On Monday, I went to the Union Square rezoning meeting held at Somerville High. I took my laptop with me and took the following “live blog” notes. The slides and maps are available on the city website.
6:00pm - First thing I saw on the way in was a map of Union Square, stood up on an easel. The map showed the greater Union Square area into 5 kinds of zones: CCD, TOD-55, TOD-85, TOD-100, and TOD-135. Overlayed across several zones is an AOD. I don’t know what those stand for yet, but I’m guessing the ‘D’ in each is for ‘district’. Oh, and by “Union Square”, it actually refers to the area we traditionally think of as Union Square, but also extending eastward all the way, slightly past McGrath highway (including the AJ Wright/Target area and even Pat’s towing), and southward to Boynton Yards (that industrail no-man’s land where Taza Chocolate is).
6:05pm - Walking to the auditorium entrance, I was approached by a friendly woman from the Affordable Housing Organizing Committee (AHOC) who asked me to sign a petition in favor of a 15% affordable housing requirement, and she offered me a green sticker that would pledge my desire to “Keep Families in Somerville”. In general, I think the more affordable housing the better, so I signed the petition. I’m also in favor of keeping families in Somerville (and motherhood and apple pie) so I slapped the sticker on.
6:08pm - I sit down in the Highschool Auditorium. I was delayed because it was raining outside in biblical proportions outside. The rain might be partly responsible for the somewhat sparse turnout. Fortunately, nothing’s started yet.
6:16pm - Monica Lamboy, the Executive Director of the Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development (OSPCD) starts the presentation. It’s your standard bullet-point-laden PowerPoint presentation. She says the purpose of the meeting is to “kickoff broader community involvement in union square rezoning”.
6:18pm - First slide: “Why Union Square?”. Why are we focusing on rezoning in Union Square? Because it has lots of character, diversity, arts, and is the target for the green line extension. In short, it has a lot of “growth potential”.
6:21pm - Next slide: “Existing Challenges”. Union Square is limited in terms of open space, space for commercial uses, and pedestrian and bicycle access. Current zoning impedes further development.
6:24pm - “Comparison with Davis Square”. Davis and Union squares are about the same size, but Davis has twice as much “built space” and 50% higher assessed value per square foot.
6:25pm - “Process to Develop Proposal”. The current proposal is the result of a new effort, a new team at the OSPCD, and input from the Board of Aldermen and various community organizations.
6:26pm - “Vision for Union Square”. People shopping, eating, entertainment. A variety of housing, transit-oriented development, and open space.
6:28pm - Next two slides: “Key Organizing Principles”. These key organizing principles of the project include: develop underdeveloped areas, respect transition between commercial and residential areas, pursue a balanced approach to transit, ensure design quality and compatibility, provide greater certainty, and encourage sustainable development.
6:30pm - Hey, I just learned that COD stands for “Corridor Commercial District”, TOD stand for “Transit Oriented District”, and AOD stands for “Arts Overlay District”. Yay, I was right about the ‘D’ standing for ‘district’!
6:31pm - Madeleine Masters takes over the presentation. She speaks too softly prompting a couple “we can’t hear you!”s from the crowd. She starts over, louder this time. Her slides tell us all about the different zones and what they’re for.
6:32pm - The “Corridor Commercial District” (CCD) is the main business area cutting through the center of the square. A key need for this area: more parking.
6:37pm - The “Arts Overlay District” (AOD) will host art studios and artist work/live space. It will be sure to include sufficient midday transportation for all the artists that wake-up at the crack of noon.
6:41pm - Rob May, director of transit-oriented development for the city, takes the presentation baton and presents the slides on “Transit Oriented Districts”. The TOD districts focus redevelopment, particularly mixed-use redevelopment, around the city’s transit “nodes” (future Green Line stops and major bus stops). The four TOD categories: TOD-55, TOD-85, TOD-100, and TOD-135.
6:43pm - I learn that the maximum height of buildings in the TOD-55 district is 55 feet. Can you guess what the maximum height is in TOD-85? There’s a lower parking requirement on businesses and housing in the TOD districts generally, to encourage use of the nodes and promote a greener city.
