Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Good evening, everybody. It is 6.03 p.m. on the 16th of July, 2026. It's the regularly scheduled meeting of the Somerville Planning Board. I'm Mike Capuano. I'm the chairman of the planning board. With me tonight is our vice chair, Amelia Aboff, our clerk, Jahan Habib, our members, Lynn Richards, Michael McNeely, and Luke Schuster. The planning board has a quorum Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, this meeting with the Planning Board is being conducted via remote participation. The video recording of the proceedings is available on the City's website's Meetings and Events page. You can also get a recording by emailing planningboard at SomervilleMA.gov. This meeting is being recorded. We have a number of items on our agenda tonight. And here is what we're going to do in so far as the order of the agenda. We have meeting minutes, which I'll take first. We have two cases that have requested continuances. We'll continue those. I will then take up one McGrath Highway, which has previously been continued from June 18th. And Amelia has indicated, as she has previously, that she'll need to recuse herself from that agenda item. And when we conclude a discussion or business on that agenda, she'll be able to rejoin. And then we will have a number of things that are kind of interesting and cool. So we will have. a discussion with Alana Gaffney at the Housing Department, which was something that the Planning Board had requested and posed some questions kind of following one of the more recent projects that we've had at, I believe it was Webster Avenue. Some of the discussion in that project generated some questions and thoughts and the hope for a broader discussion with our Housing Department. Um, a lot has previously provided the planning board and puts a publicly available document without housing needs assessment. And we're going to have some discussion with her on that. We will also be making a recommendation to the city council following a joint hearing with the land use committee on a proposed zoning amendment. Related to homeless shelters, and then we will take up. A new. case 32 to 40 White Street. So that's how the night is going to go. So let's get going with meeting minutes from June 4th. Does anybody have any suggested revisions, comments, amendments to the draft meeting minutes? Yeah, John.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a small comment regarding Regarding the second page, so on the paragraph that starts with the board asks about separating truck traffic from pedestrians, the second sentence, which says, staff explained that a rear alley might be possible on deeper blocks, but narrow parcels such as number one present A challenges. I would recommend removing A and just leaving it as presents challenges for truck access. So the only edit that I have recommended here.

we find to me anybody else okay seeing none the chain moves to adopt the draft meeting minutes as amended seconded by amelia alvaro can you please call the roll hi lynn richards hi luke schuster hi michael mcneely hi amelia aboff hi michael capuano All right, we have meeting minutes. Next up is 222 Broadway, who was requested a continuance to August 20th. Chair moves to continue that agenda item to August 20, seconded by Amelia Rocco. Jaquan Habib. Aye.

Lynn Richards.

Aye.

Luke Schuster.

Aye.

Michael McNeely.

Aye.

Amelia Aboff.

Aye.

Michael Capone.

Aye. Next up is 120 Middlesex Avenue. They've requested a continuance to August 6th, 2026 meeting. Chair moves to continue that agenda item seconded by Amelia. Roll call, please. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. The agenda item is continued.

Up next is 1 McGrath highway at which point Amelia you need to recuse. Do you want me to shoot you a text when we're concluded with this or Alvaro?

Either of you that'd be wonderful. Thank you very much. I'll start with him.

Okay, with Amelia recused. Welcome attorney dash and the team as needed.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the planning board, Adam Dash, 48 Grove Street, representing Summer Bridge Hotel LLC. If we could, as before, promote Christine Thomas from Summer Bridge Hotel, Michael Malinowski, who is the project engineer from Allen & Major, and Jason D'Orio, who is the project architect. That would be great. So I see that's happening. So we were last year, as you stated, Mr. Chair, on June 18th for this major revision of the previously approved site plan approval and the new special permits, one for the hotel use and one for the formula business use, which is the hotel use at 1 McGrath Highway. As you know, the Zoning Board of Appeals previously issued two variances for this for surface parking and for parking lot landscape relief. So with the property, part in Somerville and part in Cambridge, as you know, even if we get approved by you, we still have to go to Cambridge and go through their whole process. As we discussed last time, a hotel has been approved here three times already. We hope that we can get approved one last time and build it without these outside influences continuing to cause problems. But since we last saw you, we have filed a revised landscape plan and green score calculation to address public space and urban forestry's comments. They gave us the okay to go ahead tonight after reviewing what we had filed. So the project is still, just so you know, green score compliant, just to be clear about that. Also, I don't know if you saw, it came in late, but the Friends of the Community Path and Friends of the Grand Junction Path submitted a joint letter of support with a lot of details. I don't want to go into all of it, but I'm sure you've seen it. Good to know. The supplemental staff memo addresses the other updates since the last time we saw you. I do want to note, and I don't know if you saw that earlier today, that the staff supplemental memo had a suggested change to mobility condition 13, which required Summer Bridge Hotel. That condition requires Summer Bridge Hotel to make a payment in lieu for the ramp design of 25%, which we've not had a problem with. Um, summer bridge was fine with that. However, summer bridge had submitted to staff this morning, um, that they would want that capped at what's $105,038 and 88 cents. But what that is is $2 and 36 cents per square foot times the 44,508 square feet of the building that's in Somerville. And that, because that is the offsite contribution number, the two 36 a foot in the amended and restated development covenant that we signed and the mayor signed, um, So we're just trying to keep in mind where Summer Bridge Hotel is giving the land for that ramp, which is and we're basically the only place where it can go to connect both of those paths and the cycle track along McGrath O'Brien Highway. So this is a big thing. All the rest of that is kind of honestly smaller than actually giving the land, which is irreplaceable. But there are a lot of very comprehensive conditions in the staff report that Sunbridge Hotel is perfectly fine with. I can pull up if you wanted to see the red line, the change that I had made and sent to staff earlier. But it's basically I can't share my screen. But at any rate, Alvaro's here. Right. So he could probably speak to it as well. I believe he was going to talk to mobility. So it's not really a change of anything. It's just putting in that dollar per square foot cap. We're not walking away from the 25%, but having an open-ended blank check if someone else is building it is just a lot to bear for the project.

Can I ask, Alvaro, since you're here, does that figure clarify and put into an appropriate finite amount what the value of that is?

Yes. So I forward the information that I received this morning from Adam and I checking with mobility staff. They were okay with the added information. And Adam, you should have capability to share the screen now, just in case the board wants to see the language.

Excellent. Thank you. Yeah, I will do that. But I'm glad that you were able to get in touch with them. Let me find a file real quick because it's not showing up, of course, when I need it. But... All right. Got it. So this is my email to Alvaro this morning that I'm going to pull up now. Got it. So... All right, so you can see here, this in bold is the condition that the revised condition 13 that staff had proposed in their supplemental memo, and it ended here. What we've done is added the underlined part of the bold. So we're leaving in that this is only if the path of design is initiated by others prior to us initiating the design. So it's just this one narrow scenario that this covers. And that we are still providing a payment in lieu of the 25% design because we're not doing the design anymore. Someone else is. However... we it can't be we don't want an open blank check like that if someone else is doing it it should be tied to the number that is in the amended uh development covenant and that we signed with the city and that amount was 236 per square foot times the amount of square footage in somerville which is the 45 508 that's how you get the 105 038 88 that's all um so we're perfectly we were fully expecting to spend this still willing to spend this just want to make sure that this is what we're spending Because, as you know, the hotel got smaller from the prior iteration. So it's not as if the money doesn't matter to this project. It certainly does. So that was it. And again, keeping in mind that we're donating the land for the ramp. So that's separate from this. So it's not as if we're not... This is a clarification. It's not a walking away from something or anything like that, just to be clear. So this is the revised condition 13. We're asking for, again, is the staff language up to here and then adding the underline that we've added. That's all. The other conditions were fine. So again, we're here pretty much rather than show you slides. I think we're here tonight to answer questions. We have the slides if you want to see anything. we had a pretty robust discussion last time i don't know how much you want to go through it again but um we're hoping to get a vote approving the two use special permits and the major revision of the prior site plan approval for the hotel at one mcgrath so we can move on to the cambridge process thank you and thank you um i i you raised it i was going to if you didn't the planning board received one written comment for this project that came in after the deadline for written submissions

um nonetheless at least i have um reviewed the the written comment um and i will on behalf of the board accept that written comment as part of the record uh from the friends of the path and that's um just want to make sure that was addressed i was hoping that the board if we had any further questions um could ask the applicant, could ask Alvaro specifically if the, my question is, I think the answer was yes and I don't think you completely answered it, Alvaro, is the proposed amended condition that Adam put forward, is that something that staff is comfortable with addressing?

Yes Mr. Chair.

Okay, great. So, generally the comment that we received, the written comment that we received, some of that does have some requests that the planning board doesn't have jurisdiction to condition or entertain. 1 of them is holding the city solicitor to a certain timetable to act and. Even if we had the jurisdiction to do that as a lawyer who has clients, I don't want to subject an attorney to a particular timetable to act. But that's not the end of it. There are some aspects of that series of suggestions that the written comment had that is outside of the planning board's jurisdiction as considerate as they are. But the written comment did put forward a positive Feeling and enthusiasm for this project, which is something that as 1 member, I share for this project as well. So, I'm wondering if anybody has any further comments or questions that they would like to ask of the applicant or discuss with us. Yeah, then.

Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Michael. I can't remember if this was addressed last time. And so if we are recovering, if we're going over prior ground, I apologize, but it's been kind of bugging at me. So. Adam, as you know, or maybe you don't know, but surface parking lot is the absolute poorest form of land use, particularly in a city as dense as Somerville. So can you just explain to me why you're having so much surface parking and not trying to put that underground as structured parking? I understand structured parking is going to be more expensive, but there's a lot of surface parking and it's giving me a little angst on the, and I understand there's a ramp and all of this other, but there's a lot of surface parking spaces. And we received another public comment on that. So if you could just explain to me a little bit about why you're using that and if it's possible to put that in as a temporary use and not as a permanent use. i.e. that the hotel or that land could expand into other uses at a future date. But let's first start off with why so much surface parking?

I guess I would not characterize it as so much surface parking because for the size of that hotel, it's actually not a lot of surface parking. It's actually less than you would normally see.

And it's a suburban environment, but this is a very urban environment.

I would note that, A, the ZBA gave us the variance to do, and we had a robust discussion with public comment about that. Secondly, the site is contaminated, as we described before, so going underground is not feasible. We were not ever going to go underground on the site. What we were going to do was when the lab building was going in next door at 15 McGrath, we were going to park there on their site using valet parking because when their building was busy, We were not, like nights and weekends for the hotel and then vice versa. So it was a good shared parking arrangement. So we had a couple of parking spaces on site, but not much. We were mostly going to valet park, like almost entirely valet park on their land. When they dug their hole and then stopped, clearly that's not happening now. So we had to move the building over away from them more into Cambridge. And that sort of threw everything off a bit on our end. So we can't do the parking we were planning on doing. And we can't do the parking under.

