Somerville can do better than proposed Somernova zoning and CBA

[Tim Talun]

Hello Neighbors,

Over the past year and half, we have worked with members of the USNC and others to help evaluate the details of the proposed rezoning of the FAB district that includes Somernova.  What is now being proposed includes some improvements made over this time, but doesn't yet address many concerns that have been raised and in a few ways has actually gotten worse.  

In many ways, what has taken place has been an experiment in privatizing what should have been a public planning process.   This has not been fair to the USNC, which was left to try and negotiate zoning to create a basis for their CBA.  It has also not been fair to Rafi Properties, which was not given the opportunity to pursue a zoning change through a clear and structured public process.  To be clear:  The USNC should not be negotiating zoning in private, this should have happened as part of an open, inclusive, public planning process.

We wish we could send you a master plan that describes this proposal, but we can't because there isn't one.  There was not even a visual representation of what could be built until a few weeks ago, provided publicly AFTER the City Council's public comment period closed.  It is shocking that a proposal of this magnitude is even being considered without a clear understanding of what it would result in.  

We (and others opposing the current proposal) believe it is possible to refine the current zoning and develop a vision for the future of Somernova that accommodates the goals of the current property owners and the goals the Somerville community has spent years establishing, but that is not what is proposed here.  What is proposed with this zoning would be a radical transformation that abandons many of the standards that apply elsewhere in Somerville, is inconsistent with basic principles of good urban design, and would set a terrible precedent for surrounding properties and other future master plan districts.

It is worth noting that a zoning proposal is not an actual development proposal, but here are a few concerns about what could result if this is adopted:

1. The proposed master plan is inconsistent with Somerville's “SomerVision” comprehensive plan - Somervision identified the location of this proposed overlay district as an area to 'Conserve'. What is planned would be contrary to years of public planning discussions and decisions, creating the scale and density of a regional urban center in a peripheral neighborhood location.  Many of the comments below follow from this inconsistency.  A case can be made that what is proposed would help achieve economic development goals, but it is also clearly contrary to many other Somervision goals, especially those related to quality of place.  We can and should expect both.

2.  Building's could be up to three times the size of the "darth vader" building at Somerville Ave and Prospect St, creating a nearly 1/4 mile long wall of buildings at least 150' tall - Tall buildings are not inherently bad.  We are certainly not opposed to tall buildings that relate appropriately to their context and are well designed, but this zoning would permit outcomes that are neither.  What could be built would ignore the scale of the surrounding neighborhood, leaving them with unworkable traffic patterns and deteriorated environmental conditions including long hours without sunlight, wind impacts, noise, and ever-present views of buildings instead of the sky.

Incredibly, no shadow study has been done, but it is likely that buildings built to what this zoning would permit would put hundreds of existing homes in shadow for much of the day and would even cover Conway Park with morning shadow in shoulder seasons.  Why should kids playing soccer on a cool Saturday morning in late October have to do so in shadow on one of the few playing fields we have?  This is the opposite of good urban design.

3.  The least amount of open (civic) space of any overlay district in Somerville - The overlay zoning only would require only 10% civic space, which is far less than comparable districts across the city and a fraction of similar types of development in Cambridge and Boston.   For example:

-  The master plan for the Volpe redevelopment in Cambridge, on what is among the most expensive land in the world, provides over 30% open space including a large new park that will be primarily green space adjacent to a new community center.

-  The proposed redevelopment of the Gillette site in South Boston is providing more than 25% open space, including a new 6.5 acre waterfront park occupying more than 20% of the site "...where nature takes center stage."

This will be a very bad precedent, and is an abandonment of the goal our community established for open space in Somervision and the goals identified in the recent Open Space and Recreation plan.  Under this zoning, it is possible that only 1% of the Somernova site could be green (landscaped) space. 

One of the civic spaces would likely be a 'through block plaza' which includes areas open to cars and trucks.   Almost all of the proposed civic space would be north of the "great wall of Somernova", putting it nearly perpetually in shadow.

While green roofs would be required (as they are for every large commercial building under our current zoning), areas used for mechanical equipment are exempt, and thus relatively little space will be left for green roofs on these large buildings.  While green roofs are important, they are NOT a replacement for at-grade open space and the creation of a quality public realm.  

4.  Reduced sidewalk widths - Current zoning requires 18 foot wide sidewalks next to high rise buildings, but this proposed zoning permits sidewalks to be reduced to 12 feet in width by right.  This would be unique to this district, disregarding the pedestrian-focused planning principles in Somervision and the recently passed Safe Streets ordinance.  It is another very bad precedent.

5.  1,000 cars in above grade garages - The total parking count is likely to be between 1,000 -1,100 spaces within the total area being rezoned, but could be higher.  (Note that the CBA only applies to a portion of the total area being rezoned). Parking would be permitted to be above ground.  This will allow for several massive parking garages to be built.

1,000 spaces is the equivalent of five Market Basket parking lots stacked on top of each other.  It is around three times the size of the massive garage that US2 built next to the Union Square train station.  It is almost difficult to fathom, and this certainly has not been represented in a way that the public or decision makers can understand the implications.

6.  This location lacks the transportation infrastructure to support anything close to development at this scale - A new regional business cluster, whether R&D, traditional office, or climate-tech focused companies, will draw employees who will commute from around the greater Boston region. This location is about as far as any in Somerville from a train station and is accessed via two-lane local streets and intersections that are too often at capacity. There is no plan to create a train station here.  There is no real understanding of how traffic will work/not work on surrounding streets because there has been no comprehensive master plan and traffic study created.  Wishful thinking is not a plan.

7.  Loss of unique spaces - The existing FAB zoning that applies to these properties was intended to limit the redevelopment potential of properties with unique spatial characteristics, such as the building that currently houses the Bouldering Project.  This is unlikely to be recreated in more conventional, high rise commercial buildings, and is certainly not guaranteed by the proposed zoning.  

8.  No residential means increased pressure on surrounding housing - Existing zoning restricts residential uses "to protect buildings that are key assets to the creative economy of Somerville from residential conversion...".  This makes sense with the current FAB zoning, but if the area is going to be transformed into a regional business cluster, it should include new housing.  What is currently proposed would allow 100% commercial. 5,000 workers is almost half the current population of Union Square, and they have to live somewhere.  Building housing next to employment centers is among the most important ways to reduce parking demand.  Cambridge learned this lesson and housing is now typically required as part of large master planned developments. 

