Planning Board - Planning Board Meeting

Mary, we are all set with the live stream and the recording. And Ashley also has joined us. So just... I'm waiting for Mary Lydecker and also Joy Jackson. Okay, well, we're good to go. Yes, yes, we now have five board members. Yeah, perfect.

Okay, thank you.

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the December 16th, 2025 meeting of the Cambridge Planning Board. My name is Mary Flynn and I am the chair. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2023, adopted by the Massachusetts General Court and approved by the Governor, the City is authorized to use remote participation at meetings of the Cambridge Planning Board. All board members, applicants, and members of the public will state their name before speaking and all votes will be taken by roll call. Members of the public will be kept on mute until it is time for public comment. I will give instructions for public comment at that time. And you can also find instructions on the city's webpage for remote planning board meetings. This meeting is being video and audio recorded.

and is being streamed live on the City of Cambridge online meeting portal and on cable television channel 22 within Cambridge. There will also be a transcript of the proceedings. I'll start by asking staff to take board member attendance and verify that all members are audible. With that, I'm going to turn to Jeff.

Thank you. This is Jeff Roberts. H. Theodore Cohen, are you present and is the meeting visible and audible to you? Present, visible, and audible. Thank you, Ted. Mary Lydecker, are you present and is the meeting visible and audible to you?

Present, visible and audible.

Thank you, Mary. Diego Macias, are you present? And is the meeting visible and audible to you? Present, visible and audible. Thank you, Diego. Tomcenevich, are you present and is the meeting visible and audible to you? Tom is absent. Ashley Tan, are you present and is the meeting visible and audible to you?

Present, visible, and audible.

Thank you, Ashley. Carolyn Zern, are you present? And is the meeting visible and audible to you?

Present, visible, and audible.

Thank you, Carolyn. And associate members, Dan Anderson, are you present and is the meeting visible and audible to you?

Good evening, Jeff. Yes to all the above.

Thank you, Dan. Joy Jackson, are you present and is the meeting visible and audible to you?

Present, visible, and audible.

Thank you, Joy. And Mary Flynn, can you confirm that you're present and the meeting is visible and audible to you?

I am present and the meeting is visible and audible.

Thank you, Mary. So that makes six planning board members present and two associate members. Great.

Thank you so much. The first item this evening is an update from the Community Development Department. And for that, we're going to go back to Jeff. And Jeff, if you would also introduce any other staff members who are present with you at the meeting.

I will do that. Thank you. Again, Jeff Roberts. I'm the Director of Zoning and Development in the Community Development Department with my group Swathi Joseph. is present and we also have some staff from, I'm sorry, and Becca Mapuri is here as well from my team. And we also have from the urban design team, Eric Thorkelson is present. And from the housing department, we have Cassie Arnault. I believe that's all the staff that are here right now. So just a quick set of updates. Welcome to what we hope will be the last planning board meeting of the year. The 23rd meeting that we've had, so it's been a pretty full year. Tonight we have one item of general business, which we'll get to shortly. Looking ahead, we'll have meetings in the new year.

There's a little bit of a schedule change from what I said the last time. I believe we will have a meeting on January 6th. There are a few items that we're currently working through that will require some design updates. We're still getting the final materials for those, but we expect to get at least some design updates in by the end of this week, in which case we'll for the January 6th meeting for the board to review. It'll also be the first meeting of the year, which means it'll be election of the new planning board chair at that meeting. So that happens annually at the first meeting of the year. So January 6th, January 13th, we had said that there would be a postponement of a review that had been scheduled for last week. We now don't believe that will happen. on January 13th.

So just stay tuned for any updates on when that advisory design review, that's an advisory design review on at 16 Porter Street that has, we believe that'll be postponed again. So we don't have a final date yet. and we have a couple other items that are still somewhat tentatively scheduled because we haven't posted an advertisement for these yet but January 27th we expect to have a hearing on a zoning petition which the city council zoning petition which Staff had prepared as a follow up to some discussion about institutional uses and this would be some changes to our institutional use regulations that are intended to Keep us consistent with state law. So we'll talk more about that when it comes up. And finally, first meeting in February is our traditional meeting.

Towngown meeting, that would be February 3rd. And at that meeting, we don't typically have regular business, but the planning board will get presentations from the different educational institutions in Cambridge and review their town gown reports. and discuss any of that with the representatives of those institutions. So that is what's coming up. There may be more stuff. So definitely keep an eye on the website. The only other updates I have, I mentioned the City Council continues to have the Cambridge Street and Mass Ave zoning petitions under consideration. They, as I mentioned last week, they will come up for potential, in both cases, they've been passed to a second reading, so they come up for potential ordination. on or after December 22nd.

So starting next week's city council meeting, but potentially later into January. So that's all I have. I'll turn it back over at this point.

Thanks, Jeff. Do board members have any questions on the update? All right, seeing none, we'll just get into tonight's agenda. And our next item is an advisory design consultation of case AHO 10. and affordable housing overlay project proposed by Corcoran Park Phase 1 LLC to construct a four-story building and a three-story building to create 67 rental units and amenities 36 off-street parking spaces and 42 long-term and 8 short-term bicycle parking spaces with a total gross floor area of 82,407 square feet at 8 to 12 Main Street, and 53 Lawn Street. We'll begin this evening with CDD staff explaining why this is before us.

Then we're going to have a presentation from the developer, followed by public comment, and then the board will ask questions and discuss the proposed design. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Becca, who is going to give us the overview on this project. Becca?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Becca Moburi, Associate Zoning Planner with CDD. And the project before us tonight is an age of development. It's subject to two required planning board advisory consultation sessions. Thank you very much. that apply as of right for housing developments in which all units are made permanently affordable. The purpose of this design review is not for the planning board to grant or to deny a permit, but to provide advisory comments on the design and its overall conformance with the city's urban design objectives and guidelines. We've provided and summarized in memos from CDD and also from the Department of Public Works.

The Planning Board will issue tonight an initial report on the proposal and the applicant will return to the Planning Board for a second Advisory Design Review Session with an updated design that is responsive to several questions and comments received tonight and also prior to tonight's hearing.

Great, thank you Becca. The presenter this evening is Matt Zajac. You will have up to 30 minutes for your presentation. Please be as concise as possible. And if you would begin by introducing your project team. Please proceed.

Thank you to the planning board for having us tonight. My name is Matt Zajac. I'm the deputy director for planning with the Cambridge Housing Authority. and it is my pleasure to be introducing the first planning board presentation for the redevelopment of Corcoran Park phase one. Corcoran Park is currently 153 units of deeply affordable, formerly public housing in the Strawberry Hill neighborhood. It was built in the 1950s. and today due to major capital needs, the development is in need of a comprehensive redevelopment. Tonight we'll hear a bit more about why those unique capital needs require a full rebuild of the site. Working with a diverse group of stakeholders over a multi-year period,

CHA has developed a plan for the redevelopment that we believe is resilient, green, expands affordability, and is rooted in engagement with both our residents and our neighbors. Next slide, please. Tonight, we will introduce you to the development team and then provide an overview of the existing conditions as well as the neighborhood context with a goal of showing how we rooted the redesign proposal in this unique neighborhood. After that, we will introduce you to the proposal itself, working building by building. Next slide please. Cambridge Housing Authority is the owner of Corcoran Park and will also serve as the developer and property manager.

At CHA, we're very proud that we do all of our development work in-house, which makes us unique among housing authorities nationally. We're celebrating our 90th year of providing safe and affordable homes in the community. and since 2010, we've preserved and rehabilitated 2,300 homes as well as produced 200 new affordable units. Our partner in the redevelopment effort at Corcoran Park is Studio G Architects, who I'll turn it over to now to introduce themselves as well as the other core members of our team.

Thank you, Matt. Good evening, everyone. I'm Gabriela Shelburne, principal and head of housing at Studio G Architects. We're a women-owned architecture firm with over 30 years of experience designing places of purpose. Today, I'm joined by Sam Maloney, our project captain, but there are other members in our team that are helping this project come to fruition. We have assembled an experienced team of engineers and landscape architects. Tonight with us is Mark Koppler, principal at KMDG, the landscape architects. Corcoran Park consists of two lots separated by Long Street. It is currently composed of 153 units in 25 buildings and 92 parking spaces over two parcels of land.

For this presentation, we're focusing on Lot 1 of Corcoran Park, which is the lot bounded by Main Street and Lone Streets and the Belmont Cemetery in the Strawberry Hill neighborhood. In this lot, there are 29 dwelling units in four two-story buildings, 14 parking spaces, and 24 existing trees. There is currently no bike storage and trash and recycling are stored outdoors. The existing buildings frame two central open spaces, one that is flat and another with a steep slope. Each unit has a private rear patio which is used as outdoor space and for trash and recycling storage. In 2018, Studio G performed an existing conditions assessment of the property. which revealed issues that could not be resolved through renovation.