6:48pm - TOD-85 and TOD-100 require 5% art-related uses and 15% affordable housing. If TOD-100 buildings are not built according to green building standards, the maximum height is restricted to 85 feet. TOD-135 must have 5% arts-related uses and 17.5% affordable housing. If TOD-135 buildings are not green, the maximum heigh is restricted to 120 feet.
6:51pm - Monica resumes the presentation and explains the “Pedestrian Oriented Requirement”. Some street blocks will be required to have a percentage of streets space for pedestrian uses, including retail shops, eateries, open space, and mass transit stops. The pedestrian access to Boyton Yards isn’t figure out yet, because the street network there is a mess.
6:55pm - “Next steps”. There will be more community meetings and a presentation to the Board of Aldermen. This meeting will also be broadcast on the City Cable TV station.
7:00pm - The question and answer part of the meeting begins, but I unfortunately have to leave for another meeting. Fortunately, the Ellin Reisner took some notes on the Q&A session and the Somerville Journal did some good reporting on that part as well.
Ellin reports that most people voiced the need for affordable housing and some Union Square residents want the height maximums for the buildings lowered. Here are some of Ellin’s personal notes that I’ve edited a bit for clarity:
About 6 reps from Save Our Somerville (SOS) spoke about the need to build and retain affordable housing that is actually affordable to families, so that Somerville residents will not be displaced as they were in Davis Sq.
Steve Mackey from the Somerville Chamber of Commerce said that Union Sq. development should include commercial development (and therefore jobs) because people working in the city will support local businesses. He made the point that the residents own the squares and business districts and a mix of housing and commercial development is the appropriate mix of uses.
A member of the Commission on Energy Use and Climate Change wanted the staff to define “Green building” and the incentives for building Silver LEED. She and others suggested that since Boston is requiring green building (LEED certification) for new buildings Somerville should not just incentivise, it should require it.
There were mixed comments about parking requirements. The plan is to reduce the parking space requirement from one space per bedroom to one space per unit. While this proposal will reduce the cost of building housing thus making it more feasible for developers to build affordable units because each parking spaces add about $45,000 to the cost of building housing, some people (from SOS) want more parking spaces. Other comments about parking supported reducing the number of spaces. It was noted that small commercial/retail stores will be exempt for the parking requirements of larger businesses.
A member of AHOC spoke about the need to maintain ethnic diversity of Union Sq. and voiced a need for more inclusionary zoning. He suggested looking more closely at linkage fees.
Eric Fellinger from Union Square Neighbors argued for greater density and lower building heights. He also said that bonuses for LEED Silver should not be above the currently height standards.
I’ve reproduced the entire Somerville Journal article about the Q&A session below (in compliance with the Journal’s Creative Commons license):
Residents say Union Square rezoning proposal needs more work
By Lyle Moran
Wed Jun 25, 2008, 08:08 AM EDTSomerville -
A new rezoning proposal for Union Square was greeted with mixed reaction from Somerville residents at a meeting Tuesday night at Somerville High School.
The city’s Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development presented a revised plan to send to the Board of Aldermen in September, which called for an increase in the percentage of affordable housing units in four of five proposed Union Square development zones. Three of the zones would see an increase from 12.5 to 15 percent of affordable housing units, while a fourth zone called for an increase from 15 to 17.5 percent.
Matan BenYishay, the chairman of the Affordable Housing Organizing Committee, said he was pleased that the percentage of proposed affordable housing units was increased, but he believed that Somerville needs to make sure these units are truly affordable.
“The redevelopment of Davis Square led to the loss of working-class residents in that area, and we need to make sure the same thing doesn’t happen in Union Square,” BenYishay said.
Matt McLaughlin, president of Save Our Somerville, said he believes all zones in Union Square rezoning plan should call for at least 15 percent of new units being devoted to affordable housing.
“The Green Line coming to Somerville is going to bring a lot of money to the city, and it is only fair for working-class families to benefit as well,” McLaughlin said.