So this is the solution. That was the piece that I was forgetting. Like I understood all the other piece of it, but you can't go under.

because of the contamination that's right there was one i mean i think there was a public comment last time about how we had planned to go on that we had said we were going to go underground on our site before but that is not true we were never going to go underground in our site we were going to go on the neighbor's site um at 15 mcgrath that was the joint project with the one driveway and all that it was great until they decided not to go forward and now it's not so great anymore so we're We're having to decouple, so this is what we're left with. I would note that the parking is tucked behind the building and at the bottom of that large retaining wall with the pathway above it. It's not something that's visible from the public way. And we need parking for a hotel at some level. It's not a ton of parking. There's a drop-off. You know how you do when you go to a hotel. You take an Uber or whatever. People don't drive like they used to. So we're not asking for... massive amounts. I know Chris Thomas is here from Summer Bridge. She could talk about more hotel operations if you want to dig into it, but that's the nuts and bolts of it. It's not a lot of parking really for the hotel.

No, thank you for that. That was the contamination piece that I was missing. And I did note that it was behind the building and not in front. So I like that piece of it.

And at the bottom of a very large, large rotating wall. It's like wedged between the building and the, you can't, it's, if you're ever going to put parking, I could pull up the plans if you want to see them again, but they're It's, it's back, back there, down, down there. It's not like that land is going to be useful for growing plants.

I would think it's not a particularly interesting, any other land use because you're going to be seeing a wall.

Yeah. And we are green score compliant just so we're clear. So, I mean, it's not like, you know, it's not like we're having an issue with that. Like we're putting in parking and trying to get out of the green score. That isn't the case.

Yeah. No, thank you. Thank you very much for that clarification.

No, no, it's a good question though.

Yeah. Adam, that was the car wash, right?

It was a car wash and a warehouse, I believe. There were two buildings on it. All commercial. Hey, Luke.

Thanks. I'll just say quickly, I'm glad Blaine and Attorney Dash had the back and forth on the parking. That's clearly the one thing we've heard from folks about. Bummer to not get the shared approach because that was creative and efficient, but I, for one... track why it ain't happening at this stage. So I feel I feel supportive of the project at this point.

Because I'll just share I've been supportive of this project in the multiple iterations that it's come to us in. And I think I said at the last meeting, and I'll just reiterate it, you guys have, your entire team has worked really well with a bunch of challenging circumstances that are outside of your control. And the parking situation is one. I remember thinking, this is a great idea to have the shared use. And, you know, it's busy for some people at some periods of time. It's busy for you guys at others. And that didn't work out. You're kind of making the best with um with the situation that you're in today so you got the variances that uh you needed and i am happy to move forward with the project tonight um let me get what i need okay we'll have three motions three motions that we need to make uh first one is for the major amendments Following public testimony review of the submitted materials and deliberation of the required considerations outlined by the ordinance. I move to approve what the conditions as amended the major amendment to the previous site plan approval. Case PZ21-028 in the high rise district, but the recommended conditions listed in the staff memo dated June 12th and as amended tonight. and supplemental memo dated July 10th, seconded by Jahan. Baruch, can we have a roll call on that?

Jahan Habib. Aye. Lynn Richards.

Aye.

Luke Schuster.

Aye.

Michael McNeely.

Aye.

Michael Capuano.

Aye.

Okay. Special permit for the use. FOLLOWING PUBLIC TESTIMONY REVIEW OF THE MATERIALS AND DELIBERATION OF THE REQUIRED CONSIDERATIONS OUTLINED BY THE ORDINANCE I MOVE TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITIONS AS AMENDED THE SPECIAL PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A HOTEL USE IN THE HIGH RISE DISTRICT WITH THOSE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF MEMOS AND SUPPLEMENTAL MEMOS AND AGAIN AS AMENDED THIS EVENING SECOND ABIDE CHAHAND WE HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE CHAHAND ABEED AYE

Lynn Richards, aye. Luke Schuster, aye. Michael McNeely, aye. Michael Capuano, aye.

In formula business, special program. Following public testimony, review of the submitted materials and deliberation of the required considerations outlined by the ordinance, I move to approve with the conditions listed in the staff memos and supplemental memos as amended this evening. THE SPECIAL PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A FORMULA BUSINESS IN THE HIGH-RISE DISTRICT. SECONDED BY JAHAAN. ROLL CALL, PLEASE. JAHAAN KHABIB.

AYE.

ELENA RICHARDS.

AYE.

LUKE SCHUESTER. AYE. MICHAEL MCNEILLY.

AYE.

MICHAEL CAPUANI.

THOSE ARE YOUR THREE, ADAM.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. I've been working on this since 2017. So on we go to Cambridge for the fourth go around.

Good luck with Cambridge.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, thank you for letting us have the opportunity to go to Cambridge. Thank you.

Of course. Good luck. Thank you. Who's going to text Amelia to let her know to come back? I can text me.

Which one are we going to do first?

We're going to have a discussion with Alana on the housing needs assessment that was produced to us as it relates to questions that we had and as it relates to some of the applications that have come to us recently and applications that are going to come to us.

Sounds good. That's one you might have seen. Yep.

Mr. chair, Emily just responded. She says she's coming back.

Right.

Okay, we, we have Amelia back at 629 PM planning board still remains at quorum. And so this is a matter of other business that the planning board is taking out of order. And we had, I had and shared by members of the board, I had a discussion with Alvaro offline a few weeks ago. And then I also had a discussion with Amelia offline a few weeks ago. And then I raised it after we had an application that we had, heard and voted on Webster Avenue that I think kind of fostered some additional questions that I have and that the board has on housing needs in the city. And specifically, the things that I'm not concerned necessarily with, but the things that always kind of point out to me when we get new applications is I have these anecdotal feelings of it feels like this is the George W. Bush truthiness thing, right? You know, I think this is the case, therefore it is. But that's not necessarily true. So we had an applicant who a couple of weeks ago made a representation that it was not only difficult to add a three-bedroom unit to a proposed project, But that three-bedroom units in multi-unit buildings, like apartment buildings, is not really where families are. They're looking for single-family housing. That is one of the questions that I've kind of always had, is when we get multi-unit projects, this board has had a consistent history of trying to increase the number of larger units. That project... did not have that, uh, that applicant made, made a, uh, an argument and a statement that I'm not, I don't know. Right. Uh, I only know what I, what I know. It seemed that it could make sense. And that I think engendered a lot of other questions related to our housing needs and where the planning board should be on assessing applications when it comes to, um, what the actual needs of the city is as opposed to kind of what my feeling of what the city needs and where we're at. I think Amelia also had raised some questions about our needs and where we're at on certain goals as it relates to summer vision as well as general best practices. And I think other members of the board also Regularly ask questions like this, so I thought it would make sense to invite Alana from from the housing department. To kind of have a discussion with us on. What is it that the planning board can do better? The housing needs assessment was 112 pages. It was great. It was a cumbersome document, but I think it laid out a lot of data really well. And when I look at documents like that, it's great to, it's what it is. Here is the data. These assessments, I don't think, are always designed to then answer the next question, and what do we do about it? as well as other departments, other policymakers. But I think it's a really good encapsulation of here is where we were, here is where we are, and here are the numbers, and here are the actual needs. Do with it as you will, right? So I thought it was great. I thought it was really helpful. And to me, it spoke to a couple of the things that I have felt were true, And it also brought me some questions, and we'll get into this in a few minutes, as to the state of the city is X. Here are the numbers, and people are building it to address the state of the city, right? And there were some aspects of it that made me say, is there a chicken and egg problem? So just as one person, Alana, I don't mean to hijack you already. I just want to make sure you introduce yourself to the board, to the public. And this document that you gave to the planning board via Alvaro is a publicly available document, right?

That's right. Hi there. My name is Alana Gaffney. I'm the deputy director of the housing division for the city of Somerville. The document is the housing needs assessment. It is ordinance driven. So we have all the copies are publicly available. They're on our website. And it's also presented to city council as well. So if anyone wants to go back and view that presentation by the actual consultant, they can. So it's RKG Associates. Worked with a member of our team to put together the housing needs assessment.

Awesome. I appreciate you being here with us tonight and for you and your department creating such a really well-done presentation. um assessment and project the two things and i'll just kind of start with my observations from what was laid out right to me they were kind of two or three big takeaways uh obviously there's a lot of granular data in there that we can really dig into and i'm sure we can at some point maybe tonight but probably not tonight maybe the conversation for a different date a couple of things that were takeaways for me. One is something that Amelia has raised a number of times in different applications as we have been taking testimony and discussing it by and between the board is the need for greater number of units that are ADA accessible with an increased number of residents in the city who have disabilities and accommodations and mobility needs. That's something that I didn't know. Maybe that's something that Amelia already knew, but it's definitely something that she's raised in the past. So I saw your assessment saying, okay, I've heard this before from somebody who I trust, and she's on the right path. So Amelia, when you ask applicants to address that need, maybe you knew that that was part of the housing needs assessment, or maybe that's just something that is also important to you generally, but I love the fact that that concern and that need was identified and that we're at least maybe going in the right direction of starting to address that. That was number one. Number two is one that I have raised and Jahan has raised regularly is the lack of development of three-bedroom and larger housing stock in the city. Unsurprisingly, how many applications have we all seen and have I seen over my tenure at the planning board? Many, many, many. Most of them are building studios, one bedrooms, two bedrooms, two bedrooms plus den. And that's about it. We have to push and fight and wrangle for people to add housing stock that is large enough for just more than two people or two people and a small child or a large dog. And that was something that was addressed in your assessment. The other one is the kind of tenure, one of the things I took away. I don't know when you said tenure, when your document said tenure, if this is how I'm approaching it correctly, but it effectively said when people hit the age of give or take 45, they leave. And the city has an influx of, as it always has, 20-somethings, 30-somethings, young 40s, and then right around that age when your kid or kids start to get a little bigger, you leave. Which, in my estimation, has to do with, in your document, shines some light on the fact that it's because there isn't enough housing that can accommodate the needs of families of that size. So... THERE WAS ALSO A LOT OF ASPECTS OF HOUSING NEEDS FOR PEOPLE OF LIMITED INCOME, AND THAT'S A WHOLE SEPARATE CONVERSATION, RIGHT? WE CAN DO SOME OF THAT, BUT THAT'S ALSO A MORE CITYWIDE INITIATIVE AND STATEWIDE AND REGIONAL INITIATIVE. SO WHEN WE LOOK AT, BASED ON YOUR NEEDS ASSESSMENT, WHEN WE ON THE PLANNING BOARD ARE LOOKING AT PROJECTS I want to make sure that we are not just doing what's right for the micro neighborhood zone, but also what the city as a whole needs. And so one of the applicants a few weeks ago said, the average family is not looking to buy larger units in condo and apartment buildings. They're looking for single family housing, which is one of the reasons that they leave the city because we're not building that. The city has also kind of put up, I don't know if it's a formal moratorium, but an effective moratorium on the construction of single family homes. I don't remember the last time somebody's come to me and said, I'm building a single family house. Um, so wondering how we kind of square the 2 of those, because I think it would need to be a kind of a city policy decision to say, do we just want to be a city full of 20 and 30 year olds with 1 kid and then leave and just refresh the population every 6 years? Or is this something that we can. look at more holistically and say let's provide housing for everybody's needs and not just housing housing housing housing housing in any form possibly can possibly exist because we've got plenty of studios and one beds and two beds um the takeaway that i got from the housing needs assessment is we need a lot more than that so those are kind of the takeaways that i that i got um Am I looking at that data right, Alana?

