Land Use Committee

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

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

OK. And let the record show that Councilor Sait is away on a family event.

Calling. Councilor Wilson.

Present.

Thank you.

All right, this is a joint meeting with the Somerville Redevelopment Authority. This committee will stand in adjournment or in recess so they can conduct their business. We're in recess.

On recess. Councilor Davis.

Yes.

Sixth. My name is Phil Ercolini. I'm chair of the Somerville Redevelopment Authority, and I call this meeting to order at Chapter 2 of the Act of 2023. This public meeting of the SRE is being conducted via remote participation as well. This session will be recorded, will be a public record. I will now ask the board members to confirm they are in attendance in an alphabetical order. Courtney Brunson. and Ewen Campen, William Gage, Patrick McCormick,

Mr. Chair, if you can hear me, I can, I don't know if this goes for everybody online, but there's no audio at the moment.

I have the same problem.

These are related to 90 Washington Street. After that, we're gonna have a presentation from the city about these items. We'll have questions, public hearing, and then we'll move on to other items. Any questions or comments? Please read items four, five, six, seven, and eight, please.

Item number five, mayor's request ID number 25-1594, requesting approval of the amended 90 Washington Street demonstration project plan. Item number six, ID number 25-1595, requesting approval of an amendment to the memorandum of agreement between the city council and redevelopment authority regarding the redevelopment of 90 Washington Street. Item number seven, ID number 25-1596, requesting approval of the development objectives for the redevelopment of 90 Washington Street. Item number eight, ID number 25-1607, Executive Director of the Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development conveying a summary of the 90 Washington process review and development objectives.

All right, thank you. So I'm going to turn it over to the city for a brief presentation about these items.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just give me one second to share screen. And I just want to reiterate, thank you everyone for the patience this evening with logistics. I think we're in place. So hello everyone. Through you, Mr. Chair, to the committee and to the redevelopment authority. My name is Ben Demers. I'm a senior planner with the economic development team within the Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development. And in this capacity, I also serve as the staff support liaison to the Somerville Redevelopment Authority. So we're here this evening to discuss changes we are recommending to the 90 Washington Street demonstration project plan, mostly to formally remove the public safety building component of the project and then to do a few other cleanup items. This change in the project direction has already been stated publicly by the administration in January. We want to make sure that the guiding documents also reflect this change. We also want to make sure that people have a chance to weigh in on these changes and given that a public hearing between the City Council and the Redevelopment Authority or the SRA as I'll refer to it this evening was held when the plan was created we want to make sure that this step was mirrored in any amendment. For anyone tuning in with less context on the project I also want to mention so the City Council and the SRA are the two parties that adopted the 90 Washington Street demonstration project plan back in 2019 so they're also the parties that would need to agree to any amendment. So to walk through the agenda quickly, I'm going to start by reviewing some project background for anyone tuning in just to explain what led to this amendment. And then I'll walk through the actual amendments that we are proposing to the 90 Washington Street Demonstration Project Plan, which would also be reflected in changes to a memorandum of agreement. which was entered into concurrently with the demonstration project plan back in 2019 again between the between the City Council and the Redevelopment Authority and then last I'm going to talk about next steps in this process that these changes are going to tee us up for so this is releasing an RFP to select a development partner I'm going to talk about some of the work that we've been doing to really get there around articulating the development priorities more specifically the procedural focus of the first part of the presentation that was really on the demonstration project plan Are there any questions up top? And I will say also for city councilors who saw this presentation a few weeks ago, this is very similar to what we discussed that evening. I want to make sure everybody at home has this context. So to orient us, this is the site that we're talking about, 90 Washington Street. This is an approximately four-acre site located just east of the East Somerville MBTA station, really at the intersection of Washington and New Washington Streets, which is also at the intersection of the Inner Belt neighborhood, East Somerville, and Brick Bottom. As you can see, the parcel has a slightly awkward shape, kind of triangular, coming back from the intersection. and also has this tail portion that really wraps around the southern portion of the parcel, which also is close by to the adjacent Cobble Hill Apartments, which is an apartment complex to the east. The SRA took this property by eminent domain back in 2019 with the intention to have it serve as the site of a new public safety building. So this was going to be the combined new fire headquarters, police headquarters, and 911 dispatcher center. And this was meant to be paired with transformative private development and to remove the existing Cobble Hill Plaza that was vacant at the time on the site. So the SRA and the city have paid a total of $39 million for this site. The SRA initially took the site for just under $9 million in 2019, but then was successfully sued by the former owner for the value of the taking and was required to pay about $30 million more between the land value and the interest. So the SRA and the city have paid this judgment, but this unexpected expense obviously impacts the city's ability to offer key services and pursue other vital capital projects. Because of this, we shifted course and we released a statement in January of this year stating that the city was removing the public safety building component of the project and focusing on sale of the full parcel for private redevelopment with an added goal being to recoup funds paid towards the judgment. So the hearing tonight is about really moving us in that direction. So this change needs to be reflected in the planning documents which lay out the high level objectives and the process for 90 Washington Street. So these are the 90 Washington Street demonstration project plan. As I said, this was adopted by the council and the redevelopment authority in 2019. This is really the more substantive of the two documents that I'll describe. And then the second is the Memorandum of Agreement or the MOA that I referenced, which the city council and the redevelopment authority entered around the same time. It just lays out some additional expectations for the bodies, but largely more of the detail is in the demonstration project plan. So I'm going to talk through the high-level objectives and the process that these documents lay out, and then we'll look through the amendments that we have proposed. So looking at the objectives, the first objective was to eliminate blight. So this is a common objective with the use of urban renewal. As a reminder, at the time that the site was taken, the Cobble Hill Plaza, which was a vacant commercial shopping center, was on the site. At that point, it had been vacant for several years when the redevelopment plan had stalled. So that was kind of core to the definition of blight at the time. The second goal in the plan is the creation of a new public safety complex, as I described earlier. So this was meant to be a new fire and police headquarters, a 911 dispatcher center. And then given that the public safety complex would only need a portion of the parcel, it was also meant to be paired with transformative development, especially given how close the site is to the East Somerville MBTA station that at the time had been planned but had not yet opened. So in terms of amendments to the document, the first and third goals here, so the elimination of late and the transformative development opportunity are still remaining a part of the document. These are still main goals in the process. However, as I referenced at the beginning, we're looking to amend the plan to remove the second objective of creating a public safety complex. So we understand that there's still a need for improved conditions for the city employees, but that project has really been separated off from the disposition of this property and is on its own track. We would also like to add an explicit objective to recoup funds used to satisfy the judgment for the taking of 90 Washington Street. And we just want to make sure that we are explicit about this in the document, given that the SRA has committed to helping to recoup these funds. So these two changes are what we're recommending for high level objectives in the demonstration project plan. For the other part of the demonstration project plan, the process, the document lays out five phases. So the first two of these, which are the approval of the demonstration project plan and then the actual acquisition of 90 Washington Street, these were both completed in 2019. The third phase of the project is project delineation and design, and this has been ongoing. So this includes forming the public safety building committee to really focus on the design elements of the public safety component of the project when that was intended to be a part of it. And then also a public engagement process to learn more of what people wanted to see from the transformative development element of the project, which would ultimately need to be approved by the city council. The Public Safety Building Committee is no longer meeting since this portion of the project hasn't advanced, but otherwise these three phases are largely completed or we're not recommending any changes to the parts of the process that are still left in phase three. The fourth phase is developer selection. So this involves drafting an RFP or a similar solicitation process for proposals. And then what is meant to happen is after we get responses back, what is called a technical advisory committee would narrow proposals down to two. The city council could vote to either move those two forward or shift one of them out. And then two recommendations will be made by the council to the redevelopment authority who will select a final proposal as a development partner. From that point, the SRA will then negotiate a land development agreement, which again will need to be approved by the city council. And then the last step is project implementation. So this is really a future phase. There's a little less detail about this in the plan. This is really ongoing staff and redevelopment authority work with the development team. What they do mention is that the project needs to break ground within three years of the date of a transfer. So that's just one of the few details that it does call out. So on these upcoming two phases, on Phase 4 and Phase 5, we are recommending a few changes to the document. The first of these is substituting the Technical Advisory Committee with the 90 Washington Street Civic Advisory Committee. So the 90 Washington Street Civic Advisory Committee, or the CAC, is a group of neighborhood stakeholders that have been meeting since 2023 to discuss project implementation. The CAC format is the current standard that the City Council has set for SRA projects. which was established in 2021 under the Winterhill Urban Renewal Plan project. So this is really just making sure that the document reflects the process that we have already been using for ongoing engagement and which is the standard for SRA Council projects. And then the second change that we have recommended is that rather than requiring a selected developer to break ground within three years from the date of transfer, we would like to change this to requiring a selected developer to apply for permits within that timeframe. The intention here is really that it gives the SRA more flexibility in the negotiation process, which can help them secure a higher value for the land or other benefits. So really just looking for a bit of flexibility in the process. So to summarize, the main changes that we're recommending to the demonstration project plan and the MOA are removing the objective of developing a public safety building and then adding an objective or recouping funds spent on the taking and then updating the process to replace the technical advisory committee with the civic advisory committee to match current SRA and city council standards and lengthen the time in which a developer can break around on a project to allow for flexibility in developer negotiations. For next steps the amendments would then need to be approved by both the City Council and the Redevelopment Authority who are the two parties that approved the documents initially. So I have a second part of this which is discussing the more specific development goals for the RFP process but given this first part's focus on the demonstration project plan I wanted to pause here and see if there are any questions specifically on these updates to the plan if that's okay.

