Land Use Committee

all right i call this meeting the millennials committee to order please note that pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2025 this meeting of the city council committee will be conducted via remote participation we post an audio recording audio video recording transcript or other comprehensive record of these proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the city of summer website and local cable access government channels and clerk please call a roll this is roll call councillor davis here

Councilor Sait?

Here.

Councilor Wilson?

Present.

Councilor Ewen-Campen?

Here.

Councilor McLaughlin?

Here.

With all Councilors present, we have quorum.

All right. So I have an order of business I'd like to do with consent from the committee. I would like to take up item 250200. That is the Yimby-Dormer petition first. then take up 250590, which is the egress items, second. Then we can discuss all the Summon Over items. And if we have time and I see Ms. Carr is in the audience, we can have a presentation about upzoning. And tonight, I don't think we have an update for outdoor bikes or mass timber, so those are remaining committee. Any discussion, any issues? Seeing none, we'll read the minutes first and then we'll take the items out of order.

And agenda item 125-1111, approval of the minutes of the Land Use Committee joint meeting of June 5th, 2025. Councillor Davis?

Yes.

Councillor Sait?

Yes.

Councillor Wilson?

Yes.

Councillor Campin?

Yes.

Councillor Laughlin?

Yes.

Those are accepted.

All right, next item then.

And that brings us to agenda item 4, 25-0200, 15 registered voters requesting a zoning text amendment to amend the zoning ordinance sections 318C, 319C, 310C, 3113K, 3113L, 3212L, and 3212M.

All right. So this item was before us at the last meeting. We said we'd bring it up again for discussion. Just an update on my side. So I spoke to Jeff Byrne from the Summit William B. Group who submitted this petition, and I stated my personal opinion that while the public opinion aspect is not my greatest concern, Mr. Bartman has raised Concerns about unintended consequences as well as the planning board did the same. So my preference was to allow this to play out and allow Director Bartman to have time to talk to the EMBs and come up with a compromise plan. That's just my opinion. So if people wanted to discuss it further or make any motions, you can do so. Councilor Davis and then Councilor Wilson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Your view sounds like it exactly aligns with mine. While I fully support the concepts in this, as we said at the last meeting, it sounds like the planning folks have some thoughts as well and actually have some time squared away to address this. I look forward to planning and zoning, working with the folks from Somerville UMB to come up with a revised version of this and something that

you know checks this these boxes potentially other boxes and and removes any unintended consequences all right council wilson uh thanks chair you all have stolen my talking points so i'll just say ditto all right very good uh any further discussion uh so madam clerk should we mark this work complete placed on file or just leave it laid out council you and campbell

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry, I just wanted to, I'm fine with this route. And I think we kind of mentioned this last time, but I think it's important that we actually do take this up and make progress on it. Because I think that the longer that we planning staff, the kind of people who are going to make this decision wait, I think the more pressure we're going to be under to just do something. So it's kind of incumbent on all of us to like actually take those next step. And I, for one, I'm happy to do that. But obviously I think the most smart way to do it is have the staff work with the proponents exactly as been suggested.

All right. Thank you. Council site.

Yeah, I think we're all probably saying the same thing, Chair McLaughlin, but I thank you for reaching out to the EMB group and making sure communication is happening there prior to us discussing and voting on this. As I said last time, I support any efforts that would create more living space. So I look forward to our discussion on this.

Thank you. So Madam Clerk, I know there's one option that if we do, it means that they can't take this up for another year. So is the idea we should just leave this on the table and take no vote, no place on file?

We can place it on file or you could discharge without a recommendation, but that would just send it back before the whole council at the next meeting.

So if we place it on file, they can still submit something within the next year?

I believe so, yes, but I can also confirm before we get off this call.

Okay, well, we'll lay it on the table for now and then maybe place it on file at the end of the meeting. Okay, next item.

And that brings us to agenda item number 925-0590, requesting ordainment of an amendment to Article 2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the building official to waive certain dimensional standards for means of egress.

okay i see uh david shapiro in the audience who emailed all of us an opinion on this uh council wilson asked for us to return this uh to committee for discussion uh i'll council wilson your hands raised so i'll recognize you and then maybe get an update from mr shapiro uh mr chair i'm happy to let the law department weigh in first if you'd like i'm basically going to build on whatever they're likely about to say here okay uh mr shapiro would you like to give us your two cents on this

Sure. David Shapiro, one second. Question I was asked, well, two questions I was asked. One is the language itself lawful as drafted. And the second question I was asked was to consider whether the implementation of the ADA requirements and the forms that the city has are suitable. Those are the two questions I looked at. As to the first question, While the language I think is lawful, I did recommend two possible options. One, if the board wanted to clarify that the particular section in question was not intended to represent anything that conflicts with the ADA, they could add a section to say that nothing in the, that the, I don't have it in front of me, but the ordinance would basically say that the ordinance shall, nothing shall prohibit us, prohibit somebody from applying for an ADA accommodation. You have the language, hopefully, I don't have the screen in front of me with my language on it, but that's the first element. On the second question, had to do with the implementation part of it. And that I would say that the best thing to do would be to have staff and all the stakeholders get together and talk about that and figure out what are the concerns and maybe they could at that point recommend form changes on that part of it. The other component is I did recommend a possible change to add some feasibility links, which I think Councilor Wilson will be recommending to add to change the term possible to feasible if not undue hardship. I know I kind of went around a little bit, but that's the gist of what the opinion was.

thank you council wilson yeah thanks chair um you know i i'm fine with doing the first element that attorney shapiro mentioned i i just want to name that this section is not one that's currently being touched by by this uh this amendment so you know i guess i'll leave that i'm curious to hear colleagues opinions on whether they want to go dip it into another section of the law to add this you know you heard this you know we don't think that this is is there's any legal reason this needs to be there it's really more for reassurance the one i'm more interested in is the second one that attorney shapiro mentioned that that's uh basically addressing um situation where you know currently just says where or another option is is possible and i think uh it does behove us to go with the suggested language which is feasible without undue financial hardship that's in section uh two four one b um I think that makes sense. Just given the discussion that we had the first night this was before us in the public hearing, there were questions asked about that specifically. Could someone interpret that to say, well, you could put an elevator, so go do that. We don't want to allow this ramp in the front. feasible without undue financial hardship is a very common sense, reasonable approach here to address that concern that I don't think would result in any misinterpretation. But I'm, as always, curious to hear people's opinions on that. I guess, Chair, are you welcoming, at this point, a motion to amend this for that text, or would you rather hear discussion before I go that far?

Well, I see Councilor Ewen-Campen has his hand raised, so maybe we let him weigh in and then see where we go.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have maybe just a dumb question, but is it important that we include the language provided that no other compliant design solution is possible? From ISD's perspective, from planning's department, would it cause a lot of problems to just remove that? And for an accessible means of egress, they're allowed to waive these things. There might be another option possible, but that's the question I have.

I see Matt Zano has his hand raised. Who would you like to weigh in?

Through the chair to Councillor Ewen Campin, that's a great question. So the reasoning behind that was, so ISD supports leaving in the, to leave in the language about provided that there's no other design solution possible provided there's no undue hardship just because if there's like, hypothetically, if there's like a ramp that's in a, let's say if it's a ramp, if there's a ramp and it's in a setback such that it would be violating the zoning, but if they could make a very, sorry, easy change to that such that it would be fully compliant, then it would be, this allows for us to suggest that as a potential alternative.

However, if, I'm sorry, hang on.

Mr. Bartman, do you have any thoughts while we wait? Oh, Mrs. Zeno's back.

I apologize. That was very unprofessional. So to the extent that there is a very reasonable other alternative, that was what we wanted to keep that in there. I apologize.

All right. Does that answer your question, Counselor?

I think it does. I mean, through you, Mr. Chair, I understand the concern that if you are really worried about uh the building official kind of misusing this i understand that um i think we are we're trying to write this law to get the best outcomes possible which is to allow accessible means of egress to be built period um but also that whenever possible and without undue hardship um that they otherwise comply i think that that's a good goal and with the language that counselor wilson is talking about that makes sense to me okay any further discussion

I see none. Council Wilson, would you like to make a motion?

Yeah, Chair. I'll move to amend the language before us to replace possible in the drafted section 241B with feasible without undue financial hardship.

Any discussion on the motion? Do you have that, Madam Clerk?

I do.

Okay. Seeing no discussion, please call the roll.

All right. So on the motion to amend section 2.4.1b to replace the word possible with the language feasible without undue financial hardship. Councilor Davis?

Yes.

Councilor Sait? Yes. Councilor Wilson?

Yes.

Councilor Ewen-Campen?

Yes.

Councilor McLaughlin.

Yes.

That is accepted.

All right. And on the item before us, any discussion? Council Wilson.

Yeah. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I think this is a good step. I think it would have, we'd had this on the books. It might've helped us some situations in the not so distant future. not so distant past that upset a number of us watching how they unfolded. So I think this is a step forward. It's not going to solve everything. I think that, you know, as we heard from the chair of the commission for persons with disabilities, there are still other concerns, but I think that those are outside the scope of this. And I think that's something that I would happy to go return to and deal with separately. So I think this is, I'm supportive of this. I think it's a good step forward and I think we should do it.

All right. Councilor Young-Kampen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The same word is in C, possible. Is there a reason that we're not changing that to be the same? That's a question through you to Councilor Wilson, I think.

Councilor Wilson.

Mr. Chair, that is an excellent question. I'm pulling that up. B was the only one that was flagged. That doesn't mean that Councilor Ewen-Campen is not correct in asking about that.

We have the text brought up before us, Madam Clerk.

Yeah, that'd be helpful. Mr. Chair.

And Mr. Chair, I guess I would ask just if Director Zano, Director Bartman have any reason for not doing that. To me, these are other building components that, you know, are being brought to the same standard.

Mr. Zano. Through the Chair, to you, Councilor Ewen-Campen. No, we wouldn't be opposed. It was just to be even more flexible with the accessibility specifically, but the means of egress, I would agree, it's also appropriate if we want, if the language is good for that, that we could use it for that as well.

