10. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a recommendation from the Planning Board to adopt following further staff review and improvements to the petition language, the City Council Zoning Petition to Amend Section 4.22 "Accessory Apartments."
Referred to the Petition

Date: February 26, 2019
Subject: City Council Zoning Petition to Amend Section 4.22 "Accessory Apartments"
Recommendation: The Planning Board recommends ADOPTION following further staff review and improvements to petition language.

To the Honorable, the City Council,

The Planning Board held a public hearing on this petition on January 22, 2019. The proposed zoning would amend several of the current zoning provisions pertaining to the creation of accessory apartments within principal single-family or two-family dwellings, and proposes to enable the creation of accessory apartments within accessory structures in addition to principal structures. The Board heard a presentation from City Councillor Craig Kelley and testimony in support of the petition from several members of the public. Following the hearing and deliberations, the Board voted to transmit the following recommendation.

The Board is conceptually in favor of this proposal and supports the creation of accessory apartments. Given the need for housing in the city of a variety of types, this zoning mechanism provides a good way for existing structures to be adapted to create smaller units and provide more housing options. The Board understands that the current petition is motivated by a sense that the objectives of the previous 2016 zoning amendments have not been realized, and that due to complications with the current language, some proposals have not been able to go forward or have needed to seek variances.

However, the Board has many concerns about the petition as it is currently written and fears that without proper attention to the language, there might still be problems in its implementation. For example, it is not entirely clear what provisions apply to what types of structures and projects, what provisions are required as prerequisites, and what provisions are criteria to be applied by the Board of Zoning Appeal (BZA) in their review. The proposal to enable "accessory structure apartments" raises several questions such as whether the structures must be existing or if they can be new construction, if the structures might be moved within the lot or across lots, and to what types of principal uses the accessory apartments could be accessory. The proposal to allow accessory structure apartments also conflicts with zoning language in other sections of Article 4.000 that expressly prohibit the conversion of accessory structures to dwelling units.

The Board strongly recommends consulting with City staff, including the Community Development Department, Inspectional Services Department, and Law Department, to consider improvements to the language that would clarify its intent and avoid confusion or unintended problems in its implementation. It is important for the departments that are responsible for implementation to provide insight into issues that are likely to arise.

There are also a few substantive concerns about the zoning language that should be addressed. The Board understands that the intent of this provision is to allow the adaptation of pre-existing structures to accommodate accessory apartments, and not to incentivize new construction or substantial reconstruction of buildings with the intent of later creating an accessory unit. However, the provision disqualifying buildings that have not been substantially enlarged since built (an increase of 250 square feet being the threshold for substantial enlargement) may be too restrictive given the age of many residential buildings in Cambridge and difficulties in determining how they might have been altered in the past. Board members suggested alternative approaches to discourage builders from taking advantage of this provision in an unintended way, such as disqualifying buildings that have been enlarged after the reference date for existing buildings (January 1, 2019) or including the extent to which a building has been substantially or recently enlarged as a consideration for BZA review. It was also suggested that if the district FAR limitations apply, the degree to which a building has been altered may not be a concern so long as it remains within district limitations or within the existing conditions of the building, if it is legally non-conforming.

The Board also raised concerns about the potential flood risk to accessory apartments that might be created in existing basements, as was discussed when the zoning was last amended. The Board recommended considering language to address this issue similar to the criteria included in the Basement Housing Overlay District, which requires specific utility improvements and working with the Department of Public Works (DPW) to assess the potential risk of flooding that could not be easily mitigated. An excerpt from that language is attached.

The Board had additional concerns about the potential for accessory apartments to be used for short-term rental, given that the Board's enthusiasm is based on the potential to create more long-term units to house Cambridge residents rather than creating more short-term accommodations. The Board understands that addressing this issue more fully may require addressing the Short-Term Rental provisions in Section 4. 60, which is not part of this petition. Board members also raised concerns about the enforceability of owner-occupancy requirements in perpetuity, acknowledging that provisions related to ownership and residency are difficult to regulate through zoning.

Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board,
Catherine Preston Connolly, Chair.

Attachment: Excerpted Language from Basement Housing Overlay District:

20.640   Conditions for Grant of Special Permit. Prior to granting a special permit pursuant to this Section the Planning Board shall determine that the proposed conversion of basement space to dwelling units complies with the General Special Permit Criteria set forth in Section 1 0.43 as well as with the following requirements:

a. Each new unit converted from existing basement space shall comply with all building, health, and accessibility codes applicable to residential dwelling units in the basement of structures. A special permit granted pursuant to this Section shall be conditioned upon full compliance with all building and sanitary code requirements applicable to basement units to be approved by the Commissioner of lnspectional Services at the time of application for a building permit. As a condition of the special permit, the Planning Board may require reasonable measures as are deemed necessary for the adequate privacy and security of the occupants.

b. Buildings must contain, or install, full separation between storm water and sanitary sewer lines from the building to the connection in the street regardless of whether the street in which the building is connected currently is separated.

c. Adequate, properly installed, backflow prevention devices that comply with all building code and other applicable requirements must be installed for .all newly created units along with any additional measures determined to be advisable by the City Engineer.

d. An application for a special permit pursuant to this Section shall include a report on historical occurrences and future likelihood of basement flooding in the area of the proposed conversion, prepared by a registered professional engineer, with a functional scope determined by the City Engineer to be appropriate to the location of the project. In general, the report shall assess the likelihood of flooding in the basement units by way of sewer system backups or overland flooding and identify proposed mitigation to prevent any such flooding. The Applicant shall obtain approval of the report and proposed mitigation, if any, from the City Engineer prior to submitting a special permit application. As a condition of the special permit, the Planning Board may require preventive measures to safeguard against future flooding in the proposed basement-level units as recommended by the City Engineer.

11. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a recommendation from the Planning Board to not adopt the Petition to rezone the parcel at 234 Monsignor O'Brien Highway from Residential C-1 to Business A.
Referred to the Petition

Date: February 5, 2019
Subject: Petition to rezone the parcel at 234 Monsignor O’Brien Highway from Residential C-1 to Business A.
Recommendation: The Planning Board does NOT RECOMMEND adoption.

To the Honorable, the City Council,

On January 22, 2019, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this petition, submitted by Anthony F. Gargano on behalf of property owner Hercules Kalogeropoulos, trustee of 234 Monsignor O’Brien Highway Realty Trust, to change the zoning designation for a single parcel with frontage on Monsignor O’Brien Highway in East Cambridge. The proposal would change the designation of the parcel from Residence C-1 to Business A (BA), which would expand the range of allowed uses to include retail and office uses. According to the petitioner, the intent of proposed change is to have a zoning designation for the parcel that permits the establishment of a cannabis retail store. The Board heard testimony from members of the public, who were predominantly residents living near the affected area who were opposed to the petition.

The Board does not see any compelling need to extend the allowed uses of this parcel beyond the limitations of the current zoning district, presuming that the current use may be maintained in its nonconforming status. The Board also does not see any public purpose in making the proposed change in zoning, none having been offered by the petitioner, and is in general agreement that the petition does not support city planning goals. Therefore, the Board does not recommend the adoption of this zoning proposal.

Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board,
Catherine Preston Connolly, Chair.

12. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a recommendation from the Planning Board to not adopt the Stormwater Separation from Flat Roofs Zoning Petition.
Referred to the Petition

Date: February 26, 2019
Subject: Stormwater Separation from Flat Roofs Zoning Petition
Recommendation: The Planning Board does NOT RECOMMEND adoption.

To the Honorable, the City Council,

On January 22, 2019, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this City Council zoning petition to amend Article 5. 000 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow, by Board of Zoning Appeal (BZA) special permit, increased height and floor area limitations for certain modifications to existing buildings with flat or concave roofs and central roof drains connecting to the City's stormwater infrastructure. City Councillor Craig Kelley presented the petition and addressed questions from Board members. No members of the public made comments. Following deliberation, the Board voted to communicate an unfavorable recommendation.

The Board supports the goals stated in the petition, and is in general agreement that zoning incentives for incremental improvements to existing buildings may be an appropriate tool to advance the City's climate change mitigation objectives. However, the Board questions whether this particular proposal is the right approach to adopt at this time. The Board has reviewed this petition, in some form, multiple times in the past and continues to have concerns, which are summarized below and are similar to concerns expressed in prior recommendations. Moreover, if this petition were to move forward, the Board would suggest that the drafting of the petition be clarified with assistance from staff to make its implementation more practical.

The Board agrees with the goal of separating stormwater from central storm drains where possible to reduce sewer system intake and promote groundwater recharge by keeping water onsite in a way that does not impact neighboring properties. However, zoning incentives should be considered more broadly rather than only for one particular building type and one particular type of improvement. The City should look to the recent Envision Cambridge process and other planning efforts to consider and prioritize a range of desired improvements, and zoning incentives should be evaluated based on the public benefit of the improvement and not only as a measure to recoup the costs to the property owner. Tradeoffs with other public policy objectives also need to be better understood.

Board members also noted several issues specific to this proposal. Closing a storm drain and adding pitch to a roof is a relatively simple improvement that may not justify a significant increase in height and floor area, but may be addressed by more modest incentives such as allowing skylights or roof access without penalty. It was noted that adding a rooftop structure with a pitched roof that is set back from the walls of the building may be structurally impractical on typical flat-roofed buildings, such as three-deckers, and may be better achieved in other ways. Some Board members raised concerns about the iconic character of neighborhoods predominated by three-deckers and how they would be impacted by adding new structures above the existing roofs on scattered sites, and suggested that the Historical Commission may need to be consulted. Finally, since many flat-roofed buildings contain multiple units and may have multiple condominium owners, it was unclear how such buildings would be able to realize a benefit from this proposal, and it was suggested that approaches outside of zoning might be needed to incentivize these types of improvements.

Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board,
Catherine Preston Connolly, Chair.

O-3     Mar 4, 2019
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: There have been three cyclist fatalities involving large trucks in Boston and Cambridge in just the last 16 months, and 67% of all cyclist fatalities that have occurred in the region over the last 7 years have been caused by large trucks; and
WHEREAS: Such fatalities are largely preventable, and safety measures mandated by the state legislature would have a thorough and meaningful impact across the region; and
WHEREAS: H.3118/SD.2042, An Act to reduce traffic fatalities, submitted by Senator Will Brownsberger, Representative Jonathan Hecht and Representative David Rogers, would:

• Lower the default speed limit on state highways and parkways in thickly settled areas from 30 to 25 MPH

• Mandate that state and state-contracted trucks utilize safety side-guards and additional mirrors to minimize blind spots

• Expand the definition of ‘vulnerable road users’ and set a safe passing distance for these users of at least 3 feet

• Develop a standardized analysis tool for incidents involving pedestrians or cyclists; and

WHEREAS: This bill is strongly supported by the Massachusetts Vision Zero Coalition and many other advocacy groups as a critical step towards making road conditions safer for the most vulnerable users; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council go on record in support of An Act to reduce traffic fatalities (H.3118/SD.2042); and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward suitably engrossed copies of this resolution to the Cambridge Legislative Delegation on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-7     Mar 4, 2019
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: Massachusetts state condominium law (General Laws Chapter 183A) allows cities and towns to adopt local ordinances and bylaws that regulate condominium conversion more strongly than the statewide law; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge has not yet adopted a local condo ordinance under the authority of the statewide condo law; and
WHEREAS: While an attempt was made in the year 2000 to pass a local ordinance, it did not obtain the necessary 2/3rds vote of the Cambridge City Council; and
WHEREAS: Condo conversion regulations in Cambridge remain unchanged from those under the statewide law; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge 2016 Housing Profile report states that 600 units were converted to condominiums between 2010 and 2015 and the median price for a condominium was $612,000 in 2015; the report further found that median prices for one, two, and three family homes were each over $1 million in 2015; and
WHEREAS: The 2019 Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Tenant Displacement is analyzing the impact of condo conversions on displacement in Cambridge and investigating methods for strengthening protections for tenants; and
WHEREAS: A response to the following questions would be helpful in informing this process:

• Between the year 2015 and the present date, how many rental units have been removed from the market and converted to condominium units?

• What year has seen the highest number of condominium conversions?

• How many converted properties were delivered partially or completely vacant?

• What are the property sizes of the units that have been converted?

• What are the median annual condominium sales prices by bedroom count from 2015 to the present date?

WHEREAS: The market may change at any time and understanding such trends will be instructive; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Assessor’s Office to provide the above data, and report back to the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Tenant Displacement with sufficient time for it to review the information prior to the date of its next meeting, Tues, Mar 19, 2019.