Yes do we have any questions from the Council or the Redevelopment Authority? Seeing none, please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, so I'm also going to talk for a moment about what the next step will be if the Council and the SRA do approve these changes, which is preparing an RFP for development. The item in the hearing are really focused, like I said, on the amendments to the plan, but we do want people to understand where we're headed and kind of broaden the discussions we've been having at the Civic Advisory Committee. So staff conducted engagement primarily from 2022 to 2023 to learn what people wanted to see from the transformative development element of the project so really the private portion of the project. We then worked with the civic advisory committee to shape these into priorities for an RFP and given that most of the work was done before the judgment we then also discussed with the civic advisory committee adding goals that prioritize recouping funds to help preserve the city's overall financial health which you'll see in a moment. So let me walk through the current set of priorities. We're still considering various strategies for how the RFP can be structured to help meet these priorities. And we're discussing these with the city's on-call real estate advisor. But the idea is that the priorities themselves would be included in that RFP. So the first priority, as mentioned, is recouping a significant portion of funds paid for the taking of 90 Washington Street. So we want to be explicit about this. Again, the SRA has committed to repaying at least a portion of the funds paid for the taking. So we want to be explicit in this ask that they will be considering heavily how the financial portion of any offer made for the project. Second, staff have heard various land uses that stakeholders would like to see included in the project. These include new housing available to a range of incomes and sizes, new commercial space, and the CAC has really talked a lot about a desire for more ground floor retail. So the neighbors have also been interested in something that replaces the Cobble Hill Plaza that was there previously. So this is standard, which we often hear in engagement processes for redeveloping land in Somerville. Then also looking at new civic space, and in this case civic space kind of meaning broader space for nonprofit organizations, for community groups, etc. And then also new green space, which we know is especially important to Cobble Hill residents who live next door, given the green space that exists currently on the site. And then third, we have listed development principles that give a better sense of the type of project that people want to see here. So this is really getting into more detail. They want to see mixed-use building formats, which again, this reflects what I described in terms of ground floor retail with significant housing above. They also want to see a desire for dense development on the site that introduces significant new housing. So we've given the guidance that the density on the site should match the density within our densest zoning districts, mid-rise and high-rise. And then we've also noted that if possible, a respondent should orient that density towards the western portion of the site closest to the MBTA station, considering the adjacent Caldwell Hill apartments. Relatedly, we also want to allow for flexibility in form or massing. And this is really to encourage respondents to think uniquely about how they can achieve that density while respecting the existing neighbors and again, taking into account the unique shape of the parcel. We then also heard a strong desire for leadership in sustainability and compliance with the city's stretch energy code. So want to see how somebody can show that leadership. We heard a desire for no surface parking given the proximity to the Green Line Station just to the west. We want to achieve a robust urban canopy and natural landscape. So we've heard a desire to create an appropriate buffer to Cobble Hill Apartments and to also preserve viable existing trees where possible. And then lastly, we also heard a desire to incorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion into various stages of the development process. And so this is really talking about women and minority owned business enterprises being involved within financing, design, and various parts of the process. So again, we'll be discussing these priorities again with the City Council at the time that they take up the amendments to the demonstration project plan and the memorandum of agreement. But I also want to open up if there are any questions specifically about these development priorities at this time.

All right, thank you. I'm going to open it up to questions and also keep in mind we're going to have a public hearing. I do not intend on having any votes tonight, so there'll be more time for questions later as well. Any questions from the Land Use Committee or the Redevelopment Authority? Going once, going twice. Seeing no comments, thank you very much. I will now open up public hearing. If anyone in the audience wishes to speak, please come forward and testify. We also have a sign-in sheet right up front if anybody wants to line up to speak. I'm gonna recognize people in the audience first, and then I'm gonna go to people remotely. So I now declare this public hearing open. Is anyone in the audience who wishes to testify? Once and twice. How about remote? If anyone is remote, please use a little hand emoji icon and I will call upon you to speak. I'll give that one a second for technical difficulties. When I'll comment in on the 90 Washington Street presentation. Please use a little hand icon. Anyone, Madam Clerk? I now declare this public hearing closed. Please keep in mind you can always email the city. You don't want to comment, Bill? You can talk if you like. You're the only one. I now declare this public hearing closed. You can still send comments to, can you please say the email again, Madam Clerk, that I always mess up on?

