something were
[46:27] to happen that was a max of that box.
[46:31] So at this point, we feel like we've been talking to the very centrist of parties.
[46:38] We feel we've had a pretty good response to it, and the property is currently certainly
[46:43] underutilized, having that basically one-story concrete block building that's there.
[46:47] right recorded future is leaving so that there's an opportunity now to do this
[46:53] which is why we're proposing it now before we go looking for another tenant.
[46:58] And as Peter had said the Bravo the altitude properties does own that
[47:02] little weird triangle the connects Whipple to the bike path so that's an
[47:05] opportunity to bring that into connection into play. So therefore we
[47:12] would ask you that you favorably recommend the map change for 363
[47:15] Highland Avenue and 110 Willow to the MR5 and MR6 combo that we described and happy to
[47:21] take questions.
[47:22] Thank you.
[47:22] Any questions or comments from the council?
[47:24] Councilor Young-Hebbin.
[47:26] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[47:27] Through you, two quick questions before we get to the public hearing.
[47:31] So the proposed amendment includes this other property that's currently civic that I,
[47:38] if I'm understanding, is not part of your proposal.
[47:42] Through you, can you just explain why the proposal includes other properties?
[47:46] Yeah, it seemed like this was an opportunity because there's been a lot of having lived over on Highland Road for many years.
[47:52] I can tell you that site, the end star site is a bit of blighted. They do use it, but not all of it in a major way.
[47:59] And the part that faces Whipple facing our property actually is the part they don't really use.
[48:04] It seemed like this would benefit everybody, especially if Whipple becomes a connection point up to the bike path
[48:09] to give them the ability to do something.
[48:11] Of course, they don't have to do anything.
[48:13] They're not going to probably get rid of the building
[48:15] and the other stuff.
[48:16] They store telephone poles or whatever they do there.
[48:18] But we thought it was an opportunity
[48:20] since we're coming in anyway.
[48:22] And we have multiple parcels.
[48:23] So it's not like some kind of spot zoning issue
[48:25] because we do have two parcels.
[48:27] But to bring this in as an opportunity,
[48:30] should they ever want to do something, they could.
[48:33] And maybe it would incentivize them to do so
[48:35] if they were in the MR6
[48:36] maybe the MR4 is not enticing enough. That was the thought behind it, nothing more.
[48:42] Got it, Mr. Chair. Through you, thank you, and I'm not expressing an opinion here,
[48:45] I'm just curious if that were to remain civic, does that affect your project in
[48:50] terms of setbacks or anything? No, it's across the street.
[48:54] Okay, thank you. And then through you, the other question, I thought I heard Mr. Quinn
[48:58] say that the proposal would allow for 50 affordable units. Did I get that right? That's
[49:03] 20%? 20% of 250 is 50. If it is 250, the number of units depends on how big the units
[49:10] are. The three-bedroom versus studio, you get fewer or more, so we don't have that
[49:14] number yet in that range-ish. Okay. And the document before us has a little
[49:22] study of the existing zoning, which estimates the total number of dwelling units is something
[49:28] on the order of like 120 it looks like. So going from MR4 to MR6 and 5 more than doubles the number
[49:38] of units. That could be done. There are, did you want to, that's maybe only one building,
[49:47] that's 119. That's the MR4. Right, that's what's there now, right? Yeah, that's,
[49:54] If you didn't change the zoning,
[49:56] what could be done is 119.
[49:59] Okay, so the extra two stories and one story
[50:03] doubles the number of units.
[50:05] We're saying?
[50:06] Yeah, Peter Quinn here.
[50:08] Just to be clear, I think there might be a little higher
[50:11] if we are able to use the net zero density bonus as well.
[50:17] So if we're comparing apples to apples,
[50:19] it's probably like 160 to 250.
[50:22] So, okay, box me a hundred more. Thank you. Also, Mr. Chair. Thank you. That's so awesome. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair
[50:32] through you
[50:34] Obviously up to 50 new affordable units and you know the overall number possibly production 250 sounds great
[50:41] My question is have you had any discussions with the city about?
[50:44] Any potential subsidization like we've done with other projects that might see that affordable percentage go significantly higher than that
[50:53] We have spoken with a lot of people before we have filed this application, so we have
[50:59] talked to them about it, not that specific point.
[51:04] Obviously the building would have to pencil out financially to do it, but I think we're
[51:10] open for discussions if the city were to want to have them.
[51:14] I can't promise anything because we haven't designed the building yet.
[51:18] Mr. Chair, we've seen another project set to break ground here where the city got very
[51:23] aggressive with subsidizing that to make some really good affordable numbers happen for that.