O-8     Mar 4, 2019
COUNCILLOR MALLON
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: On the morning of Sept 16, 2016, Laura Levis arrived at the Somerville branch of the Cambridge Health Alliance hospital after the symptoms of her asthma attack began to be debilitating; and
WHEREAS: After finding the doors to the Emergency Room ambulance bay locked and unable to make it to another door, Ms. Levis called 911 to inform the hospital of her location and seek emergency help; and
WHEREAS: The events that transpired that morning, both prior to and after Ms. Levis placing a 911 emergency call, help illustrate critical failures in our 911 communications systems and the policies and procedures of the Cambridge Health Alliance, including: a failure to pinpoint Ms. Levis’s accurate location, failure in hospital signage and wayfinding which would have directed Ms. Levis to the proper entrance, an unmanned security desk, failure to conduct a proper search of surround hospital grounds, and a breakdown in the communications chain between local law enforcement and the hospital that cost Ms. Levis critical minutes and ultimately, her life; and
WHEREAS: Because the Cambridge Health Alliance is a public hospital and has a State-mandated cap imposed on a settlement that could result from a medical malpractice lawsuit, the potential settlement amount does not even cover the expenses that Ms. Levis’s husband, Peter DeMarco, would incur by seeking legal action, essentially barring Mr. DeMarco from taking legal action against Cambridge Health Alliance; and
WHEREAS: During a hearing of the Human Services and Veterans Committee investigating the death of Ms. Levis, Mr. DeMarco informed the committee of two bills in the State Legislature that would serve to remedy both the communication and policy failures of the hospital, and the State-mandated cap on compensation; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record supporting H1850: An act ensuring safe patient access to emergency care and H1346: An act removing the liability cap for malpractice resulting in serious injury or death, which have been filed by Representative Christine Barber (D – Somerville, Medford) for this upcoming legislative session; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to The Cambridge Health Alliance, Representative John Mahoney and Senator Joanne Comerford, Chairs of the Joint Committee on Public Health, Representative Claire Cronin and Senator James Eldridge, Chairs of the Joint Committee on The Judiciary, and the Cambridge Legislative Delegation on behalf of the entire City Council.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Jan 30, 2109 at 5:33pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a petition filed by Joseph T. Maguire, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. to amend the Zoning Ordinance by creating the Grand Junction Pathway Overlay District adjacent to the Grand Junction Railroad right-of-way between Binney and Cambridge Streets (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Mayor McGovern; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Zondervan; Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department Iram Farooq; Manager for Zoning and Development, CDD, Jeff Roberts; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were James Rafferty, Esquire; Joseph T. Maguire, Senior Vice President, Real Estate Development and Asset Services, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc.; Jose Luis Rojas, 19 Cornelius Way; Janice St. Clair, 3 Michael Way; Suzanne Blier, 5 Fuller Place; Stephen Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street; Vincent Muraca, 39B Park Avenue; Kat and Jack Laing, 5 Michael Way; Leroy Ward, 8 Marvin Place; Anderson Lima, 566 Windsor Street; Matthew Connolly, 13 Cornelius Way; Mark Ford, 57 Gore Street; George Schneeloch, 81 School Street, Somerville; Jay Lordan 218 Thorndike Street; David Borrus, 126 Harvey Street; Josh Dayton, 36A Rice Street; Shon McHugh, 92 Spring Street; Chris Correa, 19 Plymouth Street; Nancy Tsung, Cornelius Way; John Sanzone, Brookline; Pamela VanDort, 13 Cornelius Way; John Goodman, 8 Fairmont Avenue; Greg Pollack, 10 James Way; James Coughlin, 10 Putnam Gardens; Sheli Wortis, 106 Berkshire Street; Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place; Isabel Caceres, 6 Cornelius Way; Charles Hinds, 207 Charles Street; Neil Rohr, 106 Berkshire Street; William Reilly, 100 Gore Street; Steven Aliano, 7 Montgomery Street; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; Lino Becerra, 6 Cornelius Way; Ilan Levy, 148 Spring Street; Matthew Nehs, 15 Cornelius Way; John Fishman, 1 James Way; Yi-Jen Huang, 18 Cornelius Way; Mynor Perez, Massachusetts Avenue; and Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the hearing as the petitioners, the City’s staff and public comment. The City Council will further discuss the petition. At the conclusion the Ordinance Committee will make a recommendation to keep it in committee or refer it to the full City Council with or without a recommendation.

Councillor Carlone requested the petitioners to come forward.

Mr. Rafferty stated that he is an attorney with offices located at 907 Massachusetts Avenue, representing Alexandria Real Estate Equities and introduced Mr. Maguire, Senior Vice President, Real Estate Development and Asset Services, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. Michelle Lower, Assistant Vice President, Real Estate Development and Community Relations, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc., and the Project Architect Jay Siebenmorgen, NBBJ.

Attorney Rafferty stated that the petition was filed by Alexandria seeking to create a new Zoning Overlay District in an area of eastern Cambridge bordering between the Grand Junction Railroad and Fulkerson. A presentation was provided (ATTACHMENT B). He noted that the site is known by its long time use as the Metropolitan Pipe and Supply Company. Alexandria acquired the property 1.5 years ago. He spoke about the land ownership pattern of the property extending from Binney Street north down Fulkerson Street. He stated that the zoning district as proposed would include this property as well as the land running parallel to the property running down the Grand Junction corridor to a small 3,000 square foot parcel on Cambridge Street. He explained that the petition proposes to create a mechanism in the current zoning that would allow for the Planning Board to consider applications for development that would be eligible for increases in height and density through a Special Permit process.

He stated that the chief criteria for such an increase would be a demonstration of the delivery of a significant community benefit or public infrastructure. The proposed public benefit is the creation and construction of the Grand Junction Pathway between Binney Street and Cambridge Street. He commented that the Grand Junction has long been a transportation and open space policy objective of the City. He stated that recent zoning petitions creating the Volpe District and the PUD 5 District involved contributions to the path by MIT of nearby segments.

Mr. Rafferty stated that what this petition has proposed is not dissimilar to the zoning petition proposed by Alexandria eleven years ago when they began discussing rezoning portions of Binney Street. The significant benefit provided by Alexandria to the City at that time was a 2.2-acre public park on Rogers Street. The park is scheduled for design and construction in late 2019.

He stated that there were a number of other significant benefits associated with this current rezoning. He stated that Alexandria recognized that the rezoning they were seeking required the petitioner to demonstrate a similar community focus benefit and focused on the Grand Junction rail plans that abut this property. He stated that Alexandria is proposing zoning that allows a Special Permit process for portions of the site to have a height increase to 120 feet and a FAR of 2.5. The current height permitted in the district is a split-zoning district: Industrial A-1 for the major portion with the balance being Residence C-1. He noted that in the Industrial A-1 District the height limit is 45 feet for a commercial building but there is the Echo Overlay District. Within the existing Echo Overlay this parcel allows a portion of site to go to 65 feet in height for a residential building. Even during the ECAPs rezoning process, the current zoning recognizes a distinction between building masses on the site with greater height allowed in the area closest to Binney Street.

He stated that the proposal is designed to accommodate the development of a lab building approximately 450,000 square feet. He noted that the architect would show what this might look like. There will be interest in see what the design thinking is and how massing and building character will be handled. He highlighted the site at the intersection of Fulkerson and Binney Street. The urban design of this site has been lacking for years. He noted that across the street from the site is the development of the park, commonly referred as the “Pork Chop” park, but is formally known as the Binney Street Park on the CDD website. He stated that the entire corner is about to undergo a significant improvement.

Mr. Rafferty stated that Alexandria has recently acquired a new abutter and when Alexandria first purchased the land in question the owner of the property next door had connections to Metropolitan Pipe ownership and the property was under agreement. There was a development proposed that would create 42-46 units of housing. He highlighted the property line. The abutting property is now owned by Eversource and how they intend to use the site is a concern.

He stated that Alexandria was asked early in the process about the opportunity for a potential land swap that might create a more regular pattern of lot ownership. He spoke about what the area would look like if the land swap with Eversource went through. He stated that this is a one for one swap. He stated that the development plan currently is not to put any building in the area on the map in purple and spoke about conveying this land to the City for a public purpose to be determined by the City Council. He stated that this works for Alexandria if the proposed footprint of the lab building stays off this area. He spoke about Alexandria’s extensive community outreach. He stated that Alexandria has a long positive history of community engagement in the neighborhood.

Mr. Maguire, 270 Third Street, stated that Alexandria is a real estate investment trust and owns about 4.5 million square feet in Cambridge and is here because of the science and technology that takes place. He stated that the 4.4-acre parcel of land was purchased a year ago and wants to put the land to good use and needs a process to determine what that good use is. He stated that Alexandria believes that a good use would be a 120-foot-high building off Binney Street. He stated that Alexandria is working toward what will be acceptable at this location. It was felt that keeping the building as much as 306 feet away from the closest residential building in the adjacent neighborhood was better than being on top of the residential neighborhood. The proposed structure would help create an acoustic barrier that would separate Kendall Square from the neighborhood. The parking will be entered off Binney Street and would be in an underground garage. Loading would be off-street entered from Fulkerson. This design with its high sustainable goals is a good design. He stated that there is a court yard on the Fulkerson Street side of the building. Public access will go through the building during the day. He stated that 120 feet height was chosen for the building based on the height of the adjacent Amgen building and the MXD District.