Corcoran Park is built on the site of a former pond. The site has unsuitable soils, Inadequate stormwater infrastructure and low-lying topography making Corcoran Park susceptible to floods and heavy rains, which have led to sinkholes. Through our robust community engagement process, CHA and Studio G architects have kept the community involved. We conducted multiple in-person meetings with residents, several poster sessions, and one-to-one discussions with neighbors. and two community meetings for the neighborhood at large. This engagement has built consensus around the need to redevelop Corcoran Park with a design that maintains as much open space as possible while increasing the parking ratio on site. The redevelopment will be guided by four core goals.

Maintain Corcoran Park's unique and welcoming character. Replace existing buildings with new affordable housing that meets current standards for size, accessibility, resident health, and comfort. Address current flooding and sinkholes and make Corcoran Park more resilient to severe weather. increased the number of affordable dwelling units. We will go over the site context that has influenced the proposed design. Like I mentioned before, the site is located in Strawberry Hill neighborhood. which is mostly comprised of dense residential blocks and is surrounded by equal density in Watertown and Belmont. Corcoran Park is served by three bus lines, two of them with a 15-minute frequency.

The majority of the neighborhood is made up of two and a half to three story buildings at a density of about 5 to 44 units per acre. But we also find examples of buildings taller than three stories with a higher level of density at about 24 to 86 units per acre. One of the critical elements shaping our design is the updated flood viewer, which now requires the finished floor elevation in this lot to be at 43.3 feet minimum. This can be 4.6 feet higher than the existing public sidewalk. Our proposed design includes two buildings, a four-story elevator building with a walk-out basement and a three-story walk-up.

Building A and Building B are sited so they enclose a central courtyard. Along the northern edge of the site is a parking lot for 36 cars in a similar location where the current one exists. Looking into the proposed development, Building A has 46 units while Building B has 21. In an effort to make Corcoran Park transit-oriented, we're proposing long-term parking for 42 bikes Short-term parking for 8 and 19 blue bike dock and trash will be stored indoors. The buildings will be FIAS and Enterprise Green Communities certified, offering a high-performing building enclosure, a central air conditioning and heating system with continued ventilation for enhanced indoor air quality.

They will also be solar ready. Zooming into building A, the 46 units include 14 one bedrooms and 32 two bedrooms. Blue. The basement floor, which opens to the courtyard, contains the long-term bike parking, a community room, and four upgrade units with private patios, all with direct access to the central courtyard. The first floor has nine units with the four units along the northern side with private patios. The main entry to the building is on the northeast corner. A vestibule leads you to a lobby from where the residential hallway can be accessed.

Levels 2 and 3 are similar in plan, each with 11 units. Level 4 varies in plan as demand recedes on the east and west as it meets neighboring buildings.

Kitty cat, you're a Kunar kitty.

On the roof level, we have corralled the HVAC equipment with a screen enclosure. The dashed lines show the potential location for the future solar array. At both ends of the building, you again see how the massing recedes to the east and west. Here in the northern elevation of this building, we can see clearly how the massing steps down at both ends. A sloping roofline relates to the gable roof typology of the neighbors. The proposed cladding is fiber cement siding and it differs in size, color to help break down the perceived scale of the building. Switching the conversation to building B, we have 21 units, six of them two bedrooms and 15 three beds.

In this building, we have flats and duplexes. A duplex is a dwelling unit that expands to stories. And this is a unit type the current residents believe to be one of the defining features of Corcoran Park. The first floor has seven flats at grade with private entries and patios. Seven common stairs lead you to the units on the second floor. This building has exterior mechanical equipment at grade rather than the roof for ease of access and distribution. On the second floor, we have the living areas of five duplexes and two flats located at the corners. Private decks will be provided to half the upper floor units. On the third floor, we have the bedrooms of the duplexes and two flats at the corners.

The roof of this building has been carefully designed to relate to the gable typology in the neighborhood while maximizing southern exposure for future PVs. The absence of mechanical equipment at this level allows for a lower roofline. For the facet materials, we have a range of fiber cement siding in different patterns, textures and colors to relate to the surrounding materiality. Here you can also see the units at grade have private entries while upper units share entries. Sam will now talk about the building's exterior design.

Thank you, Gabriella, and good evening, everyone. My name is Sam Maloney. I'm an architect at Studio G Architects and a Cambridge resident. In the following series of slides, we'll describe how the site design took shape through months of analysis and iteration. As we've covered, Lot 1 has roughly an 11 foot tall hill that runs east to west and separates the site into two relatively level areas to the north and the south. Building A has been pushed on its north side and walkout units facing the central courtyard to the south. Building B, however, needs to be elevated above the existing conditions because the corner of Lawn and May Streets are 4.6 feet below the 43.3 foot minimum elevation for habitable space. So the proposed design includes a landscaped plinth under and around Building B. We've heard from residents and community members that parking is a priority in this neighborhood. The proposed parking lot at the northern edge of the property utilizes the site's existing curb cut facing Vineyard Street.

The parking lot will be planted and screened from the abutters and being on the north side of the four-story building, it mitigates the impact of shadows on buildings to the north. The western edge of the property has a series of retaining walls and existing trees that manage the grade change between Corcoran Park and its abutters. The proposed design maintains this area as a densely planted buffer. As a result of this distribution of buildings and parking, 46% of the lot meets the definition of private open space as shown in blue and 39% meets the definition of permeable open space as shown in red. I'd now like to introduce Mark Klopfer who will share details on the proposed landscape design.

Thank you, Sam. Hi, everyone. I'm Mark Klupfer, principal of Klupfer Martin Design Group, the team's landscape architect. Like Studio G, KMDG is also a woman-owned company. The proposed landscape follows the paradigm of the neighborhood with the major exterior space in the rear of the building, front lawns and access from the street to covered porch entries to create an animated street. Throughout our multi-year study of the site, we have focused on retaining as many trees as possible, which we'll speak to in the next slide. Shown here, existing trees to remain are shown as dark green, proposed canopy trees are light green, and proposed understory trees are shown with a medium green. These will be shown in more detail and the perspectives to be shown later in the presentation. For flood resiliency, the raising of the ground floor means creating accessible routes to the homes and we achieve this by grouping entries on each face of the building and making ramp connections where they best fit topographic conditions of the block.

We are providing both a bike share station and visitor bike racks in the southwest corner of the site and additional bike racks on May Street at Building A. A six foot tall perimeter fence is proposed to provide privacy and separation for the abutters to the west. In addition to the planting, much of it mature existing trees, as Sam explained previously. The Eversource transformer is placed on the northwest corner of the site and is enclosed by a solid wood fence. And its position at the end of the parking lot makes utility access easy and reduces the impact on the abutting properties.

Okay, the next one, please.

The existing Corcoran Park is distinguished by its wonderful tree canopy, as you saw in the photos before. After careful planning to keep as many existing trees as possible, we are keeping 16, removing 8, mostly as they are located within the building footprints, in planting 47 in this phase. And here in the legend, you can see the existing trees in fair health are the ones with the red dots that are going to be removed. Existing trees that are in good health that are planned for removal are shown with the yellow dashes. And then, as I said before, the dark green are existing trees The sort of really light green are proposed canopy trees and the medium green are the understory trees.

The next one, please.

As mentioned at the opening of this presentation, we observed and are following the open space pattern of this neighborhood, that most of the landscape is shared across backyards behind the houses, while the houses in front the street. This allows for shared tree canopy, shade, shared rooting zones that cross property lines, and trees work in aggregate to give the feeling of continuous landscape even though each parcel is privately owned.

Okay, the next one.

Corcoran Park, the primary activated landscape space is the shared central courtyard. Amenities common to the residents include communal grill area, Fixed seating spaces and sculptural elements for informal play. These are accessed from individual ground floor unit entries and patios, as well as interblock circulation of pedestrian paths that connect to the surrounding streets. Next one. Front yards. Some challenges include the grade difference of up to 4.6 feet between the ground floor and sidewalk elevations, as Sam just described. On May Street, which slopes significantly along the building frontage, we were able to make two separated accessible routes to entries, whereas on Long Street, all of the building entries are connected to accessible routes at both ends of the block. We have been working with the CDD on how our buildings address the streets and community.

As part of those discussions, we were able to shift the buildings five and a half feet closer to May Street, while the same was not possible for Longstreet where the elevation change between building and sidewalk is more pronounced.

Okay, the next one.

The design team did an analysis of the front yard conditions in the general context which are made up of one or more of these six elements. Half of these show clear demarcation of the property line with either a fence, wall, or steps. While the remainder use the landscape to distinguish. Next. Corcoran Park uses three of these, one, three, and four, to define the back of sidewalks shown here in a perspective on the left and their corresponding locations in both neighboring conditions and proposed design locations in the plan on the right. Next. The contextual perspective condition for Type 3 is matched here with the proposed site section, illustrating the use of landscape to provide privacy to unit windows and the subtle use of slope, ground plane material, and planting to distinguish the public walkway and site. Next.

Type four elements occur at Corcoran Park. Sometimes there's a ramp at grade and where grade necessitates a low wall that supports a ramp that connects the building entries. These drawings also indicate the periodic placement of street trees as prescribed in the Cambridge residential area design guidelines. I think I turn it back to you, Sam. Thank you.

