5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a communication from the Planning Board relative to the Christopher D. Smith, et al., zoning petition regarding graduate student housing production associated with development in the proposed PUD-7 district.
Referred to Petition

Date: Oct 19,2017
Subject: Christopher D. Smith, et al., zoning petition regarding graduate student housing production associated with development in the proposed PUD-7 district.

The Planning Board makes no recommendation at this time, but offers some comments.

To the Honorable, the City Council,

The Board held a public hearing on this petition on Oct 17,2017, at which the Board heard a presentation from the petitioners and comments from the public. Due to the unusual situation that the petition seeks to amend zoning provisions that have not yet been adopted, the Board elected not to make a recommendation and to hold the hearing open in order to provide the opportunity for continued dialogue on the issues raised in the petition. However, because these issues are being actively discussed by the City Council, the Board wishes to transmit some comments at this time.

The Board strongly encourages the Council to consider the critical planning issues regarding housing in the city that are raised by the petition, and appreciates the thorough, data-driven presentation from the petitioners supporting their argument for additional graduate student housing. The Board understands that MIT has recently made a commitment to create additional graduate student housing beds as part of the Volpe (PUD-7) zoning petition currently under consideration, which is an important step towards advancing the goals of this petition. There are many tradeoffs to be considered by the Council regarding the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity presented by the Volpe site redevelopment, and the Board believes the demand for graduate student housing is an important factor to be included in the Council's considerations. The Board also suggests that the Council consider graduate student housing production not just in terms of the number of graduate student beds created, but also in terms of the percentage of all graduate students housed on campus.

The Board believes there needs to be an ongoing, long-term conversation about graduate student housing that goes beyond the development that is under immediate consideration. This conversation should consider not just the creation of additional graduate student beds but also other graduate student housing issues, such as the pricing differential between university housing and market housing and the establishment of clear long-term targets for the number or percentage of graduate students housed on a campus. The Board does not expect any university to singlehandedly remedy the affordable housing issues faced in Cambridge, but acknowledges that graduate students in all the universities do impact the housing market and that it is important that the universities and the City devote the necessary time and energy to study this issue, evaluate options, and propose policy solutions.

Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board,
H. Theodore Cohen, Chair

6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to information in response to discussion at the Ordinance Committee hearing of Oct 17, 2017 regarding the Volpe Petition.
Referred to Unfinished Business #7

Oct 23, 2017

To the Honorable, the City Council:

The following information is provided in response to discussion at the Ordinance Committee hearing of Oct 17, 2017 regarding the Volpe Petition:

• The zoning petition text containing suggested changes that were discussed at the hearing, along with some additional minor changes proposed by staff. While the suggested changes were not voted upon by the Ordinance Committee, it was discussed that they would be forwarded to the full City Council for their consideration.

• The text of the Urban Design Guidelines revised to reflect the revisions that were adopted at the hearing.

• MIT will submit its revised Letter of Commitment directly to the City Clerk.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Oct 23, 2017  Amended
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: Cambridge has recently installed both protected and unprotected bicycle lanes in various places; and
WHEREAS: Automotive turning movements of some sort and other movement through intersections have historically caused the vast majority of bicycle collisions in Cambridge and still present hazards to cyclists despite the new lanes; and
WHEREAS: There have been at least two bicycle collisions in near these newly installed lanes during the month of October, one at Russell Street/Massachusetts Avenue and one at Wendell Everett Street/Massachusetts Avenue; and
WHEREAS: It is not clear how City staff are collecting data on these and other collisions, as well as near misses, and using that data to evaluate the safety of the various bike lane pilot projects, especially as they impact safety at intersections and during turning movements; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager is advised that ensuring the safety of cyclists at intersections is of critical importance to the Council, and providing for that safety will require a review of the causes and response to these two listed collisions, as well as other collisions and near collisions.

O-4     Oct 23, 2017
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: In regards to the new infrastructure being built on streets in Cambridge, many residents have expressed concerns about what to do when it starts snowing; and
WHEREAS: There has been recent discussion by the City Council regarding the option of snow removal as opposed to the piling up of snow; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with Commissioner of the Department of Public Works to update the City Council on the plan for snow removal and report back to the City Council immediately.

O-6     Oct 23, 2017
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: State Representative Denise Provost is the lead sponsor of House Bill 3017, An Act to Preserve Affordable Housing Through a Local Option Tenant's Right to Purchase; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Legislative Delegation, including State Senator Pat Jehlen, State Representative Mike Connolly, State Representative Marjorie Decker and State Representative Dave Rogers are all signed on as sponsors to said bill; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge recently promoted the idea of tenant’s right of first refusal as part of their affordable housing strategy; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge and the entire region is facing an affordable housing crisis; and
WHEREAS: The Right of First Refusal bill represents an opportunity for home ownership and limited displacement at no cost to the city or property owner; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on the record supporting Representative Provost and the Cambridge Legislative Delegation’s efforts to pass a Right of First Refusal Bill.

O-7     Oct 23, 2017
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: Condominium conversions threaten to displace current residents struggling to pay rent in Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: Condo Conversion Ordinances in Boston, Cambridge and state-wide are ineffective in addressing the current housing crisis; and
WHEREAS: The current Massachusetts Condo Conversion law is difficult to enforce in Cambridge because of lack of communication with the Register of Deeds and Inspectional Services; and
WHEREAS: Condo conversions are built out of compliance with city codes due to said lack of communications with the Register of Deeds; and
WHEREAS: Similar cities have enacted Condominium Conversion Ordinances with reasonable success and in compliance of current state laws; and
WHEREAS: A Condominium Conversion Ordinance addresses many proposals regarding affordability that the City of Cambridge recently went on record supporting; and
WHEREAS: A Condominium Conversion Ordinance could address issues such as municipal condo bylaws, tenant’s right of first refusal to purchase said condos, requiring the Register of Deeds to provide conversion paperwork prior to construction, or requiring the developer to provide said information; now therefore be it
ORDERED That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the appropriate City staff to develop a revised ordinance that would include the above elements for the City Council’s consideration.

O-8     Oct 23, 2017
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge recently promoted the idea of tenant’s right of first refusal as part of their affordable housing strategy; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge and the entire region is facing an affordable housing crisis; and
WHEREAS: The Right of First Refusal bill represents an opportunity for home ownership and limited displacement at no cost to the city or property owner; and
WHEREAS: The Massachusetts State Legislature is considering House Bill 3017 An Act to preserve affordable housing through a local option tenant's right to purchase; and
WHEREAS: Cities like Washington D.C. have enacted similar legislation that provides renters an opportunity to become homeowners; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to draft legislation for a city Right of First Refusal Ordinance.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Sept 27, 2017 beginning at 3:35pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss with the universities seamless communication about appropriate preparations for university events that may have an impact on outside university campuses.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Kelley, Chair of the Public Safety Committee; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Devereux; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Branville Bard, Police Commissioner; Deputy Superintendent Jack Albert; Ranjit Singanayagam, Commissioner, Inspectional Services Department; David Burns, Inspectional Services Department; Christina Giacobbe, Director, Emergency Communications; Brian Corr, Executive Director, Peace Commission; Nicole Murati Ferrer, License Commissioner; Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner of Public Works; John Nardone, Deputy Commissioner of Public Works; Brook McKenna, Traffic, Parking and Transportation; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Tom Cahill, Fire Department; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were Tom Lucey, Director, Government and Community Relations, Harvard University; Sergeant Andrew Turko, MIT Police; Paul Parravano, Co-Director of Government and Community Relations, MIT; and Robin Culbertson, Office of Tourism.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He stated that the meeting is being privately recorded. He stated that there is a brief presentation (ATTACHMENT A). He spoke about the list of questions (ATTACHMENT B). He commented on the Boston Calling event. Introductions were made. The presentation was broken down into three sections. He stated that this is about Harvard University and other institutions in Cambridge like MIT and Lesley. He asked Tom Lucey about his interactions with tourism. Mr. Lucey stated that there are categories of speakers, students and those who want to tour campus. He stated that there are regular tour buses. The problematic buses are the buses from NY that hit Harvard Square in the morning. These individuals are more difficult to communication with. He explained the interaction with Harvard University and the Office of Tourism. He noted that from July 4th through September 1st last year 500,000 individuals came through Harvard yard. This is a historic site but it is a business as well. This is good economic development for Harvard Square businesses. He spoke about the concern for the safety of their students.

Councillor Toomey inquired about the 500,000 individuals and asked if this is from buses or people going through the yard. Mr. Lucey stated that Harvard University has no specific information on these individuals. He stated that residents walk dogs and local high school students cut though yard and they would count. He explained that Harvard University students are not counted.

Councillor Kelley asked when Harvard University closes it’s the Yard what happens. Mr. Lucey stated that Harvard Yard is only closed during commencement; it is rare that the yard is closed. Councillor Kelley asked if there is a policy. Mr. Lucey responded that during this situation there are rules; but this is rare.

Councillor Kelley asked about MIT’s policy. Mr. Parravano stated that MIT has negotiated with the City about the same tour buses that visit Harvard visit MIT. MIT has tried to find places for the buses to park. He stated that the number of buses that come to the MIT campus is many and this impacts parking on Massachusetts Avenue and the operations at the MIT. Mr. Parravano stated that 77 Massachusetts Avenue is the major drop off and pick up spot for tourists. Sergeant Turko stated that there are issues with buses parking and with congestion.

Councillor Kelley asked Ms. McKenna if the Department of Traffic, Parking and Transportation deals with this. Ms. McKenna stated the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department tries to find more formal parking for the buses; they impact the traffic. There are no easy answers.

Councillor Kelley stated that buses are parking in the bike lane. He spoke about issuing tickets. Deputy Superintendent Albert stated that he has been involved with bus enforcement and works with other city departments. He stated that it is not regular bus drivers violating parking; it is the NY and PA drivers that are violating the rules. Councillor Devereux asked if idling is enforced. Deputy Superintendent Albert responded in the affirmative. He explained that an empty bus cannot idle.

Councillor Kelley asked about the universities limiting tourists. Mr. Lucey stated that Harvard works around tourists. Mr. Parravano stated that MIT has not felt the need to limit visitors to MIT.

Councillor Kelley asked the Office of Tourism if they interact with these tour buses. Ms. Culbertson stated that a letter about parking was sent to 150 bus companies and the Office of Tourism worked with the City to park these buses. The most problematic buses are not staying long enough to spend money at local businesses. She stated that there is no solution.

