15. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 17-45, regarding a report on formulating a plan that will provide relief and fair compensation to liquor license holders that have been impacted by dramatic devaluing of their liquor licenses, and Awaiting Report Item Number 17-72, regarding an update on the progress and plan to address the concerns relative to the sale of liquor licenses. [Reports from City Solicitor and License Commission Chair]
Placed on File, Referred to Public Safety Committee

Sept 11, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached a response to Awaiting Report Item Number 17-45, regarding a report on formulating a plan that will provide relief and fair compensation to liquor license holders that have been impacted by dramatic devaluing of their liquor licenses, and Awaiting Report Item Number 17-72, regarding an update on the progress and plan to address the concerns relative to the sale of liquor licenses, received from City Solicitor Nancy Glowa and License Commission Chair Nicole Murati Ferrer.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

16. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as members of the Harvard Square Conservation District Study Committee, effective Sept 1, 2017: Christopher Mackin, Jerry Murphy, Christopher Angelakis, Jessica Sculley, William Barry, Joseph Ferrara and Kyle Sheffield.
Placed on File

Sept 11, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting notification of the appointments of the following persons as members of the Harvard Square Conservation District Study Committee, effective Sept 1, 2017:

Christopher Mackin, 48 JFK St #2 02138
Mr. Mackin is a business school professor and CEO of a business consulting firm specializing in employee ownership with offices at 17 Story Street. He is a 22-year resident at 48 JFK Street.

Jerry Murphy, 22 Liberty Drive, Unit 9E, Boston 02210
Mr. Murphy has been president of the Harvard Cooperative Society for 25 years, and would represent property owners in the District. He is active in the Harvard Square Business Associations.

Christopher Angelakis, 6A Chester Street 02140
Mr. Angelakis is an architect with Architectural Resources Cambridge (ARC). He has strong connections in Harvard Square through relatives who own Brattle Square Florists and formerly had several properties on Mifflin Place.

Jessica Sculley, 4 Humboldt Street 02140
Ms. Sculley is an artist and an experienced math and science teacher. She returned to this area two years ago and purchased a house in Avon Hill but has life-long exposure to Harvard Square. She has experienced the process of the Avon Hill NCD Commission. She would represent the community at large.

William Barry, 10 Norumbega Street 02138
Mr. Barry is an architect and a sole practitioner. He has been a member of the Historical Commission since 2013 and the Harvard Square Advisory Committee since 2015.

Joseph Ferrara, 195 Brattle Street 02138
Mr. Ferrara is a health care business consultant who trained as an architect. He was appointed to the Historical Commission in 2009.

Kyle Sheffield, 13 Ellsworth Avenue 02139
Mr. Sheffield was appointed to the Historical Commission in 2016. He is an architect with LDa Architecture and Interiors.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

18. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following person as a member of the Central Square Advisory Committee for a term of three years, effective Sept 11, 2017: Tahir Kapoor
Placed on File

Sept 11, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting notification of the appointment of the following person as a member of the Central Square Advisory Committee for a term of three years, effective Sept 11, 2017: Tahir Kapoor

Mr. Kapoor is a Cambridgeport resident and employed at GE Healthcare. He is an engineer and works on quality management and on applying a human centered design approach to simplifying and accelerate the process of validating equipment. Mr. Kapoor is a graduate of Phillips Academy and of Northeastern University.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS
1. A zoning petition has been received from Christopher D. Smith, et al., to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance by adding sections and provisions to Article 13.000 regarding Graduate Student Housing Production Requirements.
Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board

The undersigned hereby petition the City Council of the City of Cambridge to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance, as most recently amended, by adding the sections and provisions set forth in this document to Article 13.000 of said Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge.

13.913 Graduate Student Housing Production Requirement

13.913.1 Applicability. The Graduate Student Housing Production Requirement is intended to apply in conjunction with the provisions of Section 13.90 to be adopted for the PUD-7 District.

13.913.2 Graduate Student Housing. For the purposes of this Section 13.913, Graduate Student Housing is defined as a Dormitory (as defined in Article 2.000) where lease agreements (or similar occupancy agreements) for residents require payment of rent on a monthly basis and are made available to persons who are employed or enrolled in a program of postgraduate education at an educational institution.

13.9133 Production Requirements. Non-residential development (exclusive of any Gross Floor Area ("GFA") exempted in Section 13.93.1) in the PUD-7 District shall not be authorized to exceed, in the aggregate:

(a) 20% of the total GFA permitted for non-residential uses in the PUD-7 District (exclusive of any GFA exempted in Section 13.93.1) until substantial construction activity on a minimum of 600 net new dwelling units of Graduate Student Housing (compared to the number of dwelling units of Graduate Student Housing available within one and one-half (1.50) miles from the PUD-7 District as of August 3, 2017), of which 300 dwelling units must be suitable for families, has commenced in the City of Cambridge within one and one-half (1.50) miles from the PUD-7 District.

(b) 40% of the total GFA permitted for non-residential uses in the PUD-7 District (exclusive of any GFA exempted in Section 13.93.1) until substantial construction activity on a minimum of 1,200 net new dwelling units of Graduate Student Housing (compared to the number of dwelling units of Graduate Student Housing available within one and one-half (1.50) miles from the PUD-7 District as of August 3, 2017), of which 500 dwelling units must be suitable for families, has commenced in the City of Cambridge within one and one-half (1.50) miles from the PUD-7 District.

(c) 90% of the total GFA permitted for non-residential uses in the PUD-7 District (exclusive of any GFA exempted in Section 13.93.1) until substantial construction activity on a minimum of 1,800 net new dwelling units of Graduate Student Housing (compared to the number of dwelling units of Graduate Student Housing available within one and one-half (1.50) miles from the PUD-7 District as of August 3, 2017), of which 700 dwelling units must be suitable for families, has commenced in the City of Cambridge within one and one-half (1.50) miles from the PUD-7 District.

13.913.31 No part of the 1,800 graduate student housing units required by this Section 13.913 may count toward any of the other allowance or requirements for new housing and residential uses as prescribed in the Housing Provisions to be adopted in Section 13.93.1.2.

13.913.4 Graduate Student Housing Phasing Plan. In conjunction with the provisions and requirements of Section 13.90 to be adopted for the PUD-7 District, the Final Development Plans for Development Parcels shall include a Graduate Student Housing Phasing Plan providing a procedure by which the provisions of this Section 13.913 will be periodically monitored and reported to the Planning Board. The Planning Board shall approve such a Phasing Plan if it is found to ensure that the Graduate Student Housing units will be completed on a schedule that meets the objectives of the City and ensures compliance with the requirements of this Section 13.913.