[51:27] So I would just urge people to have that discussion and see if that makes sense in
[51:30] this case.
[51:32] Through the chair, second question, you talked about how what you showed us sort of was
[51:37] like a, we won't say worst case scenario, but what you could do, say too soon there
[51:41] would be some step backs at the higher levels in the eventual design?
[51:45] Absolutely. I mean, we're just showing a white box to the max, which is not obviously going to fly with the planning board and we're not proposing it.
[51:53] So, because again, we just felt like you should, and we've had this with other map applications where I think members of the council have asked for this, what's the worst case scenario, absolute worst worst.
[52:03] So we're just bringing it to you. That's not what we're proposing.
[52:07] Thanks, Mr. Chair.
[52:08] Thank you.
[52:08] Seeing no further questions, I now declare that, well, before that, planning department,
[52:14] is there any recommendation issued on this?
[52:17] Seeing none, I now declare this public hearing open.
[52:20] Anyone in the audience who wishes to testify, please step forward, give you a full name
[52:24] and address.
[52:28] Hello, Planning Board and Planning Use Committee.
[52:31] My name is Peter Kim Santos, and I live at 64 Andy Coddav.
[52:34] I'm the Treasurer of the Davis Square Neighborhood Council, and at our October 27th meeting,
[52:38] the membership of the DSNC voted to provide a statement in support of the
[52:42] zoning change at 363 Pile and Dev and 110 Willa. Despite the DSNC still being in
[52:48] the process of formation, the property owner has attended several of our
[52:51] meetings and has presented their plans for the property to a generally very
[52:54] positive reception. A common discussion topic among the DSNC is the
[52:58] need for more housing and so this proposal for transit accessible
[53:01] housing is welcome especially with its 40 to 15 inclusionary units. This is
[53:06] not in my pre-written and improved statement, but I really liked Jake's idea about having
[53:09] the city fund more, and would encourage you guys to look at that in the future.
[53:13] Moreover, the property owner and the architect have engaged with us in good faith, dialogue
[53:17] regarding how the buildings could interface with the community path, and we look forward
[53:20] to continuing that conversation and working with the team about what the building will
[53:24] look like.
[53:25] The DSNC is also supportive of the upzoning of the blighted 110 Willow property as
[53:29] one of the many blighted properties in Davis Square, and we hope that we'll
[53:32] see a more desirable development there as well.
[53:35] Thank you guys very much.
[53:37] Thank you.
[53:38] Any further questions or further comments in the public?
[53:42] Anyone remote?
[53:43] Please use the little hand icon.
[53:48] We have one comment.
[53:52] What's the name?
[53:55] Scott, please give your full name and address and unmute yourself.
[54:00] Okay.
[54:00] Can you hear me?
[54:01] We can hear you.
[54:02] Scott Nolkowski, 49 Morrison Ave.
[54:07] Yeah, I just want to speak in support of this. I think both aspects of the of the zoning change, I think are good.
[54:17] Definitely the density is needed, especially close to Davis Square Station.
[54:25] I especially like the idea of even though this is not their property, incentivizing every source to do something with is really an eyesore of a property.
[54:34] so I would support that part as well.
[54:37] That's it.
[54:40] All right, thank you.
[54:41] Anyone else for remote?
[54:42] Please use the little hand icon.
[54:47] Seeing no further comment,
[54:48] I declare this public hearing closed.
[54:50] Public comment period will be kept open until November 21st.
[54:53] You can email us at publiccommentspluralatsomeoflma.gov.
[55:01] And I believe we're going to go to item number four.
[55:05] Please read that one.
[55:07] Item number 4, ID number 24-0328, 10 individuals including five residents
[55:15] submitting comments regarding item 24-0059, a zoning map amendment to change the
[55:21] zoning district of 321 Washington Street from fabrication, FAB, to commercial
[55:27] industry, CI. All right, it's with the Worker Show Council Davis's return. Any
[55:32] questions or comments on this? This item will be placed on file,
[55:39] but it's on
[55:39] file. We'll work complete it. Thank you.
[55:45] And next item, I think that brings us to our item.
[55:51] Is that everything besides the one? Well, we got the Gilman Square, we got the up zoning,
[55:58] the one I laid on the table.
[56:02] Item number three. I'm going to take item number three off the table
[56:06] and we have Samantha Carr, land use analyst here to make a little presentation. Glad we
[56:11] had enough time to do it, and let us know if you have to catch your train.
