I wouldn't guess that we some of us would have received that, SRA members.

I do want to point out I think we might have sent this meeting live, so it might be being recorded right now.

Okay.

Councilor Wilson.

Present.

There we go.

All right.

This is a joint meeting with the Summerville Redevelopment Authority.

This committee will stand in adjournment or in recess, uh, so they can conduct their business.

We're in recess.

Councilor Davis.

Yes.

My name is Phil Eric Lini.

I'm chair of the Summable Redevelopment Library, and I call this meeting to order at seward to chapter two of the acts of twenty twenty-three.

This public meeting of the SRE is being conducted by a remote participation as well.

This session will be recorded, will be a public record.

I will now ask the board members to confirm they are in attendance and in alphabetical order.

Courtney Brunson.

Here.

William Gage.

I have the same problem.

These are all related to 90 Washington Street.

After that, uh, we're gonna have a presentation from the city about these items.

We'll have questions, public hearing, uh, and then we'll move on to other items.

Any uh questions or comments?

Uh please read items four, five, six, five, six, seven, and eight, please.

Item number five, mayor's request ID number twenty-five-1594.

Requesting approval of the amended 90 Washington Street Demonstration Project Plan.

Item number six, ID number 25-1595, requesting approval of an amendment to the memorandum of agreement between the city council and redevelopment authority regarding the redevelopment of 90 Washington Street.

Item number seven, ID number 25-1596, requesting approval of the development objectives for the redevelopment of 90 Washington Street.

Item number eight, ID number 25-1607.

Executive director of the Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development, conveying a summary of the 90 Washington Process Review and Development Objectives.

All right, thank you.

So I'm gonna turn it over to the city for a brief presentation about these items.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just give me one second to share screen.

And I just want to reiterate thank you, everyone, for the patience this evening with logistics.

Okay.

I think we're in place.

Um hello everyone.

Through you, Mr.

Chair to the committee and to the redevelopment authority.

My name is Ben Demers.

I'm a senior planner with the economic development team within the Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development.

Uh and in this capacity, I also serve as the staff support in liaison to the Somerville Redevelopment Authority.

Um we're here this evening to discuss changes we are recommending to the 90 Washington Street demonstration project plan, uh, mostly to formally remove the public safety building component of the project, and then to do a few other cleanup items.

This change in the project direction has already been stated publicly by the administration in January.

We want to make sure that the guiding documents also reflect this change.

Um we also want to make sure that people have a chance to weigh in on these changes, and given that a public hearing between the city council and the redevelopment authority, or the SRA, as I'll refer to it this evening, was held when the plan was created.

We want to make sure that this step was mirrored in any amendment.

Uh for anyone tuning in with less context on the project, I also want to mention so the city council and the SRA are the two parties that adopted the 90 Washington Street demonstration project plan back in 2019.

Uh so they're also the parties that would need to agree to any amendment.

Okay.

Uh so to walk through the agenda quickly.

I'm gonna start by reviewing some project background for anyone tuning in just to explain uh what led to this amendment.

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, uh which was then entered into concurrently with the demonstration project plan back in 2019, again between the um between the city council and the redevelopment authority.

And then last, I'm gonna talk about next steps in this process uh that these changes are gonna tee us up for.

So this is uh releasing an RFP to select a development partner, and I'm gonna talk about some of the work that we've been doing uh to really get there around um articulating the development priorities more specifically.

Um the procedural focus of the first part of the presentation that was really on the demonstration project plan.

Are there any questions up top?

Okay.

And I will say also for city counselors who saw this presentation a few weeks ago.

This is very similar to what we discussed that evening.

Um I want to make sure everybody at home has this context.

So to orient us, this is the site that we're talking about, 90 Washington Street.

This is an approximately four-acre site located just east of the East Somerville MBTA station, really at the intersection of Washington and New Washington Streets, which is also at the intersection of the inner belt neighborhood, East Somerville and Brick Bottom.

As you can see, the parcel has a slightly awkward shape, kind of triangular coming back from the intersection.

And also has this tail portion that really wraps around the southern portion of the parcel, which also is close by to the adjacent Cobble Hill apartments, which is an apartment complex to the east.

The SRA took this property by eminent domain back in 2019 with the intention to have it serve as the site of a new public safety building.

So this was going to be the combined new fire headquarters, police headquarters, and 911 dispatcher center.

And this was meant to be paired with transformative private development and to remove the existing Cobble Hill Plaza that was vacant at the time on the site.

So the SRA and the city have paid a total of 39 million dollars for this site.

The SRA initially took the site for just under $9 million in 2019, but then was successfully sued by the former owner for the value of the taking and was required to pay about 30 million dollars more between the land value and the interest.

So the SRA and the city have paid this judgment, but this unexpected expense obviously impacts the city's ability to offer key services and pursue other vital capital projects.

Because of this, we shifted course and we released a statement in January of this year stating that the city was removing the public safety building component of the project and focusing on sale of the full parcel for private redevelopment, with an added goal being to recoup funds paid towards the judgment.

So the hearing tonight is about really moving us in that direction.

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.

So these are the 90 Washington Street demonstration project plan.

As I said, this was adopted by the council and the redevelopment authority in 2019.

This is really the more substantive of the two documents that I'll describe.

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.

It just lays out some additional expectations for the bodies, but largely more of the details in the demonstration project plan.

So I'm going to talk through the high-level objectives and the process that these documents lay out, and then we'll look through the amendments that we have that we have proposed.

So looking at the objectives, the first objective was to eliminate blight.

So this is a common objective with the use of urban renewal as a reminder at the time that the site was taken, uh, the Cobble Hill Plaza, which was a vacant commercial shopping center, was on the site.

At that point, it had been it had been vacant for several years when the redevelopment plan had stalled.

So that was kind of core to the definition of blight at the time.

The second goal in the plan is the creation of a new public safety complex, as I described earlier.

So this was meant to be a new fire and police headquarters and 911 dispatcher center.

And then given that the public safety complex would only need a portion of the parcel, uh, it was also meant to be paired with transformative development, especially given how close the site is to the uh East Somerville MBTA station that at the time had been planned but had not yet opened.

So, in terms of amendments to the document, the first and third goals here, so the elimination of blight and the transformative development opportunity are still remaining a part of the document.

These are still main goals in the process.

However, as I referenced at the beginning, we're looking to amend the plan to remove the second objective of creating a public safety complex.

So we understand that there's still a need for improved conditions for those city employees, but that project has really been separated off from the disposition of this property and is on its own track.

We would also like to add an explicit objective to recoup funds used to satisfy the judgment for the taking of 90 Washington Street.

And we just want to make sure that we are explicit about this in the document, given that the SRA has committed to helping to recoup these funds.

So these two changes are what we're recommending for high-level objectives in the demonstration project plan.

For the other part of the demonstration project plan, the process, the document lays out five phases.

So the first two of these, which are the approval of the demonstration project plan and then the actual acquisition of 90 Washington Street, these were both completed in 2019.

The third phase of the project is project delineation and design, and this has been ongoing.

So this includes forming the public safety building committee to really focus on the design elements of the public safety component of the project, when that was intended to be a part of it.

And then also a public engagement process to learn more of what people wanted to see from the transformative development element of the project, which would ultimately need to be approved by the city council.