Adam Rich of Summer Street voiced a concern that if too large a percentage of new units in Union Square went to commercial properties, the neighborhood would be dead at night.
“I’m all for increasing the commercial tax base, but consideration needs to be given to immigrants and day-laborers,” Rich said.
The community development proposal also called for 5 percent of new units in three of the five zones to be set aside for artists. Steve Mackey of the Somerville Chamber of Commerce saluted the office of community development for its consideration of the artist community.
“Artists have provided Somerville with many of its redeeming qualities and have generated a lot of positive news for the community,” Mackey said. Steve McLaughlin of Somerville disagreed with the office of community development’s set-asides for artists, and said that housing preference should not be given to a certain occupation of people.
Kristen Zecchi of Union Square Neighbors urged the office of community development to limit the height of new buildings that could be built. “I fear that overwhelming buildings in a small area will encroach on our space,” Zecchi said. Meanwhile, Ellen M. Frith of Summer Street voiced her displeasure with her belief that people with disabilities “are not on the radar screen” in the Union Square strategic planning.
Ward 2 Alderman Maryann Heuston called the revised proposal “a lot better than original,” but pledged she would not vote to pass the plan unless she was assured that a Green Line spur would be located in the area.
“If a Green Line spur doesn’t come into Union Square, then I don’t see the point of rezoning,” Heuston said.
Tuesday’s meeting was the first in a series of 10 meetings office of community development will hold over the summer about the plans for rezoning in Union Square, which is result of the Green Line’s expansion to Somerville that is expected to be completed in 2014.
“This meeting was about kicking off broader community involvement about the potential rezoning of Union Square,” said Monica Lamboy, the executive director of the community development office. “We want to produce a better proposal to give to the Board of Aldermen in September.”
Posted in Development and Zoning, Neighborhoods and Squares
June 28th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
This plan will change the lives of thousands of people so I hope we get a lot of discussion.
June 29th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Greg,
Thank you so much for your great Live Report!!! and you made me laff, too!
So now I’m wondering where’s the first edge, here, what to focus on? I’m a newcomer to this field of knowledge!
Seems necessary to gain familiarity with the particulars regarding how these overlay districts will establish (or protect) land use regs., how they’ll effect site and building planning & design, what kinds of environmental issues are triggered. Are these modified zoning strategies prioritized with humans and quality of life issues in mind or do they seem to only protect commercial interests?!
What kinds of shared access agreements, building facade improvements, bicycle parking facility requirements, prohibited and special permit usages, etc. are specified in each district?
Most important to me is, how will this development improve the lives of Residents-Already-Living-In-Somerville, across the lifespan, with all types of physical abilities?
Thanks again, Greg! You’ve inspired me to learn more…
June 29th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
There was a great deal of discussion about “affordable housing,” and it seems that almost everyone thought that term means something unique. In terms of HUD, it means a four bedroom apartment at $1778, including utilities; and a studio and 1 bedroom at $1048 or so. Most people who were talking about “affordable” meant Secton 8 or some much deeper subsidy for true affordability by low and moderate income people, and a 15% set-aside for $1300 units (which will doubtless be even more expensive by the time they’re built) will NOT preserve or renew Union Square affordability ratios.
Some people ought to look at the Capuano commission on Affordable Housing, now ten years old, where we proposed a real estate transfer tax to purchase, through a real affordable housing Trust Fund, properties for permanent affordability to long term Somerville residents. That Fund could also develop limited equity properties for first time homeowners, and, when the market permits, sweat equity start-ups the way they existed in Cambridge in the 1980’s, wherein new, first time owners, could deeply renovate on the public tab, and had only to hold on to the building for five to seven years to make their money back. Those are real affordability options, and not that HUD formula.
A little homework before testimony might clarify what the discussion is really about.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Thanks for the comments, Joeb. It was definitely unclear from the presentation what constituted “affordable”. Do you have a link to the report produced by the Capuano commission on Affordable Housing? Could you write a post that explains your comments and the different “affordability” options in a little more detail?