Mr. Maguire stated that the rezoning’s community benefit was the Grand Junction path between Binney and Cambridge Street, which is about 1,800 linear feet long. A pathway of 14 feet would be appropriate for safe biking and pedestrian travel. He stated that Grand Junction pathway has the potential of going from Boston to Somerville. He stated that the hair salon and a residential unit property on Cambridge Street was purchased by Alexandria to become a portal on the street as a pocket park. He stated that this parcel, 686 Cambridge Street, would be provided to the City. He stated that Alexandria is in discussions with Saint Anthony’s about the long strip along the right-of-way that would connect to the land that Alexandria owns. He stated that in an effort to work with the community and after a meeting with the East Cambridge Planning Team, Alexandria was asked to consider a step-down design from 120 to 105 to 45 feet. This approach did not receive much support from the Linden Park neighborhood. He stated that Alexandria is proposing to provide a portion of the land to the City.

Mr. Maguire explained that there will be over 1,000 individuals that could be employed at this site and allow science and technology to continue to expand in the best science clusters in the world. There would be provided $6.6 million in incentive zoning fee and there 375 union jobs for three years. He stated that twenty years of income to the City in real estate taxes would be over $88 million. There will also be an enhanced experience for all who will be able to use the path.

Attorney Rafferty stated that the petition is presently drafted for a Special Permit to allow for an increase of up to 120 feet in height. He noted that it makes sense to limit the location or area where a Special Permit would be appropriate. He suggests creating language for varied height zones. This addresses stepping the building down to 45 feet in height adjacent to Linden Park. He stated that one of the tradeoffs is greater height and density near Binney Street in exchange for little, if any development, as you go further into the site. He stated that this massing model is an attempt to identify the context of surrounding buildings. He stated that the tradeoff expressed here would be a point along Fulkerson Street, close to the intersection of Bent Street, where there will be no development beyond a certain point. He stated that maligned the 3-tiered model shown is an attempt to begin to think about if massing gets lower it also gets closer and how does this tradeoff play out. The current petition does not place a restriction on where the Special Permit could be applicable. He noted that this is a short-coming of the petition.

Mr. Siebenmorgen, architect with NBBJ, spoke about early image studies of the proposed life science project. He spoke about sustainability, well-being benefits, and how a building functions, which together generates the rationale for the floor plan layout. This project is being designed to utilize 50% less energy than any other building in the area. This will be one of the most energy efficient life science buildings in the United States. He spoke about the importance of the insulated value of the wall, which means minimizing the amount of glass in the façade and still offering sufficient natural light for the inhabitants. He spoke about the nearby “Pork Chop” park design and creating a unifying feel with the area. He stated that there are social spaces within the building that enhance collaboration and makes the interior space a more pleasant place to work. The façade color of the building will change subtly as you move around it. He stated that the lobby space connects the two wings of the project, which the public will be able to pass through and have access to public amenities at the ground level.

Mayor McGovern stated that he viewed the site from a residential perspective. The Amgen building of 120 feet is being used as the barometer for why this building should be 120 feet. He noted that across the street there is 301 Binney and other buildings that are 70 feet. Why not use 70 feet for this building instead of 120 feet building. Mr. Maguire stated that he is willing to look at other heights than the proposed 120. Mayor McGovern questioned why the Grand Junction Path construction would not occur until after Alexandria’s building is built. He asked why not do both at the same time. Mr. Maguire stated that the fastest way for the path to occur is if Alexandria built it but would need the City’s assistance to do this. He stated that Alexandria would deed the land to the City immediately and how it is built out remains to be discussed.

Attorney Rafferty stated that the model used at the Rogers Street Park was that upon the Planning Board granting of the Special Permit, the land and related design and construction fees would be conveyed. Mayor McGovern stated that to maximize the true community benefit of the path depends on making the connection to Cambridge Street and if this does not happen this diminishes what the community benefit would be.

Mayor McGovern is concerned that Alexandria would be allowed to transfer any excess GFA within 3,000 feet as stated in the petition. What is the plan and what assurance can the neighborhood be given that there would be community process? Attorney Rafferty stated that the concern over the language in the petition regarding the transfer of development rights arose early and after discussion Alexandria has concluded that it is not wise to keep this in the petition. He stated that a communication has been filed with the Planning Board and the City Clerk asking that the petition be amended, (ATTACHMENT C). Mayor McGovern asked if the plan is to push the mechanicals as far away from the community as possible. Mr. Maguire stated that Alexandria would comply with all acoustics requirements of the City for day and night time use. He stated noisy equipment has been replaced on any of their buildings.

Councillor Mallon asked if it was correct that the Grand Junction Path because of the One Kendall Square (399 Binney Street) Special Permit and part of this from Binney Street to St. Anthony’s Church already has to be part of the Grand Junction path. Attorney Rafferty stated that the earlier Special Permit that authorized the construction of 399 Binney Street, now nearing completion, does have language in it that if the City or the Grand Junction Path becomes real then the landowner would contribute the land along side of the garage for this purpose. However, it does not obligate Alexandria to undertake the construction and design of the path or payments related to how that would occur. He added that it is only a portion of the path that Alexandria is offering.

Mr. Maguire stated that the proposed path width would be increased from what was promised in the prior owners’ Special Permit where it goes down to 6 feet by the parking garage. He stated that Alexandria would increase it to 14 feet wide. He explained that a car access lane would be eliminated from the garage to create the wider lane.

Attorney Rafferty stated that the previous project’s Special Permit dealt solely with the land running along the One Kendall Square’s garage up to the St. Anthony’s land. Mr. Maguire stated that it was a substantial piece that ran from Binney Street to St. Anthony’s land. The Grand Junction pathway has a 14 feet requirement. Councillor Mallon stated that it is her understanding that the City has allocated $10 million for land acquisition, design and construction of the path, north of Binney Street.

Councillor Carlone asked the City staff to come forward. Ms. Farooq, Mr. Roberts and Ms. Glowa came forward.

Councillor Carlone stated that on Jan 29, 2019 there was a Planning Board hearing and a memo was prepared by the Community Development Department dated Jan 24, 2019 describing the situation as well as the petition (ATTACHMENT D).

Ms. Farooq stated that the Planning Board heard the Alexandria zoning petition on Jan 29, 2019. They have yet to vote to forward a recommendation to the City Council and continued their hearing. There will an additional discussion on this petition. The Planning Board decision was made based on comments heard from the public. The Planning Board asked the petitioner to consider alternative massing models on height and density. They also requested the petitioner be more thoughtful regarding the transitional nature of the site, which lies between the densely developed Kendall Square and the residential development to the north, east and west. Ms. Farooq said the City requested Alexandria work with neighbors and the amendments be more reflective of public comments.