Signers:

Christopher D. Smith	550 Memorial Dr. #9E1, Cambridge, MA 02139
Patrick Brown	102 6th St., Cambridge, MA 02141
Jeff Santos	350 Third St. #809, Cambridge, MA 02142
Adam Hasz	19 Trowbridge St. #6, Cambridge, MA 02138
Peter Damrosch	18 Summer Rd., Cambridge, MA 02138
Abra Berkowitz	253½ Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139
Ilan Levy	148 Spring St., Cambridge, MA 02141
Quinton Zondervan	235 Cardinal Medeiros Ave., Cambridge, MA 02141
Jeremy Poindexter	89 Spring St. #2, Cambridge, MA 02141
Sumbul Siddiqui	530 Windsor St., Cambridge, MA 02141
Allison Wigen	11 Ware St. #18, Cambridge, MA 02138
Alicia Takemura	102 6th St. #1, Cambridge, MA 02141
Alex Auriema	51 Rice St. #1, Cambridge, MA 02140
Tia Vice	6 Agassiz St. #2, Cambridge, MA 02140
Patrick Moran	224 Albany St., Cambridge, MA 02139
Zoe Weinrobe	304 Allston St. #2, Cambridge, MA 02139
Elizabeth Selinger	52 Fayette St. #2, Cambridge, MA 02139

O-2     Sept 11, 2017
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: Three boards and commissions govern decisions over new developments and redevelopments in Cambridge—the Planning Board, the Board of Zoning Appeal, and the Historical Commission; and
WHEREAS: Often the matters before these three bodies overlap, as projects must go through multiple stages of review; and
WHEREAS: Despite the overlap in subject matter, the three boards and commissions have very different standards regarding recording meetings and transcriptions; and
WHEREAS: At present, only Planning Board meetings are both video recorded and transcribed by a stenographer; and
WHEREAS: The Board of Zoning Appeal’s meetings are not recorded and transcripts are typically not available to the public for several months, often after the deadline for appeal has passed; and
WHEREAS: The Historical Commission’s meetings are neither recorded nor transcribed; and
WHEREAS: All three public bodies are equally important, especially now as Cambridge undergoes unprecedented development pressure, and the public should have greater access to these meetings; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the appropriate City departments to streamline recording and transcription requirements in line with those currently in place for the Planning Board for the Board of Zoning Appeal and the Historical Commission and report back to the Council on this matter.

O-8     Sept 11, 2017
MAYOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Members of the community continue to urge the City to take more aggressive action in working to increase the visible police presence in and around Central Square, and these calls have only increased in the wake of incidents such as the Sept 5 double shooting on River Street; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to update the City Council on what steps have been taken to establish the Central Square Police Substation pilot program that the City Council voted in favor of on Mar 27, 2017.

O-10     Sept 11, 2017
MAYOR SIMMONS
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to update the City Council on what progress has been made on the goal voted on by the City Council on Jan 5, 2015 of creating 1,000 new units of affordable housing by the end of the decade.

O-12     Sept 11, 2017
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: The Community Development Department plans to develop more than five acres of new and renovated public open space in Kendall Square and Eastern Cambridge primarily at four locations: Rogers Street between Second and Third Streets, the Triangle parcel at Land Boulevard and First Street, Galileo Way between Broadway and Binney St. and Point Park at Main Street and Broadway; and
WHEREAS: There was a study commissioned called the Eastern Cambridge Kendall Square Open Space Planning Study to work towards the goal of creating a comprehensive open space plan for the area; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Community Development Department and update the City Council on the progress of the study of the four locations so far by the Sept 25, 2017 meeting.

O-15     Sept 11, 2017
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
WHEREAS: Electric bikes, mopeds, scooters, and other non-bicycle personal transportation conveyances are covered by state law in different ways and have different responsibilities and options for street and sidewalk access; and
WHEREAS: Understanding what legal constraints exist for non-automotive transportation is important when planning Cambridge’s Urban Mobility infrastructure, particularly its separated and non-separated bike lanes and bike paths; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Community Development Department has extensive information available on its website about traditional pedal-powered bicycle regulations and opportunities, but this information does not extend to emerging electric and gas-powered personal vehicles such as E-bikes, hoverboards, OneWheels, mopeds, and so forth; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with relevant City staff to provide a detailed description of legal requirements for non-bicycle personal conveyances, to include definitions of such means of transportation such as OneWheel, that may not have clear legal guidance at all; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this issue and to identify and share with the City Council possible solutions to regulatory or legislative gaps on the local or state level that would help clarify how these emerging types of conveyances can most safely and effectively be incorporated into Cambridge’s Urban Mobility planning and infrastructure investments.

O-17     Sept 11, 2017
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has an obligation to ensure the safety of its residents; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Police Commissioner and the Fire Chief with the view in mind of creating and developing city wide alternate routes for fire apparatus and emergency police vehicles in an emergency situation that would avoid travel routes where there is backed up traffic.

O-18     Sept 11, 2017  Amended
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: Cambridge Street has recently undergone a redesign to ensure the safety of all modes of transportation; and
WHEREAS: Due to the redesign, there is a possibility of emergency vehicles having a difficult time navigating these roads; and
WHEREAS: The location of the Fire Department Headquarters at the corner of Quincy and Cambridge Street is quite a distance from the East Cambridge, Wellington-Harrington area and the Port area; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to determine the feasibility of procuring additional fire apparatus, especially rescue vehicles and ambulances, in the East Cambridge, Wellington-Harrington area and the Port area.

O-21     Sept 11, 2017
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the City Solicitor, the City Assessor and the Community Development Department to prepare a Municipal Transfer Fee Ordinance and, if required, an appropriate Home Rule Petition, to implement a municipal transfer fee on sale of all residential, commercial and institutional properties where the buyer pays 1% of purchase price on any amount in excess of $2.5 million and an additional 4% of the purchase price on any amount more than $5 million.

O-22     Sept 11, 2017
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: Expanding the ability to provide affordable housing throughout the state of Massachusetts is an urgent goal; and
WHEREAS: Many high-end commercial and luxury residential real estate developers are coming to build in Massachusetts; and
WHEREAS: The Massachusetts Legislature introduced a bill that would apply a fee to real estate transactions larger than $2.5 million statewide; and
WHERAS: Transactions of more than $25 million would pay a fee of 1.25% of the transaction value, more than $50 million would incur a 1.5% fee, and over $100 million would incur a 2% fee; and
WHERAS: This bill intends to allow for the acquisition of some of the value that is created in those markets and give cities and towns more funding to both expand and protect affordable housing; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council go on record in support of H.3512 in the Massachusetts Legislature, allowing Massachusetts to obtain a fee on large real estate transactions that will be put towards affordable housing endeavors; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward suitably engrossed copies of this resolution to the elected Cambridge Legislative Delegation in the Massachusetts House and Senate, as well as House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President Stanley Rosenberg on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-23     Sept 11, 2017
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: According to the Cambridge Day, “At least $651,663 was spent in the City Council race two years ago, an increase of about 20% from the 2013 election year, despite there being fewer candidates running and a few who made a point of spending no money to seek office; and
WHEREAS: While the average amount spent per vote rose by 14.6%, to $38.81 from $33.88, the number of voters dropped from 2013.”; and
WHEREAS: According to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance, each of 8 candidates had more than $50,000 in campaign expenditures; and
WHEREAS: Even with public financing of municipal elections in Cambridge, there still does not exist a level playing field for municipal elections; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That, in concert with any public financing of municipal elections, or as a standalone program, the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Cambridge Election Commission to establish an official “Cambridge Municipal Election People’s Pledge” program, which would be voluntary and include the following components:
• Candidates for City Council would expend no more than $30,000 and candidates for School Committee would expend no more than $20,000 in a municipal election year;
• Candidates for City Council would raise no more than $35,000 and candidates for School Committee would raise no more than $25,000 in a municipal election year;
• Candidates for City Council and candidates for School Committee would agree to accept no more than $200 from an individual in a municipal election year;
• Candidates would release a copy of their most recent Federal tax return within 45 days of being certified as a candidate for City Council or School Committee;
• Candidates would agree not to accept donations from persons residing outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts;
• The Election Commission would establish a program to notify the voters which candidates are participating in the “Cambridge Municipal Election People’s Pledge” program, mailing such information to voters 10 days before the date of the municipal election and prominently displaying such information on the Cambridge Municipal website; and
• The Election Commission would determine the feasibility of including such information on the Municipal ballot; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to draft Home Rule legislation to be submitted to the City Council.