The public safety building committee is no longer meeting since this portion of the project hasn't advanced, but otherwise, these three phases are largely completed, or we're not recomm we're not recommending any changes to the parts of the process that are still left in phase three.

The fourth phase is developer selection.

So this involves drafting an RFP or a similar solicitation process for proposals.

And then what is meant to happen is after we get responses back, what is called a technical advisory committee would narrow proposals down to two.

The city council could vote to either move those two forward or shift one of them out.

And then two recommendations will be made by the council to the redevelopment authority who will select a final proposal as a development partner.

And from that point, the SRA will then negotiate a land development agreement, which again will need to be negotiated, will it need to be approved by the city council.

And then the last step is project implementation.

So this is really a future phase.

There's a little less detail about this in the plan.

This is really ongoing staff and redevelopment authority work with the development team.

What they do mention is that the project needs to break ground within three years of the date of a transfer.

So that's just one of the few details that it does call out.

So on these upcoming two phases on phase four and phase five, we are recommending a few changes to the document.

The first of these is substituting the Technical Advisory Committee with the 90 Washington Street Civic Advisory Committee.

So the 90, 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.

The CSE format is the current standard that the City Council has set for SRA projects, which was established in 2021 under the Winter Hill Urban Renewal Plan project.

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.

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, we would like to change this to requiring a selected developer to apply for permits within that time frame.

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.

So really just looking for a bit of flexibility in the process.

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, 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.

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.

So I have a second part of this, which is discussing the uh more specific development goals for the RFP process.

But given this first part's focus on the demonstration project plan, I wanted to pause here and see if there are any questions specifically on these updates to the plan, if that's okay.

Yes, do we have any questions from the council or the redevelopment authority?

Seeing none, please proceed.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Okay.

So I'm also going to talk for a moment about what the next step will be if the council and the SRA do approve these changes, which is preparing an RFP for development.

The item in the hearing are really focused, like I said, on the amendments to the plan, but we do want people to understand when where we're headed and kind of broaden the discussions we've been having at the Civic Advisory Committee.

So staff conducted engagement primarily from 2022 to 2023 to learn what people wanted to see from the transformative development element of the project.

So really the private portion of the project.

We then worked with the Civic Advisory Committee to shape these into priorities for an RFP.

And given that most of the work was done before the judgment, we then also discussed with the Civic Advisory Committee adding goals that prioritize recouping funds to help preserve the city's overall financial health, which you'll see in a moment.

So let me walk through the current set of priorities.

We're still considering various strategies for how the RFP can be structured to help meet these priorities, and we're discussing these with the city's on-call real estate advisor.

But the idea is that the priorities themselves would be included in that RFP.

So the first priority, as mentioned, is recouping a significant portion of funds paid for the taking of 90 Washington Street.

So we want to be explicit about this.

Again, the SRA has committed to repaying at least a portion of the funds paid for the taking.

So we want to be explicit in this ask that we're gonna that they will be considering heavily how uh the financial portion of any offer made for the project.

Um second, staff have heard various land uses that stakeholders would like to see included in the project.

These include new housing available to a range of incomes and sizes, new commercial space, uh and the CAC has really talked a lot about a desire for more ground floor retail.

So the neighbors have also been interested in something that replaces the Cobble Hill Plaza that was there previously.

Uh so this is standard which we often hear in uh engagement processes for redeveloping land in Somerville.

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.

And then also new green space, which we know is especially important to Koble Hill residents who live next door, given the green space that exists currently on the site.

And then third, we have listed development principles that give a better sense of the type of project that people want to see here.

So this is really getting into more detail.

They want to see mixed-use building formats, which again this reflects what I described in terms of ground floor retail with significant housing above.

They also want to see a desire for dense development on the site that introduces significant new housing.

So we've given the guidance that this the density on the site should match the density within our densest zoning districts, mid-rise and high-rise.

And then we've also noted that if possible, a respondent should orient that density towards the western portion of the site closest to the MBTA station, considering the adjacent Cobble Hill apartments.

Relatedly, we also want to allow for flexibility and former massing.

This is really to encourage respondents to think uniquely about how they can achieve that density while we're respecting the existing neighbors and again taking to account the unique shape of the parcel.

We then also heard a strong desire for leadership in sustainability and compliance with the city's stretch energy code.

So want to see how somebody can show that leadership.

We heard a desire for no surface parking, given the proximity to the uh green line station just to the west.

We want to achieve a robust urban canopy and natural landscape.

So we've heard a desire to create an appropriate buffer to Cobble Hill apartments and to also preserve viable existing trees where possible.

And then lastly, we also heard a desire to incorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion into various stages of the development process.

And so this is really talking about women in minority owned business enterprises being involved within financing, design, uh, and various parts of the process.

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 to the demonstration project plan and the memorandum of agreement.

Um, but I also want to open up if there are any questions specifically about these development priorities at this time.

All right, thank you.

I'm gonna open it up to questions and also keep in mind we're gonna have a public hearing.

Uh, I do not intend on having any votes tonight, so there'll be more time for questions later as well.

Any questions from the land use committee or the redevelopment authority?

Going once, going twice.

Seeing no comments, thank you very much.

I will now open up uh public hearing.

Uh, if anyone in the audience wishes to speak, please come forward and testify.

We also have a sign-in sheet right up front if anybody wants to line up to speak.

I'm gonna recognize people in the audience first, and then I'm gonna go to people remotely.

Uh so I now declare this public here and open.

Is anyone in the audience who wishes to testify?

Once, how about remote?

Uh, if anyone is remote, uh please use a little hand emoji icon and I will call upon you to speak.

I'll give that one a second for technical difficulties.

When I'll comment in on the 90 Washington Street presentation.

Please use a little hand icon.

Anyone, madam clerk.

I now declare this public hearing closed.

Uh, please keep in mind you can always email the city.

You don't want to comment, Bill?

You can talk if you like.

You're the only one.

All right.

Uh declare this public hearing close.

You can still send comments to can you please uh say the email again, Madam Clark, that I always mess up on.

I'm gonna ask for some help here, Matty.

I could comment public comments.

Comments.

That email is public comments at Sommivalma.gov.

Counselor U and Campbell, you had a comment.

Uh, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just a question through you.

Can can someone just lay out the um anticipated timeline here for like when uh we're being asked to approve these changes when the uh RFP is expected to be wrapped up to the extent that you can tell us tonight.

Yes.

Three, Mr.

Chair to Councilor Ewan Kempen.

Um, so our intention would be to have these come back to the city council for a vote as soon as possible.

So, from my understanding, I know there will be at least one more discussion within the land use committee.

Um, and then depending on how that moves forward.

My the hope would be that they would come back to the city council in November, December for a vote of approval.

So that would be looking for a vote for the updates to the demonstration project plan, the updates to the memorandum of agreement, and then also for the development objectives and program of uses so that those could then be included in an RFP.

We would then be looking to release an RFP early next year.

There's not kind of an exact pin-down timeline, but early next year is currently our goal.

We want to make sure that we're moving expeditious expeditiously on this, um, just kind of considering the city's financial health and the impact of this project.

Thank you.

And I do intend on uh council.

Well, I do intend on having another land use committee meeting probably this month, two weeks from now.

So we'll be able to get to get to it then.

Council Wilson.