Mr. Roberts spoke on the analysis of the zoning petition. He highlighted three parts of the overview of the petition. He stated that maps are provided outlining the site of the area that is relevant to this petition, as well as height limits. He stated that there are height bans in this district. Height limits range from 45-65 feet allowed for residential uses and 45 feet for nonresidential uses within the district. He noted that the map shows the existing heights of buildings in the area, but it is measured from the highest point of the building and includes mechanical structures on the roof. He stated that there is a summary of past planning related to the Grand Junction and a pedestrian and bike path which has been the subject of planning for quite a while. He added that there have been various updates on the path and the zoning strategy for the path, which has been the subject of engagement and outreach over the past few years to meet with community members and property owners to discuss the notion of a transfer mechanism that would provide an incentive for the creation of portions of the pathway on private land. He mentioned recent agreements with property owners along sections of the path. The agreements have come with other development zoning proposals. He stated that the third part is a summary of the urban planning that was done for this area, including the East Cambridge Planning Study - the study that established the zoning guidelines that are applicable to the site today. He noted that this area was not strictly within the Kendall Square study, but the topics raised by the proposal have some relation to some of the general issues discussed in this study. They continue to be discussed in the Envision Cambridge process. Subject include ground floor activation, open space, urban design in mixed use commercial areas, transportation, sustainability, housing, innovation space and work force development.

Councillor Zondervan questioned the relationship between building height and the mechanicals penthouse. Mr. Roberts stated that the height of buildings as defined in zoning is measured to the roof of the building. Zoning defines what is considered to be the roof of a building and what is considered to be equipment appurtenances on the roof of the building. Based on the definitions and provisions as well as sections of Article 5 of the zoning ordinance, it specifies what equipment is considered to be above the roof of the building. He stated that there may be mechanicals penthouses that might be designed to appear like they are parts of the building and the urban guidelines call of this type of treatment, but under a strict zoning definition those penthouses are considered to be above the roof. Councillor Zondervan asked how much height this adds to the actual building and if there are limits on the height. Mr. Roberts stated that there are no specific numerical limits on the heights and the height added varies based on the mechanicals and by type of the building, technology used in building and within mechanicals systems in the building. He stated that for a lab building it may be 25-35 and are lower for a residential building. Mechanicals for labs look very different.

Councillor Carlone stated that the available space Alexandria can offer for the Grand Junction right of way is relatively narrow because of the desired need for buffers. Ms. Farooq stated that the dimensions are what are needed for the path and agreed that it does include some functional buffers. Councillor Carlone stated that the zoning for adjacent commercial (45’) allows less height than the buildings built in the last 10-15 years. He stated that existing buildings at Fulkerson/Binney Street are 70 feet, but the zoning does not allow this at the Alexandria site.

Mr. Roberts stated that zoning was changed as part of the ECAP Study and the City-Wide rezoning changed the height limits in the commercial districts. The existing buildings on Binney/Fulkerson Street were permitted prior to the zoning change.

Councillor Carlone open public comment at 6:36pm.

Jose Luis Rojas, 19 Cornelius Way, shared four pieces of information useful in evaluation of the proposal. He stated that an on-line petition was started in opposition to this proposal. He stated that there were 125 signatories of the on-line petition. He read three comments from individual from the on-line petition.

➢ “This is a giveaway to developers. what is zoning for if individual developers get special treatment? If the City is going to the developers what they want, the city must get something of real value in return-equal to what is being given to the developers.”

➢ As a Cambridge home owner for ten years I welcome biotech in the area but am firmly opposed to the construction of towers that will diminish the character and architecture of the neighborhood and lower the quality of life for my family, friends and neighbors. Please oppose this construction and help maintain the gem of neighborhood we have.

➢ I live in the area and do not want the neighborhood to become an extension of Kendall Square. This is a residential area (ATTACHMENT E)

Mr. Rojas stated that the Planning Board agreed this is a transitional area and wanted a plan that keeps this area transitional and the building should conform to buildings on Fulkerson Street at 70 feet; not 120 feet. He questioned the statement that the Cambridge Street Grand Junction section has more difficult ownership and stated that there are only two owners, Alexandria and the Church.

Janice St. Clair, 3 Michael Way, stated that she lives in property that borders the Metropolitan Pipe site. The 45 feet allowed by zoning plus mechanicals is twice the size of the neighboring houses that peak at 25 feet. She stated that a skyscraper of 160 feet, including the estimated height of mechanicals, is outrageous. The request to use the FAR of the land, including donated land, is outrageous. She stated that to ask for any unused FAR to be transferable within 3,000 feet of the property without further oversight was outrageous and holding the Grand Junction pathway strip hostage to these terms is outrage. She stated that she believes that we are meant to be outraged. This is gross manipulation meant to make further “concessions” in the amended petition looks as if they have responded to the surrounding neighborhood concerns. She noted that Alexandria has already agreed to remove the 3,000-foot FAR request from their proposal. However, the concern stated repeatedly during this process is that any change to the zoning of this transitional area between the residential area and the cluster of bio towers is highly inappropriate. She stated that Alexandria knew the height of property when they purchased it and can still make a profit by staying within the current zoning. She stated that the second concern is that any increase in the height of a building next door to homes and yards would “shatter the character of the neighborhood where we raise our children, flowers and vegetables.” A third concern is tying this strip of land for the Grand Junction pathway to development puts undue pressure on the City to grant concessions to the developer, to the great detriment to neighbors. She noted that Alexandria has no other use for the strip of land. She stated that a Grand Junction path would enhance commutes to their buildings and add beauty and value to their property. This should be a gift. The fourth concern is that any up zoned FAR transferring to One Kendall Square garage complex would result in other buildings that tower over homes and yard creating further issues. She stated that the fifth issue is that traffic is congested (ATTACHMENT F).

Susanne Blier, 5 Fuller Place, stated that the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association, reached out to other neighborhoods. She stated that the East Cambridge Neighborhood Association has grave concerns with the height, setback and lack of housing in the proposal. She stated that there are enormous differences between a 45-foot building and 120 feet. She did not know why a special permit would be allowed for this. She referred to twenty residents who opposed the proposal at the Planning Board hearing and how at the end of the hearing the Planning Board Chair was also opposed until CDD staff asked for a continuation. She commented that the residents need to be considered and the Planning Board respect the processes. She stated her support for unions and 9,500 housing units have been built in the City. She spoke about the urban form dimension of the Envision plan. One of the primary goals of the plan is to add routes between places in Cambridge. The city designated $10 million in place for this. Ms. Blier urged the City Council to listen to residents of the City.

Stephen Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street spoke about up zoning in the Envision proposal and how the same legal arguments and concerns apply to Alexandria. He spoke about Article 7 of the Declaration of Rights in the state constitution. He stated that the role of government is to serve the common good and not the profit of special interests. He stated that developers are in this class of special interests and could profit from government actions. He stated that Policy Order #6 asked what the payments for mitigation from developers should be when they benefit from up zoning. He stated that up zoning is not prohibited by Article 7 but only the profiting by special interests. He stated that legal up zoning could be allowed if developers contributed 100% of their profits from up zoning to the City. He stated that resolving the legal issue being the most important issue for Alexandria, Envision and city government. He questioned whether the City Council can continue to consider zoning petitions that may be in violation of Article 7 and run the risk of a decision by a court of law for violation of Article 7 and it would require the withdrawal of zoning. He noted that years ago he raised the issue of Article 7 issue and if a downzoning were approved the City should pay damages for the loss of land value. He noted that up zoning would increase property values and those increases should be paid back to the City. He spoke about a treatise on Article 7 and would welcome this. (ATTACHMENT G).

Vincent Muraca, 39A Park Avenue, stated that he is a graduate of CRLS in 1980 and served in the US Army. He stated that he joined the laborers local in 1988 and is currently a labor steward for seventeen years and stated that this project is a wonderful project and will benefit Cambridge. He approves the project.

