4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a letter written by Community Representative and former Mayor Henrietta Davis to Secretary of Transportation Stephanie Pollack regarding the Allston I-90 project.
Placed on File

May 22, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am transmitting a copy of a letter written by Community Representative and former Mayor Henrietta Davis, in her capacity as representative to the Allston I-90 project Task Force, to Secretary of Transportation Stephanie Pollack. Ms. Davis has worked with other members of the Cambridgeport neighborhood, as well as City of Cambridge officials to identify issues of concern to Cambridge residents, as specific requests to MassDOT and suggested solutions for them to include in the on-going preparation of the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Report expected in the fall of 2017.

The letter includes seven topic areas which are important points that must be analyzed and addressed as the project moves forward. These include:

1. Support for integrated, balanced transportation system: commit to public transportation improvements in the project area;
2. Access to Cambridge from Soldiers Field Road: DOT should study 3 options (sketch plans of two additional options attached) and defer exit ramp decision;
3. The complex system of roads served by river street and western avenue bridges: undertake comprehensive study with design options;
4. Analyze "Throat" designs (adjacent to the Grand Junction railroad bridge): analyze for full impacts on Cambridge;
5. Noise: share methodology and provide resources for analysis;
6. Parklands and pathways along the Charles River: enhance our major riverfront environment as part of the I-90 process; and
7. Construction impacts: plan for noise and traffic mitigation measures.

The Allston I-90 project, managed by MassDOT, will create a new neighborhood adjacent to Cambridge and has the potential have great benefits but may also affect Cambridge residents in many ways. I appreciate the effort that Ms. Davis and her neighbors have taken in crafting this letter, which I endorse.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $20,000,000 to provide funds for various water pollution abatement projects, including construction of sewer separation, storm water management and combined sewer overflow reduction elimination improvements within the City’s Alewife Watershed, Cambridgeport neighborhood, and the Port neighborhood. The question comes on adoption on or after May 8, 2017.
Order Adopted 8-0-1

8. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $4,000,000 to provide funds for the reconstruction of various City streets and sidewalks. The question comes on adoption on or after May 15, 2017.
Order Adopted 8-0-1

9. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $2,000,000 to provide funds for various School building infrastructure projects including roof repairs at the Fletcher Maynard Academy, and a new boiler at an elementary school. The question comes on adoption on or after May 8, 2017.
Order Adopted 8-0-1

10. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $5,000,000 to provide funds for the Municipal Facilities Improvement Plan. The question comes on adoption on or after May 8, 2017.
Order Adopted 8-0-1

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     May 22, 2017
MAYOR SIMMONS
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: The Allston I-90 project, managed by MassDOT, will create a new neighborhood adjacent to Cambridge and has the potential to have great benefits but may also affect Cambridge in significant ways including traffic impacts and increasing noise problems; and
WHEREAS: MassDOT is engaged in on-going preparation of the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Report expected in the fall of 2017; and
WHEREAS: The following seven topic areas be fully analyzed and addressed:

1. Support for an integrated, balanced transportation system: committing to public transportation improvements in the project area;
2. Access to Cambridge from Soldiers Field Road: DOT should study 3 options and defer exit ramp decision;
3. Study the complex system of roads served by River Street and Western Avenue bridges: undertake comprehensive study with design options; and
4. Analyze “Throat” designs (adjacent to the Grand Junction railroad bridge): analyze for multiple impacts on Cambridge;
5. Noise: share methodology and provide resources for analysis;
6. Parklands and pathways along the Charles River: enhance major riverfront environment as part of the I-90 process; and
7. Construction impacts: plan for noise and traffic mitigation measures; now therefore be it

ORDERED: That the City Council go on record endorsing the letter of Community Representative and former Mayor Henrietta Davis to Secretary of Transportation Stephanie Pollack regarding the Allston I-90 project, prepared in consultation with the community and City of Cambridge officials; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to transmit the letter from City Manager Louis A. DePasquale (Agenda Item Number 6 of May 22, 2017) along with a copy of this Council Order to Secretary of Transportation Stephanie Pollack on behalf of the City Council.