Councillor Kelley commented that all acknowledge that there is a problem and the solution is unknown. Ms. Culbertson stated that many communities would love to have this problem, but there is no solution. She suggested this be a regional discussion. Councillor Toomey stated that 20 passenger vehicles stop and the tourist take pictures and leave. This is harmless. Sergeant Turko stated that the most tour buses are on Massachusetts Avenue. Councillor Kelley asked if there are any plans to handle the number of people in an event of an emergency. Mr. Lucey replied that emergency planning is done. Mr. Parravano stated that MIT is responsible to the community and neighbors and he is uncomfortable to say that the plan does not consider tourists.

Councillor Kelley stated that relating to entertainment and public events, this came out of Boston Calling. He asked how are issue planned and how does Cambridge get notification. Mr. Lucey noted that Boston Calling Music Festival did outreach in Cambridge. It acted as if the event was in Cambridge because it would impact Cambridge. He stated that the university met with City Manager Rossi six months before the event. There was great success in public safety. The noise levels were measured by the License Commission. The issue is the base noise level. He would meet with the City Manager and city departments going forward. The Harvard Square Neighborhood Association attendance about this event was not well attended. Flyers where done but it was not successful. Flyers were not distributed to tenants in the apartment buildings. The organization met with the city and tried to organize the event; there was a solid effort. He stated that the sound engineer was fired and it is felt that the festival organizers feel that they can address the noise issue with a new sound engineer. All participants will meet with the city departments and the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association. Councillor Kelley stated that this is about Boston Calling. He asked when the hot line is called do residents expect action about noise for an in-process concert. Mr. Lucey stated that they did try to mitigate the noise level. Councillor Devereux asked how will they know the noise will not be an issue until they set up for the next time. Mr. Lucey responded that a test will be done. He further stated that Harvard will look at this as well. Councillor Devereux stated that residents that were disturbed will not like to hear let’s wait and see as an answer to their noise concerns. Mr. Lucey stated that Boston Calling will meet with residents in the buildings. Councillor Kelley noted that unless this is set up and properly tested no one will know if the changes are successful until the event.

License Commissioner Murati Ferrer stated that she was at a meeting with the City Manager and Boston Calling after the festival. She noted that the new engineer is hopeful. The noise issue was really the base and the organizers are aggressive to mitigate the noise. Councillor Devereux asked about the noise versus the vibration. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that this is a non-measured noise disturbance. The Noise Ordinance does not measure base noise and it is non-enforceable because this was in Boston. Councillor Kelley asked what authority does Cambridge have when the noise emanates across river. City Solicitor Glowa stated that Cambridge does not have jurisdiction. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that the vibration in the City’s Noise Ordinance is not to address the base. Councillor Devereux commented that noise is a general noise. She stated that residents were hearing obscenity-laden lyrics as well window vibration. She stated that people on the Boston side were not as impacted as those in Cambridge given the direction of the noise. Mr. Lucey spoke about jurisdiction and Harvard did coordinate with the city as a partnership with the city. He stated that they are trying to get the balance right.

Councillor Kelley asked about crowd control and trash management. Deputy Superintendent Albert stated that the concern was the crowd, but it was not disruptive. He stated that next year additional personnel will be needed for traffic. Commissioner Bard stated that coordination is done with Public Works for large events. A command post is set up. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that the businesses in Harvard Square monitored the crowd and did not go over their capacity. Councillor Devereux stated that it was not a people problem; it was a noise issue. She asked about the stage location and the hours of operation. Mr. Lucey responded that he has asked Boston Calling to reduce hours of operation.

Councillor Kelley asked how is that the plaza in front of the Science Center managed. Mr. Lucey stated that the site lines on the plaza are better with the reconstruction. Harvard is committed to keep paths open especially for the buses. This needs constant attention and diligence. Councillor Devereux noted that food trucks parking makes it difficult to pass. Councillor Kelley asked who has jurisdiction of this area. Mr. Lucey spoke about permits needed for things and the City has jurisdiction; Harvard removes the snow. Councillor Kelley asked who owns this property. Mr. Lucey explained that Harvard requests permission for tents. He further stated that Harvard maintains the tunnel per agreement with the City.

Regarding the freedom of ideas and free speech events, Councillor Kelley asked how Harvard coordinates with the city to organize events. Mr. Parravano stated that the most important aspect is the relationships between university police and the Cambridge police department. He spoke about the importance of these events which have become more complicated. MIT is planning for the more controversial events; guidelines are being worked on to protect rights and to ensure that people can attend the events. Sergeant Turko praised the relationship with Cambridge police. Mr. Lucey stated that Harvard relies on its partnership with the Cambridge police department. He stated that the partnership works. The coordination between the universities and the city is seamless. Councillor Kelley stated that he wanted the seamless work done ahead of time. He asked how are these controversial events handled. Commissioner Bard responded that as soon as the university confirms they are getting a high-profile speaker Cambridge police is notified and the effort is a joint operation. Councillor Kelley wanted a better understanding about when events get out of hand how this is handled. Mr. Lucey stated that there is joint planning and things are put into place. Commissioner Bard stated that it is about unlawful behavior and what is less invasive to infringe on people rights. Councillor Kelley asked if there is a dignitary plan and is there another crowd control plan. Commissioner Bard stated that there is one plan but two ways enforced. He stated that no overly aggressive stance will be taken beforehand. He commented on how things could go wrong. The Commissioner noted that it would be unwise to go into too much detail about dignitary protection and related security efforts.

Councillor Kelley opened public comment. No one appeared and it was closed.

Councillor Kelley thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:42pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a third public hearing on Tues, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:38pm 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 Systems Center site in Kendall Square; said discussion to include the Planning Board and Community Development’s response to the petition and staff recommendations as to changes and remaining issues to resolve and any other matter that comes before the committee.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Maher; Councillor Mazen; Vice Mayor McGovern; Councillor Toomey; Mayor Simmons; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager of Zoning and Development, CDD; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Vali Buland, First Assistant City Solicitor; Robert Reardon, Director of Assessing; Sarah Stanton, Budget Director; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were Steve Marsh, MITIMCO; Sarah Gallop, Co-Director of Community Relations, MIT; Kathryn Brown, Michael Owu, MITIMCO; David Manfredi, Architect; Anthony Galluccio, Land Use Attorney; Orpheus Chatznesilerou, 235 Albany Street; Ken Eisenberg, 240 Hampshire Street; Charles Hinds, 207 Charles Street; Al Tindora, 69 Sixth Street; Larry Stabile, 303 Third Street; Michael Turk, 11 Ware Street; Karl Alexander, 31 Stone Avenue; Bryan Sparks; Alex Conway, 31 Line Street; Matt Haynes, 612 Main Street; Stephen Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street; John Sanzone, Pearl Street; Michael Onetime, 4 George Street; Anne Taylor, 66 Thorndike Street; Ilan Levy, 148 Spring Street; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place; C. Monoband, 10 Rogers Street; and Jason Alves, East Cambridge Business Association.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the hearing. He stated that because of the nature of petition and the Planning Board report the hearing would start with an update from Community Development on the Planning Board’s recent hearing. There is a document dated Sept 27, 2017 with the Planning Board recommendations, marked-up version and a clean copy of the petition, and a Sept 29, 2017 memo in response to the City Council request for more information regarding the greater Kendall Square development (ATTACHMENT A-C). Then MIT will give a presentation. There will be a focus on the commitment letter. The Ordinance Committee will ask questions and then the hearing will be opened public comment. He requested staff to come forward.

Ms. Farooq stated that the Planning Board has recommended adoption of the zoning petition and agree with the major points of the petition on density and height. The Planning Board suggested changes such as how GFA will be measured, how hotels and. dormitories might be treated or not and the parking requirements. There is a redline and a clean copy of the zoning text. The Planning Board felt it would be simpler to think of FAR in terms of Gross Floor Area numbers due to the particularities of this site. There is a background document dated Sept 29th.

One document lays out the distinction between the various ways in which development is controlled or how public benefits can be linked to the zoning proposal. The document includes the zoning changes, the commitment letter, the special permit process and the design guidelines and what components may be included in each. The design guidelines are being further worked on and will be discussed at the next Planning Board meeting. The memo also contains a map and a narrative chart that shows a snapshot of what is planned and underway for the area. She asked Mr. Roberts to outline the Planning Board recommended changes.

Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board recommendations are in the memo and cover aspects of the zoning petition that were discussed by the Planning Board. He noted how dormitory use and hotel use should be treated in relation to housing. The Planning Board recommendations are incorporated into the zoning text. Text changes sought to simplify aspects of the zoning petition. He explained that the way that the suggested text is written tries to isolate the first section of zoning which covers the elements of the project that would be subject to Planning Board review and the plan elements that would have to be submitted by the developer and the criteria by which the Planning Board would review the proposal. The next section tries to simplify what the basic requirements would be for development in terms of the allowed development. There has been confusion about how to determine what the development would be. The Planning Board recommendation was to write as clear as possible what the FAR limitation would be, how the FAR would be divided into the different uses, where a certain amount would be allowed to be for residential and non-residential, height, open space.

The open space requirement would be calculated without the federal portion. Mr. Roberts stated that the text of the petition aims to clarify points raised by the Planning Board to organize and simplify some of the requirements. There are provisions for active uses and what are the right target establishment size would be for small retail establishments. This part was rewritten. The target was reduced from 5,000 to 3,000 square feet for small retail establishments. More clarified provisions were incorporated for sustainability provisions, contributions and requirements that are particular to this area and the planning that the City has done for Kendall Square. The proposal is based on a long history with the Kendall Square plan and the Planning Board discussed this with the City Council a few years ago. The Planning Board found that this petition still retains the many positive aspects of the Kendall Square petition and advances this in a way that the Planning Board believes will be helpful for enabling the transformation of this area in the future.

Councillor Carlone asked the City Councillors if they had any pertinent questions.

Councillor Kelley spoke about dorms, affordable housing and middle-income housing. He stated that there has been a previous discussion about MIT’s role in the innovation world and he is frustrated that MIT is building what can be built by anyone rather than what housing may look like in Kendall Square. He asked where does micro-housing fit with this mix and he noted that this could meet a variety of needs.

Ms. Farooq stated that this has not been specifically addressed or required in this proposal. The market as it evolves tends to favor certain types of development. She stated that smaller units are working in Kendall Square but noted that there should be a requirement here. This is a long-term project that will take a decade or more and it would be advisable to require what the market is needing at that point in terms of housing and housing sizes. She stated that regarding dorms the Planning Board felt that Volpe is not the most desired location for expansion of dorm use and would be better built on other places of MIT campus.

Councillor Kelley spoke about smaller units for students or those here for a defined short period of time. He commented that letting the market to solve this problem would leave many frustrated. He suggested having a percentage of micro-housing. He does not support the proposed amount of parking.

Councillor Devereux stated that the she is having difficulty going from Planning Board recommendation to the redline document to see where the changes are reflected. She is uncomfortable with this. Mr. Roberts stated that he could go through the Planning Board edits to the zoning text. Councillor Devereux requested that Mr. Roberts go from Planning Board memo to the zoning.