Leroy Ward, 8 Marvin Place, member of Local 151 stated his support for the rezoning because of the employment aspect of the proposal. He noted that Alexandria agreed to consider lowering the height of their proposal.

Anderson Lima, 566 Windsor Street, a member of local 151, stated his support for the project because the work will enable him to provide for his family.

Matthew Connolly, 13 Cornelius Way, a member of the Linden Park Association, spoke about the impact of the building, the FAR and height. He spoke about the importance of the Grand Junction pathway. He said it should be built and as quickly as possible. The concerns of the residents for this proposal has nothing to do with the pathway. He commented that the way to build the pathway is for the city to actually build the pathway. He stated that the benefits proposed by Alexandria are not what they seem. He stated that there will be a building on this site regardless if it is under the current zoning or the heightened zoning. Either way there will be good jobs and economic development. He stated that this proposal does not need to be approved to achieve these benefits. He spoke about the benefit to the developer for the up zoning. He stated that there was a question about how the value of up zoning for the developer is determined and how it compares with what the community will get. He suggested that the way to do this is to look at the value of lab space in the area. He stated that 1 Kendall sold for $1,124 per square foot. He stated that if the value of this property is considered under current zoning Alexandria’s building is worth about $180 million. He stated that the value of the up zoning is about $300 million. When compared to the 8-foot wide space that Alexandria is giving next to the train tracks and the hair salon purchased on Cambridge Street, the City is falling way short. He stated that more work needs to be done. (ATTACHMENT H).

Mark Ford, 57 Gore Street, stated that he has worked on Alexandria projects on Binney Street and Tech Square area. He stated that Alexandria is a very responsible developer. He stated his support for this project in his neighborhood.

George Schneeloch, 81 School Street, Somerville, stated that he would like to see the petition go forward to get the Grand Junction path built so that people could travel from Boston to Somerville. He asked how many cars would be taken off road by building this path. He stated that the major objection is the height of the building and he hopes that there is compromise regarding height. The Grand Junction would be built quicker with Alexandria spending the money to build the path. The construction of the path needs to start as soon as possible in time to connect to the Somerville community path which will be completed in 2021.

David Borrus, 126 Harvey Street, Business Manager of NE Carpenters Pile Drivers Local 56, spoke in favor of the overlay district. He stated that Alexandria has been a good partner for development for the City and community. He stated that Alexandria has provided good jobs, benefits and wages for his members to live in dignity. He noted that he has two sons that have gone through the Cambridge public schools. He stated that of the 375 potential jobs, one out of 6 will be an apprentice position. He stated that Cambridge does a wonderful job educating its youth but with Harvard and MIT there is a push and momentum for students to go into college and college is not for everyone and can often be pathway to debt and disappointment. He commented that apprenticeship jobs are great for students who are not going to college and a good opportunity for students and more construction workers could live in Cambridge. He supported the long-term social economic benefits for having opportunities for Cambridge residents.

Josh Drayton, 36A Rice Street, Carpenters Local 328, stated that he is young professional from an apprentice program and is excited about more jobs. He stated that he and his daughter are physically-oriented and want to use the path. He wanted more jobs for his community.

Shon McHugh, 92 Spring Street, spoke about the benefits of the job opportunities that Alexandria will bring to the community. He stated that a turning point in his life happened four years ago with his first job with Alexandria and it has benefited his life. He stated that it started a career for him with Local 328. He stated his support for the proposal.

Chris Correa, 19 Plymouth Street, stated that this site is 500 feet from his current residence. He stated that he is representing Carpenters Local 328 in support of this project. He stated that the Metropolitan Pipe site is and has been an eyesore. He stated that this proposal would be a great addition to the neighborhood regardless of the height. He felt that there will be a compromise that will please everyone. He stated that a project like this will ensure that he can continue to live in Cambridge for at least the next four years. He hopes 375 jobs will go to Cambridge residents who live in city.

Nancy Tsung, Cornelius Way, spoke about the existing traffic jams in Cambridge. She asked how Alexandria will help to solve the traffic jams. People have a different perspective when you do not live in this area and that close to the proposed project (ATTACHMENT I).

John Sansone, Co-founder of the Friends of the Grand Junction path, launched in 2012, stated that progress for Grand Junction has been a long time coming. He stated that one portion was created for walking and biking, the stretch between Main and Broadway. He spoke about the progress made on the Grand Junction to date. This stretch from Cambridge to Binney Street has always been an issue. He stated that the obstacles are the patchwork of land ownership that Alexandria has encountered and started to address. He stated that the physical limitation of building a path in the Grand Junction corridor are not enormous. He stated that the land ownership and control association aspect has been identified as the biggest problem areas. He stated that this is an opportunity for collaboration that the City ought to seek and to take advantage of, including development which considers the transportation context such as building transit-oriented density for jobs or housing. He stated there are many specific considerations to be made on this specific site. The Friends of Grand Junction path are more optimistic now than before due to Alexandria’s efforts.

Pamela Van Dort, 13 Cornelius Way, urged review of the Jan 24, 2019 letter from the Linden Park Residents Association, that sets forth the concerns (ATTACHMENT J-1). She stated that Alexandria referred to the Amgen building as an anchor building tying it to their proposal. She stated that the 399 Binney Street building would be a more comparable building and is more in line with the character than having a commercial lab space that could be profitable and good for the developer and also meet the needs of the residents. She stated that she doesn’t like how the bike path is tied to the Alexandria proposal. This petition does not say that Alexandria will develop the bike path. It states that Alexandria will provide the land. She spoke about the FAR being doubled from 1.25 to 2.5. It is higher because it includes the entire pathway land in addition to the development land in the calculation. This is too dense a building for this transitional area. She spoke about the value of land and the revenue that will be generated by Alexandria. She cited the average rental space for bio labs in Kendall Square is $85.10 per square foot. She stated that based on the CDD proposal there is roughly 305,000 additional gross square feet that this proposal, but some may not be rentable space it would still lead to $300 million a year in revenue from this up zoning. She stated that in exchange the City is only offered a few feet of pathway and not even the development of the pathway. This is not a fair balance (ATTACHMENT J-2).

John Goodman, 8 Fairmont Avenue, stated that something will be built and there will be jobs. He stated that what is happening now is there are negotiations. He noted that Alexandria would like to do a land swap with Eversource. It is unclear why the Grand Junction path is on the west side of railroad track rather than the east side where the rest of Grand Junction path is. He urged city to hold their ground and make sure that this is a plan that works for all.

Greg Pollack, 10 James Way, stated that the arguments for this proposal centered around two issues: the completion of the Grand Junction bike path and the construction jobs created. He stated that the residents of this neighborhood are in support of building something on the site and the jobs it would create, but within the current transitional zoning as established by the ECAPS Plan. He stated that if the City does not abide by the considerations of the Plan then spot zoning leads to a more chaotic circumstance. He noted that all are in favor of the construction of the bike path, but it is a matter of how this transaction is proceeding in order to facilitate the construction of the bike path. He commented that Alexandria has purchased one piece of property and is in negotiation for another for the purposes of facilitating this process. He stated that it seems as if this is a bribe, not for an individual Councillor, but to the City as a whole because it is a transaction that is brought in that is unrelated. He requested that the City keep this under the current zoning restrictions at the time and find ways to get the Grand Junction bike way completed.