O-2     May 22, 2017  Amended, Charter Right - Toomey
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: As commercial development continues to boom throughout the Greater Boston Metropolitan Area, Cambridge and neighboring communities face the same affordable housing struggle; and
WHEREAS: In the City of Somerville, officials are fighting to maintain and expand their affordable housing stock; and
WHEREAS: For years, Somerville has provided fertile economic conditions for construction and development; and
WHEREAS: Likewise, community leaders believe the development community should serve as a willing partner in efforts to help improve the affordable housing situation; and
WHEREAS: In Cambridge, officials recognize the value that inclusionary affordable housing plays in the health of a vibrant and livable city; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge also understands that affordable housing is a regional issue, whereby all communities have a shared interest in improving the standard of living for residents; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the Cambridge City Council stand in support of Somerville officials, like Alderman Matthew McLaughlin, in their efforts to achieve 20% affordable housing in all development projects; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to Somerville Alderman Matthew McLaughlin the Somerville Aldermen on behalf of the entire City Council.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, to which was referred the GENERAL FUND BUDGET for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2018 in the amount of $568,246,680 held public hearings on this matter on May 2, 2017 and May 10, 2017 commencing at 9:00am and on May 9, 2017 commencing at 6:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

THE FINANCE COMMITTEE has referred the GENERAL FUND BUDGET for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2018 in the sum $568,246,680 to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation.

For the Committee,
Councillor Marc McGovern, Chair

Committee Report #2
THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, to which was referred the WATER FUND for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2018 in the amount of $13,973,850 held a public hearing on this matter on May 10, 2017 commencing at 9:00am in the Sullivan Chamber.

THE FINANCE COMMITTEE has referred the WATER FUND for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2018 to the full City Council for the adoption of the enclosed order in the total amount of $13,973,850.

For the Committee,
Councillor Marc McGovern, Chair

Committee Report #3
THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, to which was referred the PUBLIC INVESTMENT FUND for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2018 in the amount of $19,912,815 held a public hearing on this matter on May 10, 2017 commencing at 9:00am in the Sullivan Chamber.

THE FINANCE COMMITTEE has referred the PUBLIC INVESTMENT FUND for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2018 to the full City Council for the adoption of the enclosed order in the total amount of $19,912,815.

For the Committee,
Councillor Marc McGovern, Chair

Committee Report #4
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Wed, May 3, 2017 at 3:36 PM in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a zoning petition from Mark Lechmere, LLC, Owner and Amadan Management, LLC, Manager, of the property at 207 and 227 Cambridge Street to amend the existing zoning at that location to authorize the construction of a 45 unit residential building with small scale retail on the ground floor and parking below grade.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Maher; Councillor Mazen; Councillor Toomey; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning and Development, CDD; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were Attorney James Rafferty; Damien Chadians; Robert & Daniel Korff; David Chilinski, PCA; and Shan Li, PCA; Carole Bellew, 257 Charles Street; Jules Kobek, 69R Gore Street; Charles Hinds, 2071/2 Charles Street; Marie and Betty Lee Saccoccio, 55 Otis Street; Kathleen Randell, 58 1/2 Spring Street; Dennis Ferrick, 25 Gore Street; Alan Greene, 82 Fifth Street; Bill Dines, 69 Otis Street; Jim Clarksson, 20 Second Street; Paul Fiore, 98 Otis Street; and Peter Crawley, 88 Thorndike Street.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He stated that the hearing is being recorded both audio and visually, privately and publicly. He highlighted the format of the meeting: Petitioners will be heard first and will give a PowerPoint Presentation, City Council ask questions of the petitioners, City Staff will present their findings, public comment and then final questions and comments from the City Council.

He noted the e-mails received from the following persons:

Mary-Ann Donofrio, 120 Gore Street, in opposition to the zoning proposal and the large development planned for this area (ATTACHMENT A).

Ilan Levy, 148 Spring Street, urging the dismissal of the zoning proposal submitted by Mark Lechmere regarding 207 and 227 Cambridge Street (ATTACHMENT B).

Peter Crawley, President, ECPT, transmitting a letter in support of the proposal dated Nov 29, 2016 and a memo dated Apr 28, 2017 from the ECPT 205-225 Cambridge Street Subcommittee in support of the design with three conditions (ATTACHMENT C).

Jason Alves, Executive Director, East Cambridge Business Association, in support of the petitioners attempt to create a building that has an engaging facade, provides new residential units to Cambridge Street and produces new ground floor retail opportunities that can serve the neighborhood and enhance the business corridor (ATTACHMENT D).

Audrey A. Cunningham, 49 Gore Street, noting that the neighborhood favored the CVS originally proposed by the developer (ATTACHMENT E).

Councillor Carlone asked the petitioners to come forward and present their petition.