[56:18] Before we even comment on all this, I had a few questions already. I want to let the
[56:23] public know that this is a presentation on ideas. It is not a plan. It's just for discussion
[56:28] for the hope that one day we do have a future plan, so nobody gets nervous, plenty of time
[56:33] to talk and have a public comment and input. Ms. Cobb.
[56:37] Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just to reiterate on that point, I have four maps to share with
[56:44] the council. The hope is that these can spur conversation and act as a catalyst for dialogue
[56:49] around what's possible. And these I just wanted to reiterate are not a formal proposal.
[56:57] So we've just provided a slide here around the existing conditions of the site. This
[57:01] can be used as a point of reference to compare the four scenario maps before us.
[57:05] Next slide, please.
[57:11] So in scenario one, we have got a rationale slide for each of the scenarios included.
[57:17] I'll just walk through those while the map's on the screen for context.
[57:21] So this first scenario is looking at mid-rise upzoning and the neighborhood core.
[57:26] The rationale behind this proposal, it's most closely aligned with the Gilman Square
[57:30] Neighborhood Council's feedback and draft proposal that was circulated earlier this fall.
[57:36] There's also strong alignment with long-term strategic planning documents in terms of alignment with summer visions, enhanced framework for Medford and Pearl Streets, as well as the Gilman Square station area plan to fill in the gaps on Medford and Pearl Street and enhance the core of the square.
[57:53] A summary of the proposal here, we're looking at a concentrated up-zoning unlocking mid-rise
[57:59] six mixed use development along the core streets in Gilman Square and direct proximity
[58:04] to the teastop.
[58:06] So we're looking at expansion along Medford and Pearl Street of the mid-rise six zone.
[58:10] In addition, this is expanding the pedestrian street designation to promote walkability
[58:15] further along Medford and Pearl Street.
[58:17] And you'll note that the small business district overlay is preserved as existing conditions
[58:23] for local businesses on the west side of Medford Street.
[58:29] We'd like to advance to the second scenario, so two slides down.
[58:39] So the second scenario before us, each of these scenarios builds upon each other.
[58:44] So this scenario is mid-rise plus urban residential corridor expansion.
[58:49] This rationale, the proposal is in response to council feedback to explore unlocking additional housing production via incremental upzoning within the quarter-mile transit walkshed buffer in Gilman Square.
[59:03] The mechanism we were exploring for that is upzoning neighborhood residential to urban residential parcels within the walkshed.
[59:12] Similarly to scenario one, there's strong alignment in this map proposal with summer vision and the Gilman square station area plans goals.
[59:20] In addition to the concentration of mid-right six up zoning on Medford and Pearl Street, this will also propose urban residential up zoning along Medford Street to the west, as well as school and Marshall Street corridors within the quarter mile walk shed.
[59:38] You'll note that between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, on the west side of Medford Street, these
[59:44] parcels are proposed for UR upzoning rather than mid-rise 4, and this is specifically
[59:50] to provide some more flexibility for small businesses that are existing within the
[59:54] space compared to mid-rise for upzoning, your upzoning will
[1:00:00] Permit three stories by right, and due to the small business district overlay, commercial
[1:00:04] ground floor will also be permitted on site versus three to four stories by right in the
[1:00:09] mid-rise four district. So this is just a potential permutation option for those western parcels.
[1:00:15] The pedestrian street designation remains the same as in scenario one and has been expanded
[1:00:20] from the existing conditions a bit further along Medford and Pearl Street, and the small
[1:00:25] business district overly is preserved as within the existing conditions in the neighborhood.
[1:00:32] We'd like to go two slides ahead please to scenario three.
[1:00:38] So scenario three is continuing in this trend on building upon each other.
[1:00:43] We're looking at mid-rise six expansion as well as an urban residential extended scenario.
[1:00:50] The rationale behind this was looking at a higher impact version of a proposal responsive
[1:00:55] to council feedback to unlock increased housing production via exploring incremental upzoning.
[1:01:02] Similar to previous proposals, we're seeing alignment with goals of
[1:01:05] strategic goals within summer vision and the Gilman square station area plan.
[1:01:10] In summary, this proposal is looking at mid-rise six upzoning in the core along Medford and Pearl
[1:01:15] streets as well as an increased urban residential upzoning on the west side of Medford street
[1:01:22] street as well as on the school and Marshall Street corridors up to Broadway corridor.
[1:01:28] So we're extending slightly beyond the quarter mile walk shed.
[1:01:32] We're starting to bridge into the half mile walk shed for a couple of those parcels that
[1:01:37] are abutting the Broadway corridor.
