by David Dahlbacka in All Ages, Beat Reporter, City Finances, Development and Zoning, Environment and Open Space, Events, Green Line, Neighborhoods and Squares, Union Square
Posted on September 23, 2012 at 5:05 pm
| September 25, 2012 | ||
| 6:00 pm | to | 8:00 pm |
GD Star Rating
loading…
loading…
Somerville Housing and Community Development Committee Meeting
Tue. Sep. 25 6:00 – 8:00 PM
Somerville City Hall
Aldermanic Chambers
93 Highland Ave.
Somerville MA (map)
This is a special meeting of the BOA Housing and Community Development Committee.
Agenda includes a discussion and possible vote on the Union Square Revitalization Plan.
The HCD Committee evaluates proposed zoning changes and makes recommendations to the BOA.
For more information, see:
- Union Square Revitalization Plan
- Beat Report: 9/19/12 Public Hearing on Union Square Revitalization Plan
- Beat Report: 9/13/12 Housing and Community Development Committee Meeting as a Whole
- Somerville Meeting Portal
- Aldermanic Standing Committees
GD Star Rating
loading…
loading…
Beat Report: 9/25/12 Housing and Community Development Meeting as a Whole
Bottom Line on Top
The Union Square Revitalization Plan was voted out of committee 6 yes, 3 no, 2 absent. The dissenters, Aldermen White, Taylor, and Gewirtz, were concerned that success with the plan was contingent on the T going through. The State isn’t treating this as a binding obligation. What if New Starts funding doesn’t happen? What if a new administration abrogates the deal? Will the City be on the hook? The Mayor and others disagreed.
Rough Notes
[I arrived 10 min late]
White: Concerned that success is contingent on T going through.
Mayor: The existing uses were not highest and best use. Received $43 M toward T engineering. T will go forward with T stop regardless of New Starts funding. According to MOA, T Board of Directors can’t commit yet.
Gewirtz: Real chance money won’t go through. Lot of groups pushing, who knows what’ll happen. No explicit commitment. If state doesn’t come up with money, what are our implications?
Mayor: Money will deal with after Washington Street. Union Square not required for Union Square stations. If don’t get New Starts, could delay rest of GLX. Need to put T into acceptable level of repair.
White: I don’t see financial commitment to do this. See hortatory language. It’s contingent on MBTA Board of Directors. Have to move tracks, build North Point station, and bring the tracks to Union Square. I’d like to see state say they will treat this as binding obligation.
Mayor: MBTA cannot bind votes. If we develop land we’ve acquired now, it’ll still be better than what we have now. If we don’t do this, state won’t do T stops until New Starts funding arrives. We need more debate on transportation finance.
Gewirtz: You are saying that the state won’t do this unless we don’t. Why can’t they take it themselves?
Mayor: Need transportation reform. State had to work out a plan with us. They’ve made a public and explicit commitment. Governor and MBTA have committed. Next Governor might not and we’d have a legal battle. Even if we weren’t building T stop, we’d still want to control those parcels.
O’Donovan: Redlines on handout. Last time we were doing D2. Are we still?
LaFuente: Some deletions.
Glavin: Revised schedule. Asian Market is no longer on our list because it shouldn’t have been. All of our presentations have had them removed.
Heuston: Leave off GLX. What is it about this plan that will cause development where rezoning did not?
Glavin: Board did the right thing approving new zoning. Zoning can be powerful incentive. Here we have combination of things. The economy is weak. Zoning alone wouldn’t do it. Value added is expression of City interest in an area, particularly taking D2 (an island of despair). Development community needs to know that the plan can be realized. Approving revitalization plan does that. Will help D2, and that will help surrounding parcels. Can’t really detach GLX issue. It is a major part of the plan. Area of despair needs to be turned around.
Mayor: Analogous to Assembly Square. Difference was T said you aren’t getting a T stop there. We fought and got one. Here we didn’t have to fight for the T stop. But we need to show convincing evidence of our commitment. Bond rating went up after we commitment.
Heuston: Moving forward with D2, there will be a bond issue of $8M. Does this require the SRA to take actions? How long would they wait to take property? Would they wait for nature to take its course? Nothing in this says D1, D3, etc. has to happen in a particular time frame.
Glavin: Other parcels provide development community a notion of our vision. As D2 reaches point of developer interest and GLX starts construction, development community will be attracted to not only D2 but surrounding sites. Told parcel owners the other sites may not be acted on for some years. Government sites (library, etc.) are likely to be acquired.
Trane: MBTA commits here to go to Medford Hillside.
Mayor: We’ve received $8M in MPO to go to Rte. 16.
