14. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to an appropriation of $190,000 from the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund to the Public Investment Fund Community Development Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account which will be used to pay for completion of the feasibility study and preliminary design of a bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the Fitchburg Line commuter rail tracks to link the Alewife Triangle and the Alewife Quadrangle.

Dec 21, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting an appropriation of $190,000 from the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund to the Public Investment Fund Community Development Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account. This appropriation will be used to pay for completion of the feasibility study and preliminary design of a bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the Fitchburg Line commuter rail tracks to link the Alewife Triangle and the Alewife Quadrangle. The study is also reviewing the feasibility of incorporating a commuter rail station into the design, to be built at either the same time, or at a later date. The estimate for completing one or both projects ranges from $25 - $50 million. The City will continue to pursue federal, state, and other funding sources. Funds for the construction of these projects are not in the City's long-range financial plan.

A connection between these two areas has been contemplated for many years as a way to facilitate trips between the two areas and reduce vehicle trips through the congested Alewife area.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi City Manager

15. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, the appropriation of $250,000 from the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund to the Public Investment Fund Community Development Department Extraordinary Expenditures account which will be used for conceptual and schematic design for proposed improvements to Point Park, at the intersection of Broadway and Main Street in Kendall Square. The funds were given to the City as a part of a 2012 agreement between the City and Boston Properties, LP.

Dec 21, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $250,000 from the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund to the Public Investment Fund Community Development Department Extraordinary Expenditures account.

The funds will be used for conceptual and schematic design for proposed improvements to Point Park, at the intersection of Broadway and Main Street in Kendall Square. The funds were given to the City as a part of a 2012 agreement between the City and Boston Properties, LP. The City will work with Boston Properties and the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority to conduct the initial design process.

Point Park is one of four open spaces that were a large focus of the Connect Kendall Square Open Space Competition. The results of the competition will guide the public design processes for these open spaces in eastern Cambridge.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi City Manager

16. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $2,000,000 from the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund to the Public Investment Fund Community Development Department Extraordinary Expenditures account which will be used for the design and construction of a new public open space along Galileo Galilei Way and bounded by Binney Street, Broadway, and the Grand Junction railroad tracks, as part of a 2012 agreement with Boston Properties.

Dec 21, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $2,000,000 from the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund to the Public Investment Fund Community Development Department Extraordinary Expenditures account.

The funds will be used for the design and construction of a new public open space along Galileo Galilei Way and bounded by Binney Street, Broadway, and the Grand Junction railroad tracks, as part of a 2012 agreement with Boston Properties.

The park is one of four open spaces in eastern Cambridge that will be undergoing a design process in the coming year. The parks were a large part of the focus of the Connect Kendall Square Open Space Competition. The results of the competition will guide the public design processes for these open spaces in eastern Cambridge.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi City Manager

17. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $8,336,980 from the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund to the Public Investment Fund Community Development Department Extraordinary Expenditures account which will be used for the construction of two new public open spaces in the eastern Cambridge/Kendall Square area: Rogers Street Park on Rogers Street between Second Street and Third Street, and Triangle Park, between First Street, Binney Street, and Land Boulevard.

Dec 21, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $8,336,980 from the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund to the Public Investment Fund Community Development Department Extraordinary Expenditures account.

The funds will be used for the construction of two new public open spaces in the eastern Cambridge/Kendall Square area: Rogers Street Park on Rogers Street between Second Street and Third Street, and Triangle Park, between First Street, Binney Street, and Land Boulevard. Funding for design and construction of these open spaces was provided to the City as part of a 2009 agreement with Alexandria. Per the agreement, these funds are committed to construction of these two parks.