[1:01:40] We were also looking at matching like for like uses on adjacent parcels when thinking
[1:01:45] about the school and Marshall Street corridors to define where the urban residential extension
[1:01:50] would taper off.
[1:01:52] Similarly to scenario 2, parcels on the west side of Medford Street are looking at an urban residential expansion rather than mid-rise 4 as seen in scenario 1.
[1:02:03] The pedestrian street designation remains the same, expanded throughout these proposals.
[1:02:07] And one other feature to note, the small business district overlay is preserved for existing conditions and has also been expanded to several new parcels on Medford and Pearl Street to protect existing small businesses that may be impacted by the UR up zoning.
[1:02:26] And if we'd like to go two slides ahead.
[1:02:30] This is the final scenario for conversation, scenario four. This is looking at mid-rise
[1:02:37] extended. This is the highest impact proposal in terms of being responsive to the council
[1:02:43] feedback of unlocking increased housing production via incremental upzoning. We're
[1:02:49] seeing alignment with strategic planning documents in this proposal. And really the
[1:02:54] The key difference here between scenario 3 and scenario 4 is looking at increasing some
[1:02:59] of the mid-rise expansion.
[1:03:02] This proposal moves forward with mid-rise 6 upzoning along Medford Street.
[1:03:08] You will also see Stickney Avenue has been proposed for mid-rise 6 designation to unlock
[1:03:14] potential for lot consolidation on that block.
[1:03:17] And mid-rise 4 upzoning is proposed on the west side of Medford Street in this
[1:03:21] proposal.
[1:03:23] Otherwise, conditions remain the same to scenario three in terms of a UR upzoning along the school
[1:03:29] and Marshall Street corridors up to the Broadway corridor.
[1:03:34] And pedestrian street designation remains the same as the previous proposals.
[1:03:38] And similarly to scenario three, the small business district overlay has been expanded to a few parcels
[1:03:44] that may be impacted where there's existing small businesses in the neighborhood.
[1:03:51] So these are the four.
[1:03:53] We wanted to share for conversational purposes with the council,
[1:03:57] and there was one other piece of analysis that I wanted to share for context
[1:04:01] that helped to shape some of these maps in terms of a fiscal impact analysis.
[1:04:06] Perhaps I'll pause there to see if there's any initial feedback to the maps.
[1:04:11] Alison Wilson.
[1:04:13] Yeah, thanks, Mr. President.
[1:04:14] Through you to our land use analysts, thank you for this.
[1:04:17] We talked at one of the meetings a while back about the interactions between some of the mid-rise districts and NR in terms of stepbacks, sorry, stepbacks.
[1:04:32] Any thought that this one, some of these show more you are bordering the MR.
[1:04:38] Is there any reason why we wouldn't want to just pursue a general strategy of, you know, a ring of UR next to MR in general?
[1:04:48] Yes, so I would say, you know, from a contextual standpoint in terms of transitioning between typologies,
[1:04:56] that would be fairly considered a best practice to move between mid-rise and then transition to urban residential towards neighborhood residential
[1:05:04] to provide kind of that contextual
[1:05:06] decrease in density between the
[1:05:09] blocks.
[1:05:10] I think what we were looking
[1:05:12] towards in the scenarios between
[1:05:14] the U.R. was really thinking
[1:05:16] about what could be done within
[1:05:18] the quarter mile lock shed and
[1:05:20] where there's existing corridors
[1:05:22] with higher foot traffic. That
[1:05:24] might make sense for that urban
[1:05:25] residential up zoning. So the
[1:05:28] difference between scenario 3 and
[1:05:30] 4 in regards to that, or I
[1:05:32] say scenario two and scenarios three and four is that we're expanding further up Marshall
[1:05:39] and School Street all the way up to the Broadway corridor.
[1:05:41] So the key contextual question there is really around whether we're comfortable moving beyond
[1:05:47] the quarter mile walk shed.
[1:05:49] We have a couple of parcels that go, I would say, one to two blocks outside of that
[1:05:54] if we want to extend the streetscape fully up to the Broadway corridor.
[1:05:57] So that was really the key consideration there, and there is data to speak to folks
[1:06:03] being willing to walk within a half-mile buffer to a major transit corridor.
[1:06:08] So there would be some data rationale behind that.
[1:06:11] The first proposal does not include the UR component simply because that was kind of
[1:06:16] outside the scope of the initial conversations that we were having with the Gilman Square
[1:06:20] Neighborhood Council, who was primarily focused on an upzoning along Medford and
[1:06:24] Pearl Street.
[1:06:25] And I think we were then responding to the council's interest with some of these UR proposals.