Yeah, thanks, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I just want to take the opportunity to, you know, first of all, thank you for the presentation.

It's good to see that a lot of that looks familiar.

Um something we have heard a lot about, uh, Counselor McGlawhl and I have heard a lot about is uh from the residents of Cobble Hill, the real desire to.

I know the the presentation mentioned doing the massing on the western side, closer to the T station, away from Cobble Hill apartments.

The other side of that being we'd love to see, oh I'll say I'll speak for myself.

I would love to see uh the required green space, open space in this concentrated around Cobble Hill.

Uh, ideally, you know, making excellent use of of that space right there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

And also, I'm gonna weigh the readings of item 2.4 and mark that work complete.

That was the notice for the public hearing.

Uh so this public hearing is closed.

Thank you very much.

Uh, let's get back to the regular order of business.

Madam Clerk, please read the next item.

So uh, we're gonna stand in recess so the redevelopment authority can adjourn when recess.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, seeing that there are no other items on the agenda, I'll entertain a motion that we close our voice for the public hearing.

Second, okay, we'll roll call vote, Courtney Brunson, Venu and Campin.

Yes, William Gage is not here.

Patrick McCormick, Christine Stone, yes, and Phil Rick Laney, yes.

We have a quorum, and we have approved the motion to adjourn.

All right, and we are back from recess.

All counselors are present, so no need to call the roll.

Uh, please read the next item.

Agenda item three, ID number 25-0085 by counselor McLaughlin, Counselor Davis, and Counselor Wilson.

That the director of planning, preservation, and zoning draft an amendment to the zoning ordinances for transit oriented height and density bonuses for additional affordable housing and other enumerated community benefits.

Let's lay that on the table actually.

I'd like to skip to the uh public hearings.

I think we're gonna do 2.1.

2.1.

2.3.

Got it.

All right, I think please read item 2.1.

Item 2.1, ID number 25-1554, requesting ordainment of an amendment to sections 10.10.3, 15.1.2, 15.1.6, 15.1.8, 15.2.1, 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 meetings optional for most permits and to improve clarity and consistency.

All right.

This is a request from the mayor.

Hi, see, Mr.

Bartman here.

Hello, Mr.

Chair.

Um, that legal notice pretty much sums up what this amendment is about.

Uh, so I do have a short presentation uh that we provided.

Um, if somebody's pulling that up.

That is only two slides.

And the proposal um would make pre-submittal meetings optional for special permits, site plan approvals, variances, land plating, and wireless communications.

It would maintain that a required pre-submittal meeting still was on the books for subdivision plan approvals and master plan special permits, which are probably our two most intense type of permits.

Um a couple some quick statistics.

Uh I have uh we've tracked every pre-submittal meeting we've held from since 2024, um, over the full year, and then also this year in 2025 up to the current date.

42% of pre-submittal meetings uh in 2024 um involved people who were already familiar with the zoning ordinance, uh, such as engineering firms, architecture offices, legal department legal offices, design designers, and contracting and construction firms that we regularly see.

In 2025, that number increased to 64%, and 17% of uh of all pre-submittal meetings were involved Adam Dashin associates.

So one of the things that we've learned over five years is that required pre-submittal meetings might be might have been a step too far.

Still offering these things to people who really need them is still valuable.

And we still think that they're important to have for large the large projects and big uh in intense permits.

Um, but we do think that they should be made uh optional for the people who do already know what they're doing and don't need to uh come and sit down and talk to the city staff.

Sometimes those pre-submittal meetings involve 12 other departments and a lot of coordination to get them all in the room together at the same time, only to have uh a person who already knows what they're doing, sit down and say, I don't know why we're why we have to be here.

So that's really the uh inspiration for this amendment.

There's also some um cleanup uh that goes on in uh the articles while we had it, had them open.

Uh so we clarify the language um of 1516, application review and staff report and public hearing.

Uh remove language referencing a manual submittal uh or or um inferring a manual submittal of a permit extension request to the city clerk.

That just happens at Citizen Serve now.

Um we uh used the same language for permit duration and extension for all the different for all of the permits.

So 1523, 15.31, and 15.32 had their language brought to uh similarity with other permits.

And then we can uh corrected language for administrative appeals so that it's consistent with state law that should have said 30 days and it said 20.

And that's this amendment, Mr.

Chair.

All right.

Any questions from the land use committee?

Seeing counselor Ewan Campan.

Um through you, Mr.

President, doesn't Mr.

Dash charge by the hour?

So just kidding.

Well, that last hearing went very quickly, so he's not getting paid much tonight.

Um actual questions.

Seeing none, uh I now declare this public hearing open.

We need this public hearing correct.

I now declare this public hearing open.

Anyone in the audience who wishes to testify, please step forward.

Anyone testifying remotely, please use a little hand icon and I'll call upon you.

I see no one in person, anyone remote?

Up Adam Dash, please step forward.

Uh attorney Adam Dash, 48 Grove Street Somerville, since you called me out.

Yeah, the uh I was a little surprised by those statistics.

I think I'm a glutton for punishment or something, but I I do note that sometimes the pre-submittal meetings, I would probably want one, but certainly most of the time we don't because I can read the code and I know what I need, and it takes a month or so to get through that process, which adds extra time and expense for the clients.

So even though I may bill for the hour for the pre-submittal meeting, it it drags the project out, and some people already feel like the process is long enough and for us to do this sort of spur where we don't really need to have the um the meeting on a project where I know I need a special permit for XYZ makes some sense.

So I would be in favor of this change.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the audience?

No one remote.

All right, seeing none, I declare this public hearing closed.

We'll keep the public comment period open till November 21st.

That's the day after our next uh land use committee meeting.

And this item will remain in committee.

Next item, please.

Item number 2.2 requesting ordainment of an amendment to tables 4.1.13, 4.2.13, 4.3.13, 4.4.13, 5.1.14, 7.2.7, 7.4.8, 8.4.16 C, and 9.1.1 of the zoning ordinance to permit home-based child daycare accessory uses and make corrections.

Mr.

Bartman.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, we also have a presentation for this item that is uh just as short, just two slides.

Um so uh the state of Massachusetts uh amended MGL 40A section three, which is the uh chapter of the zoning act that tells us what we have to permit.

Uh is the same chapter that has the MBTA communities portion uh included in it.

Um and they added family child care homes and large family child care homes uh to the required uses that we have to permit in Somerville.

Every community has to permit these.

Um in Somerville, we we have both of those under the definition of a home-based child daycare accessory use.

So that covers both of the uses as they're named in state law.

Um and so the amendment uh changes the home-based child daycare accessory use to permitted in every district that has uh uh residential housing as a permitted use because this is the an accessory use to residential housing.

Um so that makes a number of changes to the MR districts and high-rise.

Um and while we were editing the uh summary use table in Article 9, we noticed some discrepancies uh that were caused by amend amendments that we made to individual districts uh without a corresponding change to the main use table in Article 9.

Um and so while we were making the home-based daycare change, we uh looked over that table to find any other discrepancies and included those corrections in this while we were doing that.

Um so primarily home-based child daycares, but also some corrections.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions or comments from the council?

Seeing none, I now declare this public hearing open.

Anybody who wishes to testify, please step forward.

If you're remote, please use a little hand icon.

Seeing no comment, I declare this public hearing closed.

