STOP Development on New Street. DENY Special Permits.

To: The Cambridge Planning Board

From: The Fresh Pond Residents Alliance

Date: Tuesday, May 13th, 2014

RE: PB #286 (aka 75 New Street)

We write to you today as concerned neighbors who seek to offer our comments regarding a case soon to come before you. Specifically, in the three months since Special Permit application #286 first came before the Planning Board, Park 77, the 93-unit residential building proposed by AbodeZ Acorn LLC at 75 New Street, has become the “poster child” for the pitfalls of piecemeal redevelopment. More than anything, this latest proposal demonstrates the limitations of the City’s Special Permit process to guide the transformation of the formerly industrial areas around Fresh Pond and Alewife into vibrant new pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods with a sense of place.

Introduction

As the CDD’s April 3rd memo on the project notes, New Street lies just outside the 2005 Concord-Alewife Planning Study area. While directly abutting the Study area, New Street itself has never had the benefit of an integrated planning effort. (In fact, a preliminary planning study for this area done in 2003 referred to New Street as “not a good candidate for housing” due to its ongoing, industrial character). Without its own Study guidelines to follow, CDD is of the opinion that the proposed 96,000 square foot project should be considered in light of the Special Permit requirements and design guidelines created by the Concord Alewife area’s 2006 rezoning. In that sense, we feel that this proposal for 75 New Street falls well short of meeting most of the Study’s stated goals and that the requested Special Permits should be denied for that reason.

To further clarify our concerns, we ask that you consider the specific goals for the area laid out in the Concord-Alewife Study. According to CDD’s own write-up, these goals include the following:

• Breaking down development into smaller block sizes


• Encouraging architectural variation across the district


• Creating pedestrian-friendly facades at street level


• Supporting environmentally sustainable design principles


• Screening parking and loading activities


• For the specific area around the shopping center, improving pedestrian links to Danehy Park and Alewife Station

For each criteria, we find the proposed development fundamentally lacking in meeting the goals enunciated in the Study. In addition, we also find the proposal deficient in a number of other Study goals that CDD failed to include in their synopsis of the New Street area. Among these additional development goals (all clearly listed in the Concord-Alewife Study) are the following:

• Street level facades should include active uses such as frequent residential entrances, with setbacks for stoops and porches; neighborhood-serving retail including shops, restaurants, cafes; services for the public or for commercial offices such as fitness centers, cafeterias, day care centers; community spaces such as exhibition or meeting spaces; and commercial lobbies and front entrances.


• Encourage awnings/ canopies to provide shelter and enliven ground-floor façades.


• Design residential buildings with individual units and front doors facing street, including row house units on the lower levels of multi-family residences.


• Improve existing streets to meet City standards, including streetscape improvements.


• Parking below-grade is preferred. If above-grade parking is to be provided, design it so it is not visible from nearby residential neighborhood, from public streets, or from pathways; line above-ground structured parking with active uses (shops, cafes, lobbies) along important public ways; use parking structures to visually and acoustically screen the rest of the area from the railroad tracks.


• Design residential development to include a range of units of various sizes and with various numbers of bedrooms, including three or more bedrooms, with the overall goal of providing dwelling units for families with school age children.

Again, we find the proposed project lacking in each of these areas. Lastly, we have considered the proposal in light of the Cambridge Highlands Neighborhood Study Update of 2011. This study update included the following additional preferences:

• LU5. New development in the neighborhood should include additional services and resources, such as open space, for residents.


• H1. Encourage more families with children in the neighborhood through appropriate housing types and neighborhood amenities.


• ED2. The neighborhood should have a full service restaurant, more coffee shops, cafes, small boutiques, dry cleaner, and similar types of establishments in walking distance.

Even with the modest design changes the developer made following their first Planning Board hearing in February, the revised design still does not meet the established design guidelines, especially in its lack of any mixed-use elements or amenities in the public domain and its monolithic street front presence and lack of architectural variation apart from paint color. Equally problematic (and reason enough to deny permission to add 93 more apartments to New Street) is the City’s continued failure to address longstanding obstacles to safe pedestrian travel to and from the public transportation on which such density is premised as “transit-centered.”