The parks were a large part of the focus of the Connect Kendall Square Open Space Competition. The parks are among the four open spaces in the eastern Cambridge/Kendall Square area that will be undergoing a design process in the coming year. The results of the competition will guide the public design processes for these open spaces in eastern Cambridge.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi City Manager

18. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to a transfer in the amount of $3,728,500 associated with the MIT PUD-5 Zoning, Ordinance #1355 ($3,500,000) and Education First's agreement for the North Point Building project, Ordinance #1337 ($228,500) from the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund to the Community Benefits Stabilization Fund which will be used to provide financial support to non-profit charitable community benefits organizations serving Cambridge residents determined by a process established by the City.

Dec 21, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting a transfer in the amount of $3,728,500 associated with the MIT PUD-5 Zoning, Ordinance # 1355 ($3,500,000) and Education First's agreement for the North Point Building project, Ordinance number 1337 ($228,500) from the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund to the Community Benefits Stabilization Fund.

This transfer is a follow-up from our discussion at the City Council's Finance Committee meeting held on December 10, 2015. The Community Benefits Stabilization Fund is a revenue fund and appropriations for expenditures must first come before the City Council.

Funds will be used to provide financial support to non-profit charitable community benefits organizations serving Cambridge residents determined by a process established by the City.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi City Manager

19. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $112,100 from the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Department Extraordinary Expenditures account which will be used to remove stormwater (inflow) from the sewer system to offset the new sewer flows associated with the development at 22 Water Street.

Dec 21, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $112,100 from the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Department Extraordinary Expenditures account.

Funds will be used to remove stormwater (inflow) from the sewer system to offset the new sewer flows associated with the development at 22 Water Street.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi City Manager

23. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 15-119, regarding a report on the feasibility of a redesign contest for Carl Barron Plaza.

Dec 21, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 15-119, regarding a report on the feasibility of a redesign contest for Carl Barron Plaza, City Engineer Katherine Watkins reports the following:

Overview
As part of the on-going Western Avenue Area Infrastructure improvements program, the River Street corridor is scheduled to be reconstructed. The limit of work includes River Street between Memorial Drive and Central Square, including Carl Barron Plaza.

Similar to the recently completed Western Avenue reconstruction project, the scope of work will include sewer, drain and water infrastructure; coordination with private utility companies such as Eversource Gas and Electric; street lighting; enhanced bicycle and pedestrian accommodations; bus stop improvements; public art; new street trees and plantings. The scope also includes the redesign and reconstruction of Carl Barron Plaza.

Project Schedule
The design of the River Street improvements is in the City's Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2019, with construction scheduled in Fiscal Year 2020. The design of the improvements will be developed through an extensive community process and various design approaches, including design contests, will be evaluated to determine the right approach for the area.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

26. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 15-32, regarding a report on the economic analysis for Central Square.
Charter Right - McGovern

Dec 21, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 15-32, regarding a report on the economic analysis for Central Square, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Iram Farooq reports the following:

During discussion of the zoning recommendations that emerged from the Central Square (C2) Study at the Planning Board, the Board received comment that raised concerns about the financial feasibility of the proposed recommendations intended to incentivize residential development, particularly the inclusion of middle-income family housing.

The City hired Sarah Woodworth of W-ZHA to provide an economic analysis to review some possible development scenarios under the proposed zoning with varying land use mix to understand these economic implications. The draft report of this work is attached.

The report makes observations regarding the positive impact on financial feasibility of a housing project by introducing higher value uses such as lab or by allowing the middle-income units to be provided in formats with lower construction costs or to be provided off-site in the neighborhood. After review and discussions among various City departments we feel that while the methodology of the financial analysis is sound, it does not fully reflect the Cambridge development context and the City's housing goals. In addition, some of the ideas such as allowing affordable units to be located off-site are complex housing policy questions that could not reasonably be addressed within the scope of the W-ZHA financial analysis. The City's current policy of requiring affordable units to be provided on-site, marbled throughout the building and mirroring the finishes in the market rate unit is a cornerstone of the current Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and is intended to create diversity and a mix of incomes within a building. The pros and cons of any modifications to this policy would need to be discussed at the Affordable Housing Trust and the Council's Housing Committee before they can be contemplated in zoning. We anticipate that these topics will come up during upcoming discussions of the Inclusionary Zoning study that has a more comprehensive scope and supersedes the W-ZHA analysis.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Dec 21, 2015
MAYOR MAHER
ORDERED: That all items pending before the City Council and not acted upon by the end of the 2014-2015 Legislative Session be placed in the files of the City Clerk, without prejudice provided that those proposed ordinances which have been passed to a second reading, advertised and listed on the Calendar under "Unfinished Business" during the 2014-2015 City Council term, along with any other pending matters on the Calendar listed as "Unfinished Business," shall be forwarded to the next City Council and further provided that any items pending in committee may, at the discretion of the committee, be forwarded to the next City Council.