Thank you, Mark. For the proposed articulation of building facades, the design team drew inspiration from the context. Streets around the site are lined with buildings separated by narrow side yards. When looking down the streets, we see a rhythm of return walls perpendicular to front walls. Building A reflects that pattern with a series of return walls between angled bays. This language communicates the stacking of units within and resembles the scale and rhythm of townhouses. Building B has a different unit configuration with two duplexes over the footprint of one at grade flat. In this instance, we found opportunities to carve into the massing to create mid-block recesses between adjacent modules. where building B has stacks of flats on its two southern corners, front walls facing Longstreet are offset to form the desired return walls that maintain the facade's rhythm and proportions. The remainder of the slides will feature perspective images with a key plan in the bottom right corner for reference.

In this aerial, we're looking at the southwest corner of Lot 1 with Lawn Street in the foreground and Fresh Pond beyond. Here we can see how Building B relates to the abutters, with the recesses and return walls along Lawn Street breaking the building into proportionally comparable segments. Building A, with its angled bays, is perceived as five stories facing the central courtyard. As Gabriella had mentioned earlier, the east and west ends step down a story to reduce the perceived height facing the abutters. As we rotate counterclockwise to view the May Street side of the site, We can see the step-down roofline of Building A in relation to Building B to the left and the abutting buildings to the north and east. Buildings A and B maintain a strong street wall facing the buildings across May Street and then the street wall breaks at the proposed parking lot opposite Vineyard Street. Compared to Fresh Pond Place on the right side of the image, the proposed Corcoran Park has similarly scaled buildings while offering a larger centralized open space.

Moving down to street level. We see the existing conditions at the corner of May and Vineyard Street at the northeast corner of the site. The existing 14 car parking lot pushes the yellow two-story building to the back, preventing a neighborly relationship to May Street. Building A more directly engages with May Street due to its siting and entry lobby on the northeast corner. An entry canopy that wraps around the corner reflects the residential character of the context while providing cover for pedestrians entering the building. Again, we can see the angled bays, return walls, and material variation that define the building's exterior design. Moving down May Street, the existing condition includes a retaining wall, which will be replaced with the landscaped edge conditions Mark described earlier. As seen on the key plan, there will be an opening between buildings A and B at this location that leads to the central courtyard.

A planted edge at the base of each building buffers the interior living space from the shared open space outside. Residents have expressed a desire for private open space and we can see here how the private patios and decks help activate the courtyard. Continuing south to the corner of May and Lawn, The full scope of the May Street slope is on the right and the 20-story parkside place is beyond. The existing street trees are intended to be preserved along May Street and additional street trees are proposed along Long Street. Because this is the lowest corner of the site, a switchback ramp navigates the grade change between the Lawn Street sidewalk and the accessible entry path along the Lawn Street facade. Again, we can see that shared and private entries are covered across the building B frontage.

And along Lawn Street, the mid block recesses and return walls break the building into more residentially scaled segments that communicate how units are arranged within. Our final street level perspective is at the same intersection turned to look west down Longstreet. We can see Corcoran Park Lot 2 on the left and the site on the right. Compared to the existing condition, the proposed street trees will greatly improve the canopy coverage over Longstreet between the two lots. Here we can also see the difference in ground floor elevation between building B on the right and the existing buildings on the left, further illustrating the design impacts of the flood resiliency standards.

And from this vantage point, we get a clearer view of how the Longstreet front doors are accessible via both the switchback ramp at the southeast corner and site stairs which march down Longstreet in alignment with the proposed entry porches. To conclude the presentation, I'd like to quickly bring up a 90 second animation of the site model. We're going to begin on the northwest corner. And then we're going to come down to street level here to see the entry canopy wrapping around the May Street side down to the parking lot side of the building, framing that covered residential entry. As we continue down May Street here, we're moving towards Building B, and we'll see on the right-hand side the community room and bike storage room entry doors framed by another residential canopy.

Moving into the central courtyard, we have the shared picnic area and informal play area. You can see the variety of patios and decks on the two buildings. Moving now to the west side of building B, there are a couple of front door entries buffered again by that landscape zone that we had mentioned earlier. Our blue bike dock is located on Long Street. And here we can see just how much grade change there is between that resiliency standard of 43.3 foot minimum and Lawn Street down here. So we do need a switch or we have proposed a switchback ramp at the corner of May and Lawn. Coming up to aerial view again, we can see that Building B has the sloped roof in keeping with the context, and Building A maintains a gable form through its parapets and shed roofs.

Great. Thank you so much. That walkthrough on the model was very, very helpful. This was the entire presentation. We're now... I'm going to move on to public comment. According to the zoning, we take public comment at these design review sessions. But I'd like to remind speakers that the board's action this evening is not to approve or deny an application, but to provide advisory comments on the design that was presented. So at this time, any members of the public who wish to speak should now click the button that says raise hand. If you're calling in by phone, you can raise your hand by pressing star nine. As of 5pm yesterday, the board had received no written comments on this project. Written communications received after 5pm yesterday will be entered into the record.

I'll now ask staff to unmute speakers one at a time. You should begin by saying your name and address and staff can confirm that we can hear you and after that you'll have up to three minutes to speak before I ask you to wrap up. So for this, let's go over to Jeff, who will manage the public comment.

Thank you. So we have a couple hands raised. I'll just sort of do them one at a time. It is helpful if you'd like to speak to just push the raise your hand button once and so we can have a little line and we know who's coming up and how many speakers we would expect. So the first speaker is Sean Delaney, who's followed by Rob Vandenabeel, and I'm sorry if I mispronounce anybody's name. Please state your name and address when you start so that it's clear for the record.

Hi, this is Sean. Can you guys hear me okay?

Yes.

Hi, thanks all for the opportunity to speak. And this is consistent with the comment I made at the veterans presentation about six weeks ago. I really challenged the idea that this, as Sam in your earlier part of your presentation, You said this is a dense urban area. I really challenge that. It is substantially two family homes, and that's what Corcoran Park as it exists now reflects. You know, your own illustrations, Sam, and the Landscaper's illustrations really showed existing two-family stories around, two-family buildings around here, not three-story. As well as single family houses. I'm one of the single family houses around here. So, you know, I don't think this is a dense, you know, I think it's fanciful to call this a dense urban

neighborhood here equivalent to Belmont. Certainly Corcoran Park is not a dense urban environment itself. It's nothing like Lincoln Way or Walden Square or Jefferson Park. It's been quite green here. It's typical around here that properties have yards and lawns and gardens. It's not dense urban. and then, you know, the last thing I'd say is, you know, rather than that building A in your, Sam, on May Street there, you know, engages the neighborhood, I'd say that your concept for building A overwhelms that small intersection there. It goes from being two stories somewhat remote from that street. We know Kathy Kelly and a bunch of other abutters there.

What you're proposing is, first of all, a scale of stories there, which is completely, with the exception of Huron Towers built decades and decades ago, You know, the scale of that elevator building is uncharacteristic of this neighborhood, which I, again, challenge you as not being dense urban. and then that you know moving that multi-story building to the edge of May Street overwhelms May Street and I'm not even a May Street resident but you know I just I think a lot of the A lot of the description of this project is sort of selective, whether it's the landscaper speaking or Sam, you as the architect speaking, I think it's sort of selective and fanciful how you describe things.

I just think both the May Street building example as well as that multi-story building inside it, those are very much out of character of this neighborhood. and I'll shut up at this point. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and I think correct the record here.

Thank you. Can you give your name and address for the record?

Yeah, I'm Sean Delaney and I live on 11th and Vala. Joe, Matt, Sam, you're welcome, and Clara, you're welcome back in my backyard anytime to see what the impact of the three-story building going up behind me is going to be.

Thank you. The next speaker is Rob Vandenaville. and I don't know, maybe you're connected by phone. Oh, let me try that again. There we go. I'm sorry, I think I hit a wrong button. I apologize.

No worries. You can hear me now?

Yes.

Great. Rob Van Dennebiel. I live at 40 Inman Street in Cambridge. And I guess I have sort of questions, but I'm not sure if question and answer is really how this segment is supposed to work. So maybe I'll just raise them in thoughts that can potentially be answered now or maybe at some point in the future.

Just to clarify, you can ask questions and we'll bring them up later in the board discussion.