9.  A smaller development can still house green tech companies - It is true that innovation thrives on proximity, but every single green tech company does not need to be located on these seven acres.  For the future well being of the planet, all of us should hope that companies growing out of Greentown thrive beyond this small area.  The use of future buildings at Somernova for sustainability-focused companies is also not guaranteed - they could house any companies doing R&D.

It is worth remembering that zoning applies to property, it does not apply to property owners.  Once passed, the zoning will remain even if the property is sold, and could result in different outcomes than have been conveyed in the many private conversations between Rafi's consultants and individuals or interest groups.  This is all the more reason to say no to this proposal and put in the effort to get zoning right.

Please consider contacting the City Council at cityc...@somervillema.gov and asking them to vote no on this zoning, regardless of what happens with the CBA.

As others have noted, several Councilors have indicated the CBA vote will influence how they vote on the zoning, which unfortunately has made the CBA vote a referendum on this proposed zoning.  We will be voting no.  A successful 'no' vote would likely prevent bad policy from being adopted, and provide the opportunity to develop improved zoning and an even better CBA based on that.  The vote is June 4 from 7:30am to 7:30pm  at St. Anthony’s School 480 Somerville Avenue.

Best,

Tim Talun

Stuart Dash

[jenn harrington]

Hi Tim and Stuart,

Could you please clarify a couple of things?

USNC said in an email this morning, “The CBA is legally binding. It also will transfer to a new owner if Rafi decides to sell.“ Is this correct?

When did USNC negotiate zoning in private?

I’m super confused by the different explanations of the CBA by all the stakeholders. I also sent USNC a similar email because I’ve been told the CBA is 60,000 square feet of affordable ACE space but I’ve also seen 50% of 100,000 of ACE space will be affordable. 

My mind is breaking. 😂

Thanks,

Jenn

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USNC Public" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usnc-public...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usnc-public/CANp7RT%2BhPUg92E-6%3Dkfuh1NxZgkrfDWy%2BT55zgObVjcwZJp-8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vanessa Arslanian]

Hi, all — Appreciate all of the advocacy and work from folks with different views regarding this project.

I don’t mean to pile on late in the process, but I’m wondering if anyone knows whether the CBA includes any protections to deter commercial vacancies. The large Union Square buildings appear to have had large, vacant commercial space for years, as does a recent Rafi development on Somerville Ave. It seems like many developers hold spaces vacant until they can put a other higher-rent franchise in, which would be a loss given the current vibrancy of area, and the campus’s current occupants, like Aeronaut, the Bouldering Project, the studios and the like.

Also, any idea on whether Aeronaut specifically will be protected?

No obligation for folks to respond, but I’ve been wondering this and not sure who to ask.

Thanks again to all!

Vanessa 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usnc-public/CAOf2RXuo5ZMPfoMmPH_mtQtQaj7hHh9JgseSDfiN20bLVkAXpw%40mail.gmail.com.

[jenn harrington]

Hi Vanessa,

USNC Board or Somernova will better answer, but my understanding from the community meeting is that Aeronaut could fit in the ACE space category, especially if they have a stage. It didn't seem like there was a verified plan, but I could be wrong. According to Reddit, the Bouldering Project endorsed the CBA so perhaps they have reached an agreement?

Your question about commercial vacancies is a good one. I did a quick AI search on the City of Somerville's policy. A Councilor would definitely be able to give you a more reliable story.

Somerville, MA has a vacant storefront ordinance, specifically ordinance #2019-13, aiming to encourage the rapid reuse of empty commercial spaces. The city is also exploring amendments to this ordinance, potentially strengthening penalties for property owners of unused storefronts, similar to ordinances in Arlington and Lowell. The city is also working on a Multilingual Commercial Tenant Toolkit to help small businesses understand commercial property leasing. 

Key Points about Somerville's Vacant Storefront Ordinance:

• Ordinance #2019-13:

  This ordinance was enacted to promote the quick re-use of empty storefronts. 
• Potential Amendments:

  Somerville is considering revising its current ordinance to include stronger penalties for property owners who maintain vacant storefronts. 
• Commercial Tenant Toolkit:

  The city is developing a toolkit to educate small businesses about commercial property leasing, according to the Somerville Times. 
• Focus on Walkability:

  The ordinance aims to contribute to Somerville's walkable, human-scaled urban environment. 
• Tracking Vacancies:

  Some councilors have expressed concerns about the city's enforcement of the ordinance, including tracking vacant properties. 

[Kate Lila Wheeler]

In short: I think Rafi's representing they have clients ready to move in. Please others let me know if this is right but the main stops or paused are about traffic during construction phases only. The blanket advance approval raising the property value has one good restriction on the sale, namely that the zoning overlay permission will carry whatever CBA obligations Rafi assumed. However "obligations" should be in hash marks because Somerville has waited decades for unfulfilled promisedms in all the other big developments. Vote No on the CBA Wednesday, ask the council.for more time to discuss the rushed zoning and if given time, raise this point..there is just so much glaringly problematic and your caution should be incorporated into the conversation!

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usnc-public/CAA%2B3iN0HGcGSDj9KNaXbsESPvN1XnhrGeeQvYdp2aUBxk4Afyg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kate Lila Wheeler]

The devil is in the details. Aeronaut has not been guaranteed anything so the way it's shaping up they wonder -- may need to apply for a more formalized use of one of three performance spaces in addition to their brewery business. They are not sure if they can still brew on site or may become a small pub and need to move the cats..what is now an informal no cover charge performance space where other uses can happen may need to change. Without any grounding from their contacts with Rafi they imagine they may be required to apply for and promise to monetize a performance space in a way that will change their business model . 40000 feet of performance space may be moved offsit and only 60k of the 100k square feet is to be 'affordable.' either way without any language indications from Rafi, let alone any concrete documents, they think that they will be required to monetize the performance space more than now. They may need to turn tables, charge admission, issue performance tickets, pressure people to buy beer,  etc. I haven't had the same access to Bouldering Project but wonder if they are accepting that the way forward is to stay on their landlord's good side. At one early meeting when I asked as a then-member of Brooklyn Boulders about that spectacular space, the Rafi rep said it would be 'difficult' to preserve it. There is a climbing gym at Fresh Pond Mall withva much lower ceiling ..honestly I don't know. But Rafi is looking for 25' ceilings for the light manufacturing spaces it wants to build. Without ANY basis in anything other than speculation, perhaps Bouldering Project is content with that height 

Kate

Kate Lila Wheeler   p: 617-628-3629 m: 617-543-5630  w: katewheeler.com e: lila...@gmail.com  she/hers

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usnc-public/CAOf2RXuMFgR%3Dk3nzUNmsp%2BN%2BQTv8VtfL%3DQbG-mi7Dr1iErey_Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kate Lila Wheeler]

Thanks for reporting from Reddit

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usnc-public/CAOf2RXuMFgR%3Dk3nzUNmsp%2BN%2BQTv8VtfL%3DQbG-mi7Dr1iErey_Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kate Lila Wheeler]

Move the vats, sorry, the predictive spelling

[Aaron Weber]

Hello neighbors, 

I'm a newly elected board member for the USNC, and I'd like to share with you why I'll be voting YES this Wednesday.