I think you're identifying the trends quite well. That is a lot of what the data bears out. I think it's interesting to think about when you think of the people and then the houses, like let's separate it out. So in terms of demographics, which you said was totally correct. So the main age demographic is between 25 to 44. It's a lot of younger professionals. It's what it's been suited for. And I think honestly, I like that you noted the chicken versus the egg. there is a problem that it's exacerbating the problem and that they're seen to be. Somerville has always been a very cool place to live in a certain and it's always attracted a certain demographic. And with that, there has been a boom of specific unit types that has driven up prices, that has driven up the like the need to build those types of I think that the report speaks very well to that. I think so. We talked about demographics. The other thing we're talking about in terms of the housing stock, there are some really key findings on this. I will say there's a huge percentage that is multifamily housing. So we're not talking about the larger apartment buildings. We're talking about the two and three family households. I think there's a really good graphic on that. I kind of remember exactly where it is. So I think it's around page 48 in the actual report that kind of speaks to what those percentages are. We have an aging housing stock, for sure. Even though we're seeing new buildings go up, the bulk of our buildings are still multifamilies. And so at this point, you're seeing a lot of them are aging. And then I think another... I don't know if I can anecdotally speak to the idea of whether or not families are looking for single family housing. I think that piece is a little bit difficult to kind of speak to because I know the majority of the housing that we have is multifamily. So I, yeah, I'll pause there. I don't know if there are more questions.

The data might exist in the document, but if not, I'm sure Zillow can bear it out. In the last couple of years, do we know what the average selling price of a single family house in Somerville is? Because I have an idea.

Oh, the average selling price. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it goes up and down. But in terms of let me grab. Uh, for inclusionary, we do actually have to, so the inclusionary housing program actually has to post the like general market rate, um, sales prices. Um, so it should be actually right there. If you give me a moment, I can look it right up. Um, mm. It might take me a little bit longer than a moment. We do post that. We do have a general sense of what it is. It has been generally going up. But with that, there has been some general trends in terms of swings in the market between 10-year. When we're talking about 10-year, typically we're talking about between rental apartments or homeownership condominiums. And we're going back and forth between that. I've certainly seen, I think as of late, there has been a little bit of wiggle in terms of the actual average price for when we're talking about a condo. But until 2025, it was markedly going up. So we do post that. I can definitely share that after this meeting so that it's available.

This is the beginning of a conversation. Oh, cool. It's not the end.

Cool.

Because my guess... is that a true single family house in Somerville, anywhere between a million seven and two and a half. That's my guess.

Oh, for a single family. Yes.

Yep. So if what that particular applicant represented is, and I think I saw the data, single family detached in Somerville, looking at page 48 of yours, Um, is 11%, right? 11% of the housing stock in the city is single family detached and. To me, this is supply issue based on the fact that that number keeps going up to a point. That's. Starting to be unsustainable for almost anybody. So that I think all of these. data points speak to a bigger and intertwined conversation. But if the question is, are people looking for single family housing? And if so, why aren't we providing it? Because we're losing families as your data shows. And if they don't need single family housing, why aren't we building more three and four bedroom units and incentivizing developers to do that if that first anecdote is not exactly accurate, which it may not be. So I'm asking you a general why question. I don't know if you have an answer, but is your recommendation kind of a takeaway from this to incentivize or encourage developers to build bigger units kind of citywide where we can?

Yes. I mean, my personal recommendation would be to create some means of incentivization to be able to do three plus bedroom units. I will say like one of the questions that was shared with me prior was about, it was, let me see, around how common is it? So what's the typical unit mix or how is it typically being presented? Right now, we have about 25 projects that are in the housing pipeline. It's around 8.55% are three bedrooms in terms of that unit mix. The vast majority is going to be studio, one bedroom, and then two bedrooms.

So I think incentivizing that- And now we're getting back into that chicken and egg problem, right?

Well, we are, and so this is the thing. In terms of, there are other factors. So I think there is a little bit of a squeeze here when we're considering construction costs have gone up. I understand that trying to balance a pro forma and make it work is very challenging, particularly when you're considering three bedroom units. A lot of anecdotally what our team hears is that it's difficult to fill three bedroom units. Now, I want you to keep in mind a lot of my team works with income restricted households. Many of our income-restricted households are seeking three-bedroom-plus units. It's not difficult to fill, from my vantage point, income-restricted three-bedroom-plus units. I think in terms of making them affordable for developers to build in a larger project, how are we approaching that? I think there are certainly ideas that the housing division is working with planning, preservation, and zoning right now to try to bear out. I think there are some challenges that are baked within the ordinance as it's written. I'm imagining that's, I mean, you might have seen an uptick in 29-unit projects. Yeah.

In fact, we had one just the other week, and I think we have one tonight.

I mean, there is, I'm assuming, well, I'll just share in terms of why we're noticing that there is a section within the, there is a provision within the affordable housing section where if you have 30 or more units, you are required to provide 20% of 20% of the inclusionary units need to be through that room. And there is a bit of- Yeah. So that's what's currently in there in terms of because there is that was an idea in terms of incentivizing the production of three bedroom units, particularly for income restricted housing. How we're seeing that what we've heard is a lot of developments are of pretty much two different buckets of sizes. So they're either kind of less than 20 units, maybe up to 15, where you're going to see the larger ones, and that's how they're making the pro forma work. The only way that they're able to make the pro forma work and be around the midsize project, which would be like 15 to 30 units, there's concerns about the dimensional constraints when you're talking about the cost per square footage when you're talking about three bedrooms. So we are hearing that work. It's something that's being kind of looked at in troubleshot in different ways.

Yeah, I mean, there's only so much that the planning board can do. This is obviously a bigger discussion by multiple different divisions in the city. Yeah. I would love to give people tax incentives to build what we want, right? That's not something we can do. But that's neither here nor there. I've been chatting with you for a while, Alana, and Amelia's raised her hand.

I just want to weigh in on this topic a little bit, wearing my developer hat, and just raise the fact that it is very true in terms of looking at the numbers in a pro forma that the burden of affordable housing in residential development right now is just very high. Like it's very hard to make things pencil with costs where they are and rates where they are and rents where they are. And when we look at the current inclusionary requirements, like they're high. We're at a high watermark in the Boston area and that's wonderful for the city's goals. But we're looking at new construction that's like, I don't know, in some ways, often like up to maybe around $2,000 a foot to build. And when you start looking at what that is for a three bedroom unit, that's a huge cost to be not making an appropriate profit margin on. And I'm not pushing back on it in any way. I just want to offer the perspectives that like, I don't think we can say that a studio, an affordable studio is equivalent in terms of the exactions from a developer to an affordable three bedroom, because just the footprint and the resources required to create those are very different. So if we're going to start, like, I feel like this conversation is headed in a direction to say, we should, we should increase, or we should change the threshold at which three bedroom affordable units are required. And I'd like to, I think that it is worth thinking about the trade-off between perhaps, and I can't off the top of my head tell you how this would pencil, but would we rather have one three-bedroom affordable unit instead of three affordable studios? I do think that looking at the bedroom count as a trade-off rather than looking at the total number of units would be one way to think about this math, and I know that you wouldn't be hitting them 20% on a per unit basis, but maybe looking at it on a square footage basis or on a bedroom basis is a different way to think about it. Um, because it's, they're just very different creatures to build.

I can share that. That is the conversation that's, that's happening right now. It's a great, it's a, uh, a really important point. Um, and it is something that is actively being discussed of whether or not to move it from, um, in terms of a unit count standard moving into a dimensional standard or looking at different standards and comparing different ordinances and how effective they've been over time. We had an ordinance from 2016 that had a different standard versus the 2019 one. So thank you for offering that. And I'm happy to report it is something that's being talked about.

I think the other The other thing that is just worth raising here is that we know we're often looking at developers who are dealing with just how can we like, how can we do this as efficiently as possible to make the math work? And stacking floor plates is a big part of that. Like ideally you want to have to make a development cost effective. You want to have as few different unit shapes as possible. You sort of want to like draw the Lego blocks once. And then use those a bunch of times. You don't want to have to do things differently on every floor. So that's something that comes up when we're having this conversation with developers often is like, we wouldn't be able to add one three bedroom because there are no other three bedrooms in the building. And I don't know how we solve for that, but I would love to think about whether there is an incentive or a degree of flexibility that is within the Purview of zoning to to create to allow that because that's just another sort of very real constraint that I feel like is within our. Control as a city to alleviate in some way, or to to help address. I don't know. Thank you.

Yeah, I find it interesting. This is a, you know, a broader conversation, right? So we will occasionally get an applicant who. is enthusiastic about building larger units, right? So I can think of the Lindell's building. I can think about the Lane Savarino's old house across from Porter Square. I think they were all three-bedroom units, and we gave them a special permit for more parking to benefit them. I think there was the project next to Red Bones that did something similar. There were... those are the three that I can think of on top of my head that were people were like enthusiastic about building that. And the planning board was able to give them a little, little something to, um, to ease their, their burdens. I can understand it's a burden and you've identified specific burdens that I wasn't aware of the, the, you know, put the Lego blocks on, just stack them makes a lot more sense than trying to figure out how do I carve this out and build a new floor. Um, I'm not a developer and that makes sense to me. So I would love to have a conversation with all of you and Alana and whoever else on different ways that the planning board can provide incentive and relief for developers to be able to build things that meet the needs that we have and that your document identifies. So to the extent that you would welcome us, any one of us joining your meetings, even as, you know, just a passive listener, I would welcome that. Just to, you know, see where your heads are at as the industry professionals and the subject matter experts. Yeah, Lynn. And then Jahan. Sorry, I saw Lynn first.