O-26     Sept 11, 2017
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council by the end of October 2017 with potential plans and options, responsive to community concerns, for creating a program of tax revenue financing for candidates running for City Council and School Committee in the City of Cambridge; and be it further
ORDERED That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to review the varied public financing of city elections in other U.S. cities.

COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:41pm in the Dr. Henrietta S. Attles Meeting Room, Cambridge Rindge and Latin School, 459 Broadway.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a zoning petition by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to create a new Planning Unit Development Overlay District (PUD-7) over the area known as the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center site in Kendall Square.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Vice Mayor McGovern; Councillor Toomey; Mayor Simmons; Councillor Mazen; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning and Development, CDD; Vali Buland, First Assistant City Solicitor, Law Department; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were Steve Marsh, MIT; Anthony Galluccio, Galluccio and Watson, LLP; David Manfredi, Elkus/Manfredi Architects; Darren Baird, Esquire, Goulston and Storrs; Kathryn Brown, MITIMCO; Tom Stohlman, 19 Channing Street; Charles Hinds, 207½ Charles Street; Michael Yeates, 395 Broadway; Jennifer Conway, 31 Line Street; Abigail Regitsky, GSC, 165 Cambridgepark Drive; Charlie Marquardt, 10 Rogers Street; Kathleen Mucis, 9 Dana Street; Juvinal Furtado, 18 Auburn Street, Malden; Jesse Kanson-Benanav, 26 Willow Street; Steve Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street; Mike Turk, 11 Ware Street; Pamela Thilo, 15 Remington Street; Brian Dacey, CIC, One Broadway; Ellen Shachter, 346 Concord Avenue; Brian Potter, 19 Hollis St., Jackson Mbove-Ohio, 9 Dodge Street; Bjorn Poonen, 303 Third Street; Deborah Ruhe, Just-A-Start, 1075 Cambridge Street; Bill Kane, 101 Main Street; Bret Matthew, 124 Amory Street; Jason Alves; Kathleen Kelly, 17 Marie Avenue; Gary Hilderbrans, 7 Channing Street; John Groff; Sam Seidel, 43 Harris Street; Nixon Maitre, 2542 Mass. Avenue; Dave Figgins, 15 Richdale Avenue; Carol O’Hare, 172 Magazine Street; Quinton Zondervan, 235 Cardinal Medeiros Avenue; Rosemary Booth, 303 Third Street; Ilan Levy, 148 Spring Street; Stan LaMafer, 395 Windsor Street; Daniel Curtis, 89 Lincoln Street; Robert Winters, 366 Broadway; Chris Matthews, 26 Sixth Street; Peter Crawley, Volpe Working Group; Jason Zogg, CRA; James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place; and Eugenia Schraa Huh, 259 Washington Street.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing is being televised and privately recorded. He stated the format of the meeting will be different because of the historical complexity of the site and the Planning Board format will be followed. He stated that Community Development Department will provide history and background on the site, then MIT will do a presentation, questions will be asked by the City Council for clarification, public comment and then the City Council will discuss the petition in more details. He stated that the City wanted the Federal government to participate in developing this large, unique site.

Councillor Carlone invited Ms. Farooq and Mr. Roberts to come forward.

Ms. Farooq stated that the Volpe parcel is a keystone parcel in the Kendall Square area, which needs to become a part of the fabric of the Cambridge. This parcel is key to connect with the surrounding neighborhoods of the City. This would create residential room for the knowledge economy to grow and open space. The first focused planning process began in 2001 and the zoning that exists there now was created. Additional planning work has been done on this area. It was hoped that the Federal government would give the parcel to the City for free but now that GSA has taken active control of the site. The project as envisioned would contribute to the knowledge economy that exists in Kendall Square.

Mr. Roberts set the context of the work being done by the Community Development Department. The material presented today is the same as what was presented at the recent Planning Board hearing. In 2011, the City initiated the Kendall Square Planning Study (K2). He explained that a key motivator was that at the time MIT had been developing a proposal to develop land they owned in Kendall Square, south of Main Street and Main Street at Broadway intersection. This was part of the impetus for the City to look at the larger vision for how Kendall Square may develop in the future. It was broadened to look at Kendall Square as a whole including the continued economic growth for the area. The commercial and residential growth was reviewed for the area.

He stated that the K2 Study from 2011 until 2013 looked at the core of Kendall Square, redevelopment scenarios, established expectations for future commercial and residential growth in the area and set specific public goals that would be tied to the growth, including sustainable design and development, investment in public space, transportation, workforce development and a greater public realm. He stated that space would be set-aside for entrepreneurs and smaller companies. He stated that Kendall Square study looked at the whole area and the availability of the Volpe site emerged.

The Volpe site represented the greatest opportunity to help transform Kendall Square given that it could accommodate the most commercial and residential growth of Kendall Square and could accommodate open space and connections that would tie the area together. Also the Volpe Site was up to that time the least likely site to change.

After the K2 study was completed the Volpe Center and the GSA started to approach the City to describe the exchange process. He stated that since the K2 Study the City Council has adopted two zoning petitions. In 2013, the City Council approved the MIT petition to create the PUD-5; this covers the land south of Main Street and the One Broadway location. He stated that subsequent to this the Planning Board approved the PUD-5 development plan in 2016. The adjacent MXD district was amended in 2015, which allowed additional commercial and residential infill development in the district and the Planning Board approved that development plan in 2017.

He stated that in 2015 the GSA began their process but no developer was selected for the site. He noted that the City continued to work to advance the planning for the Volpe site. In 2015 the Community Development Department and the Planning Board worked on developing zoning language, 3D modeling and analysis of transportation models and developed an urban design framework specific to the site. At the same time the Connect Kendall Square was ongoing with an Open Space Competition. He stated that recommendations were made, which were established from this competition.

However, in 2015 there were outstanding questions in the zoning process that needed to be answered by a developer. No action was taken by the City Council at this time, but the process continued by the GSA.

In 2016 the Volpe Working Group (VWG) was convened and has met for 9 months. The expectation was to develop a vision and planning and design principles for the site (ATTACHMENT A). Guiding and design principles were developed by the VWG. The VWG will continue to meet to discuss the zoning proposal, issues related to the development and to provide input into the Planning Board and the City Council deliberative process.

The GSA selected MIT as the developer in 2017. The Community Development Department provided the memo (ATTACHMENT B), which reflects the departure point from the 2015 zoning petition. This is a dialogue between the City and MIT and Community Development Department will provide input and go back into the work done previously to help alleviate important issues or help explain the thinking behind the provisions that are not being proposed by MIT.

Councillor Carlone asked for any questions by the City Council; no one asked questions. He stated that the VWG has been meeting for 9 months. They are present and will answer any questions later in the meeting. He invited MIT to come forward for their presentation.

Representing the petitioners were Steve Marsh, Managing Director, MIT Real Estate, Anthony Galluccio, Zoning Counsel, Darren Baird, Esquire, Goulston and Storrs, and Mr. Manfredi, Architect. Mr. Marsh stated that the agenda would be to explain the process to date, provide an overview of the zoning petition and conceptual site plans and renderings to provide intent behind the petition. Mr. Marsh stated that the petition will require many hearings and proceeded with the presentation (ATTACHMENT C). He stated that he would outline the proposed hearing. The second hearing will discuss the 3D model and the feedback from the community. He suggested that the third hearing would be on the responses to the feedback. He stated that the site is bounded by Broadway, Third, Binney and the Sixth Street pedestrian walkway and is comprised of 14 acres. He noted that the separately owned 303 Third Street is not included in the zoning petition. He stated that the new Volpe Center site would be located on 4 acres on the northwest segment of the overall site. This leaves 10 acres that MIT will control. He stated that the Volpe site was studied under the K2 Study. He commented that MIT has been involved with development in Kendall Square, which is an innovation area where community, retail, housing and active use is being built. He stated that the Planning Board filed a zoning petition in 2015. The recommendation from the Planning Board has been helpful to MIT and has helped form the petition submitted. The VWG has been working to develop guidelines and design principles for the site.