I'm going to ask for some help here, Matty, if I could.

Public comments. Public comments. That email is publiccomments at somervillema.gov. Councilor Ewen-Campen, you had a comment?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a question through you. Can someone just lay out the anticipated timeline here for like when we're being asked to approve these changes when the RFP is expected to be wrapped up to the extent that you can tell us tonight?

Yes, through you, Mr. Chair, to Councilor Ewen-Campen. So our intention would be to have these come back to the City Council for a vote as soon as possible. So from my understanding, I know there will be at least one more discussion within the Land Use Committee and then Depending on how that moves forward, the hope would be that they would come back to the City Council in November, December for a vote of approval. So that would be looking for a vote for the updates to the demonstration project plan, the updates to the memorandum of agreement, and then also for the development objectives and program of uses. So that those could then be included in an RFP. We would then be looking to release an RFP early next year. There's not kind of an exact pin down timeline, but early next year is currently our goal. We want to make sure that we're moving expeditiously on this, just kind of considering the city's financial health and the impact of this project.

Thank you, and I do intend on having another Land Use Committee meeting probably this month, two weeks from now, so we'll be able to get to it then. Councilor Wilson.

Yeah, thanks, Mr. Chair. I just want to take the opportunity to, you know, first of all, thank you for the presentation. It's good to see that a lot of that looks familiar. Something we have heard a lot about, Councilor McLaughlin and I have heard a lot about is From the residents of Cobble Hill, the real desire to, I know the presentation mentioned doing the massing on the western side closer to the T Station away from Cobble Hill Apartments. The other side of that being we'd love to see, I'll say, I'll speak for myself, I would love to see the required green space, open space in this concentrated around Cobble Hill. Ideally, you know, making excellent use of that space right there. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, and also I'm going to weigh the readings of item 2.4 and mark that work complete. That was the notice for the public hearing. So this public hearing is closed. Thank you very much. Let's get back to the regular order of business. Madam Clerk, please read the next item. We're going to stand in recess so the redevelopment authority can adjourn. We're in recess.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Seeing that there are no other items on the agenda, I'll entertain a motion that we close our portion of the public hearing. Second. Okay, we'll roll call vote. Courtney Brunson, Ewen Campen? Yes. William Gage is not here. Patrick McCormick, Christine Stone? Yes. And Phil Ercolini? Yes. We have a quorum and we have approved the motion to adjourn.

All right, and we are back from recess. All councilors are present, so no need to call the roll. Please read the next item.

Agenda Item 3, ID number 25-0085 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.

Let's lay that on the table, actually. I'd like to skip to the public hearings. I think we're gonna do 2.1. 2.1.

2.3, got it, we're gonna go on. All right, ready?

Please read item 2.1.

Item 2.1, ID number 25-1554. Requesting ordainment of an amendment to sections 10.10.3, 15.1.2, 15.1.6, 15.1.8, 15.2.1, 15.2.2, 15.2.3, 15.2.4, 15.3.1, 15.3.2 and 15.5.2 of the zoning ordinance to make pre-submittal meetings optional for most permits and to improve clarity and consistency.

All right. This is a request from the mayor. I see Mr. Bartman here.

Hello, Mr. Chair. That legal notice pretty much sums up what this amendment is about. So I do have a short presentation that we provided. If somebody's pulling that up. That is only two slides. And the proposal would make pre-submittal meetings optional for special permits, site plan approvals, variances, land platting, and wireless communications. It would maintain that a required pre-submittal meeting still was on the books for subdivision plan approvals and master plan special permits, which are probably our two most intense type of permit. A couple of some quick statistics I have. We've tracked every pre-submittal meeting we've held since 2024 over the full year and then also this year in 2025 up to the current date. 42% of pre-submittal meetings in 2024 involved people who were already familiar with the zoning ordinance such as engineering firms, architecture offices, legal offices, designers, and contracting and construction firms that we regularly see. In 2025, that number increased to 64%, and 17% of all pre-submittal meetings were involved Adam Dash and associates. So one of the things that we've learned over five years is that required pre-submittal meetings might have been a step too far. still offering these things to people who really need them is still valuable and we still think that they're important to have for large the large projects and big intense permits but we do think that they should be made optional for the people who already know what they're doing and don't need to come and sit down and talk to the city staff Sometimes those pre-submittal meetings involve 12 other departments and a lot of coordination to get them all in the room together at the same time, only to have a person who already knows what they're doing sit down and say, I don't know why we have to be here. So that's really the inspiration for this amendment. There's also some cleanup that goes on in the articles while we had them open. So we clarify the language of 1516, application review and staff report and public hearing. Remove language referencing a manual submittal or inferring a manual submittal of a permit extension request to the city clerk. That just happens at CitizenServe now. We used the same language for permit duration and extension for all of the permits. So 15.2.3, 15.3.1, and 15.3.2 had their language brought to similarity with other permits. And then we corrected language for administrative appeals so that it's consistent with state law. That should have said 30 days, and it said 20. And that's this amendment, Mr. Chair.

All right. Any questions from the Land Use Committee? Seeing Councilor Ewen-Campen.

Through you, Mr. President, doesn't Mr. Dash charge by the hour? Just kidding.

Well, that last hearing went very quickly, so he's not going to pay much tonight. No actual questions? Seeing none, I now declare this public hearing open. We need this public hearing, correct? I now declare this public hearing open. Anyone in the audience who wishes to testify, please step forward. Anyone testifying remotely, please use the little hand icon and I'll call upon you. I see no one in person. Anyone remote? Adam Dash, please step forward.

Attorney Adam Dash, 48 Grove Street, Somerville, since you called me out. Yeah, I was a little surprised by those statistics. I think I'm a glutton for punishment or something, but I do note that sometimes the pre-submittal meetings, I would probably want one, but certainly most of the time we don't because I can read the code and I know what I need, and it takes a month or so to get through that process, which adds extra time and expense for the clients. So even though I may bill for the hour for the pre-submittal meeting, It drags the project out and some people already feel like the process is long enough and for us to do this sort of spur where we don't really need to have the meeting on a project where I know I need a special permit for xyz makes some sense so I would be in favor of this change.

Thank you. Anyone else in the audience? No one remote? All right, seeing none, I declare this public hearing closed. We'll keep the public comment period open until November 21st. That's the day after our next Land Use Committee meeting. And this item will remain in committee. Next item, please.

