Zoning Recap: Who won, who lost, and a partial list of amendments

Please note: This is an incomplete list and sort of haphazard in how it’s written. I intend to clean it up in future. If you have stuff to add, please message me!

Winners:

US2: Can move forward with their current plan without needing to worry about pesky things like overly restrictive phasing language or 30% green space requirements. Score one for the team.

The Board of Aldermen: Whatever there is to say about this process, it’s clear that the BOA did not sell out their constituents. Instead they took a middle road, taking a dubious zoning overlay and trying to improve it as much as they could. Many of the changes were substantive and left us with better zoning than we would have otherwise had.

Chamber of Commerce: If they wanted flexibility for the developer, they definitely got it. Between zoning and the MLDA, there is a LOT of space left in this plan to deal with market fluctuations and financing concerns.

City of Somerville: We get to keep the $13 million MassWorks grant by passing zoning in a timely manner. Yay? We get to move forward on the budget with zoning firmly behind us. This is a win for people who like their evening meetings to end at 9. Also, we get to start building stuff.

Prospect Hill neighbors: Successfully lobbied for building height restrictions on D6 as well as an updated definition for building height that is measured in feet, rather than stories. (Section 6.7.10.G.F)

The mysterious commercial tenant for D2: At the eleventh hour, US2 stepped in and said they had a commercial tenant lined up for the D2 property. This, more than anything, seems to have pushed the BOA to make peace with zoning and give US2 to the OK to move forward.

Losers:

Process nerds: “This is spot zoning for an entire district.” It sure is. Moreover, it’s a process that was mostly negotiated and directed by the mayor’s office. It’s a testament to the BOA that they fought back on every little detail and tried to improve zoning as much as possible.

CBA: There *will* be a CBA, but to date, US2 has committed no funding. The current benefits contribution is $3.7 million over 30 years. Looking back over the LOCUS priorities, it’s hard to imagine any of these being meaningfully funded at $123,000/year.

Displacement mitigation: Job training, business relocation, community center: all of these things cost money. It is completely unclear as to what mechanism exists to push US2 to commit more money in the future now that the covenant is signed. Zoning was the last big hope. It didn’t work.

Transportation Management Association. Advocates wanted this written into zoning. OSPCD said no. Any future transportation management association will be determined by tenants and private residents, not outlined in the permitting. This is a big loss for transit advocates.

Green and Open Space: Got clarity on language around vegetative landscaping and incentives for green roofs, did not get 30% green and open space. This was a big loss, and it was clearly one of the hardest points for the BOA to let go of. US2 claimed it would compromise the total amount of development space, BOA voted no when it came up as an amendment.

Sustainable Development: Zoning could have been a place where we made good on our new commitment to the Paris Accords, but beyond LEED certification and a minor green roof incentive, there is precious little in zoning about storm water management or net zero building design. This is surprising, given that many of these priorities came directly out of LOCUS

Phasing advocates: The MLDA included phasing that essentially puts a collar on future residential development until construction begins on commercial. We wound up with a slightly stronger version of this plan, but nowhere near the robust phasing that advocates were hoping to get.

Things people wanted, but did not get:

30% green and open space. (Section 6.7.6.A.) This came directly out of the CAC and LOCUS, and it failed to get traction despite extensive discussion at every step in this process. High quality green space (i.e. parks) remains stuck at 17.5% (that’s 70% of 25%, for those crunching the numbers). The BOA failed to get meaningful minimums for “what counts,” though the definitions were clarified to make it clear that it does in fact need to be green, alive, and growing somewhere in the ground.

Higher commercial build-out: (Section 6.7.6.B) Bill White’s Mandatory Mixed Use Ratio was an early effort to push up the commercial numbers. Katjana Ballantyne’s late-stage proposal did the same. We got something in the middle — no higher percentage, but 40–20–40 compromise (40 percent residential, 40 percent office and lab, 20 percent “other commercial uses”). Clarifying the definition helps, but it’s not what advocates were looking for.

Substantively higher levels of affordable housing: (Section 6.7.6.D) It’s clear that US2 will not likely negotiate *more* than 20 percent as a baseline requirement, and while the 3-bedroom compromise is an improvement, it’s nowhere near strong enough to build the number that families actually need to be able to stay in the city. Mark Niedergang’s amendment (6.7.6.D.2) pushed up the numbers slightly, but US2 can still limit 3-bedroom apartments to 15 percent of the total. That’s not nearly enough.

Better commercial phasing: (Section 6.7.6.F. and covenant Section 27) Many advocates — self included — did not feel the MLDA went far enough and pushed for a CofO to CofO match that strictly linked the pace of commercial and residential development. The City Solicitor responded that this would be an illegal taking, since it would materially limit the pace of development. The other option was to take D3 off the table until the right amount of commercial had been built. What we got instead was slightly stronger language around the collar and an assumption that D1 will be leveraged if they fail.

Net-zero building design: (Section 6.7.10.I) The push here wasn’t to insist that Union Square be net-zero immediately, but that zoning lay the groundwork for this to be phased in over time. Advocates weren’t trying to get a green roof on every building, but to make sure USQ is zoned the roofs could support these improvements in future. Does every building need to manage its own storm water right now? No. But zoning could have built in incentives that scaled up over time to make this a reality. It was disappointing to see these issues laid into zoning mostly as an afterthought and to see critical improvements couched in “to the extent possible” language. Again, these weren’t random priorities. They came directly out of LOCUS and are reflected in the city’s own community benefits strategy.