Mr. Roberts stated that development parcel master plan might be the part that is most obscured goes to the nature of PUD zoning. A big piece is defining what type of area can be planned as a PUD. He stated that this appears in two places in the edited version. On page one, under masterplan requirement, in section 13.91.1 and 13.91.2. He stated that 13.91.1 states that at least five acres shall be considered a masterplan area. This means that the development proposal would have to encompass the entire site and lay out how the different building sites are arranged, how the circulations systems are arranged and the different uses would be. This would be subject to review and approval based on further design review of individual buildings and individual parts of the site and the development would proceed in a phased manner. One notion is the master plan review.

He stated that on page eleven, in section 13.93.2, the minimum parcel development size, states that the development parcel should include all the lots that are held in common ownership at this point in time. This states that the entirety of the Volpe parcel may or may not also include the expanded 6,000 square foot CRA parcel; this would have to come forward as one development proposal.

The FAR in the edited version, on page seven, has been amended so the calculations have been done as GRA limitations. It totals about 3.25 million square feet, including up to 400,000 square feet for the replacement of the existing Volpe facility. The remainder is split with a maximum of 60% allowed to be non-residential and a minimum of 40% being residential. Mr. Roberts stated that the limits on non-residential development the Planning Board supported the 60/40-percentage breakdown.

The issue of the hotel use focuses on how much the hotel might count as part of the residential requirement. The Planning Board felt that there was a difference between hotel and residential uses in terms of benefits provided. The Planning Board felt that a hotel could be worthwhile component of a development with the understanding that if the hotel counted entirely against the commercial portion it would not likely be built. This would be competing with the allowed square footage with other office and lab space. He stated that on page ten stated that up to 100,000 square feet covers the hotel use. The same 60/40 percent approach of the 250,000 square feet in the original petition could be applied to the residential but that any additional would go to the non-residential portion.

The Planning Board recommended that dorm use would not count as the residential requirement.

Mr. Roberts stated that the affordable housing provision is a deletion because the Planning Board felt that the current inclusionary housing requirement was the appropriate standard to apply at this time. The Planning Board recommended removing the provision that would have frozen the amount in time and it would be subject to what the requirements are but in no case less than 20%. The Planning Board supported incentives for middle income housing, but it would be up to the City Council to determine the incentive. The Planning Board did not make a recommendation on this.

The height provisions the Planning Board supported as proposed with detailed design guidelines playing an important role in determine how the bulk, orientation of building mass would be articulated through the design review process.

The open space provision started on page fourteen in the edited version; this is a simplification of the language. He stated that the minimum requirement is 25% of land area excluding any governmental lot and to clarify provisions about how the open space exactly would be provided. He noted that the edits are only for clarification. He stated that on page fifteen a provision was added that a minimum of two acres of the required open space would be expected to serve as a public park and be permanently guaranteed to remain as such by means of a covenant, easement or conservation restriction or other similar legal instrument.

Mr. Roberts stated that there were few changes on parking and loading except to clarify in one part on page seventeen, that all parking would be provided underground. He stated that active uses begin on page twenty, and it clarifies how active space is defined, where it is required to be located and the change the for what size spaces are exempted which appears on page twenty-one. He spoke about the exemptions and flexibility on what is allowed such as family friendly restaurants or family recreation uses. He commented that if they were proposed in the future this should be encouraged and the Planning Board wanted the flexibility for these uses. Regarding changes to the innovation space and sustainability provisions they are clarifying in nature. The more substantive change is related to the community space. He stated that in the original version of the petition it was a concern of the community that the funding for the community space be included, but there was no clear provision requiring the community space in the development plan. This is the new section 13.96.5, on page twenty-six, has the new provision. After discussions with the petitioner, he stated that the funding provision of the community space was determined to be more appropriate in the commitment letter, between MIT and the City, rather than in the zoning. This is the reason for the deletion.

Vice Mayor McGovern thanked Ms. Farooq for the document that laid out all that is happening in Kendall Square. He does not see why the hotel would be counted as residential. The Planning Board report states that the consultant’s report stated that in larger scale projects with a more diversity of revenue, 25% is feasible. He would like to see the 20% increased to 25% and the additional 5% should be middle-income housing. He wanted the affordable housing increased.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked what would be other incentives to provide additional housing units. Mr. Roberts replied that height, density, allowed uses could add value to petitioners in exchange for more middle-income housing.

Any incentives would have to be tested by the developer. This should be discussed with the petitioner as part of what is being envisioned as part of the development or what is envisions as part of the public benefits. Ms. Farooq stated that the Planning Board did go through a process of elimination of the incentives. The Planning Board felt that a valid incentive in this would be additional commercial GFA which would be difficult to accommodate on this site. This is the reason that the Planning Board did not give a recommendation on this that could be accommodated on the site. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that the 4 possible schemes should consider 25% affordable housing and outline what are the incentives and the tradeoffs needed to get this done.

Councillor Carlone noted that the main incentive would not be wanted. To increase affordable housing the main incentive to MIT would be to have more office and lab in lieu of market rate housing. This has a finance impact and presently not on the table.

Councillor Toomey agreed with Vice Mayor McGovern on additional middle income and multiunit housing throughout the City. The City Council needs to work together on this to ensure that this happens in other areas of the City. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund will gain $26 million going toward affordable housing and how could this be leveraged for additional units and could this be used for preserving expiring use buildings. Ms. Farooq stated that there are some expiring use buildings that need to be preserved. The buildout of this project may not be able to feed these buildings depending on timing. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund funding would be diminished by using the funds for the expiring use buildings but this contribution will put money back into the trust fund to support the construction of new affordable housing units in the City. Ms. Farooq stated that the $26 million will go a significant distance for preservation and construction of new housing. She stated that it costs $500,000-$600,000 per unit to construct a unit in Cambridge. This includes land acquisition, fees and construction costs. She stated that the City tries to leverage the Affordable Housing Trust Funds to the greatest extent possible and supplement it with state funding and private equity into the projects. Councillor Toomey spoke about the importance of preserving affordable housing.

Mayor Simmons spoke about the impact of the Volpe development on the Port, Area 4, Wellington-Harrington and the East Cambridge communities. She stated that she hopes that the community center will draw the community into the Volpe area. She spoke about the Volpe development and MIT presence in the neighborhoods as a whole and how it should engage those who are in the area now.

Councillor Cheung asked about the recommendations for K2 and what has shifted to the zoning and are there any issues forgotten. Mr. Roberts stated that the K2 study provisions are in the zoning petition now, including active ground floors, innovation space, sustainability requirements and community fund contributions. They were also in the MIT zoning previously adopted in the PUD-5. The commitment by MIT and the community benefits that MIT can bring to the table are in the development itself. There are no key differences. Ms. Farooq stated that this has benefited from what has more recently been included such as a strong storm water management that relates to future climate change impacts and flooding. They are beneficial improvements they were not part of the K2 study.

Councillor Carlone stated that on pages four and five of memo on sustainability the Planning Board supported the current proposal of requiring a LEED gold standard for new buildings and working toward the City’s Net Zero Action Plan and Climate Change Preparedness and Resiliency Goals. He noted that there is nothing about working toward Net Zero in the zoning, but it is in the outline. Ms. Farooq stated that there are provisions built into the original language. In Section 13.96.4 under energy and emissions discusses the feasibility of steam that exists in this area. In the site, landscaping and water management addresses the resiliency components. In section (e) it allows the Planning Board to provide dimensional relief to facilitate the construction cogeneration systems, which are district solutions for this site. These are accommodated in the zoning language. Developers have been asked to describe how buildings and the overall project are designed to be able to retrofit to better use renewable overtime so that there is less reliance on fossil fuel based energy sources. Councillor Carlone stated his concerns is (a) energy and emissions. He stated that each new building to the extent applicable reduce carbon —this sounds like a big loophole. Ms. Farooq stated that this is to take into consideration that some things are not feasible now and this takes into account feasibility in the future. Councillor Carlone suggested being more specific.

At this time Councillor Carlone invited MIT to present (ATTACHMENT D).

Sarah Gallop, MIT, spoke about the summary of the commitment letter and community benefits. She spoke about the additional community engagement to assemble input from the community. She stated that a block party was held on the Volpe site to see what could be held at the Volpe parcel. There were over 600 people in attendance at the block party. She stated that MIT continues to attend neighborhood meetings to continue gathering input from the public. She introduced MIT representatives.

Steve Marsh, MITIMCO, spoke about the draft of the commitment letter (ATTACHMENT E) and provided background of this. He read the community benefits (ATTACHMENT F). This represents $440 million in benefits to the City after the build out. Mr. Marsh spoke about the Grand Junction path. He stated that MIT will convey access rights along MIT’s property to enable the construction of the Grand Junction path and make a contribution of $8.5 million to fund the design and construction along all the property that MIT owns along the path. This work will begin immediately upon adoption of zoning ordinance including finalizing the conveyances along the path and beginning the design along the path.

The community center will include surrounding neighborhoods that are welcome to this site. MIT will fund up to $15 million for construction and design of a community space on site. There is a $3 million endowment to support the on-going affordability of the site and the center. He noted that MIT would form an advisory committee to review and make recommendations on the design, programming and further fund raising. The site is a meeting space, job connector and recreational space as the three principle elements important to welcome those to the site and to help create a true mixed use on the Volpe property. He spoke about the job connector space at part of the community center. He stated that MIT is proud of the innovation that takes place in Kendall Square. The job connector is an opportunity to connect Cambridge residents to jobs and programs in Cambridge’s innovation economy. MIT will contribute $1.5 million for this program to jump start this program and will work with the MIT community, the City, local schools and other stakeholders to create the program. He presented slides on what can be possible at the community center. The community center has not been specifically sited. This will be placed in a visible space on the site. This is 8,000-10,000 square feet per floor with a couple of floors. The rooftop would be active open space and could be used for recreational activities. He spoke about a flexible court with a stage and kitchen space which can serve as community space and used jointly for meetings and other activities in the community. The job connector should be visible, on-grade and welcoming to the community and could accommodate a variety of uses and ages. The community has requested a pool and there was a slide with a pool. He stated that open space and retail advisory committee has been helpful in suggesting types of retail for the site.

Ms. Gallop stated that graduate student housing has been discussed at MIT. A working group is working on evaluating the needs of the graduate student housing population. MIT’s recommendation for additional graduate student housing will be presented to the City Council on Oct 16. She extended an invitation for a groundbreaking event to be held on Oct 11, 2017 at 5 PM on the One Broadway parking lot for the 450-graduate student resident hall which began construction. This is the first building being constructed as part of the Main Street plan. She stated that MIT teamed up with the community arts center and its media program to create a giant mural that will be on Main Street. This will be unveiled in front of resident’s hall and will be at this site while under construction.