[1:06:33] Mr. Chair, I like the idea of at least some band of UR next to those MR just because I think it's going to, for everything we've heard is it allows for more flexibility, better use of that land in those mid-rise districts.
[1:06:47] I guess I'm looking at some of them off of Medford Street, some of them off of Pearl Street where you see the deep purple of MR there with the NR next to it.
[1:06:57] So just flagging that as something I'd be curious to see.
[1:07:01] Thank you.
[1:07:01] So you're on camera.
[1:07:03] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[1:07:05] Through you, thank you so much.
[1:07:07] So a couple hours before the meeting,
[1:07:09] this committee got a memo from the mayor's office,
[1:07:14] raising concerns, basically writ large
[1:07:16] with the upzoning proposals in Gilman Square.
[1:07:19] And there are two issues.
[1:07:20] One of them has to do with public engagement,
[1:07:21] engagement, that, you know, neighborhood scale zoning changes kind of benefit from robust
[1:07:31] public engagement.
[1:07:32] That I agree with.
[1:07:33] I think that's absolutely before we move forward.
[1:07:35] I think it's important that we have public engagement around what we're considering.
[1:07:39] The other one has to do with displacement and it says the Office of Housing Stability
[1:07:42] has serious concerns that upzoning may lead to increase development pressure on these
[1:07:46] parcels.
[1:07:46] So, I just have a question on
[1:07:49] that point.
[1:07:50] That could be argued for any
[1:07:52] parcels in the city, right?
[1:07:53] We talk about up zoning in a
[1:07:56] lot of different contexts.
[1:07:58] And as a general concept, you
[1:08:00] could make this argument.
[1:08:01] I want to understand this.
[1:08:03] Is there something particular
[1:08:04] about this area that the
[1:08:08] office of housing stability has
[1:08:09] identified as an area of
[1:08:11] concern, or is this more
[1:08:13] general that upzoning can increase displacement.
[1:08:18] That sounds like a question for the city, for the mayor's office.
[1:08:22] I don't think housing stability is here, but the IJA's office is here.
[1:08:26] Through the chair for the record, my name is Yasmin Radassian, legislative liaison with
[1:08:30] Intergovernmental Affairs in the mayor's office.
[1:08:33] My understanding is that the Office of Housing Stabilities concerns are not
[1:08:36] specifically targeted towards Gilman Square.
[1:08:38] It's more of a high level concern for upzoning generally in the city.
[1:08:43] I also did want to say, I know that Councilor Uren Campan already highlighted some of these,
[1:08:47] but did really want to emphasize the deep concerns about displacement and public engagement.
[1:08:55] Just want to share that engaging in a neighborhood council is great, but we want to make sure
[1:09:02] that we're engaging with all folks that would be impacted, especially our renders
[1:09:06] that would be displaced by, potentially be displaced by upzoning.
[1:09:09] And I just wanted to highlight that the council has consistently prioritized preservation of
[1:09:14] our communities and fought against displacement with the goal of keeping Somerville families
[1:09:18] in Somerville.
[1:09:20] And the administration believes that more comprehensive engagement is required to ensure
[1:09:24] that displacement impacts can be minimized and that all residents in the neighbourhood
[1:09:27] are aware of any proposed changes.
[1:09:30] Thank you.
[1:09:32] Mr. Chair, through you, thank you very much.
[1:09:33] I think this is absolutely and kind of straightforwardly a conversation that we are always having and should always be having.
[1:09:42] You know, my view, I don't think, for me, that doesn't, like, end the conversation on upzoning, right, the idea that it could cause displacement.
[1:09:49] Because the, as I see it, say we have a parcel right next to a train station that is zoned for neighborhood residents.
[1:09:57] We don't want to displace the current tenants, obviously.
[1:10:00] In many cases, we just see this all over the city, all over every city.
[1:10:04] In many cases, the property owner will still displace those tenants, and then the thing
[1:10:08] they build is a large mansion or a two-unit double mansion instead of an apartment building
[1:10:15] so that you get kind of the worst of both worlds.
[1:10:17] You get the displacement, and you also get the creation of a property type that's
[1:10:22] not really ideal for right next to a train station.
[1:10:24] So that's how I'm viewing this is kind of we're trying to balance those two things.
[1:10:27] we certainly do not want to pour fire on the displacement crisis by any means. We also want
[1:10:33] the zoning to be appropriate for if and when property owners decide to redevelop something,
[1:10:38] they're building something that's appropriate for that context. So I appreciate this memo.