Furthermore, with the requested reduction in the project’s rear setback, this building will severely impinge on the future bike path along the railroad tracks. It would be very unfortunate if this building made a long-awaited linear path unfeasible, or created the experience of pedaling or walking through a dark canyon, with a four-story building looming on the east side and a proposed new road behind the shopping center hugging the west side.  

Finally, while the developer’s plan now includes a total of four 3-bedroom units (there were no 3-bedroom units in the original plan), we feel the mix of sizes is still too heavily skewed toward studio and 1-bedroom units. Based on the developer’s first floor plans (the only revised floor plan provided to date), approximately 77% of the total number of units that are studios or one-bedroom units. In addition, the placement of four newly added 3-bedroom units is not well suited to the preferences and needs of residents with children.

Unmet Goal #1: To Create a Truly Mixed Use Neighborhood Serving a Variety of Needs

In their revisions submitted on April 7th, AbodeZ provides no front elevations to review. As such, this makes it difficult to know how the building will relate to the street on which it is sited. Regardless, it is clear from those details that are provided in the revised proposal that the building will offer no public amenities, community open space, or ground-floor retail services of any kind. The composition of the building is not mixed-use, and has no amenities in the public domain that might help to create a stronger sense of place and neighborhood. The ground floor space includes parking, bike storage, mechanical rooms, and a trash/recycling center. The first floor space includes a lobby and a residents’ lounge, neither of which is designed for community use, as well as unscreened parking (requiring an additional Special Permit).

Rather than enlivening the streetscape, this building chooses to hide its human activity behind wood trellises and newly added shrubs and trees. The modified design even eliminates ground floor terraces that were deemed too “close to the sidewalk.” On that note, we ask that New Street not repeat the same mistakes previously made along Mass Ave in North Cambridge, an area that has been belatedly recognized as a “pedestrian wasteland” after the fact; an area criticized frequently for its lack of any retail destinations, sidewalk dining options, or even basic consumer services.

Unfortunately, this same mistake is being repeated over and over throughout the Concord-Alewife district, with other buildings such as The Atmark, Vox, 130 Cambridge Park Drive, and Park 77 offering no true mixed-use space within their entirely residential buildings.

Unmet Goal #2: To Create a Pedestrian Friendly, Transit-Centered Neighborhood that Better Connects Fresh Pond to Danehy Park

With this developer’s proposal for a second major residential redevelopment on New Street in the past four years, we are presented with the prospect of yet another, even larger apartment building (340 feet in length) shoehorned onto a narrow lot on a narrow street whose configuration is simply not up to serving both as the main entrance to the city’s largest recreational park and as the rear entrance to the city’s largest shopping center. Thousands of people already travel New Street every day by car, foot and bicycle, and the addition of about 200 more new residents (on top of the over 100 residents of the same developer’s Park 87 development next door) will sorely test New Street’s capacity to serve an ever-increasing volume of multi-modal traffic and to accommodate a growing variety of public uses.

The City’s traffic study, prepared in December 2013, estimated that this project alone would generate 713 additional trips a day by all modes. Following the first hearing in February, the Planning Board asked the developer to prepare a report of historic traffic on New Street for the April 8 continuation of the hearing, a hearing that was postponed on short notice. As of this writing, the requested report has not yet been posted online, so we are submitting our comments without the benefit of reviewing it. (Note that this situation alone makes it impossible for us to comment fully on the proposed project.) However, there can be no question that traffic volume of all modes has been rising steadily with the recent influx of new residents across Alewife and North Cambridge (over 1,300 new units since 2005). With at least another 2,400 units in the pipeline for the same area, it is imperative that the Planning Board consider these developments’ cumulative impact on traffic congestion and public safety, rather than reviewing projects individually in isolation.

More high-density residential development on New Street will inherently cause additional congestion and poses an increased risk of hazard by bringing 200 or more new residents to the street. With a parking garage for 94 cars, the building’s design tacitly acknowledges that its residents and guests will not walk or bike wherever they may need to go. And unlike other new residential projects in the area, AbodeZ’s sister project next door doesn’t even provide shuttle service to the Alewife T station. Barring inadequate pedestrian, bike, and shuttle options, we see nothing in the proposal to discourage frequent automobile use.