Councillor Toomey stated that he is happy that MIT will grant access rights on the Grand Junction and provide funding that will provide access to Somerville. This is a win/win for all including MIT. This will be the impetus to continue this all the way through. MIT owns the largest part of land on the Grand Junction. He suggested that locating a site for the community center and early completion of the community center will send a strong message to the community. He stated that youth and seniors should be included in the process. He asked how will this be promoted and who will have access to the site. He wanted to check if the proposed endowment would be sufficient. The job connector is so important with life science opportunities and wanted collaboration with the public schools. He noted that the housing opportunities are limited for the Cambridge youth.

Mayor Simmons acknowledged the event held on the open space; it was extraordinary. Kendall Square has no sense of place and this event provided one. She suggested what kind of activities can be held now so that when the community center is built they will come because they will have experience of utilizing the area. What can be done to develop a sense of place now. She asked who will staff the community center and who will run the community center so that the community will feel that they belong. She asked if the endowment is a onetime payment or an annual payment. Will members from The Port, Area 4, Wellington-Harrington and East Cambridge be on the advisory committee. Concerning the job connector space, she suggested starting now and then moving the program into the space. She suggested building the program now, and then the space and the people will come. She asked if the community space is going to be shared with MIT and the neighborhoods and if so make sure that there is no friction. Are the $3 million endowment and the job connector $1.5 onetime payments or annual. How will the $8.5 million be appropriated? She stressed including seniors in the use of the community center. Mr. Marsh commented that if this is not made inclusive MIT has missed the point and this is the best way relationships are made.

Councillor Mazen spoke on the proposed $15 million for a community center and job connector program. He wanted this consolidated by MIT and provided annually. This will get other companies to contribute to the non-profit coalition. He stated that regarding the job connector who will run it, can it be started now. If the City wants to do something different about job training and a job connector in a City that is smaller with more resources per capita and good jobs it will be a more granular discussion. He wanted a clearer outline about what the aim is. The agreement on the Grand Junction pathway is good press for MIT and the stakeholders. He stated that this will take someone to chase the ball. He asked will MIT play a leadership role in getting this done. He spoke about the $8.5 million and that it is definitely a leadership amount of money. He spoke about graduate student housing situation. He stated that he lived through the graduate student situation and that it is easy to say that the data is unclear and that the demand is not there. He stated that for himself as a graduate student it was impossible to live and eat while he was a graduate student at MIT. His bank account was constantly in overdraft every month. He spoke about the impact on the neighborhoods when graduate students are renting neighborhood apartments. There is a clear need for subsidized housing for graduate students which will increase the need. He spoke about the Clay report and noted that the understanding of what is needed is different for MIT and the public. He spoke about the actual need of housing, which is very high. He spoke about MIT starting an annual fund and bringing other stakeholders to contribute to the fund.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that in terms of the Grand Junction how much does MIT own right-of-way. Mr. Marsh stated that the last funded piece was from Binney Street to Main Street along with CRA. The other piece goes from Main Street down through to Massachusetts Avenue and crosses Massachusetts Avenue to Metropolitan Warehouse and goes down through Cambridgeport is the next section. He stated that this is contiguous to the other section. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that regarding the community center there is no East Cambridge senior center, he asked MIT to think about programming for seniors and transportation to and from the community center. He spoke about establishing relationships. He spoke about reaching out to the senior housing developments, which should be done now.

Attorney Galluccio stated that this has come up many times. The block party was an attempt to build a brand for Volpe that the community understands. He spoke about this being an inclusive community. Vice Mayor McGovern spoke about the needed personal connections that show that you are part of the community.

Councillor Maher stated that this is an opportunity for youth to come together to be trained in a field that provides a solid income. He is pleased with the conversation and where it has come. The City is on the verge of a good opportunity that will deliver a good package back to the community. The Volpe site has been a missing tooth for this community and this project will tie the area back to the communities and make Kendall Square the destination place it could and should be.

Councillor Devereux commented that the letter of commitment indicates the construction of the community center cannot begin until MIT owns the Volpe parcel and that depends on completing the construction of the federal building replacement. She stated that the job connector program is presently based on the community center being open. These cannot be built until the new Volpe building is open. Does the $15 million contribution actually pay for the community center? Is more funding needed to build this?

Attorney Galluccio stated that a design charrette was done. He explained that the concepts came from the community. He stated that MIT asked to define this, make the vision clear and to be specific as to what can be done right away. Once zoning is done this would be part of the special permit process. The idea would be to get a number where predictability and expectation are clear and then an appointed advisory committee will make practical decisions on the number of paid, free, and discounted memberships. He stated that the paid membership would become part of the mentoring/job program. He stated that residential buildings have amenities, this is not meant to include, not exclude, Volpe.

Councillor Devereux stated that this sounds like the same process done with the Foundry on programming and be self-sustainment. She stated that MIT is contributing to a citywide community center. The advisory committee should be launched soon. Mr. Marsh stated that a full community process (including programming and design) would need to be started as soon as possible. Upon adoption MIT will move to gather the resources needed to build this process.

Councillor Kelley asked if MIT is front-loading the community center. Mr. Marsh stated that community, design and permit processes will be first, followed by the land transfer and then MIT will be ready to move forward. Councillor Kelley stated that he wanted this formalized.

Attorney Galluccio stated a comprehensive special permit process would result in a development plan, which will locate the community center. The location will have an impact on when the center can be delivered. He stated that during the special permit process the Planning Board would favor a plan that gets an early. Councillor Kelley had concerns about the community center or other community benefits dangling toward the end, which would be a problem. Mr. Marsh stated that masterplan needs to be done and this will be done simultaneously. This is important to be on the site and this is an objective he is working on. He wanted flexibility to respond to the community.

Councillor Cheung asked how much did the block party cost. Attorney Galluccio stated it was expensive. Councillor Cheung stated that he would like to see this move forward and establish a fund for events such as this. The overall commitment for community benefits is very responsive. The zoning is bringing life into an area that is now dead.

Councillor Maher spoke about the need for additional fire apparatus in Kendall Square. He asked MIT to think about what is needed from the city to have a new fire station built. He spoke about the Boston fire station on Purchase Street. The city could enter an agreement with a private developer to take a couple of lower floors in a building for adequate fire apparatus in the area. He is not looking to make this part of this agreement, but suggested an overlay for a fire station in Kendall Square.

Councillor Carlone stated that the city did have a plan 20-30 years ago at the “pork chop” park along the railroad right of way, but was given up. He stated that the Grand Junction pathway project would require an overlay zoning district to maximize its potential. He wanted MIT to support this with an approximate 20-foot set back on any new construction or there will be a tunnel effect on the pathway that will be unbearable sound and spatial impacts to users. Mr. Marsh stated that MIT understands the need to make the Grand Junction esthetically and environmentally pleasing but there are a number of historic building challenges on the site. He stated that MIT is open to discussing how to make this work for the Grand Junction and still make the buildings work for the research that MIT does. There are buildings along this path that deal with energy research and MIT needs to understand the consequences. He stated that there may be creative solutions. Councillor Carlone agreed that historic buildings should stay and repeated that he was speaking about new construction, not building s to remain.

Mr. Marsh spoke about the cost of a community center, which will most likely end up in a building at the non-retail location. If there is money left over from the $15 million commitment it will go into the endowment fund. He added that both MIT and tenants in the area would participate to make job training space work.

Councillor Cheung asked Ms. Farooq to have language regarding an exemption for FAR for municipal property. He asked that this language be provided to the City Council.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment at 4:51pm.

Orpheus Chatznesilerou, 235 Albany Street, secretary, MIT graduate student council, is advocating for benefits for graduate students including health care, student stipends and graduate student housing. He spoke about the graduate study advisory group and conjunctional analysis. He explained how the study works. Students are given options to figure the kind of student housing wanted. The data will be collected and the information provided to MIT for the type of housing requested. The advisory committee is 50% students and 50% faculty and administrators.

Ken Eisenberg, 240 Hampshire Street, said the development would impact neighborhoods beyond Kendall Square. The traffic is greater than two generations ago; it is about density. He loved to look at the sky in the 1980’s. There is an opportunity to take the factory buildings and make housing and plant trees, installing benches and a playground and landscape; this could be a great space. He stated that now he sees a corridor from MIT to Massachusetts Avenue. He stated that the City of Cambridge missed this opportunity for decades.

Charles Hinds, East Cambridge Planning Team (ECPT), read a letter by ECPT to the Ordinance Committee (ATTACHMENT G). He stated that the impacts are not fully understood in this largest zoning for the city. The East Cambridge Planning Team is not unanimously opposed to the development of the Volpe site but is opposed to the development causing greater impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods without due consideration. The most important concern is the 150% increase in allowable density without a commensurate increase in infrastructure support. He stated that the fact that traffic and environmental studies will not inform the zoning but rather the up-zoning request is based on economic reality of the bargaining between MITIMCO and the federal government does not provide assurance that the proposed density is good for Cambridge. He stated that ECPT does not support this petition at this time because its specifics are not spelled out. He expressed concern with the uneven security set back with the Volpe building. He requested no action be taken on this petition.

Larry Stabile, 303 Third Street, abutter to Volpe, stated that this project is big and goes beyond the existing zoning and it is not obvious that MIT has demonstrated the need for more density. He stated that the federal GSA agreement is not good for cities. He does not support this petition, too much density and not enough open space and the location of open space will be contentious overtime. The site plan review will take a long time and having flexibility for tradeoffs in the process is important. He spoke about the height of buildings and providing more open space. He might support these tradeoffs for more open space. He suggested considering incentives or tradeoffs for more height or density for more open space.

Michael Turk, 11 Ware Street, stated that he was opposed to the zoning. This proposal was powerfully gentrifying the immediate area and the adjacent neighborhoods. His concern is on housing and commercial affordability and the lack thereof. This would result in 1100 high end or luxury units. There is a provision for 20% low income in conformance with the inclusionary housing ordinance. He stated that this way of thinking about zoning is not level headed and is wrong. He suggested three tiers for housing; low income, moderate-middle income and one-quarter being high end. Affordability needs to be done by tradeoffs. He asked what would be a reasonable estimate of the rent roll for this new housing. The low/moderate housing that has been built in Kendall Square and University Park in recent years he estimates that a rent roll of $15 million annually and he has not heard any projected numbers. On the commercial piece a legal commitment is needed for affordable rents for local stores and restaurants.