The public comment period will be kept open until November 21st.

You're gonna email us at public comments at Summerville MA.gov.

Next Adam, please.

Item number 2.3, ID number 25-1539.

12 registered voters requesting a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district of 363 Highland Avenue from midrise 4 MR4 to midrise 5, MR5, and from MR4 to midrise 6, MR6, and 110 Willow Avenue, MR4 to MR6.

Council Davis.

Uh Mr.

Chair, I'm going to recuse myself from this item as I live across the street.

Very good.

All right.

This is a uh public communication from 12 registered voters.

I see Mr.

Dash in the audience who must be representing them.

Please uh proceed.

Yes, Attorney Adam Dash representing Altitude Properties LLC.

Uh the owner of the property, 363 Highland Avenue, which is currently at least a recorded future.

Uh if you're familiar with that going into Davis Square on Highland Avenue between West and Whipple.

Um with me are uh Gorka Bravo and Lorenzi Bravo, who are the are the principals of Altitude Properties, and with me is the architect uh Peter Quinn, also in Davis Square.

So we we have the whole Davis Square crew here.

Um we're here tonight to talk about a proposal to change the zoning map for 363 Highland Avenue along with the NSTAR facility, which is adjacent to it, which faces um Willow, but actually also faces Whipple.

Um and this is um, and that's a 110 Willow, which is across the street from us.

So if we could have the slides pulled up for the application that we filed, um and start on page six.

We can show you what we're thinking of, and then um I can explain to you why we're doing that.

While we're doing that, I would note that we have had several meetings with the Davis Girl Neighborhood Council on the most recent one, perfect.

And the most recent one, they voted overwhelmingly um to support the application, and we're going to be sending something in writing.

I don't know if you've received it or not, but um you probably will at some point.

Uh so that is the property you can see there.

Um, the big well, for a minute ago, you could see there, the uh big dark um building there to the left that's outlined in red um is the 363 property.

Whipple sort of goes vertically down the middle of the screen and to the right in the back.

You can see the um well, it was to the right, and that's the left.

Yeah, now it's to the right.

The uh that's the um old end star facility.

So Peter, do you want to walk through?

Sure.

Uh for the record, Peter Quinn, Peter Quinn Architects, Davis Square.

Um, yeah, so we are just looking at this as a uh massing model, if you will, uh, to see what the impact would be for a combination of five and six stories on the site, the the Whipple Street, um, not the Willow Street site, but the the one uh where Altitude is now or was um uh just to orient you further, the community path is the green bar along the top of that that image, and Highland Ave is near the bottom.

Um next slide.

Yeah.

So this is this is showing you uh the two districts that uh that are currently present.

Right now, the site uh that we're talking about primarily is zoned MR4.

Um the um Boston Edison slash Eversource site is zone civic.

So we're proposing to make most of this MR6 um toward the uh community path with a smaller building out at Highland Ave at an MR5.

So that that small rectangle that is kind of at the bottom of uh our uh our zone is an MR5 building.

So um next slide.

This is uh a little hard read, I understand, but it's it's the idea is to show you that following the MR6 rules um and the MR5 rules for um lot size and maximum building footprint and so forth.

Uh we are able to develop um two buildings, could be three.

Um that would be um uh the MR5 would have uh commercial on the ground floor, um, and then some amenity space for the units, and then the building behind would be 100% um residential.

That was this would be a likely scenario.

Uh although there could be some commercial in it as well.

Um and then uh we imagine that somewhere in here we would have a direct link to the community path for bikes and people.

Um interestingly, if you just pull up the screen just slightly higher, uh you'll see that there's a small area at that is a kind of a small triangle, which is a direct connection that uh uh the owners hope to offer the city to gain access to the community path uh right off the extension of Whipple.

So those are some things in play.

But they're there, you know, it's it's it has a tremendous potential to create uh relatively low impact, high volume project that's really keyed in and linked to all the a lot of the main features of Davis Square, namely uh Highland Ave, which of course is a main thoroughfare and the community path as well, which takes you right to the T stop, and then on for the whole experience of the community path and in the other direction um as well.

So next slide, please.

Yeah, this is a section.

Um so what this is actually showing you is that even though the building in the front on Highland Ab, which is to the left here, is five stories, and the other building is we're proposing six stories, they come out to about the same height.

And the reason for this is that um the length of Whipple Street descends almost a whole story.

Um I think it's at least eight feet.

And uh the yellow area that you see here is what is allowed under the current zoning.

So this this amount of additional area that you get makes a huge difference in the development pro forma.

But also the impact of this, as you'll see when I show you the shadow studies is not that different from what's allowed already.

Next slide.

So these are just some massing models.

Uh the first the aerial views.

Um looking at this, the upper right hand side is a view across the Boston Edison property, um, where you can see the two five, the five and six-story buildings uh just as a massing uh block side by side.

And they're appear approximately the same size, but in fact, the one on the right is a high one story higher.

Um next slide.

Then yeah, these don't really show very well on screen, but these are just simply street views.

Um I'm not sure they're illustrating much at um at the scale.

Because of course we did not develop these as a design, you know, with windows and doors and all the things that give it scale.

Um next slide, please.

Yeah, so these are the shadow studies, and if you can look carefully, um there's two shadow lines on here.

Uh one is the um what is allowed under MR4, and then the second is what would be additional um under the either the MR5 or the MR6, depending on which building you're talking about.

So there's uh, yeah, there definitely is an increase, but it's really quite minor compared to what is allowed there now.

Um this is a um, I believe it's uh the equinox there.

And the next slide, I think you could go to that.

This is uh believe a summer or winter, I think that's summer, yeah.

Thanks.

Can't read it.

Um so there's the very minor difference uh between the four and six story, and then going on to the next slide.

Um that's winter.

There is some increase at the far edges of the site um in the neighborhood.

Uh, but again, you know, this is this is the time of year where everybody's shadowing everybody else anyways.

But um, you know, um given how much this building could produce in terms of housing, including affordable units.

I know I should mention that.

Um this this impact is relatively minor.

Um we think that uh based on the studies that I've done, if we can use the net zero ratios, the the two buildings together would produce over 250 units.

Um there's probably a practical limit of a little less than that.

So it's it's in the low 200s, but it's it would be um, you know, producing, you know, almost 50 affordable units, which is really significant.

And um, and I think there's an opportunity here, especially under the net zero ratios, that we could um we could offer smaller units that are you know somewhat more of um better price point for a lot of people um who you know can't afford a bigger unit or you know don't want to have roommates.

Um so you know it's it's it is it is uh a very significant and important way of uh developing the site that's different from a lot of other developments that we've we've seen or participated in.

So um leave it at that.

Yep.

Back to Adam.

Sorry.

Council Cameron.

Oh, Mr.

Chair, I'm happy to wait until the end of the presentation.

I just have a couple questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, uh Adam Dash again.

So we found that the prop the project is not viable at the current four-story MR4 uh zoning.

Uh we feel this zoning map change would allow for more housing in the Davis Square, which is badly needed and provide an ability for NSTAR to redevelop its site um or or some of it, if it wanted to shave some of it off because there's a part of it with a building and part that just seems like a wasteland over there.

Uh it does not require them to do anything by changing the zoning for them, but it does give them an incentive to hopefully someday do something should they choose to do so.

