O-3     Oct 2, 2017
MAYOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
WHEREAS: The retail landscape is changing rapidly, consumer habits are changing, and commercial districts and the viability of local, regional, national, and international businesses in those districts are being greatly impacted as a result; and
WHEREAS: Harvard Square continues to be a thriving mixed use district that attracts between 8 and 10 million visitors each year and provides over $30 million annually to the City in real estate tax revenues; and
WHEREAS: Nevertheless, Harvard Square is undeniably feeling the impact of the changing retail climate and businesses such as Uno’s, Fire + Ice, American Apparel, City Sports, Eastern Mountain Sports, Tory Row, Hidden Sweets, Schoenhof’s Foreign Books, Crazy Dough, wagamama, Boloco, Pinkberry, and others have been forced into vacating their spaces; and
WHEREAS: It has become clear that attempts to add regulations to control the types and sizes of retail businesses, at a time when experts in retail strategies are encouraging the easing of regulations that hinder the ability of “brick and mortar” businesses to be flexible and adaptive, is not a viable solution to this problem; and
WHEREAS: In recognition of the need to be proactive in facing the growing challenges to retailers, the Harvard Square Conservation District established guidelines in 2000 to serve as a helpful tool in guiding changes in Harvard Square, these guidelines were revisited in 2005, and in September 2017, the City Manager appointed the Harvard Square Conservation District Committee to review these guidelines and determine if these need to again be adjusted; and
WHEREAS: It is hoped that any City plans to improve business conditions in Harvard Square will also factor in the need for greater, more intensive efforts to provide services to those who are homeless who gravitate toward this area; and
WHEREAS: It is also hoped that, as Harvard Square is an important multi-modal transportation center for Cambridge and Greater Boston, efforts will be made to improve the flow of traffic and tour buses, and to work to tackle the traffic congestion in this area; and
WHEREAS: In recognition of these needs and these goals, the Harvard Square Business Association – which has been promoting commerce since 1910 through being good stewards of the Square by caring for the public space, welcoming visitors from around the globe, advocating for public toilets and homeless shelters, creating seating areas and organizing events, printing wayfinding maps, providing for free public outside Wifi, and by purchasing and maintaining flowers, tables, chairs, and umbrellas – has recently forwarded a number of actionable items to the City Council that are intended to provide support to the unique Harvard Square eco-system, and that shall serve to maintain and enhance the vibrancy for all denizens of Harvard Square; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the appropriate City staff to work toward determining the feasibility of, and then implementing, the following actions:
• Lower the transportation speed limit within the Harvard Square Overlay District to 15 miles per hour for all vehicles, including bicycles
• Work with the HSBA to create a comprehensive plan to install more bicycle lanes throughout the entire HSQ Overlay district
• Assign three walking officers to Harvard Square at all times during the day, and request that the officers help with traffic at the Super Cross Walk
• Designate specific drop off and pick up locations for Uber, Lyft, and other TNC’s (Transportation Network Companies)
• Allow for propane heating units in outside patios to encourage three season outdoor seating in Harvard Square
• Utilize the limited, but unique, outside spaces to create more plazas for public enjoyment
• Provide more tables, chairs, and umbrellas on those plazas
• Provide more trash receptacles, and replace all in those in poor condition
• Provide information to the City Council and identify additional services that can be taken to ensure that our homeless population is safer, warmer, and taken even better care of just ahead of the winter season
• Establish a plan for managing Tour Buses coming into the Square, including drop-off and pick up locations and parking, and continue to work closely with the MBTA and other stakeholders to improve transit service connections and improve on-time performance of transit vehicles serving the Square; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on progress made in these efforts in a timely manner.

O-5     Oct 2, 2017  Amended
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
MAYOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR MAHER
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has historically been a proud supporters of Immigrants, including Undocumented Immigrant Rights; and
WHEREAS: Since 1985 Cambridge has been a Sanctuary City; becoming one of the first communities in the United States to enact such important legislation; and
WHEREAS: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), was created by President Obama five years ago to protect children who due to no fault of their own were brought to the United States by their parents as unauthorized immigrants; and
WHEREAS: The U.S. government is not accepting new DACA applications and will stop accepting renewal applications on October 5th. Those currently enrolled in the program retain their benefits, which last for a total of two years; and
WHEREAS: DACA recipients, commonly referred to as, "Dreamers" of which approximately 7800 DACA beneficiaries live in the Cambridge/Boston area are required to pay a $495 fee every two years often struggle to pay this fee; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge has historically acted proactively to assist any and all immigrants in need of help; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Cambridge City Manager's office, in as timely manner as possible, determine if Cambridge can legally assist DACA beneficiaries by collecting donations from individuals and organizations, in addition to managing and dispersing such raised donations on a reimbursement basis to Cambridge DACA beneficiaries.

O-8     Oct 2, 2017
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: It has come to the attention of the City Council that residents feel it would be fair to create a bike registration policy in the City of Cambridge to keep better data of biking in Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: The City Council recently increased the resident permit fee and as part of that process, established a voluntary fund for residents to donate to that would help to fund environmentally friendly projects in the City of Cambridge; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department to create a volunteer bike registry program that can accept donations to be added to above-mentioned fund and to report back to the City Council; and be it further
ORDERED: That this matter be referred to the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee meeting on Oct 10, 2017.