Karl Alexander spoke on behalf of the Cambridge Bike Safety Advocacy Group and spoke about the connectivity of the Kendall Square and the Grand Junction Path. This will encourage open space, cultural arts projects, path oriented development and connectivity. This will eventually connect Kendall Square and the Volpe site to Brighton and Allston, strategic to the City of Boston’s growth in the coming decades. He stated that there is no direct route from this part of Boston that is going to see such rapid growth as this part of Cambridge. This will also connect forty-eight additional miles of free paths throughout the Metro Boston region. He spoke about biking to work from Bedford to Kendall Square in under an hour. He hopes that MIT will act immediately upon adoption of the zoning and that MIT will take a leading role in these efforts and to incorporate bike friendly routes into the Volpe project.

Bryan Sparks spoke as an advocate for the project. He does not spend time in Kendall Square other than work. Kendall Square has not drawn his family there. He stated that this is an opportunity to tie together a critical piece of the City in a way that has not been done in the past. He stated that from a real estate point of view Kendall Square is a failed urban plan. He spoke about the intellectual capital in the area. He encourages the city to look at this impact on the neighborhood. The innovation, open space and community center will be an asset to Kendall Square and the surrounding areas.

Alex Conway, 31 Line Street, supported the proposal. He has not felt the need to walk or go to Kendall Square; it is presently a dead zone. He stated that the affordable housing, open space and innovation zone would have a positive impact on the community. He would love to work in a Kendall Square that is an innovation hub. The Volpe has an opportunity for this growth. He stated that he trusted MIT to do a good job. It would be silly to put restriction for micro housing units on the development and zoning plans. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT H).

Matt Haymer, 612 Main Street, owner of Cafe Luna located in Kendall Square. He spoke about a compromise to meet the needs of all. He stated that this is an incredible opportunity to build on a parcel of land that is in dire need of growth. MIT will make this area a vibrant area. He supported MIT and the Volpe petition.

Stephen Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street, appreciate the new version of the zoning petition; good editing done. The max building height for 500 feet tower, the original language stated iconic and landmark is still in the petition with the addition of “designed to be iconic landmark.” All the architects will declare their buildings to be iconic landmarks. He suggested the language be “must demonstrate excellence in architecture.” He spoke about the transportation study to be done as part of the masterplan. Section 13.92 (j) gets into transit and traffic. He stated that the MBTA needs help; it is not being operated as it could be. This is what needs to be repaired. The capacity of redline is 13,000 riders an hour in each direction. He stated that in the morning the number of riders coming into Kendall Square is only 9,500 this is a difference of 3,500. What happen to these riders? They got caught in the bunching. He stated that system runs inefficiently and wastefully and the challenge to MIT is bunching and they must help solve it.

John Sansone, Friends of Grand Junction path, and acknowledged MIT working with the City on the Grand Junction Path. He urged changing the focus of the metric from the monetary contribution and make it geographic aims and construction for a specific time frame. He spoke about a sense of pride and ownership of the Grand Junction. He spoke about this being a more collaborative process and extending the Grand Junction. He wanted a focus transit study group convened, including the City, MBTA and MIT, to look at beginning light rail service in the Grand Junction corridor between upcoming West Station, Kendall Square and North Station and to explore beyond Somerville, Chelsea and the Airport. He spoke about the historic Broad Canal, presence of biotech along Binney Street and Third Square and what can be done interestingly, monumentally and architecturally for the open space. He submitted his communication (ATTACHMENT I).

Ilan Levy, 148 Spring Street, stated that the community benefit contains 280 units of affordable housing, $26 million contribution to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and $23 million in annual tax revenue. He stated that he did not know taxes were a community benefit; he thought it was mandatory. This should be taken out of community benefits. This petition is moving too fast and the city is losing its leverage. MIT is getting off easy on this. He spoke about the impact on the East Cambridge, Port, Wellington-Harrington neighborhoods with traffic problem and no improvements to infrastructure. He wanted this negotiated outside of the master plan.

Affordable housing is not being addressed with this petition. The petition is providing the required amount of affordable. He spoke about what has been lost is five acres of open space and to get something more consistent with the neighborhood expectations envisioned by ECAPs.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, supported the earlier comments by the ECPT. She stated that the petition should not be approved before Oct 31, 2017. She stated that if MIT does not get the up zoning it will be financially hurt, but in the commitment letter MIT gets ownership of the title based on passing this zoning. She stated that building should be based on what the City wants and needs. The ratio of development should be 60 % housing and 40 % commercial and the hotel should be counted as 100% commercial and not partially residential. She stated that if this is not commercially viable it should not be built. She further stated that dormitories should not count toward housing requirements. She supported the graduate student housing petition that requires MIT to build 1800 subsidized units of graduate student housing as a condition for approval of the up zoning of the Volpe site. She stated that graduate student housing would alleviate pressure on housing that is suitable for families and it would slow price increases. The report on the graduate student housing study is due Oct 13, 2017, one day after the Ordinance Committee hearing on this petition. This is one of the reason why it is not good to pass this petition before the graduate student housing is settled. She noted that if the City does raise the inclusionary housing requirements she would like the zoning to state that the increases will apply to any housing not yet built. She supports requiring a 5% additional middle-income housing, and a portion of residential be home ownership and family size units. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT J).

Peter Valentine 37 Brookline Street, stated that a large information center should be built in Central Square listing all the businesses and activities in Cambridge. He stated that something needs to be done about Central Square; it is a main thoroughfare into Cambridge. He stated that everything in Cambridge and on the earth, comes from nature and no one can prove this wrong. In the end the ways of nature will prevail and everything has its place and everything exists in balance.

Jason Alves, East Cambridge Business Association, thanked MIT for the block party. It was a good opportunity to get people to the site to envision the open space and see the possibilities. The retail advisory group is a good aspect of this petition and it would be good to see complementary uses between Kendall Square and some of the businesses in East Cambridge. He spoke about the connection in Kendall Square and the Grand Junction being the biggest piece of this connection. This is a significant commitment by MIT to make this happen. There are many other pieces to the path and there are other property owners that are committed to make this happen.

Councillor Carlone closed public comment at 5:37pm.

Councillor Carlone stated the following e-mails were received and would be made part of the report.
Communication from Will Stattman, a graduate student at MIT in support of the Volpe redevelopment project by MIT because of the needed affordable housing and retail that will be provided in Kendall Square (ATTACHMENT K).
Communication from Ran Cao, graduate student of MIT, in support of the Volpe redevelopment project by MIT (ATTACHMENT L).
Communication from Phil Cohen, a graduate student of MIT, in support of the Volpe rezoning petition because of the additional commercial and lab space that will be created (ATTACHMENT M).
Communication from Michael Monestime, Executive Director, Central Square Business Association, in support of the proposed Volpe project and the community benefits that will be provided (ATTACHMENT N).

At this time Councillor Carlone opened the hearing to the comments by the City Councillors.

Councillor Cheung stated that one more meeting will be held to discuss architectural and urban design guidelines and hear from MIT on City Council concerns about the activation of the open space, the community center and graduate student housing. The proposed community benefits are significant and the process laid out by the Ordinance Committee is significant. The commitment letter is generally submitted on the night of ordination. He commented on the community benefits that the CRA negotiated with Boston Properties, which he felt were undervalued. He spoke about affordable housing 280 units and more than 100 units of affordable housing that will be built under the new, higher percentage. He stated that the 280 units as part of the zoning package is a significant amount.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that 280 housing units is great but he would like to see more. He addressed the comments made in public comment on the speed of this petition. He reminded everyone that this process has been going on since 2015. The parameters of this zoning are no difference than what was before the City Council in 2015. There will be three new members of the City Council next year. He stated that this City Council owns this petition and has done much work on this. He is not looking to start this conversation over again. The City Council has a responsibility to do our jobs on this petition. We need to vote this before Oct 31, 2017.

Councillor Devereux spoke about whether the community benefits are worth the up zoning. It is worth subtracting out the required affordable housing and should we ask for more. Boston Properties housing plan was more aggressive and added a significant home ownership commitment and there is no such commitment from MIT on home ownership or middle-income housing. She stated that the $15 million for community center is not much. She compared this with the cost of Foundry. She did see the benefits for this. The commercial growth and job engine needs to continue to grow and Cambridge needs this growth. The City Council needs to do the best to make it work for all concerned. This City Council does own this and she did not want second thoughts and no money left on the table.

Councillor Carlone stated that the letter of commitment needs to be broadened. He stated that if the community center is in a building the $15 million allotment might be fine. It should be in a building and not an isolated event. He raised the issue of Volpe’s new development and the fact that the City has no oversight on its integration. The Council needs to see where Volpe is now and what is the surrounding open space design. The Federal Courthouse process in South Boston was very public. Volpe is not.

Councillor Carlone strongly recommended that MIT dormitories should be struck from the zoning petition. He spoke about intentional university creep that has begun taking over Kendall Square. This is both a job and tax generation part of the City, not a part of the campus. The architectural and urban design guidelines have been modified. The guidelines need to be adhered to by the Planning Board or the proposed very large buildings and the desired public spaces will be overwhelmed. He wanted to discuss homeownership even at this stage as a percentage. There will be a fourth hearing on this petition. The next hearing will focus on refining both the zoning and design guidelines versions edited by the Planning Board. They will eventually be referred to the zoning petition.

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 5:53pm.

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

Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Tues, Oct 17, 2017 beginning at 2:36pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to conduct a fourth public hearing to continue discussion on a zoning petition by MIT to create a new Planned Unit Development Overlay district (PUD-7) over the area known as the Volpe National Transportation systems Center site in Kendall Square; said discussion to focus on a final review of the zoning, review of the Design Guidelines and review of the Letter of Commitment.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Maher; Councillor Mazen; Vice Mayor McGovern; Councillor Toomey; Mayor Simmons; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager of Zoning and Development, CDD; Suzannah Bigolin, Urban Designer, CDD; Stuart Dash, Director, Neighborhood Planning, CDD; Chris Cotter, Housing Director, CDD; Erik Thorkildsen, Urban Design Consultant, CDD; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Vali Buland, First Assistant City Solicitor; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Robert Reardon, Director of Assessing; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Cynthia Barnhart, MIT Chancellor; Sarah Gallop, Co-Director of Government and Community Relations, MIT; Michael Owu, MITIMCO; Kathryn Brown, MITIMCO; David Manfredi, Architect; Anthony Galluccio, Land Use Attorney; Michael Turk, 11 Ware Street; Larry Stabile, 303 Third Street; Alfred D’Isidoro, 69 Sixth Street; Ken Eisenberg, 200 Hampshire Street; Stephen Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street; Bjorn Poonen, 303 Third Street; Kelly Blynn, 55 Properzi Way; Elaine DeRosa, 4 Pleasant Place; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place; Gary Mello, 324 Franklin Street; Michael Davis, 160 Harvard Street; Ilan Levy, 148 Spring Street; Joe Maguire, 400 Tech Square; Adam Hash, 19 Trowbridge Street; Robert Winters, 366 Broadway; Carol O’Hare, 172 Magazine Street; and Mona Elmina, 203 Harvard Street.