O-2     Dec 21, 2015
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: The current zoning petition for the MXD District in Kendall is unique in that the Developer, Boston Properties, does not have similar land acquisition costs that other developers doing business in the City of Cambridge would have; and
WHEREAS: The economics of development influence the projects scope including the ratio of housing versus commercial and how to mitigate the impacts of development; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Assistant City Manager of Community Development and Executive Director of the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority to provide a better economic analysis of this project as it would compare to a more typical land acquisition and development deal and to report back to the City Council; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Council request that the petitioners work with neighborhood groups that wish to form working groups to refine their proposals.

O-6     Dec 21, 2015
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Over the past 20 years, the City of Cambridge has experienced a major increase in the value of residential real estate; and
WHEREAS: This rise in real estate value has meant greater wealth security for many of the city's residents, however, it has also attracted increased attention from developers seeking to quickly profit from a hot real estate market; and
WHEREAS: Often, these development companies use aggressive sales tactics including mailings and unsolicited phone calls designed to target our city's most vulnerable populations; and
WHEREAS: Many residents have complained of these tactics describing them as intrusive, unwelcome, and disreputable; and
WHEREAS: To better protect the homeowner, it is important that they are well informed of the many dangers in dealing with such companies; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the City Solicitor regarding the various consumer protection measures that are available to Cambridge residents; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter.

O-7     Dec 21, 2015
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct Inspectional Services to work with businesses in Central Square to clean unwanted graffiti on area buildings.

O-12     Dec 21, 2015
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
WHEREAS: Cambridge requires the grant of a special permit by the Planning Board for all uses listed as "PB" in article 4.000 of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS: The special permit process is intended to exhaustively and holistically review developments in the City, ensuring that proposed uses align with the intent of district's zoning, character, and needs; and
WHEREAS: In keeping with the goal of special permits, the City of Cambridge should seek to update required submissions for the grant of special permits when there are important factors in the construction of some special permitted developments that are not being accounted for; and
WHEREAS: In 2013, the development at H Mart was delayed due to unaccounted for power supply infrastructure needs, and now the hotel at Porter Square faces a similar unanticipated delay; and
WHEREAS: These unanticipated delays due to a lack of a detailed power supply infrastructure plan could be avoided if a detailed power needs assessment and proper infrastructure were requirements of the special permit review process; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Community Development Department to amend article 4.000 of the Zoning Ordinance to require that a power needs assessment be a requirement for appropriate projects that undergo special permit review; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to require that NSTAR and any other power providers build up the necessary infrastructure to support anticipated developments.