James Coughlin, 10 Putnam Gardens, member of Carpenters Local 328, stated his support for the Alexandria project.

Isabel Caceres, 6 Cornelius Way, stated that she has been a resident of the Linden Park area for twenty years. She expressed her strong opposition to this outrageous proposal. She stated that this proposal is detrimental to the character and physical betterment of the community and will create a precedent to be repeated in this transitional area. She supports the Grand Junction. Alexandria proposed up zoning to manipulate the decision of the City Council. The Planning Board stated that the two need to be assessed separately. She noted that the small strip of land that Alexandria will donate for the Grand Junction will be to the detriment of neighboring residents. She requested that the current zoning be kept in this transitional area and protect the character of the surrounding community.

Charles Hinds, 207 Charles Street, speaking on behalf of East Cambridge Planning Team President, read a portion of a letter he presented at the Planning Board hearing on Jan 29, 2019. He stated that the building presented by Alexandria is for 325 Binney Street, but if you look the massing it is really a Fulkerson Street project. He stated that the proposal would triple the height from the current zoning and double the existing density by increasing the FAR to 2.5 for the Industrial-A parcel. He stated that the major concern at the Dec 12, 2018 neighborhood meeting was the height of the building because the Linden Park neighborhood is comprised of two-story residential structures. He stated that Alexandria was requested to reduce their proposed height and Alexandria developed a step-down model in response. He noted that this is the worst design alternative and Alexandria agreed because it is closer to the residences (125 feet at one point). He stated that at the Jan 23, 2019 meeting there was concern expressed about both the Eversource and Alexandria projects. He stated that after deliberation by the ECPT, including the Linden Park residents, they agreed to oppose the zoning as currently filed for the following reasons:

The height and density of the buildings are out of proportion with the buildings on the northern side of Binney Street and Fulkerson Street. He stated that on the northern side of Binney Street, the existing heights are lower at 65-75 feet. This was done intentionally to make the transition to the neighborhood.

The impact of the two-story residential homes in Linden Parking includes shade, shadow, mechanical noise, light from the building at night and changes in the look and feel of the neighborhood, which is a residential C-1 neighborhood.

The Grand Junction path should not be considered appropriate mitigation for this project. He noted that if Alexandria does gift the path to the City, construction of the path should not be considered mitigation for this project.

The East Cambridge Planning Team requested that Eversource’s proposed Power Plant, which is not addressed in the zoning, find another location for the station. This will have a profoundly negative effect on the area. He stated that Eversource is looking for a better location for the station and if another location is found Alexandria has expressed an interest in purchasing this parcel. He urged the Ordinance Committee not to support proposed amendment as written (ATTACHMENT K).

Steven Aliano, 7 Montgomery Street, stated that he is a life-long Cambridge resident and an eighteen-year union member. He stated that Alexandria is the perfect fit to bring project forward.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, spoke for the Cambridge Residents Alliance, in opposition to this petition for height, density and the transition aspect. She stated that the Cambridge Residents Alliance supports the Grand Junction pathway, but it should not be exchanged for this petition, which is oversized and too close to the homes of residents. The decision on this petition should be independent of the bike path. She stated that this is what the Planning Board stated at its hearing. She highlighted the Envision Plan’s statement that there should be an intermediate sense of scale created between adjacent activities that support the transition zone. She noted that existing zoning indicates that buildings north of Binney Street should be shorter than those south of Binney Street. She stated that the CResA opposes any increase in zoning. Granting this petition would set a bad precedent for allowing other towers to border other residential neighborhoods across the City. The Planning Board at this hearing was negative about the proposal and was going to give the petition a negative recommendation until CDD staff explained that the Planning Board could not consider a revised petition for up to two years. She further stated that the Planning Board also noted that most of the benefits to the City would happen regardless of the size of the building built. She stated that the CResA would like to see more housing in Kendall Square to accommodate the  number of jobs added in Kendall Square. She also noted that more housing was a top Envision Plan priority. She stated that the parcel is zoned to have greater density and height for housing and the CResA would support an appropriate residential building for this location that would impact existing residents less. She commented that the open space between the proposed 120 feet tower and an electrical substation is not beneficial or useful to anyone as planned. She requested that the City Council request the petition to preserve all trees on the site until the Tree Ordinance is revised. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT L).

Lino Becerra, 6 Cornelius Way, spoke about what is missing is a discussion about the current zoning and why it is not working. He requested clear reasons why Alexandria cannot respect this zoning. He stated that this is all about the money and this needs to be put into context. He stated that in taxes paid to the City, Alexandria represents 2.1% of the revenues received by the City. He spoke about the revenue that would be received by Alexandria and if it is worth the impact to the lives of residents and changing the character of a neighborhood.

Ilan Levy, 148 Spring Street, asked why Cambridge is being requested to consider an increase in zoning, which is different from current zoning in an area that is completely transitional from Binney Street into the East Cambridge neighborhood. He stated that for the last ten years the City continued to permit zoning increases for Alexandria and many other real estate companies and neighbors were told that they would have no impact on the neighborhoods. There are benefits, which we have not seen concretely. He stated that the Rogers Street Park hasn’t happened; the Foundry is still stuck in the quagmire of getting built. He stated that the benefits that East Cambridge received is an increase in traffic, more noise, light pollution and a decrease in the quality of life. Eversource and a fire station are being proposed for Fulkerson Street. He added information about the addition of a fire station. He stated that Eversource has purchased the property adjacent to Alexandria because of the increased need for energy for Kendall Square. He stated that this energy needs to be located somewhere and the only spot left is right next door to the Kennedy Longfellow School. The City planned for a fire station during conversations with Eversource and Alexandria. This is considered spot zoning. He asked the City to do planning and consider the entirety of the area rather than one particular parcel for an increase in density.

Matthew Nehs, 15 Cornelius Way, stated that the decisions made for the City today will echo many years beyond and are important for those who will come after us. He spoke about looking out his window at the most horrendous building every built, the Sullivan Court House and Jail. He stated that this building could not have been built with any significant foresight. It was built in 1971 and he asked what they were thinking building this. He stated that one does not need to be an architect to recognize ascetics and this current proposed petition/building defy urban design and aesthetics. He stated that the scale of the building based on existing zoning is appropriate for the neighborhood. The only thing towering over the neighborhood should be mature oak trees or will they look up to a looming bio tower and wonder fifty years ago from today what were they thinking.

Joel Fishman, 1 James Way, stated that he does not care about the bike path and it is not much of a bargaining chip. He stated that unless the railroad tracks are removed it is an unpleasant place. He stated that the trains idle and is an ugly site. He stated that there is a connection for bikes between Binney Street and Cambridge Street by using the dedicated cycle track on Fulkerson Street. He stated that there is not a pressing need for the bike path. He spoke about the height of building and the shadow of the pork chop park that will be created by this building. He stated that the park and athletic field attached to the Kennedy School will now be in shadow. He spoke about how bad the scale of pollution in the area has become. He stated that the neighborhood is surrounded by three major construction projects and all emit diesel fumes eight hours a day. He noted that Cardinal Medeiros is supposed to be a truck free route and there has been no enforcement of this for over six years. He spoke about the proposed density and the fact that there will be more cars and trucks coming into the neighborhood. This proposed building is planted right on the edge of a residential area. He stated that there is no reason for something of this density to be right up against a residential area. He urged the City Council to deny this petition.