He stated that since MIT was awarded the bid in January 2017 there have been over 50 community hearings held to help form the petition. The Planning Board hearing was held on July 25, 2017. He noted that a workshop was held in June 2017 and the focus was on retail, open space and community space needs. There will be another workshop to be held on Sept 7, 2017 with the goal of taking the input heard and to have a variety of different site plans to try to integrate the inputs into the retail, open and community spaces. He stated that MIT is excited about the Volpe site. He added that this is an enormous opportunity to strengthen this unique mixed use district in Kendall Square with housing, retail, and open space with a goal to making this area inclusive and to be representative of the City. He acknowledged the importance of expanding the innovation and science district. He stated that proximity is critical to the discovery and the interchange between industry and academia and this will be achieved at the Volpe site. This is critical to the discoveries being made at Kendall Square and provide solutions to global challenges.

Attorney Galluccio gave an overview of the zoning petition. He stated that the PUD-7 petition was filed on June 21, 2017 and represents a new section in Article 13. The zoning does attach 4 site plans as requested by the co-chairs of the Ordinance Committee so that the community could understand the type of site plans that could be created. He stated that the public process has been thoughtful. There is a height map to provide information on the three height zones. He thanked the public for their comments and feedback, which led to clearer zoning language. He spoke about the Master Plan requirements outlined in Section 13.91.2. He explained that the zoning requires a number of plans be submitted. He read the allowed uses in 13.92.

The proposed FAR for the district is 5.2. He stated that the zoning incorporates the Volpe parcel and includes the small CRA-owned parcel on the corner of Third and Binney Streets. (303 Third Street building is not included in the proposed PUD-7.) He spoke about the exemptions, which include the government building (Volpe) above 400,000 square feet. Volpe’s 400,000 square feet was included in the calculations. He spoke about the retail exemptions. He stated that 50% of the innovation space which can total up to 5% of the non-residential GFA is exempt. This innovation space will encourage startups in Kendall.

He stated that non-residential development limitations up to 60% of the total authorized district Gross Floor Area of 1.7 million. He added that this does not include structured, underground parking. He stated that substantial construction of the residential uses must commence before more than 60% of the nonresidential uses can be permitted. This does not include community space, other governmental facility and institutional dormitory. He stated that 40% of the project must be residential. The project will conform to 20% affordable units and all the new provisions of the new Article Two and the commercial linkage.

He stated that one of the buildings in the district may be a hotel and is capped at 250,000 square feet and would provide the 20% affordable housing requirement. Area 2 is along Broadway, Fifth and Sixth Street and goes back to Potter, Fifth and Monroe Streets and only one residential building can be 500 feet. He highlighted the dimensional regulations in 13.93.4, which are Planning Board considerations.

He stated that the design guidelines were referenced in the zoning, but the petitioners were asked by the co-chairs of the Ordinance Committee to come up with better urban design and architectural guidelines.

He stated that buildings above 250 feet should limit the impact of shadows, wind, obstruction of light and views and limit environmental impacts. He stated that a minimum of 25% must be open space as required in the zoning which is 3.5 acres. He stated that open space on government owned land may be no more than 20% of the open space requirement. He stated that the criteria is established for the open space. He highlighted the provision of 13.95.

He stated that the Cambridge Ordinance for parking would be complied with. Parking maximums have been outlined. A TDM program will be required as part of the development proposal. The plans will indicate how the proposed development relates to future transportation options as contained in the K2 plan and includes a bus rapid transit service. He spoke about retail and active use which are special requirements. He stated that the Cambridge Noise Ordinance will be complied with and mechanical equipment noise must be minimized. He stated that Article Nineteen will still apply which govern wind, shadow and noise. He outlined innovation space and sustainability and special requirement (Kendall Fund) and community space.

Community space will be built by the petitioner and be within the PUD site and the $15 million has been designated and earmarked for design and construction. He noted that an advisory committee would be created to oversee the design and construction of the space. He made comments on the community center. He spoke about sustaining a diverse population for creating an economic diverse community. He outlined the affordable housing opportunities. He noted that $26 million will be contributed to the Affordable Housing Trust. He discussed the components of FAR in the Community Development memo.

The residential component is 1.82 of 5.2 FAR. The GSA building is 0.64 and the commercial FAR is 2.73. He stated that these are the different components of the 5.2 FAR. He spoke about the zoning FAR history.

David Manfredi, Architect, spoke about the conceptual site and open space plans. He spoke about Broadway, Third and Binney Streets and that the red line represents the entirety of the parcel. The blue line represents the four acre Volpe site. As per agreement with the GSA, he stated that the new Volpe building would be located in the northwest corner of the site. He stated that the Volpe building will have security setback requirements. There will be open space between Fifth Street and the building, between Potter Street and the building and the building and the Sixth Street walkway.

He spoke about key development principles as an opportunity to bring the community together. There is an opportunity to make a connection from Fifth Street through the Volpe site to the MBTA station and the river. He noted that the Volpe site has been secure and fenced in. The east/west connection to extend Broad Canal Way through the Volpe site to south of Potter and to the MXD with active uses is now possible. There is an opportunity to pull retail uses into the Volpe site.

The third principle is for diverse active open space - this means that this open space will be used all times of the day and have a wide level of uses and participants. He spoke about corporate, community and institutional innovation space. He spoke about outdoor and food uses, and open space that engages residents and brings people together.

He stated that the next design principle is great urban streets with ground floor uses. This addresses the configuration of the buildings so that the good things that are happening at Third Street and Broad Canal are built upon and expanded. This includes all types of spaces. He explained the opportunity for sustainability and resiliency because of the proximity to MIT, the size and scale of the project and the diversity of uses, a standard could be set for sustainability, resiliency and to make a place where all feel welcome with retail and food that is accessible to all and affordable.

He discussed the four site plans. Every site plan complies with the zoning, open space and height requirements. He stated that what changes is the location and configuration of the buildings and open space and the different priorities. He spoke about maximizing the benefit and impact of the site plans.

He stated that Site 2 puts the some of the open space on Third and Broadway to create a symbolic front door. The option means a residential and a commercial buildings have been relocated from Site Plan 1.

He stated that the constraint is that the south side is the base of Cambridge Center One and the location for the transformers of the MBTA. It does provide the opportunity to provide significant space on the corner, which is welcoming to all. The edges are active and the water can been seen. He noted that Site Plan 3 is an opportunity to do two different kinds of open space. This site is big enough to have a park and a square. There are two residential buildings and three commercial buildings. All sites offer the same the amount of open space configured in different ways. He stated that Site Plan 4 introduces a path that connects the intersection of Potter and Fifth with Broadway and Third Streets. This plan does not have as much contiguous open space. The commercial building is located along Broadway and the residential buildings are on Potter and Fifth Streets. This provides soft and hard scapes. He stated that all these are planning solutions that look at ways to satisfy the different principles. They reflect the design principles that have evolved.

