Time and time again we have asked for the studies that have informed the Salem St Zoning. We have seen the slide from each Innes Associates PowerPoint on Salem St that says studies must be conducted.
So where are they? We hunted everywhere. We asked in person at meetings and in the planning office when Alicia Hunt told us there were "over 100 studies" and “hundreds of studies.”
She also said they still had time on our FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request for the studies as well as the work product, emails and meetings with developers that informed this zoning. Friday January 31st came and nothing. Monday Feb. 3rd came (we allowed grace since they had asked for clarification) and we emailed to ask when we could expect these studies so that we had time to read and absorb them. We were told that they would be delivered by Wednesday Feb. 5th end of day.
We received an email with a link to a Google Drive that were the “studies.”
What did we get? A data dump.
Any random study that was laying around (one from 1964). Many, many Medford Square studies, Mystic Ave studies, several Climate plans (that all pointed out the vulnerability of the Salem St/Glenwood area as a direct reason not to allow 80% lot coverage and 12-foot sidewalks), random traffic studies from private developers, and really just whatever they had lying around. You’re welcome, Planning Department! I hear the office looks great now that you have digitized decades worth of paperwork!
What didn’t we get? We didn’t get one single solitary study that was called for in the Comprehensive Plan. None.
So, the answer to our FOIA is WE DID NOT CONDUCT STUDIES! It isn’t the answer that we wanted, but it is the answer we knew was coming.
We still pored over the data that we got and found that it is well known that this area is a vulnerable neighborhood. It is well known that we have a large amount of heat islands. We learned that when proper studies are done and involve community engagement, that they last for months. That they have several community meetings, that they go out into the neighborhoods, that they collect data from the actual community that will be impacted by their plan and adapt that plan in some way based on the feedback. But the city did not go out into the community after the plan was written and people pointed out that they never got community input to “EDUCATE” the community about what was going to be done TO them and not WITH them.
We read the Comprehensive Plan, and it calls for studies for rezoning a corridor. Conduct “studies to show the impact of the preferred scenarios. These could include projected development volume, traffic analyses, shadow studies, environmental impact estimates, or other studies appropriate to the area and the goals of that area.” (p196). “Undertake corridor or commercial center studies to allow an appropriate mix of uses and land use controls for cohesive development along corridors and within village centers.” (p204). “Future implementation of many of these areas will require further study and community engagement at the neighborhood area, corridor or site level. As city priorities are developed, the community should expect to see additional plans and studies that enable discussion and decisions to be made at this smaller, more detailed scale.” (p207)
What did the Planning Department and the Planning and Development Committee of City Council do? They watched PowerPoint presentations by Innes Associates (the consultant) and never discussed the actual zoning language. There were ZERO meetings where they engaged with the Salem St Corridor language and made changes to said language. There were only two meetings before it was passed to Community Development Board. It was constantly stressed that the corridor had to URGENTLY be rezoned because developers were waiting according to Alicia Hunt ( Planning and Development Committee meeting on 6/12/24. We asked in our FOIA which developers they were URGENTLY rezoning for, but that information was not found. Surprised?).
Despite multiple citywide plans that called for affordable housing, Alicia Hunt pushed the committee forward to just rezone for the waiting developers lest they go ahead and build something “smaller than what we want.” The residents called for affordable and middle housing in citywide study after study. The Salem St zoning is delivering tiny lots that will hold 6 story buildings and as long as they stay under 10, ZERO affordable units will be built. Extra floors to get to the 6 stories come too easily for that to “incentive” to be of any use.
Climate study after climate study (2017, 2019, 2021) and Open Space Plans (2011, 2019) and Resilience Hubs (2020) said Glenwood is an Environmental Justice Area and suffers from heat islands, there also wasn’t time to incorporate that into the Salem St Corridor zoning. “Heat islands I care about them... Do I think it’s as urgent as the fact that nobody can live here? No!” said Council President Zac Bears (Planning and Permitting Committee Meeting 6/12/2024). So, there isn’t time to worry about ways to exchange allowing all of this density on tiny lots for more affordable units, there also isn’t time to worry about heat islands. So just housing at any price point as long as we can pack it in, climate issues and housing affordability are below that priority.
We received a folder titled “Traffic Studies” and it contained random developer submitted traffic studies. One that stood out was the study for 240 Salem St (the Sync building). We compared that data to the study for 290 Salem St (which was NOT included in this data dump). And this is what we came up with (just for an idea on traffic, we are not conducting an official study here):
Another study that was interesting was a report of the Parking Advisory Committee. This was published September 30, 2009. It counted parking spaces. 100 parking spaces existed in Haines Square. And at the “neighborhood node” where more intense uses will be allowed…18. There were 18 parking spaces near the intersection of Park St and Salem St. So, hundreds of apartments will be allowed to be developed here with potentially .8 parking spaces based on a future “high frequency” bus route and there are 18 often used parking spaces. Let that sink in.
Even when you read the old studies, this zoning doesn’t work. When you read the Comprehensive Plan, you see that the city says studies will be conducted to not produce zoning that is detrimental to the neighborhood. Then you have the Planning Department and the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council completely ignoring the Comprehensive Plan as well as the slide that Innes includes in every PowerPoint presentation to show that they recommended doing it and the city declined.
Comments