Hi-Jen Huang, 18 Cornelius Way, stated his opposition to the petition. He stated that the current zoning should be reviewed so that it creates a nicer development, provides jobs and preserves the character of the neighborhood. He stated that air pollution is a major concern. He added that lab buildings are a specific type of building that have negative impacts to the livable character of the area, including light pollution and pollution without visible smoke. He urged the City Council to consider the opposition of residents on this proposal.

Mynor Perez, 1137 Massachusetts Avenue, stated that he is a first immigrant from Guatemala and spoke about the opportunity for apprenticeship for the Carpenters Union. Without the union he would have no future. He spoke about the apprentice program and those in these programs who do not have high school diplomas. He stated that projects like this help this population to address economic inequality. He stated that unions are the only pathway into the middle class. He stated his support for the zoning petition and urged the City Council to support it.

Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street, spoke about not wanting overwhelming buildings built next to domestic housing. He stated that Alexandria should have been told that they cannot do this in this area because of the domestic housing. He stated that it is a matter of education and common sense.

Councillor Carlone moved to close public comment at 7:42pm.

Councillor Carlone briefly spoke before asking the City Council for their comments.

Councillor Carlone stated during the Volpe rezoning during which MITIMCO gave part of the Grand Junction, there were a series of meetings between Co-chairs of the Ordinance Committee, staff from CDD and the petitioner. Carlone stated that this may happen with this petition.

Councillor Toomey stated that dialogue needs to continue because of the major concerns of the height, density and mitigation proposal. He stated that the Volpe process was productive, and he hopes that something similar can occur with these discussions moving forward.

Vice Mayor Devereux noted that she appreciated that the Planning Board hearings are video recorded. The Planning Board was ready to reject Alexandria’s petition, but it was continued on advice of the staff. Devereux stated that Hugh Russell asked why the burden is put on residents through up zonings to pay for things that are public benefits. She commented that Ted Cohen raised the point that the planning aspects of this building needs to be separated from the Grand Junction path and that the City could use eminent domain. She spoke about tools for the City Council to appropriately evaluate the financial and other benefits of up zoning. She stated that the incremental value information should be calculated and provided to the City Council as future staff memos. She stated that the City Council is doing contract zoning with the up zoning and the City Council does not have this information. She stated that the staff should provide this information so that the City Council is not negotiating blind. She stated that she understands the desire for more jobs, especially for Cambridge residents to access union jobs. She stated that there is no shortage of construction jobs in the City. She stated that if continual up zoning is the pathway to economic opportunity the entire City will be up zoned. She stated that she wanted FAR to be calculated without the Path. She stated that this petition is not ready for prime time.

Councillor Carlone stated that the Planning Board chair did not want the petition to move forward and wanted a negative recommendation. Other Planning Board members wanted the height changed, especially closer to the residential edge. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the Planning Board was not ready to forward the petition with a favorable recommendation as submitted.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the entire piece of land should be reviewed and the Eversource substation should be included in the evaluation. He asked if there is a plan to put a fire station on Fulkerson Street. Councillor Carlone stated that if the land is provided the City will decide how it would be used and could consider a fire station at this location. He stated that the so-called “Pork Chop” park was supposed to be a fire station location, but the decision was changed twenty years ago.

Councillor Toomey stated that there was a fire station in Kendall Square and it was closed, and he opposed this closing in the l990s. If land is provided to the City, the City administration, with the consent of the City Council, will determine what is the beneficial use for the land deeded to the City.

Councillor Zondervan stated the XO Communication building/site will remain. He wanted the whole zone reviewed as one piece rather than where Alexandria wants to build. Councillor Carlone stated that the petition is what is before the Ordinance Committee. Councillor Zondervan suggested that planning be included in this conversation and get guidance from CDD in the future. He said this is a great opportunity to develop the Grand Junction site. He agrees that the proposal before us now is not ready for prime time. He wanted an updated version that addresses the concerns of the neighbors. He stated that he is optimistic that this can be resolved. He addressed the jobs issue, and this does bring up the bigger question on economic justice. He stated that what is before the Ordinance Committee is too much building.

Councillor Siddiqui commented that the word “Envision” is not in the CDD memo. A summary of past planning work was received, but a summary of what this means for the future in the context of Envision would be helpful to make the decision. She spoke about legal issues on rezoning and spot zoning. She wanted the issue of spot zoning cleared up for her and clearing up any potential claims would be helpful to the City Council. This will be developed into something, but the City Council needs to understand the tradeoffs. This petition is premature, and residents have asked for a lower height.

Mayor McGovern stated that the City Council is not ready to move on this. He stated that Alexandria has a legal right to petition for up zoning and the City Council has a legal obligation to hear the petition. He stated that this is the process for any landowner. He spoke about the community benefits. He stated that the focus of benefit is on the Grand Junction, but he said $6 million in linkage fees will go to creating and preserving affordable housing and as well as $88 million in tax revenue. There are more benefits than just the Grand Junction path. There are multiple benefits from this petition.

Councillor Mallon stated that everyone agrees that this is not ready for prime time. She stated that the tradeoffs are too high between the up zoning and what the City gets. She stated that lots of work needs to be done. She spoke about reaching a resolution. She stated that a building will be built, jobs will be provided, and Grand Junction path will be built, and she is looking forward to the future on this.

Councillor Carlone stated that less than 1/2 of building square footage is allowed under the current zoning. He noted that additional public benefits are in discussion.

Councillor Carlone asked Mr. Maguire and Ms. Farooq to come to table and speak about regrouping for additional working meetings on this petition before another meeting is scheduled before the Ordinance Committee. Ms. Farooq agreed to meet with the proponent and discuss the options and the work to be done. Ms. Farooq stated that the Planning Board suggested that the proponents meet with the neighbors and this is work that Alexandria may need to do in addition to these discussions. Mr. Maguire agreed to meet and wanted appropriate staff for architectural design and analysis to attend. He wanted someone in opposition to be in this meeting.

Mayor McGovern moved to keep the matter in committee but keep the subject matter before the Ordinance Committee. The motion carried on a voice vote of six members.

Councillor Carlone and Councillor Kelley thanked all those present for their attendance.

The following communications were received and made part of the record:

A communication from Piotr Mitros transmitting his strong opposition to the petition (ATTACHMENT M).

A communication from Marie Elena Saccoccio, 55 Otis Street, transmitting concerns for up zoning for a giant lab building, draft requirements for lab building structures (ATTACHMENT N).

A communication from Tony Lechuga, Program Manager, LivableStreets, 70 Pacific Street, in support of the community benefit proposed by Alexandria for the creation of a multi-use path along the Grand Junction rail corridor (ATTACHMENT O).

A communication from Galen Mook, Executive Director, MassBike, in support of the planned development of the Grand Junction community path (ATTACHMENT P).

A communication from Sheli Wortis, 106 Berkshire Street, regarding who actually benefits from up zoning and in support of the opposition expressed by residents (ATTACHMENT Q).

A communication from Robert V. Travers, Jr. 54 Fulkerson Street, urging the City Council to work with Alexandria to lower the height of the development (ATTACHMENT R).

A communication from Jason Alves, Executive Director, East Cambridge Business Association, in support of the intentions of the Grand Junction Overlay petition submitted by Alexandria (ATTACHMENT S).

The hearing adjourned at 8:06pm by Mayor.

For the Committee,
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair
Councillor Craig Kelley, Co-Chair