Great, thank you. So I guess I'm a bit curious about the tree canopy replacement plan. It sounds awesome. I will just point out one important thing to always think about is that it's not always overly useful to reference numbers of trees that are being taken down and numbers of trees being planted because obviously there's a gargantuan difference in many many Thank you. Thank you. It'd be great to know just a little bit more about the specific measurements, if any, that were taken in that regard. And then two other thoughts would be I'm hoping or would love to hear if whoever it is that undertakes the planting portion of the plan hopefully is thinking a lot about

Not only native trees, and by native meaning preferably native to actually, you know, New England, not just the entire East Coast or something. but also an important variety of trees you mentioned the word resiliency earlier in a different reference I think but resiliency in terms of a tree canopy is also very important to consider There are unfortunately numbers of diseases that occur these days and can wipe out an entire area of trees quite quickly. So having a wide variety of tree species is really important in that sense. And again, just thinking a little bit about the ecological value that certain types of trees provide. Not all trees are created equal in that sense. And lastly, the only thing I guess I would love to see a little bit more of in the green space sort of idea was I didn't see a ton of

Understory plantings in terms of shrubs or perhaps a pollinator garden or two. some place in addition to the trees and maybe in replacement of a little bit of the lawn which as I think most people have at least Heard doesn't provide a ton of ecological value. Humans do enjoy it for a number of reasons. I totally get that. But trying to balance out the amount of lawn with the amount of other understory plantings that are very valuable to to insects, wildlife, et cetera, and even to humans could be really helpful. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. The next speaker is Megan Church. You can unmute yourself and begin with your name and address.

Good evening. My name is Megan Church. I live at 27 Edward Sullivan Road. My road abuts to Thingvalla. And I just wanted to say that as a neighbor of Corcoran Park, and then I've also had experience working at home health care and being able to access some of those units and work with the community who lives in there. They're great neighbors and I love living here and next to them and the community. I would like to counter that there's only two-story homes or two family homes in and single family homes in the area because Erickson Street and Edward Sullivan Road are almost primarily three family homes. And I live in one and many of us do not actually have very big yards at all. We may have a little bit of outdoor space

So I'm very excited about the amount of trees that are going to be there in the open space for the community because we also on our streets do not actually have very much canopy cover or trees there. And I was also very excited to see the new walking paths that kind of separates the property compared to the sidewalk. And that looks great. So I'm very excited about these proposed changes.

Thank you. So the next speaker is Katie Michaels, and I'll read the next speaker too, just so you're ready, since some other hands have gone up. Katie Michaels, who's followed by Diane Dillon.

Hello, this is Katie Michaels. I'm a resident of 36 Lawn Street. Like what Megan said, I just want to iterate. Corcoran Park are fantastic neighbors, a lot of friends in the community. Question I have, and I apologize if this was addressed, I came late to the meeting, but is parking is an issue on our streets, in the neighborhood in general, and with the kind of doubling of the population size of the community, Parking and I guess traffic flow is a question for us on our street. We don't have enough I guess like just thinking about the parking impact and for the community if that could be addressed in the Q&A or if this presentation is shared later we just had Some concerns about, you know, doubling the impact and is parking going to be doubled as the different phases go throughout this project? Thank you.

Thank you. And the next speaker and then the last hand that's raised for now, Diane Dillon.

Hi, thank you for calling on me. I am from that area, I grew up in that area, and it's sad to see the old buildings go. There's a lot of memories there for a lot of people. The neighborhood is, we were very lucky to have that section of Cambridge to grow up in. I was looking at some of your design plans and I was keeping in mind Well, elderly and disabled accessible, you know, you did mention you have to raise up the land. What is it? 43 feet or something like that. because it was built on, well, I thought it was swamp, but I found out it was, according to you guys, it was built on a pond, apparently. I didn't know that.

I thought it was a swamp, you know, rumors, right? So I was just wondering, in this design, is it, you know, were people that are elderly and disabled kept in mind? for like elevator. It's what three floors I think was one of the units and the other one was four. So I would imagine there's gonna be elevators in the buildings and just some of the raised areas just to get at the location. Is it going to be handicapped accessible going forward? And that's a wonderful neighborhood. The people that live there are so lucky. Thank you for taking my time.

Thank you. So that's all the hands that were raised. If there's anybody who was planning to speak and hasn't spoken yet, please push the raise hand button or star nine if you're connected by phone so that we can see that you'd like to speak. I'm not seeing any hands at this point, so I'll turn it back over to the chair.

Thank you, Jeff. We're now going to move from public comment to board discussion. Additional written comments may be submitted for the record. So to begin with questions, do board members have questions? My guess is that some of the questions that were raised by the neighbors will be and some of the questions that the board members raised. And if not, we'll take care of that at the end. But board members, questions? Mary.

Thank you. Thank you all for the presentation. Really, really great to see it. And I will reiterate, too, I really enjoyed the animation. I think that often we historically have liked to get models and that's a really good alternative way to do it virtually for us, but also the public being able to see the proposal. So I had two questions. One, I wondered if the proponent could speak to recognizing that you note how it's low-lying and you're certainly working to get could you speak to the stormwater management, the underground infiltration and Pervious Asphalt. Just making sure, wondering how that stands relative to the water table. Will there be issues with infiltrating in that way relative to the water table? And then my second question is a follow-up from

or relates to one of the public comments is there's a list of trees and shrubs in the proposal is there an intention to have other understory or perennial plantings or is it just trees shrubs lawn that is the intention

Thank you, Mary. Who from the development team would like to address those questions?

I'll ask Mark to start by addressing the first question on the planning plan.

Sure. So we are, you know, sort of in the preliminary phase of the planting plan itself. But for the most part, We imagine there to be mostly shrubs and trees and lawn, partially for what's possible to maintain. that maintaining such a big development takes a lot of resources. And we've been finding in sort of the multifamily projects that we've been working on that have sort of more fussy, if you will, detailing of like things that are lower growing and More herbaceous material, but that just has to be replanted over and over and over, and it takes... A pretty healthy landscape maintenance budget to keep it all looking great.

So we tend to try to be strategic about that. And so the way that we've been viewing planting is, first of all, to make spaces Second of all to help sort of protect the units from the Exterior, passersby as they go through the public spaces. So there's a lot of screening and providing an ample setback from people's windows, particularly on the ground floor. and the Patios. And so the walkthrough makes it seem a little bit more austere. That's the one thing that landscape architects don't like about the model fly-throughs, because really what you see there are only the canopy trees and some of the understory trees, but really just the structural pieces of the landscape. I think that the views themselves showed a better rendition of how we are imagining

The landscape to actually be installed and so in those views you can see that particularly in the front yards we've been doing a lot of work on providing more than just lawns in the setbacks, for instance, from the back of sidewalk to the building face. And Sam, maybe you want to talk about the stormwater?

Sure, thank you, Mark. So the parking lot is paved in porous asphalt, and below that parking lot is A series of cisterns to retain stormwater runoff as well as within the central courtyard and in total The system on lot one only will retain about 17,000 cubic feet of stormwater runoff, and that provides peak rate attenuation, which meets the city of Cambridge's 25 to 2 stormwater requirements. I also want to highlight that the former pond, Bird's Pond, the historic pond, is part of Lot 2. So Lot 1, the current design proposal only touches Lot 1, and so the significant Lower Topography, which is related to the former pond, that footprint is not a part of this particular lot.

Great. Thank you for that clarification. Ashley, what questions do you have?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I had a question similar to what someone brought up in public comment, which was if we just get some clarification about the Parking Plans. I know there's a lot proposed. Are those spaces just for these two buildings? Is it intended to be shared with the future phases and I was also curious because I was looking, pretending as if I were to live here, you know, how would I get here? And I realized the closest bus stops are, you know, five, if not 10 minutes, like a walk. And so I was wondering... Do you guys provide shuttles or how does that work? Thank you.

Thank you for the question. So to address the first part of the question related to The parking and its use for just these buildings. CHA typically does not do assigned parking but we do have resident parking. So in a future where the entire phase is redeveloped, Those spaces would be available to folks who are residents in the lower parcel. We think due to the placement of that lot that it's most likely that they would be the phase one residents who are using that lot. CHA does not operate a shuttle service, but we do seek to encourage alternate means of transportation. We're very happy to include the bike infrastructure within the site.

And while the transit infrastructure is that quarter mile to half mile away. Those are very strong bus lines, the 71, 73 and 75. They provide, two of them provide high frequency service between Harvard Square and either Watertown Square or Belmont's Waverly Square. There's a variety of major institutions on that like McLean Hospital, and Mount Auburn Hospital. And then to speak very briefly to the overall parking plan, the Phase two and three portion of the site lot two will hopefully be brought forward in 2026. We're undergoing a schematic design process

currently, our hope has been to achieve a parking ratio between 0.75 to 0.8 spaces per unit. that's very contingent on our ability to address the recent change in the long-term flood elevations on the site. And we also wanted to highlight that represents, if achieved, an enhancement of the parking ratio that is currently on site at Corcoran Park.

Great. I think in terms of the parking, the summary for this building had that there were 14 spaces currently. Thank you so much. Thank you. Let's see, Dan, what questions do you have?

Yeah, a couple questions and a comment, I guess. So appreciate the presentation very much. I guess the first question goes to CHA in terms of Was there a target number of units that you gave as a brief to the architects? Question to the architects. Clearly this is two different typologies replacing an already different typology from the 60s. There's no way to get the kind of density that we're looking for for affordable housing. in this neighborhood using any of those previous densities or typologies. And I guess the third one really is like, I kind of hate to see parking lots, particularly in a site of this size. So I think I'm coming from a bias, particularly in our reviewing recent AHO projects.

which allow significantly greater height and density that although this has been carefully crafted to fit in I'm just I'm curious whether a greater number of units and different mix could have been achieved with some different typologies.