Steve Marsh stated that a lot of time was spent evaluating the site. He stated that the petitioners started with a site plan that was thought to be good. He noted that the petition was reflective of the thoughts of the Planning Board for zoning, there was a feasible mix with four R & D buildings and four residential buildings. The open space was centered, retail corridors were created to draw people in and creating street front retail along Third Street and Broadway. He stated that the feedback on the Broad Canal was heard. He stated that the petitioners have learned to listen with this process and the plan has been changed along the way for the better and through thorough robust engagements.

He walked through the evolution of the site plans. There were four R & D buildings, four residential buildings and a commercial lab. The lab was relocated to Binney Street. He stated that the residential building will be next to 303 Third Street. This allowed for more light. The next plan came from ECPT about putting the open space on the corner and this has merit. The third option was to keep the open space on the corner and link the open space through the site. He noted that each plan has attributes.

He stated that 130 people came to the June Workshop. He stated that on Sept 7, 2017 the workshop will include the feedback that will be put on the site plans to see how they will fit with the retail and the community space. He spoke about the continuing issues. He stated that relating to the open space what has been heard is welcoming, family friendly, demographically inclusive. Community space is another way to make the space feel welcoming; the 20% affordable three bedroom units will make the space inclusive.

Another area that needs to be addressed is Graduate Student Housing need. He added that the institution has made progress on this. He explained that graduate housing was not a requirement of the Kendall zoning. He stated a study was done and there was a commitment to create 250 units of housing at Kendall, which the first project is being created at Kendall Square.

He stated that the preservation of as many trees as possible is important. He stated that development of the Volpe guidelines is important. He noted that it is important that the right balance is achieved.

At this time Councillor Carlone asked the City Councillors if they had qualifying questions. Councillor Toomey thanked the VWG for their work, the staff and former City Manager, Mr. Rossi. He is extremely disappointed with the Grand Junction not being part of the process; this needs to be an intricate part of this proposal. He stated that this is critical. Third Street is gridlocked now. He wanted MIT to come back with recommendations to make this a reality as soon as possible. He commented that this is critical for him. The Grand Junction will bring people from the river to East Cambridge and connect to the North Station. He stated that working with the State for light rail and a bike path would be beneficial.

Councillor Toomey asked about parking. Mr. Marsh responded that the parking is below grade and is not part of the density; 2000 spaces in different buildings throughout the site. Councillor Toomey asked if the Community Center would count toward the public open space. Mr. Marsh stated that this is still in the definitional phase and that they are trying to understand the community desire on this. Attorney Galluccio stated that there are exemptions for FAR. He noted that if the Community Center were a free standing building it might count as open space. He spoke about roof space, recreational space, job connection space and no overlapping use with the Foundry. He noted that the exemptions need to be discussed after the evolution of the idea. He stated that the commercial link is split in two; $8.5 million will go to transit contribution.

Mr. Marsh said much efforts needs to be invested to make the Grand Junction path a reality. MIT will do its part with the Grand Junction. He commented that MIT only owns a piece of the section of the Grand Junction and recognizes the need for transit improvements. Councillor Toomey asked about the negative effect of glass facades and the environment issues. Mr. Manfredi spoke about the difficulty in meeting the sustainability requirements with the requirements of the new building code; the sustainability requirements get more stringent but are not impossible. He stated that the desire for daylight and views impacts sustainability and energy use offset by the cost to make buildings energy efficient. He spoke about the use of the traditional materials while being technologically the most advanced buildings in the City.

Councillor Carlone stated that his concern is also aesthetics; glass facades are relatively dead. Glass elevations tend to go black and others become primarily reflective. There is little sense of architectural detail and human scale. They are lifeless. He noted that Mr. Manfredi’s renderings begin to convey this architectural spirit.

Mayor Simmons stated that she liked the different iterations and the flexibility. This needs to be right at this time. She asked if the Sixth Street Walkway connecting the community to Kendall Square this would remain. Mr. Marsh stated that the Sixth Street Walkway will be integrated with the site; it is a highly popular pedestrian zone. Attorney Galluccio stated that there is a setback requirement in the zoning that will protect the trees on the walkway. Mayor Simmons asked if the open space is contiguous to get people from the East Cambridge, Wellington-Harrington community to walk into Kendall Square. Mr. Marsh responded that the Federal government has evolved their thinking; Volpe wants to turn buildings inside out and connect to others doing innovative work and wants to attract talented workers because they are a research facility. He spoke about Federal regulations that may play a part in the integration of the site. The landscape architect working on MIT is the same working with the Federal government.

Mayor Simmons spoke about other open space that was fenced off and that the public does not have access to. Mr. Marsh explained that the intention is to go the other way. This is an opportunity to integrate the neighborhoods into Kendall Square. Mayor Simmons noted the 280 units of low-moderate units for Volpe and asked how many affordable units currently exists. She stated that this impacts the school system. Mr. Roberts stated that there is other housing in Kendall Square and with this development there will be 1,000 new units of housing and 2,000 units built or permitted and the Kendall Square units are part of the inclusionary housing requirement. Mayor Simmons stated that MIT is being deliberate with open space so that the community is welcomed. She spoke about the family housing that borders the site and its retail is important to her. She wanted all residents to feel comfortable on the site with the availability of affordable food, dining and supermarket options. Attorney Galluccio noted that what is different about the Volpe site is it is ten acres and 40% of the land the city is requiring to be housing. He stated that the will exists to make this an economically inclusive community and an environment that will allow retail to flourish and be affordable.

Councillor Mazen asked if the open space includes the retail spill out. Mr. Marsh stated that in the level of planning the specifics are unknown. Councillor Mazen asked why the 60/40% split. Mr. Marsh stated that the bid was for $750 million for the site. MIT needs 1.7 million square feet of commercial space on the site for MIT to create the funding to support the commitments made to the Federal government, open space, retail and housing and community benefits. Councillor Mazen asked why innovation space should be exempted from zoning - is it subsidized or market rate innovation space? Mr. Marsh explained that the petition followed the Kendall Square planning process and recommendations. This was included in the previous Kendall zoning. He spoke about the mechanism to create an efficiency and use of the asset available to startup companies to reduce the risk for small businesses. This concept has been followed into the Volpe process.

Councillor Mazen suggested that MIT subsidize a certain amount of space. Mr. Marsh stated that a decade was spent on innovative lab space and we are trying to make the changes that technology will go in. Councillor Mazen asked the number of graduate student spaces. Mr. Marsh responded that there are 250 units in Kendall Square for graduate space. MIT will work on the issue and find solutions.

Councillor Mazen stated that it is important to know this number early in the process.

Councillor Mazen questioned whether the number of tall buildings would not be greater than 10% of the area of the parcel. Attorney Galluccio stated that this is a shrinking floor plate as you go up. There is an allowance for one building to be 500 feet and it has to be residential building. Councillor Carlone noted that no building will go above 250 feet except 6,400 square feet. Councillor Mazen noted that many do not want to see a 500 feet building. This is scaring people. Mr. Marsh stated that this is a dialogue started with the Planning Board when discussing Kendall Square. If there was to be an iconic building being designed in Kendall Square this is possibility is in this petition. Councillor Mazen also wondered why Grand Junction is not in the petition. He questioned why any of the 20% open space requirement is in governmental part of parcel. Attorney Galluccio responded that the public wanted the Federal government pushed for the open space that is productive, useable and aligned with MIT portion of the parcel. The percentage will not make or break the proposal; what is relevant is housing, open space, sustainability and affordability. Mr. Marsh noted that this was also in the prior City petition. Councillor Mazen commented that community outreach is important. He stated that he does not feel that the whole community is being reached.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked why the decision is to put the Volpe in the northeast corner or would there be a better plan if the building were moved. Mr. Marsh explained that it was the only logical site for GSA to operate while a new building is being built. This will be a design excellence building.