Okay. Let's see. Well, I guess, does anyone need to see the language then?

Mr. Chair, just for clarity sake, it's the last word in C section C and read there is possible. So I guess I would move to replace that possible with the same language that we had in the last which was feasible without undue financial hardship, financial hardship.

You got that, Madam Clerk?

Yes.

Any discussion on the motion? Councilor Davis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't, since this, that proposal was made in the email and that we all received separately with fine copy from Mr. Sparrow. I just wanted to get his confirmation that there's nothing from a legal standpoint. I guess it'd be really more of a zoning issue, probably in terms of if Mr. Bartman has any concerns, but. There are two very similar concepts, but they are different. Make sure everyone's on board. And I suppose that answer could come before next Thursday if it's not, if folks want to take a harder look at it.

No, I think it's the same concept. So I agree that it would be appropriate to change it in line to be consistent with the previous section.

All right. Mr. Bartman.

I'm just confused. Just confirming that the first one really affects the main building itself and the second one, the building components that are attached to it that might be providing that egress. So it's addressed in both sections. So it would be appropriate to change that language both times.

All right. Council Wilson.

Mr. Chair, I was going to do what Councilor Davis did and check with law and PPZ. So having done that, I just want to thank Councilor Ewen-Campen for the idea of doing it in both places.

All right. No further discussion on the amendment. Please call the roll.

And on the amendment to replace the word possible in section 2.4.1 C with the words feasible without undue financial hardship. Councillor Davis.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

That is accepted.

Okay, now back to the item before us. Any discussion on the item? Seeing no discussion, I shall make a motion to approve. Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, please call the roll.

And on recommendation for approval on agenda item 925-0590, Councillor Davis?

Yes.

Councillor Sait? Yes. Councillor Wilson?

Yes.

Councillor Ewen Campin?

Yes.

And Councillor McLaughlin?

Yes.

With all councillors in favor, that is recommended to be approved.

Okay. So I think we're ready for the reason everyone's here. As per the discussion at the last meeting, I think we should take up the main amendment first and then take up the items that we sent back to committee. Does that make sense to people? All right, so see, could you please read that item, Madam Clerk?

So that brings us to agenda item 525-0131, requesting ordainment of an amendment to articles 8 and 12 of the zoning ordinance to establish a new arts and innovation sub area of the master plan development overlay district.

So for people following at home and on the council, this is the main Summon Over Amendment that's been before us and we've discussed. And I'm going to open it up for discussion from the council or from anyone in the city who wanted to weigh in. Councilor Ewen-Campen.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. So I have an amendment to propose regarding the housing component. But before I do that, I kind of wanted to just share a little bit my thoughts on the Community Benefits Agreement. Primarily just because there's been so much public interest in the relationship between the Community Benefits Agreement, the vote that took place and what we're doing here at Zoning. I know that for everyone who's been following this, It's been stated clearly and doesn't need to be reiterated that they're completely separate things, right? We are just looking at the zoning that is before us, period, end of story. But that said, the CBA got an immense amount of public interest. And so I just kind of wanted to share my general thoughts, which is I am just immensely thankful to everyone who... on the neighborhood council who spent so many years kind of working on this, then negotiating, then trying to get the vote out. I'm incredibly thankful to people, you know, whether they have been following this for years or just recently got involved to turn out to vote. But I also want to emphasize From my point of view, just to say this for the record, there has never been like a moment where I've approached this as I'm going to do whatever the CBA says, right? Like if the CBA passes, I'm a yes. And if the CBA fails, I'm a no. That is not how I approach this. I don't think it's how anyone on this council approaches it. I care a lot about the public opinion opinion on this. And I think the CBA can be viewed as reflective of that in some ways. But by no means is that the be all, ends all. And I think it's really important for everyone to understand we're approaching this on the merits of the zoning. If there's a CBA on a just garbage zoning proposal, I'm not going to vote for the zoning proposal. And if there's no CBA on a really, really good zoning amendment that is just in the public interest, I will seriously consider that too. So I just want to be really clear about that. And with that, so there's one element of this. There's many elements that we've been thinking about, but one in particular. So from the very first time that we started hearing about a proposal here, it was always proposed to be 100% commercial, which was kind of like the interest of the property owner. And I have always been one of the voices saying, This should be a mixed-use development. Predominantly commercial, I understand that. That is the purpose of the FAB district. I understand the benefits to the city. This is also a neighborhood, and I think it's important that we continue to have mixed-use neighborhoods, I think. It's a very important goal for the city to continue to build new housing, especially in areas where there's going to be a lot of new jobs. And so the proposal that's before us basically has the option of building housing and no more of no, no. Eighty five percent of the development has to be commercial, but it allows for basically it's contemplated one hundred and fifty units. And I know this was considered as part of the CBA negotiations is in the public consciousness, but it's always made me uncomfortable that it's an option because basically at this point, it's kind of easy to tell everybody what they want to hear. But I would like to propose an amendment that we require the 150 units of housing. And so I've discussed this both with Director Bartman, who helped me craft a simple text amendment. I've also ran this by the developer. I'm not going to speak for them, but they're aware that I'm doing this. And no one has told me that this is, you know, they've represented to me that they're currently planning to do this. so i just want to say that and i've shared the language with the clerk earlier today and i'm happy to just read it but basically it is a two-line amendment to the section called master plan standards it is a new uh section uh roman numeral v it's in red at the bottom of the screen master plans must include at least 150 dwelling units And A, no more than 15% of the total proposed gross floor area may be provided to residential uses. So I move to amend the language before us to include this language.

Okay, on the motion, Council Wilson.

Yeah, thanks Mr. Chair. I want to thank Councilman Campin again for putting this forward. This also, you know, it solves, we've heard some concerns about the lodging use in here and this elegantly solves that issue because through basic math, it's going to limit basically you won't be able to put a hotel in there right uh the the lodging use um it's become clear to me from discussions with uh director bartman really is aimed at a very small number of potential short occupancy uh units with a goal of you know folks who are there for you know short to medium term uh working at the site would have lodging on site um as opposed to a hotel so i think this uh really elegantly solves uh both concerns that they're you know might we might not end up that we might end up with no uh no housing this and also that it might end up as a hotel so uh very supportive of this change any further discussion council site

I threw you to a counselor when campaign and I want to thank you for bringing this amendment forward. I am fully supportive of this amendment. This is some concern that I've heard from constituents. And I think this is really great way to solve it by making it. Yeah, like that this is happening. It's not just an option. Thank you.

All right, any further discussion? I'll just add that you had me at affordable housing. Seeing no further discussion, please call the roll.

All right, and on the motion to amend the language to include the text, excuse my verbiage, this may not be correct, but to add Section V, Subsection A, master plans may include at least 150 Dwelling units, no more than 15% of the total proposed gross floor area may be provided to residential uses. Councillor Davis.

Just for the record, the text on the screen reads master plans must include at least 150 dwelling units. Are we all on the same page on that?

Apologies. that I cannot read, master plans must include at least 150 dwelling units, no more than 15% of the total proposed gross floor area may be provided to residential uses.

Very good. Thank you. So make sure there's no question down the road. I vote yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Councillor McLaughlin.

Yes.

With all five councillors in agreement, that is accepted.

Okay. Any other discussion about the amendment before us, the item before us?

Councillor Ewen Campbell.

I'm happy to yield. I just have a couple questions, kind of clarifying questions, but I've already spoken, so I'll yield.

Councillor Davis.

I'm happy to follow Council Unicamp. In fact, I'd love to hear his questions first. They may be better framed versions of mine.

Neither one of you want to talk. I'm going to give it to Mr. Bartman.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to communicate. We had a request from the Union Square Neighborhood Council based on public feedback that they received to clear up confusion. They asked if we could add a few short words to the superseding building standards table, which is table 8.4.19 A. And I don't know if we can bring that up on the screen of the current version of the amendment in front of us, but there are upper story step backs in the ordinance for block one, block two, and block four. And they functionally push back the floor that's identified on the line item. And so they requested that we, for clarification reasons, that beside each instance of fourth story underneath block one, block two, and block four, that we add the words four, 75 feet, parentheses, whichever is less. There is no circumstance where the Fourth floor would be above 75 feet. So this makes sure that if three stories are built at the full height, potentially permitted under the ordinance, that they would be stepped back or the fourth floor would be stepped back, which would occur at 75 feet. If they do not build three stories of 25 feet, then it would be lower than that. So that's why it would say fourth story or 75 feet, whichever is less. So this is mainly a little bit extra text to make sure that everybody is on the same page and understands where that upper story step back happens. So that if you scroll down to the table of superseding building standards, Keep going. I'll tell you when. Right here. So at block, if you see upper story step backs minimum, and then block one fourth story after fourth story, we would be adding or 70 Yep, right there or 75 feet, parentheses, whichever is less. and then the other two instances where fourth story is listed under block two and block four would it receive the same text uh did you have more sorry no just that i'm i'm uh passing that along there's no functional difference but this is for clarification reasons and we um we were asked uh if we would transmit that and we and we agreed to so i'm i'm putting that before you for a potential amendment

Okay. Council Wilson.

Chair, I'm inclined to move to amend to include that text, but I don't want to jump ahead of anything if people wanted to discuss this. I mean, I could always make the motion and we could discuss that motion. But I'll just say I think this solves one of the – it addresses one of the issues I've heard a lot about, which is – I don't want to say confusion, but uncertainty about whether the fourth floor is stepped back or whether the step back occurs after the fourth floor, which does make a pretty considerable difference when you're looking at, you know, potentially, I think, 18 feet is sort of what we're mentally banking on for that fourth floor. so i think it matters and i think this is good i think it would address anxiety that's out there and i'm supportive of this uh i'd happy to hear from colleagues before i actually make a motion on it but i i i'm inclined to make a motion council young cabin drew the chair make that motion make the motion counselor All right, Chair, I'll move to amend the language before us to include what Director Bartman said. Basically, those instances where it says fourth story to include. Director Bartman, save me, please.