Thank you for that question. To address the first portion of the question on the brief and density target, the goal that CHA gave to architects Our architectural team for the entirety of Corcoran Park was 290 units from the current 153. The schematic design plans as they've been presented to the community for the entire site achieved that benchmark. We did not set a Lot 1 versus Lot 2 goal, but instead just saw a distribution of the density that made sense within the context and site planning we were seeking to achieve. Just to speak very briefly to the parking, we absolutely appreciate that comment and the placement and number of parking spaces throughout the site. was something that we've been in long-term communication with our residents and the neighborhood about.

It's a challenging question, but we think that we're maximizing the density on this parcel.

Does the design team want to take a pass at different technology?

Thanks. I'll pass that one over to Gabriela.

Thank you, Matt.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. Other building typologies could have achieved higher density. But again, I reiterate what Matt said. The goal was to 90 units, and we try to spread that density throughout the site. Earlier in our design process, we had some buildings at six-story heights that seek to preserve more of the open space. and we received a lot of pushback from our residents and neighbors. So we came back to the drawing board and try to achieve the same density with lower buildings.

while also maintaining a higher number of the townhome typology that residents really identified to be. An important aspect of Corcoran's Park character. So we work with the residents and try to put forth a proposal that they believe is still Corcoran Park.

If Diego doesn't mind by making a quick follow-up, we have a typology of great parking with building above. which I'm very curious why that might not have been pursued given an increase in open area, even potentially some saving of interior court trees. So with that, I'll hold on.

Thank you, Dan. Diego, let's go to you next.

Hi, I just have a couple questions. The first one is the southeast corner on May Street and Long Street. There was a staff comment in the memo about that large radius, and I'm familiar with that area. It's kind of an interesting car driving area, but also I'd be interested to see if there's discussions on that to make that more pedestrian friendly as well. And then my second question is, I think some of the balconies look like they're kind of shared and I think that's still under development and I'm not sure if you can talk a little bit about that. I'm just a little concerned about the triangle sort of Wall, it looks like that's between the two units that are sharing the balconies. Thanks.

Thank you. Matt, who would you... Well, maybe you can start by addressing the corner radius and any further plans there might be to change that and then... We can go to the architects for the balcony question.

Sure. On the corner radius, I would say that CHA is very open to continuing discussions with DPW about the public realm. One instance of that is that higher up on May Street, There is the intention to apply for a loading zone in front of the building. So I'm very happy to continue a conversation on that feature. If my architectural team wants to add anything to that, they should feel free. and then to speak very briefly to the balconies, I think that was a very interesting comment from staff on the corner balconies and that shared condition. We will definitely be evaluating that as we move forward. One of our goals overall was to find ways to maximize the semi-private and private open spaces because

Targeting back to how this process has been iterative with our residents, one of the strong pieces of feedback that we got during earlier versions of the plan was the desire for more private open space like the patios that all residents currently have. So those may not be the most functional, and I think that we do need to continue to study those corner ones. Sam or Gabriella, do you have anything you'd like to add to either of those points?

Thank you, Matt. I think you covered where we are and what we will be looking at, really.

Thank you. Carolyn, what are your questions?

Thank you. I really appreciate all of the work you guys are doing on resiliency and bringing the elevation up above the floodplain. That is no small feat. And I shared Dan's question about the service parking lot especially when it means losing healthy existing trees. I assume that's a cost issue and just comes down to financial feasibility. um seeing head nods there um but that's that's a heartbreak I had a question. I missed it in the materials that were submitted that the solar panels are not to be installed day one. It's just solar ready. And I'm curious about what would trigger the installation of solar panels. I have a broadly similar question about kind of EV-ready parking spaces, whatever makes them actually become installed, if there is a trigger. And then I have one other question, sorry. Oh, sorry.

No, no, no, my other question was for Mark, I think, about the, I saw in the CDD memo a comment about the play area, and I was hoping that you might jump in, if that's, talk a little bit about kind of where your thoughts on the play area are. what that is, but Matt, sorry I didn't mean to interrupt.

Oh, no problem at all. Thank you for those questions. So to just sort of confirm the head nods that you saw relative to the comment on, The potential of doing under-building parking. So the two primary downsides that in our analysis pulled that option off the table were one, cost. working to produce a building that is Thank you. Thank you. We spoke a little bit about the push and pull that we've had with our residents and neighbors about seeking to have a building that feels like it fits in scale. And so the under building parking,

and to achieve the density that we were seeking would have produced a larger building. And so we felt like the massing we achieved here was a stronger fit for the neighborhood ultimately. With respect to the question about solar ready versus installing the solar, CHA finances and typically finances and owns its solar panel arrays. separately through an entity that we own rather than building them as part of the affordable housing project. That allows us to have a bit more control over how those electricity Resources are being used to benefit our residents. So for that reason, we typically bifurcate the project and say that we're going to do the solar project separately. Our intention and real goal is to have the solar there

and installed on roughly the same timeframe as the overall project. And then I will turn it over to Mark to speak a little bit to the play areas.

Thanks, Matt. So great question. And I think that play on this project is also somewhat still in development. And if you think about the number of units between the two phases of the project, it's about a one-third, two-third. So what we've done with this smaller phase is to think about play as being something that's sculptural. I think actually our practice in general does things, we think about play that way. We've done a number of playgrounds in Boston and Somerville that have the same idea, that it still should be a good landscape. And one of the things that's a little bit rough to us is like plopping play equipment in. So we prefer to have something that can be used in a lot of different ways, and when it's sitting there not occupied with children, that it still looks great as something, as an object that's out in the landscape.

and I think that one of the other freedoms that gives us is a little bit tighter control over what's required in terms of the surfacing underneath it. So that is another sort of consideration that we think about that we want to have as much of the space be multifunctional. So trying to have sort of larger spaces for kids to play in and then objects on which play is welcome and encouraged and the objects they're engaging with are durable. But it could also be used by older kids. It could be used as a younger kid's balance beam, but it also could be just a seating bench or some place for older kids to sort of hang out. We're really trying to think about how we get different generations to be active with this, with the sort of pieces that we put out. And we also like to make sure that there's always seating nearby. So whoever is sort of taking care of the children have a place to also be close enough, not too close,

So all of those things go into how we think about all of the objects actually in the landscape spaces. But that's sort of our philosophy about it. And I think in the other phase where the numbers and The population is a little bit larger, will have a little bit more sort of robust play features that are still ascribing to the same sort of philosophy.

Thanks. I don't know if you have examples of other installations that you've done in public housing. projects that subscribe to that philosophy. But if you do have some, if you have photos of them, that you could submit for the next round unless I missed them when I went through the The materials. It would just be helpful because I think, you know, as was mentioned in the staff memo, it looks like it really could use more development. So it would just be helpful, I think, to see how... How these things fit in in context in other projects. Sure. Ted.

Thank you. So I may have misunderstood something that was said, but I'm curious about the history of Corcoran Park and the ownership of the units when they were developed and whether that changed over time. And what is the plan for the ownership of these units? Are they going to remain or will they become Just rental units. I'm also as someone who grew up in a Philadelphia row house, I've always found this portion of Cambridge very interesting. And it's, you know, from my point of view, well, yes, obviously, we're always advocating for more units.

The townhouse aspect, the rowhouse aspect of this, I find very intriguing and goes back to Dan's comments about topology. and whether there's some possibility of getting the density and the number of units but in a different sort of configuration. I'm also finding it difficult to think about this as part of a larger Are you maintaining Lot 2 without knowing what it is going to be? Is this going to be low housing there or is this also going to be sort of a four and five and six story development because, you know, just seeing part of it and you're talking about You know, play areas.

Well, are people in the lot one going to go to lot two because there's going to be a playground there? You know, obviously it's great that we're changing I'm almost doubling the number of housing units, but I'm trying to figure out how it's all going to fit together. If somebody could possibly respond to some of those questions, I'd appreciate it. Absolutely.

Thank you for the questions. I'll start with your first question about the development history and ownership. Corcoran Park was built in the 1950s as federal public housing and it was owned and operated by Cambridge Housing Authority as such until the 2010s. At that point, the property was effectively at the end of its useful life, and CHA conducted a capital needs study that was exhaustive, and it was submitted to HUD as part of an application for obsolescence. The application for obsolescence was accepted by HUD and HUD allowed CHA to transfer ownership of it to an LLC that CHA wholly controls.