June 30th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Speaking of HUD, the City applied for, and was recently approved for, the designation of Union Square- and East Somerville- as Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas (NRSAs) per HUD guidelines.* NRSA objectives are basically to create “communities of opportunity.”
As it is, the city’s CDBG/NRSA programs do not tangibly appear to be benefitting and empowering residents either economically or via housing opportunities. For example, CDBG/NRSA programs should create meaningful jobs for residents in Union Square or East Somerville via the Section 3 clause.
The purpose of Section 3 is to ensure that employment and other economic opportunities generated by these HUD-funded projects are directed to low- and very low-income persons, particularly HUD-funded neighborhood residents who live in public housing, people with disAbilities, Youthbuild participants, and homeless persons in the area. How many folks in Union Square and East Somerville are employed by, or participate in contracts, by the City or its subrecipients?
Are CDBG/NRSA funds being used to fund Big Plans for the City that will actually lock in hidden investor development deals, drive up property taxes, decimate the availability of (relatively) reasonably priced rentals, and create an exile of owners that won’t be able to keep up with mortgages and cost of living in these NRSA funded neighborhoods?
Are the Big Plans for Union Square- as well as East Somerville- about to benefit wealthy investors rather than NRSA residents?
(This year’s CDBG funding amounts to $10,332,097 for 08/09, and pays between 65 -80% of the salaries in the Administrative Department of the department (OSPCD) that oversees this planning.)
*HUD guidelines/checklist for NRSA can be found here: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/library/monitoring/doc/3-15.doc
June 30th, 2008 at 8:42 am
I’ve actually got an electronic version of the report itself. Is there any way to post it here??
June 30th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Thanks to Joeb for providing a scan of the report from Paula Stuart : The Mayor’s Affordable Housing Task Force, Final Report and Recommendations, Dec 30, 1998 (PDF) 9.2MB (please be patient while downloading)
June 30th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Great job, Greg (with a nod to Ellin and the Journal). Maybe the city, before cranking up the bulldozers and powerpoints, could host a series of definitional workshops: 1. What is affordable housing? Who can afford what? Details of the Capuano Taskforce. 2. The “D” list - just what are all those acronyms? What does each one mean and what are the implications? 3. The environmental details - LEED? Green? Nice terms, what do they mean?
Personally, I’m very suspicious of the Arts overlay. As some of the SOS members have pointed out, doing art is a choice, affordable housing for families is a necessity. Also pointed out at an SOS meeting was that if, as claimed by the city, Somerville has almost more artists per square whatever than anywhere else, why are we favoring that group over all others - they seem to be doing OK as it is.
Nothing against the arts and the artists, but this can be a transient group and when they have moved on, we’ll be stuck with some zoning that will be the developers’ delight - potentially very expensive little studio apartments with a lot more zoning freedom than the rest of us have. Please correct me, if I’m wrong.
Alex Pirie
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:09 am
Artists may start out as transient-oriented types, but when they are made comfy and start a family here, as I’ve done, they start getting active in the community in very positive ways. They often are involved in enrichment activities in the schools, for instance (like the play I helped produce at the Brown this year, which you’ll see on SCAT in September), or in beautification projects perhaps. I ran a poetry workshop at the library a couple of years ago (thanks to an Arts Council grant) and the women who joined were inspired to form a group and continue meeting thereafter. I bumped into one of them working at a voting station on election day and another at a school music performance (not because she had kids there, but just likes to go), so those are small examples of the way artists can be good members of the community. I like having them around just for the liveliness they add, but I’d argue there are longterm benefits to encouraging their inclusion. My friends who have established artist communities at Mix-It Print Studios and Brickbottom are very active members of those places and the city.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Well I’d guess that most people have no idea what is considered “affordable” housing. How does a single income family with multiple children afford that? Perhaps we need to ask for a percentage of “low income” housing in each district along with affordable. If we only include 15% “affordable housing, I can’t imagine how much the 85% non affordable housing will cost. Who actually can afford that? Will we become a city with a bunch of millionaires who can live in Union Square?