Attorney James Rafferty, 675 Massachusetts Avenue, stated that he represented the petitioner, Mark Development or Mark Lechmere LLC, the property owner. He introduced the petitioners.

A PowerPoint Presentation was given (ATTACHMENT F). This is a zoning petition that seeks to amend a one block section of Cambridge Street between Third and Second Street and to rezone it from Business A to newly created Business A5 zoning district. He explained that this petition comes before the Ordinance Committee after many months of working with the East Cambridge community about the redevelopment of the site. He stated that when the petitioner, Mr. Korff, purchased the property it was his intention to construct a CVS retail store in this location. This proposal was approximately 12,000 square feet and the use was allowed as-of-right. It was below the dimensional requirements of the district. The process began in January 2016. The petitioners met with the East Cambridge Planning Team (ECPT) and the CVS building was presented and would involve removing two the structures currently on the site, a bank at the corner of Cambridge and Third Streets and a structure at 207 Cambridge that is a wood framed structure with ground floor retail with residential apartments above. In January 2016 the developer sought approval to remove both buildings and construct the CVS Pharmacy at this location. This proposal was reviewed with the ECPT, who voted against it.

Neighbors strongly felt that the bank was worth preserving. There was also a consensus that a building of this size was not consistent with the streetscape retail frontages along Cambridge Street. There were subsequent proposals for the CVS that continued through May 2016 with two additional meetings with the ECPT. He explained that the second proposal included retaining the bank building and making it a part of the new CVS. It became apparent that after many months of engagement and discussion that there was no enthusiasm for a CVS. He stated that Mr. Korff business includes the development of retail business buildings. Mr. Korff was asked and agreed to explore a different approach for this site. The site zoned as Business A allows for mixed use zoning and allows for 45 dwelling units with a height of 45 feet.

Mr. Rafferty spoke about the experience at the Masse site at Walden and Sherman Streets. In this case an as of right scheme was not well received. There was an effort to build consensus around a zoning amendment that would yield a more preferable outcome. Mr. Korff retained a new architect, Mr. Chilinski, who is based in Inman Square. The new proposal has ground floor retail and 55 units of residential dwelling units. This proposal was shared with the ECPT which decided to form a subcommittee to review the proposal and design. He noted that meetings began with the subcommittee to refine the plan to see if something consistent could be agreed to with less units and less mass. This process began in June 2016 and for 4 months a working group appointed by the ECPT worked on a revision which resulted in the proposal that is before the Ordinance Committee today. The effort yields a particular building that Mr. Chilinski will share with the committee.

He outlined to the committee the three principle changes contained in the amendment are. He stated that this distinguishes Business-A5 from current Business-A zoning. The first is an increase in the current FAR from 1.75 to 2.15. This increase in the FAR is what allows the 10,000 square feet to be constructed on this lot. This 10,000 square feet will be limited to ground floor retail. The zoning restricts the size of any one retail space to 4,500 square feet. He added that this is seen in the plans by Mr. Chilinski. He stated that the second dimensional modification contained in the zoning amendment is that there is an impact on the height. It is proposed that a building in this district could have and additional three feet in height from 45 to 48 feet providing that the additional height is used to accommodate greater floor height in the retail space. This, he noted, is a planning concept that emerged several years ago from a previous zoning petition for North Massachusetts Avenue. This is an effort to create optimal retail space at the ground floor level. The third modification involves the back of the site. The committee had concerns with the Gore Street edge of the property and to have the appropriate bulk and mass across the street with a 35 feet height district. This will limit the height of the building on Gore Street to three stories high.

He stated that the base building is ground floor retail with three stories of residential units above and on Gore Street there will be two stories of residential above the lobby/communal uses floor. He stated that applicants can only take advantage of the increased GFA and height if all of the parking is located below grade. He stated that a present condition at the site is that there is an excessive amount of surface parking. He stated that excluding the two adjacent, modest structures the site is dominated with surface parking. He added that there will be no surface parking in this proposal and to take advantage of the additional height and density the parking would have to be below grade. He stated that these are requirements that extend the life of the block. He stated that Mark Development only owns a portion of the site that is being designed by Mr. Chilinski. He added that there is a residential abutter that has two single-family houses on the adjacent lot and consistent with the character of the street there is almost a zero lot line on their property. He explained that an earlier iteration had the exterior garage ramp within a few feet of the property line and the concern about constructability and the impact to the abutter was understood.