As a case in point, we spoke with a resident of 87 New Street who works in Kendall Square and commutes by car. As she explained, her office is just 3 miles from home and it would take her an hour by public transit compared to 20 minutes by car. She also cited the poor pedestrian access to Alewife as a deterrent to commuting by Red Line. She pays for parking in her building’s garage but complained about the lack of legal parking options for guests in the immediate neighborhood. She also mentioned the persistent poor drainage at the north end of New Street, which floods with heavy rain and impedes pedestrian circulation to and from the shopping center’s parking lot. Negligence in timely snow and ice removal is a seasonal problem that further endangers pedestrians on New Street.

Should a resident wish to avoid driving and or use public transit in fair weather, however, there are no continuous sidewalks where a pedestrian can travel safely along the entire length of the street without crossing back and forth, and cyclists are obligated to share a road that is not wide enough for a dedicated bike lane. Worse, the lane on the Danehy side is often lined with parked cars that constrict two-way traffic, posing an even greater hazard to cyclists. In fact, the street lacks the most rudimentary responses to many of the requirements of the law and good practice to encourage safe multi-modal travel as defined by the Mass DOT’s“Complete Streets” guidelines “to ensure that the safety and mobility of all users of the transportation system (pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit users) are considered equally through all phases of a project so that even the most vulnerable (e.g., children and the elderly) can feel and be safe within the public right of way.”

Furthermore, the existing conditions on New Street violate many of the sidewalk requirements of theAmericans With Disabilities Act, and the dangers of non-compliance to pedestrians of all abilities is bound to increase with the addition of more cars belonging to new residents and their guests. As a public way, New Street must meet the ADA requirements if the City if is to meet its obligations under the law and avoid potential lawsuits. The ADA is based on a person's civil rights and therefore comes under the purview of the US Justice Department, which has pursued violations of the Act vigorously. No additional development that would invite more pedestrian traffic on this street should be allowed until the City directly, or through the efforts of a proposed development, completely redesigns and rebuilds New Street to meet the requirements of the ADA. The law requires that a sidewalk be at least 36" wide along its entire length and that ramps be provided wherever a person may need to cross the street safely. Sidewalks may not be obstructed with utility poles, as they are in front of both 75 and 87 New Street. Waiting to restore legally conforming sidewalks until each property on the street changes hands could take decades, and in the meantime the number of pedestrian and car trips will increase with the additional population of these two and other likely additional residential developments.

From the point of view of a disabled resident or visitor of the existing or future housing, there is no safe, accessible way to get to and from the MBTA bus stops on Concord Avenue or to the Alewife T station. There are inadequate crossing points at the intersections at both ends of New Street.  A new crosswalk is urgently needed where the sidewalk abruptly ends at the southern boundary of the 75 New Street parcel to help pedestrians cross to the existing (though discontinuous and often obstructed with parked cars) segment of sidewalk that runs between Evolve Fitness and Concord Avenue. Additionally, there is no safe, accessible way to get to the stores in the Fresh Pond Shopping Center or to the movie theater, as the sidewalk on the west side ends before New Street crosses the disused railroad tracks at the entrance to the Shopping Center’s parking lot.

Any sidewalk route to the Alewife T Station, either via Concord Ave or through the shopping center parking lot and along Alewife Brook Parkway and over the bridge, presents the same safety and accessibility issues to New Street residents -- and visitors to Danehy Park -- of all abilities. Though Google Maps estimates both pedestrian routes at 0.8 miles and 16 minutes, both the time and the distance estimates do not accurately reflect the need to cross and re-cross New Street itself to find a continuous sidewalk, or to cross the many busy commercial driveways along the way. The closest Harvard Square-bound bus stop (on Concord Avenue at Fern Street) is 0.3 miles (­­­­­­­6 minutes on foot) via a patchwork of sidewalks and the chaotic 3-way intersection where New Street converges with Bay State Road and Fresh Pond Parkway at the Sozio rotary. Impossible to show on any map is a pedestrian’s or cyclist’s need to dodge cars while passing through the back of the shopping center parking lot from the official end of New Street to the Staples, where no sidewalk exists for approximately 500 perilous feet.