Councillor Kelley asked if MIT is looking for outside financing. Mr. Marsh responded in the affirmative. Councillor Kelley stated that he is disappointed that there is any parking beyond what is minimally needed.

Councillor Devereux asked would the GSA building be subject to the linkage fee. Mr. Marsh responded in the negative. Councillor Devereux asked how tall the building will be. Mr. Manfredi responded somewhere between 200-250 feet. Councillor Devereux asked about the phasing of the project. Mr. Marsh stated that the Volpe building will take one year to design and 2.5 years to construct. He spoke about the planning, masterplan and design process in Cambridge and the permitting process will be undertaken while the GSA building is being built. The MIT phasing will be market oriented. He stated that the total buildout of this site will be around ten years. Councillor Devereux referenced flooding and resiliency floors raised above the 2070 flood level and will retail be elevated. Mr. Marsh stated that the design is not specific yet and explained what has been done previously by MIT. There are techniques that are evolving and Cambridge and MIT are tuned into this. Councillor Devereux urged MIT to look at the models in the Netherlands because this effects the open space. She stated that Fifth Street will be a pedestrian oriented street. Attorney Galluccio stated that the neighborhoods did not want increased traffic based on the GSA. He stated that Fifth Street is not intended to be a heavily traveled vehicle roadway.

Councillor Cheung noted that this is the introductory meeting and that there will be an in-depth process with this zoning; many meetings are planned on this petition.

Councillor Carlone stated that 25% of 65% of active frontage will be 5,000 square feet or less. He asked where the 5,000 square feet comes from. Small local retail is wanted and this square footage seems very high. Attorney Galluccio stated that the square footage determines the diverse retail. This will be continued to be worked on. Councillor Carlone asked about sustainable of commercial buildings what about residential buildings. Mr. Manfredi stated that it is Gold LEED standard for both commercial and residential buildings. Councillor Carlone asked about the $15 million allocated for the Community Center - does it exclude the foundation and building shell. It is strictly interior work. Mr. Marsh stated that no conclusion has been made yet.

Councillor Carlone asked the members of the Volpe Working Group to come forward to speak in public comment.

Brian Dacey, President, Cambridge Innovation Center and member of the VWG, commended MIT for its work. He submitted a communication (ATTACHMENT D). He stated that the commitment for housing, residential space, community uses and open space uses seems to be the right balance. He stated that he was pleased with the continued commitment for innovation space. He stated that 40% housing commitment is a great addition to ensure that this is a vibrant mixed use community. Community space commitment has not happened in the Seaport District of Boston. He spoke about the long term view of MIT is beneficial.

Peter Crawley, member of the VWG, spoke for the neighborhood representatives. He submitted a communication (ATTACHMENT E). His comments were that MITICO has not appeared before VWG since filing the petition. He spoke about MIT’s long term view and he was glad that MIT is the developer. He supported that the Grand Junction is key to building the transportation infrastructure to allow all the square footage for Kendall Square to function in a viable way. The Grand Junction was the primary suggested solutions to alleviate the congestion in Kendall Square. He spoke on the open space. He favored a significant amount of open space at the corner of Third and Broadway because it leverages the wide-open street space and it invites and welcomes the public into the open space and leverages the existing Galaxy Park. He stated that the sun at lunch time is on the corner of Broadway and Third Streets and is in shadow at Fifth Street location before lunch. He suggested a shadow study be done. He is delighted that MIT has proposed a place-maker for the Community Center space. A vibrant community, recreation and educational facility is badly needed and serves a broad number of socio-economic demographic community and is in line with the Volpe mission to develop connections and provide a place where people interact and make community. This is different from the Foundry and deserves its own location.

Mr. Gerald O’Leary supported not linking the open space to the Federal space. The open space should stand alone as an independent space. He favored the open space on Third and Broadway. He asked about the long-term ownership of the open space; will it be the City owned land. He wanted to get a sense of the City Council ideas and values used to evaluate the decisions on these difficult issues.

Councillor Carlone opened Public Comment at 6:03pm.

Tom Stohlman, 19 Channing Street, stated that he would send written comments. The proposed FAR is huge compared to existing and K2 study and housing numbers should be better proportioned to business. He noted that the K2 study highlighted the Kendall Square did not have enough housing and in order to bring the mix to 40/60 it was dependent on Volpe site to have a larger proportion of housing to commercial. The value of height is that it frees up space on the ground for open space, but open space is being cut substantially. It is being cut from the proposal and ECAP which had 40% of the site be open space. He stated that transportation systems in Kendall Square are broken. This needs to be fixed. It is essential to pay attention to the work done previously by the City in competitions and studies. This is being ignored by the current proposal as well as the one in 2015.

Chuck Hinds, President, ECPT, 207 1/2 Charles Street, read from a memo from the ECAP dated July 18, 2017 were members raised fundamental questions about the baseline values in MITIMCo’s petition that far exceed the zoning parameters of the ECAPs study in 2001 which is not the current zoning and the K2 study of 2013. He expressed concern about the timing of the petition and wanted postponement of the City’s approval process to discuss critical issues. He noted that the ECAPs and K2 studies represent a lot of work done by staff, outside professionals and the community (ATTACHMENT F-1). He wanted to know the reason that justifies the critical FAR increases, the amount of open space and what community benefits will be distributed, especially those targeted to abutting neighborhoods. He stated that ECPT feels it is inappropriate for the Volpe petition process to continue over the summer when the ECPT does not meet. He wanted the process be postponed until September. Other e-mails received from ECPT request 3D configurable building models of the Volpe site dated July 10, 2017 (ATTACHMENT F-2) and support for the abutters of 303 Third Street regarding the Volpe open space preference (ATTACHMENT F-3).

Michael Yeates, 395 Broadway, expressed his confidence with MIT as the developer and supported a good development plan. He enjoys living in Cambridge and the educational institutions are a benefit to the City.

Abigail Regitsky, 165 CambridgePark Drive, Local Affairs Chair of MIT Graduate Counsel, representing 6800 graduate students, is concerned with housing for graduate students. She spoke about the need for MIT to provide graduate student housing at an affordable rate. Only 36% of students are housed on campus, which contributes to the housing crisis and makes housing less affordable for the Cambridge community. She stated that per a 2014 study 52% of student’s income is spent on housing and MIT’s graduate student housing supply is not meeting the demand. She stated that graduate housing concerns have been repeatedly been expressed over the years. A survey was created with 23% of graduate student’s participation. The results indicate a demand for an additional 1,100 units for single students and an additional 700 units for students with families. She noted that despite this graduate housing need, there is no commitment to build more graduate student housing in the MIT zoning petition. She stated that there is much concern that the Volpe project will actually exacerbate the housing crisis in Cambridge. She stated that providing more graduate student housing could help alleviate the housing crisis. Eugenia supported this development because increasing density is a good idea for environmental and equality reasons. She supported this petition moving forward.

Jesse Kanson-Benanav, 26 Willow Street, Chair, A Better Cambridge, supported that there will be a continued ongoing process. He spoke about the concerns of those included and not included in the process. He stated that participation is excluded when hearings start at 3:30 and it is hours before public comment is heard, which excludes people from participating. He spoke about affordable, sustainable housing opportunity for everyone. He stated that creating dense housing through height can be accommodated on this site and can create housing opportunities. He stated that there are 280 affordable housing units being proposed with this development on this site. He is glad this development includes 20% affordable housing units.