Sure, I got it. Or 75 abbreviated feet FT. So or 75 FT parentheses, whichever is less and parentheses.

Sorry, retroactively through the chair. Sorry about that, Chair.

I'm sure the good clerk has it already.

I do have that whenever you're ready.

Okay. Uh, council, you and Cameron, did you still have a comment?

No, this is one of the issues that I wanted to bring up them. This is great.

Okay. Any further discussion on the motion, please call the roll.

So on the motion to amend the, Sarah Silver, zoning table 8.4 point 19 a superseding building standards to add the text or 75 ft feet parentheses, whichever is less close parentheses. Sarah Silver, In block 12 and for next to fourth story apologies if I butchered that counselor Davis.

Yes.

Councillor Sait? Yes. Councillor Wilson?

Yes.

Councillor Ewen-Campen?

Yes.

Councillor McLaughlin?

Yes.

All councillors in favor, that amendment is accepted.

All right, Councillor Ewen-Campen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I have three clarifying questions. So the first, I've heard from some members of the public, they're concerned that the Urban Design Commission doesn't play a role seemingly. And I believe that that is a misconception, but through you to Director Bartman, can you explain the role that the Urban Design Commission would play in the master plan process?

The next step is actually a requirement of the planning board to adopt an urban design framework. Our expectation is that the urban design commission will weigh in on that framework. In Massachusetts, the planning board is charged with adopting plans. This is a plan for that area. And so they have the adoption authority, just like other planning documents in the city. So the next step would be to develop an urban design framework that would weigh in on the actual design of the streets, public spaces, the architecture of the buildings, and other physical elements that will uh be incorporated into the project um and then uh we we do anticipate uh later on when this is all going through permitting that the urban design commission would weigh in again um on each uh actual site plan approval for every street civic space or building so they are very much intended to be involved in the next step which is to adopt a urban design framework uh for the sub area

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So through you, typically the UDC does not play a role in a zoning change. Is that correct? But if this were to pass, they'd be involved in the urban design framework and then on each subsequent site plan approval. So thank you. I think that's helpful clarification. I've recently started getting questions about a hotel. And Councillor Wilson mentioned this. I just want to be really clear. if the proponent at some point in the future were to propose that some aspect of this project were a hotel um that is permitted as a commercial use is that right through the chair uh through you mr chair that uh yes that is it would be a permanent if they were sorry it is a uh

special permit based use in the base zoning district. And if there was a special permit for the master plan issued, it would make a hotel use by right. But that master plan would need to detail where and to what degree there is a hotel proposal being involved in the development, which is a completely discretionary permit. So if the community were not on board with what was being proposed, we would have the opportunity to address that when the master plan is reviewed and the discretionary permit for it issued.

OK, so Mr. Chair, and I want to be really clear, I do not think there is a proposal for a large hotel. As I understand it, there has been some discussion of, you know, if there were to be employees that needed kind of medium term stays, there might be a benefit to permitting that technically at the hotel rather than an apartment, something like that. So I'm not personally concerned about this, but having just gotten a bunch of questions, I wanted to clarify that. And then the last question I have is about sidewalk widths, which we discussed in some detail. I've heard from members of the public, typically in the high-rise, we have an 18-foot sidewalk. This looks like a 12-foot sidewalk. The proposal that we saw from the developer on Tyler Street, I recognize it's not fully designed yet, so there might not be a solid answer, but I just want to clarify my understanding is that The proposal is essentially to have a 12 foot sidewalk that is under a kind of high covered arcade, right? This is on Tyler Street we're talking about. And then an additional buffer between that sidewalk and the actual roadway where vehicles are allowed that is somewhere between three and six feet, right? So we're looking at something like functionally a 15 to 18 foot sidewalk. And through you, Mr. Chair, I want to clarify that my understanding is correct.

Through the chair, I believe that to be correct in concept. I don't know whether or not the dimensions are exactly what you cited. Normally, there is a curb walk, what's called a curb walk, on the other side of an arcade. But it might depend on what the roadway infrastructure is immediately along the columns. So for instance, there could be a bike lane there or parking. So without knowing the exact design that they would intend to propose, which I do would be forthcoming, generally you would build an arcade with some amount of sidewalk on the outer edge. So there's not just traffic going right up against the columns that are holding that arcade and portion of the building up.

Okay, Mr. Chair, thank you. That's helpful. And I had a discussion with Mr. Preston from RAFI who kind of clarified that that was very much their intent. So I will lay off for now. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