Okay. Thanks, Michael. You know, the point we, again, putting the affordable housing issues in the proverbial bike rack for the moment. So two points. Number one, as a planning board, we see projects of a certain size. And in my neighborhood, what I'm seeing are a lot of double deckers and triple deckers being modified from either three units to two units. All of them have, have three bedrooms and they're all fairly expensive. So if, If I'm coming in, if I have a family and I'm looking at paying anywhere from 1.3 to 1.8 for a three-bedroom unit in Somerville, my comparative analysis is for... 1.5. What can I get in, say, Lexington? What can I get in Arlington? And I think that's something that we need to grapple with as well. Like the Somerville Cambridge is really close to Boston. And so prices are going to be higher. So if you're a family and you need more space, you're going to be looking, you're going to be doing that trade-offs. And so, Michael, I agree that it could be that there's not enough units in Somerville, but I also think that there's like a market analysis and a market trade-off that families are making, that they want the more, I've got kids, I want to go to school, like I want a more suburban experience. Like I'm in Davis Square, which is fairly residential, but you can't really quite hang out in Davis Square now in the daytime. Right. And, you know, homeless drug use, et cetera, et cetera. If I had young kids, I'd be like, yeah, I might I might pick up and move. And so I think that there are a lot of considerations why people people may be moving and just not the number of houses. And my mom was in the hospital, so I haven't looked at the housing survey yet. But I would imagine when I saw when my property taxes came in in January, there was about 12% of the housing stock in Somerville that was three bedroom units. And that wasn't showing a great demand. I want to cross-reference that with the report that Alana just came around with. So I just want us to kind of keep in mind that I think that there might be multiple reasons why a family may not choose and not just supply. And I think that there may be more supply and we're just not seeing it because it's by right. Right. It's. We never see two, we never, we're never in the process of approving a, you know, a double-decker renovation. At least it hasn't, unless it's much larger, like we saw on White Street or next to Red Bones. So those are two points that I just kind of wanted to put out there.

Yeah, that's a good point, Lynn. And Alana, I don't know if you, I don't know if it's in this particular hundred and some odd page document or if you have the data elsewhere is, We don't see every development. The ZBA doesn't see every development. Sometimes projects are built as a right and just get formal sign-off. Sometimes there are conversions that we're not aware of. I would love to see some of the numbers on that, people condensing two families to a single family. Right now, if I wanted to, I could knock down a wall at the bottom of my stairs and make my two family a single family. How many people are doing that? And is that what people are looking to do or are they moving to Lexington for other reasons or whatever the situation might be? If you have that data, would love to be able to see it at some point.

Yep. I mean, there is a section within the housing needs assessment that does address that. That is a trend, an active trend of what is occurring. So I would I'll find a page number in here. It is a long document, but it is in there.

I apologize for not being as familiar with the document as you. No, you're good. Thank you. Jahan, I saw you. Linda, you've...

Yes, thank you. I just wanted to make those two points. Thank you.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Jahan?

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and I certainly appreciate the opportunity to review the report. I continue to be a proponent of three-bedroom units. I know that there are challenges for developers, and I'm very much cognizant of the economic and market forces. I also recognize that when we're talking about affordable housing, 3-bedroom affordable slash accessible 3-bedroom units versus market rate 3-bedrooms. I think from a planning board perspective as well as City of Somerville perspective, we should be looking at incentivizing developers. We should be looking at, to your point, Mr. Chair, the examples that you presented, I thought those applicants were very well received by our board. We were very much in favor of expanding the housing stock. And my main concern is the diversity of Somerville that goes beyond the racial, gender identification diversity. I'm talking more about families. I'm talking about elderly. I'm talking about those accessible homes. And I think that as we're having these conversations, we need to keep in mind that it takes quite a bit of time to if we choose to as a board or as a city to support three-bedroom units online, meaning making it available. And what I would love to, this is directed to Alana, what I would love to see is maybe a little bit more focus on where the trends are headed, multi-year trends or multi-decade trends, if you have the data available, just because we want to continue the conversation, or at least I as one member of the planning board would love to continue the conversation around what can we do to help increase the diversity of housing stock within our unit? So thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Alana.

Thanks, John. Michael.

Thanks. I will try to not repeat what other folks have said, but I've appreciated the conversation so far. I just want to add in two additional things to think about as we're perceiving these projects in the near future, potentially very near future. First is, and this one might be not as popular of an opinion for most of the board here, but one of the things that I would encourage us to do is also think a little bit about Um, not just what people want today, but what people are going to want over the next five or 10 years. Right. And then your point that some people may choose, um, a house in Lexington over say Davis square. That could be a choice today. Um, I, I will, uh, bring up some personal here. I'm in the demographic of those starting a family. My son is a month old now, and we moved here in December in Davis Square, which is exactly what you were saying some people might be hesitant to do. So I do think people's preferences will evolve over time. And I'll say that we chose this location because of its approximated transit and lack of a need of a car and being able to bike places and things like that. When I think of some of my friends and colleagues in New York City, when I talk to them about cars and bikes and having a single family or even a two or three family home, they're just dumbfounded. They're like, I would never imagine having something other than a three bedroom condo in a high rise building. Not that Somerville should be Manhattan, it shouldn't. Over time, some of that might become more of an acceptable taste to people who want to start a family this year, right? So I agree, Lynn, that there's definitely competition with some of the suburbs around, but I think over time, people are going to have an increased appetite for the Red Bones-adjacent type developments. The last little lens of color I'd add here, though, is that I also think this should be considered by location a bit. And I think, Mr. Chair, this is where you and I disagreed heavily on the White Street project that was ultimately permitted, right? I feel like in general, I've been a big fan, just like you and Jahan, of pushing for more in three bedroom units. And I appreciate that this data is being brought right in front of us, because I think it does emphasize that we definitely need to pay a lot more attention to that. But I would still look at the previous application on White Street and really think about the fact that it's so near transit and it's right near a shopping center and all these other things that make me kind of hesitate on something like parking, for example. And I think maybe that lens could be applied here a little bit with the three bedrooms as well. So as a group, looking at the subjective

for three bedrooms i just want to add that color that maybe we should think about proximity to say a t-stop to to help guide us a bit so i appreciate you guys for comments yeah no michael i i totally see where you're coming from on that where we might want to target closer to transit um to make sure that we don't just permit you know one and two bedroom places right so um I have a household of two. I don't need three bedrooms, but it would be nice to have a little extra space if I needed it, right? And I wish I was a little closer to the T. I get all of that. That's why the big units in the seaport are going like wildflowers, right? So, yeah, I think that's – I love this conversation that we're all having. I think this is making me think about a lot, and – um continue it um luke i actually you know what i saw emilia first i saw emilia first but luke tell me if you were up for a long time and i just missed you okay mr chair i wanted to circle back to the accessibility so if luke's still on on three bedrooms i'd love for him to speak which is on a general conversation we just happen to be circling that right now but no totally go for it um

I was aware of the sort of trend of an increase in the population in Somerville and regionally needing additional support and sort of accessible units. That is something that I have a strong awareness of and has been informing my push for those as sort of an alternative ask to the development community sometimes. But I will say, you know, I would, I loved that we received specific feedback from Either the housing department or the Commission on persons with disabilities and our last application where they specified that like. Units that have a no threshold shower are really specifically what we need and like I I don't know enough about this issue, so I always push for group two units. Because I know that generally they're sort of a mildly accessible and then a deeply accessible unit and and. group two is what we call that more, more deeply accessible. But if there are other specific types of accessibility that Alana's office or others in the city government are aware that we should be needing or something that is more cost effective, but should be in more units. Like I would love to have, um, a better sense of the either accessibility and mobility aids or sort of universal design principles that the relevant agencies in the city, um, are aware of and that are, tools we should be considering recommending when we're reviewing applications. Because I think we're doing a fine job there, but I think we could be doing so much better with more information. And I'm happy to be that advocate, but I don't have that information and expertise to draw on.

That was from housing division. I will just add in terms of the, um, the ask of more additional role in showers specifically. So we, um, I actually learned a lot about this in the past couple of years and just understanding that, uh, um, we're not all speaking the same language when it comes to accessible units. Um, I think under, and what I mean by that is there are specific terms in terms of, of, of, of what's used. And I think I'm so grateful because I'm hearing the ones that we use and the ones that mean something from you, which is great in terms of group two, a, or we're talking about group one. Um, I think when we're, uh, coordinating as a city and just making sure that it has the features that folks need, that is the piece where, um, I mean, what my experience has been with development partners is they will do what's asked of them. And especially the earlier in the process we're able to ask, the better the result. Because in terms of being able to plan financially, it makes a huge difference. I think we need more data, though. I would like to have a really good sense because right now we've anecdotally have some at least housing division has collected data from anyone who will call it seekers of housing, as well as from the consolidated rental waitlist, anyone who participates within the inclusionary housing program. But beyond that, trying to really understanding what the general need is beyond just income restricted folks for Somerville would be helpful. And specifically speaking, the language of features, the language that I would say folks who require the accommodation need. That was a big learning curve for us when we're updating our consolidated rental waitlist application. One thing that was really folks either may not have known to ask and based on the wording that we were using. So I'm going to be very clear on that. So that was something where we ended up evolving and changing the language that was within our application so that folks could more easily align with, oh, I know that I need this feature specifically. So thank you for bringing it up. It is something that I'm excited to continue and engage on that conversation specifically because I think this is an area where we need to understand more and I'm hoping that we can improve more.

Luke?

Trying to lower my hand here. There we go. Awesome. Great conversation. I'm looking at random scattered notes. I'll just try and raise a few things that might be different from all the good back and forth that's already happened. And I guess companies, if I'm being honest, are building on things people already said just to emphasize something which feels important. On the trade-offs, the trade-offs just feel real. And whenever the city is considering using various tools to incentivize a certain type of housing, at a minimum, there's just going to be a trade-off. I think like Amelia in particular pointed to about which types of units we want to put our weight behind the most. And as I was tracking the conversation, I listed three bedroom units, accessible units, affordable units, even within the context of affordable units, right? Often we talk about deeply affordable units and then there's different types of bedroom mixes across affordable units. And then there's also the trade-off with just more market rate units and anything that we build for market supply helps on broader costs and supply too. I don't think it's crazy to consider putting some of our incentive capital behind three bedroom units, but it does feel like a tougher calculation when you put it side by side all the other things we might want to be pushing for. The other thread that's come up in this conversation that I think is really important to put a finer point on is just people's preferences and how American preferences have shifted a lot over time. like one thought I keep having is, well, Somerville did used to have more families with kids. So what's different now. And, you know, a lot, a lot has changed across the generations, but, but one of them is, I think incomes being much higher across the board, people being, and the way many families spend their higher incomes is on more housing. So that's a headwind for us getting more families in Somerville to, to the back and forth between Michael and Lynn. Like I, I do think it's true that more young families are interested in urban living and raising their kids in cities. I think there's something to that. Like, I think there's so much wisdom to that. You know, you got a park nearby and you don't have to mow the lawn and you can walk to amenities. Like I love city living for families with kids. I do still see so many families in Somerville, not just at kindergarten, but at older years, finally given up on living in an apartment and moving further out to the suburbs. And so that's just a headwind we're always going to face. So, you know, it's just, I'm just stating the obvious, I guess, but Somerville, Somerville may always have a different smaller mix of families for a variety of reasons. The other thing is I started plotting like the types of housing where we might get more three bedroom units. And I don't know if it's useful typology, but there's the single family homes and the, I don't know if I'm thinking about this right, but it feels like, I don't know where you'd put a new single family home other than where an existing one is. And it's just a tear down and you're building a newer one. The other thing I could think of, and I remember back to the ADU accessory dwelling unit conversation that's been happening. I mean, maybe that's the one place we really could squeeze in some more small single family homes is depending on where that city conversation goes. But 1200 square foot, 1400 square foot ADUs. Now the trade-off there is a lot of people are going to scream bloody murder because it's taking away green space or adding more density or adding more cars. But again, it's just a real trade-off. If we really want single family homes for families, like I'm not sure where else they could go except in people's backyards right now. Then the second category in this typology was townhomes, duplexes, triple deckers, and you know, here I have a quick question to Alana. Did I hear you correctly that you said the housing needs assessment found that there has been a downshifting there where there is a noticeable number of two families being remodeled into single families? Because my intuition would have been more of the opposite, but