Unmet Goal #3: To Create a More Balanced Mix of Units Sizes including More Large Units for Families with Children

Over the past several years, development around Fresh Pond has brought a profusion of small, luxury units located within large, single-use buildings, rather than a more balanced mix of units sizes and housing styles that would attract a group of residents more in keeping with the well-established residential neighborhoods in the area. As stated above, at least 77% of the units are planned to be 1-bedroom or smaller. The addition of 3-bedrooms to the design is appreciated, but offering only four 3-bedroom units out of a total of 93 is hardly likely to attract families with children, even families who might otherwise desire to live across from Danehy Park were it not for the lack of other residents with children on the same “block.” Further, it is well known that families with children prefer to live on lower floors for easier access into and out of their units, whereas this plan would stack the four largest units in the northeast corner (back right) of the building – the furthest point from the central elevator, though very near the back stairs should anyone want to lug their kids, strollers, and groceries up three flights of stairs – four from the garage.

Unmet Goal #4: To Preserve Options and Open Space for a Future Linear Path along the Former Railroad Tracks

The City has long envisioned creating a bike path along the unused railroad right-of-way running the length of New Street at the rear of the properties on the west side of the street. Such a path would need a 20-foot easement. With a reduced setback, the proposed four-story building would be very close to the path, casting a shadow that would greatly diminish the experience for users. Equally concerning is the possibility that construction of a path might require taking some land from the shopping center, where a new road from Concord Avenue is envisioned along the rear of the shopping center. Even worse, this building and its existing sister apartment building next door would block access from the bike path to Danehy Park for over 500 feet. Any future development along the west side of New Street must consider the need for multiple access points between the path and the park.

Conclusion

In the two months since the March 8th Planning Board hearing, the Fresh Pond Residents Alliance listserv has grown to include over 230 Cambridge residents who are concerned about the negative impact that rapid, large-scale development around Alewife is having on the quality of life citywide. Our online petition opposing more high-density development on New Street without immediate improvements to the area’s poor traffic circulation and inadequate sidewalks drew 298 signatures in two months (the petition was closed in early April, when the second hearing was supposed to have taken place).

As residents of the adjacent neighborhood, we ask that the Planning Board fulfill its statutory responsibility to insure that this and all future developments on New Street and in the surrounding Concord-Alewife area create a safe and healthy environment for the entire community, rather than choosing to narrowly apply the Special Permit criteria, on a project-by-project basis, and leaving the larger community to inherit the poor results.

On those grounds, we ask that the Planning Board deny the Special Permit requests for this latest version of the project, and that the Board work with the developer to remedy the issues above so that any future development on the parcel is part of an integrated plan that enhances rather than diminishes public safety and the quality of life for current and future residents of the area. The Large Project Review process clearly allows the Planning Board to impose additional conditions in order to mitigate adverse impacts to the neighborhood (and to the building’s own residents).

Furthermore, it is essential that before any additional development is allowed on New Street, the City of Cambridge and its departments (Public Works, Community Development, Fire, Police, Disabilities Commission, Finance, and Traffic & Parking) develop a coordinated action plan that includes the necessary capital expenditures to insure that this or similar developments fit within a well-developed infrastructure plan for the area. Once such context is available, the Planning Board could then make a more prudent and responsible judgment concerning future development on New Street. Until such time, we strongly recommend that the current petition be rejected.

Thank you for your time and attention to this vital matter.

Sincerely,

The Board and Officers of the Fresh Pond Residents Alliance:

Jan Devereux, Lakeview Ave. (President)

Doug Brown, Standish St. (Vice President)

Ann Sweeney, Lakeview Ave. (Vice President)

Jay Yesselman, Vassal Ln. (Vice President)

Peggy Barnes Lenart, Fayerweather St. (Secretary)

Terry Drucker, Chilton St. (Treasurer)

Bill Forster, Lexington Ave. (Officer)

Langley Keyes, Chilton St. (Officer)

Bob Simha, Blanchard Rd. (Officer)

ADA standards:

http://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards_index.htm

ADA sidewalk design criteria:

http://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=642.1_Sidewalk_Design_Criteria

Common Streets Initiative:

http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/CDD/Transportation/transitcommittee/2013/Strategic_Plan_20131031.ashx