Councillor Cheung convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the hearing and all the documents.

Councillor Cheung began the hearing by hearing from MIT, the petitioners.

Ms. Gallop introduced the MIT representatives. A PowerPoint presentation was given (ATTACHMENT A). She walked through the commitment letter. A revised commitment letter dated Oct 16, 2017 (ATTACHMENT B) was submitted at the City Council meeting of Oct 16, 2017 and tonight there is a further revision to the commitment letter dated Oct 17, 2017 (ATTACHMENT C). She stated that MIT is being responsive to the issues raised from the last Ordinance Committee hearing.

Mr. Owu spoke about the Grand Junction path. He stated that MIT will convey access rights along MIT property to enable the creation of the Grand Junction multi-use path. He stated that there is a $8.5 million commitment from MIT to fund design and construction of the Grand Junction path. He stated that MIT will construct a multi-use path along MIT owned properties.

Attorney Galluccio spoke about the community space. Funding has been increased up to $22 million for the design and construction of an on-site community space and the endowment has increased to $3.5 million to support the ongoing affordability of the center. He stated that the cost is unknown and all aspects are being reviewed. It is anticipated that the membership will be 2500. He stated that the community space could be in any of the site plans. There was a rendering of a multi-purpose rooftop, a pool concept and flexible space.

Ms. Gallop spoke about the graduate student housing. She spoke about the summary of the commitment letter (ATTACHMENT D). She spoke about commitment to create 950 more student beds and the new graduate hall on Main Street. A Lego model was made of the Kendall Square residence hall. She spoke about the vision of the world mural running 450 feet on Main Street and it is in front of the Kendall Square residence hall construction site.

Chancellor Barnhart stated that the residence hall will contain 450 beds of which 250 are net new will be in the new residence hall and it is tied to the completion of Volpe building and will be completed on or before Dec 31, 2020. There are three different strategies, the first being the new residence hall. The second strategy is to find addition beds in existing structures. This may be a gain of 130 beds and this could be converted to graduate housing. Pairs will be allowed to move into efficiency rooms. New housing will create 950 beds. All new 950 beds will be delivered or permitted by or before Dec 31, 2020, before MIT has ownership of the Volpe parcel. MIT has committed to evaluate its graduate student housing every three years. Annual updates will be provided in the Town/Gown reports.

Mr. Owu spoke about the job connector and stated that $1.5 million has been committed to this program. He added that $125,000 will be committed annually to get the program started once the zoning is adopted. He stated that 20 units of middle income housing is being committed to by MIT. The City Council wanted smaller units. He stated that 5% of the housing floor area will be innovation housing. Unit sizes will be 350-450 square feet. He stated that residents of 30 units of housing will not be eligible for on-street parking. He spoke about the open space and retail advisory committee. He further stated that $300,000 is committed to bring the broader community together, until MIT acquires the land, for an event such as a block party. He stated that if converted to academic uses MIT agrees not to claim real estate tax exemption for ten years. MIT needs to generate a return from this property. A million-dollar fund is committed to establish an art program. This covers all in the commitment letter.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked about the membership of the community center and what does this mean. He asked if residents would be charged to use this facility. Attorney Galluccio stated that there will be an advisory process on this. He explained that MIT will control this center, will build and oversee the operation. The assumption is that a required number of memberships will be required and that no more that 40% of the memberships will be fee based so that it will feed the operation. This will get the demographic mix in the City and the numbers will be locked in. This would be more formalized for the job center. Vice Mayor McGovern asked about reconfiguring the graduate student housing. He asked with the types of beds offered would the graduate students want this configuration. Ms. Barnhart learned that the students would like this. There needs to be a size that will accommodate two people. The students wanted this flexibility for a couple to live in efficiency unit because it would be cheaper. MIT wants to understand what students want in housing and stated that cost is an important factor. Vice Mayor McGovern asked if rents charged graduate students will be less than rent in the community for housing. Ms. Barnhart stated that MIT is learning much from the survey and will build the housing that match the costs for the students. Vice Mayor McGovern noted that this graduate student housing would free up market rate housing for residents. He asked for consideration for the use of ZipCar or Charlie Cards for students because parking continues to be an issue. Mr. Owu stated that this will be part of the Special Permit process.

Councillor Carlone asked about the Grand Junction path commitment amount and if this was an estimate. Mr. Owu said that MIT did a study in 2014 on the Grand Junction and compared the cost of the section of the Grand Junction that extends from Binney to Main Street that MIT recently funded and came up with a budget. He stated that what has been projected is four times the length and eight times the budget. He stated that there is confidence that the amount is enough to budget the Grand Junction. Councillor Carlone spoke about future buildings being set-back from the railroad right of way so that there is not a solid wall along the edge of the bike and pedestrian way. The City does not want to create a tunnel that will be overrun by winds and the railroad. Mr. Owu stated that the 2014 feasibility study laid out the constraints, challenges and opportunities for the path of the Grand Junction. He stated that the path will be a value added to the city. Councillor Carlone asked if there is any idea about the floor plan for the community space. Mr. Owu stated that it is about 70,000 square feet per floor for three floors.

Councillor Carlone stated that this will be in a building and the amount of funding of $22 million is still there no matter what the cost. He asked if the reserve will be put into escrow. Attorney Galluccio stated that the monetary commitment is solid; this is the baseline figure. Councillor Carlone stated that on the graduate student housing no post docs were listed. He asked what is the strategy of MIT on this. Ms. Barnhart stated that there is no strategy. She stated that post docs are housed in graduate student housing when there is a vacancy and most of the post docs live off campus. Councillor Carlone stated that 250 units under constructed were part of a previous package and this feels like double counting. He stated that he hoped that the new 500 beds are in multiple buildings. If there is a choice between an efficiency and a single, the efficiency will not be preferred. He stated that regarding 70 Amherst Street what happened to the 130 undergraduates; where did these undergraduate students go? Ms. Barnhart stated that MIT was basing the amount of beds on graduate student needs. The number of students that would like to pair up in an efficiency is far greater than MIT can supply. She stated that for undergraduates, MIT provides housing and keeps this commitment. The undergraduates from 70 Amherst Street were housed due to MIT taking advantage of excess capacity in the system.

Councillor Carlone asked about the real estate taxes and stated that college creep is also important. The City Council did not want to see MIT going to Binney Street. He stated that if this becomes institutional or dorms he will not vote for this zoning. He stated that he did not want to see the residential buildings becoming dorms. This is a big concern.

Councillor Devereux spoke about the increase of 5% of GFA innovation units. She asked what does this do to the unit count. She stated that 1400 units would include 280 inclusionary units and 20 middle income units and now 5% of the GFA is innovation. Mr. Owu said the zoning for affordable housing is based on the percentage of square footage and not on units and the final unit count will be 20% plus the 5%; it is difficult to come up with a number of units. This is an estimate of the units. He stated that the number may vary based on the square footage.

Councillor Devereux stated that she cannot compare the impact because there are two different measures. She stated that innovation and family sized units are from the same GFA. Attorney Galluccio stated that this will not have a significant impact and the units could be more or less and the unit size could be negotiated with the City. He stated that the 280 plus 20 is 300; the numbers are not exact. Councillor Devereux stated that for the middle income the percentage of GFA is 1.5% of the total units and this number is small and is not a significant number when talking about creating a neighborhood. She stated that she would rather the $300,000, equivalent to the cost of a unit, go to housing not to a community event. Attorney Galluccio stated that he heard that the parcel needs to be inclusive and diverse and welcoming. He stated that as a package he wanted to have a place where all feel welcomed. He stated that it was heard from the City Council to get more units and there are more units. Councillor Devereux asked about working with non-profit and the $8.5 million to be distributed to non-profits; is this another fund being created or is this for non-profits in the greatest impact area? Attorney Galluccio stated that this is a Volpe process and this is an attempt to address the needs in a holistic way forward. The community fund has been established and the City is working to make the legal distribution of the funds work. MIT will funnel money to the community fund and have the City administration figure out how to distribute funds. He stated that he did not want to reinvent that wheel. Councillor Devereux wanted to see the beds increased to 1100. Ms. Barnhart stated that the students did not make this recommendation. The report does contain 1000 to 1100 and this represents a rough estimate for preference for housing on campus. Ms. Barnhart explained that from the 715 graduate students who responded to the survey, 222 stated that they would like to live on campus for at least one year. There is uncertainty about the number for the graduate student population in the coming years. She stated that reduction in funding and uncertainty around immigration policies could have an impact on the graduate student population and may reduce the size of the graduate student population. She noted that to assume that the students who did not respond to the survey has the same ratio as those students who did respond to the survey is not accurate. She stated that the 950 is a generous commitment and can be filled operationally. The process of evaluating demand of the student needs will be repeated in three years. This is a commitment by MIT to repeat the evaluation process in three years and then reassess.

Councillor Toomey asked since the petition was filed how many events took place in the community that engaged the community. Ms. Gallop said it is at 80 events now. It was important to go out to the neighborhood and then the neighborhood was invited into workshops. She noted that input has been gathered from a variety of avenues. This was a strong robust outreach program.

Councillor Kelley stated that New York City has a requirement for 1/3 affordable housing whether the affordable housing is on or off site. He asked if anyone on the City staff knows what the New York City inclusionary requirement is. He stated that he is not in favor of the job center. He stated that the focus is so much on high tech and did not want to be limited to this option which does not have flexibility for employment options.

Councillor Mazen said that future job preparation for the Kendall economy requires tech skills and critical thinking. He spoke about housing and that people will not be able to get parking permits. He spoke about long term transit oriented housing. Grand Junction pathway is not a funding problem. He spoke about the need to be a leader for this process. Ms. Gallop stated that the City has created a regional stakeholder group, including Cambridge, Boston and Somerville, MIT and other entities that must work together to see the project through. She stated the City has reached out to DOT who is part of the puzzle. She felt confident that all will work together.

Ms. Gallop stated that MIT is excited about Grand Junction; it needs to be a jewel and MIT wants to be a part of this. Councillor Mazen spoke about the housing issue. He spoke about the gap between the housing provided and the interest in this topic because of the graduate student housing issue. He stated that there is an interest to see a good faith effort to get to 1800 units requested and 1129 is the new best effort goal. He stated that it is unclear how the conversion works and the other units. People do not want this tied to being permitted to 2020. He wanted this to be phased in after the five-year plan and more units created. Ms. Barnhart stated that there is no recommendation from the working group and that there is not a demand number now. The issue is the process. The goal is trying to be vigorous to understand what the students want and the current capacity. MIT is committed to this on-going process because this is an evolving dynamic situation. The commitments will be evolved as appropriate. Councillor Mazen stated that there is more demand out there. There is an abundant need for graduate student housing that is not being met academically. There will be demand for the right stock at the right prices. Ms. Barnhart stated that the issue is to understand what students want and how they will pay for this. The student working group will go a long way to help MIT to understand this. This is an ongoing process that MIT is committed to. Ms. Gallop spoke about the students supporting MIT that is something that all should be celebrating. Councillor Mazen stated that this deal needs to be perfect after the ball is pushed further.