So I don't know that there's a specific trend on that. I will say condo conversion is a consistent conversation in terms of and the condo conversion ordinance has shifted and changed. So there is a more recent version that came out in the fall of last year. That version in terms of tenant protections and other considerations when we're thinking about displacement, there's stronger displacement protections that are within that. We were, I would say there is more activity generally right now, whether it is remodels, whether it is replacing with the same number of units, there's more activity within NR. That is the, I think the single easiest way to put it. I wouldn't know that, I wouldn't say that they're all conversions. I would say there's somewhat, there's been a spike enough where there has been a reaction via the condo conversion ordinance for sure. But I think beyond that, we have noticed when looking at building permit data specifically that there has been more permits that have been requested in the NR.

That's helpful. And that matches my sense of what's happening in the city. But I had initially heard it as we're losing two families that are being converted into one families or something. Not to say that that isn't happening, but if anything with like the legalization of a third unit seems like we're hopefully getting even more extra units there. Now, what bedroom mix those are is a different question. But either way, conceptually at least, allowing more third units to get built might get us some more three-bedroom third units, hopefully. It's probably small. And then the third category is the bigger apartment buildings. And are we getting enough three-bedroom units in the bigger apartment buildings? And I'll just restate quickly something I shared at the last meeting where this came up, which is it seems there you're gonna be much more likely to get families in those three bedroom units if we build, if there's enough of a density of them within a single building so that you're not the one or two families with kids out of 50 units. So I don't know what the answer to that is, but it might relate in a way to Amelia's observation that if you're building lego blocks with a three bed on all of them that would help you get them on every floor but that then gets to the economic challenge of doing that obviously so anyhow those i think are my rambling notes and thoughts luke i'm so glad you brought something up that i have been meaning to bring up and forgot to um row houses and townhouses

We don't see that many of them being proposed, at least in front of the planning board. And for some of these slightly larger apostles, I think they would fit really well. The two that I can remember permitting was... in Teal Square on Western Avenue. They took a couple of little commercial buildings down and built these beautiful row houses that take up both sides of the L-shaped street kind of behind the bank. And also we had a series of row houses that were proposed and we permitted them on Mystic Avenue a number of years ago. And I remember that one. I don't know. Were you on the board for that one, Amelia and John? Were the Some of the dimensional constraints ended up being, like, the building was just really narrow, so we had to change some stuff. It was a really cool proposal, and it was the first time in a long time that I'd seen row houses, and I'm pretty certain there were some larger units incorporated in there because... I think as the applicant from a couple of weeks ago was saying, it was either single families or townhouse row houses, right? You don't mind if somebody's on either side of you, but you don't necessarily want somebody on top of you if you've got a family, which I think also makes sense, right? You get a little more privacy, a little more quiet. I just thought, oh, that's a great idea. Why don't we see more of these? Because we've got plenty of parcels that are big enough to accommodate a number of those types of structures, and we just don't see them. And I'm wondering if that makes sense, Alana, to incentivize construction of those, if those could get to meeting some of the needs that your divisions identified instead of just here's a block of apartments.

Mr. Chair, I would think it might be the case that It's actually a successful point of our zoning in the general push for housing development that we are not seeing those in the planning boards per view, because those are like, I'm hoping that that's happening, but it's happening in NR where we're not seeing it. But I would be very interested in that, whether that's the case.

Yeah.

In terms of the amount of units that are allowed to be on one parcel or in with an NR, I think there are some challenges or considerations when you're considering And I know that there is an ongoing discussion right now in terms of like how ADUs fit in in terms of the overall count in our parcel. Lot splits are an interesting consideration when it comes to this. I might introduce that as part of the conversation. I think Um, in terms of trends, I could say it's an anecdotal trend. I don't know that it's necessarily recorded anywhere, but I do think there has been a bit of an uptick when we're talking about lot splits in terms of how profitable it could be for a developer who want to build. I can't answer that question, but I would be curious in terms of, um, how that ends, not because I don't want them built. I love row houses. I think in terms, I'm curious if that's part of the equation.

And I think we come back to the same question of we have a set of needs and a set of desires that doesn't always comport with the financial feasibility of meeting those needs and those desires. And I'm excited to have a discussion with you and your folks, us on the planning board, on ways that we can incentivize and reward people for doing what we're hoping they do instead of just squeaking by under the wire with the band minimum because the zoning technically allows it. And that's lovely, but come on. Does anybody else have anything they would like to raise with Alana on this issue? Yeah, Amelia.

We see so much pushback from developers when we raise the three-unit question at this stage of the process, and that is correct in a twofold way, both on the burden the three-bedroom creates on the project financially and on the difficulty of making that change at the 11th hour when it is in front of the planning board, and I think anything we can do to create that optionality or expectation at the outset, like we are asking them to do it at the hardest possible moment in time for them to do it. So anything that we can do, like I'm just going back to the committee you and I were on in December, Michael, as far as like transition goals, anything that we can do in the zoning to create a path that is predictable for developers is an incredibly helpful thing in just allowing development to happen and doing business with the city. I can't emphasize enough how much the discretionary things that we do as a planning board are important for the city, but from a developer perspective, just giving them a prescriptive path is so much often so important. So that's all.

Is that something, Amelia, that you think we as a board can reduce to some sort of a writing as to what the planning board... in order to further the goals of the city the needs of the city and the wants of the city this is what the planning board hopes to get out of a successful development not requiring that you do it but this is what the planning board looks for and this is what we like in the spirit of like so somebody can come in at the ground level and say oh okay in order to not get yelled at by mike for a half an hour um I'm going to give them a three bedroom unit, right? You know, I'm not going to play the game. I'm just going to be straightforward. I know what the planning board expects and, you know, how many times have we sent people, maybe not back to the drawing board, but to say, you need to redesign some of this aspect of this project or you're not going to have the votes to do it because it's discretionary. It wastes their time, it wastes our time.

If it's something that we can say, in the zoning as a guideline or as a preference and voice our hope for that. If it's something that we can give the staff liaisons an ask for them to always raise that in the pre-submission meetings so that developers have an earlier lead time to start thinking about whether they can accommodate that. Like anything we can do at any earlier stage is better than the conversation we always wind up having.

Yeah. And that's the problem is, right? We don't see it until it comes to us. So let's do that. I like that idea because I will tell you there have certainly been projects that have come to my attention before they've been opened into the record and I've advised our staff liaison or the case planner to say, let's not waste everybody's time. I know where the planning board sits on a lot of issues. They're going to have a difficult time here. Why don't you advise them to modify some of this application so they can come to us with something that we're not going to yell at them for for a bit and i think it makes it easier for them it makes it easier for us and if we can do something similar to that in the way of this aspect of zoning and permitting i think that would be great please know that if you come to us with a bunch of studios you know mike's gonna call you a jerk and give you a hard time. If you come and ask for one additional parking space, we've got some people here who are going to give you a hard time. Just no going in. I think that's helpful to let people know what they're going to face if they're not familiar with the dynamic of this board, which has been well-constituted for a while now. So, yeah. Hey, Lynn.

Mike, I think that's a fantastic idea. And I suggested it a couple of months ago when Sarah Lewis was on. Because when we're talking about big developments, I always bring up green infrastructure, you know, street level stormwater management. Amelia always brings up geothermal. Michael McNeely almost always brings up a three bedroom, et cetera. I was like, can we please come up with some kind of policy documents that we can put out now? And Sarah said, well, we're starting the whole process of doing Summer Vision 2050. And I guess this, this isn't for Alana so much, but maybe this goes back to Dan or whatnot of like, you know what, we're at a point now where I don't want to wait till Summer Vision 2050 comes out. Like, I want, you all want to put out these kind of guidelines, but I want to include in that green infrastructure, geothermal, et cetera, et cetera. Like, this is completely consistent with Summer Vision 2040, but we're trying to get more specific of this is what we're looking for in a lot of developments. getting to that degree of specificity that summer vision 2040 doesn't have but falls falls within the the line so michael we raised that a little bit before um got a no on it maybe you and amelia can work on it and try to get yeses on it because i think that doesn't get to give us a no on that that's not her role Well, I said, can we come up with like a citywide policy? Like they're spending millions of dollars.

This is planning board policies and procedures, baby. We can do that in January.

Well, then let's, because I would throw in green infrastructure and I would strongly encourage Amelia to do her geothermal rant. I mean, there's things that as planning board members, we're always looking for. And I feel like exactly what Amelia is saying, like we're seeing these at the last possible moment. And I know to say, listen, you need to completely revise your stormwater plan and don't you Dare tell me it's not possible. 100% is possible. And it's going to save the city, you know, thousands, if not millions of dollars. like to send people back at this juncture. I mean, we talk about how to incentivize the kind of development that we want. And I think extending the permitting process is the opposite of incentivizing. Like how can we streamline the permitting process a little bit? Anywho, so that's just, I love this idea. I'm 100% behind it and let's figure out how to do it.

Awesome. Done with this agenda item, I think, for now.

I appreciate this conversation, Alana.

We may ask you or a delegate to come back and further the conversation. We might have some questions that we relay through the staff liaison. Like I said, I'm happy to try to join in on a meeting or two to hear what some of the ideas that your division has on incentivizing the construction of you know, housing that meets the needs and wants that you all have identified. So I think this is the beginning of a really good conversation.

I agree. Thank you. All right.

Thanks, Lana. Anybody else?

Thank you, Alana.

Anybody else have anything for Alana before I invite her to go home? Go stay home. Thank you very much.

This will have been a really terrible conversation for the applicant who I think is coming up to us with a project with no three bedrooms to have just listened to.

Yeah, maybe.

Thank you.