The current FAB zoning is clearly problematic: it's not very good at its intended goal of preserving arts spaces, it provides few other benefits, and it's not quite suitable for the things that Rafi wants to do. That means that the prior Neighborhood Council board and the negotiating committee were in a very good position to achieve a deal that is beneficial for as many stakeholders as possible. This resulting proposal is a win for the city budget, for the arts, and for the environment.

We need both jobs and housing. This proposal includes jobs and housing, and funds for other housing. It's a good deal, and that's why housing advocates like the Somerville Community Land Trust, Somerville Community Corporation, and Somerville YIMBY support it.

We need arts spaces. This proposal includes more arts space, and more funding for the arts, than any other in Somerville. That's why groups like ArtStaysHere support it - you can look at their very long list of reasons to support it here.

We need good jobs for workers. This proposal includes good jobs during and after construction, for people with and without advanced degrees. That's why groups like Somerville Stands Together and the Boston Building Trades support it. 

We need community spaces and youth centers like The Dojo. If I had a magic wand, I'd say the city should use its growing commercial tax base to operate such things directly, but clearly that's not happening. The Dojo is great. Federal funding for this sort of programming isn't forthcoming. City funding isn't forthcoming. Do we want to keep these spaces or not? 

We have ambitious goals to address the climate crisis. Spending an extra year before you allow someone to build a climate tech lab, or insisting that the lab be smaller, isn't going to slow down climate change. If we want to actually treat the climate crisis as a crisis, then we should be doing more, not less. 

Finally, we have the Somervision plan. Tim points out that this is a "conserve" district, but "conserve" doesn't mean "freeze in amber." It's light industrial uses, and light industrial uses sometimes need new buildings. There's no reason in Somervision not to allow this project. There is, however, a very good reason to vote yes: Somervision specifically envisions and plans for this sort of project, adding lots of commercial space and jobs to the city. The ultimate goal is a 1:1 ratio of jobs and homes. The city has been wanting this kind of project for years! 

This CBA is a good deal and I strongly encourage everyone to vote in favor on Wednesday. With trades, housing, arts, and climate activists alongside you, you'll be in good company.

Warmly,

Aaron Weber

32 Summit

[Tim Talun]

Jon,

These are good points and questions.

Under current FAB zoning, Rafi cannot build what they want by right because office use categories (which include R&D) are not permitted.  Residential uses are also not currently permitted.  This was deliberate when FAB districts were created "...to protect buildings

that are key assets to the creative economy of Somerville..." by limiting their redevelopment potential.

The zoning that is currently proposed would actually enable the concern you describe.  While much of the focus has been on the overlay zoning, a new R&D base district is also proposed that would replace FAB and allow some office uses (including R&D) by right, and allow a hotel by special permit.  Residential would remain prohibited.    While building heights are limited to 4 stories, it would allow 50% larger buildings than the current FAB zoning and other issues - no green space, no limits on parking, no civic space, no residential, etc. - would still exist (though 10% ACE space would be required).  

Per the details of the proposed CBA, it looks like the CBA would only apply if a development is pursued under the overlay zoning, not this new proposed R&D base district.  Rafi's consultants have claimed that 1.2 million square feet of space could be built at Somernova alone under the existing base zoning, and the proposed base zoning would now allow the uses they want to build and be more dimensionally permissive.   That seems like a big loophole.

This, on top of all the issues with the overlay district zoning that Stuart and I described earlier, are all the more reason to say no to the current proposal and put in the effort to get zoning right.

-Tim

On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 9:31 PM Jon Link <jon...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Tim. I appreciate your insights. I also share your concerns about the issues you’ve highlighted, like green space, setbacks, parking, and traffic. That said, I’m struggling to understand the strategy. By right (meaning without any public input), Rafi can already build something with almost no setbacks or green space, no civic space, and the same amount of parking. Am I mistaken? In this case, it seems like the only thing we’d block is shadows? 

If the CBA is rejected, and Rafi builds what they can already by right without a CBA, how do we help the city find a replacement space and operating budget for the Dojo so kids have a place for positive and productive activities? Where do the people losing unique spaces—artists, the Bouldering Project, and the media center—go? How do we fund our community land trust so we can build affordable housing?

———————————

jon...@gmail.com

On Jun 2, 2025, at 19:53, Julie Schneider <juli...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you

Sent from my iPhone

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prospect Hill Neighbors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to prospect-hill-nei...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/prospect-hill-neighbors/CANp7RT%2BhPUg92E-6%3Dkfuh1NxZgkrfDWy%2BT55zgObVjcwZJp-8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prospect Hill Neighbors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to prospect-hill-nei...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/prospect-hill-neighbors/AEAEE2AC-DB9A-4A5C-A907-87F192BC8666%40gmail.com.

[jenn harrington]

Hi Tim and Stuart,

I didn't get a response to my inquiry. I realize things are hectic so I'm writing again.

In your letter you stated, "The USNC should not be negotiating zoning in private, this should have happened as part of an open, inclusive, public planning process." I'm very confused by this statement because the City of Somerville organized a series of public meetings about this project. These meetings were publicized in advance. They were recorded. Notes were taken. And city staff were available for comments throughout the series. I went to those meetings. USNC was there at every one of them working hard to make sure that neighbors who could not attend were heard. During this time, USNC continued to host their own public meetings. At the USNC's public meetings, there are two opportunities for non-Board members to have a conversation with those in attendance. USNC Board members have always offered to discuss topics outside of meetings. Beyond that, USNC held a community meeting to provide an opportunity for collective group-think. I can't think of a group of individuals, besides our councilors (who get paid), who are more willing to communicate, especially during this CBA process. During that time, I did not witness USNC participating in private talks. I was appreciative of their presence during those meetings because they represented a neighborhood that didn't show up in-person (though I'm sure many of you wrote letters....I wish those were public on the Central-Somerville Ave page on the city website). In fact, the only part of the process that was private was the CBA negotiations with the developer...and that makes sense. Those negotiations were not about zoning and city staff were not there.