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

Mr. Bartman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We also have a presentation for this item that is just as short, just two slides. So the state of Massachusetts amended MGL 40A Section 3, which is the chapter of the Zoning Act that tells us what we have to permit. It's the same chapter that has the MBTA communities portion included in it. and they added family childcare homes and large family childcare homes to the required uses that we have to permit in Somerville. Every community has to permit these. In Somerville, we have both of those under the definition of a home-based child daycare accessory use. So that covers both of the uses as they're named in state law. and so the amendment changes the home-based child daycare accessory use to permitted in every district that has residential housing as a permitted use because this is the an accessory use to residential housing so that makes a number of changes to the MR districts and high-rise and while we were editing the Summary use table in Article 9. We noticed some discrepancies that were caused by amendments that we made to individual districts without a corresponding change to the main use table in Article 9. And so while we were making the home-based daycare change, we looked over that table to find any other discrepancies and included those corrections in this while we were doing that. So primarily home-based child daycares, but also some corrections. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions or comments from the Council? Seeing none, I now declare this public hearing open. Anybody who wishes to testify, please step forward. If you're remote, please use the little hand icon. Seeing no comment, I declare this public hearing closed. The public comment period will be kept open until November 21st. You can email us at publiccomments at somervillema.gov. Next item, please.

Item number 2.3, ID number 25-1539, 12 registered voters requesting a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district of 363 Highland Avenue from mid-rise 4, MR4, to mid-rise 5, MR5, and from MR4 to mid-rise 6, MR6, and 110 Willow Avenue, MR4 to MR6.

Councilor Davis. Mr. Chair, I'm going to recuse myself from this item as I live across the street. Very good. All right. This is a public communication from 12 registered voters. I see Mr. Dash in the audience. He must be representing them. Please proceed.

Attorney Adam Dash representing Altitude Properties LLC, the owner of the property 363 Highland Avenue, which is currently leased to Recorded Future. If you're familiar with that, going into Davis Square on Highland Avenue between West and Whipple. With me are Gorka Bravo and Lorenzi Bravo, who are the principals of Altitude Properties, and with me is the architect, Peter Quinn, also in Davis Square. So we have the whole Davis Square crew here. We're here tonight to talk about a proposal to change the zoning map for 363 Highland Avenue, along with the NSTAR facility, which is adjacent to it, which faces Willow, but actually also faces Whipple. and that's 110 Willow which is across the street from us. So if we could have the slides pulled up for the application that we filed and start on page six, we can show you what we're thinking of and then I can explain to you why we're doing that. While we're doing that, I would note that we have had several meetings with the Davis Square Neighborhood Council on the most recent one. Perfect. And the most recent one, they voted overwhelmingly to support the application and we're going to be sending something in writing. I don't know if you've received it or not, but you probably will at some point. So that is the property. You can see there the big, well, For a minute ago you could see there. The big dark building there to the left that's outlined in red is the 363 property. Whipple sort of goes vertically down the middle of the screen and to the right in the back you can see the, well it was to the right, now it's to the left. Yeah, now it's to the right. That's the old NSTAR facility. So, Peter, do you want to walk through? Sure.

For the record, Peter Coyne, Peter Coyne Architects, Davis Square. Yeah, so we are just looking at this as a massing model, if you will, to see what the impact would be for a combination of five and six stories on the site, the Whipple Street, not the Willow Street site, but the one where Altitude is now or was. Just to orient you further, the community path is the green bar along the top of that image and Highland Ave is near the bottom. Next slide. So this is showing you the two districts that are currently present. Right now the site that we're talking about primarily is zoned MR4 and the Boston Edison slash Eversource site is zoned Civic. So we're proposing to make most of this MR6 toward the community path with a smaller building out at Highland Ave at an MR5. So that small rectangle that is kind of at the bottom of our zone is an MR5 building. So next slide. This is a little hard to read, I understand, but the idea is to show you that following the MR6 rules and the MR5 rules for lot size and maximum building footprint and so forth, we are able to develop two buildings, could be three, that would be The MR5 would have commercial on the ground floor and then some amenity space for the units. And then the building behind would be 100% residential. That would be a likely scenario, although there could be some commercial in it as well. And then we imagine that somewhere in here we would have a direct link to the community path for bikes and people. Interestingly if you just pull up the screen just slightly higher you'll see that there's a small area that is a kind of a small triangle which is a direct connection that The owners hope to offer the city to gain access to the community path right off the extension of Whipple. So those are some things in play, but it has a tremendous potential to create a relatively low impact, high volume project that's really keyed in and linked to all the a lot of the main features of Davis Square namely Highland Ave which of course is the main thoroughfare and the community path as well which takes you right to the t-stop and then on for the whole experience of the community path and in the other direction as well so next slide please Yeah, this is a section. So what this is actually showing you is that even though the building in the front on Highland Ave, which is to the left here, is five stories and the other building is We're proposing six stories. They come out to about the same height. And the reason for this is that the length of Whipple Street descends almost a whole story. I think it's at least eight feet. And the yellow area that you see here is What is allowed under the current zoning? So this amount of additional area that you get makes a huge difference in the development pro forma. But also the impact of this, as you'll see when I show you the shadow studies, is not that different from what's allowed already. Next slide. So these are just some massing models. First, the aerial views. Looking at this, the upper right-hand side is a view across the Boston Edison property, where you can see the five and six-story buildings just as a massing block, side by side. And they appear approximately the same size, but in fact, the one on the right is one story higher. Next slide. These don't really show very well on screen, but these are just simply street views. I'm not sure they're illustrating much at this scale. Of course, we did not develop these as a design with windows and doors and all the things that give it scale. Next slide, please. Yeah, so these are shadow studies, and if you can look carefully, there's two shadow lines on here. One is what is allowed under MR4, and then the second is what would be additional Under either the MR5 or the MR6, depending on which building you're talking about. So there's, yeah, there definitely is an increase, but it's really quite minor compared to what is allowed there now. This is a, I believe it's the Equinox there. And the next slide, I think you could go to that. This is, I believe, summer or winter, I think it's. Summer. Yeah, thanks. Can't read it. So it's a very minor difference between the four and six story. And then going on to the next slide. That's winter. There is some increase at the far edges of the site in the neighborhood. But again, you know, this is this is a time of year where everybody's shadowing everybody else anyways. But, you know, given how much this building could produce in terms of housing, including affordable units, I know I should mention that this this impact is relatively minor. We think that based on the studies that I've done, if we can use the net zero ratios, the two buildings together would produce over 250 units. There's probably a practical limit of a little less than that, so it's in the low 200s, but it would be producing almost 50 affordable units, which is really significant. And I think there's an opportunity here, especially under the net zero ratios, that we could offer smaller units that are, you know, somewhat more of a better price point for a lot of people who, you know, can't afford a bigger unit or, you know, don't want to have roommates. So, you know, it is a very significant and important way of developing the site that's different from a lot of other developments that we've seen or participated in. So, leave it at that. Yep, back to Adam.