July 6th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Unfortunately, I was out of town the night of the public meeting, but I had the opportunity to sit in on most of the focus group meetings conducted by Monica Lamboy’s team as they were working on preparing the proposal for public release. My comments are, therefore, about the Union Square zoning proposal as I last saw it about a month ago.
The first thing that I want to say is that Monica Lamboy’s team was, by far, the most attentive and responsive group of City Hall staffers that has worked on the Union Square zoning issue in the 11+ years I’ve been in Somerville. Whether or not you like all the facets of the proposal that was released on June 24, her team deserves credit for thinking deeply about the multitude of issues, and listening and making changes in response to the considerable feedback they got at the focus group meetings.
That said, I remain concerned about the adequacy of efforts to address the affordable housing issue. Although zoning is not the best tool for protecting the affordability of existing housing, the Union Square zoning can make improvements to the City’s Linkage Ordinance, to increase the resources available for protecting housing that is vulnerable to speculation (e.g., providing the Affordable Housing Trust Fund with the cash reserves to be able to purchase or help renovate and deed-restrict properties… before they fall into the hands of speculators).
Much of the debate around affordable housing vis-a-vis the Union Square zoning has centered around the Inclusionary Zoning rate, which now varies from 12.5% to 17.5%, depending on which District we’re talking about (i.e., for every 100 units created, 12.5% to 17.5% would have to be “affordable.”)
As Joeb notes in his comment, “affordability” in the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance doesn’t mean affordable to low income families who need Section 8 rents. In fact, it doesn’t even necessarily mean “family” housing, and in the recent/current housing market, it hasn’t meant rental housing.
So unless things change, the units created under the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance won’t be of any help to the families displaced from existing units of affordable rental housing.
One of the ways in which the inclusionary units could be rendered more affordable is if the income standard by which affordability is determined were based on Somerville median incomes and not the much higher metropolitan Boston median incomes.
Another way would be to allow developers to make tradeoffs (subject to the approval of the City’s Affordable Housing Trust) between the number of inclusionary units and the depth of their affordability (or the number of bedrooms).
Monica Lamboy indicated that the City will be researching potential changes to the Inclusionary Zoning and Linkage ordinances this summer; positive changes in those Ordinances — or incorporation into the Union Square zoning of some helpful changes could make a big difference in (a) whether there are adequate resources for protecting existing affordable housing, and (b) whether new affordable housing is truly affordable to the people who need it in order to remain in Somerville. Under the assumption that modification of the citywide ordinances are potentially a long way off, I lean towards incorporating the kinds of changes I described directly into the Union Square zoning.
The re-zoning of Union Square is extremely complex, and there are controversial tradeoffs in height and density that I am not qualified to judge.
I do believe that the City desperately needs office development to expand its commercial tax base, so that we have the resources to pay for basic services, and the ability to strengthen some of those services, like public safety, public education, adult education and training, after-school programming, accessibilty of public spaces and public buildings, etc.
I do believe that it is critically important — and the time is right — to reduce auto congestion in Union Square.
One of the most important ways of doing that is changing traffic patterns through Union Square, and unfortunately, State funding for the necessary transportation study has apparently been held up.
Obviously, the coming of the Green Line will make a big difference; as evidenced by a recent Herald article noting the potential adverse impact on Green Line expansion of the delay in North Point development (which was to have paid for the relocation of the Lechmere station), we need to remain vigilant and politically active to ensure that the State stays on track with its Green Line commitment.
Although new commercial and residential development will, of course, entail additional parking, it is critically important that the parking ratios for new development, and for expansion of existing commercial uses, be much lower than has been previously required by the Zoning Code; Monica Lamboy’s staff took great care to think through this issue, and came up with some creative solutions that I believe deserve our support.
There was a lot of discussion at the focus group meetings about pedestrian friendliness and accessibility to persons with mobility impairments. However, I think it is important for advocates to stay on top of this issue, particularly while the transportation study is still off in the future. Although prior community assessments have likewise called for greater pedestrian friendliness, we still take our lives in our hands when we cross Union Square, particularly those among us who walk slowly or have mobility impairments. At least in the past, when priorities have determined allocation of funds, pedestrians’ needs have apparently come last.