O-10     Oct 2, 2017
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Community Electricity program allows the City to negotiate a price for the Supplier Service portion of residents’ Eversource electricity bill, saving residents money and offering cleaner-energy alternatives beginning in July 2017; and
WHEREAS: Residents were automatically enrolled, with an opt-out option, in the “Standard Green” program, that provides 25% more solar energy than is required by the state, and the energy is provided by companies in or near Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: Residents could alternatively opt into the “100% Green” option at a slightly higher cost but which provides 100% renewable and New England-sourced energy; and
WHEREAS: The “Standard Green” option costs consumers 10.486 cents/kWh, while the “100% Green” option costs 12.180 cents/kWh, resulting in a difference of 1.694 cents/kWh; and
WHEREAS: The previous Eversource standard rate was 10.759 cents/kWh, so the "25% Green" option saves residents money, and the cost differential for the "100% Green" option is only 1.421 cents/kWh over the prior standard rate; and
WHEREAS: The City Council recently asked for an update on how many people enrolled in each option; and
WHEREAS: The Council received a report on Sept 11, 2017 which indicated that there were 37,747 enrollments in the “Standard Green” option, and only 507 enrollments in the “100% Green” option; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge strives to increase the use of renewable energy whenever possible, and should continue to promote easy access to renewable resources to residents; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the appropriate City departments to determine the feasibility of subsidizing the rate of the “100% Green” option in the Cambridge Community Electricity Program to ease any financial burden that residents who want to use entirely renewable energy may feel when purchasing, using existing income thresholds such as the Fuel Assistance Program; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the appropriate City departments to continue outreach and education with the goal of increasing the number of residents who opt into the “100% Green” option; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on both of these matters in a timely manner.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Wednesday, Sept 13, 2017 at 2:34pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

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

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Maher; Vice Mayor McGovern; Councillor Toomey; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning and Development, CDD; Chris Cotter, Housing Director, CDD; Erik Tolkensen, Urban Design Consultant; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were Sarah Gallop, Co-Director of Community Relations, MIT; Steve Marsh, MITIMCO; Anthony Galluccio, Galluccio and Watson, LLP; David Manfredi, Elkus/Mandredi Architects; Kathryn Brown, Michael Owu and Jennifer Conway, MITIMCO; Ken Eisenberg, 200 Hampshire Street; Stephen Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street; Bjorn Poonen, 303 Third Street; Carol O’Hare, 172 Magazine Street; Chris Smith, 550 Memorial Drive; Yarlennys Villaman, 20 Child Street; Doug McPherson, 24 Harold Street; Nicholas Kelly, 28 Summer Street; Kelly Blynn, 55 Properzi Way; Elaine DeRosa, 4 Pleasant Place; Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place; Quinton Zondervan, 235 Cardinal Medeiros Avenue; Abra Berkowitz, 253½ Broadway; Ian A. Waitz, West Newton; John Gross; Alan Fein, One Broadway; Jesse Kanson-Benanav, 26 Willow Street; Chris Matthews, 26 Sixth Street; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; Patrick Barrett, 41 Pleasant Street; Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street; Susan Weiler; James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place; Anson Stewart, 27 Adrian Street, Somerville; Ilan Levy, 140 Spring Street; and Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street.

Councillor Cheung convened the hearing, stated the purpose and outlined the format of the hearing. He announced that the hearing is being televised and privately recorded.

Councillor Cheung stated that the Planning Board hearing was held on Sept 12, 2017. He announced that the staff will be heard first and then the petitioner, then the City Council will ask questions and then move to public comment.

Ms. Farooq and Mr. Roberts from Community Development Department came forward. Ms. Farooq reported that at the Planning Board held on Sept 12, 2017 the Planning Board voted to make a positive recommendation with some changes. She stated that a Memo dated Sept 7, 2017 laid out the issues and approaches (ATTACHMENT A). He stated that the Community Development Department has been working with the Ordinance Committee, MIT and the urban design team on urban design guidelines which are referenced in the petition, but not part of the zoning. She stated that the goal is to bring this forward to the Planning Board and the City Council in the next few weeks.