Councilor Clingan-Campen?

Mr. Chair, I'm happy to wait until the end of the presentation. I just have a couple questions.

Thank you. Thank you, Adam Dash again. So we found that the project is not viable at the current four-story MR4 zoning. We feel this zoning map change would allow for more housing in the Davis Square, which is badly needed and provide an ability for NSTAR to redevelop its site. or or some of it if it wanted to shave some of it off because there's a part of it with the building and part that just seems like a wasteland over there it does not require them to do anything by changing the zoning for them but it does give them an incentive to hopefully someday do something should they choose to do so keep in mind that even if the city council were to approve the zoning map change the project still needs site plan approval and a special permit from the planning board to be built and there's a whole public process and neighborhood meetings and all that so we're just This doesn't approve a project. I should note that what Peter said, what we're showing you is sort of the most that could be built if the zoning change were happening. That's obviously not the project we're proposing. We're going to be proposing a building that looks different and it's not just a white box that maxes everything out. But we felt, to be honest, just to show you what that would look like if something were to happen that was a max of that box. So at this point, the We feel that we've been talking to the various interested parties. We feel we've had a pretty good response to it. And the property is currently certainly underutilized, having that basically one-story concrete block building that's there. Recorded Future is leaving. So that there's an opportunity now to do this, which is why we're proposing it now before we go looking for another tenant. And as Peter said, the Bravo, the Altitude Properties does own that little weird triangle that connects Whipple to the bike path. So that's an opportunity to bring that connection into play. So Therefore, we would ask you that you favorably recommend the map change for 363 Highland Avenue and 110 Willow to the MR5 and MR6 combo that we described. And happy to take questions.

Thank you. Any questions or comments from the Council? Councilor Ewen-Campen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you, two quick questions before we get to the public hearing. So, the proposed amendment includes This other property that's currently civic, if I'm understanding, is not part of your proposal. Through you, can you just explain why the proposal includes other properties?

Yeah, it seemed like this was an opportunity because there's been a lot of, and having lived over on Highland Road for many years, I can tell you that that site, the NSTAR site, is a bit blighted. They do use it, but not all of it in a major way. And the part that faces Whipple facing our property actually is the part they don't really use. It seemed like this would benefit everybody, especially if Whipple becomes a connection point up to the bike path to give them the ability to do something. Of course, they don't have to do anything. They're not going to probably get rid of the building and the other stuff. They store telephone poles or whatever they do there. We thought it was an opportunity since we're coming in anyway and we have multiple parcels so it's not like some kind of spot zoning issue because we do have two parcels but to bring this in as an opportunity should they ever want to do something they could and maybe it would incentivize them to do so if they were in the MR6 because maybe the MR4 is not enticing enough but that was the thought behind it nothing more.

Got it Mr. Chair through you thank you and I'm not expressing an opinion here I'm just curious If that were to remain civic, does that affect your project in terms of setbacks or anything? No, it's across the street. Okay, thank you. And then through you, the other question, I thought I heard Mr. Quinn say that the proposal would allow for 50 affordable units. Did I get that right?

That's the 20%? 20% of 250 is 50. If it is 250, the number of units depends on how big the units are. The three bedroom versus studio, you get fewer or more. So we don't have that number yet in that range-ish.

Okay and the the document before us has a little study of the existing zoning which estimates the total number of dwelling units is something on the order of like 120 it looks like um so going from mr4 to mr6 and five more than doubles the number of units that could be um there are did you want to that so maybe only one building

That's the MR4. Right, that's what's there now, right? Yeah, if you didn't change the zoning, what could be done is 119.

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

Yeah, Peter Quinn here. Just to be clear, I think it might be a little higher if we are able to use the net zero density bonus as well. So if we're comparing apples to apples, it's probably like 160 to 250, so approximately 100 more. Thank you. All set, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Councilor Wilson. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you, obviously up to 50 new affordable units and, you know, the overall number possibly approaching 250 sounds great. My question is, have you had any discussions with the City about any potential subsidization like we've done with other projects that might see that affordable percentage go significantly higher than that?

Adam Dash again we have spoken with the city about this we've spoken with a lot of people before we've filed this application so we have talked to them about it not that specific point obviously the building would have to pencil out financially to do it but I think we're open for discussions if the city were to want to have them I can't promise anything but because we haven't designed the building yet

Mr. Chair we've seen another project set to break ground here that where the city got very aggressive with subsidizing that to make some really good affordable numbers happen for that so I would just urge people to have that discussion see if that makes sense in this case through the chair second question you talked about how what you showed us sort of was like a we won't say worst case scenario but what you know what you could do say too soon there'd be some step backs at the higher levels in the eventual design

Absolutely. I mean, we're just showing a white box to the max, which is not obviously going to fly with the Pleading Board and we're not proposing it. So, because again, we just felt like you should, and we've had this with other MAP applications where I think members of the Council have asked for this, what's the worst case scenario, absolute worst to worst. So we're just bringing it to you. That's not what we're proposing.

Thanks Mr. Chair. Thank you. Seeing no further questions, I now declare that, before that, Planning Department, is there any recommendation issued on this? Seeing none, I now declare this public hearing open. Anyone in the audience who wishes to testify, please step forward, give your full name and address.

Hello Planning Board and Planning Committee. My name is Peter Kim Santos and I live at 64 Andycott Ave. I'm the treasurer of the Davis Square Neighborhood Council and at our October 27th meeting, the membership of the DSNC voted to provide a statement in support of the zoning change at 363 Highland Ave and 110 Willow. Despite the DSNC still being in the process of formation, the property owner has attended several of our meetings and has presented their plans for the property to a generally very positive reception. A common discussion topic among the DSNC is the need for more housing and so this proposal for transit accessible housing is welcome, especially with its 40 to 50 inclusionary units. This is not in my pre-written improved statement, but I really like Jake's idea about having the city fund more and would encourage you guys to look at that in the future. Moreover, the property owner and the architect have engaged with us in good faith, a dialogue regarding how the buildings can interface with the community path. And we look forward to continuing that conversation and working with the team about what the building will look like. The DSNC is also supportive of the upzoning of the blighted 110 Willow property as one of the many blighted properties in Davis Square. And we hope that we'll see a more desirable development there as well. Thank you guys very much.

Thank you. Any further questions or any further comments in the public? Anyone remote, please use the little hand icon. We have one comment. What's the name? Scott, please give your full name and address and unmute yourself.

Okay, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Scott Nowakowski, 49 Morrison Ave. Yeah, I just wanted to speak in support of this. I think Both aspects of the zoning change I think are good. Definitely the density is needed, especially close to Davis Square Station. I especially like the idea of even though this is not their property, incentivizing Eversource to do something with is really an eyesore of a property. So I would support that part as well. That's it.