Stephen Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street, stated his appreciation for the acoustics in this room. He submitted a summary of the key issues of the Volpe site and the MIT petition (ATTACHMENT G-1). He stated there is no transportation plan in the zoning petition. He noted that the Grand Junction, parking, improved transit and vehicle trip counts were not presented; this is an amazing omission. He stated that in November 2015 the Planning Board made revisions to the zoning for the Volpe site and transit language was added to the earlier City petition. He suggested incorporating this language in the current petition. He is astonished with the omission. He stated that the CRA has done good work on transportation. He stated GSA is exempt from zoning and they are a petitioner which is absurd. GSA can build what they want and can go up to 500 feet without needing permission. He stated that 50 stories on Volpe floor plate is 2.5 million square feet. He stated that the government rule is impossible to deal with. He stated that there are court case that states it is perfectly legal for the government to build a building that violates zoning. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT G-2).

Ellen Schacter, 346 Concord Avenue, Housing Lawyer with CSLS, stated that she is excited about this project. She explained her work for finding affordable housing for those who need it. She is confused that there is a lot being given to the developer and it is increasing the profitability of the underlying zoning, but why is the City only getting the same percentage of affordable housing units if the zoning relief were not being granted. She noted that the City has consistently identified affordable housing as its number one priority. She favored getting more affordable housing. She does not think it makes sense to have the hotel/motel count toward the 40% residential requirements. She stated that a large amount of square footage is exempt and all the square footage of the hotel/motel should count for 20% requirement. She read the exemptions. She stated that unless there is a specific number of subsidies the commercial square footage will not be affordable. She wanted a rent cap or a subsidy on the commercial space.

Bjorn Poonen, 303 Third Street, stated his support for the MIT graduate student counsel. This graduate student housing is essential. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT H). He spoke about aspects of the petition, which weaken the health and safety of the proposed development. He wanted clarification as to why this is being changed in the petition. He spoke about the open space. The East Cambridge community has asked for a large open space on Third and Broadway and the site plans are not reflective of this. He asked what area the GSA is being calculated on. It seems that it is based on the entire PUD-7 district and includes streets and roadway and not just the fourteen acre site.

Deborah Ruhe, Executive Director of the Just-A-Start Corporation, stated that she is thrilled to see the revitalization of Kendall Square. This provides the opportunity to create a neighborhood. She stated that Kendall Square behind Alewife has the least amount of density in the City. She stated that these 14 acres has not been contributing taxes to the City and will be able to provide more money for the city coffers after the development is complete. Over 280 units of affordable housing will be coming to the City without the City having to spend any money is incredible. This being a mixed use community benefits the City. The Community Center space is a benefit. She welcomes the opportunity to work with MIT and the developer as this project moves forward.

Sam Seidel, 43 Harris Street, supported the affordable housing units and more units of housing in general. He stated that 500 feet building is too high. Fifth Street is a core urban design question and is worth looking at this issue. The other core area is Third and Broadway which should be a park. He spoke of building a path from Sixth to Binney Street down to Broadway. He spoke on the Community Center. He suggested a planning exercise should be done for splitting the activities for the Foundry and this new Community Center. He stated that the Rogers Street Park should be included in the open space conversation. He stated that retail will double in this area. MIT is building south of this site should be included in conversation.

Carol O’Hare, 172 Magazine Street, stated that whatever space is being counted on the GSA site as open space has to be binding in perpetuity and enforceable by the City. If this cannot be done then no open space on the GSA space should be counted as open space for the purpose of the final percentage. She stated that the concept of open space needs to be clearly defined. She stated that since the Lighting Ordinance is in abeyance there needs to be a binding commitment that there will be no roof top or terrace top or mechanical penthouse inside or outside lighting or facade lighting or any type of extraneous lighting for at least the ten acres portion. There should be no extraneous or environmental diminishing lighting. She commented that the noise compliance commitment isn’t worth the paper it is written on because the Noise Ordinance is a joke. She spoke about the iconic building concept as being similar to the Prudential Center.

Rosemary Booth, 303 Third Street, stated that she has concerns with the petition. She acknowledged the efforts of MIT to build connections with the neighborhoods. She stated that there is too much building being proposed for the site. The 5.2 FAR is for the four acres of federal property that may only have an FAR of 2. She stated that much less building is needed on 10 acres. The petition FAR should be no higher than 4.0. This is the density proposed in the K2 study. She stated that the Federal property should not be counted as public open space. She stated that DOT can restrict access to their land at any time. Cambridge Zoning should specify the amount of non-Federal open space that is required and the MIT petition should be weighed against this number. Open space should be located on Third and Broadway. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT I).

Ilan Levy, 148 Spring Street, expressed his concern about the up-zoning for the Volpe petition. He stated that the City Council should have postponed this hearing until September and the next City Council should be the group to vote on the finality of this project. The extra up-zoning will increase traffic from 60,000 to 100,000 cars. He stated that this represents the entire population of Cambridge in the Kendall Square area. The fact that MIT is willing to pay double or triple the land value for this land is mindboggling. During the ECAPs process the Volpe site was non-existent and the open space was seven acres. The City is losing 4 acres with the land on which the DOT will be located. The ECAPs was requesting 7.5 open accessible space. He stated that this was compensation for the overbuilding being done in East Cambridge. He added that multi-generational families are not staying in Cambridge.

Chris Matthews, 26 Sixth Street, stated that this is the right place for a high density smart growth project. He stated that the Grand Junction is a needed zero emission corridor. He stated that regarding the Community Center, universities endow buildings for lifetime maintenance and management and this endowment is equal to construction cost. The open space should be on Broadway and Third Streets because East Cambridge has no proper square at this location. He asked why the MIT proposed open space south of Potter couldn’t be moved. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT J).

James Williamson spoke about the promise and commitment of seven acres of open space; this should not be ignored. He stated that GSA space should get a minimum amount of open space. This is looking at Volpe and GSA as two separate issues. He noted that even though Volpe is the transportation research center, there is no discussion on transportation. The City needs to have the right mental map when it comes to housing. Graduate student housing should be on the Volpe site. He stated that the City Council should hire lawyers to pick through the details of the petition. There is manipulation occurring with the numbers and the counting. He stated that expectations need to be raised.

Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place, stated that the Cambridge Residents Alliance is concerned with the definition of public space. She stated that who owns the public space in perpetuity is a major concern. The affordable housing at North Point is still building at 11.5% twenty years after they got their PUD. She suggested building escalation into the percentage in the petition for housing. A model is needed on the density, height and impact on the area around the site. She stated that no hotels/motels should be included in the residential component of this project. She stated that graduate student housing is supported by the Cambridge Residents Alliance. She added that there is no other way to get MIT to building graduate student housing other than the Volpe petition as a mechanism to push MIT to build this housing. She suggested that MIT collaborate with their graduate students to understand their plight.

Patrick Barrett, 41 Pleasant Street, stated that this is a rare opportunity here. He suggested throwing the zoning into the trash and think about what is wanted on the ten acres and to think about the best outcome. Density for housing only works on the large projects. He stated that Kendall Square has done a good job by introducing by special permit projects that subsidize a portion of the overall retail on the site. He stated the City should not be overly restrictive. He stated that this proposal is modest compared to what could be done.

Public comment ended 7:05pm on motion of Councillor Carlone.

Councillor Carlone opened the hearing for comments by the City Councillors.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that for a standalone building 20% works but for mixed use more can be done. This all comes down to financing and it is still a mystery. It comes down to how the finances work and he does not have a clear sense of this. He wanted a written document that explains why 25% affordable housing will not financially work. On the open space he is happy to see the goal is to have family-friendly open space. He spoke about what amenities are needed in Kendall Square. He supported affordable retail. He stated that the economic divide is seen on Massachusetts Avenue between Dunkin Donuts and Starbucks. There needs to be a variety of retail establishments that are affordable. A better grasp on transportation is needed. He addressed the timing of the petition. He wanted more meetings closer together to discuss this. He is not afraid of height and density especially at this location. He would be fine with fewer, taller buildings if this means more open space. He hopes that this opportunity cannot be squandered.