I wanted to respond to this part of your letter because, after 20+ years in Union Square, the past two weeks have been my least favorite time in Somerville. The misinformation, from stakeholders on both sides of the yes/no voting bent, has been overwhelming and unappealing. I will admit, for a while, my vote was dependent on the spitefulness that rose up in reaction to whatever stakeholder at a particular time was making exaggerated (or undocumented by the CBA) claims. I have since gotten over it and have found a more logical way to review the CBA. I have also written a letter to the Land Use Committee about my concerns about zoning.

In any case, while there are valid concerns that are being discussed about the CBA, the USNC having secret meetings about zoning seems far-fetched. I thank them for all of the effort they put into the CBA. Whatever anyone's vote is, we should all recognize that the USNC Board showed up for our neighborhood.

Thanks,

Jenn

On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 6:57 PM jenn harrington <jennifer....@gmail.com> wrote:

[Matthias Rudolf]

Dear neighbors,

 

I’ve been actively involved in the CBA negotiations with Rafi Properties. The upcoming vote on the CBA (TOMORROW, Wednesday, June 4 from 7:30am to 7:30pm at St. Anthony’s School, 480 Somerville Ave) is about our future. I have appreciated this discussion’s civil tone as I followed it while visiting family in Switzerland. 

But I’ve been frustrated by the cascade of misleading statements regarding the CBA’s content and process. Here are some corrections:

 

·      “1,000 cars in above-grade garages.” 
Existing zoning at the site puts no limit on parking spaces and allows above-ground parking structures. The proposed Arts and Innovation overlay zoning would prohibit above ground parking structures and limit parking spaces to 750. Nearby properties that remained zoned as Fabrication could propose adding more parking and might be able to persuade planning authorities. This is true regardless of the current CBA and zoning outcomes. 

 

·      “The overlay zoning only would require only 10% civic space....It is possible that only 1% of the Somernova site could be green (landscaped) space.” 
In addition to the 10% requirement, the CBA increases civic space by 5%, and Rafi’s plan to transform the Market Basket-to-Dane-Street alley to civic space would bring the figure to 20%. In the proposed overlay zoning, sidewalks and thoroughfares cannot be counted as civic space. 
      Comparing this proposed zoning to the Volpe center is disingenuous. That development is twice Somernova’s size, with 500-foot-tall buildings on acreage only a third larger than Somernova’s. 

 

·      “No residential means increased pressure on surrounding housing.” 
The overlay zoning allows 15% of built square footage to be noncommercial. The CBA requires that this noncommercial space be used for housing and a community center that the developer would pay a nonprofit to program and operate for ten years. The housing would be 100-to-150 units, 30% of which would be family sized, and up to 50% would be permanently affordable.

 

·      “There is no real understanding of how traffic will work/not work on surrounding streets because there has been no comprehensive master plan and traffic study created.  Wishful thinking is not a plan.” 
This misrepresents the city’s planning process. Somerville requires zoning to be in place for a master plan to be approved, and while the overlay zoning uses 18 key performance indicators to that constrain development, the CBA identifies 44. Exceeding those metrics will pause development until and unless they can be remedied. 

 

·      “Incredibly, no shadow study has been done.” 
The developer conducted shadow studies for the two earlier, substantially larger proposals. These were reviewed by the Neighborhood Council, city planning staff, and other stakeholders including abutters. CBA negotiations consequently moved the tallest buildings away from the nearest homes and put setbacks between them.

 

·      “Zoning applies to property, it does not apply to property owners.” 
Yes. That’s why the CBA, a legally binding contract, applies to all of the current developer’s “successors and assigns,” i.e., to any and all future property owners. 

 

·      “The existing FAB zoning that applies to these properties was intended to limit the redevelopment potential of properties with unique spatial characteristics, such as the building that currently houses the Bouldering Project.” 
The historic brick building on 24 Dane Street will be preserved. Any “unique value” offered by the bouldering project is indiscernible both to the Neighborhood Council and to the Bouldering Project, which has endorsed the CBA.

 

·      “The USNC should not be negotiating zoning in private, this should have happened as part of an open, inclusive, public planning process.” 
The USNC negotiated the CBA, not the zoning. Before CBA negotiations began, the USNC conducted a neighborhood summit to solicit neighbors’ hopes, preferences, and concerns. We encouraged neighbors to participate in the negotiating team, and we chose a team that balanced all interests. We conducted a mid-course summit where we informed neighbors of where negotiations stood and sought their direction on how to proceed. 
      The zoning was not negotiated “in private” but resulted from the City’s public “Central Somerville Avenue” process. We used every means of communications available to publicize the process, including extensive flyering. The price of admission was participation. Although we did not negotiate the zoning, we forcefully advocating with planning officials based on direction from neighbors.  There have since been public hearings about the zoning by the Planning Board (May 1) and the Land Use Committee (May 1, May 15). 

 

Thank you for your consideration. Remember to vote!

Best,

Matthias 

 

 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USNC Public" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usnc-public...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usnc-public/CANp7RTJJzwt2TE_R4eC44Ey4VkJEhT7vgHKy_q46pcCxDc_aQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kate Lila Wheeler]

Dear Matthias,

Just one of many remarks that I could make -- at the last meeting in October, I believe, city staff waved past the winter shadows on the current project, saying "everybody knows about them" (words to that effect) and didn't show them.

the discussions have been complex. At one point I thought sidewalk widths were in inches not feet and confess I complained about that -- on my street, a developer took advantage of 'existing conditions' where dirt had seeped out under a chain link fence to extend a planter by the length of a single brick. When the inspection came it was too late. Now we live with a very narrow gap between a hydrant and that planter, two people can't walk side by side past it. So there are pre-existing experiences that inform this.  I'm sorry for having overlooked that detail.  