Keep in mind that even if the city council were to approve the zoning map change, the project still needs site plan approval and a special permit from the planning board to be built, and there's a whole public process and neighborhood meetings and all of that.

So we're just this isn't this doesn't approve a project.

I should note that what Peter said, what we're showing you is sort of the most that could be built if the zoning change were happening.

That's obviously not the project we're proposing.

We're gonna be proposing a building that looks different, and it's not just a white box that maxes everything out.

But we felt to be honest, just to show you what that would look like if something were to happen that was a max of that box.

So as at this point, the um we feel like there's we've been talking to the various interested parties.

We feel we've had a pretty good response uh to it.

Um, and the property is currently certainly underutilized, having that basically one story concrete block building that's there.

Uh right, recorded future is leaving.

So that there's an opportunity now to do this, which is why we're proposing it now before we go looking for another tenant.

Um and as Peter said, the Bravo, the altitude properties does own that little weird triangle, the uh that connects Whipple to the bike path.

So that's an opportunity to um bring that into connection into play.

So uh therefore we would ask you that you favorably recommend uh the map change for 363 Highland Avenue and 110 Willow to the MR5 and MR6 combo that we described, and happy to take questions.

Thank you.

Any questions or comments from the council?

Council Ian Campbell.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh through you, two quick questions before we get to the public hearing.

Um so the proposed amendment includes this other property that's currently civic that I if I'm if I'm understanding is not part of your proposal.

Um through you, can you just explain why the proposal includes other properties?

Yeah, it it seemed like this was an opportunity because there's been a lot of um and having lived over on Highland Road for many years, I can tell you that there's that that site, the NSTAR site is a bit of blighted.

They do use it, but not all of it in a major way.

And the part that faces Whipple facing our property actually is the part they don't really use.

It seemed like this would benefit everybody, especially if Whipple becomes a connection point up to the bike path to give them the ability to do something.

Of course, they don't have to do anything.

They're not going to probably get rid of the building and the other stuff.

They store telephone poles or whatever they do there.

But um, we thought it was an opportunity since we're coming in anyway.

And we have multiple parcels, so it's not like some kind of spot zoning issue because we do have two parcels, but to but bring this in as an opportunity, should they ever want to do something, they could.

Um, and maybe it would incentivize them to do so if they were in the MR6, because maybe the MR4 is not enticing enough.

Um that that was the thought behind it, nothing more.

Got it, Mr.

Chair.

Through you, thank you.

And I'm not expressing an opinion here.

I'm just curious if that were to remain civic, does that affect your project in terms of setbacks or anything?

No, it's across the street.

Um okay, thank you.

And then through you, the other question, I I thought I heard Mr.

Quinn say that the proposal would allow for 50 affordable units.

Did I get that right?

That's the 20 percent.

20 percent of 250 is 50.

If that if it is 250, the number of units depends on how big the units are.

If the three bedroom versus studio, you get fewer or more.

So we don't have that number yet in that range-ish.

Okay.

And the the document before us has a little study of the existing zoning, which estimates the total number of dwelling units is something on the order of like 120, it looks like.

Um so going from MR4 to MR six and five more than doubles the number of units.

That could be um there are did you want to that's um maybe only one building.

That's one ninety.

That's the MR4.

Right.

That's what's uh there now, right?

Yeah, that's you could if you didn't change the zoning, what could be done is 119.

Okay, so the extra two stories and one story doubles the number of units we're saying.

You could quick that yeah, Peter Quinn here.

Um just to be clear, I think uh it might be a little higher if we are able to use the net zero um density bonus as well.

So if we're comparing apples to apples, it's probably like 160 to 250.

So approximately 100 more.

Thank you.

Um I'll set Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Uh Council Wilson.

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, through you, obviously up to 50 new affordable units and in you know, the overall number uh possibly approaching 250 sounds great.

Uh my question is have you had any discussions with the city about any potential subsidization like we've done with other projects that might see that affordable percentage go significantly higher than that?

Uh Adam Dash again.

We have spoken with the city about this.

We've spoken with a lot of people before we've uh filed this application.

Um, so we have talked to them about it, not that specific point.

Um, obviously the building would have to um pencil out financially to do it, but um, I think we're open for discussions if the city were to want to have them.

I I can't promise anything, but because we haven't designed the building yet.

Mr.

Chair, we've seen uh another project set to break ground here.

Uh that where the city got very aggressive with subsidizing that to make some really good affordable numbers happen for that.

So I would just urge people to have that discussion, see if that makes sense in this case.

Uh through the chair.

Uh second question.

You talked about how what you showed us sort of was like a we won't say worst case scenario, but what you know, what you could do, uh safe to assume there'd be some stepbacks at the higher levels uh in the in the eventual design.

Absolutely.

I mean, we're just showing a white box to the max, which is not obviously going to fly with the board, and we're not proposing it.

So uh because again, I just we just felt like you should 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.

So we're just bringing it to you.

That's not what we're proposing.

Thanks, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Seeing no further questions, I now declare the uh before that.

Um planning department, is there any recommendation issued on this?

Saying none.

Uh, and now declare this public hearing open.

Anyone in the audience who wishes to testify, please step forward.

Give your full name and address.

Uh hello, planning board and planning use committee.

Uh, my name is Peter Kim Santos, and I live at 64 Andy Codav.

I'm the treasurer of the Davis Square neighborhood council, and at our October 27th meeting, the membership of the DSNC voted to provide a statement in support of the zoning change at 363 Highland Av and 110 Willow.

Uh, despite the DSNC still being in the process of formation, uh, the property owner has attended several of our meetings and has presented their plans for the property to a generally very positive reception.

Uh common discussion topic among the DSNC is the need for more housing.

And so this proposal for transit accessible housing is welcome, especially with its 40 to 50 inclusionary units.

Uh, this is not in my pre-written and improved statement, but I really like Jake's idea about having the city fund more and would encourage you guys to look at that in the future.

Uh moreover, the property owner and the architect have engaged with us in good faith.

Uh dialogue regarding how the buildings can interface with the community path, and we look forward to continuing that conversation and working with uh uh the team about uh what the building will look like.

The DSNC is also supportive of the upsoning of the blighted 110 willow property as one of the many blighted properties in Davis Square, and we hope that we'll see a uh more desirable development there as well.

Thank you guys very much.

Thank you.

Any further question whether further comments in the public?

Anyone remote?

Please use the little hand icon.

We have one comment.

What's the name?

Scott.

Please give your full name and address and unmute yourself.

Okay, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Oh, Scott Nochowski, um, 40 uh 49 Morrisonav.

Um, yeah, I just wanted to speak in support of this.

Um, I think both aspects of the of the zoning change, I think are good.

Um definitely the um the density is needed, especially close to uh Davis Square Station.

Um I especially like the idea of even though this is not their property, um, incentivizing ever source to do something with um is really an ISOR of a property.

So I would support that part as well.

Uh that's it.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else remote?

Please use a little hand icon.

See no further comment.

I declare this public hearing closed, public comment period will be kept open until November 21st.

You can email us at public comments plural at summerma.gov and I believe we've got to go to item number four.

And I believe we've got to go to item number four.

Please read that one.

Item number four, ID number 24-0328.