Councillor Carlone stated that the taller the building the greater its responsibility to be beautifully designed with handsome architectural character and human presence.

Mayor Simmons wanted MIT to bring back a fuller petition. She stated that community outreach should be done on Saturday in the Port, East Cambridge and Wellington- Harrington neighborhoods. She wanted a broader impact analysis of how it would affect all residents. She spoke about deception on open space by another developer. She spoke about retail needs. She stated that the neighborhoods who are contiguous to this do not feel involved. Low and moderate-income families will work in the area and they need affordable food market. Greater community outreach needs to be met.

Councillor Mazen stated that there are a lot of Eastern Cambridge residents and others that are unsure of what will come out of this. He stated that the Federal government section should not be included in the calculations for FAR. Where is the priority of the graduate student housing and he wanted to know the numbers. He requested MITIMCO and Volpe to engage neighborhood groups on their own terms. This is an opportunity for the developer to filter and reprioritize the needs of the community and feed it back to the City Council. He added that this is not transparent. He wanted the community to be part of the open negotiations. He wanted ECPT to gather other neighborhoods to state what is needed and MIT can tell us what can be afforded. He stated that this petition will not be rushed through. This can be a consensus based discussion.

Attorney Galluccio stated that there is more work to be done and in the fall there will be more creative ideas on engagement. People did come out and made suggestions and MIT listened. The site plan with open space on the corner came from the neighborhood and represents requests from the community.

Councillor Mazen stated that MIT can earn higher density and profit margin and could go higher on affordable housing. He suggested more meetings with the community. Attorney Galluccio stated that this is an invitation to do more. He stated that square footage is clear, land acquisition prices are clear. More detail about the land cost can be supplied for the next meeting.

Councillor Devereux stated that the $8.5 million for transit is too low. The Grand Junction has to be part of this. The $6 million linkage fee the city is losing from the GSA building needs to be made up. She added that the sustainability measures are weak. She stated that conducting an energy allowance is required under the state building code and this is not going far enough. She stated that sustainability should be evaluated for all of the urban guidelines. She stated that the parking requirement are too high. The $15 million for a Community Center is too low; an endowment is needed and the focus should be on recreation. Language should be changed from may to must. She likes site plan 4. She wanted a consideration for a commitment to early childhood use and would consider exempting that space from the FAR. Graduate student housing needs to be built. The housing should be a higher percentage. She stated that there is not enough transit. The hotel should not be included as residential. Lighting should be part of this zoning. She wanted the inclusionary percentage not locked in and 25% is reasonable. She does not understand what portion of the investment would go back to the institute. Mr. Marsh responded that 100% of what is earned goes back to university. Councillor Mazen asked does MIT have Limited Partnerships. Mr. Marsh responded that there are Limited Partners at times.

Councillor Carlone stated that he attended the Planning Board hearing and the Planning Board requested, in writing, how the development numbers are figures. He stated that the City Council would like to see these numbers as well. He spoke about the 5,000 square foot retail exemption. He wanted to know more about this. He stated that he feared collegiate creep everywhere in the city, but especially in Eastern Cambridge. He stated that the proposed buildings should not become college buildings. He preferred no hotels or dorms on the site. He is very concerned about so called iconic buildings. Volpe will be iconic by virtue of their choice of the architect. He suggested the language be changed to read architectural landmark of great beauty instead of iconic.

He wanted to see Volpe/GSA plan as soon as possible to fully understand their impact on MIT’s plans and petition. The city’s open space definitions need refinement to better understand what is being proposed as opposed to what is needed. He stated that at the next meeting a physical model should be shown and a related shadow study is also needed. He stated that he would schedule another hearing within a week after the next Planning Board’s second hearing. He wanted the Council to understand the real estate value gained by the increased density and height. He wanted to know the strategy on the graduate student housing as part of a MOU. He wanted a job training plan for the abutting neighborhoods.

The following e-mails were received and made part of the report:
Communication from Jason Alves, East Cambridge Business Association, stated that the Volpe rezoning is a great opportunity to unlock an underutilized parcel in Kendall Square and can provide open space, affordable housing and enhance the economic engine of the City (ATTACHMENT K).
Communication from Gerald Bergman, 82 Elm Street, commenting on affordable housing, open space, trees, graduate student housing and to revise the plans and hold another meeting in the Port neighborhood (ATTACHMENT L).
Communication from Mary-Ann Donofrio, 120 Gore Street, requesting a 3D mode of the project, more meetings and a compromise between 3.0 and 6.0 FAR (ATTACHMENT M).
Communication from Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, requesting MITIMCO to justify the scale of the proposed increase in the density, an increase in graduate student housing, public open space and the half of the community benefits be allocated to the abutting neighborhoods (ATTACHMENT N).
Communication from Dave Figgins, 15 Richdale Avenue, in support of the Volpe zoning proposal (ATTACHMENT O).
Communication from Juvinal Furtado, 313 Evereteze Way, in support of the development of the Volpe project (ATTACHMENT P).
Communication from. Matt Haymer, Co-Owner Cafe Luna, 612 Main Street, in support of the MIT’s Volpe Development project (ATTACHMENT Q).
Communication from David Kirby, Beacon Waterproofing and Restoration, Inc., in support of the Volpe Redevelopment project (ATTACHMENT R).
Communication from Jeanne Koopman, 248 River Street, commenting that the Volpe site proposal is too dense, needs to include more residential units and graduate student housing and the community benefits should go to the immediate adjacent neighborhoods (ATTACHMENT S).
Communication from Steve Kurland, Za and EVOO, 350 Third Street, in support of the MIT’s development of the Volpe space (ATTACHMENT T).
Communication from Joyce Lee, Founder, Nibble in support of the Volpe redevelopment project (ATTACHMENT U).
Communication from Nixon Maitre, 2542 Massachusetts Avenue, supporting the Volpe Project plans to date (ATTACHMENT V).
Communication from Ed Papacoda, 165 Cambridgepark Drive, in support of the Volpe development in Kendall Square (ATTACHMENT W).
Communication from John A. Penney, Chief Executive Officer, John A. Penney Co., Inc., in support of the MIT Volpe Redevelopment Project (ATTACHMENT X).
Communication from Brian Potter, President, TG Gallagher, urging support of the Volpe site project (ATTACHMENT Y).
Communication from Geeta Pradhan, President, Cambridge Community Foundation, 99 Bishop Allen Drive, regarding the impacts of the development and the process of development for the Volpe site (ATTACHMENT Z).
Communication from Eric B. Quadrano, MexiCali Burrito, MexiCali Burrito Cabana, Sulmona Restaurant, in support of the MIT’s Volpe zoning proposal that incorporates affordable and moderate residential units and innovation space for startup companies (ATTACHMENT AA).
Communication from Brian Reynolds, 33 Lee Street, in support of the Volpe rezoning that creates open space that will benefit pedestrians, bicyclists and the community and also provides a platform for public programming and which includes a north-south connection to allow easy access to the T and other outlets of transportation (ATTACHMENT BB).
Communication from Ann Stewart, 31 Wheeler Street, transmitting comments about the publicly beneficial open space and the maximum building heights on the PUD-7 proposal (ATTACHMENT CC).

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 7:47pm.

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