The project is still too big and in the wrong place. The CBA is predicated on a maximalist vision and its benefits are glowing, as if Rafi will create a paradise.  We know USNC has worked very hard and dug into the details that are very hard to understand all at once. Nevertheless, the disadvantages of the massive scale are obvious and mostly unresolved, such as traffic congestion. That's largely what will bring me to vote NO on Wednesday, not as any disrespect or insult, but in hopes that Rafi can be drawn back into negotiations for an even better deal--a project that won't overshadow hundreds of people who live in whatever pockets of natural affordability that they can't afford to leave.  Many others fear being trapped in Duck Village or waiting in streams of traffic on the nearby streets -- this has been admitted by eveyrone involved. It's not just the immediate abutters who will be impacted, it's the whole city, and everyone up Spring Hill who haven't had a chance to learn about the project over the past years.  Congestoin and shadows will affect streets to the top of that hill and beyond.  "If" there is housing and only 20% of it is "affordable", which is the lowest amount the city requires, still the rents are out of many local folks' price range.  This also implies obviously that 80% will be 'luxury' and the project overall likely to drive up rents nearby as well as property taxes.  

Neighbors' needs are not just NIMBYism, rather, they imply issues reaching well beyond the immediate area.  The scale, the scale, the scale.

with great respect for the long and careful work USNC has done and with good personal wishes, hoping you continue to stick up for the community's needs--it's right for developers to create benefits for everyone.

Kate  

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usnc-public/A80678E1-9C56-4E86-988E-31E401041AAA%40icloud.com.

--

[Andrew Wiley]

I want to start off by thanking everyone who worked very hard on this CBA, and negotiated to get the most out of this situation.  I’m sure some people feel the CBA isn’t perfect, but nothing really ever is.

My decision to on how to vote on it, comes down to the CBA vote essentially being a vote of endorsement for Somernova as a whole.

I see the Somernova development as a potentially very dangerous situation for the city.  Eliminating FAB zoning here, sets a precedent that other FAB property owners will be sure to follow.  Building these enormous buildings establishes a precedent for other enormous buildings to be built near them. Allowing a developer to write their own zoning establishes a precedent for this situation to happen again.  While there are potentially some benefits to the Community from Somernova, like most developments the beneficiary is the developer.  

I may chose to vote for the CBA, as the current climate in Somerville is very pro-development, and this absolute mess of a zoning overlay will probably pass anyway.  While the developers make millions at least we get some crumbs to nibble.

-Wiley

On Jun 3, 2025, at 11:13 AM, 'Matthias Rudolf' via USNC Public <usnc-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usnc-public/A80678E1-9C56-4E86-988E-31E401041AAA%40icloud.com.

[Patrick Conte]

Matthias,

Just to clarify, the CBA does NOT require Rafi to construct any housing.  This was confirmed by USNC staff last Wednesday at their public meeting.  

Can anyone confirm whether or not the Community Center will be charged rent after the first ten years?  I find that section in the CBA unfortunately ambiguous.  

Regards,

Pat Conte

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usnc-public/DA9AA98C-C7BD-4B3B-AAB8-A6FA79C751E1%40yahoo.com.

[Matthias Rudolf]

Patrick,

You’re right - neither the CBA nor the proposed zoning *require* housing. The zoning requires only that 85% of the built square footage to be commercial; what the CBA requires is   that the remaining 15%  of the built square footage be restricted to housing and community center uses. The community center required by the CBA would come from this 15%, as would any housing. The developer has publicly stated that it intends to construct housing (around 100-to-150 units), and the CBA requires that 30% of these be family sized, and up to 50% permanently affordable.

The CBA does not say anything about the community center’s financing after the first ten years. 

Best,

Matthias  

[Bill Shelton]

And Somerville’s two affordable housing developers are both enthusiastically supporting the CBA.

 

As for the Dojo/Community Center, please tell us another ten-year source of charitable funding.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/prospect-hill-neighbors/0458AE12-FC68-4E16-8BCB-0DB30DC03635%40icloud.com.

[Thomas Scahill]

Hi, all.

Thanks for the helpful points that have been raised in this discussion. For what it's worth, I would like to share why I plan to vote "Yes" on the CBA.

I have been following the Somernova development deliberations and the CBA as much as I could for the past couple years - which is to say, closer than most, but not so closely that I could describe the project in great detail. I have read the CBA. It contains a lot of things that I like, a few details I could quibble with, and a handful of things I don't know the real long-term significance of. Nonetheless, I trust that the members of the USNC negotiating team have worked hard to understand the project and advocate for what they believe is best for their community. I also believe that the USNC representatives and Rafi Properties have negotiated the CBA in good faith. My sense from the city and community meetings I have attended is that both parties were pretty far apart on many issues, and the fact that they came to an agreement at all is an achievement.

I am not opposed in principle to a development at central Somerville Ave. Those who are might decide to vote "no" on the CBA (unless, like someone else has commented on this list, they assume that the development will happen anyway, and that the CBA at least enforces some benefits for the community.) For my part, I believe that the parties worked hard to find a middle ground they could all agree on. I don't see anything disqualifying in the CBA, and I think there are a lot of good things in the benefits that have been negotiated. For these reasons, I intend to vote yes tomorrow.

My thanks to the USNC members for giving so much of their time to hammer out a CBA with Rafi properties, and to everyone else who has helped clarify details on this proposal.

Sincerely,

Tom Scahill

24 Bolton St

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usnc-public/CAOf2RXuui%3Dme9t7r8sg7VEzXRQZ4oB-qRZTuLzjuUP3S6OZ_gw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bill Shelton]

Vanessa, yours is another essential question that speaks to the Somernova Project’s essential strengths.

 

By “vacant commercial space” I understand you to refer to US2’s Darth Vader biotech building and Rafi’s biotech building on Somerville Avenue, as there really aren’t vacant storefronts in either neighborhood.

 

In greater Boston there are now 17 million square feet of biotech space that are vacant or still in in construction. At the biotech boom’s apex the region absorbed about 1 million square feet per year. At its current nadir, Somerville’s biotech buildings will probably remain largely vacant for years.

 

Somernova is designed to accommodate a different and growing market. Think of it as an expansion of Greentown labs, now housed in Rafi’s property. It is the largest concentration of climate-technology startups in the U.S. Other tenants there are tackling the planet’s toughest challenges.

 

The market for these uses is robust. And many, like Form Energy and Sublime Systems, require purpose-built spaces, with large floor plates, 25-foot-high ceilings, and high-amp electric service—hence the buildings’ proposed sizes.

 

Somerville once had a huge stock of such buildings. Well-connected developers converted them to residential uses, reducing the city’s net tax revenue and employment. And artists are being priced out of the scant remnant that remains for them.