All right. Any further discussion? Councillor Davis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Councilor Young-Kampen for raising those issues. I guess. You know, we talked about the three items that are not before us, or I guess maybe it was just two that we ended up sending back. Now I can't remember, but the base, the Zonia LAMs, I still have lots of questions and concerns about that. And to some extent, this might be going a little bit backwards, but I agree. I don't have an issue with taking this approach. I'll save my discussion questions and concerns on the base zoning for that discussion. But assuming we get there, I guess I don't want this to be sort of a let's all go around and say how we're voting thing because I don't think that necessarily helps anybody much and it also may not be permitted under the rules, even though we do it all the time. So I'll stick to sort of the concerns I have and the sort of the underlying principles. And first, I just want to echo what Counselor Ewen-Campen said, the good counselor from Ward 3. And I'll speak only for myself. Like Counselor Ewen-Campen, though, I also in no way am basing my decision on whether or not the Union Square Neighborhood Council passed a community benefits agreement, right? And I absolutely echo all of the gratitude for all of the folks who volunteered their time and put incredible amount of time and hard work into all of the issues related to neighborhood councils. They're a really valuable aspect of our community here. You know, but... We just don't know. We don't know what went into people's votes in that. And I, again, I'll just speak for myself. I look at it as, anytime there's a community benefits agreement that is approved in any neighborhood, for all I know, 75% of the people that voted yes for it absolutely oppose the underlying proposed development. But if it does go through, they want to make sure they can get the best deal out of it, right? I mean, that's a perfectly rational reason for voting yes for something. And so I think it reiterates that We need to look at the zoning itself and only the zoning and not be swayed by by anything like that. At the last meeting, I asked some questions to Dr. Bartman regarding the summer vision plan and the way that this proposal can be said to align with it, or I guess the lack thereof, as the case may be. I still have really significant concerns concerns and hesitation about a plan like this, because I don't believe that we should do zoning based on developer proposals. I believe zoning is a very valuable tool that communities have that should be based on good, thoughtful, inclusive public process. And, you know, to the extent that we have, I mentioned in our last meeting, the summer vision plan talks about preserve and transform areas. This particular lots are in the preserve in the map. It talks about those concepts. It talks about housing, which up until a few moments ago, this wouldn't require at all. So I'm glad we made that amendment that was proposed to require at least some housing But I talked about doing all of that around public transit, which this is not. It's just objectively not. And I very much appreciate the... the presentation which was in response to a concern that I raised at the meeting prior to do a better job or to help me better understand how the plans would mitigate traffic concerns. I will say I'm not convinced. I think it was in the meeting towards the end that someone, I believe it might've been the chair, but I don't want to, I want to be careful here. This is going to cause traffic. It's going to cause a lot of traffic. You're putting 750 parking spots in the middle of a neighborhood that's not near a transit station that is already impossible to get around. So if you're voting yes for this, you have to accept that it's going to be an absolute negative or it will absolutely increase traffic. Whether you consider that negative or positive is your own personal opinion. It's going to create a ton of traffic, and I don't believe any argument that it's not. That might be okay, but let's be honest with ourselves about what we're talking about here. You know, and while I appreciate that it was included in that presentation that being constructed in a way that could accommodate a future commuter rail station, I think anyone who's being honest with themselves would recognize that something like that is at best a generation away. We know what the MBTA has in front of it. And you can look at it in the most positive light and highlight all of the improvements and fixes and good work that is being done right now. And I think I've never felt more optimistic about the T in the last 10, 15 years, if not longer. but realistically there's no T stop going in to that spot for a long, long, long time. Um, so I don't really factor that into my analysis either. Um, And I guess I'll continue. I still want to hear a conversation because honestly, I still am on the fence on this. I don't like the idea of zoning backwards. I don't like the idea of having a public process that is sort of responsive to something that in no way reflects any other public planning conversation that we've had. I will say the one, and to me, it's a significant factor is that If the base zoning is appropriate, then anything beyond that does require an overlay. And we just heard in response to the good counsel from Ward 3's questioning, the extensive additional public process that would be required in order for a master plan to go forward. you know, and I, I would caution if, if this passes, I would caution, you know, any future, um, special public granting authority, um, or other regulatory body to, um, you know, to, to understand that at least part of the discussion is I'm having here right now on the legislative record is that this still might not be the best plan, you know, and, and, and that there still needs to be a very, very careful eye, um, cast on, on any proposals because, um, A, things change, and B, well, I'll just leave it at that. Things change. I want to set a pin in part of the discussion about the base zoning, because I also think it's important in considering this proposal that's before us, which is like, none of this might happen at all. It's entirely possible that in today's universe between financing, construction costs, just the overall political environment, would anybody be surprised if in a week, some thing happens that makes this project possible? you know, be pushed to the back burner. I certainly wouldn't. I've seen it already in other places in the community. So, you know, I, It's my opinion. Certainly my vote is not going to be cast upon assuming this will happen. I assume this won't happen until it does. And I think we should be very careful about making assumptions like that because things absolutely change. And that will inform my discussion of the base zoning because that has to be acceptable as is without anything else or we should vote no on it. So that's all I'll say about now. If there's any further discussion, I'd be very interested in hearing it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. And I usually like to wait till everyone speaks, but Councilor Davis, I'm looking at my notes and you touched on every point that I wanted to discuss. So I figured now's a good time to chime in. So I agree that I do not like zoning by petition, mostly because this project has jumped the line on a lot of other issues. And it's because it's a very affluent developer who wants it and was able to get a dozen or so people to agree to put this on the petition and have it come before us. So it's jumped a lot of things like citywide upzoning that I'd like to discuss and has really consumed the committee for the past few months. On the other hand, you know, there's a reason they have the right to do this. And it's because government moves slow a lot. And, you know, if we some of the projects we've had that have been approved, if a developer wasn't pushing it, it probably never would have happened. And it is just part of Massachusetts general law that people are allowed to do this. So here we are, regardless of whether this is the process I would have liked. We're here. And there are two things that Council Davis, you touched on that I have heard from the community as well. The big one being traffic, which is to me the number one most legitimate concern. And I don't dismiss anyone's concerns about this. And I also, no matter what numbers you show me, I look at this project and I think traffic is going to increase. But I also just feel like any project we do in the city, traffic is going to increase. And in this instance, I actually was satisfied with the proposal for how to mitigate traffic, because I feel like that's the most we can do besides saying you're never going to have another car in the city again, is to mitigate the traffic. And I also just think about, you know, this is a commercial development in a city that does not have much commercial development compared to other places. And just citywide or regionally thinking, would this project be better in Watertown, where everyone is guaranteed to drive to the station? Everyone who works there or wants to have fun there, they will have to drive to the Watertown destination if it was there, for example. I'm just using that as an example of a city that has a lot of commercial interest, and people will have to use a car to get there. Whereas here, at least in Somerville, where we're kind of leading the way on bikes, on pedestrian accessibility, and there is a plan, it just seems like the effort to mitigate traffic, I was satisfied with that, and I wouldn't want to stop almost any project based solely on traffic if it was traffic and a bunch of other issues then i would be more interested in hearing that but i felt satisfied with the bus proposals the plan to encourage people to not drive here and hopefully we continue building our own infrastructure so that people will drive less which will make the people who have to drive or want to drive make it easier on them But then the other issue I heard was summer vision and how this is listed as a preserve area, not an enhance or transform area. And that was also the sole no vote on the planning board cited Summer Vision as the reason they didn't support this. And I've been a person who's been critical of Summer Vision in the past, mostly because I'm like, why do we have a plan if we're just going to ignore it every time a developer wants something? And it just seems like it gets thrown out the wayside. fairly often, but I understand the intent of Summer Vision and the guidelines that it provides. In this particular project, I am actually surprised that it wasn't listed as transform or enhance because as long as I've been around, first of all, this place was really abandoned for a long time. And it's an industrial area by a train line. And what I see happening in the city is a lot of development being done on train lines or former train lines like the community path. And this is where the industrial areas were before. And now it seems like it's coming back again. And I think for the most part, for the better, where was I? But I've seen this area transform dramatically in just the past decade or so. Like a lot of things have happened in this area. There's been an increased interest that did not exist when I was a lot younger. And something like Aeronaut probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for zoning changes in different areas. And we might be just an envelope factory. Like you can only build envelope factories in this area until we change the zoning. So it seems like actually the appropriate place for an industrial use. And I do agree that No train line in the distant future, that's a strike against it. But I do expect more projects like this to come down the pipeline and want to build by train lines, which will hopefully encourage them in their own interests and in the city's interest to continue building more rail and get some sort of commuter rail or green line extension further down. this whole corridor. So I actually view this as a transform area, despite what Summer Vision says. And I just also feel like there's been a lot of compromise on behalf of the developer, a lot of negotiations from the neighborhood council and this committee to address as many concerns as possible. And I do look at other zoning issues that have happened in the past that have had far less compromise. and far less attention to the community's legitimate concerns. And they got fast-tracked in ways that I didn't like. So I feel positive about the compromise that came out of this. And I'll just stop talking there, but thank you, Councilor Davis, because those are the points that I wanted to address as well. At this point, I feel satisfied with the results. I got Councilor, I'll go with Councilor Wilson and Councilor Ewen-Campen.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. I appreciate your comments and the comments from Councilor Davis reminding us just how tenuous this will remain, even if it gets every approval from the city just because of what's happening out there. This has been a really contentious issue, as we all know. We normally get emails about contentious issues, sometimes a lot of them. In this case, it goes well beyond emails. I probably had more meetings and attended more gatherings of neighbors about this than any other issue before the council during my time as a counselor, and that really says something. I believe in listening to people. I've listened to everyone who talks to me about this, and I'll say the neighbors' concerns are absolutely valid. This is going to negatively impact them from construction to shadows to traffic. 100%. No one should be out there invalidating how people feel when they talk to us about that. There's some downsides to this. Real downsides. The process, as we've talked about, it started out really poorly. I don't love... the idea of a developer writing zoning. I just, on the principle of it, it just really sticks in my craw. I saw how there was a course correction with that central Somerville lab work. It was confusing to the public, right? You know, initially there were questions about what is this, you know, until people realized what it actually was. uh the the time of day of some of those meetings like during work days uh was rough for some people to attend but that you know credit that was a course correction um you know as you've talked about charon uh this goes against uh summer vision uh 2040 that you know the fact it was uh conserved not not enhance or transform um i just you know i understood why that decision was made at the time we had artisans asylum in there it looked like something we wanted to protect uh I think a different decision would have been made today. I wish we could just acknowledge that things have changed and that's why it has nothing to do with maps or how we feel about maps. It's just about the change since that summer vision process. The traffic and parking. I've said something similar to this in here. It feels like a transit-oriented development, but there's no transit there and none likely to arrive. Let's be real about that. I appreciate that the traffic and mobility presentations that we got, I want to name that that was going above and beyond because typically at this stage, we're not getting that. That's something that typically the mobility management, that all comes in later, typically down the road during the... the master planning process. So it was good to get some semblance of numbers. We're going to be left, you know, like I said, the past meeting, we're going to be left to trust the process there and make sure that staff and the planning board are putting some teeth in there and making sure that those benchmarks are actually, you know, being enforced. I just, like others, I'm left wondering how we're going to get all those cars in and out of an already congested area during those peak times. I do appreciate the breakdown of traffic, the fact that a bunch of those spaces right now are EV spaces. I don't know if this was mentioned, but there's already, I think, probably, I don't know, around, I think the estimate I got was around 120 cars already going into that site currently on a daily basis for the companies that are in there. So it lowers that number, but it still just remains to me a real concern. We just have to be real and acknowledge that traffic's going to get worse from this. It's bad there already, and it's going to get worse. even with really good plans to try to mitigate that. I had similar concerns about Boynton Yards. Medford Street was really congested there. I was wondering how we were going to get people in and out of there. We haven't had the chance to see the ultimate result just because that larger building is untenanted still, and I think there are some vacancies also at 101 South Street. But yeah, we'll just have to keep an eye on that. And then the final downside, light and shadows. The butters to the north have solar panels installed or planned for install that might end up useless. And that's rough. And then we can finally just acknowledge the impact on anyone looking to do some gardening in the back there. But there are upsides. The municipal tax revenues, it's going to be good for the city's bottom line. We find ourselves... really constrained here as we know the past uh couple budget seasons we've we've seen that new growth really slow down this would be good for the city right uh it's going to create jobs both the union construction jobs there thanks to the pla and uh permanent jobs in the innovation economy there it's going to restore art space we heard how zoning changes would bring us back to bring back some art spaces that used to be at the site and it it solves the problem as the chair mentioned of the Ames envelope building, right? This is a industrial site that's, uh, you know, yeah, it's surrounded on three or four sides by residential, but it, it is a former industrial site and it keeps, uh, we hear it's, it's likely to keep the bouldering project and aeronaut there as, as anchor tenants in that development, uh, as well as the community space there that, uh, is smaller than originally proposed, but still badly needed. Uh, So, yeah, that's, you know, as I'm looking at this and seeing pros and cons, those are the pros and cons. I guess I'll leave it there for now.

Council, you and Kaepernick.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I am supportive of moving this out of committee, recommending approval to the full council and having that discussion with the full council. And I don't I'm not going to give a big speech tonight or anything. There is. Enormous concern. I know. And I very much respect from from a lot of people who live there. And I don't want to try to oversimplify. But to me, what has really emerged as like the two central things that people don't like are the size of the building. buildings, the traffic impacts, and then something that's like a little bit harder to quantify in zoning, but like the soul of Somerville, right? Like I've had like very meaningful conversations with people who are worried about just an onslaught of, you know, high value, large snazzy developments, kind of like being a real, increasing the threat of displacement, kind of changing the nature of our community. And those are all extremely legitimate um so the way that i've been approaching this is not so much like do we vote for this or do we vote for a utopian alternative it's is this as good as we can get and is it good enough to um to support compared to the alternatives and you know when i hear the the concerns about um that all zoning should be city-led. That sounds great to me on paper. And then I remember all the proposals that I've lived through that were city-led. I think about a proposed development at Glass Stop next to Target. That was part of the zoning overhaul. I think about a proposal on Webster Street that was part of the zoning overhaul. I think about Union Square. The idea that those were popular and non-controversial, that's not the case. The fact that it comes from the city, does not mean that there is overwhelming public support for things. So to me, regardless of the legal process that put this before us, it's been about the outcome, what is actually before us. And I just frankly think that there is a lot of good that comes with this. Just on a kind of basic level, like the creation of a ton of new green tech jobs and all of the subsidiary jobs that those create, those are great. I learned today the proposed linkage fee for affordable housing is $35 million. That is great. The proposed art space, a large amount of which will be below market rate, is great. I mean, these are very, very good things. And then they need to be balanced with the potential negative outcomes. My own opinion, this, you know, maybe people are gonna chop my head off for this, but I think the construction is going to be where we see the biggest traffic impacts. You know, having been the ward counselor for the Spring Hill project, The thing that really makes it bad is when there's street closures. There's daily rush hour traffic, which is really, really bad. And we were presented with data last time that this one is going to lead to between one and four additional cars per traffic light for phase one. And then there's a check-in for phase two that can be stopped if things aren't working. the construction impacts are very real. But then I think about what we heard from Director Postalwaite, a construction project under the base zoning, the current zoning or our proposed base zoning is from their point of view, indistinguishable from if there were to be development under this overlay in terms of construction impacts. They're still doing the types of construction and the numbers of vehicles kind of regardless. So again, like when we're weighing between the actual the real options that are before us, to me that's not disqualifying. So I obviously have a lot more to say, which I'll say when this is before the full council, but all that to say, I'm supportive of moving this out of committee. I think the reason that we have gotten to this point is because this is a proposal that requires city council approval, which is not the case for a lot of other developments, right? And because of that, it's been very responsive to a lot of the community, pressures that all of us feel and thereby like we've needed to exert on this thing. And I think that that has been a huge benefit. And, you know, that's why I think I'm ready to move this out of committee.