Councillor Maher stated that the way that this is laid out is easy and concise for the City Council and the community. This has been a long time coming. Many have wanted to see something done on this site. The wins for the institute, the community and the 280 families who will be able to call Volpe home and 20 more middle income units should be celebrated. He spoke about billions of dollars being invested in rebuilding new schools which need to be paid for. This project will bring $20 million a year in tax revenue coming into the City. He stated that this is a significant win to the City. He stated that the City Council wanted MIT to address graduate student housing but this is the beginning. Kendall Square is fast becoming a place where people want to be. He stated that this is the most exciting project today and he is happy where this is. In the end by getting input from the public and the City Council the project will be much better.

Councillor Cheung spoke about realizing this as a better space and the City has wanted to redevelop the Volpe site for years and all the community benefits offered by MIT. He stated that having MIT being chosen as the developer by the GSA provides benefit to the City. Getting over 50% for the graduate student housing is a benefit and now has the President’s office discussing this. MIT tends to under promise. He asked if this were stalled how realistic is it that more could be achieved. Ms. Gallop responded in the negative. She stated that MIT is a data driven facility and 950 is the number that MIT is comfortable with. Ms. Barnhart stated that delaying this process is not a good thing for the students. She hoped that this can be forwarded with the 950 beds.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that graduate students should be encouraged by this. He noted that MIT is not going anywhere. He noted that MIT will be accountable and will be here and delaying this will not help anyone. He stated that nothing that was presented last night had anything to do with zoning; what was presented were enhancements.

Councillor Carlone stated that the zoning was not discussed at the last Ordinance Committee hearing because the commitment letter was discussed. He stated that he has comments on the zoning and after the presentation on the Design Guidelines he would like to make amendments to the Guidelines. He commented that the zoning was revised in September and the revision has not been discussed.

Councillor Devereux stated that she is asking for more and sooner. She asked if the permit application process for Dec 31, 2020 could be done sooner. It has always been about the long-term benefits for the increased density and whether it is worth it to the community and mitigating the impacts. Ms. Barnhart stated that it is on or before Dec 31, 2020 and it will be moved as quickly as possible.

Attorney Galluccio spoke about the permitting process and stated that the language is as aggressive as can be considering there may discretionary permits required moving forward. He stated that MIT is clear about what is expected. He was impressed with the commitment by MIT. A date was targeted for permitting. He stated that timing of this is front loaded. Ms. Gallop on behalf of Volpe team and MIT thanked the City Council and staff for their input and dialogue.

Councillor Cheung asked City staff to come forward.

Ms. Farooq asked how the Ordinance Committee wanted to proceed. Councillor Cheung responded that he wanted to go forward with the Draft Design Guidelines Presentation (ATTACHMENT E). A draft copy of the Design Guidelines was presented (ATTACHMENT F). She stated that the Design Guidelines are referenced in the zoning and will be used by City staff. Ms. Farooq stated that the edits to the Draft Design Guidelines suggested by Councillor Carlone are consistent with the working group and the Planning Board and she has no issues with the edits (ATTACHMENT G).

City Solicitor Glowa spoke about issues on the letter of commitment. She made recommendations on behalf of the City Administration to the City Council on the Draft Letter of Commitment dated Oct 17, 2017. Councillor Cheung asked City Solicitor Glowa to work with MIT team to make the changes. City Solicitor Glowa noted that this will be discussed with the MIT team. City Solicitor Glowa proceeded with her recommendations.

Regarding the Grand Junction which is referenced at the top of Page Two of the Commitment Letter she stated that it is important to have the access rights referred to in the Commitment be granted to the City for the construction of the path to be made more explicitly clear that these would be permanent easement rights or fee interests at the election of the City, and that even if MIT wanted to assert that the rights should be easement rights, it is necessary to have these rights be property rights in perpetuity. She stated that these comments would be submitted directly to MIT that could come back to the City Council at its next meeting. City Solicitor further stated that in the bulleted first paragraph clause (iii) that states “subject to the approval and/or consent of such agencies as may have in interest in the Grand Junction corridor.” City Solicitor Glowa wanted to discuss this with MIT as to its meaning. She further stated that that the bulleted third paragraph after the words “with the approved design” add the words “by the City”. This is to clarify that this is a Letter of Commitment and part of the zoning ordinance by reference that the obligations of MIT are explicitly laid out in the Commitment Letter. City Solicitor Glowa noted that there are some housing concerns that will be addressed by the Community Development staff. City Solicitor Glowa proceeded with recommended changes on Page Five, Paragraph J entitled Innovation Arts Program in the last sentence after the words “$1,000,000 over time” to insert an end date so that the City can anticipate what the final date of completion will be. City Solicitor Glowa stated that with respect to the community benefits which is in the zoning, in response to a question by Councillor Devereux, she agreed that the language that should be used is that this money is being deposited into the City’s Community Benefits Fund. This is consistent with prior discussions with the City Council for how this kind of money is handled by the City and there is an intent that the money is spent in agreements with non-profits and other like agencies to perform by contract or agreement services for the City. It is not money given to non-profits directly by the City. She stated that from a legal point of view to the extent that this is contract zoning where the City is providing greater zoning rights to MIT in exchange for these benefits being provided to the City, it is important that this money is coming to the City of Cambridge to the Community Benefits Fund to be handled in the usual way. Therefore, she wanted this language in the zoning ordinance amendment. She further stated that in the final paragraph in the Letter of Commitment it is being suggested that these are the only commitments that can be expected of MIT with respect to this specific project. City Solicitor added language in the first line after the word “project” the words “or other conditions and approvals required by the City.” This is to make clear that other permit fees required or mitigation fees such as incentive zoning, infrastructure or any of these types of things that developers are regularly required to pay to the City for permits and approvals to build a project will still be required here. She stated that this is understood as the full commitment from MIT in exchange for this zoning but does not release MIT from meeting other standard requirements for permits or approvals from the City. The City Solicitor stated that in the zoning petition itself, in Section 13.96.6 of the Planning Board Recommended Text in (a2) it states, “Community Fund” she recommends amending this in two places to read “Community Benefits Fund.” City Solicitor Glowa stated that on the Summary of the Commitment Letter she suggested the following recommended changes:

Under Grand Junction Commitment $8.5 million add “to Community Benefits Fund” Under Grand Junction Description add after “properties” the words “by permanent easement or fee interest to the City.”

City Solicitor Glowa concluded with saying that these issues would be discussed with MIT.

Ms. Farooq proceeded with the presentation on the Draft Design Guidelines.

Erik Thorkildsen spoke on the open space and site design. He focused on parks, squares, plazas, streets, paths, universal access, building services, parking. He stated that the Volpe site landscape design should be as seamlessly continuous with the landscape design of the rest of the site as possible. He spoke about the environmental comfort. He stated that the second part of the guidelines was on built form including pedestrian frontage zone, street wall zone, building towers, building tops, building massing, connectors, community spaces architectural character, new Volpe building, energy performance and embodied energy.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked about lighting on the tops of buildings and if there are recommendation on this. Ms. Farooq stated that in the Environmental Comfort section there is a guideline on page seven in section 3.8 VB that addresses lighting in buildings and pollution. It may be to add lighting to the rooftop.

Councillor Kelley commented that these are all worded as “should” and there is not a “must” in there.

Councillor Cheung noted that these are guidelines that the Planning Board can use to codify the best practices. He stated that in a zoning package of this magnitude it is to be clear to what is wanted and what is gotten. This is to help the Planning Board understand that this is what the City Council meant when the ordinance was adopted. He stated that these are design guidelines for how things should feel.

Councillor Carlone noted that years ago the Planning Board took the word “must” out. He spoke about his comments for changes to the design guidelines. These will be the biggest buildings in the City and the guidelines must be specific including the materials used. Councillor Cheung asked if Community Development Department can make changes to the guidelines.

Councillor Devereux asked if there could be another Ordinance Committee hearing on this. Councillor Carlone agreed that there is the time for another hearing. Vice Mayor McGovern agreed with having another hearing, but wanted no presentation.

Councillor Devereux stated that street parking should be parallel and is street parking needed on this since parking is underground. Ms. Farooq spoke about short term retail parking. She explained that parking helps slow down traffic on streets. Councillor Devereux stated her preference for no parking. She spoke about light reflection from glass buildings. Ms. Farooq stated that there is some reference to reducing glass and the Planning Board deleted the 50% maximum.

Councillor Carlone stated that the zoning needs to be discussed because of the changes made by Planning Board.

At 5:01pm Councillor Cheung opened public comment.

Ilan Levy stated what was not discussed today is the impact on the neighborhoods. He spoke about that property value increased as well as the traffic impact on other projects. This will be the same for the Volpe property; this leads to gentrification. If we do not have families there will be no one to attend schools. Do we want a city; then we must act upon this. He stated that the Volpe project will exacerbate gentrification.

Joe Maguire, Alexandria RE, he stated support for the project by a trusted member of the community. He stated that now is the time to move on this. He noted that K2 was studied for two years.

Carol O’Hare 172 Magazine Street, spoke on the graduate student housing count and to reduce the 950 by 250. There is a main fallacy about the graduate student housing this is not a graduate student development. This is a for profit entity. She stated that comparing this developer to a non-profit is incorrect. She noted that an Alexandria type of development will not offer goodies to the city. This is not academic use. The zoning language needs vetting by the Ordinance Committee.

Mona Effminyain, 203 Harvard St., supported the zoning. Volpe is a crucial site to the community and it will activate the site. She stated that the plans are thoughtful and make good use to the site.

Mike Turk, 11 Ware Street, spoke on paragraph e of commitment letter on affordable housing. This will be 1100 market rate high end units. He gave an example of another site and the cost of rent. He suggested focusing on the rent roll and reduce money from the rent roll could be middle income housing. MIT stated that the 20 units has a value of $6 million.

Larry Stabile, 303 Third Street stated that he wants more residents in Kendall Square. He spoke about the open space bounded by residence. He spoke about Third and Broadway. The needs of the community are offset by the community center. He stated that Kendall Square is bounded by clock tower. This project is too big and the density is too high; open space is insufficient. He commented that MIT offered more to pass the zoning.

Ken Eisenberg, Hampshire Street, spoke on the graduate student housing in the commitment letter and all he heard was beds. The graduate student housing requested units not beds. How do you take 6800 students that you are housing at 30% and add 950 beds and state that you are housing at 50%? He stated that the 20 units are embarrassing.