All right, thank you. Anyone else remote? Please use the little hand icon. Seeing no further comment, I declare this public hearing closed. Public comment period will be kept open until November 21st. You can email us at publiccomments, plural, at somervillema.gov. And I believe we're going to go to item number four. Please read that one.

Item number four, ID number 24-0328, 10 individuals, including five residents, submitting comments regarding item 24-0059, a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district of 321 Washington Street from fabrication, FAB, to commercial industry, CI.

All right, it's with the record show, Councilor Davis has returned. Any questions or comments on this? This item will be placed on file. When it's done file. Well, work completed. Thank you. And next item, I think that brings us to our item. Is that everything besides the one? Well, we got the upzoning, the one I laid on the table. Item number three. I'm going to take item number three off the table and we have Samantha Carr, our land use analyst here to make a little presentation. Glad we had enough time to do it and let us know if you have to catch your train. Before we even comment on all this, I had a few questions already. I want to let the public know that this is a presentation on ideas. It is not a plan. It's just for discussion for the hope that one day we do have a future plan. So nobody get nervous. Plenty of time to talk and have public comment and input. Ms. Carr.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just to reiterate on that point, I have four maps to share with the Council. The hope is that these can spur conversation and act as a catalyst for dialogue around what's possible. And these I just wanted to reiterate are not a formal proposal. So we've just provided a slide here around the existing conditions of the site. This can be used as a point of reference to compare the four scenario maps before us. Next slide, please. So in scenario one, we have got a rationale slide for each of the scenarios included. I'll just walk through those while the map's on the screen for context. So this first scenario is looking at mid-rise upzoning in the neighborhood core. The rationale behind this proposal, it's most closely aligned with the Gilman Square Neighborhood Council's feedback and draft proposal that was circulated earlier this fall. There is also strong alignment with long-term strategic planning documents in terms of alignment with summer visions, enhanced framework for Medford and Pearl Streets, as well as the Gilman Square Station Area Plan to fill in the gaps on Medford and Pearl Street and enhance the core of the square. A summary of the proposal here. We're looking at a concentrated upzoning, unlocking mid-rise six, mixed-use development along the core streets in Gilman Square in direct proximity to the T-stop. So we're looking at expansion along Medford and Pearl Street of the mid-rise six zone. In addition, this is expanding the pedestrian street designation to promote walkability further along Medford and Pearl Street. And you'll note that the small business district overlay is preserved as existing conditions for local businesses on the west side of Medford Street. We'd like to advance to the second scenario, so two slides down. So the second scenario before us, each of these scenarios builds upon each other. So this scenario is mid-rise plus urban residential corridor expansion. This rationale, the proposals in response to council feedback to explore unlocking additional housing production via incremental upzoning within the quarter mile transit walk shed buffer in Gilman Square. The mechanism we were exploring for that is upzoning neighborhood residential to urban residential parcels within the walk shed. Similarly to scenario one, there's strong alignment in this map proposal with Summer Vision and the Gilman Square Station Area Plan's goals. In addition to the concentration of mid-rise 6 upzoning on Medford and Pearl Street, this will also propose urban residential upzoning along Medford Street to the west, as well as school and Marshall Street corridors within the quarter-mile walk shed. You'll note that between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, on the west side of Medford Street, these parcels are proposed for UR upzoning rather than Mid-Rise 4. And this is specifically to provide some more flexibility for small businesses that are existing within the space. Compared to a Mid-Rise 4 upzoning, a UR upzoning will permit three stories by right and due to the small business district overlay commercial ground floor will also be permitted on site versus three to four stories by right in the mid-rise four district so this is just a potential permutation option for those western parcels the pedestrian street designation remains the same as in scenario one and has been expanded from the existing conditions a bit further along Medford and Pearl Street and the small business district overlay is preserved as within the existing conditions in the neighborhood We'd like to go two slides ahead please to scenario three. So scenario three is continuing in this trend on building upon each other. We're looking at mid-rise six expansion as well as an urban residential extended scenario. The rationale behind this was looking at a higher impact version of a proposal responsive to council feedback to unlock increased housing production via exploring incremental upzoning. Similar to previous proposals, we're seeing alignment with goals of strategic goals within Summer Vision and the Gilman Square Station area plan. In summary, this proposal is looking at mid-rise six upzoning in the core along Medford and Pearl Streets, as well as an increased urban residential upzoning on the west side of Medford Street, as well as on the School and Marshall Street corridors up to Broadway Corridor. So we're extending slightly beyond the quarter-mile walk shed We're starting to bridge into the half-mile walk shed for a couple of those parcels that are abutting the Broadway corridor. We were also looking at matching like-for-like uses on adjacent parcels when thinking about the School and Marshall Street corridors to define where the urban residential extension would taper off. Similarly to scenario two, parcels on the west side of Medford Street are looking at an urban residential expansion rather than mid-rise four as seen in scenario one. Pedestrian street designation remains the same, expanded throughout these proposals. and one other feature to note, the small business district overlay is preserved for existing conditions and has also been expanded to several new parcels on Medford and Pearl Street to protect existing small businesses that may be impacted by the UR upzoning. And if we'd like to go two slides ahead. This is the final scenario for conversation, scenario four. This is looking at mid-rise extended. This is the highest impact proposal in terms of being responsive to the council feedback of unlocking increased housing production via incremental upzoning. We're seeing alignment with strategic planning documents in this proposal and really the key difference here between scenario three and scenario four is looking at increasing some of the mid-rise expansion. This proposal Moves forward with mid-rise six upzoning along Medford Street. You will also see Stickney Avenue has been proposed for mid-rise six designation to unlock potential for lot consolidation on that block. And mid-rise four upzoning is proposed on the west side of Medford Street in this proposal. Otherwise, conditions remain the same to scenario three in terms of a UR upzoning along the School and Marshall Street corridors up to the Broadway corridor. and pedestrian street designation remains the same as the previous proposals. And similarly to scenario three, the small business district overlay has been expanded to a few parcels that may be impacted where there's existing small businesses in the neighborhood. So these are the four we wanted to share for conversational purposes with the Council. And there was one other piece of analysis that I wanted to share for context that helped to shape some of these maps in terms of a fiscal impact analysis. But perhaps I'll pause there to see if there's any initial feedback to the maps.

Councilor Wilson. Yeah, thanks Mr. President. Through you, to our land use analysts, thank you for this. We talked at one of the meetings a while back about the interactions between some of the mid-rise districts and NR in terms of step backs, sorry, setbacks. Any thought that this one, some of these show more UR bordering the MR. Is there any reason why we wouldn't want to just pursue a general strategy of, you know, a ring of UR next to MR in general?