So the revised plan now shows the garage entry relocated into the middle of the building with an internal ramp. He concluded that the modest changes to this rezoning from a dimensional perspective represents land use, goals and objectives set forth and evaluated in East Cambridge for some time. He spoke about the memo dated Apr 26, 2017 to the Planning Board prepared by Mr. Roberts. He stated that in Mr. Roberts' conclusion in assessing the petition pointed out that the proposed zoning approach targets specific dimensional modifications, which are relatively modest compared to current zoning standards that could only be applied to mixed-use development with housing above ground-floor retail and parking below grade. The most applicable planning work done so far, which includes ECAPS and other citywide planning efforts, encourages the relation of new housing, economic development opportunities for small businesses pedestrian and bicycle friendly development patterns, and urban design approaches that are responsive to the established and anticipated character of the area. Therefore, a zoning approach that is unique to this area may be worthy of consideration if it has the effect of incentivizing development forms that are consistent with the City's planning goals and compatible with the historic patterns of development in the area.

He stated that little, if any type of this product, has been created in the Business A district because when residential development is pursued in the Business A district the dimensional requirements of the Res. C-2 district apply. This creates significant setbacks. In a Business A district an office building can be put in a zero lot line with a height of 45 feet. If residential is proposed it requires setbacks and with setback for a residential building with ground floor retail creates a contradiction that prevents practical development opportunities for a multi-family residential building. This petition is consistent with the planning goals objectives identified in the ECAPS Study and other planning studies. He stated that this location with its adjacency to the Lechmere T Station, the likely expansion of the Green Line, the larger PUD districts that exist on the other side of Second Street is modest and is consistent with the planning goals for this portion of the City. He requested Mr. Chilinski to show what this form would look like and where the additional GFA and height is.

Mr. Chilinski explained the structure proposed. He stated that the site is at the corner of Cambridge, Third and Gore Streets. He stated that character of Cambridge Street offers a wide variety of architectural styles but what holds all together is a street wall of various materials and buildings all align themselves next to each other giving a rich texture and scale that is unusual in other parts of Cambridge. He stated that 209 Cambridge Street would be removed. He spoke about that the character of the immediate neighbor, the elevation of this block along Cambridge Street, the existing bank which will be restored for use as a retail or restaurant use. The store fronts will accommodate small retail. There will be three floors of residential above. On Third Street you see the bank on the corner and it will be restored. He noted that there will be a break in the facade so that all sides of the bank will be visible. The second and third story residential will be seen. He spoke about the bulk control plane. The Gore Street view is where the entrance to the garage is located. The parking is below grade. The first floor along Cambridge Street has 10,000 square feet of retail. The residential is forty-five units of a mix of one, two and three bedroom units.

Attorney Rafferty stated that unit density is unchanged and remains as it is throughout the Business A district. It allows 45 dwelling units under the current and proposed zoning. He stated that based on the recent requirement for affordable housing this project with 45 units will contain 9 affordable units. There is a commitment by the owner that the parking charge will be included in the rent; every tenant will be paying for a parking space and not have the opportunity to save money by not paying for a parking space and instead opting for a resident sticker. He stated that no spaces can be leased outside of the building. This will be included in the letter of commitment and the zoning amendment. He provided a chronology of the meetings held with the ECPT (ATTACHMENT G). He added that it became clear that the CVS option, the as of right option, did not capture all of the opportunity that this site presented and the petitioners are hopeful that by making the amendments they will be able to deliver the building that was presented.

Councillor Carlone asked the City Council if they have questions of the petitioners.

Councillor Devereux asked about the open space created between the building and 2 houses next door, in particular what are the dimensions and can you walk from Gore Street around and out.

Mr. Chilinski responded that it is 5 foot walk and the retailers need a second means of egress for life safety and there is not enough space to have both on the front side. There is a small sidewalk. The mechanical storage and trash will be on the interior of the site. This area is wide enough for a sidewalk and plantings along the side to the adjacent single-family homes. This is just access in and out of the building and there will be no trash outside of the building. Councillor Toomey spoke about the rent including the cost of parking, but the individuals will still be eligible for a parking sticker and one car may park in the garage and on the street. He noted that this will not solve the problem of parking. He stated that this site is too congested and a CVS is too overwhelming for the site. He stated that in the present form he cannot vote for this proposal.