Okay. Okay. That was cool. I'm glad we did that. Now we have a RECOMMENDATION TO THE LAND USE COMMITTEE ON A ZONING AMENDMENT AS WELL. SO I THINK, BECAUSE THE OTHER ONE WILL ENGENDER PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND THINGS LIKE THAT, LET'S DO ZONING AMENDMENT NEXT. LET ME JUST MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S NOT MISSING ANYTHING ELSE ON OUR AGENDA. Shelter and then that project. Yeah, let's do let's do this. Homeless shelters. So, we had a joint hearing with the land use committee a number of weeks ago. To discuss a proposed amendment to our ordinance to allow by right, I believe homeless shelters and. various zones. It was the request of me and other members of the board to have a scan of PA communities and how they handle this. And we have a document that was sent to us yesterday, Alvaro. that goes through, it's a 22-page document dated today. I'm not sure who prepared it, but it at least addresses some of the issues that I had questions on as to where do some of our neighboring communities allow for homeless shelters. And I think the document gives a little bit of the data because it speaks a lot to other communities zoning for lodging, lodging houses and nursing homes and group homes. And those to me are all distinct from shelter housing. from my review of that document, and I don't know if Alvaro is here to be able to help us work through it, is that when homeless shelters are allowed to be permitted in our neighboring communities, they tend not to be in residential neighborhoods. And if they are, they are generally authorized by special permit and not as of right. And that's kind of what I was anticipating. So to me, comparing the proposal that's before us tonight with rooming houses and temporary lodging and nursing homes and halfway houses is, I don't think they're appropriate comparatives. And so I think some of the data that we get isn't as helpful as I was hoping. But from what I was able to gather from what other communities do, my view of the proposal would be to amend it, to recommend an amendment, to not allow by right homeless shelters in our districts and otherwise allow permitting of them through a special permit process. Because right now, I don't think they are allowed at all. I think that was the issue was accidentally excised. But if we're looking at this again and what other neighboring communities do and how to address the needs of shelters and homeless folks, that might be where my recommendation would be is to moderate the proposal that came to us to align with where some of our neighboring communities are on that. But I don't know if anybody else had a I had thoughts, I had concerns, I had, you know, full-throated support. I'd love to hear it. Yeah, Jahan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In broad terms, I am supportive of your proposed considerations here. I know that this was not necessarily a demand analysis document or was it intended to be, but I'm also just trying to be cognizant of the geographic dispersion of any potential homeless shelters and just some equity considerations around that. Therefore, I'm very much in support of your position in this case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yeah, Lynn.

Um, yeah, uh, times two. Um, I had the same thought when I was looking at the analysis. that a homeless shelter and a boarding house are not the same. A homeless shelter and a motel are not the same. I was like, this isn't, I didn't find it particularly helpful. So Michael, I think your suggestion on how to move forward is something that I can get behind. I think that's exactly the right way to go.

Yeah, Amelia.

I'm comfortable with that, but want to go back to the point I raised during the hearing about the importance of ground floor access and ground floor space for these. So this project did not wind up being advanced, but I worked for about a year and a half on a shelter development in Boston and spent a long time working on the design of that with the operator and the architect and While I have only that data point, a thing that came up extremely frequently and was a really big guide in the planning discussion was about the number of users of homeless shelters who were not comfortable going up or down a flight of stairs. So I would just really like to advocate for a recommendation that would remove that ground floor restriction from the proposed amendment. As long as we're limiting this. Sorry.

How did you guys handle that in Boston? And my question is, does elevator access ameliorate that problem?

No, it's a matter of people who are used to being outside needing to be like in many cases. And I'm just so far out of my normal area of expertise here. But my understanding is that often individuals who are used to being on the street need a lot of sort of support and coaxing to come in. And there's already a burden that often shelters will have some kind of like screening or in the case of Boston, like metal detectors. And that's an additional burden that's felt to be required when it's required. But that once you get past that, this sort of additional idea of going, of leaving the ground floor, it feels like an insurmountable challenge. So I'm not saying that all shelters need that. Like, it's possible that the operator I was working with serves a population that is more likely to have that need than like a women and children's shelter, for instance, or something. But I do think that as long as we are taking a look at how we handle this, that alleviating that restriction would be beneficial to the concept. but not critical if other folks feel differently. Certainly from a city planning perspective, it's not sort of an ideal ground floor use in the way that we look for, you know, activated uses. But if the goal is to provide this sort of public good in areas where it's appropriate for it, I just would hate to take that ground floor space out of the running fully.

I think that's something that, again, you know, we are not the... Folks who will be voting on whether to do that, but I think that is certainly something that in our recommendation to the land use committee. I agree that that makes sense to address as a, as a concern that the planning board. Has based on based on your experience in, um. in building the shelter and what the actual needs of the shelter residents might be that maybe we didn't think about that are unique to the other planning goals of the city. Because I don't think we're going to start permitting 500 rows of homeless shelters in the middle of our major commercial zones, but I don't want to foreclose the opportunity to have a necessary function when it's not going to meet the needs of the people who are going to be there.

Yeah, Luke. I think this is moving in a good direction. I really wish I had thought more deeply about this or just knew more about this. But the one thing that I have some hesitation about, I'd genuinely be eager for anyone to respond to this, is You know, there's this long history of making it very difficult to locate homeless shelters in a diverse range of neighborhoods. And so I'm just hung up a little bit on the idea of us recommending special permit versus as of right. And would that be used as a tool to perpetuate that history? Um, so I, I just have this, this sort of like small pit in my stomach that like, is there a way I look back on this vote regretting that, you know, I would be continuing the lever there that has been used for ill.

Anybody else? Yeah. Yeah.

Responding to Luke's comment, is there any way to have, would there be any way to have the mechanism for citing them be site plan approval as opposed to special permits so that it was a little bit less discretionary, but still not as a right?

That plan of approval is effectively as of right. It's just making sure that it complies within the four corners of the ordinance.

Yeah, no, I'm just thinking out loud.

SBA is effectively as of right with one minor administrative hurdle. And I just closed the document. I don't remember seeing other communities... that allowed shelters as a right in certain districts. So I still thought they were discretionary, but maybe I'm misremembering the peer scan.

But either way, we're making a recommendation, so. And Michael, sorry, just to track what you were wondering about there, you're just wondering if the document we got recently answers this question about other communities, yeah. Yeah, I guess I'd be curious about that too.

I don't think it addressed specifically that. Okay, so as we normally do, I think generally the Planning Board is supportive of the amendment. I think when we make recommendations, a null recommendation is I've gotten some feedback from You all saying, look, if we're generally supportive of the thing, let's be generally supportive of the thing and propose amendments and discussion points. And I'm willing to do that now. I don't necessarily want to be ambivalent on this. I think it's an important social need. But I also understand that the planning board has a practice of giving a null recommendation unless we're 100% gung-ho on exactly what's written for us. So I'm happy to do whatever you guys feel is best in this circumstance. I'm of no mind either way. You know, I think whatever the recommendation is, whether it's going to be a yes recommendation with discussion points and amendments or a null recommendation with discussion points and amendments, I'm fine with either one.

I can't remember if in the past with the supplementary language we send, does it ever say something aligned to the lines of we'd encourage you to consider, dot, dot, dot? Is that specifically the way it is phrased?

It's something. The planning board raised the discussion points of A, B, and C, and – think that it would be beneficial to the land use committee to consider the issues that the planning board discussed. So it was something along those lines.

So would a way forward here be a yes vote with the two for you to considers on consider it as special permit and to consider something around ground floor? Yeah.

And I would say in light of the documentation that was presented to the board Related to peer communities, permitting practices and zoning practices. Do we like, do we like that gobbledygook? Okay, you guys have a preference on yes recommendation or. Or a recommendation.

I'm supportive of a yes recommendation, but also with the precedents that we want to do that more often.

I may disagree with you on point two, but on point one, I think I agree with you only because this is a valuable social need and social good. But I'd like to make a positive recommendation that this is something that the city needs, wants, and should accomplish in a more perfect way. so that's it i'm going to make a you know a vote to recommend um the land use committee adopt this with the considerations and amendments um that that we suggest that they look at based on our discussion which is also founded in you know peer communities zoning practices and ordinances seconded by amelia Alvaro, can we have a roll call, please? Yes, I can.

Hi.

Lynn Richards.

Hi.

Luke Schuster. Hi. Michael McNeely.

Hi.

Amelia Eboff.

Hi.

Michael Capuano.

Hi. We have a recommendation. Okay. It's a little bit left. Okay, 32 to 40 White Street, which is, I'm pretty certain we've had permits that we've issued for this property like two or three years ago. Like a general building, but maybe I'm mistaking it for some other property on White Street, like the three bedroom guys that we permitted a couple of weeks ago. Maybe I'm confused. So can we please have John read into the record the notice of public hearing for 32 to 40 White Street?

Absolutely, Mr. Chair. 32-40 White Street LLC, Kinvara Capital, proposes to develop an apartment building in the mid-rise for MR4 zoning district, which requires site plan approval, ZP25-000118. 32-40 White Street LLC Kinvara Capital proposes to establish residential housing in the mid-rise 4MR4 zoning district, which requires special permit ZP25-000119. 32-40 White Street LLC Kinvara Capital seeks to construct a mechanical penthouse that exceeds the maximum height in the mid-rise 4MR4 zoning district, which requires a special permit ZP26-000119. zero, zero, zero, zero, four, one. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Can I have the applicant and team identify themselves for the record, please?

Anybody who needs to be unmuted can be unmuted. Sorry, I need to run. I just, before I do that, just want to confirm you're good with quorum still.

One, two, three, four, five of us. We're good to go. Enjoy Chicago. Don't choke on the smoke. Okay, I will do. Thanks. All right, bye. Please have the applicant team introduce themselves and have their screens shared as needed.

Yeah, hello. Hi, this is Ryan Wittig, Kinvara Capital, part of the ownership group of 32-40 White Street. Go ahead, Akshit.

Hi, this is Akshit Sethi from Balance. I think we have Phil on call also. We're from Balance Architects and working on 40 White Street with Kinvara Capital. I can share my screen?