 

Somernova proposes to design and build for these specific uses—climate tech and artist space. Meanwhile, many area small businesses are languishing for lack of the daytime population that Somernova’s workers would bring.

 

Bill

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usnc-public/CAA%2B3iN0HGcGSDj9KNaXbsESPvN1XnhrGeeQvYdp2aUBxk4Afyg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Peter Kilbridge]

STOP 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usnc-public/689E1A2A-BA94-47DF-99F4-02FDFA61AD2D%40rcn.com.

[Bill Shelton]

It’s an excellent question, Michael. Nothing stupid about it.

 

Safety and building-code requirements for lab buildings are different from all other uses. For example, all the air in a lab must change six times per hour. This is 17 times the requirement for a residential building. This requires gigantic HVAC processors.

 

Other infrastructural requirements include delivery of oxygen, CO2, and other gasses to lab benches, potentially on every floor; secure facilities for safely storing chemicals and, when dealing with microorganisms, containing them; equipment for storing and delivering liquid nitrogen; etc.

 

If you look at biotech buildings, they tend to be longer than they are wide. The narrow widths allow for more natural light. A lab’s ideal ceiling height is 9’ 6”. Climate-tech labs need ceilings twice that high. They often need wide floor plates to accommodate their specialized operations. Consider Form Energy. The company is designing batteries the size of shipping containers.

 

The rents needed to amortize these investments would be much higher than residential or climate-tech tenants could pay. Biotech-building owners could lower the rents, recognizing that some revenue is better than none. But they would have to invest heavily in the leasehold improvements required to accommodate a new use. And investors have this saying: “Sunk costs are sunk.”

 

We are now seeing owners of office buildings struggling to renovate them for residential use. Repurposing biotech labs would be truly daunting.

 

I hope that this helps.

 

Bill

 

From: Michael DeBurro <mdeb...@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 3:19 PM
To: Bill Shelton <conv...@rcn.com>
Cc: Prospect Hill Neighbors <prospect-hi...@googlegroups.com>, USNC Public <usnc-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Prospect Hill Neighbors] Re: [usnc-public] Somerville can do better than proposed Somernova zoning and CBA

 

Hi All,

I know…there are no stupid questions, but this one may fall under this category. Especially given the enormous talent and expertise of those involved with this conversation. This is in keeping with Vanessa’s email. Here goes…

With the thousands upon thousands of square feet of life science buildings lying vacant in and around Somerville, why are we continuing to build industrial/commercial space? Can’t the spaces lying vacant be re-calibrated/re-engineered for climate technology? Additionally, given the current administrations view on climate change, will this be another building(s) that lies vacant for years to come? 

Regards,

Michael

On Jun 3, 2025, at 2:12 PM, Bill Shelton <conv...@rcn.com> wrote:



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prospect Hill Neighbors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to prospect-hill-nei...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/prospect-hill-neighbors/689E1A2A-BA94-47DF-99F4-02FDFA61AD2D%40rcn.com.

[Barbara Fash]

Hello,

An artist, I live and work in the catchment area and would like to see many positive aspects of the changes come to be. For starters the gigantic building between Market Basket and Dane Street should be replaced because it is unsightly and poorly utilized space, but does it have to be huge?. There are many issues that are not resolved to my satisfaction. The valiant efforts of those who worked tirelessly to find compromise on this proposal between Rafi and the local abutters and users are not in question nor the questions. I like many are grateful but can still be unsatisfied with the outcome. Many of us were unable to attend all of those meetings and placed our faith in those who could.

Important concerns to me that are not adequately resolved boil down to actual resolutions for the health (physical and other) of the abutters and users most affected by the change. It seems that those most affected people’s wellbeing is valued less than helping a developer undo zoning quickly.

-       5-10 years of massive construction unsettling one’s daily existence, noise, particle inhalation, cancer risks, constant earth rattling, resulting in permanent changes to the environment and neighborhoods (Shadows and towering buildings instead of sky, increased traffic instead of reduced traffic).

-       Truck delivery access on the alleyway during and after if it is to be converted to greenspace -will all vehicles be forced through the Market Basket entry off Somerville Ave? I normally applaud more greenspace, but canceling this critical access route into a parklike area does not seem sensible.

-       How will safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and regular vehicles be impacted with a constant stream of truck, machinery and contractors in and out? We see this type of disruption and traffic congestion play out daily on the streets of the city for minor projects in comparison. What will a massive undertaking of this nature truly entail??

So then, we’re being asked to vote for extensive changes in health, lifestyle, and peace of mind during the demolition and construction phases, with *proposals* of community benefits and cancelling of FAB zoning for *promises* of “more affordable” and increase of art space? I would like to believe it is true, but development history generally indicates otherwise.

 ~Barbara

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usnc-public/CABb8Q1BkxsTcARmPOArzSD%2BPcMgJfPUvXZpi7urTkfBoh2kjFQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gabrielle Malina]

I would like to echo Michael's concern. Putting the high cost of repurposing of biotech buildings aside, I see evidence all around me (I live across from US2 and catty corner to Boynton Yards) that developers misjudged and overestimated the future of the biotech industry. They built too many buildings and now we're left with hulking structures without any tangible benefit to the community. 

What makes us confident this won't happen with climate tech? If it does, we are potentially left with gigantic buildings that also will be hard to repurpose for other uses, maybe harder? And, we'll be without the local businesses (and residents) who were displaced due to construction and rising rents. I have a hard time seeing how the outlook for climate tech is significantly better than for biotech, given the current administration, as Michael mentioned. Developers clearly are not deterred by the prospect of their buildings sitting empty! 

I also want to echo the other comments about scale. Somerville Ave is simply not big enough to accomodate 750+ new car trips. A shuttle feels like putting a band-aid on a much, much more complicated and intractable problem.

So I have a hard time feeling confident that, even with the CBA in place, we will get what we want from this development. I do appreciate all the perspectives shared over the last day or so. I have learned a lot from everyone's input. 

Thanks, 

Gabrielle (Allen St.) 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usnc-public/0555C8E8-538E-4241-BB0D-282AA15A992E%40rcn.com.

--

Gabby

[Bill Shelton]

What makes us confident this won't happen with climate tech?

 

Regional supply versus demand for climate- and sustainability-technology space, and projected investment growth in that industry.

[Tori Antonino]

Hello folks,

To those who are saying voting no will give us time for a better outcome, I ask this: Who is doing this work?  The CBA negotiating team has been working hundreds and hundreds of hours on this. The USNC has put in thousands.  This CBA is not something the USNC has arrived at lightly. 