Chancellor Said.

Through you, Chairman McLaughlin. I have a question about moving this out of committee. What would be the path after that? Anisha, I love the concerns. So that's my question. I just want to say, as someone who has joined this committee just a few months ago and my second year on the council, I certainly felt a lot of pressure. This is not in my board, but I still have heard from so many constituents about this, the concerns that I've raised. since we started discussing this in committee, whether it's the construction impact or the traffic mitigation. Again, these are things we can keep working on, but probably the biggest one is the scale of this development. So I just feel like a few weeks of discussions in this committee among five city councillors just aren't enough. And I'm constantly asking this question to myself, is this good enough? Not having a lot to compare it to, as I said, it is my first term and it is kind of, yeah, very... a very intimidating project to look at and figure out all the different pieces. So yeah, again, my question is, what's the process after it gets moved out of committee and discussed by the full council?

So I can answer that. So there's two ways we can move it on a committee is one, we could take a vote. And if it votes yes or no, it would still be sent to the full council for a larger vote later. And then we could also discharge it without a recommendation, which we've done in the past, which means no vote is taken, but then the full council weighs in on it. I feel prepared to vote myself. I think council, you and cabinet sounded like that's what you were saying. And either way, like just like last week too, we voted several items out of committee, improved them and sent them right back to committee because the larger council didn't have or wanted more input. Um, so we, we, we could vote tonight and it would still get referred to the full council on Thursday and nothing gets decided until that final vote. Does that answer your question?

Yes. And also follow up to that. So we have two council meetings before recess. Like, does this have, uh, like this application does have, do they have a deadline? Um, yeah, so. It does? Yeah.

Sorry. It looks like Liaison Radassi had an update on that one.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you to Councillor Sait, yes, the deadline for action on this item is June 29th. The last time the City Council will have a council meeting before that deadline is June 26th. So the last opportunity for this council to vote on this item would be the council meeting scheduled for June 26th.

Councilor Haight?

Yeah, thank you. That's what I wanted to know. I'll be checking on that. Thank you.

All right. Any further discussion? Any motions?

Mr. Chair, I'll move to recommend approval.

Okay. Councilor Ewen Campbell moves to recommend approval. Any discussion?

I'm sorry, I just want a clarification on that. Recommend approval to move it past committee?

Yeah, so this particular, there's still two other items about this, but this is the big Samo Novo vote, and he's moving to recommend approval, correct, Counselor?

That's correct.

All right, so we vote yes or no. Uh, either way, whatever way that vote goes, it goes to the full council next Thursday, um, for discussion and a vote. All right. Any further questions, comments, please call the roll.

And this is roll call for approval on agenda item 5 25 dash 0 1 3 1. Counselor Davis.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Ewen-Campen?

Yes.

Councilor McLaughlin?

Yes.

The five councilors in favor, that is recommended to be approved.

Okay, so this will again come to the full council next Thursday for a full vote. And we still do have two other items that are tangentially, we voted these out of committee last week, but there were some questions. Could you read those two items, Madam Clerk?

Just to confirm, you'd like to take seven and eight up together?

Yes, thank you.

Okay, so that brings us to agenda item 725-0128 requesting ordainment of an amendment to articles 6, 9, and 10 of the zoning ordinance to establish a new research and development zoning district and agenda item 825-0129 requesting ordainment of an amendment to articles 2, 3 through 6, and 9 of the zoning ordinance to revise the regulations for arts and creative enterprise office and residential uses.

Okay. So I see Director Galigani is here. He was present at the last meeting when questions were raised. And Mr. Bartman, too, if you had to weigh in. Council Scott had some questions. And I believe an email was sent. But could you give us a response or an update on where we're at on this?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I see Mr. Gallaghani's mic is on, but Mr. Bartman's hand is raised. We'll go with Mr. Well, Director Gallaghani, are you there? I see your mic is on, but I can't hear you.

Can you hear me?

Yes, there we go.

Thank you. Through the chair, we Dan and I met with Director Bartman and I met with Counselor Scott Monday morning to really to debrief after the last Thursday's meeting and to brainstorm about ways to address his concern and his concern revolves around the fear that this developer might choose to develop under the proposed R and D base district. And so after probably about a 45 minute discussion, we feel like we have a solution to address his concerns. And that would be one simple change. And that is to limit the maximum number of stories to be allowed to be built to two. Right now it says four. By reducing it to two, it provides a further disincentive for someone to use this base district to build. What it does do, it still provides the opportunity for businesses to expand in the existing building, particularly the climate tech companies. It allows them to expand. And it also, as the basic district is designed to do, it provides the basis for the overlay that you just forwarded to the full council. So it... It provides the uses, the set of uses that are allowed in the overlay. Of course, the overlay amplifies those uses and amplifies the building opportunity. So we think this works. We think it's a simple solution. And Councillor Scott certainly agrees with this. So that's a change that we'd recommend for sure.

All right. Councillor Davis and then Councillor Wilson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Director Galigani, as always. Appreciate your input. As I hinted at earlier, several things to say about this. But first, just really a question. When Councillor Scott raised his concerns in the meeting on last Thursday, the context was that we were potentially preparing to pass these base zoning items without having passed the overlay district, which this committee has just recommended approval of, which of course that could change at the council level, but I want to be entirely comfortable that whatever, you know, as I said, at the end of the last discussion, to take the overlay out of the analysis, right? I think we absolutely cannot count on this particular developer moving forward with anything. Director Galagana, you said, well, the concern might be that this developer would build to the base. My concern is that anybody might build to the base district. And, you know, lest anyone think this is a hypothetical concern, I mean, I guess at the end of the day, perhaps it is, but in 2019, you know, I was looking to upzone for more density in the Davis Square neighborhood, but we weren't ready to do that as part of the as part of the entire zoning overhaul citywide. And so what we did was essentially more or less zone it for what had already been permitted with the stated intention that that was sort of a placeholder. And you know, to tip my hat to the good counselor from Ward 3 who mentioned in our last discussion that publicly planned and promoted zoning changes often take a long time. Here we are six years later, and I still don't have that additional density in exchange for community benefits in Davis Square. But in the meantime, a developer came in and said, oh, four stories, great, sure, we'll build that. So, you know, it absolutely could happen. So I want to be 100% comfortable with whatever the base zoning is, because I'm going to assume that nothing else will happen because that is what the zoning says. Somebody could come in tomorrow and scrap everything else that has been discussed and just decide to build to the base zoning. Or this developer that we've been having conversations with could go out of business because some other unrelated deal that some of their finance people are involved in could go tank for any number of reasons. And as I said, there's certainly no shortage of hypothetical scenarios in our current world environment that could lead to that type of a dramatic unforeseen change. So Coming back to my original point, Councillor Scott had raised concerns about the risk of passing this base zoning as is without the overlay because he had concerns with the base zoning. So you mentioned the two-story height, bringing it down to two-story height as a possible solution. I don't disagree with that. But I want to hear the response. I want to fully understand the issue that Councillor Scott actually raised, which is that there are, as he explained it, there are uses permitted in the proposed R&D zone that are not currently permitted on these parcels as it's currently zoned under FAB. So whether to you, Director Galigani or Director Bartman, can you please clearly explain if we were to pass the base zoning, what could happen in these parcels that could not happen right now so that we understand whether we're okay with that or not?

Through the chair. Again, there's a couple of different moving items. And we talked about this last week. The proposed ACE changes, ACE definition changes are going to make the existing fabrication district, if they're approved, and again, you've yet to discuss that tonight or even recommend that for approval, but if you were to approve that, it would significantly limit the kinds of uses that could occur in our fabrication districts. We're okay with that. All of us are. That was the intent of tightening up the ACE definitions. Particularly, it closes that loophole, that so-called shared spaces loophole, But if we do that, then we're making Greentown Labs, the engine, and their affiliated companies all non-conforming. So we're trying to do a couple of different things at the same time. So the base district accomplishes that. This proposed base district accomplishes that. It creates basically a carbon copy of the fabrication district, but it allows the uses that we want to see stay, those climate tech companies, those growing technology companies. So it's all that works together. Secondly, By limiting the maximum building stories to two.

I'm sorry. You're creating a situation. Forgive me, Director Galagani, but if I could interrupt, because I don't want to move away to the second point, because your answer to the first point is, in my ear, a direct contradiction to what we heard last Thursday, to what Counselor Scott explained.

But that's what I explained last week. Well, through the chair. I'm repeating what I explained last week.

Remind everyone, please, one at a time, because people, you can't understand what everyone's saying. Counselor Davis and then Director Galigani.

Through the chair to you, Director Galigani. Counselor Scott explained a concern that the creation of the R&D zone and the mapping of that zone to the Summer Nova parcels, not Greentown Labs, to the Summer Nova parcels, would allow certain uses that are not permitted under fabrication. And if that's true, that might be fine. And you all, Dr. Bartman, may have explained that in the meeting last week in a slide. If so, I guess I missed it, which is entirely possible. I don't mean that to be snarky. I just... I want to understand if that is true or not. And if so, what are those uses? And I think what I just heard you say, Dr. Gallaghani, is that it's not true. All we're doing is stripping some of those uses out of the arts district, which would make them no longer permitted in Greentown labs. The concern that I heard from Councillor Scott is that there would be new uses permitted on those summer NOVA parcels that if an overlay did not go through, raised a concern for him. So I want to understand that specific issue, because that is what the good Councillor from Ward 2 raised. I see Director Bartman with his hand up. And if he's able to answer that question, I would welcome it through you, Mr. Chair, to anyone who can directly address this concern that Councillor Scott raised.