Go ahead and share. So I have Matt and David from Kinvara on as well. Before Akshay gets going, I'll just say I thoroughly enjoyed the conversation prior to us getting on. I know we were referenced. I do want to make a slight caveat to my previous statements in terms of what families are looking for. I'm not saying that they are exclusively looking for single family homes, but my statement is more that they're looking for things that live like a single family home or live somewhat like a single family home. So you guys kind of got into this in your discussion talking about the row houses. Town homes, really even duplexes, triple deckers where, you know, somebody can theoretically walk out of their first floor unit and walk out into a backyard where they can have a little bit of space to let their kids and maybe their dog run around. And talking about a project like this, which we'll get into where, you know, we're This is very similar to 32 Webster. It's a very similar discussion. The lot is almost exactly the same size, just under 9,000 square feet. So we're working with some of the very similar dimensional elements that we're dealing with at Webster Ave. You know, when it comes to what families are looking for, once again, I'm also speaking to market rate units. I think obviously there's an insatiable demand for capital A affordable three bedroom units. And I also think you had some great conversations about ways to incentivize developers up front so that we can plan into that. our overall, you know, our overall planning on how we can work together to create those in our, in our buildings. And in the absence of that, here we are back, back, back with just under 9,000 square foot lot, 29 units with, with a mix of studios, one bedrooms, two bedroom units, passive house. So we will be building to the, you know, almost LEED Platinum standard, will be LEED Platinum certifiable. I'm not 100% sure if we've decided to go for the full certification, but we will be LEED Platinum certifiable. We're taken from some of our learnings and lessons from Webster Ave in terms of the bike room. um accessibility and number of bike spots going a little bit above what's what's required but we are right across the street from the shaw's shopping center there and very close proximity to the porter square t stop so with all that being said i think there's a you know this is a highly transit oriented area and um the units that we're proposing here we feel are what what the market's still looking for in terms of um what this site provides and yeah I think uh beyond that I'll let uh I'll let Aksha and Phil get into presenting the the floor plans and the designs and then we'll uh we'll open up to you all for uh questions and comments

Good evening, board. Thanks Ryan for the brief introduction to the project. Like you mentioned, this is going to be a net zero building, 29 units, four stories, has a basement included also. It's a corner plot sitting on 40 white which is a one-way street and a and 40 uh and white street and white street place which is more of a private way just showing you a couple of proposed plot plans we got from a civil a few snapshots of the street um showing both 40 of white street and white street place you can see the two existing buildings on 3240 white street right here Also, just a quick aerial context of where the site sits, opposite, like Ryan said, opposite the shopping center. We are in the one-fourth, the quarter mile radius, and it's in MR4. Just a quick discussion on the site plan. So one of the biggest things we took away from UDC was we had the entry, the bike trash room, all the way over at White Street Place. But we worked with the butters. They voiced their concern. Then we moved it over to White Street, which is much more accessible for delivery. So we have a huge, pretty sizable drop off zone, a no parking area right at the edge of the site. Also, another thing was very important for us was to give as much green space as possible. So we have a sizeable green patch on White Street Place, which is more of a private, I think it's a 20 feet wide private road. So that becomes like a nice feature for the street itself. We have two light wells towards the back or the side yard facing 44 White Street. And then for bike and trash, it's easily accessible for trash pickup days and for bike accessibility. I'll probably hop on more into the plans for detail. Hopping onto the first floor plan, as you can see, we have a lobby, accessible lobby. You walk up into the corridor or you can use the elevator to access the upper units, which is technically the first floor. Picking up from 32 Webster, we've introduced a group to a unit, which is a one bedroom on the first floor. Also, we have three units towards the back or the side yard. That's a townhouse that walks into the basement. So these are two beds on the upper right corner, coupled with a one bed on the left side, which you can see walks down to a two bed in the basement, which is 103, 104, and a one bed, which is 102. And they have a shared light well and light well to themselves. We also have amenity spaces and MEP. Another thing that was also very important that we picked up from the UDC was they asked us or they suggested to put windows on the amenity side. So we have enough great slope to have enough light ventilation available. for that space. So that was a great addition. We have trash and bike room, as I said before, on White Street Place. Technically, it's 30 bike spots. Given this is a much tighter space, a much tighter, much squarish site, we have a compliant 29 bikes, according to zoning, and we have an extra bike spot within the equipment, the two rack equipment. and two dumpsters which access the entire building. Moving up, second and third floor are pretty much the same. The difference is the second floor has two more group 2A units, 202 and 205. 202 is a one bed and 205 is a studio. And we've also tried to couple these with a lot of bays and balconies. So we have two bays on either side, either facade of White Street and White Street Place. And we have a total of 15 balconies in the entire project, five on each floor. So every unit gets a bay and a balcony or sometimes two bays or two balconies. So we've given them enough outdoor space in that aspect as well. The orientation changes a little bit, but the floor plate is the same where we start adding a two bed. We try and add two beds to every corner to maximize the view angles of the entire space. On the fourth floor, this is where we remove the space. studios, we add mostly one bed and two two beds facing White Street Place. And then we have an accessible roof with mechanical facing towards the backside so nobody can view it. And we have a pretty sizable roof deck facing White Street Place and White Street. And as we had spoken earlier, we are applying for a special permit. So just a quick massing view of how it looks. And then for the wide street elevation, we coupled up our windows with a wooden accent to keep a very nice and muted look throughout the entire project, which I will show you in the renders below. This is what White Street looks like when you're walking on it. We've got a lobby. On the left side, you see you have a bike and trash room facade. And on the right side, you can see those tiny windows at the bottom, which was recommended by the UDC to add for more light and wind ventilation for the amenity space in the basement. This is going to be the side yard where we have those light wells for the townhouse units. And our other, we have a blank wall where we have an art installation that faces 14 White Street Place, which is the private side. And this is a zero plot property. So this goes right along the property line facing the other building or the other proposed construction. For sections, we have our... Elevator going right up. So this exceeds the 10 feet, but this is also an accessible roof deck, which pushes our threshold a little bit higher. And we need a bit of more elevator space. I think it's about 15 feet, six inches for a standard elevator for having a head height room. So we have this here. A few more views for the board to look at. how this project looks from both white street and white street place. And ultimately we came up with on the UDC approved this option where we have a very nice brick, a solid brick base that creates the foundation slash the first floor. And then it bleeds onto a nice two tone, very light paneling on the top with the base having a much darker tone and the facade having a much lighter tone coupled with a more natural wooden finish on the entire project. And as you can see, working with the landscape team, we figured that we meet the green score. I think we go higher than the open space required with permeable pavers on the sidewalk and enough greenery on White Street Place because that's more of a private way. And we have our three trees planted on White Street. So just showing you a couple more views. This is how White Street Place looks like. And this is just to give you a comparison of the proposed construction on White Street Place, which I believe is 14th White Street Place. So they face the wall with the art installation on it. So wholly, this is 30 to 40 White Street for you.

We have Michael, I'm not sure I pronounced your name, Michael Joachim from Verdant Landscape Architects on as well. If there's anything you want to highlight from the landscape perspective, Michael, we had you join, so we might as well give you a chance to say something.

Sounds good. You got it close. Joachim. Joachim, welcome. Yeah, the landscape plan, a big part of our landscape plan is widening the streetscape along White Street from It's about four feet wide of concrete paving now to, we're proposing about 12 feet wide with a four foot wide furnishing zone with permeable pavers, visitor bike parking racks, three new street trees, and then another eight feet of concrete paving. And then when we go down White Street Place, we're proposing where there isn't a sidewalk now, we're proposing another 12 foot setback with, concrete paving, street trees, and plantings. Thank you.

Thanks, Michael. And I'm not sure if I mentioned this in the beginning, but we've upgraded all of our accessible units from Group 1 to Group 2A as a gesture of something we're trying to do to go above and beyond, which we obviously would most likely intend on making those the affordable units as well. So we've upgraded from the traditional accessible units to Group 2A.

Um, if I have the opportunity, I would like to also show a couple more options that we had proposed the UDC just for the planning board to see if, uh, of how and why we came up to this final option, if that works, that's okay with the team.

Go for it.

Thank you. Um, So as you saw, we have much more two-tone panel that we went ahead with and what the UDC preferred. But circling back to our older design options, this was more trying to give homage to what is there on site right now. This one didn't have windows for the basement amenity space. a more muted blue and red color scheme hinting towards the buildings on site but still keeping how you can see we're still keeping that dark solid base to give it more oomph to the entire project give a nice background and a datum line to it to separate the first row from the upper floors. Option two was try to break it down on White Street Place into smaller units, have a black siding with a nice wooden detail in the middle, a red interior for the lobby and have white clapboard siding that wraps all the way around to White Street Place. which again becomes more of a black option. So it's kind of a yin and yang back and forth design option. And for the third and the last one, this is very similar to what they approved, but again, as they suggested to add windows to the manatee spaces below, and we thought of adding a softer wooden accent right below the windows and have the two tone details speaking to each other. So I just wanted to hop back on and just show the planning board what options we presented to the UDC as well and what we went ahead with.

I think that concludes our presentation. So we'll open it up to questions and comments from the board.

Yeah, I'm going to hold mine off until we take some public testimony as, as I generally do unless somebody has something they would like to raise before we open it up for testimony. Okay, so at this point, I'm going to open it up to public testimony that for anybody that wants to speak in support of the application, please raise your hand and I will call on you. Um. First person that I see is Clara Serpa. And for the purpose of the record, please state your name and address for the record. And we have a two-minute timer. I wasn't going to impose one because there's not too many people in here. But last time I did that, somebody decided they were going to talk for like eight minutes. So I appreciate the two-minute preemptive timer, Alvaro. So Clara, yes, please.

68 Elm Street, Somerville. Some of my neighbors had to jump off because they've been on waiting and waiting for this topic. I think when you look aesthetically, you need to look at other buildings similar that have been built that have been around a while and see how they end up looking when they're not so new. Some of the designs are nicer than others, so I appreciate different options being given. I was noticing how small they were and that... That's something that is not going to attract a lot of families, obviously. You're going to end up with a lot of couples, roommates, individual people there. I wasn't clear on how much affordable housing was available to people at that site, so I must have missed that. I didn't hear anybody talking about that today. How many units are affordable housing there?

Just so you know, Clara, this is not a back and forth. This is just public testimony.

That's one consideration. The quote definition of affordable housing in Somerville tends to be not affordable. I own property a block and a half away from there, and it's already very congested. And obviously, you know, there's no place to park. Even walking around, it's crowded. So more needs to be done in other parts of the city. I know that's not what's being discussed with this particular applicant today, but maybe it might be helpful to have people look at the other building that you did and have them get an idea because you can only see so much from a diagram. So thank you very much.

Thank you. The next person that I see is Garrett Inus.