Yes so I would say you know from a contextual standpoint in terms of transitioning between typologies that would be fairly considered a best practice to move between mid-rise and then transition to urban residential towards neighborhood residential to provide kind of that contextual decrease in density between the blocks. I think what we were looking towards in the scenarios between the UR was really thinking about what could be done within the quarter mile lock shed and where there's existing corridors with higher foot traffic that might make sense for that urban residential up zoning so the difference between scenario three and four in regards to that or I should say scenario two and scenarios three and four is that we're expanding further up Marshall and School Street all the way up to the Broadway corridor. So the key contextual question there is really around whether we're comfortable moving beyond the quarter mile walk shed. We have a couple of parcels that go I would say one to two blocks outside of that if we want to extend the streetscape fully up to the Broadway corridor. So that was really the key consideration there. And there is data to speak to folks being willing to walk within a half mile buffer to a major transit corridor. So there would be some data rationale behind that. The first proposal does not include the UR component simply because that was kind of outside the scope of the initial conversations that we were having with the Gilman Square Neighborhood Council who was primarily focused on an upzoning along Medford and Pearl Street. And I think we were then responding to the council's interest with some of these UR proposals.

Mr. Chair, I like the idea of at least some band of UR next to those MR just because I think it's going to, for everything we've heard, is it allows for more flexibility, better use of that land in those mid-rise districts. I guess I'm looking at some of them off of Medford Street, some of them off of Pearl Street where you see the, you know, deep purple of MR there with the NR next to it. So just flagging that as something I'd be curious to see.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you, thank you so much. So a couple hours before the meeting, this committee got a memo from the mayor's office raising concerns basically writ large with upzoning proposals in Gilman Square. And there are two issues. One of them has to do with public engagement that, you know, neighborhood scale zoning changes kind of benefit from and others. I think that's absolutely before we move forward. I think it's important that we have public engagement around what we're considering. The other one has to do with displacement and says the Office of Housing Stability has serious concerns that upzoning may lead to increase development pressure on these parcels. So I just have a question on that point. Could be argued for any parcels in the city, right? You know, we talk about upzoning in a lot of different contexts. And as a general concept, you could make this argument. I'm just wondering, I want to understand this. Is there something particular about this area that the Office of Housing Stability has identified as an area of concern? Or is this more general that upzoning can increase displacement?

That sounds like a question for the city. I don't think housing stability is here, but the IGA's office is here.

Through the chair, for the record, my name is Yasmin Radassi. I'm legislative liaison with Intergovernmental Affairs in the mayor's office. My understanding is that the Office of Housing Stability's concerns are not specifically targeted towards Gilman Square. It's more of a high-level concern for upzoning generally in the city. I also did want to say, I know that Councilor Ewen-Campen already highlighted some of these, but did really want to emphasize the deep concerns about displacement and public engagement. I just want to share that engaging in a neighborhood council is great, but we want to make sure that we're engaging with all folks that would be impacted, especially our renders that would potentially be displaced by upzoning. And I just wanted to highlight that the council has consistently prioritized preservation of our communities and fought against displacement with the goal of keeping Somerville families in Somerville and the administration believes that more comprehensive engagement is required to ensure that displacement impacts can be minimized and that all residents in the neighborhood are aware of any proposed changes. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, through you, thank you very much. I think this is absolutely and kind of straightforwardly a conversation that we are always having and should always be having. My view I don't think for me that doesn't like end the conversation on upzoning right the idea that it could cause displacement because the as I see it say we have a parcel right next to a train station that it's zoned for neighborhood residents um we don't want to displace the current tenants obviously um in many cases we just see this all over the city all over every city In many cases, the property owner will still displace those tenants and then the thing they build is a large mansion, right, or a two-unit double mansion instead of an apartment building so that you get kind of the worst of both worlds. You get the displacement and you also get the creation of a We certainly do not want to pour fire on the displacement crisis by any means. We also want the zoning to be appropriate for if and when property owners decide to redevelop something, they're building something that's appropriate for that context. So I appreciate this memo. I take it seriously. I think this is obviously a conversation we need to always be having in our head. But to me, it's not like a, therefore we don't look at this.

Thank you. And if I could just comment on that real quickly. I think we're in a new territory. Thanks to our own land use analysts, we have a position within the City Council to actually move forward with some ideas. And I've consistently said that these are ideas until it's a plan. And when there is a plan, there will of course be a thorough community process, public hearing, notification. All of that. So I can understand why some people will see a map and think that we're going to decide something next week. That's not going to be the case. But this is the committee where we have these conversations. It's important for us to have these conversations in public So people know what we're thinking. I just want to put that out there. And I was hoping, I definitely want to move forward as fast as possible, but just in case people are concerned, I don't see any decisions like this coming this year. It'll be under the new administration and hopefully it will be more communication and coordination with the Office of Housing Stability and the Planning Department and the IGAs so that we won't have this confusion. Councilor Davis. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Would it were that we could do anything in a week. So I completely sign on to all of this conversation. I won't repeat much of it because what I was going to say in response to this memo has largely been said. I completely agree. Obviously, there is a need and absolutely will be public engagement. I just note, I mean, yes, upzoning leads to increased development pressure. That's the point. that's what we're trying to do that's why we're looking at these at these zoning changes because um where we move forward with these it's it would be it would be if we if and where we would move forward because we feel like more development is the right answer there um so i guess i just i I want to put a specific point on that. That's not a bug. That's the actual intent. And just to put a real-world example, I can't remember when it was that we first introduced the site. At least a year ago, I think longer than that, and we've been talking about the concepts of getting up zoning in and around our transit nodes for quite some time. We still don't have it. And in the meantime, I've got two pretty small developments going in pretty much right in the heart of Davis Square, kind of on the immediate edge that are . I would love for there to have been an opportunity for more density in those spots. I'm happy that they're going forward. It is going to increase our housing in those two scenarios, and the community has been generally in favor of them. But it's a perfect example of what the Council from Ward 3 noted and why I do appreciate the chairs continuing to push this discussion, and I do look forward to moving this Moving this into that robust public conversation and getting some real changes on paper. I want to make one other note and I guess I'll put this out there for discussion but and specifically a request to Ms. Carr to as we're looking at this and I'll look to Director Bartman to make sure that I'm not misremembering this and just chuck something at me if I say if I'm getting this completely wrong but My recollection is I think contrary to how I first drafted it, I think that the way that we accomplished a zoning mechanism to ensure that when development projects happen in our squares, they don't include a massive commercial space right in the middle of our pedestrian street where one might put I don't know hypothetically for example you know a bank building with nothing else in it or a city target or that sort of thing was to was to use the the small business overlay that's where we ended up yeah so right now that only that that This tool has only been rolled out in Davis Square. It's my view that we ought to have that in all of our squares. And so as we look at certainly this hypothetical in Gilman and any of the other squares, I would really like to see that put in place. The small business overlay was originally to ensure that home-based businesses could be along some of our major corridors. and Director Bartman's recommendation and ultimately was the correct one was to also use that tool to ensure that in our squares we have multiple varied sizes of commercial spaces that are more conducive to a robust infrastructure of small and independent businesses and having a variety of those types of spaces. My intent when we when we created that thing a few years ago was to have it go everywhere and I haven't sort of pushed it on to my other colleagues and other wards but I'm gonna start doing that now because it It's now back to top of mind. So as we move forward with these conversations, that's one tool that I would like to just call out and flag that, you know, I think that's a really important tool to help protect some of the aspects of our squares and that sort of, you know, intimate pedestrian experience and that community experience is having lots of small, you know, not just small, but a variety of sizes, not one big giant space. Smaller spaces bring lower rents and more opportunity for businesses at different points in the life cycle. Let's use that tool where we can. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Councilor Wilson. Yeah, Mr. President, I'll thank the administration for putting that memo out. Obviously, we should talk about always displacement risks and the need for public engagement on these things. Lord knows this committee's been having a discussion for months now about upzoning, different strategies for it. I think the reason why it's worth pursuing this, especially at these transit areas like this, is because one, I think there's a lower risk of displacing naturally occurring affordable housing there because it's by transit. There's going to be less naturally occurring affordable housing just because of what we know about what the Green Line coming to Somerville has done to rents around those stations. The other thing then is the payoff that you're looking at for doing this with genuinely affordable units that might be coming in because of inclusionary zoning and density bonuses. And that's why I think the juice is worth the squeeze on this. And that's why I support the idea of upzoning around transit. It just makes sense. It's the most bang for the buck with the least risk of displacement.