O-13     Dec 21, 2015
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
WHEREAS: Development projects can have many implications for neighborhoods, often impacting value of property, traffic and transportation, and overall quality of life; and
WHEREAS: Community groups representing different geographic areas of the city exist, each having strong views regarding development projects, based upon the opinions of individual residents and local experts; and
WHEREAS: While developers acknowledge and meet with community groups, these meetings are often disconnected from policy makers and from the official city planning process: and
WHEREAS: One of the primary roles of government is to ensure its residents' opinions and concerns are weighed as an explicit part of formal city processes when making decisions that affect the city; and
WHEREAS: Community groups have no official way of interacting with the legislative process other than public comment and communications to the city; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to coordinate with the appropriate departments to give recognized community groups the ability to present alongside or directly after city staff, on the record and as part of the presentation agenda during meetings of the Ordinance Committee, and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to coordinate with the appropriate departments to outline and report back with other ways to incorporate community groups into the legislative process prior to ordinance committee.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Finance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, conducted a public hearing on Dec 10, 2015, 2015 at 1:42pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the financial aspects of Community Benefits.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Marc C. McGovern, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Dennis J. Carlone; Councillor Leland Cheung; Councillor E. Denise Simmons; Richard Rossi, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Louie DePasquale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Michele Kincaid, Director, Financial System and Operation, Finance Department; Ellen Semonoff, Assistant City Manager for Human Service Programs; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department; Ellen Kokinda, Assistant Planner, Community Development Department; Jeana Franconi, Budget Director; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Councillor McGovern opened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the hearing is not being televised.

City Manager Rossi stated that over the years the City has accumulated revenues from developers as a result of zoning amendments and special permits. All of the past commitments conveyed have been organized. He stated that this is an opportunity for the City Council and the City. A copy of Agenda # 25 of Oct 19, 2015 was distributed which established two stabilization funds: Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund and the Community Benefits Stabilization Fund.

Louis DePasquale Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs gave an overview. He stated that as of today, $30.5 million in mitigation funds have been committed to the City through Zoning amendment agreements and other special permits. He stated that $18.3 million have been received. He explained that from the $18.3 million received $1.75 million have been received and appropriated before the mitigation revenue process was established. He stated that $930,000 are future mitigation commitments for which the City has not received revenue to date. He stated that we are discussing today the commitments of $27.9 million that represents mitigation agreements for which revenues of $16.6 million were received and processed through the General Fund and are included in the FY15 Free Cash Certification figure of $192 million.

Mr. DePasquale went on to explain that the Mitigation Stabilization Fund was created as to aggregate all the mitigation revenues which are specific to written agreements with developers. This fund is a revenue source for future appropriations. The revenues cannot be transferred in or out of the fund without a 2/3 vote of the City Council. On Oct 19, 2015 an appropriation order was adopted for $16,630,990 with a 2/3 vote from Free Cash to the Mitigation Stabilization Fund.

Mr. DePasquale further stated that the second fund created was the Community Benefits Stabilization Fund to aggregate all revenues received in connection with the amendment of the City's Zoning Ordinance or other agreements that provide funds. This fund is a revenue source for future appropriations as well. The revenues cannot be transferred in or out of this fund without a 2/3 vote of the City Council. He stated that today's discussion is the revenues recommended to be transferred into the Community Benefits Stabilization Fund of $3.728 million. He stated that Deputy City Manager Lisa Peterson would outline the details.

Deputy City Manager Peterson stated that revenues have been received from developers including Alexandria Real Estate, Boston Properties, Lesley University, EF, Novartis, MIT, Forest City and Whitehead Institute. She distributed a spread sheet with the mitigation agreement funds available as of June 30, 2015 (ATTACHMENT A). She outlined the following Agreement Commitments:

Alexandria – to enable the City to construct park and improvements to Rogers and Triangle Parking. Pre-closing park improvements paid by Alexandria of $163,030. The City Manager will request an appropriation to Capital Project for Rogers and Triangle Park.

Boston Properties – extension of open space covenants expiration date from Aug 5, 2022 to Aug 5, 2050.
contribution to the City of Cambridge to fund the design and construction of a new urban at-grade park located between Broadway, Binney Street and Galilee Way on parcels to be conveyed by the CRA
Date of Disbursement - payment will be made upon the later to occur of (x) the issuance of the building permit (y) the commencement of City of Cambridge park design process.
Contribution to the City of Cambridge to fund the design and improvement construction of the existing park known as "Point Park."
Date of Disbursement - payment will be made upon the later to occur of (x) the issuance of the building permit (y) the commencement of City of Cambridge Point Park design process.
The City Manager will request an appropriation to Capital Project for Point Park and others.