Stephen Kaiser, 181 Hamilton Street, asked why will one more hearing will help. He questioned is the zoning ready to go. He spoke about the issues relating to transit service. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT H).

Kelly Blynn, MIT graduate student, member GSAN, stated that she was thrilled to see the MIT commitment. She stated that 1020-1130 students would prefer to live on campus. She spoke about clarifying the 250 beds and doubling up students. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT I).

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, spoke about campus creep which has not been discussed. She would like to see in the zoning limiting campus creep. The huge increase in density is to provide revenue to the city and creating a space. There should not be campus creep and not converting buildings to academic use. MIT is not a developer and we should be happy with the benefit package.

Nancy Ryan commented on trying to connect adding 5% for micro units and 20% of middle income units. The innovations are used to construct the middle-income units. Cambridge is in a housing crisis. The community benefits are about mitigation and it is minimal. She wanted 5% of this development to be middle income rather than innovation units. The graduate students made all see that MIT has been nickel and diming student on housing. She did not want dorms or hotels in the zoning.

Vice Mayor McGovern closed public comment at 5:30pm.

Councillor Cheung stated that the Design Guidelines, zoning and the commitment letter is before the committee to discuss. He made arrangements to stay as long as possible to discuss this issue. The job comes first. He wanted this discussion now. City staff are available for a hearing on Monday afternoon.

Councillor Devereux stated that it helps to go home, eat and read the documents if you want quality thoughts.

Councillor Cheung asked Councillor Carlone to walk through the zoning comments.

Councillor Carlone stated in 13.91.2(i) Sustainability Plan is this net zero ready. Ms. Farooq stated that this is a challenge to have Net Zero as a requirement because no one knows what Net Zero means; this is because the technology is not ready. During the permitting process the developer is asked to explain how they intend to design their building to be retrofit when the time comes. She would look for technical changes to strengthen this. Councillor Carlone asked is this solar ready. Mr. Roberts stated that this is about the plan requirement to be presented to the Planning Board. Later in the zoning the specific requirements are laid out.

Councillor Carlone stated that in 13.91.3 Master Plan Approval he would add the word “additional” before guidelines in the second sentence.

Councillor Carlone stated that 13.91.4 Master Plan Criteria in (11) add at the end thereof the words “and reinforces a Cambridge sense of place.”

Councillor Carlone stated that in 13.91.5 Pre-Application Conference he wanted to add at the end of the first sentence the words “and a similar conference with the full City Council or Ordinance Committee.”

Councillor Carlone stated that in 13.92.1 Residential Uses he stated that there should be no dorms on this site and later in the zoning it is allowed.

Councillor Carlone stated that in 13.92.6 he spoke about the issue of College Creep and that he wanted a discussion of what this means.

Councillor Carlone stated that on page seven the different exemptions. He stated that he wanted to know what is the total square footage and what are the exemptions cumulatively.

Councillor Carlone stated that on page eight in paragraph (3) Final Development Plans for development parcels. He stated that it is not clear what the commercial/residential phasing is. He stated that he knows that MIT can build a commercial building, but what is the ratio of commercial and residential after this.

Attorney Galluccio spoke about the economic reality. He stated that for MIT to do a dorm, which is not in the proposal, it would have to come out of the commercial allocation and cannot be counted as residential. He stated that there will always be a residential requirement as it relates to commercial of 40/60. MIT has paid for land, money has been utilized to plan for site and to build a research facility and then to convert this to a dorm. This is difficult economically to do because the residential portion cannot be utilized to do a dorm. He stated that given the MIT mission and the money spent on this site it is challenging for MIT to agree never to do something on this site that is part of their mission. He stated that dorms cannot count as part of the residential. Mr. Roberts stated that dorms are not included in the Table of Uses; they are institution use.

Councillor Carlone questioned 13.93.2 (b) he asked what it means. Mr. Roberts stated that this is in the district in the current zoning. It is a provision that is in the PUD district which are all in the same area and allows the possibility for a development plan to include parcels from one district to another district.

Councillor Carlone stated that in 13.93.4 Maximum Building Heights in the original zoning the Planning Board took out some increased height provision. Mr. Roberts commented that the Planning Board recommendation was to simplify and clarify the language. He stated that in paragraph (5) on page four of the new petition contains the language.

Councillor Carlone stated that in 13.93.4 Maximum Building Height in (c) (1) why above 300 feet and not above 250 feet. Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board felt that there was value to allow some flexibility within the hard limits. The Planning Board felt that this was reasonable reviewing the proposal. Mr. Owu stated that this was intended to create was some flexibility.

Councillor Carlone suggested smaller floor plate above should be 250 feet and significant setback at the higher height.

Councillor Carlone stated that in 13.93.4 Maximum Building Height in (3) to strike out the words “an iconic or.”

Councillor Carlone stated that 13.96.1 (b) Required Active Space in (1) to add the word “minimum” before the word “depth.”

Councillor Carlone stated that in 13.96.2 in paragraph two the 100 feet does not make sense at the ground level. He suggested deleting the words “at ground level.”

Councillor Carlone stated that in 13.96.3 Innovation Space in (a) Required Space at the end of (1) 1.50 miles. Why would this be on Broadway out of Kendall Square. Ms. Farooq explained that there is a similar provision in the Main Street rezoning because this is the provision that allowed innovation space requirement to create lab central. Mr. Owu is in place today and is very successful.

Councillor Carlone submitted the zoning text with his amendments (ATTACHMENT J).

Councillor Devereux questioned dorm use as residential and some portion of hotel counted as commercial. Is that still in the petition? Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board recommendation is that a hotel would contribute positively to the mix of uses in the area and it was counted as part of the commercial allocation so 40% could count as the 40% requirement.

Mr. Roberts stated that this is in Section 13.93.1 (c)(2). Councillor Maher questioned if this provision went through and the100,000 is used toward housing does this change the calculation for the creation of the 280 units. Mr. Roberts responded in the negative because if a hotel is provided in place of the residential there is a requirement to provide actual affordable housing units in conformance with the inclusionary housing. He stated that the total number of affordable units would not change.

Councillor Carlone commented that the Design Guideline presentation was excellent.

Councillor Kelley stating that the parking is the wrong way to go. He would eliminate section 13.95.4 Maximum Parking. Councillor Kelley stated that in 13.95.9 he suggested rethink putting in more bike parking and figure out where the electric vehicles will go. He spoke about the enormous amount of power given to Planning Board.

Mr. Owu stated that the minimum is not a MIT issue; it is a City issue. Ms. Farooq stated that most of the parking ratio are minimum. There has been overflow of parking on residential streets. If there was parking in Kendall Square it would affect residential area. Councillor Kelley stated that North Point has low amount of parking usage. How far are people willing to walk to get their car. Vice Mayor McGovern spoke about $25 for residential sticker and development charges $500 a month for a parking space and by not charging people for spaces they will not park on the street. Councillor Devereux asked could shared use parking be possible to do here. Ms. Farooq stated that there is a provision for shared parking. A shared parking study is required to demonstrate the need. City has a great interest in reducing requirement for parking and reducing the parking fee is challenging and encourages parking. Councillor Kelley asked why not leaving parking to the Planning Board. He suggested the wording to be that the parking ratio will be as the Planning Board decides. Ms. Farooq stated that the Planning Board does have authority through the shared parking study to determine the required parking spaces. She stated that there is a City-wide provision in the zoning that allows people near transit to be able to reduce their parking to as low as zero. If this is the right approach it is easy to combine the two special permit applications for the Planning Board to issue the relief. Councillor Kelley wanted the 0.4 parking requirement removed. Mr. Roberts stated that this is the question of what the City Council wants to convey in the zoning. Councillor Kelley wanted to eliminate this and recommended that this language be stricken from the ordinance. Attorney Galluccio stated that there is still a requirement in the PUD Special Permit process to evaluate this. Councillor Devereux stated that she agreed with Councillor Kelley. There is no obligation to provide parking and the Planning Board can work with the developer on this.

Councillor Kelley stated that Section. 13.96.4 (b) Urban Site and Landscaping shows why the Planning Board needs flexibility because the best practices tomorrow are unknown. He spoke about making the language stronger. He stated that (e) stated that this could mean a whole lot of other things. He stated that the open space ended up being a transformer. He stated that this is a big thing to allow energy production and other types of energy systems to go in and it is a blind check to make zoning changes that seem reasonable. He stated that he is not suggesting that this be changed.

At this time Councillor Carlone made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the draft Design Guideline for the Volpe site be accepted as amended.

The motion carried on a voice vote of seven members.

At this time Vice Mayor McGovern moved that the petition be forwarded to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. The motion carried on a voice vote of seven members.

The following communications were received and made part of the report:
Communication from Cheryl Smith supporting the Volpe zoning petition (ATTACHMENT K).
Communication from Ali Faghig, an MIT Alum, in support of MIT’s proposed redevelopment of the Volpe site (ATTACHMENT L).
Communication from Meredith Morley in support of the Volpe zoning petition (ATTACHMENT M).
Communication from Paul E. Fallon in support of the Volpe zoning petition (ATTACHMENT N).
Communication from John J. Almeida strongly supporting the Volpe zoning petition (ATTACHMENT O).
Communication from Rhonda Massie and Paul Keplin urging the City Council to not rush to approve the Volpe zoning petition (ATTACHMENT P).
Communication from Bella Purdy urging the City Council to require MIT to increase its graduate student housing (ATTACHMENT Q).
Communication from Danya Sherman urging the City Council to require MIT to commit to increasing its graduate student housing (ATTACHMENT R).
Communication from Danya Littlefield requesting the City Council to require MIT to commit to increasing its graduate student housing (ATTACHMENT S).
Communication from Juan Pablo. Duarte Pardo requesting the City Council to require MIT to commit to increasing its graduate student housing (ATTACHMENT T).
Communication from Nasser Rabbat requesting the City Council to require MIT to commit to increasing its graduate student housing (ATTACHMENT U).
Communication from Janice Maragh, MIT Doctoral Student, in support of the Volpe rezoning petition (ATTACHMENT V).
Communication from German Parada commending MIT for its commitment to building graduate student housing (ATTACHMENT W).
Communication from Meena Siddiqui, an MIT Alum, in support of the Volpe zoning petition (ATTACHMENT X).
Communication from Peter Su requesting MIT to promise to build more graduate student housing (ATTACHMENT Y).
Communication from Clair Duvalier requesting the City Council to require MIT to build more graduate student housing (ATTACHMENT Z).
Communication from Vanessa Condon, a MIT student, unhappy with MIT’s housing plan (ATTACHMENT AA).
Councillor Cheung and Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 6:26pm.

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