10 individuals, including five residents submitting comments regarding item 24-0059, a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district of 321 Washington Street from fabrication FAB to commercial industry CI.

This item will be placed on file.

Well, work completed.

Thank you.

And uh next item, I think that brings us to our item.

Is that everything besides the one?

Well, we got the Gilman school.

We got the uh upzoning, the one I laid on the table.

Up item number three.

I'm gonna take item number three off the table, and we have Samantha Carr, uh land use analyst here to make a little presentation.

Glad we had enough time to do it.

And let us know if you have to catch your trend.

Before we even comment on all this, I had a few questions already.

Want to let the public know that this is a presentation on ideas.

It is not a plan, it's just for discussion for the hope that one day we do have a future plan.

So nobody get nervous, plenty of time to talk and have public comment and input.

Ms.

Carr.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, and just to reiterate on that point, um, I have four maps to share with the council.

The hope is that these can spur conversation and act as a catalyst for dialogue around what's possible.

Um, and these are I just wanted to reiterate are not a formal proposal.

Um, so we've just provided a slide here around the existing conditions of the site.

This can be used as a point of reference to compare the four scenario maps before us.

Next slide, please.

So in scenario one, um, we have got a rationale slide for each of the scenarios um included.

I'll just walk through those while the maps on the screen for context.

Um, so this first scenario is looking at midrise upzoning and the neighborhood core.

Uh, the rationale behind this proposal, it's most closely aligned with the Gilman Square Neighborhood Council's feedback and draft proposal that was circulated earlier this um earlier this fall.

There's also strong alignment uh with long-term strategic planning documents in terms of alignment with sum revisions, um, enhance 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.

Uh a summary of the proposal here.

We're looking at a concentrated upzoning unlocking midrise six, mixed use development along the core streets in Gilman Square in direct proximity to the T stop.

So we're looking at expansion along Medford and Pearl Street of the Midrise 6 zone.

In addition, um, this is expanding the pedestrian street designation to promote walkability further along Medford and Pearl Street.

And you'll note that the small business district overlay is preserved as existing conditions for local businesses on the west side of Medford Street.

We'd like to advance to the second um scenario.

So two slides down.

So the second scenario before us, um, each of these scenarios builds upon each other.

So this scenario is midrise plus urban residential corridor expansion.

Um, this rationale, uh, the proposals in response to council feedback to explore unlocking additional housing production via incremental upzoning within the quarter mile transit walkshed buffer in Gilman Square.

Um the mechanism we were exploring for that uh is uh upzoning neighborhood residential to urban residential parcels uh within the walkshed.

Um similarly to scenario one, there's strong alignment uh in this map proposal with Summer Vision and the Gilman Square Station Area Plan's goals.

Um, in addition to the concentration of mid-rise six upzoning on Medford and Pearl Street.

This will also propose urban residential upzoning along Medford Street to the west, um, as well as school and Marshall Street corridors within the quarter mile walkshed.

Um you'll note that between scenario one and scenario two on the west side of Medford Street, these parcels are proposed for UR upzoning rather than mid-rise four.

Um, and this is specifically to provide some more flexibility for small businesses that are existing within the space.

Um, compared to a midrise 4 upzoning, uh, you are upzoning will permit three stories by right.

And due to the small business district overlay, commercial ground floor will also be permitted on site versus three to four stories by right in the mid-rise four district.

So this is just a potential permutation option for those western parcels.

The pedestrian street designation remains the same as in scenario one and has been expanded from the existing conditions a bit further along Medford and Pearl Street.

And the small business district overlay is preserved as within the existing conditions in the neighborhood.

We'd like to go two slides ahead, please, to scenario three.

So scenario three is continuing in this trend on building upon each other.

We're looking at mid-rise six expansion as well as an urban residential extended scenario.

The rationale behind this was looking at a higher impact version of a proposal responsive to council feedback to unlock increased housing production via exploring incremental upzoning.

Similar to previous proposals, we're seeing alignment with goals of strategic goals within Summer Vision and the Gilman Square Station Area Plan.

In summary, this proposal is looking at mid-rise six upzoning in the core along Medford and Pearl Streets, as well as an increased urban residential upzoning on the west side of Medford Street, as well as on the school and Marshall Street corridors up to Broadway corridor.

So we're extending slightly beyond the quarter mile walk shed.

We're starting to bridge into the half mile walkshed for a couple of those parcels that are abutting the Broadway corridor.

We were also looking at matching like-for-like uses on adjacent parcels when thinking about the school and Marshall Street corridors to define where the urban residential extension would taper off.

Similarly to scenario two, parcels on the west side of Medford Street are looking at an urban residential expansion rather than mid-rise four as seen in scenario one.

Pedestrian street designation remains the same, expanded throughout these proposals.

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 upzoning.

And if we'd like to go two slides ahead, this is the final scenario for conversation.

Scenario 4, this is looking at mid-rise extended.

This is the highest impact proposal in terms of being responsive to the council feedback of unlocking increased housing production via incremental upzoning.

We're seeing alignment with strategic planning documents in this proposal.

And really the key difference here between scenario three and scenario four is looking at increasing some of the mid-rise expansion.

This proposal moves forward with mid-rise six upzoning along Medford Street.

You will also see Stickney Avenue has been proposed for mid-rise six designation to unlock potential for lot consolidation on that block.

And mid-rise four upzoning is proposed on the west side of Medford Street in this proposal.

Otherwise, conditions remain the same to scenario three in terms of a UR upzoning along the school and Marshall Street corridors up to the Broadway corridor.

And pedestrian street designation remains the same as the previous proposals.

And similarly to scenario three, the small business district overlay has been expanded to a few parcels that may be impacted where there's existing small businesses in the neighborhood.

So these are the four we wanted to share for conversational purposes with the council.

And there was one other piece of analysis that I wanted to share for context that helped to shape some of these maps in terms of a fiscal impact analysis.

But perhaps I'll pause there to see if there's any initial feedback to the maps.

Yeah, thanks, Mr.

President.

Through you to our land use analysts, thank you for this.

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, setbacks.

Any thought that this one, some of these show more UR bordering the MR.

Is there any reason why we wouldn't want to just pursue a general strategy of a you know a ring of UR next to MR in general?

Yes, so I would say, you know, from a contextual standpoint in terms of transitioning between typologies, that would be fairly considered a best practice to move between mid-rise and then transition to urban residential towards neighborhood residential to provide kind of that contextual decrease in density between the blocks.

Um I think what we were looking towards in the scenarios between the UR was really thinking about what could be done within the quarter mile lock shed um and where there's existing corridors with higher foot traffic that might make sense for that urban residential upzoning.

Um the difference between scenario three and four um in regards to that, or I should say scenario two and scenarios three and four um is that we're expanding further up um Marshall and School Street all the way up to the Broadway corridor.

So the the key contextual question there is really around um whether we're comfortable moving beyond the quarter mile walkshed.

We have a couple of parcels that go uh uh I would say one to two blocks outside of that if we want to extend the streetscape fully up to the Broadway corridor.

Um so that was really the key consideration there.

And there is data um to speak to uh folks being willing to walk within a half mile buffer to a major transit corridor.

So there would be some data rationale behind that.

Um the first proposal does not include the UR component, um, simply because that was kind of outside the scope of the initial conversations that we were having with the Gilman Square Neighborhood Council, who was primarily focused on an upzoning along Medford and Pearl Street.