And Director Bartman, can you address this?

through the chair to the clerk. I don't know if our presentation from either March 20th or I believe May 1st is available, but there should be a chart in there that compares the difference of land uses permitted in the fabrication district and the proposed R&D district. And that would be the R&D district understands that the lab amendment that was already passed and the ACE amendment that is in front of you tonight, it's based off of both of those. So it's a future condition situation that we could, if I can also share my screen if that's faster and just go straight to that. We didn't send a deck for tonight, but it would be,

A slide from looking for apologies through the chair just one.

Would it be easier for Dan to share the screen?

OK, March 20 will be.

It's the one that says arts and innovation area with all three correct.

Yes, and then if you go to slide 44.

Let me see if this is correct. Is that what you're looking for?

Yes. Okay. So this was in both of those prior presentations, just to recall for everybody's memory. In the red boxes, you can see the differences between the land uses permitted, in the base R&D district versus the fabrication zoning district. I think some of the additional ones, for instance, bar, restaurant, or food hall, cafe, or coffee shop, there's a lot of special permits here. So that's one thing to remember. But some of these uses reflect what is currently inside those buildings today. The one thing to remember is that Greentown Labs occupies two different buildings, one of them their own along Somerville Ave, one of them on the campus owned by Raffi Properties. And so the mapping of the R&D district was meant to capture Greentown Labs, the engine, and a lot of the businesses that have spun out of them that are also within those other buildings. So there would be some impact if the map were to be changed. But a lot of those uses are either manufacturing or still R&D today. But the Greentown Labs and the engine are a business incubator. That's part of the labs amendment that you just passed the other week. And also with that one co-working. I'm sorry, that's part of the ACE amendment. So if we... revise the ACE uses and get rid of shared workspaces, like what was discussed in that amendment, business incubator and co-working are created under office and then would be permitted in the R&D district. They are not permitted in the fabrication district because that is the exact findings of the art space risk assessment that leaving those two uses as part of a shared workspace was a threat to the more artist-oriented space requirements in the fabrication district. So you'll notice that maintenance and repair services, some personal services things are now permitted, whereas they're a no in the fab district. That is primarily because they're on campus already. And there was an interest amongst the public for us to make sure that those were also permitted uses. So that's the nature of the differences that you see here was based on feedback that we got specifically from those involved. So the main changes of what's permitted is maintenance and repair services, some personal services, Of course, the rec camp, sorry, that was a prior amendment. And then the business incubator co-working scientific research and development and testing laboratory, which are the direct result of our amendment to arts uses and the amendment to labs uses that was also just recently passed last week.

Council Davis.

Okay. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Director Bartman, thank you for that. Okay. So that all makes sense. As I said, I think I look at this as I have, you know, with a great deal of skepticism based on experience, but So I think I would encourage my colleagues to consider this in the context of this being the zoning to which somebody builds. And if we're okay with that, fine. And if not, then we should make changes. It was just proposed that one way to effectively try and keep anything from being built that isn't already there would be to reduce the zoning to two stories. However, the use doesn't, through the chair to Director Reitman, correct me if I'm wrong, but the use really has nothing to do with building something. If this change was made, somebody could come in and use the existing buildings for all of these purposes, which they currently wouldn't be permitted other than to the extent that they're grandfathered, correct?

Through the chair, that is correct. They would be pre-existing non-conforming. They would have limitations on their ability to expand.

and change okay thank you that's all questions i have for the moment thank you council wilson yeah thanks chair um i appreciate counselor davis's questions about use um i'll say i like the idea here before us just because i feel like it disincentivizes uh you know the buy right R&D development. And I think it also disincentivizes, you know, basically flipping a lot of fab to R&D elsewhere because fab would be more advantageous in terms of what's allowable in terms of the height and the density there. So, yeah, I think this is a good update. Are we really not supposed to say that we're supportive of this? I'll say I'm supportive of this.

You're allowed to say whatever you, well, whatever's within your rights. Any further discussion on this item or these items? Leah Zonrodasi.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to flag and highlight that Director Gallaghani said that based on his conversation with Counselor Scott, who's the board counselor for this area, that he had some proposed language. So I think... And Director Galigani can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe he would be seeking, this is just clarification for me, to add that language before moving forward with this proposal. Excuse me, just wanted to clarify that, sorry.

Yes, I was going to bring that up. However, a council needs to make that motion if they so desired. Councilor Davis.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Leah Zendredazzi. I was moving my cursor to the raise hand button for that very purpose. And Director Galgani, I haven't had an opportunity to speak with you, but I did have an opportunity to speak with Director Bartman. And so just to make sure I understand, the proposal that you all recommend is to reduce the height allowed in the R&D to two stories. And is that the only proposal, or is there also a proposal to adjust the map so that it would not expand unnecessarily beyond the Greentown Labs use?

Through the chair, we're not looking to change the map at all. The one simple change would be, more precisely, would be to limit the maximum number of stories to two. The height It's the same. It's fine. We've got it set right now in the proposal at 55 feet. So we're fine with that. But instead of squeezing in up to four stories within that and really increasing the amount of floor density and what can happen there, just limit that to maximum of two stories within that 55 feet.

may i follow up mr chair please okay thank you i i i guess i had forgotten about the nuance between height and stories um in zoning which is always fun um is that gonna work because i i just you know as i said i've been i've seen this happen in the past where we left something in place that seemed like it would you know be a disincentive until we got more you know more appropriate zoning in place and and you know somebody came in and said we'll build to the to what's permitted so uh you know i guess i i question whether we were really confident i mean we've heard about the types of uses potential uses um in the in the overlay proposal that have you know large large story heights that there's benefits for that and moving stuff around like are we are Are we really confident that someone's not going to come and build two really tall stories then if the overlay project falls through and they're looking for what else they can do to maximize the ownership?

Through the chair. We're confident. Nothing is 100% for sure. There's a couple different safeguards, right? Number one, we're all assuming that if the overlay passes, Rafi will build to the overlay. And if they don't, it's because of some reason. It's not going to be immediately. They're not going to quickly pivot to do that. That would be a violation of the trust that they've built in the community. So we're pretty confident that they're not going to then pivot and build less square footage than they currently have right now with their existing buildings. Their existing buildings are, I think, 45 feet tall and at least two stories in some places, three stories. So, you know, again, nothing's perfect and we're not going to design a perfect solution that's going to do everything and anticipate every future possible outcome. other fail safe is if you're not comfortable with this in a couple weeks a couple months a couple years you can further change the zoning you could mess around and do whatever you like you're certainly your prerogative as the legislative body director bartman did you have something to add to that uh to you mr chair tom basically said the same things i was about to say the uh the

You'll remember that Greentown Labs added some second floor space when they expanded into their second building. It's typically challenging from a financial standpoint to... completely replace if all you're able to add is one more story so even the one-story buildings are going to have a hard time because they're going to remove all economic productivity of the land while they add that second floor and that has a cost related to it so generally development doesn't happen unless you can replace it with multiple stories and uh as director galgani mentioned that some of these buildings already have three floors inside of them um making it even less likely that they would be replaced by a two-story even though that would that this district would permit them to replace it with high bay space, which is one of the things that all of those uses are looking for is higher ceilings to do more of their work. They're more like office research and warehouse all in one room. And so the warehousing space is kind of what sends that ceiling height higher. Um, but unlikely, uh, that, that these lots all replace themselves. There might be one or two and, and maybe even some pop-ups that we might see on the one story buildings, but, but, uh, we don't anticipate a wholesale replacement at two floors.

Okay. Yeah, I think it was true. Just let final point of this, I guess, look, um, okay. I hear you. And, uh, you know, I, I just, uh, if the ward council is concerned about the uses that would now be permitted, you know, I, I'm, I, I'm, I'm not, I'm assuming that's going to be what, what is, you know, what is ultimately permitted. And so, you know, I wouldn't, I guess we can have the conversation next Thursday if there's still concern, if there's still concerns, hopefully this all goes through and a fantastic new development happens and everybody rides bikes and takes the shuttle to it. So that's all for now, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bartman. Well, I'll set, Councilor Ewen-Campen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I guess the way that I'm struggling with this a little bit is that there's kind of two things we're talking about. One is the base zoning effectively being a disincentive so that the overlay is incentivized. That's, I think, how I typically think of a base zoning versus an overlay. And with that in mind, two stories would be preferable. It's less incentivized to build the base zoning if it's only two stories. Understood. Then there's the other part of it, which Councillor Davis has brought up, which absolutely right, which is, yeah, but things can change and maybe the base zoning gets built. And then the question is, so what's a better base zoning to have if it does get built two or four stories? I'm personally look, I've already voted this out of committee once. So like I'm I was comfortable with four stories and I am now like I don't think it's a good necessarily a great decision for the city to just make everything that gets built a little bit smaller because you know we just don't like stuff um i think you know the this r&d it has a it has a arts and creative um uh requirement the smaller the building gets the less of that we get you know they're presumably if this is getting developed it's for some purpose that's good for the city of you know space for companies and why are we just kind of randomly making that smaller um But the reason is to disincentivize. So the way that I'm thinking about this, I was prepared to support this at Four Stories as is. As I understood the ward counselor's concern, it was if the overlay vote failed and the only change we were to make is to just pass the base zoning with no overlay, that would be a concern of his because then you're like 100% tipping the scales, like the base zoning will be built basically. That's how I understood the concern. But we can hear directly from him. I think whatever comes out of this committee, we're going to hear from the ward counselor. But I'm, at this point, personally comfortable with the language that's already before us. But if it's, you know, if I could certainly be convinced that it's better to have the disincentive at two stories.

Mr. Bartman.

Through you, Mr. Chair, to the full land use committee. i do understand that to be uh the counselors uh uh counselor scott's uh concern also um the combination of four stories 60 feet and the broader list of uses that are permitted if the overlay is not advanced uh uh in my understanding his communication was that that that is where his concern lies where And that this could be a solution if the arts and innovation overlay was not adopted or not passed out a committee with a favorable recommendation. Um, so I do, I do think by addressing one of those, um, that you reduce the risk, um, that was perceived, uh, and like, uh, counselor, you and Kim had just brought up, uh, you can hear that next Thursday, um, uh, straight from counselor Scott. Um, so I, I did want to share that. I also believe that that was, uh, his intent.