Hayes: MPO has design $8M in MPO and $190M to get to Rte. 16.
Trane: We keep never seeing Rt. 16 on these plans. Where is it? People will be asking me again. No legally binding document. If you sign it, they have an out to not build it.
Mayor: SIP said “to Medford Hillside”. We advocated going to Rt. 16.
Hayes: Mitigation for Ozone is going to Medford Hillside. Somerville asked they go to Rt. 16 terminus. Have committed funds for design and construction.
Trane: Asking taxpayers to spend $. If T doesn’t go to Rte. 16, Ward 7 doesn’t benefit.
Mayor: We all agree T has to go to Rt. 16.
Desmond: Right to question what state will do. City has been proactive, always led charge, even when budgets cut by state. D2 has to be improved, regardless. Let’s not hesitate now. State may decide we are going to back off. We need to keep pushing. Rezoning of Union Square was good, we need to move forward.
Connolly: Like Davis Square too. Huge fight over land takings where Harvard Vanguard and T stop is. Davis Square has gone forward. Site control is really important. Realizes the zoning we prepared. We should be aggressive, but cautious. What about remediation? Will we get compensation for cleanups?
Glavin: City and SRA are under mitigation program now. We’ve asked for your support. The T station remediation is done by T. Privately owned property not included. Prefer to negotiate with private owners to do the work elsewhere.
Mayor: City is entitled to have the price reduced by the price of remediating dirty dirt. In Boynton Yards owner objected to price, had to pay $50K back to city.
Connolly: You’ll have a strategy in place to determine cost of remediation? Will we be in position where we have to do it ourselves?
Mayor: Need to assess our fiscal exposure. Work with private parties. We got $1M in cleanup money for parcels we now own.
Glavin: As developers come forward, they may identify sources of funding. They need to be clear they are responsible.
Azar: Redevelopment authorities are exempted from environmental liabilities. State advised we hire legal counsel specifically for environmental work. Going after access agreements with owners for soil testing. Have a person who did testing for VHB for state.
Gewirtz: Appreciate proactive nature of this. Would like to know that this relies on votes not yet taken, what happens if we don’t get GLX. What are taxpayers on the hook for, $8M? People won’t want to come in with no GLX.
Mayor: What zoning is in place? With GLX, have density around T stop. Say we don’t get GLX, can still remediate and redevelop. Will exceed current tax revenue. We’d do this anyway. Did that in Boynton Yards.
Gewirtz: Who the “we” is. City isn’t a developer. We did our zoning assuming T was coming. Didn’t expect zoning to spark a big revival. When city takes things by eminent domain, it’s a big deal. We’re taking much more than the T requires. What happens if it doesn’t work? What’s the plan?
Mayor: We have the ability to pay off $8M. Depends on kind of development. Would still have improvement.
Gewirtz: I hear we already have $. Why a bond?
Mayor: Don’t have $. It is in the capital plan, needs bond.
Gewirtz: Those of us in West Somerville want rest of extension. Requires state to get New Starts $ (almost a billion $). State accepted necessity of doing Medford Hillside, not Rt. 16.
Taylor: How many parcels are historical?
Glavin: Ongoing work. We believe we have avoided previously identified parcels. Will look at entire district and ask board for consideration of new parcel developments.
Heuston: If there were historical parcels, what happens with plan?
Glavin: If there were future designations, we would need to adjust plan for such properties.
Taylor: Say Union Square Post Office (historical): How will you redevelop that?
Glavin: Efforts in play to sell to a developer. We could develop it for many uses. Redevelopment study prefers use that still allows people to go inside it. Would encourage artistic use.
O’Donovan: We knew in Assembly Square that T stop would never come if we didn’t up zone. Same thing here. Even without Green Line, up zoning could help anyway. In West Somerville, don’t have benefit. Let’s do the best we can with this. Mr. Glavin, RFP for appraiser and relocation folks?
Glavin: I have info here.
Mayor: State paid attention to our rezoning vote. State recognized they leave a lot of $ on the table if they don’t build GLX. Board vote was critical.
White: Have been unsuccessful takings. Failed plans happened because you tried to move where the natural economy didn’t support it. Use takings if private parties can’t get it done. At Assembly Square we didn’t have to take properties ourselves. Market did not reflect value because all there was was a storage facility. Wouldn’t do that now after the T stop goes in. I’ve afraid that natural economy prohibits good development. Have people been saying they can’t acquire property?
Glavin: Developers have approached us about general plans, not about specific properties.
White: We have a risk if we take property. We don’t know what a jury would award. What would we get if the Feds don’t pay? Are there developers out there to depend on? Do you have statements from Gov. that they will do Union Square no matter what? Could have someone take over as governor and abrogate agreement to support GLX to fix SIP.