Mr. Roberts explained the work between the two sets of hearings in the memo. The issues raised by the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee were organized into high level questions and information on the development modeling that was the basis for the K2 Study. There was background collected on the density of the development in Kendall Square and comparisons were made on open space and housing. The second section of the memo addresses particular elements of the zoning petition and a narrative was prepared broken down by each section with comments and approaches. There were a few broad category of issues and approaches and there were some complications in the zoning language and this was addressed. He noted that there are Policy issues that need to be decided by the City Council and the Planning Board. He explained before the Planning Board hearing on Sept 12, 2017 a memo was received from MIT and the staff can work together with the petitioner to draft revisions. He highlighted conversation by the Planning Board at the Sept 12, 2017 hearing. The Planning Board made conceptual suggestions with the staff incorporating into revised zoning language. The Planning Board was supportive of the approaches in the CDD memo that were agreed to by MIT to clarify zoning language and incorporate criteria of the Volpe Working Group such as inclusiveness and sustainability. There were specific recommendations on items. He stated that on defining the development parcel the master planning process that would occur through development review the Planning Board agreed that it is important to have a development proposal that shows a master plan for the entire parcel to understand how the development would work as a whole. It is understood that the parcel would have 2-3 distinct parts and that the future federal site would be treated differently because it would not be subject to zoning controls. The Planning Board felt that it was important to consider the design of the federal building site when reviewing the development proposal for the MIT controlled portion of the site. It was hoped that the federal design would be advanced enough for the Planning Board to see it when the remainder comes before the Planning Board for development and approval. On the issue of development controls and FAR the Planning Board stated that if the development is required to come forward as a single master plan the development controls do not have to be based on FAR. It would simply lay out the development program for different uses. The Planning Board felt that the GFA approach may be easier. The only complication was the CRA parcel would have to be worked out. He stated that the limits on non-residential units the Planning Board approved 60/40 ratio of residential to commercial with the 60% being the max for commercial and 40% is the minimum for residential. He stated that regarding the hotel the Planning Board felt that including a hotel could be beneficial relating to the planning principles, but the Planning Board did not support counting the hotel as part of the required residential. There was a discussion and debate on dormitories by the Planning Board members. The Planning Board did not want to count dormitories as part of the housing because the intent for planning for the site was to support urban mixed use development and not to promote campus expansion. Relating to the affordable housing requirement the current inclusionary requirement was a result of lengthy study are the appropriate requirements to apply at this time. The Planning Board felt that City Council should be the policy decision makers when it comes to changing the requirements. He stated that it may be challenging to require middle income housing the Planning Board recommended considering the possibility of requiring and providing incentives for middle income housing units. The Planning Board favored the proposed height limits and agreed with the CDD memo that design guidelines should be used to promote control techniques as smaller floor plates as the buildings get taller in height. The Planning Board supported the overall amount of open space and supported the agreement by MIT to provide open space only on the non-federal portion of the parcel and that there be a covenant to guarantee public access to the required open space. The may need to be details that need to be worked out on allowance and limitations for uses such as outdoor dining or performance areas. He stated that regarding the location and configuration of open space the Planning Board stressed the importance of flexibility and successes will depend on how the development plan works as a whole. The space should not just be treated as open space for this project, but part of a larger open space network. On parking and loading the Planning Board supported the notion of a transportation analysis would be provided as part of the development review and will inform the Planning Board as to the appropriate amount of parking should be and also supported that parking should be below grade except where authorized with the possibility of the need for a waiver for accessible space. The Planning Board also suggested that underground loading and service be considered as part of the development plan, but it was not recommended as a requirement. On active uses the Planning Board supported lowering the standard size for small retail from 5,000 to 3,000 square feet but that flexibility was important because retail will evolve over time and there will always be exceptions to the rules. He stated that decisions of GFA exemptions need to be made early in the process and retailers will not be secured until the development is almost complete. He stated that staff targeted 3,000 square feet or less to be the size. The Planning Board supported the innovation space. On the issue of sustainability the Planning Board supported LEED Gold and work toward Net Zero goals while emphasizing that district wide solutions are necessary to achieve the City’s wider goals and to look at the district as a whole rather than building by building. He stated that on the topics of contribution and community space would be a focus by the City Council and advised the City Council to reach out to big corporate players in the Kendall Square area to support participation for the community space by being good corporate citizens. This would be a way to serve the goal as a integrating these businesses into the life of the City. He concluded that this summarized the recommendation of the Planning Board. He noted that the text changes need to be worked out and the design guidelines are under development.

Councillor Cheung asked the City Councillors if they wanted to ask questions of the staff.

Vice Mayor McGovern requested a report from CDD of all the things that are going on in Kendall Square including the amount of housing to get a sense of what Kendall Square will look like when this is done.

Ms. Farooq stated that in the memo it shows the amount of development that would be allowed, the existing open space and in the future and the number of the housing units. It does not show the supermarket. Councillor Cheung agreed with the request of Vice Mayor McGovern. He would love to know the number of inclusionary units by income, bedroom size and the number on the wait list. Councillor Devereux noted that the map in memo contains housing information. She wanted to know the community benefits and how applied.

Councillor Kelley spoke on the issue of good corporate citizens; he stated that he cannot understand the request or the requirement. He noted that a request is not part of this discussion. He only wanted to be concerned with what is required. Ms. Farooq stated the City cannot require commitments from those not involved in zoning. MIT is committing to a community center long term. She noted that it would be a good thing for the City, City Council and MIT to work with other corporate partners. This is also separate from the zoning. Councillor Kelley stated that he did not want this to get confusing once the zoning is past.

Councillor Carlone expanded the request from Vice Mayor McGovern by asking what the City wants in Kendall Square, such as supermarket and drug store. He asked what is missing. He asked are there things from a planning perspective that could be put into the zoning through special criteria. He wanted a tentative list of what MIT is planning.

Councillor Cheung stated the memo presented by CDD was helpful to the City Council. He spoke about the need for the 3D models.

Councillor Cheung opened public comment at 3:03pm because the architect was important to the discussion and was delayed in the air.

Ken Eisenberg stated that this is the biggest development in the history of the City and spoke about the housing pressure on the whole city and that MIT is not committed to building housing for their own students. This would take residential housing pressure off the residential and public housing units if student housing were built. If you want affordable housing you need to build it and not luxury housing. A fifty story building in Kendall Square is a bad idea. He stated that the economy is wholly-owned subsidiary of nature and the ideology of constant growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.

Steve Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street, stated that the Planning Board was unsure about how to deal with the zoning with the federal government and why should the government obey anything that is passed in the zoning. He stated that this is a public private partnership and the Planning Board was now sure that an exchange agreement, between MIT and GSA, was agreed to for this site. He expressed his concern with the former the court house which was a transfer from the government to a private developer. He stated that the court house was so exempt from zoning that all the protections of zoning were lost. He expressed this to MIT and he was told that the exchange agreement is a contract and both sides, MIT and GSA, must comply with the contract or there is a breach of the contract if either party does not comply. The federal government may be exempt from zoning, but the federal government is not exempt from the contract. He stated that the exchange agreement acts as an enforcement agent for any zoning that the City Council agrees on. He noted that the GSA has to comply with what is in the exchange agreement. This process is different from the previous process with the court house. GSA has a lot riding on the agreement who will get $750 million from MIT and MIT will get ten valuable acres of land. Both sides end up with a zoning package that holds this together. GSA is receiving a FAR of one-half of what is allowed and is content with this. The GSA is a sponsor of the zoning. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT B).

Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street, stated that graduate student housing should be a required condition of the Volpe zoning. She noted that the workforce would over counter the 20% affordable housing enacted by the City Council. She stated that quality of life concerns should be addressed specifically and also environmental concerns should be addressed. The standards should be top notch neighbor standards. She asked why not LEED Platinum, She spoke about noise toppers on the tops of buildings with maximum shielding so that noise does not spread into the neighborhood. She did not want any zinc type lighting and the only lighting on the site should be for safety, security and building use and land. She spoke about zoning compliant signage.

Christopher Smith, 550 Memorial Drive, a doctoral student and a member of the group graduate student housing now. He requested that the City Council delay action on the Volpe zoning proposal until the graduate housing issue is addressed and he supported 1800 additional units of graduate housing be a provision of the commercial site at the Volpe. He stated that the Volpe petition has exciting potential, but it has one flaw and his project will add pressure on affordable housing and student housing and will make the housing crisis worse. He has heard from other students on the financial impact they have encountered related to affordable housing. He asked that the Volpe petition be delayed until the need for graduate student housing is addressed. He supported the provision calling for 1800 units of student housing be built be part of this petition.

Yarlennys Villaman, 20 Child Street, stated that it is important to keep inclusionary housing and supports affordable housing. The Volpe project will be beneficial for the city. This is the vision of the future for her. She stated that she cannot afford to live in Cambridge. The rent for a one bedroom is over $2500 per month. She spoke about the benefit of the additional 280 affordable housing units. She urged the City Council to support the community center. She spoke about the inclusiveness and the diversity of the City.

Doug McPherson, 24 Harold Street, stated that he is a MIT graduate student and spoke about the Clay report and read from the report about competition for housing units for graduate students and families. Working professionals will be able to outbid families and students for housing. The report was written before the Volpe project was envisioned. If MIT is allowed to move forward with this project without addressing the graduate student housing issue the students and families will be priced out by the high end talent that Volpe will attract.

Nicholas Kelly, 28 Summer Street, a MIT student, urged the City Council to delay the Volpe project until MIT commits to building the graduate housing. He stated that in Boston more than 90% of the graduate students live off campus and this affects the affordable housing units in the City and adds pressure to the rents. He stated that two-thirds of MIT graduate students live off campus and this exerts pressure on the housing stock and 10% of all renters in Cambridge are graduate students. He stated that Cambridge has seen a huge decline in permits for new construction. There was a 69% decline in new housing units in Cambridge. He noted that MIT is the largest land owner in Cambridge owning 258 acres of land and building graduate student housing will decrease the housing pressure in the City.

Kelly Blynn, 55 Properzi Way, an MIT student, asked that the City Council not adopt the Volpe petition until the graduate student issue at MIT is resolved. She stated that as rents have risen in Cambridge so has the MIT graduate student population. In 2008 MIT housed 48% of its graduate students close to a goal held by MIT to house 50% of its students; a goal it no longer maintains. Thirty-six percent of students are housed on campus. The post doc student’s population has grown. She stated that a student survey conducted this summer asking students if they would prefer to live in on campus housing the students preferred living on campus. She stated that there is a minimum unmet demand of 800 single units and 650 family units for a total of 1450 additional units needed. She urged the City Council to consider the petition requesting additional graduate student housing as a condition of the commercial portion of the Volpe development and to delay action on the Volpe petition until this issue is addressed.

Quinton Zondervan, 235 Cardinal Medeiros Avenue, spoke about making the City more affordable by building unaffordable housing. He stated that he did not understand the hotel be considered 40% residential. Small retail at 3,000 square feet is not small to him. He stated that there is no commitment from MIT to build NetZero as part of the Volpe development and he wanted to see this as a commitment by MIT. He stated that middle and low income families are being actively displaced in the City. He stated that in the last twenty years there have been 10,000 units of housing built in Cambridge and yet the rents have increased. He stated that households are being added at the top income level at a rate of 7.5% a year and losing middle income household at a rate of 6%. The population is growing at the high end. He urged the City Council to approve the graduate student zoning before approving the Volpe.

Abra Berkowitiz, 253 1/2 Berkshire Street, that she supported building a neighborhood as part of the Volpe. She had concerns with 60% commercial development and only 40% residential development on the site. This is completely counter to what the City is trying to achieve. She noted that there is a housing crisis in Cambridge and why only build 40% residential. She is concerned about parking and she supports cycling. Cutting parking spaces for residential should be looked at how this affects parking throughout the city. This is also talking about a place where low income people work. She wanted a limit to studios built into the zoning; this is not a sustainable solution to a sustainable population. She did not support the hotel.

Alan Fein, Chief Operating Officer, CIC, One Broadway, stated that the Kendall Square Innovation District is a national resources and fosters and creates innovation that benefits all parts of the country. He stated that the district is fragile and requires an eco-system of small companies and needs to encourage small startups that can grow which can become civic leaders. This project fills this gap by creating additional space for this type of activities and attracts global players. He supported the MIT zoning proposal and it creates the right mixture of multiple uses and opportunities. Community benefits offered by MIT are significant. This would also provide $23 million additional tax revenue to the City. He added that the commitment to improve the Grand Junction is a huge benefit.