As part of that transfer, the property moved from the Federal Public Housing Program to being project-based Section 8. So it operates today still as 100% deeply affordable housing, meaning that the residents there pay one-third of their income towards their rent, and the balance is covered by a rental subsidy. After redevelopment, the property will continue to operate as 100% deeply affordable rental housing. So all the units will continue to have that income-based rent. CHA will continue to serve as the owner, although the format of our ownership will change to facilitate participation in the low-income housing tax credit program.

which is a federal program that is the primary mechanism of financing affordable housing. Then briefly skip to your third question or observation about the interrelationship of the current plan with the overall site. And to observe that, The current schematic design plan for Corcoran Park utilizes similar building typologies as you see here. Townhouse over flat and four-story apartment building throughout the entire site and seeks to create an integrated campus. We have to separate out our project into two distinct applications.

in order to facilitate a continued study process to address the long-term flood elevations. Our overall goal is to create an integrated campus. We can't speak definitively to what that will be At this time, we will certainly keep the board as well as our other stakeholders informed along the way as we're working on it. And then... I will just ask my architectural team if there are any comments you'd like to offer with respect to the middle question related to townhouse typology and density.

The question was related to Lot 2, or I thought that was the question, right? Like if Lot 2 was going to have also that typology?

That was part of the question, yes.

So yes, like Matt said, we would seek to have a... A comprehensive kind of approach to the whole project and we want to use the same building typologies but of course they will be arranged in different ways. to mitigate and manage the challenges that the new flood elevation is triggering.

Thank you. Can I also just speak to the continuity between the two phases? So I think that there was also embedded in there a little question about whether people will go from one to the other, whether that's intended. And I think that that's really been a big part of how we've looked at this. I mean, we've been working on this for many years at this point. And I think that the idea of having inter-block connection is really important to the project. It's not just like within residence, but it's also as part of the neighborhood. and the way that we're right now thinking about that is you can sort of see subtle traces of it and sort of the big objectives. So on Long Street, for instance, we're imagining a crossing between those blocks of the major pedestrian space that's sort of running along the parcel border. We're up next to the town of Belmont along that edge.

and we have a pathway that's making a sort of pedestrian connection that's not related to the street that's actually we imagine it to be really great for small children riding their bikes and learning to walk and sort of running and playing. And so you'll notice that the parking plan has this funny little gap in it. And that's why, because we're imagining this sort of So we've been thinking about that as a system throughout the entire property. Actually, it's a really important open space sort of objective that we have. So I would say yes, we actually hope that there's a lot of intercommunication between people living in all of these areas as well as the neighborhood at large.

I just want to very briefly, I think the other component of the last question was whether a complete townhouse typology might have achieved the same density goal on the site and I believe that during sort of the very early test fit studies for the site, it was found that that wasn't achievable, although it was one of the the options that we explore during the early envisioning process.

Great, thank you. Just going back to public comment, there was the question about Accessibility. And one of the buildings is an elevator building. Building A, Building B, you have the access ramps for that. So both buildings are accessible. It was also brought up about the replacement The tree replacements that the measurements were important and I noticed that that was also noted in the DPW letter where they asked if you could provide information on The caliper, the proposed caliper for the number of, for the new trees and I don't know how possible this is if there's a way to

Estimate what the current tree canopy coverage is and then compare what's being proposed to what's there today. If you can, that I think would be helpful.

Yes, we have a full survey of all the trees. We know they're what's called the DBH, the caliper size. That's the diameter at breast height is the official sort of So we have that for all of the existing trees and we'll also make a calculation of it based on the planting plan that we provide. So as we get further along in this process with you, we'll definitely be able to provide that information. And there's also a question about native, which we tend to work with. We also are trying to work with what plants can be in flooded areas, what trees can survive that, and that's also part of the planting design as well. If areas are temporarily flooded, what are the best species to have in those zones? So that's definitely part of what we're looking at with this project as well.

Thank you. To the accessibility question, just to confirm, so the overall both buildings will include, and Gabriella, Sam, please correct me if any of this is off, but I believe five fully mobility accessible units by ADA and MAP standards that exceeds the 5% minimum requirement. and then the units in the elevator building will be or building A will be visitable by virtue of the elevator which is an addition to the accessibility of the site that does not currently exist. Great.

Matt, that is correct. And I'd just like to add that all at-grade flats, whether they're in an elevator building or not, are accessible and visitable in that regard. So meeting 521 CMR and FHA standards.

Terrific. Great. Thank you for that clarification and additional information. So if there are no more questions, then let's just move on to discussion. And if other questions occur to board members as we move along, feel free to ask. But who would... on the project. Ashley, let's start with you, thank you.

Yeah, I just wanted to thank the project team. I know others have mentioned this, but I appreciate the animation. In other times we would have looked at a model, so this is very helpful. and yeah I think in general I do I would say I really appreciate how the architect team has tried to break down The facades of both buildings. These are, you know, long buildings. And oftentimes we see projects that, you know, Try to meet the intent of our design guidelines by putting in some recesses, but these are substantial recesses, which I know It's a building area, but it does really break down the length on the street front. I appreciate that.

I like the angled bay facade of Building A and the recesses in Building B. I find the colors used in Building A to be very fun and I was hoping to see that same variety in building B, but that might just be my personal opinion. I think that would add more to the neighborhood. I think would be great to see next time sorry I'm just looking at my notes I think it would be helpful just given You know, pedestrian access would be from May Street to building A. I think Thinking more about the residential lobby entrance for Building A, is that

Through the parking lot, is it on May Street? Should there just be more lighting or some more signage to make it more prominent would be helpful. and you know like for visitors who come and may not be able to easily find the entrance And let's see. For Building B, I think similar to what I think Diego brought up, just some clarification about the balconies or the porches, whether or not those are shared or individual or private, that'd be helpful. I think I know Mark alluded to this a few times, but I know what we saw for the plans was a preliminary plan, but... It would be helpful next time to see more detail about whether it's planting, about the use of the playground. I know there are mentions about

Grills, potentially, but be hopeful to see what more programming can be done. I think one of the neighbors brought up this is a great resource to have, so thoughts about how to make it More active, more lively. I think, was that a project last year? I think it was also affordable, but I think it was a senior housing. They were doing garden beds, which seemed like a fun idea, so... Just more detail would be useful. And Lastly, I just wanted to say I appreciate how the project team has responded to comments from the residents about wanting in-unit laundry. making that available. I'm sure the residents who are moving out and moving back in will appreciate that. So that's all I had for now. Thank you.

Thanks, Ashley. Diego. What are your thoughts?

Yeah, I can second some of the things that Ashley said. I think the video was awesome to see. Thank you for that. It was really useful. When I was looking at the project documents, I was having a hard time sort of Justifying all the topological changes that were happening on the site. But the video helped me kind of, you know, ground those concerns. And I think that's really helpful. I'll back that comment that Mark, the landscaper, the landscape designer was talking about, which was this idea that kids are going to be Riding their bikes and that this is going to be like this community space. And I was looking at the walkways around and You know, maybe you can look at the May Street sidewalk and widen that a little bit because I can see this sort of circular path that goes around Building B. Then you kind of get onto May Street and I think that was one of the staff comments as well to make that a little bit more pedestrian friendly as well as like the Longstreet, Maystreet, Large Radius.

I think maybe trying to make that like a space that sort of slows traffic down. I'm not like a traffic designer, but I just, I know that intersection very well and it's, It can get really crowded with the parking situation there and the narrowness of the streets. And I've walked before on that path and I've taken shortcuts, which I'm probably not supposed to, but... It's such a weird little intersection there. Just keep looking at that. I really appreciated the return wall diagram for the architectural emphasis and connecting that with the character of the and other surrounding buildings. I thought that was really successful. strengthened my belief in building a sort of sawtooth floor plan. I was unsure of it at first just because sometimes when we see these floor plans that have these angles it doesn't necessarily help the interior layout too much but

I think when you connect it to the character of the neighborhood it's pretty successful in that and Building B is pretty good as well. It was funny to hear Ashley say that the colors of Building A should be on Building B because I was I was not sure of building these colors. And then I saw the recess diagram. I was like, oh, okay. It kind of works. So I don't know. I'm just kind of backing Ashley's comment on that. But, you know, I like the design as it is. Yeah. Good job. Thank you.

Thank you Diego. Mary, let's go to you next.

Thank you. And thank you again to the proponents and the designers for sharing the plans with us. So I think one comment I have, which I think is Maybe echoing a little bit of what I'm hearing from other board members is, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. There's something about the facade facing the streets that feels very much like what it is today. You know, there's one of these perspectives where you look looking down Longstreet and what's on the left is Looks very similar to what's on the right. And I think especially I'm responding to the kind of awnings at the doorways. And I really liked in your package, you have precedent images of other houses in the neighborhood. and while that precedent, that does exist in the context, there's also a lot of houses that have front porches and I think that this is an opportunity

Because my impression from the street view and actually being in that neighborhood is that the front porches, the front awning areas are not really public and used in that way. And so I'm wondering if the proponent might think about how to engage the front facades. and that kind of front porch opportunity especially because and I'll say the grading is really well done in terms of you guys are negotiating I think really well this need to get to certain elevation and figuring out how to negotiate that But you also have this lifted kind of plinth condition that kind of creates a cool prospect. And so I was just wondering about this opportunity maybe for those facades, especially Longstreet, to be more public facing. I think a comment that maybe relates to my impression of those edges is there are lots of pathways to doorways, pathways to doorways and edge pathways, which is very consistent with what

I know you can't get closer to the sidewalk. CDD was kind of interested in that too but with the grading challenges but I do think on the west side of the building and in the central courtyard I think you could get away from that because what you end up What it ends up looking like at this point knowing that it's still very much in development is a fragmented I do agree with Mark's description of Thank you so much for joining us. to maybe handle that if you're using a lot of lawn is see if you can create larger areas of lawn that can be also recreationally

useful so say the center courtyard well maybe before that just closing out my planting comments even if it's not like perennial like a pollinator gardens leave that I think maybe Ashley I was thinking the same thing is are there other ways interior to the courtyard could have opportunities for the The residents to create spaces, right? If they want to create vegetable gardens, maybe there's a space there, even if you're not designing it in. But I'm thinking kind of like low Vines, Groundcover, things that hold ground, especially on these kind of three to one or very steep slopes on Longstreet. If you look at one of the other precedents you have, The Fresh Pond Place on Huron, they have kind of a steep slope that kind of suggests this, where it's not looking for fussy perennials, it's looking for something that's gonna hold slope and not end up being some shrubs in a mulch bed, which is gonna wash down. Okay.