Mayor: Are public statements to the MPO. We’ll make them available.
O’Donovan: Are there any failures in area recently? Examples?
White: Not in Eastern Massachusetts.
Mayor: Had example of transit with no community. Did nothing.
Trane: In Kendall Square took parcels 30 years ago, not yet developed. They can afford to wait.
LaFuente: If we do this, puts pressure on state. Boynton Yards could get pharmaceuticals and R&D that can’t get into Kendall Square. They’re going into Alewife now.
Desmond: Re Kendall Square, there’s still the commuter rail. We could ask for commuter rail stop.
Mayor: Transformation takes 20 years. Assembly Square has been 15-20 years. Won’t happen in the future if we don’t move now.
Heuston: Talking about big picture items. About plan specifics: talk about reconstructing streets, reconstructing utilities, etc. Suppose somebody wants all of D2. Where does reconstruction happen? Where does money come from to do reconstruction?
Glavin: Hayes has brought in state money. If we got a developer, we could advocate for other funds with their assistance.
Hayes: To realize plan, need infrastructure. Highway funds? Water and sewer will be more expensive than transportation work. MWRA has money to invest. Federal highway administration to bookend transit investment. ARRA money came for roadway work. This is a poster child investment.
Glavin: We want to see $2M used for engineering to support pursuing these funds.
Hayes: No other municipality in the state is as good as we are. Because we always have a plan.
Mayor: At Assembly Square, had no $. Knew we had to find funds, pursued iCubed and DIF. When we do assessment early, have easier time finding $.
Heuston: Are various maps that discuss parcels for acquisition, etc. What do these terms mean? Which comes first?
Glavin: Parcels we’re asking for underwriting is D2. Others are “prospective” opportunities. Acquisition is taking of land. Need full appraisals first. Remediation plan required (public ours). Disposition is process where SRA talks to developers about selling property. Demolition is required, esp. at T stop area. SRA would arrange demolition bids. Transformation is to identify an area for higher and better use. Identified Boynton Yards, McGrath Highway, and area 1. Area also includes preservation areas.
Trane: If things get delayed and SRA has property, could we say “rent these out”.
Glavin: SRA could decide on interim uses. For some parcels, remediation issues would make it hard to propose uses that could make us liable.
Taylor: Demolition, rehabilitation. What parcels to be rehabilitated?
Glavin: Doesn’t show rehabilitation in D2.
Azar: On pp. 24-30 maps: which would be rehabilitated? Page 17, highlighted areas include D2, public open space in blue. Area in red is demolition. Only demolition currently considered is on D2.
Taylor: Possible rehabilitation on other parcels?
Glavin: Except for post office, see demolition as necessary.
Azar: P. 28, buildings: Post office and scat building to be rehabilitated.
Glavin: Only post office slated to be kept.
Heuston: We had robust public hearing. Lot of comments in favor, but there were a lot of comments about a particular parcel. Glavin said “potential” about the rest of the parcels. If someone has a parcel and wanted to take advantage of D2 improvements, would that be hindered by being in the plan? Doesn’t drop hammer on anything but D2. Talking 2014-2017. Feel more comfortable that owner could look around and say, I’m interested in helping revitalization. If parcel not in plan, would that make it harder for SRA to do plan. My sense is that immediacy of D2 is 3-5 years. Is there enough notice for people who own parcels for them to take the first step themselves?
Glavin: Report of our conversations. Made it very clear that timing for non-D2 parcels is several years. Very likely their interest or another interest may want to go forward on their own. Could go to SRA and say “I have this plan”. If it’s in keeping with plan, could let it go on. In 20 years, could be changes beyond that. The use across from T stop is a use we encourage. No imminent threat exists.
LaFuente: Have business colleague near D3. Passing papers on property in D3. 60% of his business will be in D3. He’s not concerned because he can develop it himself. Doesn’t prevent you from developing land yourself.
Mayor: I am a customer of company near D2 (I think CrossFit). We have been approached by people who want to know what’s happening so they can get in. Ricky’s Flowers would be good there. Dunkin Donuts too. We’ve extinguished some uses.
White: My understanding was an individual who spend money to develop a business. Does being designated for taking affects access to capital?
Glavin: Request for financing would look at many issues. Issue of collateralization most important. Nothing in our plan that suggests that an owner would get less than fair market value. Owner could object to pro tanto value. It wouldn’t in itself cause a problem, provided there is a fair market value acquisition.
