– 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.

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?

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.

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

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