Councillor Maher questioned the residential property on Gore Street that abuts the property. He questioned the integrity of the homes with the size of the project and the depth of underground parking. He asked if the integrity of the homes can be guaranteed. Mr. Chilinski stated that the construction of the lower level will be a level below grade. He stated that there is a speed ramp and there is a residential unit at grade. There is not a deep foundation in the location. As it descends down into the final level below grade there will be construction but it is believed that it is far enough away, 12 feet away, and a layback of construction can be done and will not require any special foundations.

Mr. Chilinski stated that this will be far enough away from the existing homes so that there is no need to underpin the existing structures. He stated that the deepest part of the site is along Cambridge Street where sheet piles will be required. Councillor Maher asked what is allowed under current zoning. Attorney Rafferty stated that the changes proposed result in an increase of 10,000 GFA and 3 additional feet in height and this is only allowed if parking is located below grade. He spoke about the 45 dwelling units but it is worth noting that current zoning allows this. This proposal allows retail on the ground floor. There is no change in the density and does not change any of the use. This project cannot succeed without the ground floor retail.

Councillor Carlone requested Mr. Roberts to provide an update on the Planning Board hearing held on May 2, 2017. He stated that the Planning Board looked at the petition. A full depth study was not done. A summary is done on the petition for other zoning and planning work done. He submitted a memo dated Apr 26, 2017 to the Planning Board (ATTACHMENT H).

The zoning for this lot has varied over the years. In l970 it was set as Business A. He noted that the existing conditions for this block do not have a clear development pattern for this area. He stated that for areas such as this in some point in time there was a richer pattern of development; now there are one story buildings, single family homes and mixed use buildings. The ECAPs study done in 200l did stress housing. The petition is not unique to this area. The Business A classification allows 4 story development with mixed use. He spoke of as of right developments that were not favorable to the community and zoning was changed to allow for more favorable development. The Envision Cambridge process will involve a study of major corridors of Massachusetts Avenue and Cambridge Street. He noted that the Planning Board's recommendation was not to adopt the petition as proposed. They noted that redevelopment or some other use of the site would be appropriate instead of surface parking. Mixed use and housing was considered favorable. He stated that Planning Board members felt that the planning/zoning issues could be looked at more broadly in the Envision process and that the neighborhood concerns should be addressed more clearly before the Planning Board could support the proposal.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment a 4:21pm.

Carole Bellew, 257 Charles Street, stated the ECPT have been meeting with this developer for a long time. The last vote by the ECPT on this project was 18 in favor and 8 against. The Planning Board did not discuss this vote at their hearing and had no knowledge of what the vote was. She stated that someone on the new board lied to the Planning Board. She added that the developer has worked hard to present something other than the original CVS proposal. This site is across from a huge county building. She stated that retail was added to Cambridge Street. She stated her support as well as from the ECPT.

Jules Kobek, 69R Gore Street, is concerned with the scale; it is too big for the neighborhood. She is a member of the ECPT. She explained that the meeting previously referenced, most of the attendees who live on Gore Street, in the immediate vicinity, had concerns about this development. There was a request made that those in the immediate vicinity should have more weight than those who live further away and this suggestions was not taken into the account. She stated that this was presented before the up zoning question came into play. She noted that with the up zoning there is less control. She is concerned with traffic, density, scale, impact on the immediate neighborhood and the impact on the 2 houses that abuts this property.

Charles Hinds, 207 1/2 Charles Street, presented a letter he read at Planning Board hearing on May 2, 2017 (ATTACHMENT I). He stated that it is believed that the Planning Board recommendation was because of his letter, but he does not believe this to be true. He stated that changing the zoning in this area needs more study was what he heard at the Planning Board hearing. He explained that he was elected President of ECPT on May 1, 2017. He has serious concerns about the zoning petition and the communications between the Planning Board, ECPT and the ECPT sub-committee. He listed his concerns and stated that the sub-committee was never given the authority to speak for the general membership or the board provided by the bylaws.

He stated that the purpose of the sub-committee was to assist the general membership to develop a strategy plan to present to the general membership for consideration and vote. He noted that the ECPT letter to Planning Board dated Apr 28, 2017 and according to the by-laws, the President shall be the chief executive officer and shall general control and supervision of the corporation subject to the board of directors. He stated that the ECPT letter to the Planning Board dated Apr 28, 2017 was not authorized or given to the membership. He stated that once he became President the letter was distributed to the membership and many communications were received by him from general members. He stated that the ECPT meeting of Apr 12, 2017 Mark Investment presented an update on the project and neighbors expressed concerns to Mark Investments including increase FAR, shadows, height and the size of the project. He added that none of these concerns were discussed. He explained that the last vote on this project was Oct 26, 2016 and there was no mention about zoning changes. A vote in favor was taken six months ago. He commented on the changes made on the project since the vote taken.