Changes to covenant contributions: (Covenant Section 2) As it stands, direct contributions are around $19 million, which pales in comparison to the $150 million the City will authorize for infrastructure and GLX bonding and the scope of affordability needs. Section 29 of the covenant additionally allows US2 to write off covenant contributions — or the sale price of D1 — if the BOA exercises the vested rights clause and amends zoning in the future.

Community center in Union Square: (Not addressed, would have gone in the covenant as a new line item). There is near-consensus on the desire for a community center on the D blocks, which could have easily been written into either the MLDA or the covenant. It can certainly get written into the CBA, but with no funding allocated the options are significantly narrowed.

Stronger language on labor and jobs: (Covenant Section 5) There are limitations on what can go in zoning; the hope is that this will get worked out in the CBA. The language in the covenant is very weak; Maryann Heuston’s resolution is an improvement, but we will need stronger language if this is going to meaningfully impact the kinds of construction jobs that are available to Somerville residents.

Solid numbers for calculating density: In spite of early requests to revisit the calculations of Floor Area Ratio, the zoning conversation never really engaged question of density. It might have had a big impact on the building height and affordable housing calculations.

More time: The BOA technically had 90 days but pushed it through early with many important amendments going through at the last minute for what remains, essentially, an artificial deadline. Critically, they also ended the protocol for vote reconsideration, which would have allowed the BOA to sleep on final changes before finalizing zoning.

Meaningful improvements

Things we got that are good:

Board of Aldermen / Vested rights: (Section 6.7.5.C.7) Fresh the FRIT waiver, the Board of Aldermen wrote in a clause stating that for affordable housing, jobs linkage, sustainability criteria, and mobility standards, the BOA has the right to amend zoning in the future (basically, to update it) and US2 can be held to the updated standard.

One big caveat: In response to this, the covenant was *also* revised and now reads: “If you do this, we’ll take the cost difference off the per-square foot contributions in this covenant or the cost of future lots purchased.” (covenant Section 29). This part is less good, especially many future leverage points rest on the sale of D1.

Board of Aldermen / Signing off on future covenant changes: (Covenant Section 30) The BOA also wrote in an amendment giving the Board authorizing power over any future changes to the covenant — a critical point, in the event that US2 attempts to write down their contributions in the future. (Section 30 in the June 9 final covenant)

Affordable housing / Payment-in-lieu: (Section 6.7.6.E) One of the first things OSPCD did in this zoning draft was to take the payment-in-lieu option off the table, mandating that US2 build the 20 percent inclusionary zoning all on the D blocks. There was some disagreement among advocates as to whether it’s better to have every building do 20 percent onsite or whether it makes sense to cluster affordable housing on certain lots (D7, for instance). Nevertheless, this is a big win following the Federal Realty loss, with a clear timeline for when this housing gets built.

Affordable housing / Offsite compliance. (Section 6.7.6.E) This one is a little bit complicated. While developer’s can’t build off the D blocks, they can move affordable housing between the D blocks if it seems useful to cluster it. Right now, for instance, US2’s plan for the tower is to build some of the in the tower (the generating site), and move the bulk of it to D7 (the receiving site). There were two important changes made in this regard. First: Originally they only had to build 20 percent of the total affordable housing on the generating site. The BOA amended this to fifty percent (Section 6.7.6.E.1.a). Second: If there is a market value difference between building a unit in the tower and bulding a unit on D7, US2 has to take the difference and put that difference towards the creation of more affordable housing. Where developers might previously have gotten a windfall for moving housing around, now that money goes to more housing. (Section 6.7.6.E.2.c.) Shout-out to Lance Davis and Bill White for this great amendment, and to Mark Niedergang for pushing up total percentages.

Green and Open Space / Neighborhood Park: (Section 6.7.6.A and Covenant Section 28). There will be a park. It will be publicly owned. It will be a minimum of 27,000 square feet. It will very likely be on D4. Not the full extent of what was asked for, and not necessarily in the spot people wanted. Still, parks are good!

De minimus changes: (Section 5.8.6.A) Typically a developer is not required to do significant plan revisions for changes that are “too small to notice.” Thanks to Mark Niedergang for tightening the definitions here.

GLX refund goes back to Somerville: (Covenant Section 2.A) Previously any GLX refund would go back to the developer. Now, if the project in cancelled, Somerville gets paid first. Thanks for catching this, Bill White.

Mediation requirement for CBA negotiations: (Covenant, Section 7) It’s non-binding mediation — less good than, say, binding arbitration — but both are significantly better than “just talk to the city and hope it works out.” If CBA negotiations go south, US2 and the city will split the cost of professional mediation.

Improving notification for renters and civic nerds: (Section 6.7.5.C.) Union Square zoning is, fundamentally, a permitting process with a host of community meetings coming down the pipe. Mark Niedergang and Matt McLaughlin put forward amendments to lengthen notification windows and make sure notice gets out to renters. There will also be an official email list that you can get on if you want to find out about development updates in Union Square. OSPCD also stipulated that the planning staff, not the developer, will be responsible for keeping the minutes of these meetings.

Compliance with SomerVision: (Section 6.7.6.B) It’s easy to forget, in the discussion of phasing, the 60/40 split is now codified as a requirement, not a recommendation. Moreover, the 40–20–40 split gave us a much clearer definition of what “counts” as commercial, with 40% minimum total development required to be high-value (and high revenue) office and lab space.

There were dozens of amendments over six months to the USOD zoning. There is certainly stuff I missed.

Thanks to Ben, Renee, Wig, Rob, Karen, Bill C, Bill S and others for helping to compile this list, and to everyone — including BOA and OSPCD — who put in time and effort into trying to get zoning right. This is my take only. If you have stuff to add or want to argue about the analysis, please message me! Happy to chat further on any of these points.