[1:10:43] I take it seriously. I think this is obviously a conversation we need to always be having in
[1:10:47] our head. But to me, it's not like a, therefore, we don't look at this.
[1:10:54] Thank you.
[1:10:55] If I could just comment on that real quickly.
[1:10:57] I think we're in a new territory thanks to our own land use analysts.
[1:11:02] We have a position within the City Council to actually move forward with some ideas.
[1:11:08] And I've consistently said that these are ideas until it's a plan.
[1:11:12] And when there is a plan, there will of course be a thorough community process,
[1:11:16] public hearing notification, all of that.
[1:11:19] So I can understand why some people will see a map
[1:11:21] up and think that we're going to decide something next week. That's not going to be the case.
[1:11:26] But this is the committee where we have these conversations. It's important for us to have
[1:11:31] these conversations in public so people know what we're thinking. I just want to put that
[1:11:36] out there. And I was hoping I definitely want to move forward as fast as possible,
[1:11:40] but just in case people are concerned. I don't see any decisions like this coming
[1:11:45] this year. It will be under the new administration and hopefully it will be more communication
[1:11:50] in coordination with the Office of Housing Stability
[1:11:54] and the Planning Department and the IGAs
[1:11:56] so that we won't have this confusion.
[1:11:59] Councillor Davis.
[1:12:00] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[1:12:02] Would it were that we could do anything in a week?
[1:12:07] So I completely sign on to all of this conversation.
[1:12:11] I won't repeat much of it
[1:12:12] because what I was going to say
[1:12:14] in response to this memo has largely been said.
[1:12:17] I completely agree.
[1:12:18] obviously there is a need and absolutely will be public engagement.
[1:12:24] I will just note, I mean, yes, upzoning leads to increased development pressure.
[1:12:31] That's the point. That's what we're trying to do.
[1:12:34] That's why we're looking at these zoning changes because where we move forward with these,
[1:12:41] it would be, if and where we would move forward is because we feel like more development
[1:12:46] is the right answer there.
[1:12:48] So I guess I just want to put a specific point on that.
[1:12:54] That's not a bug.
[1:12:56] That's the actual intent.
[1:12:59] And just to put a real-world example,
[1:13:04] I can't remember when it was that we first issued a site,
[1:13:07] and it was at least a year ago, I think, longer than that.
[1:13:11] And we've been talking about the concepts of getting
[1:13:14] upzoning in and around our transit nodes for quite some time. We still don't have it.
[1:13:21] And in the meantime, I've got two pretty small developments going in pretty much right in the
[1:13:26] heart of Davis Square, kind of on the immediate edge that are three units, four units, exactly
[1:13:34] sort of the hypothetical that the good counselor from Ward 3 noted. I would love for
[1:13:38] there to have been an opportunity for more density in those spots. I'm happy that
[1:13:44] that they're going forward, it is going to increase our housing in those two scenarios
[1:13:47] and the community has been generally in favor of them.
[1:13:50] But it's a perfect example of what the council from word three noted and why I do appreciate
[1:13:56] the chairs continuing to push this discussion and I do look forward to moving this into
[1:14:02] that robust public conversation and getting some real changes on paper.
[1:14:06] I want to make one other note and I guess I'll put this out there for discussion
[1:14:11] and specifically our request to Ms. Carr to, as we're looking at this, and I look to Director
[1:14:21] Bartman to make sure that I'm not misremembering this, and just chuck something at me if I'm
[1:14:25] getting this completely wrong, but my recollection is, I think contrary to how I first drafted
[1:14:31] it, I think that the way that we accomplished a zoning mechanism to ensure that when development
[1:14:40] project happen in our squares. They don't include a massive commercial space right in the middle of
[1:14:46] our pedestrian street where one might put, I don't know, hypothetically, for example,
[1:14:52] a bank building with nothing else in it or a city target or that sort of thing.
[1:15:00] It was to use the small business overlay. That's where we ended up, yeah. So, right now
[1:15:04] that tool has only been used and it's only been rolled out in Davis Square. It's my view
[1:15:11] that we ought to have that in all of our squares. And so, as we look at certainly this hypothetical
[1:15:15] in Gilman and any of the other squares, I would really like to see that put in place.
[1:15:21] The small business overlay was originally to ensure that sort of home-based businesses
[1:15:29] businesses could be among some of our major corridors. Director Bartmann's recommendation
[1:15:33] and ultimately was the correct one was to also use that tool to ensure that in our squares
[1:15:38] we have multiple varied sizes of commercial spaces that are more conducive to a robust
[1:15:48] infrastructure of small and independent businesses and having a variety of those types of spaces.