Um and I think we were then responding to the council's interest uh with some of these UR proposals.

Mr.

Chair, I I like the idea of uh at least some band of UR next to those MR just because I think it's gonna for everything we've heard is it allows for more flexibility, uh better use of that land uh in those mid-rise districts.

Uh I'm I'm I guess I'm looking at some of them uh off of Medford Street, uh, some of them off of Pearl Street where you see the the you know deep purple of MR there with uh with the NR next to it.

So just flagging that is something I'd be curious to see.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, through you, thank you so much.

Um couple hours before the meeting, this committee got a memo from the mayor's office um raising concerns basically writ large with with upzoning proposals in Gilman Square.

And there are two issues.

One of them has to do with public engagement, that you know, neighborhood scale uh zoning changes kind of uh benefit from um robust public engagement.

That that I agree with.

I think that's absolutely before we move forward.

I think it's important that we have um public engagement around what we're considering.

The other one has to do with displacement, and it says the Office of Housing Stability has serious concerns that upzoning may lead to increased development pressure on these parcels.

So I I just have a question on that point.

Um that's could be argued for any parcels in the city, right?

You know, we we talk about upzoning in a lot of different contexts.

And as a general concept, you could make this argument.

I'm just wondering, I want to understand this.

Is there something particular about this area that the Office of Housing Stability has identified as an area of concern?

Or is this more general that upzoning can increase displacement?

That sounds like a question for the city for the mayor's office.

I don't think housing stability is here, but uh the IJA's office is here.

Thank you, the chair.

Uh for the record, my name is Yasmin Rodassi.

I'm legislative liaison with intergovernmental affairs in the mayor's office.

Um, my understanding is that the Office of Housing Stability's concerns are not specifically targeted towards Gilman Square.

It's more of a high-level concern for upzoning generally in the city.

Um, I also did want to say, I know that councilor you and camp in already highlighted some of these, but did really want to emphasize like the deep concerns about displacement and public engagement.

Um just wanna just want to share that engaging in a neighborhood councils is great, but like we want to make sure that we're engaging with all folks that would be impacted, especially our renders that would be displaced by potentially be displaced by upzoning.

Um and I just wanted to highlight that the council has consistently prioritized preservation of our communities and fought against displacement with the goal of keeping Somerville families in Somerville.

And the administration believes that more comprehensive engagement is required to ensure that displacement impacts can be minimized and that all residents in the neighborhood are aware of any proposed changes.

Thank you.

I think this is absolutely um and kind of straightforwardly, a conversation that we are always having and should always be having.

Um you know, I view I don't think for me that doesn't like end the conversation on upzoning, right?

The idea that it could cause displacement because the the I as I see it, say we have a parcel right next to a train station and it's zoned for neighborhood residents.

Um we don't want to displace the current tenants, obviously.

Um in many cases, we just see this all over the city, all over every city.

In many cases, the property owner will still displace those tenants, and then the thing they build is a large mansion, right?

Or a two-unit double mansion instead of an apartment building.

So that you get kind of the worst of both worlds.

You get the displacement, and you also get the creation of a property type that's not really ideal for right next to a train station.

So that's how I'm viewing this is kind of we're trying to balance those two things.

We certainly do not want to, you know, pour fire on the displacement crisis by any means.

We also want the zoning to be appropriate for if and when property owners decide to redevelop something, they're building something that's appropriate for that context.

Um so I I appreciate this memo.

I take it seriously.

I think this is obviously a conversation we we need to always be having in our head.

Um, but it to me it's not like a therefore we don't look at this.

Thank you.

And if I could just comment on that real quickly, uh I think w we're in a new territory, uh, thanks to our own land use analysts, we have a position within the city council to actually move forward with some ideas.

And I've consistently said that these are ideas until it's a plan.

And when there is a plan, there will, of course, be a thorough community process, public hearing notification, all of that.

Uh so I can understand why some people will see a map and think that we're gonna decide something next week.

Uh that's not going to be the case.

Uh, but this is the committee where we have these conversations.

It's important for us to have these conversations in public so people know what we're thinking.

Um, I just want to put that out there.

And I was hoping I definitely want to move forward as fast as possible, but just in case people are concerned, I don't see any decisions like this coming this year.

Uh, it'll be under the new administration, and hopefully it'll be more communication and coordination with the Office of Housing Stability and the Planning Department and the IGAs.

So they we won't have this confusion.

Uh Counselor Davis.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Would it were that we could do anything in a week?

Um so I you know completely sign on to all of this conversation.

I won't repeat much of it because uh my what I was gonna say in response to this uh memo is has largely been said um I you know completely agree.

Obviously, there's uh there is a need and absolutely will be public um engagement.

I just note, I mean yes, uh upzoning leads to increased development pressure.

That's the point.

That's what we're trying to do.

That's why we're looking at these at these zoning changes, because um where we move forward with these, it's it would be it would be if we if and where we would move forward is because we feel like more development is the right answer there.

Um so I guess I just want to put a specific point on on that.

Um that that's that's that's not a bug.

That's that's the actual intent.

Um and just to put a you know, to put a real world example, um, you know, I can't remember when it was that we first issued society.

It was uh at least a year ago, I think longer than that.

Um and we've been talking about the concepts of of getting upzoning in and around our uh our transit um nodes for for quite some time.

Um we still don't have it.

Um and in the meantime, I've got two pretty small developments going in pretty much right in the heart of Davis Square, um, kind of on the you know, the the immediate edge uh uh that are three units, four units of exactly sort of the the hypothetical that the good counselor from Ward 3 noted.

Um I would love for there to have been uh you know an opportunity for um for more density in those in those spots.

I'm happy that they're going forward.

It's it is gonna increase our housing in those two uh scenarios, and the community's been you know generally in favor of them.

Um but it's a it's a perfect example of of what um uh the counsel from Ward 3 noted and and why I do uh appreciate the chairs um you know continuing to push this uh discussion and and I do look forward to moving this, moving this into that robust public conversation and and getting some real changes on paper.

Um I want to make one other note um and uh I I guess I'll sort of put this out there for discussion.

Um, but um and specifically uh request to Ms.

Carr um to as we're looking at this, um the uh uh and I'll look to Director Bartman to make sure that I'm not misremembering this and just chuck something at me if I say if I'm getting this completely wrong.

But um I my recollection is I I I think contrary to how I first drafted it, I think that um the way that we accomplished um uh a a zoning mechanism to ensure that when development projects happen in our squares, they don't include a massive commercial space right in the middle of our pedestrian street where one might put, I don't know, hype hypothetically, for example, uh uh you know, a bank building with um nothing else in it, um, or a city target or that sort of thing, um, was to was to use the the small business overlay.

That's where we ended up, yeah.

So right now, that only that that tool has only been used in it's only been uh rolled out in Davis Square.

Um it's it's my view that we ought to have that in all of our squares.

And so as we look at certainly this this hypothetical in Gilman and any of the other squares, I would um I would really like to see that put in place.

Um, you know, the the small business overlay was originally um to ensure that sort of how home-based businesses could be along some of our major corridors.

Um Director Bartman's recommendation and I and ultimately was the correct one was to also use that tool to ensure that in our squares we have multiple um varied sizes of commercial spaces that are more um conducive to a you know a robust um uh uh infrastructure of of you know small and independent businesses and having a variety of those types of spaces.

