A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to proposed amendments to the New Street Overlay District Zoning Petition

C I T Y O F C A M B R I D G E Community Development Department IRAM FAROOQ Assistant City Manager for Community Development SANDRA CLARKE Deputy Director Chief of Administration KHALIL MOGASSABI Deputy Director Chief Planner 344 Broadway Cambridge, MA 02139 Voice: [phone removed] Fax: [phone removed] TTY: [phone removed] www.cambridgema.gov To: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager From: Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Nancy E. Glowa, City Solicitor Date: September 9, 2019 Subject: New Street Overlay District Zoning Petition On July 30, 2019, the City Council accepted the report of the Ordinance Committee on the New Street Overlay District Zoning Petition (the “Petition”) and adopted a policy order to instruct the Community Development Department revise the language in the Petition and to include specific changes in the revision. The attached zoning text incorporates the amendments recorded in the Ordinance Committee Report as well as some minor clarifying text edits to improve the language. In addition, this memo highlights some issues noted by staff that should be considered if the Council moves to ordain the Petition. Also attached to this memo, as requested by a member of the Ordinance Committee, is a chart summarizing the changes to development potential that would result on the two affected lots if the Petition is adopted. Developer Commitments The Petition was submitted by Self Storage Group, LLC (the “Petitioner”) for the purpose of establishing an overlay district, to be known as the New Street Overlay District, that would apply to an area along the eastern side of New Street currently zoned as Industrial A-1. The Petition would allow the development of a self- storage facility and would relax the dimensional requirements in the base zone for such a facility. The Petition would also add “self-storage facility” as a use in the Zoning Ordinance’s Table of Uses, set forth in Article 4.000, Section 4.31. In presentations to the Ordinance Committee, the Petitioner outlined a set of public benefits that if proposed would be associated with the proposed development of a self-storage facility, including development of affordable housing units, storage space for low-income families and for recreational organizations, maintaining a fitness center on the site, development of a “Net Zero Energy” building and solar array, creation of a new bike/pedestrian path, stormwater flooding mitigation, and the contribution of approximately $2 million in incentive zoning payments (the latter two benefits would be provided for any project of this type under current zoning requirements). However, the Petitioner has not provided a letter of commitment setting forth its proposed commitments that it would make to the City in connection with the proposed zoning and committing to any such proposed public benefits.

Page 2 of 3 Legal Analysis In cases where a property owner is petitioning to change the zoning of their parcel, it is important for the property owner to affirmatively commit to providing specific benefits through a letter of commitment that is accepted by the City Council and incorporated in and made part of the Zoning Ordinance by reference (a “Letter of Commitment”). This is important in order to avoid such proposed zoning targeted only to specific parcels from being impermissible spot zoning (or reverse spot zoning, as the case may be), and possibly subject to challenge as an exaction of a property interest. The proposed zoning amendment text itself should not require direct benefits from the owner but should rather set forth clear standards for development and, in this case, the specific criteria for granting a special permit. One important matter that would need to be specified in a Letter of Commitment is the property owner’s commitment to producing affordable housing units. The Petition would allow an increase in density and height for a self-storage facility with one of the criteria for approval being the inclusion of 20,000 square feet of affordable housing (according to the latest amendments forwarded to the full City Council by the Ordinance Committee). However, the latest materials from the Petitioner suggest that not all of the affordable housing would be funded by the developer, and some would be proposed to be developed with public funding, which would be requested from the Affordable Housing Trust and other public sources. The materials note that the Petitioner will commit to funding the creation of 15 units of affordable housing, or approximately 15,000 square feet, and therefore it would appear that the additional development potential provided in the Petition would only be possible if public funding is committed to fund the remaining portion of the required 20,000 square feet. The specifics of this arrangement are not entirely clear and should be set forth in detail in a Letter of Commitment from the Petitioner before any final action is taken. Another concern with this Petition as it relates to public benefits is that it affects a parcel that is not controlled by the Petitioner. If a Letter of Commitment is accepted and made part of the Zoning Ordinance, it is unclear how the Petitioner would honor those commitments, as they would apply to the other affected property owner who does not appear to be a party to the agreement between the Petitioner and the City that is being proposed by the Petitioner. Thus, for the reasons set forth above, the proposed public benefits should be set forth in a Letter of Commitment and not the zoning amendment text itself and I have concerns about the City accepting a Letter of Commitment that would apply to another affected property owner who is not a party to the agreement. Requiring

Page 3 of 3 public benefits in the text of the zoning amendment or in a Letter of Commitment that a property owner has not agreed to could both be subject to challenge. Clarity of Requirements When the Planning Board discussed this Petition, one of the issues noted was that the language setting forth requirements and criteria for granting a special permit is not very clear. An example is that it references “lots that are greater than 300 feet in depth, but do not have street frontage in excess of 150 feet” but the text does not specify if that is a required qualification for granting of a special permit. The other special permit criteria that are enumerated are very broad, which would make it difficult for the Planning Board to evaluate whether or not they are met. The Planning Board did not suggest improvements because it made an unfavorable recommendation on the proposal in general. If the City Council adopts the Petition, the next step would be for the Planning Board to evaluate a development proposal for conformance with the special permit criteria, and therefore it would be beneficial for the Council to articulate its development expectations in the form of specific criteria for the Planning Board to apply. Staff are available to assist with drafting appropriate language if the Council reaches consensus on the substance of the criteria that should be included. Use Categories The Petition proposes changes to Articles 4.000 and 6.000 of the Zoning Ordinance that could have impacts beyond this particular development proposal. After conferring with the Inspectional Services Department, it is apparent that a “self-storage facility” as it has been described would be allowed in Industry districts under current zoning as a “Storage warehouse, cold storage plant, storage building, but not including storage or bailing of junk, scrap metal, rags, waste paper or used rubber” (Paragraph 4.37 k.). Accordingly, it is not necessary to add “self-storage facility” to Articles 4.000 and 6.000 because a self-storage facility use is already allowed under the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, if the Council wishes to add “self-storage facility” as a separate use in Articles 4.000 and 6.000 the Petition does not provide a definition for “self-storage facility,” so it may be ambiguous whether a particular building would be considered a “self-storage facility” or a more general “storage building.” A specific, narrow definition of a “self-storage facility” would help to make that distinction. Also, as noted in a prior CDD memo, the Petition does not specify bicycle parking or loading requirements for that use, which may also create ambiguity if self-storage facilities are established in the City in the future.