It is so easy to express discontent and spread disinformation about the development, the CBA, the USNC; yet who will show up to do the work? I sense tbat if the CBA does not pass, those pressing hard to kill it will simply disappear back into non-participation feeling victorious thinking they have stopped development.  A no vote on the CBA does not mean this area will not be developed. It means we lose out on receiving significant compensation for development that does happen. 

There is also a point where those who are putting in the work will wear out. There is only so much in the tank for each of us.

Tori

🦋

On Jun 3, 2025, at 4:39 PM, Bill Shelton <conv...@rcn.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/prospect-hill-neighbors/B0D7C0D4-BD33-4B0C-B224-7CF8D1B88922%40rcn.com.

[Adaline Lining]

Supporting colleagues is not the same as pushing people to accept a deal they find lacking. I find it upsetting that these two things are being conflated in such an irresponsible way. 

As I've written before I believe that voting yes or no on this CBA breaks down as so:

 

➡️ Voting yes guarantees that these are the ONLY benefits

➡️ Voting no means there is an opportunity for MORE benefits  

I want people to have the opportunity to do better. I do not think that these benefits are sufficient due to issues around the control and amount of civic space, the lack of agreements about construction, and the inability of USNC to hold Rafi Accountable. 

While I understand that there may not be a better deal, I do not think it is right to imply that this is the best offer.

This is ONE offer. People may think it could be better for more people. From the communication urging people to vote yes, it seems that USNC members do not believe that there is a possibility of a better offer, and I am curious why that is. 

TO TORI shared publically as it responds to the general email

It is so easy to express discontent and spread disinformation about the development, the CBA, the USNC; yet who will show up to do the work? 

I showed up. The white people I was in community with sat by while hate speech was used to illustrate a point. I stayed and kept doing the work. I urge you to reflect on your audience when you accuse people of failing to participate.

If the CBA does not pass, those pressing hard to kill it will simply disappear back into non-participation feeling victorious thinking they have stopped development. 

This is a drastic oversimplification of many people and does not represent what I have personally shared. I do not want to kill the development. I want a better agreement for more people as do many others voting no. 

 A no vote on the CBA does not mean this area will not be developed. It means we lose out on receiving significant compensation for development that does happen.

This is inaccurate, and as you have called for others to be accurate, I hope we all hold ourselves to the standard that we ask of others. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usnc-public/AB3B2A7F-5E35-4A8C-98A2-479863D0D598%40me.com.

[Darrick Yee]

Voting no means there is an opportunity for MORE benefits  

Can someone clarify for the rest of us if this is correct? My impression was that voting no means there is a very substantial chance of no benefits. This is based on an excerpt from a statement from my councilor, JT Scott (emphasis mine):

This question, at its simplest, is about whether or not we neighbors get a direct say in both how much gets built AND what we get in return. By-rights development is possible even in FAB or CI zoning which the city perceives as prohibitive, as we saw recently in Brickbottom with 100 Chestnut Street building. The very real prospect of a by-rights development of 1.2M square feet, with no abatements or benefits attached, is by far inferior in my opinion to a marginally-larger building that comes with contractual obligations to the neighbors and significant mitigations and benefits for the neighborhood.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usnc-public/CAHXFDyk2Hg%3DiPSMdKmA_dQpdVL3oLBgapYOdVEcyoRWXj2_PRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Darrick Yee]

Sorry for the multiple messages, but Adaline brought to my attention that I forgot to include a link to the full statement from JT Scott:

https://jtforward2.com/vote-june-4-2025-on-the-somernova-cba/

[Adaline Lining]

I send this foremost as

• A homeowner who will live in the shadow
• A former member of USNC

Negotiations are complicated exercises in cooperation, sacrifice, and stamina. I strongly believe that a CBA for the Rafi properties development can offer more benefits to more people. That is why I will be voting no.

3 key reasons I will be voting no

1. This CBA offers LESS open (civic) space than other developers have in neighboring cities and does not adequately address scale (thanks for more info, Tim and for the clarification on size comps, Matias)

The proposed redevelopment of the Gillette site in South Boston is providing more than 25% open space, including a new 6.5 acre waterfront park occupying more than 20% of the site. The Somerville Planning Board recommended to the Land Use Committee to reduce the height and scale of the proposal due to this being a developer-led proposal in an area not scheduled for this kind of transformation in any of the Somervision plans.

2. This CBA offers extremely limited solutions to the disruptive construction. An example of what other projects have offered can be seen in the Construction Management Plan between Medford and Tufts (see agreement), where they agreed to put $500,000 in a neighborhood improvement fund to offset impacts from the Project, with another $510,000 to follow. This fund allows direct payments to go towards the neighbors impacted by the construction and the loss of sunlight from the new construction’s shadows. They also negotiated agreements around dust Control and monitoring, as well as a code of conduct for workers.

3. USNC has insufficient funds to take legal action to enforce this CBA . This could be added to the CBA. 

I see many people saying they are voting yes because of the hard work USNC members put in, but voting yes to applaud the work that people campaigned to do is not a reason I find motivating.

Many people seem to be voting yes because of the ACE space, and while more resources for art and artists are a boon to our city, this aspect of the CBA does not impact all stakeholders and, in some ways, exacerbates some of the serious class tensions that this development adds pressure to.

As community members vote, I hope that people consider the people and environment that will be impacted beyond their own home, their own social circle, their own affinity groups, their own tenure in this city, and their own comfort level. What we say yes to today and what we build tomorrow will have impacts that outlast us all, and as we see happening around us, a flawed foundation leads to enormous harm that will always hurt the most oppressed. In the community meetings, at the negotiating table, and in the discourse-heavy email threads, there are many identities and stakeholders who are excluded. When those who have the time, access, and information to vote do so, they must keep in mind that their vote impacts everyone in the community, including those who have not been part of the conversations. 

Adaline

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usnc-public/14443620-DB09-4320-BAB1-D4E7F6549BDF%40rcn.com.

[Matthias Rudolf]

Darrick,

A “no" vote on the CBA opens the door to many possibilities, but it is difficult to predict how that scenario will play out. The USNC’s bylaws stipulate that it reopen negotiations with the developer, but the developer is under no obligation to do so. What is certain is that reopening negotiations would take a lot of time and energy — the USNC would have to return to the community, listen to its concerns and establish a new bargaining baseline, and then elect a new team to negotiate for those benefits. Whether the developer would wait that long to renegotiate a project and provide with more community benefits for a project that would be only marginally larger than what could be built by right without providing any community benefits is the multi-million dollar question.  