Jesse Kanson-Benanav, Chair, A Better Cambridge, 26 Willow Street, stated that he is an MIT graduate and has created and preserved affordable housing in the area. He stated that A Better Cambridge supports the MIT project to be 1400 mixed income homes on the Volpe site which will produce 280 affordable below market rate housing units. He encouraged MIT to increase the number of units housing units being built on site. He encouraged the City Count to grant MIT’s maximum building height of 500 feet. MIT should allocate any additional FAR gained for residential development. He stated that the federal building which is exempt from zoning law should exempt the FAR from the calculation which would allow additional square footage in the new development for needed housing. He expressed concern with the high number of parking proposed. The parking is unnecessary because its proximity to transit (ATTACHMENT C).

Chris Matthews, 27 Sixth Street, stated he was happy about the endowment for a community center and the inclusion of the Grand Junction. He spoke about the success of the open space which will be in shadow. He spoke about an aerial plan of the proposal particularly as it relates to the open space. He wanted the proposal scaled down to a single plan.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, stated that she did not agree with all the Planning Board recommendations. She opposed the 60% commercial space and the 40% residential space. If Cambridge needs more housing this is an ideal location for more housing. She stated that the proportions should be reversed. She noted that the hotel and graduate housing should not be counted as affordable housing. She favored the graduated housing be required on the MIT petition to guarantee that the 1800 graduate student housing units will be built. She wanted to see a requirement for some home ownership and a small requirement for middle income housing be included. She noted that the City needs to see the contract between MIT and the federal government before the zoning is approved. The open space, public beneficially open space, she wanted it to be public open space.

Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street, stated that she wanted to ensure that this looks good because this will be seen from her bedroom window. This is walling off East Cambridge and that residents in East Cambridge do not deserve nice things. What is being built is extended stay motels and this needs to stop. She noted that the designs of the buildings need to be considered for those who will continue to live in East Cambridge. She commented that the 280 affordable housing units are for people who remain in Cambridge. She wants neighbors not visitors. She wanted the streets to feel like streets and people be invited in; the streets feel like driveways and not streets. She stated the map in the Community Development memo has open space, new and planned since 2001, it does not show the open space taken away.

Susan Weiler spoke about available space for the performance arts. She is in favor of the community space proposed by Volpe. She stated that if there is nothing to keep people in Kendall Square after work hours to celebrate this area will be dead at night. She stated that this plan is vibrant to bring people together especially if there is an art plan for the space.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, commending the graduate student leadership. He spoke about the Inner-belt proposal and the cooperation and the solidarity of the community to stop this proposal and this example could be used to stop this proposal until there is graduate housing built. He stated that the transit benefit of having graduate student living on or near campus. He stated that if graduate students were housed at MIT or Kendall Square they would be able to walk to their labs. He noted that the transit benefits should not be overlooked. He stated that the affordable housing 20% bonus should be increased and if the residential portion of the development were increased there would be more affordable housing.

Anson Stewart, 27 Adrian Street, Somerville, supported graduate student zoning and urged the City Council to delay action on Volpe development until the graduate student issue is resolved. He stated that housing will only becoming more unaffordable for student and residents if MIT does address this issue. He urged that 1800 housing units be built before the commercial development proceeds.

Ilan Levy, 140 Spring Street, spoke about the housing pressure in the City. He praised the amount of affordable housing at Volpe, but this does not resolve the affordable housing issue. This keeps building a wall around Kendall Square isolating the neighborhood on all sides from what is happening at the center. The open space should be at the corner of Third and Binney Streets to create a connection with Kendall Square and East Cambridge. He noted that all the amenities seem to face away from the neighborhood. This option should be considered. He stated that the East Cambridge Planning Team wanted to test the volumes to see what is being given away for what is being received based on the ECAPs Study.

Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street, stated that his statement was not against the development. The fact is there is no need to worry life knows what it needs to do to prevail over useless conditions. On a motion by Vice Mayor McGovern public comment was closed at 4:01pm.

Councillor Cheung requested MIT to come forward.

Ms. Gallop, Co-Director of Government and Community Relations, MIT, began the presentation (ATTACHMENT D) with key updates. She introduced the team. She stated that there are models of the 4 site plans. She noted that it has been stated that the Volpe site is 14 acres. She stated that 303 Third Street (in yellow on the map) is not part of the rezoning site. The 4 acres, in grey on the map, is the government site and the 10 acres will be MIT land in red on the map. MIT was awarded the development contract after a $750 million dollar bid was accepted. She stated that the exchange agreement that MIT is engaged in with the GSA requires that MIT build the Volpe Center site first, regardless of zoning, this building will go forward because MIT is required to build this. She spoke about the community engagement timeline. There have been 65 community meetings held by MIT and there are more community meetings scheduled. The site plans have evolved because of the community process. The Planning Board will forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. She requested that the support letters from the Planning Board hearing held on Sept 12, 2017 be included in this report.

The support letters to the Planning Board are as follows:
Communications from Lawrence Bluestone, Jason Alves, Executive Director, ECBA, Margo Sulmont, Ellen Shachter, CSLS and Steven Reilly (ATTACHMENTS E-I).