So my intent when we when we created that thing a few years ago was to have it go everywhere.

Um and I have it sort of pushed it onto my other uh colleagues and other wards, but um gonna start doing that now because it it um it's now back to top of mind.

Um so as we move forward with these conversations, that's one tool that I would like to just call out and flag that you know I think that's a really important tool to help protect some of the the aspects of our squares and that sort of you know intimate pedestrian experience and that community experience is having lots of small, you know, not just small, but a variety of sizes, not one big giant space.

Um smaller spaces bring lower rents and more opportunity for for businesses at different uh points in the lifecycle.

So let's let's use that tool where we can.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Council Wilson.

Yeah, Mr.

President, uh, I'll thank the administration for um, you know, putting that memo out.

You know, obviously we should talk about always uh displacement risks and and the need for public engagement on these things.

Um Lord knows this committee's been having a discussion uh for months now about upzoning uh different strategies for it.

Um I think the reason why it's worth pursuing this, especially at these transit areas like this, is because one, I think there's a there's a lower risk of displacing naturally current affordable housing there, because it's by transit.

There's gonna be less naturally current affordable housing just because of what we know about what the the green line comes to Sartle has done to rents around those stations.

Uh the other thing then is the payoff that you're looking at for doing this with genuinely affordable units that might be coming in because of inclusionary zoning, you know, and and density bonuses.

And that's why I think the juice is worth the squeeze on this.

Uh, and that's why I support the idea of upzoning around transit.

It just makes sense.

It's the most bang for the buck with the least risk of displacement.

The lot of planners would agree with you.

Uh, any further questions or comments.

Seeing none, this item will be remaining committee.

Thank you, Ms.

Carr for the presentation.

And um, I look forward to talking to the community and the council about it more in the future.

Uh, do we have any more items?

Uh I did just want to quickly flag there's a couple of slides um at the end of the presentation here around a fiscal impact analysis that was go ahead.

Um if we do have time, I'm happy to go through those or just keep them as a point of reference for folks.

Okay, great.

Um just wanted to provide a quick snapshot and thank you all for the the feedback and commentary on the proposals.

Um, we're looking forward to continuing to move these forward um to think about uh moving from ideation to creation of something more formal here.

Um I wanted to provide a little uh window into some of the back end analysis that's been done to inform the maps here.

Um one piece of that that we've chatted about previously in the workflow is a fiscal impact analysis.

Um so just wanted to provide a snapshot of what that looks like for folks to see.

Um snapshot scenario we looked at was comparing the fiscal impacts of existing conditions for three neighborhood residential lots compared to consolidating those lots and upzoning to urban residential to uh facilitate the development of a new 30-unit apartment building.

Um this scenario was chosen due to average unit and floor paint assumptions that we um were able to surmise based on our scraping of historical permitting data since 2019 for urban residential building types on average, we're seeing about a 7,000 square foot floor plate uh with 30 units on average per building.

Um, in terms of the methodology, there's two scenarios that would have been put forward um with three parcels being selected.

These were all selected within the upzoning area that's being considered.

So primarily within the quarter mile walkshed, um, although there is one parcel that falls in the half mile walkshed.

Um and also was thinking thoughtfully about where urban residential development is likely to occur, making a contextual comparison to existing adjacent properties.

One of the assumptions that goes into the fiscal impact model is a land valuation.

So a custom square foot valve valuation was calculated based on assessment data for existing urban residential properties in Gilman Square to try and provide a calibrated neighborhood example of what that cost would be per square foot.

If we want to go to the next slide, I have a quick snapshot of the scenario one results.

So the first scenario was looking at three neighborhood residential lots, um, two or existing single family structures, one is a duplex with a total of five units between the three parcels compared to redeveloping, consolidating the lots, um, and facilitating the development of a 30-unit urban residential apartment building.

In terms of net municipal revenue impacts, we're seeing a gain of 20,000 annually.

Um, and responsive to council's concerns um or questions around what would impacts be the local schools.

We've included that as a point of of contact here.

Um so for school impact, we're seeing a marginal increase of one student.

Um we've also listed the valuation assumption here as a point of reference.

In the last slide here, um, we've got the second scenario that's similarly looking at the three neighborhood residential lots, um, but was looking at a different typology.

So two triple decker structures and one single family home.

Um, in other scenarios, triple deckers might have additional units in this particular context.

There's uh two units per structure.

So we're still looking at a five unit um versus 30 unit apartment building comparison.

Uh you'll see there's a smaller net municipal revenue gain, um, incrementally smaller for 25,000 annually, and a slightly smaller school impact of an anticipated additional two students in the neighborhood.

Um, so just wanted to provide this as a little bit of background.

Um, if there's an interest in looking, say, at the mid-rise portion of the corridor to see the fiscal impacts, that's something um I'd be happy to take a look into further to provide some insights of what the revenue impacts and school impacts would be to the committee.

Thank you.

Council Young Cameron.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Through you, thank you very much.

Um, my recollection, the the question that had been raised originally from maybe historic planning um was about the effect on tax bills for current residents.

Um at a future meeting, I would I would be very interested to see that in addition to the revenue gain to the city.

If if there is no development on those parcels and they just sit there in an upzoned district, do their tax bills go through the roof.

That that's I think what I'd like to understand.

Um, so if that'd be possible at a future meeting, um, I don't know how to calculate that, but if there's a way to do it, I'd love to see it.

Council Wilson.

Mr.

Chair, I want to thank our colleague from Word3 for clarifying that.

That was my question from watching this.

Was I recall being about uh, you know, just an upzoning and the impact on someone there, you know, before any development happens.

Um I'll point out, you know, with prop two and a half, right?

That is an overall limit that's a limit on the overall growth of the city's tax levy.

Um it might be something where, you know, I'd be curious to hear from the chief assessor how that works in terms of DOR, you know, forcing valuation, you know, you don't want to see a handful of properties basically absorb all of that if they're forced to jack those valuations.

Uh possibly an argument for doing a bunch of this at once, so it's not a handful of properties.

Uh, if it all depends on the answers we get from the chief assessor, but I'd be really curious to hear more about this, you know, given the clarification we got from a colleague.

Ms.

Carr.

Thank you.

Um I don't want to speak on behalf of the administration.

Um, so feel free to jump in if you'd like to clarify.

But my understanding is that the assessor's office is hoping to be available for the next session to answer some of those questions.

Through the chair.

Um, the assessor's office, as everyone knows, is currently in the process of doing the tax reassessment, um, which is hopefully going to be presented at the November 25th council meeting.

Um, we are waiting for final confirmation from the Department of Revenue, I believe it is, um, before the assessor's office would feel comfortable coming to speak on this item um before the committee.

I have been in contact with them, just making sure that we don't we haven't had that final confirmation from Department of Revenue.

So I have not forgotten that the request, there was a request for assessor's office to be here.

I am still working on it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further questions or comments?

Okay, this item will remain in committee.

All other items will remain in committee as well, except for the uh work the work complete we did.

Um, item four was that.

Adam Clerk in the back.

Yep, thank you.

All right.

Uh seeing no further business, we are adjourned.

Everyone's here, so no need for a roll call.

Good night, everyone.