Councillor Carlone asked does the park get turned over to the CRA. Ms. Farooq stated that it is not anticipated handing this over to City; CRA is a public entity. The Pork Chop lot was handed over. This will stay with CRA. City Manager Rossi stated that the City will participate in the design and have CRA use their leverage. The design is part of package design work at the final contract stage. Councillor Carlone stated that Pork Chop Park will require a dramatic landscape architect.

Lesley University – to the City of Cambridge for improvements in the area between Harvard Square and Porter Square.
Date of disbursement - upon adoption of Zoning Amendment.
to the City of Cambridge for improvements along Massachusetts Avenue.
Date of disbursement - paid in four annual installments, first payment made upon issuance of building permit for Church lot.
Reimbursement to the Streets and Sidewalks Capital (work already completed)

Boston Properties – Ames Street Zoning project transit project funding

Councillor Carlone questioned the transit funding. Assistant City Manager for Community Development Farooq explained that this is to help fund the recommendations of the Mass DOT mobility Study. City Manager Rossi stated that this came out of with the Ames Street project.

Hines MIP – 165 CambridgePark Drive LLC. Payment contribution to the design of the bridge. Appropriation to the Alewife bridge project

City Manager Rossi spoke about the Alewife Bridge project. He stated that there was talk about a commuter rail station. The City would like to continue work on the design of the bridge; however, the construction of the bridge is not currently in our Capital Plan.

McKinnon Company – 130 CPD Apartments Limited Partnership - payment contribution of $90,000 to fund the design of the bridge. Also a payment of $50,000 for traffic cameras at the CambridgePark Drive/Alewife access road intersection to allow us to adjust signal operations to meet the needs and try to minimize the house when the intersection is in gridlock.
Appropriate $90,000 to Alewife bridge project and $50,000 to Traffic Department Sewer Mitigation Receipts (Public Works Department) DPW funds for sewer project.

Councillor Simmons asked if the $90,000 is for planning. Mr. Rossi stated that if the T were to invest in the connection with the Concord Avenue and Alewife side. This is pedestrian improvement.

Councillor Carlone agreed a pedestrian/bike bridge without a commuter rail is a long bridge. Mr. Rossi stated that this bridge might have retail; services for resident and to make it easier to access the Alewife bridge. Deputy City Manager Peterson stated that the City Manager will request that $90,000 be appropriated.

Mr. Rossi explained that the cameras are for programming the traffic lights to make the commute more efficient.

Ms. Peterson stated that the funding will be appropriated for the sewer project.

EF – for Community Benefits associated with EF's new building project in North Point. Funds will support initiatives as determined by the City. The distribution of funds will be determined by a process established by the City. A portion of these funds will support scholarships for Cambridge residents and community based non-profits.
Date of disbursement - $457,000 within 90 days of issuance of building permit if not appealed and the remainder upon receipt of a certificate of occupancy.
The City Manager recommends allocation of 50% to fund Cambridge Early Childhood Scholarships and 50% to Community Benefits Stabilization Fund.

Ms. Peterson stated that $457,000 is ready to be appropriated.

Councillor Simmons questioned if the 50% for scholarships is for eastern part of City or the entire city. Mr. Rossi responded that this is for scholarships for needy families. There will be income guidelines. Councillor Simmons stated that in the eastern part of the City income lags behind other parts of the City. Councillor Simmons stated that she wanted a deferential for the communities most effected by the construction. Mr. Rossi noted that North Cambridge is not receiving services and does not want to exclude this area.

Novartis – to provide the City with resources should it become necessary to mitigate any impacts which might result from the project. Should these impacts arise the payments will enable the City to take appropriate steps to mitigate those impacts in a manner and at the times deemed most appropriate by the City.
Date of disbursement - four installments upon granting of various approvals.
The City Manager recommends 50% to fund middle income housing programs and 50% to fund workforce development programs.