Now returning to the interior courtyard, I think everyone's been kind of expressing this is I think we're, we know this is a bit of a placeholder. And I think the philosophy and everything you described, I think hits exactly what we'd love to see is something that allows for multi-generations that makes a place that is playful but doesn't look like a playground and empty when it's not in use. This is an area where I have concern about, as you described, If you're using a play equipment and then you're using a rubber surface, it really breaks up that space in a way that's not very useful. It's also kind of a maintenance issue in the long term. Is that going to get replaced or is it going to get kind of... Thank you for joining us.

You have this plaything breaking the middle which has a kind of an odd relationship to the grills and the picnic area. Thank you so much for joining us. Make sure there's a lawn that a kid could kick a soccer ball in. Right now, the biggest lawns you have are two in the center, but neither one of them is great for you know a pickup game and then you have the bigger lawns on kind of the west side which is under those existing trees but they're so broken by pathways that individually they're not they don't seem like they're They're really to be used for anything. So, ah, two more comments.

Okay.

I'm also intrigued by this parking question. I don't love seeing a parking lot, but I recognize you got a lot of feedback that the current residents like the parking. I was wondering if you had studied or thought about reducing the parking number a little bit and extending, kind of making Building A more like an L so that you have more facade on May Street, right? Thank you so much for joining us. be diminished, right, from the streetscape experience, particularly along May Street. And then finally, Ashley, I hadn't even really thought about the color. The only color that's not doing it for me is the tan. I kind of feel like whether one building is this kind of greenish or the other is more of the red tones,

Totally works, but all of the colors, and let's say the green one kind of hold together. Same with the reddish one, except for that tan. Brings this very contrasted appearance that I think calls too much attention, if you will, to... to kind of trying to create this illusion of multiple buildings. I think it's more successful when the colors hold together a little bit more.

All right.

Those are my thoughts. Thank you. Thank you, Mary. Appreciate it.

Dan, what are your thoughts? Thank you, Mary. Yeah, I'm having a really hard time giving design criticism to where I'm fundamentally having trouble with buildings that are less than what by right Zoning is currently where we have any private developer would come in here and this would be a six-story project so I'm feeling like this is enormous amount of great effort on the design team side to try and make buildings, which are not of any particular typology that fits the neighborhood, fit the neighborhood, and not hitting a... Higher target of units when we've got a desperate need for affordable housing. We've got a waiting list that's a mile long.

and I have a hard time when I see private non-profits building much more dense without parking over neighborhood subjections that we are regularly seeing here in the board and supportive of because we're meeting that goal. And I see Cambridge Housing Authority not following that path, Looking at this, I think, in a rather nostalgic way. We've got major bus routes. I won't really pick on the parking, but if parking and that parking ratio is necessary, I think a garden-style six-story building over parking would be an entirely reasonable way to go. We've got taller buildings in the neighborhood. So I'm appreciative of everything that's been presented. I think it's been detailed and well thought through.

I just don't think it's solving the problem. And so I don't want to, I guess particularly when we're demolishing a building which is, and his useful life, extending a parking lot and cutting down mature canopy trees, which if it's necessary, it's necessary. But in this particular case, You build a building over the parking lot and you leave the trees. You have more room for more units. I'm disappointed. So that's my comment.

Okay, thank you for that. Ted, let's go to you.

Thank you. Well, I think Dan actually just summarized a lot of my feelings about it, which were sort of in co-hate and I couldn't quite The parking lot is really troublesome to me. We've been trying to eliminate Street level parking lots and vast empty parking lots throughout the city and this just seems like it's celebrating the parking lot especially where The entrance to Building A is right at the corner right next to it. I mean, it just seems, you know, that we're going backwards somehow. and similarly, I think that the courtyard is just too small. You know, you can put in all the trees and shrubs and whatever, but I don't think it's going to be

All that usable for the number of families who were going to be living there. Part of my question earlier was about Parcel 2 and how that's going to interact with it. People are going to want to have more open space right there. I don't know what the solution is and I don't know everything you've gone through to date. But, you know, Building B, being U-shaped and having side wings, they take up space in what could be an open area. You know, maybe just as Dan suggests, going up to six stories with underground parking. You can be in a narrower but taller building. I don't know what the answer is.

I mean, I think it's an attractive proposal and, you know, things look nice. But somehow it does not seem like the best that could be done there. You know, I... I like the townhouses, like the row houses. I understand that maybe you can't get enough density out of that. but it seems to me there's possibly some other alternatives that may have been rejected for various reasons I realize you've got the The flooding issue you have to deal with. And I realize you've got cisterns you're dealing with and lots of other issues.

But somehow, I don't know, this just doesn't feel like the best resolution of all the issues.

Thank you. Does the development team want to respond to that at all in terms of, again, sort of The number of units provided and that decision, I mean, it may also be tied into what financing is available at this point. But I mean, it sounds as though a lot of it had to do with this project has been in process for a long time and there have been a lot of a lot of meetings back and forth and it's not just the to work with. It's also the residents themselves and what they're used to I mean, it seems like all of that has led you to where you are today.

But was there an iteration at any point along the way where you might have had a much taller building with more open space? And if not...

Thank you. Appreciate the comments and I just want to at the outset say that we appreciate the feedback and as we've integrated the comments from our residents and neighbors, we will and, of course, evaluating the plan to see what we can do to incorporate these in both Lot 1 and then in the future phase. The amount of parking on the site, as was alluded to, does respond in part to the unique experiences of our are residents who often work in suburban locations and on that are outside of the routes of fixed route transportation or at hours that are not when fixed route transportation runs.

So that's part of the context for why on this site we're providing a roughly replacement level of parking on a proportional basis. To the Question and just broader topic of iterations considered, we did study extensively a version of this building that was six stories with step downs to five. And that was the original concept that went out to the neighbors and our residents in the summer of last year. and it received a strong reaction both on parking but then on other elements of the site plan about Are we prioritizing public open space or are we prioritizing semi-private and private open space? Are we prioritizing a multifamily building with elevators or, particularly from the perspective of our residents,

Are we prioritizing building typology that is the townhouse over flats that increases density but has a character that feels familiar to what represents for them the essence of Corcoran Park? So following that, Public Reaction, we did a roughly three to four month period of renewed engagement with our residents and neighbors. And part of that was a discussion of trade-offs. We presented to residents variations on what the site could look like if you prioritize parking and open space but then you would have to have more height or if you're prioritizing having open space and parking. And the outcome that came from that was the desire for

the smaller semi-private open spaces that bring forward the typology that exists today on site. and an emphasis on parking with A sense that if you could achieve that with a lower building height, that was the preferred outcome. I think not to say that this is the definitive correct answer from an urban design perspective, but that I think we are seeking to study it and this came from a place where we started with that six story typology and through communication ended up at this point.

Well, I think the board members have made some good points. I think where I disagree a little bit with some of my colleagues is the The comparison to the private developer where they go to the max. I think there have been certain circumstances where we haven't been that happy that they've gone to the max because it's had a negative impact. and other residents in the area or will have when they finally build them. So from my perspective as a board member I'm thinking I appreciate having the parking because I think in that area the bus routes are a little bit far away and they might run at a pretty regular rate.

I don't think at least the one on Huron Avenue doesn't run that much during the day. And as you said, a lot of people don't necessarily or can't necessarily commute by public transportation to work. But I do think the configuration of the parking lot makes that Building A seem very suburban looking to me. In fact, it almost took on sort of an office quality in mind when I first looked at it as opposed to feeling residential. So I think more study does need to be done in terms of how you integrate Parking into that building. And I for one feel like that building is far enough away from the rest of the neighborhood that it could use more height. Now, again, as Ted said, I know there's a lot of other constraints on the project.

And so I don't know whether going higher and doing something underneath it is feasible. I guess I like Building B a lot. I like that configuration. And I just feel like Building A needs more to make it feel residential. And maybe that, I think it was suggested in the... In the staff memo, maybe it's balconies or something like that. Maybe it is changing the entrance, changing the configuration of the parking lot. I don't know. But I do think I don't know that you can increase the number of units, but I think it could be configured in a different way so that you can provide parking but still make it feel more residential.