He stated that he did not feel the vote was still valid. He stated that up-zoning is inappropriate or this site. He stated that the zoning proposal is arbitrary and capricious. He stated that the only one who benefits is the Mark Investment. He stated that the proposal is out of scale.

Maria Elena Saccoccio, 55 Otis Street, stated that she is here in a personal capacity and also as representing Agnes Dattero, owner of 38 and 38R Gore Street (ATTACHMENT J). She stated that the Planning Board voted not to recommend this zoning change. She stated that zoning changes usually have impact studies. She stated that the report from Community Development was about this particular site, not in the context of this neighborhood. No matter what the zoning is now the fact is that was modest housing torn down for an ambitious bank’s interest. She submitted photograph of Third Street housing. The Gore Street photograph shows the mirror image of Ms. Dattero's house (ATTACHMENT K). She stated that the City gave a generous zoning to the bank for a drive up window and parking lot. The drive up window was later removed. She hoped that the Ordinance Committee will look at this more in context as to what was there previously and what is there now. She stated that she is a legal abutter. She commented that the reality of this block is that it had modest housing, a bank and a Silo Maria at 207 and 209 Cambridge Street. The stated that the house has a lot of original ornamental detail including a square hip roof and architectural detail surrounding the four sides and visible wainscoting visible from the sidewalk. She stated that the house is sturdy and has been there for over 100 years. She did not see any need for raising it. She stated that the SeeClickFix app picture (ATTACHMENT L) was taken of Third Street during rush hour which is all traffic. She stated that there has been no traffic study. She stated that it has been assigned for traffic calming because the City is concerned about traffic, pedestrian and cyclist safety. She stated that she is opposed to this and also as an Attorney representing Agnes Dattero who is also opposed.

Dennis Ferrick, 25 Gore Street, spoke about his neighbor, Mrs. Dattero. This is a massive building to construct in this area. He is opposed to this building. He stated that this part of East Cambridge is congested with traffic. He stated that taking away two units, a foot doctor and the bank and replacing it with 45 units seems extreme to him. This is a dense area and a massive housing building is not needed in this area. He stated that North Point affects the parking in East Cambridge. He added that East Cambridge does not need another North Point. He wanted the plan for CVS brought back; this was better than this proposal. There is no yards in this proposal.

The old Maytag building, 22 Water Street, has 400 units of housing. He noted that the Lechmere and Courthouse developments are still up in the year. He complained that this was not discussed with the people in the neighborhood.

Allen Greene, 82 Fifth Street, read his statement and distributed a picture of 207-227 Cambridge Street (ATTACHMENT M). He stated that the picture submitted is from the Historical Commission taken in 1875. He stated that it represents what the proper zoning should be for the area in question. He stated that in 1971 if a developer wanted to demolish the two buildings in the middle in order to create a parking lot if he owned the property he could demolish it. He stated that in 1980 buildings over 50 years old had to be reviewed by the Historical Commission in an effort to stop needless demolition. He noted that zoning and historical review were put into place as protections. He urged the City Council not to approve this petition as it represents an out of scale architectural structure that will take over an entire City block of a residential neighborhood dating to the 1820. He stated that this zoning proposal is better suited for Kendall Square or North Point. He urged the City Council to protect the residents from predatory development interest. He hoped that ECPT can appoint a new working group to implement a more scaled down development than what is currently being proposed using the 1875 photograph as a model for this section of Cambridge Street and the 1950 photographs submitted by Ms. Saccoccio of the area in question. This would save the architectural integrity of the currently standing 207 and 227 Cambridge Street. He stated that he agreed with the recommendation of the Planning Board. He read Mr. Levy's communication which appears as Attachment B.