Ms. Gallop spoke about the workshops held and the topics discussed. On Sept 23, 2017 the Volpe site will be used to have a block party to see how it feels to do something vibrant and active on the site. She gave an update on the graduate student housing by MIT. She noted that MIT is currently constructing a new 450 unit graduate student residence in Kendall Square. This will provide 250 new housing units. A new working group has been created to work on the Clay report to update the findings and to provide interim findings by Oct 13, 2017. She explained that the working group is comprised of 6 (50%) graduate students together with staff and faculty. The working group has been charged with assessing how housing availability and the housing needs of graduate students have changed since the completion of the Clay report three years ago. She stated that recommendations will be made based on the analysis. She spoke about the methodology that will be used by the working group. The graduate student population will be segmented by school, international student, families and first year students to understand if different strategies need to be used to address the needs. She added that historical and future projections of students will be evaluated. Cost, options and comparisons will be reviewed for housing. She stated that the working group will run a conjoint analysis to understand which feature and price are valued by different segments. The conjoint analysis will be matched with estimated cost to build. The outcome will recommend the number of housing units to be built. She added that MIT has been a leader in housing its students in the Boston region. It is currently at 39%.

Mr. Marsh, MITIMCO, spoke about the community benefits related to the zoning. He stated that the contributions to the Community Fund will be $8.5 million to help community based organizations and $8.5 million for transit improvements. He stated that MIT has made a commitment for on-site community center for $15 million. He stated that as the development progresses there will be linkage payments of $15 a square foot for the commercial component to the Affordable Housing Trust for a total of $26 million and $23 million tax payments annually on a site that is currently tax exempt. He stated that the initiative has the possibility of creating 280 units of affordable housing to be built on Volpe. He noted that MIT has committed to 20% affordable housing on the site.

Mr. Marsh spoke about responses to feedback and how this could be addressed through zoning or other measures. He spoke about the open space calculations on the Volpe site and open space remaining public in nature. He stated that MIT will work with the City on covenants to protect the public nature of the space. He stated that MIT wants this space to be inclusive with interaction with the neighborhood. He stated that retail space was reduced to 3,000 square feet and will be neighborhood family friendly. He stated that entertainment will be created on the site both indoors and outdoors. He spoke about the sustainability and resiliency aspects of the petition. He stated that MIT has created a solar farm. He stated that it was felt that the hotel opportunity would be beneficial in Kendall Square. The community does not want less that 40% residential and MIT is attempting to find a resolution because the community was not in favor. There is a strong desire for a community center focusing on recreational uses. He stated that MIT has committed to fund up to $15 million for the design and construction for a new community center on the Volpe site. The issues heard about the community center was an endowment, location and only be considered open space if it is a free standing building. He spoke about the workforce development and job training. Mr. Marsh stated that MIT studied the Grand Junction and is committed to working with the City on the Grand Junction. He stated that concerns have been heard about the Red Line. An investment has been made by the MBTA to purchase new Red Line cars to increase capacity and decrease wait time. He outline other ongoing concerns which needs more discussion.

David Manfredi spoke about the 4 site plans with the models. He stated that all who have worked on this site realize that this is a unique and special planning opportunity for Kendall Square. This is at the intersection of the neighborhood and innovation. There are 4 models and all reflect the input received by the community. He spoke about the urban design principals and how fulfilled. He commented that this is not a design proposal, but a planning proposal. He stated that there is a commitment to a sense of diversity in the buildings, in the design of the buildings and there is a want to be part of the fabrics of Kendall Square and goes to a sense of scale and proportion, materials and color. He discussed principles of connectivity, permeability, openness and meaningful, usable open space which can attract a diverse population and different kinds of activities.

Model 1 Site Plan: Broadway, Third and Binney Streets puts high priority on connection east-west, Broad Canal Way to MXD. He stated that site plans put a priority on making the connection to the neighborhood, a pedestrian and bike connection along Fifth Street to the MBTA and onto the River. He spoke about the opportunity at Fifth Street; this path is important. The path can connect the neighborhood. All site plans have four commercial buildings and four residential buildings. All have approximate the same square footage and open space. Site Plan 1 puts a high priority on connecting the open space and brings the open space assets together. He stated that there would be open space on the federal site because there are federal requirements about set backs off of the Volpe building from any adjacent curb, from Fifth, Potter or Binney Streets. The community center could be put at the head of the open space to make this the welcoming threshold to open space. The open space will connect a public street so that it does not privatize the space. This can be walkable, pedestrian friendly and active space. The uses on the ground floor engages people and the first floor of the buildings will engage the residents. He stated that the streets need to be walkable and flexible when needed to accommodate different uses at different times of the day. The opens space needs to be visually accessible and flexible. Places for children to play need to be included.

Model 2 Site Plan: This has the same amount of buildings and square footage. The open space has been reconfigured. The priority is still to make north-south and east-west connections. There are two kinds of open space. The square has been located on the corner of Third and Broadway where it extends all the way to Potter Street. The square will be where the entire City comes together. In the middle it is softer, greener and quieter. The community center or a playground could be located here. There is a difference between a park and a square. He noted the importance of Sixth, Fifth and Potter Streets and the extension of Broad Canal Way. He stated that when the buildings are moved off the corner there is not a strong connection to all the good things that are happening on Broad Canal. He spoke about the public realm. He wanted to think about programmatically the open space being attracted to all.

