May 11, 2026

This special meeting, called by the Mayor, was devoted entirely to the redevelopment of 90 Washington Street—the long-vacant, city-taken parcel near the East Somerville Green Line station (used for years as a "snow farm," as presiding Councilor Lance Davis noted). The Council heard a presentation on the two development proposals received, discussed financial details in executive session, and took votes to move the process forward.

Votes & Decisions

Endorse Wood Partners and North River Leerink as the Two 90 Washington Street Finalists – Approved Unanimously

The Council voted to endorse Wood Partners and North River Leerink Manager LLC as the two finalists in the 90 Washington Street Request for Proposals process, sending both to the Somerville Redevelopment Authority (SRA), which owns the land and will make the final selection.

Councilor Davis was candid that this vote was "basically a formality": the memorandum of understanding between the Council and the SRA requires the Council to forward two proposals, and only two were submitted. "We don't have any choice but to vote yes to forward these two," Davis explained. City Attorney Amara confirmed this reading. Councilor McLaughlin pressed on why the Council couldn't send the proposals back for redesign first, but was told the MOU's structure requires both to advance into a "best and final offer" negotiation period.

The two proposals differ significantly:

• Wood Partners (architect: PCA): One seven-story building with 324 residential units (20% income-restricted, ~65 units), just under 15,000 sq ft of retail, 6,000 sq ft of community space, and a 398-space structured parking garage at the center of the building. Wood Partners built the Alta Revolution project in Assembly. The city's real estate consultant (HR&A) scored it 37/45, calling it "a strong executable proposal" but flagging the parking program, site density, and public realm strategy as needing improvement.

• North River Leerink (architect: Handel): Three buildings ranging from 6 to 16 stories with 426 units (reduced from an original 600), ~86 income-restricted units, 17,000 sq ft of retail, an 8,000 sq ft community space, a central green, and 200 underground parking spaces. Scored 29/45 by HR&A, which praised its "thoughtful design vision" and sustainability focus but raised feasibility concerns—chiefly whether underground parking is achievable at this site.

Authorization for Councilor Wheeler to Share Executive Session Discussion with the SRA – Approved Unanimously

Because the Council cannot formally vote to endorse one proposal over the other, it instead voted to authorize Councilor Ben Wheeler (the Council's representative on the SRA) and Senior Planner Ben Demers to convey the Council's executive session discussion of the two proposals to the SRA—in the SRA's own executive session, to preserve confidentiality of financial details. Wheeler was also authorized to review the executive session minutes beforehand to refresh his recollection. This is the mechanism by which the Council's preferences and concerns will reach the decision-making body.

Enter Executive Session – Approved 10-0

The Council voted to enter executive session to discuss the financial components of the two proposals, with Davis declaring that open discussion "would be detrimental to the city's negotiating position." The Council returned to open session afterward; no votes were taken in executive session other than the vote to exit.

Key Discussions

Strong Council Preference for North River Leerink

Though no formal endorsement vote was possible, councilor sentiment ran clearly toward the North River Leerink proposal, echoing the Civic Advisory Committee (CAC), whose members "strongly preferred this proposal" per staff. Councilor McLaughlin observed, "I haven't heard anybody speak in favor of option one," and said he preferred the North River plan because it's "less intrusive on the Cobble Hill seniors" and partially preserves the berm. Councilors Wheeler, Clingan, and Mbah also stated a preference for North River Leerink, with Mbah noting CAC members he'd spoken with were "very much in support" of it. Councilor Wheeler said he'd "love to see more stories in that tower," even acknowledging the added engineering cost, "for the housing."

Concentrating Affordable Units in One Building – Broad Opposition

The sharpest criticism of the North River Leerink proposal was its plan to use Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) to concentrate all income-restricted units in the lowest-rise building, rather than spreading them throughout the project as the city's inclusionary zoning policy intends. Councilor Strezo was blunt: "To segregate the lower income units is just that... a segregation of some units over others, and that is very much a nefarious policy suggestion that I will denounce now and going forward. So for me, that's a nonstarter." Councilors Sait, Link, and Wheeler echoed the concern; Link added that separated affordable buildings tend to be "the last building to get built, and maybe it doesn't even get built, like we've seen so far in USQ." McLaughlin noted a trade-off: requiring mixed-income distribution could raise costs and reduce the total number of affordable units.

Parking: Too Much, and Feasibility Doubts

Both proposals drew parking criticism. Wood Partners' 398 structured spaces for 324 units was widely viewed as excessive given the site sits next to the Green Line. Councilor Scott offered a striking statistic: of ~90 units eligible for street parking permits in the US2 tower, "only nine people went out to get it." Wheeler argued, "If there's ever anywhere where... it makes sense to have people come and wanna live who are gonna move in and not need cars... it's here. It's right next to the green line."

On North River Leerink's underground parking, HR&A flagged serious feasibility concerns, and McLaughlin predicted contamination would make it "very difficult... expensive slash impossible." Staff confirmed feasibility work (soil samples, environmental testing) would happen only after a developer is selected, during the due diligence period—a sequencing Councilor Hardt questioned.

Public Space, Playgrounds, and Labor Standards

Councilor Sait asked why large developments don't include playgrounds, noting they serve as community gathering spaces beyond just children. Staff said playgrounds hadn't come up much in CAC discussions but could still be negotiated into the final agreement. Both the CAC and staff worried that North River Leerink's central green space, while intended to be publicly accessible, doesn't read as inviting from Washington or New Washington Streets. Councilor Clingan went on record wanting the project "built as much union as possible" and, at minimum, with contractors free of "wage theft or unfair labor practices" records. McLaughlin also asked for ample benches for seniors, given the adjacent Cobble Hill senior housing.

Notable Moments

• Davis's transparency about the "pro forma" vote: The presiding councilor repeatedly emphasized to the public that the Council was "effectively obligated" to forward both proposals, and that the SRA "probably won't put a lot of weight" in the endorsement vote itself—the real value being the discussion conveyed to the SRA.

• Strezo's "segregation" denouncement of concentrating affordable units set the tone for a near-unanimous chorus of councilors opposing that element.

• Scott's optimism about negotiation: Having worked with North River on their 28 Chestnut project in Ward 2, Scott called them "generally very creative and collaborative partners" and expressed hope for "a substantially improved version" of whichever proposal wins, calling above-ground parking "a total full stop" for him.

• Consensus on density: Scott noted the "seemingly unanimous understanding that transit-oriented development... needs to make the most of the height," with multiple councilors urging even taller buildings and more units.

What's Next

• Both development teams now enter a best and final offer period to strengthen their proposals.

• The Civic Advisory Committee will meet in early July to review the updated proposals.

• The SRA will select a development team (or reject both) prior to July 13, after which a four-to-five-month negotiation and due diligence period begins—including environmental testing that will determine whether underground parking is feasible.

• That period would end with a Land Development Agreement, which must come back to the City Council for approval. As Senior Planner Demers emphasized, "this is not the last touch point within the process for the council."