Any further discussion?

Um,

I'll weigh in and just say thank you, Councilor Ewen-Campen, for simplifying a complicated point. Because what I was struggling with as well is, well, we're supposed to be viewing this as zoning and not by the developer or who is going to potentially view this in the future. So do we want this building to be two stories or four stories? And if we're reducing it to two to make sure no other developer does it, then I don't feel comfortable with that. and if we're okay with the building being four stories for anybody we should just allow that um so it sounds like i would prefer to keep it as is as well and hopefully this discussion and the approval of the uh overlay uh satisfies the ward counselor uh so that's where i'm at um any further discussion on these items any motions amendments

Councillor Davis.

Thank you, Ms. Chair. Um, given that the, uh, ward council discussions with the administration resulted in a recommendation to reduce the stories to two stories. I will, uh, so move.

Okay. So you're making the motion on the amendment.

Yes, sir.

Okay. And can we have that amendment? Uh, just so everyone understands it. Mr. Bartman.

uh if the clerk could bring up the research and development district uh i could talk us through uh the line item that would be edited one moment apologies to the chair do you know one one second I believe it is Research and Development District updated 4-20. What meeting?

April 20th. Okay.

That's when we updated the document. I don't know if that's the meeting. It might be the 5-1 meeting.

Okay. Apologies. I just don't have that pulled up right away, but I will find it in just one moment. You said updated 420? Yes. Correct, that was attached, okay. Just swap screens. Is that accurate?

The table where the building, the commercial building type is where we would be editing, even if this is the prior version of that, We're providing the city council the revisions as discussed today in PDF format for Thursday. So if you look at number of stories, that's the same, that's been the same consistent through all the versions of this. Back of one page, yep, right there. Number of stories, min, max, two to four. So you would delete the four and you would delete the min. from it within the parentheses. And that will leave behind number of stories max at two.

Apologies. Can you just explicitly say what section this is that we're in? And I will happily write that down. I don't want to be scrolling while we're right here.

One second. That is section six, five. seven C number of stories under main matting. And we would delete the word min and the number four.

Okay.

All right, and as the maker of the motion, Councilor Davis, just want to confirm this is what your intention is?

That looks to reflect what we heard from Director Galigani in his discussion with the ward councillor, so yes.

Okay, any discussion on the motion? See you, Councilor Wilson.

Yeah, thanks, Jared. Having previously expressed support for this, I'll say I take my colleagues' points about four versus two. And ultimately, I'm left feeling sanguine about this just because of the fact that any map changes from FAB to R&D would need council approval. So I'm going to put my faith in future additions of the city council to safeguard FAB and not just... Toss out the those protections that it's afforded here. So yeah, I'm inclined to not make this change and just and just roll with what we have Okay, any further discussion.

Once going twice. Alright, call the roll.

So this is real call on the amendment to section 657 C main mass table E to strike the word minimum and the number four. Councillor Davis.

Yes.

Councillor Sait. Yes. Councillor Wilson.

No.

Councillor Ewen-Campen.

No.

Councillor McLaughlin.

No.

The noes have it that motion is not adopted.

Okay. Any other discussion on... So we do have two amendments before us. Any discussion on the two items? Do I hear any motions? Council Wilson.

Mr. Chair, motion to approve... Motion to recommend approval of both.

Okay. Can we take up both, Madam Clerk, or are we going to do them separately?

We will do it separately, but we can do it back-to-back.

Okay, sounds good. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, please call the roll.

And on the recommendation for approval on agenda item 725-0128, Councillor Davis?

Yes.

Councillor Sait? Yes. Councillor Wilson?

Yes.

Councillor Ewen-Campen?

Yes.

Councillor McLaughlin?

Yes.

With five counselors in favor, that is recommended to be approved. And on the recommended to be approved agenda item 825-0129, Councillor Davis?

Yes.

Councillor Sait? Yes. Councillor Wilson?

Yes.

Councillor Young-Kampen?

Yes.

Councillor McLaughlin?

Yes.

The five counselors in favor, that is recommended to be approved.

Okay, so again, all these items will be referred to next Thursday's full council meeting for a full vote. And that's it for those. I do believe we have one more item, correct, Madam Clerk?

Yes, that brings us to agenda item 625-0085 by Councilor McLaughlin, Councilor Davis, and Councilor 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.

Charlie W. All right, we have our land use analyst samantha car with us who's waited several meetings to talk to us. Charlie W. samantha do you have any updates for us anything you'd like to discuss.

Samantha Carles, Thank you chair, and I do have a couple of slides prepared. that are addressing some questions from the last time we had a chance to chat about this item, namely councillors who were asking about if we could have a breakdown of the number of dwelling units that were constructed by district since the substantive update to Somerville zoning code in 2019. So happy to share those slides, answer any questions folks have, and then open this item for further discussion to see where we'd like to move this forward in the subsequent months.

Please proceed. You have the floor.

Thank you. So just to provide an update to folks here on the building permit data, if we could go to the next slide, please. So provided a breakdown here, we chatted through kind of gross number of net new dwelling units per year permitted under the new zoning since 2019. So that would be the abbreviated period for 2019 and then the full calendar year from 2020 forwards. What I've done here is I've broken this down into two slides. One is kind of focusing on non-residential uses, so commercial core, commercial business, commercial industry, civic fabrication, and neighborhood business uses. So you can see here I've highlighted in green which district had the highest net new number of dwelling units permitted per year. So the standout ones here we can see in 2021 were commercial industry and then with a smaller net amount coming from civic in 2022 and the fabrication district with two units in 2024. In the subsequent slides, I have highlighted a couple of standout projects that are contributing the majority of these units just for comparison purposes to see a bit of kind of how those numbers are being dispersed on this slide here. you'll see more of the residential categories. So thinking of anything from neighborhood residential up to mid-rise development. And I've got two trenches of the highlights here in terms of new number of units. Notably, you'll see there's an other category where there is a significant number of units permitted. In the data, this could mean one of two things. This could mean there wasn't a zoning district attributed to that particular address within that particular row of the data. And or that row could be correlated with a previous zoning district prior to the substantive update of districts currently being used by the city. So that would be what encompasses that other category. And for some of the specific projects, I can get into what the classification was or if there was no data for that particular example. So you'll see other was kind of a predominant category 2020 to 2022. With urban residential seeing a substantive number of units in 2023 and 2024. The lighter green highlight is kind of that secondary category that I've included for comparison purposes. So the majority of that net new number of units is being seen in the MR4 and MR5 districts from 2020 onwards. If we could go to the next slide, please. And these are just some of the notable projects that I've tried to directly correlate with some of those numbers we're seeing on the screen. And so, just to give a sample here so looking at 2020 and there was a total of 435 net new units constructed. A substantive number of those were from this one project on to 90 revolution drive classified as commercial new construction for 329 unit apartment building. Five story would frame three levels concrete podium, and this was previously a one unit lot. It was classified under the other district category. In this case, there was no zoning district that was specified within the data, but you can see that's accounting for roughly 75% of the units that year in that one particular project. So this what I tried to highlight in a few of these slides. Similarly, in 2021, there was a couple of standout projects on 20 Inner Belt Road, 205 unit construction. Taking a look at residential unit construction that year, there was a total of 613, so fairly significant there. This was under the commercial industry category, 346 Somerville Ave for 94 units, and then 50 Prospect Street with 450 units. And you'll see the previous uses there were zero units on those slots, so substantial increase. updates there and the last project on 50 prospect street was previously falling under the T 100 district category from prior zoning. If we go to the next slide, just for reference, I've included these here just to take you through some of the substantial projects from each year in case folks were interested to see kind of where those were happening spatially and how these were identified. So residential new construction and commercial new construction in 2020 through 2022. 59 units for the residential piece under the MR5 district for the commercial 84 unit dormitory. And that was again, no zoning district specified. So I've put it under that other district classification. And then just to round out the projects here for 34 North Street in 2023. I see 168 unit under the urban residential and 16 Medford Street in 2024 under the mid-rise four for a 50-unit building. I see Councillor Ewen-Campen.

Councillor, do you want to ask now or do you want to wait for the end of the presentation? I'll wait for the end, please, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Fairly short update, but this was a breakdown. I'm trying to respond to some folks' questions about if we could see any patterns coming out of the data for where these new units are being constructed. I would say overall, we're seeing higher number within some of those residential use districts. In more recent years, urban residential has been the predominant category, closely tailed by the mid-rise four and mid-rise five categories. as well as a few that are bucketed under this other where they might not be under a classification within the data scheme in terms of commercial, primarily commercial industry that was dominating in 2021. So hopefully that's a bit informative to help us shape that piece of the discussion. I'm happy to answer folks' questions about this piece.

All right. Townsend and Campin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you, thank you so much. This is very interesting. So I think my question is, I think for Director Bartman, so what jumps out at me about these numbers is the productivity of the Urban Residence District for creating new units. I think when we did the zoning overhaul, I was... thinking that most of the development would be in the mid-rise districts and urban residents to some extent. And it seems pretty clear to me that the urban residents is like really kind of chugging along at producing units and to some extent, but maybe less than I would have predicted the mid-rise district. So I kind of wanted to understand planning department's thoughts on that. So what comes to mind for one thing, there's a major difference in permitting, right? Urban residents is by right. There's no neighborhood meetings. Also, it's my understanding that urban residents doesn't allow ground floor commercial but correct me if I'm wrong, and a mid rise depending on a pedestrian street etc. Many but not all of those projects that I've seen in my ward. have ground floor commercial. I imagine that changes the economics. I wonder through you, Mr. Chair, if what's the planning department's perspective on kind of what is driving the urban residents compared to the Miserides district?

Director Bobbin?