Model 3 Site Plan: Is a middle ground between the two previous plans. It puts important open space on the corner and important open space in the middle. He noted the difference between Square and Park. It has two residential buildings and still keeps the connectivity east to west and north and south. It has the same amount of open space. It connects Third Street and Broadway in terms of pedestrian visibility. The goal is to make places that are welcoming to the broadest range of users. He spoke about amphitheaters, playgrounds and water and store fronts that open out and spill out. The streets could the host that would bring all types of people together. There is an affinity between innovation and children.

Model 4 Site Plan: He stated that this plan is the most free form as it does not use buildings in a prescribed way. It creates a diagonal path that connects to Galaxy Park, the former Point Park and to Wadsworth and onto the river across Memorial Drive. This has a diversity of space. He asked where the community space would be located to attract the most people over seven days a week. The configuration of the buildings are different so that the view corridors run north-south. The buildings are oriented in such a way as to open up the visibility to the connections. Third and Broadway is the area that would bring the most people together. He spoke about family friendly food places, food trucks and places where people can sit and be part of the community. This can be the venue for all types of entertainment. He concluded that the four examples represent a basic core set of urban design principles that have to do with connectivity, permeability and flexibility, mix of uses and a ground plane that connects inside and outside and expands the realm of possibilities.

Mr. Marsh stated that he has never done this level of detail at the zoning level. This was requested by Councillors Cheung and Councillor Carlone for the benefit of the community and the City Council to understand what this petition means. He commented that Councillor Cheung and Councillor Carlone have also pushed principles and guidelines with respect to how the space is handled and managed. There has been a lot of work done on the guidelines and will be before the Planning Board and the Ordinance Committee in the near future.

Councillor Cheung stated that he likes site plan 4, but Councillor Carlone does not. He explained that there will be no decision on a plan but the Co-Chairs wanted visual representations of what could be developed under the zoning. This is a representative of what can be built; not what is being built. He spoke about the additional benefits being provided by MIT to the community as part of the zoning relief package. This is the largest zoning proposal and he spoke about transparency. MIT has provided commitments that they will agree to. He stated that there is work ongoing with Community Development to put references into the zoning relating to urban design guidelines. He stated that the City Council wants to vote on something that looks and is in line with what was voted upon. He stated that Community Development has been working on the design guidelines and this will be discussed at the next meeting.

Councillor Toomey asked if there is a construction start time on Volpe. Mr. Marsh explained the process. He stated that the new Volpe site needs to be built first and it is in the early stages of design now. The design and construction will take four years and then Volpe will move out of the existing facility and into the new facility and then the remainder of the site transfers to MIT. The first action on the site will be the GSA site. Councillor Toomey stated that he wanted the housing units to be increased from 280 units. Councillor Toomey introduced a communication from School Committee member Fantini asking MIT to begin a program in the ninth grade geared toward minority students to identify potential MIT students and work to make this happen (ATTACHMENT J). He stated that there has not been much mitigation for the schools. Councillor Toomey spoke about the endowment as part of the zoning. He spoke about the open space at Third Street and Broadway. He asked about playing soccer and stated that there will not be a large playing field. Mr. Manfredi spoke about playing soccer at lunch time. Attorney Galluccio stated that when the process was first announced there was one original site plan and the middle open space was modeled after Sennott Park; there is opportunity for flexible space or a recreational space. Councillor Toomey spoke about the Grand Junction and clarified that there was $8.5 million for transit improvements. He asked if this funding is separate from the funding for the Grand Junction. Mr. Marsh stated that the need for the Grand Junction is heard and MIT is prepared to make a contribution to the Grand Junction. Councillor Toomey commented that he wanted a more definitive plan of action on this. Mr. Marsh stated that this is being discussed.

Councillor Carlone stated that the Grand Junction stated that he heard plan, strategy working with the City, but he wanted this to lead to a commitment from MIT since MIT controls about one-half of the land on the Grand Junction. The City Council is looking for a commitment at the end of this process. He spoke about incorporating in zoning a subtle setback for planting of trees to buffer the area. He asked if the shape of the GSA building is different. Mr. Marsh stated that this represents the square footage that MIT has been asked to replace. Councillor Carlone spoke about the rationale on the square footage and asked if this was part of the presentation made to the Planning Board. Attorney Galluccio responded that there are different perspective on how FAR might be counted or whether FAR is the appropriate mechanism. He stated that the point of the site plans is that it has been heard that the community wanted predictability on density and height and to understand what the zoning means. Councillor Carlone that the Planning Board asked if 5.2 FAR is needed and why. Mr. Marsh responded that this is simply viability. The Volpe replacement went from $450,000 to a $750,000 replacement. This is to balance all the aspects and make this actually viable. The stated that this is the driver. Councillor Carlone asked if there is a preference to any particular site plan. Mr. Marsh stated he favored site I, but was surprised at the suggestions made by the community. He is listening and the best of all will emerge. Councillor Carlone stated that it makes sense to conform to the necessity for public space. The buildings should emanate from the public space needs for sun, wind and light. It should be a family of buildings. He wanted to know how the two partners work together for the site. He spoke about homeownership in the housing. He spoke about having a sense of where the graduate student housing is heading. He wanted a policy established for workforce development. He spoke about college creep and how can this be limited.

Mr. Marsh stated that the Decatur and Novartis sites were former academic space turned into creating the corridor that enabled the retail and innovation space on Massachusetts Avenue to happen. Councillor Carlone stated that this site needs to stay privately oriented and not institutional because of the dominance and the proximity to historical neighborhoods.