[1:15:53] So my intent when we created that thing a few years ago was to have it go everywhere.
[1:15:59] And I haven't sort of pushed it onto my other colleagues and other wards,
[1:16:03] but I'm going to start doing that now because it's now back to top of mind.
[1:16:08] So as we move forward with these conversations, that's one tool that I would like to just call out and flag,
[1:16:11] that I think that's a really important tool to help protect some of the aspects of our squares
[1:16:18] and that sort of intimate pedestrian experience and that community experience
[1:16:21] is having lots of small, not just small,
[1:16:24] but a variety of sizes, not one big giant space.
[1:16:28] Smaller spaces bring lower rents
[1:16:29] and more opportunity for business
[1:16:31] at different points in the life cycle.
[1:16:33] So let's use that tool where we can.
[1:16:37] Thank you.
[1:16:38] Thank you.
[1:16:39] Any other questions or comments?
[1:16:40] Council Wilson.
[1:16:41] Yeah, Mr. President, I'll thank the administration
[1:16:43] for putting that memo out.
[1:16:46] Obviously we should talk about always displacement risks
[1:16:50] and the need for public engagement on these things.
[1:16:53] Lord knows this committee's been having a discussion
[1:16:56] for months now about upzoning, different strategies for it.
[1:17:02] I think the reason why it's worth pursuing this,
[1:17:04] especially at these transit areas like this,
[1:17:07] is because one, I think there's a lower risk
[1:17:11] of displacing naturally current affordable housing there
[1:17:13] because it's by transit.
[1:17:14] There's gonna be less naturally current affordable housing
[1:17:17] just because of what we know about
[1:17:18] what the green line come to central has done to rents around those stations. The other thing
[1:17:23] then is the payoff that you're looking at for doing this with genuinely affordable units that
[1:17:29] might be coming in because of inclusionary zoning, you know, and density bonuses. And that's why I
[1:17:36] think the juice is worth the squeeze on this. And that's why I support the idea of up zoning
[1:17:41] around transit. It just makes sense. It's the most bang for the buck with the least risk of
[1:17:46] displacement.
[1:17:48] The water planners would agree with you. Any further questions or
[1:17:52] comments?
[1:17:57] Seeing none, this item will be remaining committee. Thank you, Ms. Carr,
[1:18:01] for the presentation. And I look forward to talking to the community and the
[1:18:04] council about it more in the future. Do we have any more? I did just want to
[1:18:10] quickly flag. There's a couple of slides at the end of the presentation here
[1:18:14] around a fiscal impact analysis. If we do have time, I'm happy to go
[1:18:19] through those or just keep them as a point of reference for folks.
[1:18:25] Okay, great. So just wanted to provide a quick snapshot and thank you all for the feedback
[1:18:32] and commentary on the proposals. We're looking forward to continuing to move these forward
[1:18:36] to think about moving from ideation to creation of something more formal here.
[1:18:42] I wanted to provide a little window into some of the back-end analysis that's been done to
[1:18:47] inform the maps here. One piece of that that we've chatted about previously in the workflow
[1:18:51] is a fiscal impact analysis. So just wanted to provide a snapshot of what that looks like
[1:18:56] for folks to see. One snapshot scenario we looked at was comparing the fiscal impacts
[1:19:02] of existing conditions for three neighborhood residential lots compared to consolidating
[1:19:08] those lots and up zoning to urban residential to facilitate the development of a new 30-unit
[1:19:14] apartment building. This scenario was chosen due to average unit and floor
[1:19:20] pet assumptions that we were able to surmise based on our scraping of
[1:19:24] historical permitting data since 2019. For urban residential building types on
[1:19:29] average we're seeing about a 7,000 square foot floor plate with 30 units on
[1:19:34] average per building. In terms of the methodology there's two scenarios that
[1:19:39] have been put forward with three parcels being selected. These were all
[1:19:44] selected within the up-zoning area that's being considered, so primarily within the quarter-mile
[1:19:48] walkshed, although there is one parcel that falls in the half-mile walkshed.
[1:19:53] And also was thinking thoughtfully about where urban residential development is likely to occur,
[1:19:59] making it contextual comparison to existing adjacent properties.
[1:20:03] One of the assumptions that goes into the fiscal impact model is a land valuation.
[1:20:07] So a custom square put valuation was calculated based on assessment data for existing urban
[1:20:14] residential properties in Gilman Square to try and provide a calibrated neighborhood
[1:20:19] example of what that cost would be per square foot.
[1:20:23] If we want to go to the next slide, I have a quick snapshot of the scenario one results.
