On March 2, the Newton City Council approved rezoning 148 California Street from Manufacturing to Business Use 2, a change that supporters said would ease leasing for businesses, while opponents warned it could undermine planning for the California Street corridor. The parcel contains about half of a shopping center that straddles the Newton/Watertown border.
The Council took up three items on second call after review by the Land Use Committee:
- A request to rezone 148 California Street from manufacturing to Business Use 2 (Land Use had approved 5–0 with one abstention by Ward 4 City Councilor Randy Block) was approved 19-5.
- A petition to release a 1988 restrictive covenant passed 6–0 in Land Use and 17-7 by the Council.
- A request for a special permit for shared parking was held.
Several Councilors said the proposal from petitioner KF Realty Trust would make it easier for businesses to occupy the property. Councilor Block opposed the rezoning, warning it could open the door to additional residential development in the area.
“For those of you who think this is simple, it really is a lot more complex than it at first seems,” Block said.
Support
Ward 1 Councilor Alison Leary chaired the Land Use Committee meeting while chair Ward 3 Councilor Andrea Kelley was traveling.
Councilor Leary said the site already includes more than 600 parking spaces and several retail businesses. Under the current Manufacturing zoning, she said, property owners must obtain a special permit for new tenants.
She said that changing the zoning to Business Use 2 (BU2 would make it easier for the owner to lease space and allow businesses to open without navigating the lengthy special permit process. The City’s Planning Department recommended the designation after also considering Business Use 1.
She said the 1988 restrictive covenant has further complicated permitting.
“At this point, it is just an additional piece of red tape that makes it difficult for the business owner to make changes without having to go through a special permit process,” Leary said during the discussion.
Leary said the change would help the City better support local businesses.
“We all say we want to support our local businesses, we want to make it a little easier, we want them to thrive here,” Leary said. “We can’t just say that we actually have to do something about it.”
Ward 1 Councilor Maria Greenberg also supported the rezoning, arguing that Newton should attract emerging industries and strengthen its commercial tax base. She pointed to rapid growth in the life sciences sector in neighboring Watertown and warned that Newton risks developing a reputation as a “city of no” on business development.
Ward 2 Councilor Susan Albright echoed that view, saying the current Manufacturing zoning makes it difficult for businesses to move into the property because new tenants must obtain a special permit, which she said can take up to three to four months.
“It makes it impossible for this landowner to get his spaces rented in a timely fashion,” Councilor Albright said. “We worry about what could happen in the future if we move to BU2… we need to focus on the present.”
Opposition
Councilor Block called the petitioner’s proposal “highly unusual” and urged Councilors to proceed cautiously.
Ward 3 Councilor Julia Malakie shared some of his concerns, saying she would support releasing the restrictive covenant but not the rezoning from manufacturing to BU2.
Councilor Block later told Fig City News about the California Street Manufacturing District Zoning study, conducted by planning firm Utile and released in February 2023. The City commissioned the study to evaluate land use along the California Street corridor and to consider future options for zoning and development.
Councilor Block said the study received little discussion during the Council’s deliberations despite its potential implications for the site.
The report describes the corridor as an “underdeveloped, historically industrial zone” and “a prime opportunity to reimagine the district for more dynamic 21st-century uses that can attract new businesses and foster stronger connections between the district and surrounding residential neighborhoods.”
The study was commissioned after 3.4 acres of industrial land in the district were converted to housing through the state’s Chapter 40B program. At the time, two buildings under construction at 2–4 Los Angeles Street were set to add 204 apartments, including 51 permanently affordable units.
“In a city with so little commercially zoned land, ensuring that a portion of the district remains preserved for commercial uses is critical for Newton’s fiscal health,” the study states.
Councilor Block told Fig City News he was disappointed that the Council’s decision did not follow the Utile study’s recommendation that properties east of Los Angeles Street – including 148 California Street – remain zoned only for commercial uses.
“Why does the City spend money on analysis from firms like Utile and then doesn’t bother to even debate it, much less follow it?” he said.
Block said that the Planning Department’s memo on the proposal did not reference the Utile study and that it appeared only in a PowerPoint presentation, prompting him to track down the report. He also said the Land Use Committee held only one meeting before the proposal returned to the full Council for a vote.
Councilor Block said he understands the owner’s desire for more leasing flexibility but argued the City should focus on broader planning priorities.
“We didn’t need to rezone this in order to help this business,” he said, noting the Council has previously approved comprehensive special permits allowing buildings to change tenants without returning for new permits.
The future
When asked about the future of 148 California Street after the rezoning, Councilor Block said it remains uncertain but he noted that the Business Use 2 designation allows residential development through a special permit.
During the debate, Councilor Albright said the special permit process would allow the Council to control or limit any housing proposals.
Councilor Block told Fig City News he disagrees, arguing that most special permit requests are ultimately approved.
“If somebody wanted to build residential, I think as a practical matter they could,” he said.
