A Planning Board recommendation to adopt with comments and suggested improvements, the CambridgeSide Galleria Associates Trust Zoning Petition

CITY HALL ANNEX, 344 BROADWAY, CAMBRIDGE, MA 02139

Date: Subject: Recommendation: The Board recommends ADOPTION, with comments and suggested improvements. To the Honorable, the City Council, On September 24, 2019, the Planning Board (the "Board") held a public hearing on a zoning petition (the "Petition") submitted by Stephen R. Karp, Trustee of Cambridgeside Galleria Associates Trust (the "Petitioner"), to amend the Zoning Ordinance by adding a Section 13.100 that creates a new PUD-8 District and to amend the Zoning Map by adding the new PUD-8 District, which would include the property located at 100 Cambridgeside Place, Which 1s currently used as a mall ("CambridgeSide" or "Mall") (currently zoned in the Business A and PUD-4 Districts). The Petitioner initially submitted a zoning petition in February 2019 (the "Original Petition"'), but it expired without action by the City Council and a modified version of the Petition was subsequently filed by the Petitioner. At the public hearing, the Board received information and testimony from the Petitioner, Community Development Department ("CDD") staff, and members of the public. As with the Original Petition, the current Petition seeks to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the redevelopment ot Cambridgeside into a mixed-use center by maintainıng a core of retail use and adding commercial and residential uses. The Petition continues to propose creating a new PUD district (PUD-8) that would exist separately from the existing PUD-4 District and would allow additional Gross Floor Area ("GFA"), height, and uses beyond what is currently allowed in PUD-4. The proposed zoning would allow the addition of new commercial (office, laboratory, and/oi retail) and residential development to the Mall site. At the public hearing, the Board received clarification from the Petitioner that the replacement of the existing above-grade parking garage with other uses is intended to be in addition to the 575,000 square feet of net new GFA proposed for the Mall site. The Petitioner identified that the parking garage has approximately 273,000 square feet of floor area, but, under current zoning, this is not included in GFA calculations for the Mall site After deliberation, a majority of the Planning Board expressed overall support for the Petition, but also raised issues for further consideration. The Board reached a favorable consensus on the following aspects of the petition: Page 1 of 6 • A majority of the Board generally favors the redevelopment of the Mall into a more mixed-use complex to ensure its long-term economic viability as a community retail center and gathering place. • 'There was broad consensus among Board members of the importance of activating First Street through ground-floor retail, building setbacks, and an improved public realm. The Board encouraged the Petitioner to continue working with City staff as the project proceeds to identify appropriate standards and guidelines for setbacks and public realm improvements along First Street. A majority of the Board generally supported the Petition as a means to achieve this goal, though some Board members expressed concern that the • narrow sidewalk along the former Sears building is proposed to remain. • A majority of the Board expressed comfort with the overall heights and massing that would be enabled by the revised Petition. In particular, members were comfortable with the addition of step-back provisions to control the bulk of buildings along the street as well as the preservation of existing heights along the Lechmere Canal frontage and within the interior public atrium of the Mall. Some Board members would have been supportive of taller height limits if they applied only to housing. • The Board appreciated that the Petitioner conferred with Eversource and is satisfied that the project is not expected to negatively impact the electrical load. • The Board also appreciated the greater proportion of GFA allocated to housing and to affordable housing in the revised Petition, but raised some additional issues as described further below. The following key issues were identified for further consideration, which fall into two main categories: Housing • The Board would like to see as much housing as possible enabled by this Petition, given that housing is a major priority identified in the City's recently-completed Envision Cambridge comprehensive plan. Board members were supportive of setting aside at least 30% of net new GFA for housing, as proposed in the Petition, but some Board members did not believe they had enough information to know if this proposal provides the maximum amount of housing that is economically feasible at the CambridgeSide site. • The Board favored middle-income housing as a component of this proposal, but acknowledged concerns raised by CDD staff that there seems to be limited demand for income-restricted, middle-income rental units based on the City's recent experience administering such units. Board members suggested flexibility in the zoning language, so that it would allow and promote middle-income housing without being so constrained that it might result in middle-income units that remain empty while demand from low- and moderate-income households remains. Page 2 01 6 • The Board continued to question whether the required timing of the residential phase and the language of Section 13.104.1, Paragraph (d)1. were clear and sufficient to ensure that the housing would be constructed, and suggested considering other alternatives. • The Board also discussed how to determine an appropriate mix of unit sizes for the affordable and market-rate housing. Some Board members suggested that unit size could be tailored to meet demand in order to reduce the likelihood of having empty units. Some Board members also questioned whether some family-sized market-rate units would be appropriate, because the current Petition would prohibit such units. In addition, the Petition specifies that all family-sized units would be Middle Income or Affordable, but does not further describe how many family-sized units would be created. In general, the Board wanted to have a clearer sense of the total amount of housing, low- and moderate- income housing, middle-income housing, and family-sized housing that would be enabled by the Petition.

Public Benefits