On the open space question, the proposed zoning sets more ambitious requirements than elsewhere in the City, but less ambitious than, say, Boston and Cambridge in some of their newer development districts. I remain troubled by the fact that developers can buy their way out of the open space requirement, even though I understand that an ireonclad requirement could render some sought-after development projects infeasible. I would feel much better about this buyout option if the funds paid to the City were reserved for purchase of other open space within the Union Square district, rather than becoming available to pay for improvement of existing open space in Union Square or for use elsewhere in the City. Once we lose the opportunity to create open space in Union Square, it’s gone (and developed) forever; if we can use the zoning to maximize the amount of open space set aside in Union Square, then even if the City lacks the resources to improve it in the short term, it’s still protected for the future.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Fred’s considered response, reflecting the focus of the focus group, is a good framework for more work. First, affordability was the primary concern of the Capuano Task Force ten years ago, and the formulae have not changed: the only way to generate adequate affordability - unless the feds expand Section 8 which is highly improbable - is through a transfer tax against speculation. We thought it through then, and the only opposition was from Joe Benoit who quit in a great flurry. It should be considered again, since, among other things, it’s still feasible with the legislature.
Second, people may not know it but the Lechmere Square development - the Cambridgeport Galleria - was funded by the same pot that first funded Assembly Square, and was an Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG). What most people in Cambridge very conveniently forget is that the Lechmere station was to have been moved TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO according to the signed agreements in that grant application. Those agreements bind the City of Cambridge and the MBTA to an urban design that is, ironically, quite different from what resulted and much, much more like the North Point plan.
It’s not nasty to enforce such agreements. In fact, that is the principle that is generating the Green Line, which was specified in another agreement to approve the Big Dig. The private developers of North Point don’t have to spend a time, if they only file a request that the court enforce the MBTA and City of Cambridge agreements that underlie the Galleria and adjoining huge and successful Kendall-Lechmere construction.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if Cambridge had to pay for the gateway to Somerville and Medford?
July 9th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
NEWS FROM CITY HALL JULY 9, 2008
Somerville -
Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone, Ward Two Alderman Maryanne Heuston, Ward Three Alderman Thomas Taylor, and Monica Lamboy, Director of the Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development invite all interested residents to a series of meetings related to the Union Square rezoning proposal. The City will host follow-up meetings throughout July and August, as follows:
– Corridor Commercial Districts and Neighborhood Business Districts
Tuesday, July 8 at 6 p.m.
Argenziano School (290 Washington St.)
– Business Environment and Pedestrian Activities
Monday, July 14 at 6 p.m.
Somerville City Hall, 2nd floor (93 Highland Ave.)
– Transit Oriented Districts
Wednesday, July 16 at 6 p.m.
Somerville City Hall, 2nd floor (93 Highland Ave.)
– Arts Overlay Districts
Monday, July 21 at 6 p.m.
Argenziano School (290 Washington St.)
– Spanish Language Meeting
Tuesday, July 22 at 6 p.m.
Somerville City Hall, 2nd floor (93 Highland Ave.)
– Open Space Meeting
Wednesday, July 30 at 6 p.m.
Argenziano School (290 Washington St.)
– Portuguese Language Meeting
Thursday, July 31 at 6 p.m.
Somerville City Hall, 2nd floor (93 Highland Ave.)
– Haitian Creole Language Meeting
Tuesday, Aug. 5 at 6 p.m.
Somerville City Hall, 2nd floor (93 Highland Ave.)
– Business and Environment Pedestrian Activities
Wednesday, Aug. 13 at 10 a.m.
Somerville City Hall, 2nd floor (93 Highland Ave.)
The rezoning proposal includes three new zones: Corridor Commercial District (CCD); Transit Oriented District (TOD); and the Arts Overlay District (AOD). All interested attendees must RSVP to the Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development at 617-625-6600, ext 2500, or visit http://www.somervillema.gov for updates.