Yes, hello, can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Yeah, so I'm the owner of 14 White Street Place. I'd like to first commend the architect on the design. I think it's really, really nice. I like the streetscape as well. The only thing I'm concerned about is our property is five feet away. We obviously went into this and we thought the rear lot line would be facing us. We didn't know it was to be a side lot line. I'd like some clarification from the architect because I look in the SEO and it shows a corner lot and it's showing that that should be a rear lot line instead of a side lot line. Further, So if they push it back five feet, they could have a wall of windows there instead of just a blank wall facing our wall of units that has all windows. So aesthetically, obviously, it's a problem for us. And it would bring a lot more natural light into the units. And it would probably be better for their building as well. They could put windows on an entire side of their building. in the mid-rise district obviously uh one of the the codes is uh so that you can have a building right on the lot line next to another building in this case you know we're five feet away so that's kind of not the case i don't know if that was like the intent of the mid-rise district when it came to abutting a non-mid-rise district so um otherwise i think the design is very nice um but i do have concerned about concerns about the blank wall as well as the construction three inches away from the lot line. I don't know how they're going to do that. Being three inches away, they're going to probably have to access our property a lot and it will be finished, you know, soon. So those are my concerns. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Anybody else who wants to testify in support of the application? Go once, go twice. I will close that portion of the hearing and open it up to anybody that wants to testify in opposition to the application or otherwise express concern. Please raise your hand. Once, twice, seeing none, I'll close that portion of the public hearing and open it up to discussion by and between members of the board. I'm going to start. Guys, we saw you a couple of weeks ago. We had certain expectations. I gave you the benefit of the doubt a month ago that it couldn't be done there. We have a building quite literally next door to you with three three bedroom units. You can't fit one in. We just had a 45 minute discussion on the housing needs of the city. And that was chief among them. You must have produced some additional unit count renderings that may have... You knew you were coming to us after that discussion, right? When John voted against you and I voted with you by the skin of my teeth, there's this... this is not an auspicious beginning following the last application that we had from you all and the discussion that we just had with our director of housing. So I'm hoping that there's another rendering out there that gives us some alternatives and not just a pacification for a couple of level two affordable units because this is something that The benefit of the doubt only extends so far, and there are some special permits that you won't need that have a higher threshold. So please tell me that you didn't come to us with foot lockers and travel logs.

Yeah, so we're actually familiar with that project next door at 44 White Street, because he's a neighbor, so we've communicated with him, and he shared his plans and a few references, plans, and look at his plans. He has beautiful units. They're lovely family size units. I will not disagree with that. They're also between 1,800 and 2,000 square feet each. So they are serving that market. Families may choose to live in units like that and like that. And they may pay a price for that. When we're talking about three bedroom units, in order for us to fit three bedroom units into a building like this, And the lot that we have, we're talking about cramming in, you know, 1,250, 1,300 square foot, three bedroom units. And once again, talking about market rate units, serving the market, not talking about the capital affordable. We don't feel that best serves the needs of the market in terms of market rate units. And in order to do that, not only would we be having to cram those into the building, we'd be sacrificing other units. We'd have to be merging units, deleting units. So we'd have to, instead of giving 29 units, we'd have to be giving 26 units or 27 units. So we'd be losing units.

The 29-unit count, as our director of housing just said, is because you get under the threshold of having to put in an affordable three-bedroom unit, right?

Not necessarily, but it does create, it creates a challenge. It creates a mathematical challenge in how you construct and deliver housing. And there's no way getting around it. The zoning ordinance, as it's written, has created a ceiling for feasibility that bumps up against that 30 units. So it's when you're in this like 30 unit-ish realm, You come up against a financial calculation that doesn't work in the favor of constructing housing. And if you can get into a larger lot where you have more density and more ability to create more units, then there's more flexibility. We're not operating in that realm. But if you can get into the larger lots where you have more flexibility with the floor plans and larger footprints to work with to begin with, then you can start to be a little bit more creative. But that's not what we're working with right here. So that's the math that we're working with.

Let me ask you this. Three years ago, a little bit less than three years ago, I think, this site came to us with a request for a totally different building. And if I recall, that was Was it another lot next door to you that you don't have? Or what's the situation here?

Because... As far as I know, there was a separate project proposed, whether it was three years or four or five years ago, where they were proposing a lab building originally. That was one iteration ago. They were proposing a lab building, and that wasn't... All I know is that that wasn't well received and it was rejected.

Yeah. Well, it was withdrawn by the applicant in 2023. So... Yeah, I mean, there was space enough to at least ask for the permitting of a lodge or lab building in the Port of Square. And I'm just faced with the dilemma of having your argument be that the dire need for lodge or family-sized housing is satisfied by the guy next door. And I don't necessarily buy that. knowing fully well that you were going to come to us a couple of weeks after we had this discussion. Frankly, I actually, again, I like the way the building looks. I do want to ask you about your neighbor's concern about the blank wall next to him and if we can find ways to address that. I generally like the way your buildings have looked, this one included. That's my hang-up here as it was for the last time. I want to see another... unit mix proposal. For this one, I'm truly going to ask for it. I gave you the benefit of the doubt last time. I think this one is just another ask, and you do have two special permits that might be a little more difficult to consider at this point based on some of the concerns that were raised tonight for this discussion and with our housing director. So that's kind of where I'm going to sit. And I see that Kit has her hand raised, and I would love to welcome her to the conversation.

Hi, I just want to clarify also, I'm looking at the decision from that withdrawal without prejudice for the previous site. And I, I just want to note that 44 white street was also included in that additional proposal. So it was the 3 parcels together. Not just this 1. so I just want to make sure that's yeah, that's that was my question.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough on it was I thought there was another building that was included in that and I'm just wondering. where that one went.

Yeah, it looks like it was a, I don't recognize this development group's name, but it was 3240 and 44 White Street as one four-story commercial building. But it was, as you said, withdrawn.

Thank you.

Who else?

Anybody else have any? Yeah, John.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to echo your sentiments and I would strongly urge the applicant team to consider some options around unit mixes and at least attempt to show this planning board any possibilities that could accommodate a three bedroom. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Anybody else for time?

Amelia.

on a different topic entirely are we feeling like the underground vault is viable here i believe that's in the plans that's uh that's a fill and uh balanced discussion yeah i'm sorry amelia i i just uh can you just repeat that about the underground vault are we are we confident that that's viable here just another another one of the sort of frequent planning board problem topics is a vault that winds up needing to be relocated and winds up in the building footprint. And I'm just wondering what degree of confidence you're currently at with the siting of the underground vault as shown in the plans.

Yes, good question. I don't know if we have our work order for that yet, but it is fully dimensionally compliant with Eversource's requirements. It's within our property. I don't know actually if you can show on the site plan there, but yeah. Take a look at that site plan. Yeah, so it's showing on White Street Place. Actually, for some reason, you can't really see it there. But that's the location of it. To this point, we haven't been told that we have to do transformer. I mean, whenever, because this happened on one of my buildings at 872 Broadway, it was that the equipment for the underground transformer, basically there was supply shortage during COVID. And so that was really what was causing these and having to do the switch. We haven't seen that recently. And we've installed two vaults on Prospect Street in the last month or so.

Great. Thank you. I wasn't sure what the recent trend on that was. And then I also wanted to ask, I know sometimes with these sort of medium scale buildings, we've talked a little bit with applicants about like the volume of packages that people tend to receive in this day and age. And I raise that both about loading, which I think you've addressed already, and which is, I think, Cambridge jurisdiction here anyway, but also just wondering if sort of the I don't see a space that looks like it's designed to be like a dedicated mailer package room here. And maybe it's not necessary at this scale, but the foyer sort of looks a little tight. And I was wondering if you'd given any thought to that operationally.

Yeah, so back to the transformer, I just was told that we have a work order for it. So a little progress on that. We're showing automated storage packages. If you look at the entry door, those four boxes.

Yeah, I did note that.

Yeah, OK. I mean, it's there. We would like to, I mean, that bike room is very tight. Thankfully, we just got over 29 bike units. That's the most rational place to put it. It's hard with the stairs and the elevator over there. So we're hoping that if you have a smart automated system that you can kind of unlock with your phone, that's going to take the majority of stuff. In terms of drop-off, like Akshat mentioned, we have a very large drop-off area and the fact that the corner is close to parking. I mean, so like moving trucks can actually kind of probably extend into that. So there's really sufficient space for deliveries and packages available. It's certainly a concern because people get things delivered all the time, but we're trying to address that through the storage locker, which has multiple sizes for how you can store packages.

Thank you.

Did you re-raise?

Yes, Mr. Chair. I do have a... question for the applicant team on a separate matter. So I noted that this is in regards to the secondary egress from the waste and bicycle room. I understand that the movable garbage bins may obstruct the secondary exit, and I also recognize that users would be directed towards the primary exit. So I just want to better understand how is this code compliant, unobstructed, secondary means of egress guaranteed, not just operationally promised. This is for the applicant team.

Yeah, so for the occupant load of the space, whenever you have under 50 people in a space, one means of egress is fully compliant. So the primary way that we expect people to be using this is through going through the front entry and then getting their bikes into the bike room there. We have the large doors primarily for trash and recycling. So that one means of egress is sufficient for that space. Got it. Thank you for clarifying. And thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Who else? Nothing else for right now. The next meeting that we have is August 6th. So I'm going to leave written comment open until Friday morning at 9 a.m. Friday, I'm sorry, the 31st. at 9 a.m. And hope to see you all back then.

Before we do that, I was hoping if we could go through the floor plans, first floor through the fourth floor, and just look at these. I'm just wondering. you don't need to be an architect to look at this and see if I'm just want to make sure I understand. I'm trying to get clarity. I'm trying to get clear if the board's request is for us to eliminate units so that we can accommodate three bedrooms. So you're saying you, the board is requiring or requesting that we eliminate units to accommodate the three bedroom requirement.

That would be a proposal. We've done that before with other applicants. Yeah.

Fair enough. So if we don't bring any three-bedroom units, what I'm hearing from the board is it'll not be voted on.

I think it might be a little bit more of an uphill battle for you, yeah. Um, that we've certainly done that for other other developers. Um, that is that is absolutely something that this board has a practice of, um, requesting and.

The 2 special permits we're requesting are a special permit for multifamily housing and a special permit for a head house for accessible access to the roof deck. So. Right. That's all we're asking for. We're not asking for. So I just find it. So if the city if the city wants and is going to mandate three bedroom housing, it should mandate three three bedroom housing, the zoning code or complying with the ordinance.

Yeah, the fun thing is, though, with the planning board, and we have quite a bit of discretion to ask for things as it relates to the special permits that you're asking for that relate to the zoning and housing needs of the city. It's not the 1st time that we've done this either for you or other people. And the planning board is well, within its discretion to ask you to have a potential redesign. So we can consider it.

so with no further discussion by the planning board at 8 27 p.m the chair yep Amelia I'm sorry I had a follow-up question for kit if we can try to if we can ask for um a little bit more guidance from staff for next meeting may I I just want I I took a quick look and I can't recall in what section of the ordinance we deal with the uh definition of front versus side versus rear set box for corner lots and If I could ask you, Kit, either by email between now and then or just briefly at our meeting on the 6th to refresh us on that, I'd be grateful. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Chair moves to continue this agenda item to the 6th of August, seconded by Amelia. Alvaro, can we have a roll call, please?

Jaqueline Khabib. Aye. Lynn Richards.

Aye.

michael mcneely hi emily above hi michael capuano thank you see you in a couple of weeks thank you all no other business before the planning board at 8 28 p.m the chain moves to adjourn seconded by amelia roll call vote jahan habib hi lynn richards hi michael mcneely

Hi. Emilie Aiboff.

Hi.

Michael Capuan.

Hi.

See you all in a couple of weeks.

Thank you. Thank you.

Take care.