COM 936 #2019 : An anonymous communication was received, regarding financials for the CambridgeSide Galleria.

In doing responsible financial due diligence, city councillors wisely voted to have an analysis of the pro forma financiasfor the CambridgeSide development.. But it is unclear - and absolutely crucial - which pro formas will be analyzed and how. Below is re a fistot essential elements of a valid, meaningful analysis: 1) Original pro formas done by the developer to determine whether the mall, as it was back in February, could survive without upzoning. (If instead the current pro formas corresponding to the revised petition of July 25 are used, that analysis would be of proposed buildings that are 155 feet high. Use of those financials would not be valid, because they are not the financials on which the developer based its claim for needing to break zoning rules.) 2) No pro formas that include residential units. The point is to determine whether the existing mall could survive: If housing is included, we're no longer discussing the existing mall. 3) An architect's opinion and estimate as to what changes in the bui dangloping would be required to convert to offices and labs, including the costs of turning the above-grade parking lot on First Street into offices and labs. 1) Assessment of assumptions as to fairness and accuracy, such items as costs of construction (materials, labor, etc.), rentable square feet, estimated rent revenues per square foot, etc. In conclusion only pro formas reflecting a height falling within zoning limitsland excluding residential units/but including necessary architectural changes as well as fair, reasonable estimates could truly test the developer's original claim that breaking the zoning limit of 85 feet is necessary for the survival of the mall. Analysis of any other pro forma financials would not be valid and would be a questionable use of taxpayers' money.