Councillor Devereux asked if the GSA is subject to the Traffic Demand Management (TDM) and Net Zero (NZ) requirements. Mr. Marsh stated that it is unknown; probably not but will get the answer to this. Councillor Devereux wanted this to be. She spoke about the phasing and wanted flexibility to look at having higher standards for environmental sustainability and affordable housing in line with what is going on in the rest of the City. She wanted a Memo of Understanding to have the ability to adjust this. Regarding storm water she asked if MIT is planning to meet 100 or 500 year water management standards. There is a net loss of permeable open space and questioned this figure which has not been seen. The street wall along Broadway is double line of mature trees and she wanted to see a scheme that makes this FAR fit around preserving as many of these mature trees as possible. Councillor Devereux asked if the GSA planning to expand workforce. Mr. Marsh stated that MIT’s charge was to replace the existing building. Councillor Devereux stated that she would support a 50/50 housing ratio for more affordable housing. She asked about what is happening at the Constellation Center and is important to plan arts on the site. She supported the graduate student zoning petition. She wanted to see a matrix of what is in zoning, what is in design guideline, what is in the development plan and what is covered by conveyances or memo of understanding. She wanted open space to be truly open space and not in the form of a free standing community center.

Councillor Cheung noted that he is requested that the Community Development Department come back with an update on the Constellation Center and an update to the matrix for the next meeting.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that this is a private project and the City Council has control through zoning. He noted that the financing has to allow the zoning to work. He stated that no one understands how the financing will go on this project. He stated that MIT needs to make it clear to the public of what MIT can and cannot do on this project. This needs to be proven. He stated that this is in MIT’s best interest to show this. He spoke about the graduate student housing. He is happy to see housing of all types being built. Students renting housing in the community is a huge burden on the community. He stated that there is a big difference between the need for 1800 units versus 250 units being built. He supported home ownership opportunities. He wanted to be convinced that 25% at a minimum housing cannot be built on this project. He wanted compliance with the inclusionary zoning for 3 bedroom units. He wanted a continuous open space. Lowering square footage for retail is great but wanted a contribution to a fund for local retail. A hotel does not equal housing. He loves the idea of a community center. He spoke about early childhood opportunities and spoke about the need for more space. He asked for there to be space in the community center for early childhood space. He wanted the community center include workforce space. He stated that he did not want to see the petition expire, but this needs more work.

Councillor Cheung stated that early childhood should use one-half of the space of the Tobin School for this and then use the swing space for the other half.

Councillor Kelley stated that the existing zoning for the site is 3.0 +. Mr. Roberts stated that the FAR under the current PUD zoning there is a base FAR of 3 and the inclusionary bonus would apply but what would be used is not predictable because it would all have to be housing. The current zoning example is the 303 Third Street which is all residential and has a total FAR of 3.9 which is the maximum allowed under current zoning. Councillor Kelley stated that decision that the City Council has to make is to approve the zoning proposal, do not approve anything, but at the end of the day MIT owns the property and still has to build the Volpe Center. He stated that there is what can happen on the site with existing zoning. He stated that all need to understand the options out there and if the City Council does not move forward with the current proposal the City will lose opportunity to work with MIT on other things. He stated that housing needs to be more of this discussion. The zoning cannot be moved forward on a wish. Parking should be done less and less. He hopes the City Council can get to someplace good.

Councillor Maher stated that this is an opportunity for the City of Cambridge. This has been the missing tooth of Kendall Square for a long time. He stated that the way MIT has approached this is a new way to do business in Cambridge and MIT has listened to the community. His belief is this City Council and next should sit with Harvard and MIT and look at all land holdings that the universities have where the density is not correct. He stated that to have the ability for the City to gain 280 unit of housing or more, in addition to the tax revenue, open space and the retail space are all wins for the community. There is greater density on university owned land where graduate student housing could be built or other university needs. There could be a plan for graduate housing going forward. He did not feel that graduate student housing should be on the Volpe site. He hopes that this unique opportunity is not squandered.

Councillor Cheung noted that there is a recommendation made by the Planning Board. He stated that 1-2 more meetings are planned by the Ordinance Committee. He spoke about what MIT plans for the site. Graduate student housing is a top issue and the City Council is taking this serious. The City Council wants MIT to provide as much for the City as possible. He spoke about ancillary community benefits from the petition, but the base redevelopment of this site is a good thing. This development is promising a lot of good for the City. MIT has to negotiate their own position. A lot more details needs to be discussed.

Attorney Galluccio stated that a better job needs to be done to explain the community benefits and linkage to the community. He highlighted the community benefits. He stated that all problems will try to be resolved, but reasonable expectations are needed.

Mr. Marsh stated that the dialogue has been civil. There are a lot of expectation. MIT has to build a replacement for the GSA. MIT will do the best on this.

The following e-mails were received and made part of the report.
Communication from Steven Reilly in support of taller, denser buildings on the site (ATTACHMENT K).
Communication from Lawrence Bluestone, 18 Centre Street, in support for MIT’s Volpe Zoning petition (ATTACHMENT L).
Communication from Margo Sulmont in support of the MITIMCO’s rezoning proposal (ATTACHMENT M).
Communication from Jason Alves transmitting support of the ECBA regarding the Volpe Zoning petition (ATTACHMENT N).
Communication from Bjorn Poonen, 303 Third Street, relating to why the current zoning proposal would make the neighborhood-endorsed plan an impossibility (ATTACHMENT O).
Communication from Jerry O’Leary and Rosemary Booth regarding how much GFA could be supported using the abutters’ plan if the current height restrictions are maintained (ATTACHMENT P).

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

The hearing adjourned at 5:48pm.

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