I think Councilor Scott is right to be wary of the prospect of a by right development without benefits, and I believe that the prospect of getting a better deal by voting no is very slim indeed. Consider the scope benefits the current CBA provides — a viable long-term affordable arts ecosystem, a project labor agreement worth tens of millions of dollars that guarantees fair wages and health care for ALL construction workers on the site, construction mitigation measures for abutting businesses and properties, a teen community center, and a future oriented, risky mobility plan that requires that 75% of the people working at the site come and go without driving their cars — and then consider what the developer stands to gain from taking on more risk by giving more while not building for another year or so. The outcome is not written in stone, but I think it’s disingenuous and naïve to think that a no vote automatically gets the community more. 

That said, I will be voting “yes” not because I fear the alternative but because I understand that the CBA takes into account and responds to the needs of neighborhood residents, independent small businesses, the Somerville artists and workers, as well as the Somerville youth. 

Best,

Matthias

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usnc-public/CAO%3DO%3DDu06VaBfsqD3CYcucBmSd3%3D425CrMbySTMQjAcoU8JvgQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Adaline Lining]

Matthias, I think it is acceptable to say that the proposed CBA takes into account and responds to the needs of some neighborhood residents, some independent small businesses, some Somerville artist, and some workers, as well as some of the Somerville youth, but it is not acceptable to say that this current CBA takes all people from all those groups into consideration- I do hope you understand this!

 In terms of bylaws, could you please share the information source of the information about the need to establish a new bargaining team? I was unable to find them in the USNC bylaws document.  

In terms of considering whether the developer would wait to renegotiate a project and provide more community benefits, I wonder if this is where the city council vote on zoning comes into play- the developer cannot build their plan without the city approval and multiple city councilors have said that they will not vote to approve the plan without the CBA. 

And while the developer could decide to drastically modify the plan and move forward with a development that follows current FAB zoning, that seems unlikely to be a viable option given that a project of that size would probably not give them a solid return on investment. 

If the CBA is voted down, it seems that the developer can either 

1) Build a project that meets FAB zoning

2) Renegotiate the CBA

Given that the developer has taken on such a high level of, as you say, "risk," in buying the space, providing favors for community groups, and undergoing the CBA negotiation process so far, their actions seem to indicate that it is worth it to them and for their bottom line to continuing to negotiate rather than building smaller. Like you wrote, "the outcome is not written in stone," but I think it’s disingenuous not to consider what could happen if the CBA doesn't pass. After all, the first US2 CBA was voted down, and people went back to the table- why assume that can't happen here? I agree that it is naive to think that a no vote automatically guarantees that the community gets more, but it is also naive to be unprepared for all possible outcomes of an election.

[Matthias Rudolf]

Adaline,

The line is in Article 16: “If a CBA does not receive 2/3rds majority support then the Neighborhood Council will continue negotiating until a 2/3rds majority- supported agreement can be reached.” 

You’re right about the City Council coming into play if the CBA doesn’t pass, in which case it’s unlikely the AI overlay will pass. It is more likely that the R&D zoning and the use revision will pass. There’s a strong incentive to pass them because doing so would (a) closing the co-working loophole in the ACE definitions, and (2) allow the City to retain climate-tech businesses like Greentown Labs and Form Energy and the commercial tax base they provide by permitting the uses they depend on by right (currently, these are permitted only because they were grandfathered in and can’t be extended beyond their current limits). The R&D zoning would allow larger floor plates and make expanding the such climate businesses a viable option.  

Under that (more likely) scenario, the developer could build by right and provide the building types “tough tech” needs. It’s worth noting that the 10% ACE space required under the zoning (a 5% increase from the FAB zoning) would not be affordable, and that the developer — should they choose to build by right — would have little incentive to provide the kind of package the USNC negotiated in the CBA. If that’s the case, it’s like that ACE space would remain largely vacant because it’s unaffordable (just as it is in Boynton Yards, e.g.) and result in further displacement of the artists. I don’t find that an attractive prospect.

I hear you on the developers’ willingness to take extraordinary risks — it indeed indicates a dedication to the site and a willingness to make things work. From what I know from the negotiations, I’m not sure as sure as you are that the developer would want to negotiate a second time. Unlike for US2 where the zoning was already passed (note that it took two tries to establish the Neighborhood Council, not to pass the CBA which passed the first time with flying colors), the point of diminishing returns is much closer.    

[Daniel Coughlin]

What if….we just allowed the existing zoning and Somervision 2040 to work as intended? Should every development benefit every special group? 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usnc-public/EE2965F7-6201-4978-B680-56962F46B0C5%40icloud.com.

[Rohini Pande]

I think the key point here is that Rafi are asking to change zoning on two dimensions simultaneously; on the size of the permitted development (increasing to 1.4m sq ft, and with building heights up to 260'), *and* on the permitted uses - and both of these, clearly, increase the value of the land they own - and the current CBA has been negotiated around bringing the community some share of the benefits from a potential project that includes both these changes. 

Rafi, and project supporters claim, as I understand, that the option is that, with no change in zoning, they will build up to the limits of existing permitted development (1.2m sq ft). However,  it is not clear to me that any development at all is commercially viable without the expansion in permitted use that they are also asking for. 

(One question that I have here - perhaps someone on this list would know - what is the size of existing development on this land (in sqft)? And how much existing parking is there? This is what we should be comparing project proposals to; the increase in size and usage from what exists now., not to some theoretical expansion to a maximum permitted size)

I think many neighbours here would like to be able to evaluate a similar CBA negotiated around change of permitted use within existing permitted development size; we have not yet been offered this option - instead we see Rafi only - so far -  prepared to negotiate around a substantially larger scheme, tripling permitted building heights,   and with subsequent impacts on traffic, light etc that it is not possible to mitigate effectively. 

My sense is, therefore, we should reject this CBA as it stands and ask Rafi to come back with a project of a size more suited to the transport links and general building scale of the area (or a proposal to help fund green line extension to Porter), but including the changes of use they're asking for, and renegotiate the CBA around that?

[Kate Lila Wheeler]

💯

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "somernovaneighbors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to somernovaneighb...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/somernovaneighbors/CAAw12E8xRk-9DSQG_YKJPzhmM5nhYAZF%3DThSFZ48%3Dry28D07_g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.