White: I’m disagreeing with you. If an individual is concerned about future of investment. If 7-8 years from now it becomes desirable, why not designate it then? Why impinge on his current business for a future? Can vote to change the plan. We don’t gain anything by listing.
Glavin: We’ve identified these parcels as being higher and better useable. If we were going to immediately acquire, this would be a different discussion. When D2 is built, creates opportunity across street to build higher.
Mayor: Assembly Square issue at Central Steel. No imminent T-stop. We had to get everything into plan. No plans to change anything at that Union Square site. At Assembly Square we had to do it.
White: Central Steel would be in short term development plan. That was IKEA site. Putting people’s property on the line without a developer in play isn’t a good idea.
LaFuente: Don’t understand White. I own a business. When I go for a loan, real estate has nothing to do with it.
White: I take person at his word. Lot of businesses raised same concern. Building may be backing up business loans. Does affect people’s ability to get loans for property.
Gewirtz: Anxious about this. There are already things in play for next 6 months. Why go beyond what the T needs? We’re tying it into something unrelated. Zoning is standard, taking people’s personal investments. Why can’t we tell T we’ll give them what they need, wait until the T gets in or we get a developer? Would like to see something from developers saying they’re interested.
Glavin: We’re only talking about D2. Land is a threat to our public health. Land is disincentive to other development. Only $64K now. If fully built out, $2.4M.
Mayor: What got us the Orange Line T Stop was net new taxes and net new jobs. We need to get GLX done as soon as possible so there’s no backing up. State wants net new taxes, net new jobs. Don’t want to nickel and dime the area. Assembly Square transfers were negotiated.
Gewirtz: If there’s a new governor, there’s a risk.
Taylor: Schedule for dealing with issue?
LaFuente: Could move it today, ask for information.
Taylor: Feel uncomfortable with moving plan tonight. Understand D2 is our focus. Should deal with D2 separately from rest of plan. Hold rest of plan back.
O’Donovan: If you want to separate D2, do it.
Heuston: It’s a plan. We have to move on it.
LaFuente: 3 things. (1) Decision based on GLX timeline. If we move forward, can pressure state. (2) Get shovel in ground before new governor comes. Can’t show doubt. (3) Development still benefits us, even if GLX doesn’t come. In 20 years, Union Square will be the best in the city. (Humorous disturbance.)
Gewirtz: Question is, do we need to do more deliberation?
Taylor: Can we separate D2?
Mayor: Plan is what it is.
Taylor: Put rest of plan off until more discussion happens.
Mayor: If 5 months ago, could do that. Cannot miss MOA timeline.
Trane: Need more info to be comfortable. Are we the first community that has done takings ourselves?
Glavin: Partners in acquiring an amenity. We would be demolishing this anyway. We continue to own land. We’d be doing this anyway.
Mayor: Assembly Square T stop is first in 25 years. We had to sell the jobs and taxes. We’re fine if there’s another meeting. We can’t delay forever.
Trane: We’ve lived through ghost town eras. We can’t let things happen again like they did then. Need to be able to tell constituents we’re helping them.
O’Donovan: Move the motion. The sooner we move, the better. It’s a smart growth proposal. We have other questions. Discharge this Thursday night.
Gewirtz: Want to defer to ward alderman in location. Not comfortable voting for it until ward alderman is comfortable.
O’Donovan: It’s more than a ward issue. We would have to re-notice it.
Heuston: Had some concerns. Clearly a package. Got into the details. Know business owners have put a lot of money into their auto businesses. Any of them could ask me to exclude their parcel. Not necessarily a ward issue. Grew up in Union Square. Thought it was wonderful. Want it to be that way again.
Connolly: Happy to second this. Davis Square went forward, Assembly Square is going forward. This will be very exciting. We’ll control the site.
Heuston: No money can appropriated for a taking except by Board. As each phase comes up, we could halt this plan. SRA can’t trump us. [Legal counsel agrees.]
Taylor: What’s exact timeline?
Mayor: Need this at beginning of October.
White: If SRA had an indemnity from developer, SRA wouldn’t have to go to City for money.
Glavin: We aren’t pursuing that approach.
White: It’s a 20 year plan.
Glavin: Plan would have to be changed by the board.
LaFuente: Moved and seconds. I think this is a very exciting thing happening. Roll call on calling the question:
Gewirtz, Taylor, White, no.
2 absent.
6 in favor.
On question of approval:
Gewirtz, Taylor White, no.
2 absent.
6 in favor
Move to adjourn.
loading...
Aldermen Roche and Sullivan were not present.
Aldermen Lafuente, Heuston, O’Donovan, Trane, Desmond, and Connolly voted in favor.
Aldermen Gewirtz, Taylor, and White voted against.
loading...