Through you, Mr. Chair, to Councilor Ewen-Campen, I do believe it's the ability to build a four-story apartment building of modest size by right. We often hear and have heard, continue to hear feedback over the last couple of years that the time is sometimes more valuable than money. And The permitting process can take many months, even if there is site plan approval required, which is a type of permit that must be issued, but is used to mitigate any kind of impacts. There is some correlation between the four-story apartment building in the UR district and the four-story apartment building permitted in the MR4 district. So it could have been that some of those were similarly sized. If you remember the conversations about the affordable housing overlay, we got into some of the economics about certain size buildings and hitting unit count thresholds. Those factors remain true for market rate housing development as much as it is affordable housing development. People are looking for certain unit counts that are reflected in the numbers. the bank loaning or other factors like providing parking related to the amount of units. So I'm not surprised to see some correlation between those two districts themselves. And you're also right, there might be less development in a similarly sized building in a mid-rise district because there are Although we do permit apartment buildings on non-pedestrian streets, the districts themselves are pretty much mapped right along the pedestrian street designation. So if I were to go and ask the zoning planners at ISD, I do think they have seen a significant number of small apartment buildings in the UR zoning district where there was a Like just a smaller structure there in existing condition or a couple lots that were merged together. But I would say the UR district is building itself out probably because it sees a more return on investment and a faster pathway to getting a building permit because it is permitted by right.

And Mr. Chair, through you, just so I understand, when I look at this chart, MR4 looks like it's producing almost no units until 2024, as opposed to MR5. It looks to me like kind of quasi-matches urban residents, but MR4 itself looks... So is that kind of a... There, would you say you're looking at the difference in permitting, basically? You know, you have the same number of stories.

Yeah.

but I guess it requires the neighborhood meetings and in many cases, ground floor commercial.

Through the chair, I mean, one way to look at this is that MR5 is four stories of residential on top of commercial when it's getting developed. And the same reason that the UR four-story apartment buildings are getting built might be the same reason that the MR5 is financially advantageous. um this would imply to me that the lower mr3 and mr4 are not as uh not as you know feasible for building uh building new development and new units uh as compared to mr5 um i'm just thinking off the top of my head while i look at this chart for the first time uh One other takeaway is really that MR6 is not mapped on many properties. And the fact that there's zero units is probably because the three or four lots where it is mapped just did not have any kind of project take off in the time period. Also, we're looking at years where it was incredibly complex to actually do a whole lot of housing starts. mainly because of COVID and then recovery from that and now into things like tariffs on steel and construction materials. So we have faced a lot of headwinds during these time periods. But it looks like MR5 and a couple years of other random districts did find potentially a sweet spot that in my mind just relates more to getting over a certain threshold and number of units that somebody could achieve that really made that pencil out for those specific sites.

OK. Mr. Chair, thank you. I find this interesting. I don't by any means want to imply that the goal I have in zoning is number go up of units, everything else be damned. I think that this is part of the conversation that's very important, but also You know, the ground floor commercial, I think, is incredibly important. The kind of like thoughtful planning of business districts versus residential. I think that's all very important. But for when we are having conversations around getting new units, I think this is very informative around kind of looking towards like, what is it about you are that's working?

If I could weigh in as well, just because these bring up interesting points. So one, the MR6, I think I'm one of the neighborhoods who has some of the few MR6 lots that are right next to Sullivan Square. They're both owned by the same person who bought the land, wants to develop it, hasn't for whatever reason. But it's not because it's six stories, that's for sure. Because I also have a five-story building in my neighborhood that was built up. I do think it's interesting, though. The data kind of shows what I've been thinking about in terms of something being done as of right versus special permit. And I think often about the affordable housing project of the former Boys and Girls Club in Union Square. well before all the zoning was done. That was zoned for, I believe, five or six stories, but it still required a special permit. And that allowed people the opportunity to stop the project from happening. And that's what caused the delay for years. Unfortunately, now we have the affordable housing overlay, which would prevent something like that from happening. But any building that's five or six stories that requires a special permit has the potential of being litigated, which is also what happened at the MR6 site in my neighborhood. And I just remember that conversation years ago being like, well, if we want it to happen, why do we require the special permit? And that was, again, kind of one of those items that were left out, just like the third unit by right. that i think we should at least discuss to revisit because if that data is showing us that where the housing that we're allowing to get built is getting built and the ones that require special permits are not i think we should just think about where we want taller buildings and whether we're going to allow them or not uh counselor davis

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate those comments. I agree. And I think, you know, to that point, you know, through you to Director Bartman, you know, can you speak for... I mean, are you... You've sort of touched on this already at various times, but just to clearly hammer home the point, at least as I recall, and please correct me if you had a different understanding or you have a different recollection, but that special permit requirement in order to build residential in the MR zones districts was really sort of part of the overall best thinking at the time that we needed to, one of the things we were hoping to use zoning to accomplish was to shift some of the real estate tax burden off of residential properties onto commercial properties by encouraging folks to build more commercial properties. Obviously, there were much bigger and more substantive ways we did that with specific projects. But am I right that that was a significant part of it, that a special permit was required to put residential in a mid-rise building?

Mr. Bobbin. Through the chair to Councillor Davis. That was partially a concern, but I would say primarily it's that affordable housing in Massachusetts is really created either because a discretionary permit is involved Or that there is a certain amount of housing that's permitted by right before affordable housing kicks in. And we have both to make sure that we don't lose the ability to deliver required affordable housing. And so that's why that special permit still exists. But that's kind of how it functions across the state.

Yeah, I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you to Dr. Bartman. Forgive me, I'm not following the logic. We have a required 20% inclusionary affordable housing. We have a 20% inclusionary affordable housing requirement. How does requiring a special permit in order to build any housing make it more likely that we'll get affordable housing? I'm not following what the logic was at the time.

Through the chair, the legality of having a 20% affordable housing requirement is partially tied to also requiring a special permit for that housing. That housing is discretionary and a... requirement attached to that discretion is that 20% of it has to be affordable. That's one of the ways that Massachusetts towns and cities are able to require for affordable housing. The other, you remember we required the, for a while, we required that any third unit in NR be affordable. And that was because we allowed two units below that to be built by right without an affordability requirement. that both of those are a little bit on shaky ground. So we made sure that both of them were actually in place. You can build one to four units without triggering our affordable housing requirement. And you also require a special permit in the mid-rise and high-rise districts. If either one of those is taken away and there's a lawsuit about the other, then we lose all ability to require affordable housing. We were played it safe in the 2019 ordinance that was similar situation existed in our old code as well and. This was also highlighted in the debate about not our local debate but the region's debate about the MBTA communities requirement is that that's how affordable housing was typically required and they didn't want those things to be part of your MBTA communities district but. That conversation really highlighted that that's the two ways that towns and cities are able to require affordable housing, either the special permit or the certain amount of units that you're allowed to do by right before your affordable housing requirement kicks in.

Okay.

Thank you. I just want you to restate that, Director Bartman, just to be clear. So if we did not have a special permit requirement for MR districts, we might not be able to enforce the inclusionary zoning?

There is a certain amount of risk that not only we, but anybody with that kind of regulatory setup could be challenged for having a requirement for affordable housing if the housing is not discretionary in that district. Yes.

But it sounds like there's also an alternative that we could attach it to the amount of units.

Mr. Chair, we have both of those built into the MR and high-rise districts currently.

okay all right well that's something to think about for sure um any other questions or comments uh counseling and cameron thank you mr chair just on that point um can you remind me how inclusionary works in the urban residence district this department

uh three Mr chair I don't have that in front of me right this second but I do believe it's that the apartment building alone has an affordability requirement or maybe the apartment building in the apartment house which are the two biggest uh buildings that would have more than four units but I need to I would need to open that and double check but the I believe that's how that works

So through you, Mr. Chair, in that case, it's tied to the unit count.

It's tied to the unit count, yep, because they're by right. And so in theory, it's more risky in that situation than it is in the MR and high-rise districts.

Okay. Any other questions or comments? Any requests from land use analysts for more information? Now would be a good time to just ask an open-ended question, any sort of information you want to have. guess i would ask um samantha um if you could look into what director bartman was just talking about uh because i want to understand it better because like i've always been on the path that i would like to allow things to be done by right but i also don't want to sacrifice that affordable housing so if there's any sort of middle ground or any i wonder what the degree of risk is because i do know the risk is out there but is the developer going to sue us if we're allowing them to build housing by right? So if there's no further discussion, I'd like to keep this item in committee and we can come back and revisit it in the future. Samantha? Ms. Carr?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just wanted to say thank you for folks' time today and mindful we've got You know, some substantive sessions recently so appreciate you taking the time to chat about this. And wanted to offer up that being mindful we're going towards the recess period, if there are things that folks would be interested in advancing with that. Related to this item i'm happy to be in communication to make sure this keeps moving forward, so we can have a substantive conversation later towards the end of the summer period.

And I also hope Director Barban.

I just wanted to, through you, Mr. Chair, to recall that Councilor Seat had requested that we do an online version of our final presentation for the Broadway corridor project zoning study that we had done, which did recommend upzoning the corridor from a little bit past Magoon Square to Ball Square to MR6 to be and more in line on either side of the boundary with what the city of Medford is pursuing. And we do intend to hold that virtual meeting in the future and would likely pursue that upzoning subsequently.

All right, thank you. And Ms. Carr, I hope you don't mind me putting out there that she's offered to meet with ward councilors in their neighborhoods to do a neighborhood walk and discuss zoning so that she has a better understanding of what we're asking for and so that you can all get input as well. So if anyone wants to take her up on that, she has the City of Somerville email address. Um, see no further discussion. This item will be kept in committee. And then the last two items around, um, outdoor bikes and mass timber will remain in committee as well. Do we have any more items? Madam clerk?

No, I just like to return to item four. Um, please on file is the correct, um, decision disposition for the item taken up in the future.

Do we need to vote for that?

No.

Okay, that item will be placed on file. Seeing no further discussion, Councilor Davis moves for adjournment.

And on adjournment, Councilor Davis?

Yes.

Councilor Sait? Yes. Councilor Wilson?

Yes, please.

Councilor Ewen-Campen?

Yes.

Councilor McLaughlin?

Yes.

With that, we are adjourned.

Thank you. Good night, everyone.