And I don't, I mean, I know you have this target. I don't know, you know, this idea of trying to put more units on the site. Is that something that you're open to? Because I think that that's kind of a game changer at this point. And I believe you've already been at it for decades. Thank you. Thank you. So I mean, I guess I'm just trying to get a sense of like, are we talking about tweaks? And maybe Ted and Dan can also chime in on sort of what they would like to see. Are we talking about little tweaks or are we asking them to like really reinvent the The vision for the site.

Dan.

Yeah, so I sort of said my piece, I think. It would be a challenge, but not an insurmountable challenge to place building A over parking where it's placed and add a floor. and have a much larger open space and potentially be able to add even a couple of additional townhomes. I don't think that the three-story type is necessarily the best, but I understand that there's a dynamic here trying to talk to neighbors, to current residents to kind of meet their expectations. Change is difficult. People don't easily envision something being different than what they have. So I see that, you know, There's a conversation and there are residents who hopefully are coming back and there's a conversation that's going on for the larger

Parcel, Building A. You know, I think in my mind, there'd be a compelling reason to push it back built it over parking and get additional units. You'd save some canopy trees. You'd have a larger courtyard. You know, they're There are other answer solutions that I could imagine, but that would be the loose rework. I'll leave it to the client and the team, but this is really... I think it's unfortunate to have a missed opportunity to have higher density. And, you know, I'm not talking about maxing out the site. I mean, the AHO would allow, you know, nine to 13 stories here, right? Right, right. I don't think we're coming in and saying that hey you know you need to put you could easily fit 250 units just on a site that's not a problem but solving the or unraveling the issues that

That you've backed into, that would be the simplest route, was to consider that. Having more landscape space, saving some trees, and not having surface parking.

Got it. Okay. Well, I don't necessarily, let's hear from Ted before I go on again.

Well, you know, actually, I hope Jeff is still here. This is a problem I've perceived now from a number of the advisory groups. The way the AHO is set up, the planning board does not get involved until pretty late in the design phase where a lot of time and a lot of effort has gone into developing what is presented to us and then we're left with well we're talking about colors we talk about the landscaping we talk about small issues rather than some of the larger planning issues that I think would hopefully end up with what we would consider to be better projects.

I know in non-AHO matters and very large projects, and sometimes they're part of the PUDs, that the planning board is brought in really pretty early on. maybe just as an informational, this is where we're going. These are the type of things we're thinking about. and to get some feedback from us at that very early stage so that it doesn't come down to us at a later stage when a lot of time and money and Obligations have been set in stone and that we don't have much opportunity to really help to shape the project. And, you know, obviously the zoning does not take that into account.

And maybe it doesn't need to be changed to do that, but I think maybe if staff in their early discussion could say, we want to take it to the planning board now just so you can explain where you're going. And then, you know, that doesn't have to be a big thing. Maybe publicists do take public comment, don't take public comment. but that would then you know months or years later we'd have our first real advisory Committee meeting when, you know, either it has followed some of the suggestions we've made or they come in and say we didn't do this because of X, Y, and Z. And I think that would lead to us having a bigger role and a better project.

and I think it's, you know, I've noticed this now in a number of the advisory ones we've done that we just come in at too late a period to really have significant input.

Yes, I know we have discussed that previously too. It has come up in other reviews. So, you know, maybe that's something staff can take into consideration on their own or maybe... We have a separate discussion about the process at a future meeting. So I guess in terms of the direction that we want to give the team right now, You know, Matt, you were saying you're happy to explore some of these issues. So I guess to me, It would be very useful if you could explore the option that Dan is talking about. and for building A. I think generally people were happy with building B because it does seem to fit the context pretty well.

So I would, and, you know, Eric had some thoughts on Building A as well in its current state. So I think, you know, there's a lot in the memo to take a look at for if you did stay with that building, how should it be? How could it be improved and made to feel more residential and how could the parking be addressed in a better way? But I think if you could look at the option that Dan is asking for, you know that would be helpful I think it would solve it would as he said it would give us more units that would hide the parking and it would save some trees which are all Pluses. And again, I think I know the neighborhood would prefer something shorter, but as he said, it's nowhere near the maximum that it could be. And it's also fairly far away from The bulk of the residential neighborhood with the smaller building B being the one that really does front most of the area.

So that would be my sense of what we should ask for in the report. Matt, yes.

Thank you. I just wanted to say that we appreciate that direction and we look forward to the review memo. Very briefly, I wanted to pull back to an observation that you made earlier, which was that as an affordable housing developer, we face financial constraints that impact the building design. We have at a variety of sites considered podium parking style buildings, and ultimately found that it is financially infeasible to make work and had to value engineer it out just to provide one benchmark at a Reesa Project and another suburban community we found that the podium parking added $50,000 per unit to the cost of the construction of the building and that that

Marginal cost put it above what we were able to assemble for that project. So we remain committed to considering the options, but that financial constraint is one that we really have butted up against with the podium.

Okay. Well, I think, again, financial considerations are definitely coming into play. But I think, you know, Mary also had the suggestion of maybe... you know providing more parking than there's there today but not as much as you're proposing and trying to figure out a way to configure that entrance and you know maybe as she said suggested the L shape or something so that you're screening more of the parking and making the building relate more to the street I realize it's financial decisions as well as design. But I think that's another option to look at. Do board members have other comments? To add anything else you would like to have the developer take a look at? No? Okay. Eric?

Thank you so much for the memo and the comments. Is there anything else you'd like to add before we try to wrap this up? You're muted.

Yeah, I think you've covered most of the things that I had in the memo, the really top item things. Interesting suggestions. I think Mary's suggestion is pretty intriguing about an L-shaped building. You can think of other examples in Cambridge where you drive under part of the L to get to a courtyard that has parking. There's one over on maybe it's Second Street. It's quite a nice building. So yeah, I think Some of these suggestions we had earlier about more height Underbuilding Parking and so on. And basically they sound like they weren't really in the cards for this project. So, but that might be a way to get some more units and, you know, achieve some of the other goals about hiding the parking lot better. having clear entrance to building A. So yeah, really good commentary. Thanks.

Thank you. You're welcome. And Jeff, do you feel like Like you're good in terms of, I don't know who's actually going to write the report, whether it's you or Eric or a combination, but is there anything else you need from us other than the motion?

I think Becca and Eric are going to work on it. So I'll let Becca think about it and jump in if there's any questions. But I think really, this is just a reminder, this is a... This is part one of a two-part process. The goal, we know that this is the first time the planning board is really seeing it and reviewing it, but the idea is to get all these comments and issues out Give the developer staff time to think about it, talk about it, and then come back. And there may be a lot of, as noted, a lot of responses to a lot of these questions, but I think we will take them seriously and and make sure that they, along with the housing department and that we look at them along with the developer and make sure they come back with some well thought out responses.

Okay, great. Dan.

Sorry, just one last question. Maybe this goes to city staff. Just in looking at the location plan in GIS, it looks like possibly Fairview Ave, maybe originally connected all the way through to May Street. Is that a right of way? I'm just thinking that if parking was buried back in the site, you could essentially have an L-shaped building that creates a street wall more or less continuous with whatever breaks and you could access parking from Fairview and Oxford where there's it looks like a pull-in and it looks like it's city-owned or public way so I'm not sure whether that was something that was explored but Mary's suggestion opens up that possibility of accessing parking.

I have no answer on that, but something to think about.

I think we talked about it. We can definitely make sure we get information about that for the next review.

Okay, great. Okay. Well, thank you everybody for your comments. It's been a good discussion. So if there are no more comments or discussion, The full board members need to make or take a vote on a motion. So and that motion would be to conclude the design consultation session and submit an initial report with our comments to the developer. Would someone like to make that motion?

Ted, so moved.

Thank you. May I have a second, please? Mary, second. Thank you very much, Mary. Okay, and Jeff, could we have a roll call of the members, the full board members, please?

Yes, on that motion, Ted Cohen? Yes. Mary Lydecker?

Yes.

Diego Macias? Yes. Ashley Tan?

Yes.

Carolyn Zern?

Yes.

Mary Flynn?

Yes.

It's all members present voting in favor.

Great. Okay. Well, thank you very much to all of the members of our project team for your work on this. I know you've been at it a long time, and I think you've been very diligent in in exploring options and discussing the public process I think has been great. And once again, I think your video was fantastic. That really does help a lot. So I appreciate that very much. So we will see you at some point in the future. Thank you all again for that. So that concludes the business on our agenda for this evening. Are there additional comments from staff?

I'll just say thanks for a great year and happy holidays. We look forward to seeing you in 2026. Very good.

All right, board members, any other comments? I'll just second what Jeff said. I think we've had a very productive year, so thank you all for everything you've done to move the business of the city forward in the planning world. and yeah, happy holidays to everybody and happy new year and we'll see you, as Jeff said, in 2026. Enjoy. Happy Holidays, everyone.