[1:20:29] So the first scenario was looking at three neighborhood residential lots, two are existing
[1:20:35] single family structures.
[1:20:36] is one is a duplex with a total of five units between the three parcels compared to redeveloping,
[1:20:43] consolidating the lots, and facilitating the development of a 30-unit urban residential
[1:20:48] apartment building. In terms of net municipal revenue impacts, we're seeing a gain of $28,000
[1:20:55] annually. And responsive to council's concerns or questions around what would impact speed
[1:21:01] to local schools we've included that as a point of contact here. So for school
[1:21:07] impact we're seeing a marginal increase of one student and we've also listed the
[1:21:11] evaluation assumption here as a point of reference. In the last slide here we've
[1:21:18] got the second scenario that's similarly looking at the three neighborhood
[1:21:22] residential lots but was looking at a different typology so two triple
[1:21:26] deck or structures and one single family home. In other scenarios, triple deckers might have
[1:21:32] additional units. In this particular context, there's two units per structure, so we're still
[1:21:37] looking at a five-unit versus 30-unit apartment building comparison. You'll see there's a smaller
[1:21:43] net municipal revenue gain, incrementally smaller for 25,000 annually, and a slightly
[1:21:50] smaller school impact of anticipated additional two students in the neighborhood.
[1:21:55] So, just wanted to provide this as a little bit of background.
[1:21:59] If there's an interest in looking, say, at the mid-rise portion of the corridor to see
[1:22:04] the fiscal impacts, that's something I'd be happy to take a look into further to provide
[1:22:08] some insights of what the revenue impacts and school impacts would be to the community.
[1:22:13] Thank you.
[1:22:14] Constable Yann-Campan.
[1:22:15] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[1:22:16] Through you.
[1:22:17] Thank you very much.
[1:22:18] So, my recollection, the question that had been raised originally from maybe historic
[1:22:24] planning was about the effect on tax bills for current residents. So, at a future meeting,
[1:22:30] I would be very interested to see that. In addition to the revenue gained to the city,
[1:22:34] if there is no development on those parcels and they just sit there in an up-zoned district,
[1:22:40] did their tax bills go through the roof? That's, I think, what I'd like to understand.
[1:22:44] So, if that be possible at a future meeting, I don't know how to calculate that,
[1:22:48] but if there's a way to do it, I'd love to see it.
[1:22:50] Mr. Wilson.
[1:22:51] Mr. Chair, I want to thank our colleague from Word 3 for clarifying that.
[1:22:54] That was my question from watching this as I recall it being about, you know, just an upzoning and the impact on someone there, you know, before any development happens.
[1:23:05] I'll point out, you know, with Prop 2.5, right, that is an overall limit, that's a limit on the overall growth of the city's tax levy.
[1:23:14] And it might be something where, you know, I'd be curious to hear from the chief assessor
[1:23:18] how that works in terms of DOR, you know, forcing, valuating.
[1:23:22] You know, you don't want to see if a handful of properties basically absorb all of that
[1:23:26] if they're forced to jack those valuations.
[1:23:30] Possibly an argument for doing a bunch of this at once, so it's not a handful of properties.
[1:23:35] It all depends on the answers we get from the chief assessor, but I'd be really curious
[1:23:39] to hear more about this, you know, given the clarification we got from our colleague,
[1:23:45] Ms.
[1:23:45] Coe. Thank you. I don't want to speak on behalf of the administration, so feel free to jump in if
[1:23:52] you'd like to clarify, but my understanding is that the Assessor's Office is hoping to be available
[1:23:57] for the next session to answer some of those questions.
[1:24:05] Through the chair, the Assessor's
[1:24:07] Office, as everyone knows, is currently in the process of doing the tax-free assessment,
[1:24:12] which is hopefully going to be presented at the November 25th Council meeting.
[1:24:17] We are waiting for a final confirmation from the Department of Revenue, I believe it is,
[1:24:22] before the Assessor's Office would feel comfortable coming to speak on this item before the committee.
[1:24:28] I have been in contact with them just making sure that we haven't had that final confirmation from Development of Revenue,
[1:24:35] so I have not forgotten that there was a request for Assessor's Office to be here.
[1:24:40] I am still working on it. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions or comments?
[1:24:49] Okay. This item will remain in committee. All other items will remain in committee as well,
[1:24:53] except for the work of the work complete we did. Item four, what's that?
[1:25:01] Adam Clark in the back. Yep. Thank you. All right. Seeing no further business,
[1:25:07] We are adjourned everyone's here, so no need for a roll call. Good night everyone