Bette Lee Saccoccio, an abutter to the property at 207 and 227 Cambridge Street. She stated that she is opposed to the zoning petition; the project is too large and massive for the area. She added that allowing the zoning change would destroy the adjacent Dattero homes and set a bad precedent for the destruction of homes in East Cambridge. She explained that Mrs. Dattero is an elderly disabled neighbor. She further stated that the she and her mother restored the two homes many years age. A handicapped ramp was installed by Mrs. Dattero in the last year for easy access to her home who lives with her autistic son. She noted that 207 - 209 Cambridge Street has its ornamental detail around the roof line and displays a rear hip roof. This house could be a gem on the block if restored. She stated that she has attended all hearing of ECPT on Mark Investments and there were never mentioned rezoning the block until Apr 12; this was when a representative of Mr. Rafferty informed ECPT of the plans. A working group was formed in July mainly of architects who have not attended the ECPT hearings. The sub-committee of ECPT authorized themselves to vote on behalf of the members of the ECPT on this project. She stated that she is opposed to zoning or spot zoning this block and requested the Ordinance Committee to vote accordingly.

Bill Dines, 69 Otis Street, registered his objection to the rezoning petition. It is not good for the neighborhood on the scale as proposed. He added that this only helps the developer and that it is not the responsibility of the City to make this project work financially for the developer. Others means should be sought other than rezoning a whole block when only 1/3 of the block is their property. He urged the Ordinance Committee to reject this zoning proposal.

Jim Clarkson, Manager of a rental property at One First Condominium that looks across at the block of 20 Second Street, that is proposed for rezoning. He stated that it is unclear why the area needs to the rezoned for the development. He stated that there is high demand for units in his building because of the livability of the area. He stated that any change in the scale of the development in the area would be detrimental to the vibrancy and attractiveness of the area.

Paul Fioro, 98 Otis Street, stated that his office is across the street from the property. He spoke about the process of the sub-committee. He stated that he was a member of the sub-committee of ECPT. All of the ECPT members concerns where listened to by the sub-committee and they were taken to the developer. There were many meetings held. The petitioner made compromises such as reducing the number of parking sought based on the concerns of the community. Having the parking underground was important to many members of the ECPT.

Density was an issue. The sub-committee of the ECPT noted that the Third Street density needed to be lowered. He stated that developer worked with the sub-committee on the changes. He stated that the demographics in the city are changing where young people are buying smaller units and want to live near where they work so that they are not driving. He explained that a study was done that revealed that parking and congestion in Kendall Square is not worse than it was five years ago. This parcel is good for more density and provides housing for those who want to live and work in Cambridge. He supported the petition and thanked the developer for the time spent with the sub-committee to try to meet the needs of the neighbors.

Peter Crawley, 88 Thorndike Street, stated that he was the former President of ECPT. He is saddened that the next president of ECPT has tried to re-litigate the prior work of sub-committee. He stated that this is bad form and heavy handed. He stated that the sub-committee organized to look at this project was duly authorized in July 2016 by the complete members of the ECPT. He noted that the sub-committee fulfilled their duties in good faith and he commended the subcommittee for their work and the reasonable compromise by the development team. He stated that the reasonable compromise was related to the design of this project on the size as put forth relating to the number of units contingent upon the three restrictions and requirements of parking, small retail and Gore Street bulk plane requirements. He stated that a vote was taken on Oct 26, 2016 resulting in 18 ECPT members in favor and 8 against. He stated that the alternatives were worse for the neighborhood than what is being proposed. In good faith this was brought to the membership who voted in favor. He stated that the sub-committee and ECPT were also reviewing the rezoning of the whole block which was a late breaking change. This was formally presented for the first time to the ECPT at the Apr 12th meeting. He noted that the ECPT had questions on the proposal. He stated that Attorney Rafferty did not attend the meeting and the developer suggested that questions be referred to him and that the subcommittee get answers to the questions. He noted that that the time frame was short between Apr 12 and the Planning Board hearing so the sub-committee was charged to determine if the zoning changes were aligned with the project as designed. The letter produced by the subcommittee concluded that the proposed zoning, except for the three foot height increase, was in line and aligned with the project that the membership had voted to support on Oct 29, 2016.

He added that what was changed is that the zoning was to change the entire block. He is sympathetic with the request that a broader study be done of the neighborhood of the block on the impacts of up-zoning the entire block. He stated that this is fair and appropriate. He asked the developer to continue to show good faith in working with the community.

Councillor Carlone closed public comment at 5:03pm.

Councillor Mazen stated that this is a clear situation for getting together in the community for a processing session; this is the situation. He offered assistance to the working group in the neighborhood there could have a positive outcome. He suggested doing more on this before seeking a conclusion.