The water planners would agree with you. Any further questions or comments? Seeing none, this item will be remaining committee. Thank you Ms. Carr for the presentation and I look forward to talking to the community and the council about it more in the future. Do we have any more?

I did just want to quickly flag, there's a couple of slides at the end of the presentation here around a fiscal impact analysis. If we do have time, I'm happy to go through those or just keep them as a point of reference for folks. So just wanted to provide a quick snapshot and thank you all for the feedback and commentary on the proposals. We're looking forward to continuing to move these forward and to think about moving from ideation to creation of something more formal here. I wanted to provide a little I would note into some of the back end analysis that's been done to inform the maps here one piece of that that we've chatted about previously in the workflow is a fiscal impact analysis so just wanted to provide a snapshot of what that looks like for folks to see as one snapshot scenario we looked at was comparing the fiscal impacts of existing conditions for three neighborhood residential lots compared to consolidating those lots and up zoning to urban residential to Facilitate the development of a new 30-unit apartment building. This scenario was chosen due to average unit and floor plate assumptions that we were able to surmise based on our scraping of historical permitting data since 2019. For urban residential building types on average we're seeing about a 7,000 square foot floor plate with 30 units on average per building. In terms of the methodology, there's two scenarios that have been put forward with three parcels being selected. These were all selected within the upzoning area that's being considered. So primarily within the quarter mile walk shed, although there is one parcel that falls in the half mile walk shed. And also was thinking thoughtfully about where urban residential development is likely to occur. Making a contextual comparison to existing adjacent properties. One of the assumptions that goes into the fiscal impact model is a land valuation. So a custom square foot valuation was calculated based on assessment data for existing urban residential properties in Gilman Square to try and provide a calibrated neighborhood example of what that cost would be per square foot. If we want to go to the next slide, I have a quick snapshot of the scenario one results. So the first scenario was looking at three neighborhood residential lots. Two are existing single-family structures. One is a duplex with a total of five units between the three parcels compared to redeveloping, consolidating the lots, and facilitating the development of a 30-unit urban residential apartment building. In terms of net municipal revenue impacts, we're seeing a gain of $28,000 annually. And responsive to Council's concerns or questions around what would impacts be to local schools, we've included that as a point of contact here. So for school impact, we're seeing a marginal increase of one student. And we've also listed the evaluation assumption here as a point of reference. In the last slide here, we've got the second scenario that's similarly looking at the three neighborhood residential lots but was looking at a different typology, so two triple-decker structures and one single-family home. In other scenarios, triple-deckers might have additional units. In this particular context, there's two units per structure, so we're still looking at a five-unit versus 30-unit apartment building comparison. You'll see there's a smaller net municipal revenue gain, incrementally smaller for 25,000 annually, and a slightly smaller school impact of anticipated additional two students in the neighborhood. So just wanted to provide this as a little bit of background. If there's an interest in looking, say, at the mid-rise portion of the corridor to see the fiscal impacts, that's something I'd be happy to take a look into further to provide some insights of what the revenue impacts and school impacts would be to the committee. Thank you.

Councilor Ewen-Campen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you, thank you very much. So my recollection, the question that had been raised originally from maybe historic planning, was about the effect on tax bills for current residents. So at a future meeting, I would be very interested to see that in addition to the revenue gain to the city, if there is no development on those parcels and they just sit there in an up zoned district, do their tax bills go through the roof? That's I think what I'd like to understand. So if that'd be possible at a future meeting, I don't know how to calculate that, but if there's a way to do it, I'd love to see it.

Council Wilson. Mr. Chair, I want to thank our colleague from Ward 3 for clarifying that. That was my question from watching this was I recall it being about, you know, just an upzoning and the impact on someone there, you know, before any development happens. I'll point out, you know, with Prop 2 1⁄2, right, that is an overall limit, that's a limit on the overall growth of the city's tax levy. and it might be something where, you know, I'd be curious to hear from the Chief Assessor how that works in terms of DOR, you know, forcing, you know, you don't want to see a handful of properties basically absorb all of that if they're forced to jack those valuations. Possibly an argument for doing a bunch of this at once so it's not a handful of properties. It all depends on the answers we get from the Chief Assessor but I'd be really curious to hear more about this, you know, given the clarification we got from my colleague.

Thank you. I don't want to speak on behalf of the administration. So feel free to jump in if you'd like to clarify. But my understanding is that the assessor's office is hoping to be available for the next session to answer some of those questions.

Through the chair, the assessor's office, as everyone knows, is currently in the process of doing the tax reassessment, which is hopefully going to be presented at the November 25th council meeting. We are waiting for final confirmation from the Department of Revenue, I believe it is, before the assessor's office would feel comfortable coming to speak on this item before the committee. I have been in contact with them just making sure that we don't we haven't had that final confirmation from Department of Revenue so I have not forgotten that the request there was a request for assessor's office to be here I am still working on it thank you thank you any further questions or comments okay this item will remain in committee all other items will remain in committee as well except for the work of the work complete we did

Item four, what's that? Adam Clark in the back. Yep, thank you. All right, seeing no further business, we are adjourned. Everyone's here, so no need for a roll call. Good night, everyone.