Councillor Maher stated that this discussion has been going on for some time. He had conversation with the developers over 2 years ago when he was Mayor. He believes the placement of CVS at this location would be a travesty. This project does protect the scale. He stated that the bank needs to be preserved. He stated that the historic preservation of the bank is a positive aspect. The continuation of retail along Cambridge Street is a good thing. He suggested leaving this in committee and ask Ordinance Chairs to help look at this process. He stated that alternatives could be worse. He stated that there is zoning on this site. He suggested the Ordinance Committee Chairs to look at what are the real objectives and come up with something.

Councillor Devereux stated that it may be possible to mend fences and find a win/win in this situation. She stated that the existing zoning could allow something worse. How can this process be revisited and restarted. In the Masse situation the residents most effected organized themselves and reached a compromise. She stated that the communications went afoul and some members were not involved. She commented about when this design was presented to the ECPT; it appears that the communication was poor. She asked if the City Council is being asked to rezone a block of Cambridge Street would we want to see this replicated in other areas of Cambridge Street. There is no open space with this project. She would not like to see this duplicated elsewhere on Cambridge Street. She spoke about the traffic on Third Street between Cambridge Street and Gore Street and the traffic pattern in the area. She would ask the developers to look at incorporate the wood frame “Abe Lincoln civil war area” building into the design. She stated that the Dattero family will be compromised and overwhelmed with this project for eighteen months. She wanted to leave in committee and give residents’ time to work with the Ordinance Committee chairs and the developers.

Councillor Toomey also wanted to keep this in committee and will coordinate with the Ordinance Committee chairs to come to a satisfactory agreement. As proposed today the project is too large and the traffic on Cambridge Street, Third, and Gore Streets is too congested. The traffic impact needs to be addressed.

Councillor Carlone gave a history of the East Cambridge Riverfront plan. He stated that one of the recommendations for the neighborhood was a one-way traffic system - this was turned down. Third Street traffic would be diverted to First Street to get to Monsignor O'Brien Highway once the new T-station is built. He suggested getting an update on this. He stated that 45 units could be built with the existing zoning and built right up against the two houses. He commented that incorporating the garage into the building is brilliant and more efficient than the original open ramp adjacent to the two homes. He stated that no set back along Gore Street is required in the code now.

The Planning Board is seriously looking at Cambridge Street and Mass Avenue to increase height and density for housing. The priority of the City Council is for more housing in the City. This is the best designed project he has seen in New England. The driveway is being removed and a setback put in. The originally proposed four-story building on Gore Street is now three stories with a significant setback at the top floor. This location within a block or two of the T station makes it different than other areas of Cambridge Street. He stated that the proposed changing facades replicate the traditional feel should be applauded. It is least expensive to make it the same.

Councillor Carlone agreed that this should stay in committee. He stated that the previously mentioned Masse Hardware original proposal included parking at the ground floor. He stated that the final overall scale of this building will not significantly change per existing zoning.

Councillor Mazen urged caution of what can be built if this is not improved. This tactic is taken to bolster a developers negotiating position. He commented that if this is to be left in committee it is important to put the alternatives to a negotiated solution aside and to look at what is in front of us and not what can be done.

Mr. Korff stated that this is not his position. He stated that in no way is he applying any threat of the current zoning. He considers himself to be a developer by consensus. From the outset, his original visions was a CVS and he proposed this to ECPT. He could have designed a CVS as of right, but he wanted to work with the community. He stated that it became apparent that the use of a CVS was not what the majority of the community wanted. He agreed with the community and stated a CVS at this location would be a horrible land use but a CVS as of right would be more profitable for him than the proposal before the Ordinance Committee. The inference of greed is counterproductive and this is not what he is trying to accomplish.

Councillor Devereux stated that if applicable, and appropriate to request the developer to provide information on traffic impact. At this time she made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Community Development Department and the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department, if applicable, to review the proposed project traffic impact on the development in East Cambridge.

The motion carried.

Attorney Rafferty noted that this project will still require project review special permit and requires a traffic impact study. Councillor Devereux said that since there is concern about traffic impact that this should be started now and have the information available sooner rather then later.

Councillor Kelley commented that the Envision Cambridge plan will somehow keep us from having one offs. The City will never escape an owner of property wanting to do something that zoning does not allow. He stated that if this is the best process to get to the best outcome -- great.

At this time Councillor Carlone move that the subject matter be left in committee and that a committee be formed including Councillors Toomey and Carlone to act as leaders in the discussion to try to come to a way that is fair and equitable. This carried on a voice vote.

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 5:38pm on motion of Councillor Carlone.

For the Committee,
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair
Councillor Leland Cheung, Co-Chair