Councillor Simmons stated that for the record she is livid with Novartis for putting up the gate on the open space land. She wanted to take advantage of any opportunity to get more funding from Novartis. The open space that was promised the community the community does not have access to. Councillor Simmons stated that this should go to The Port. She is very upset with this. Councillor McGovern questioned how it happened that the gate was installed. Councillor Carlone stated that general procedure is that space would be open to public for day light hours or 5pm whichever is longer. When Novartis expands again we can insist that this happen. Mr. Rossi stated that this would include language that higher priority be given to The Port.

MIT – Four dollars ($4) multiplied by the number of square feet of new gross floor area for commercial uses identified in Sections 13.82.4 and 13.82.7 of the Zoning Ordinance to be used to establish a fund that provide financial support to non-profit charitable community benefit organizations serving residents of the City.
Section 13.810.2 of the Ordinance provides a contribution to a Community Fund established by the City Manager in an amount equal to ten ($10) per square foot multiplied by the number of square feet of new gross floor area for commercial uses identified in Sections 13.82.4 and 13.82.7 of the Ordinance.

Ms. Peterson stated that $13.7 million is committed and the City Manager is recommending $1 million and $2.5 million to be transferred to the Community Benefits Stabilization Fund.

Forest City – the funds paid to the City shall be used in its discretion for purposes directed at mitigating the impact of the project on the community if the affordable housing referenced in the Letter of Commitment is not provided, the Letter of Commitment provides for an alternative payment of $5 million

The City Manager recommends the allocation is 50% to fund middle income housing programs and 50% to fund workforce development programs.

Councillor McGovern spoke about the transfer to the Community Benefits Stabilization Fund. Deputy City Manager Peterson stated that there is currently a needs assessment and the City Council will establish funding priorities and appropriate funds annually to be used for Community Benefits and the Community Benefits Advisory Committee will then make specific allocations.

Councillor Cheung commented that this is coming together as reflected by the City Council. He wanted this as a trust and not to spend down the principal. Mr. Rossi stated that the key is the City needs to find ways to contract with the non-profits for services. This process will allow them to be better in the community.

Councillor Carlone stated that we are in a major development phase. Will major renovations be subject to this; he wanted this be considered for major reconstruction. Ms. Farooq stated that there is no established mechanism across the City for community benefits. This funding is from rezoning projects. Councillor Carlone stated that given the rules presented do these funds relate favorable to square footage costs and how do they compare to these funds. Ms. Farooq responded that this has not been analyzed scientifically what the net square cost will be. This was the $10 method for Kendall Square, Volpe and the MXD. The $4 square footage was and additional negotiation with MIT. Councillor Carlone asked how the $10 square foot relates to these numbers. Ms. Farooq responded that this has not been analyzed. Mr. Rossi stated that there is a lot of money in these developments. These developments are being asked for sewer mitigation etc. money. He spoke about subsiding housing by keeping this low. He stated that as this City gets built out this may not be available.

Councillor McGovern questioned the funding from Forest City. Ms. Peterson stated that 3/4 of the funds have been received. Councillor McGovern stated that this is great. He thanked the staff for the fiscal stability of the City and the commitment to the values and services to the resident is always at the forefront. He stated that telling the story of the City needs to be elevated. He stated that other portions of the City have no clue about development in Kendall Square and how it is improving their lives. People do not understand how important it is to them with the funds that are directed to a program.

Councillor Carlone stated that preprimary center could be called Novartis. Mr. Rossi stated that 100 managers in the City are attending training about how to collaborate. This reflects collaboration and the need to understand the non-profit world and how it will work in their world. This took over a year to explain this. Funding was accepted but went nowhere and was not appropriated. This will allow the City to free up this money. We do have to find someone to tell this great story to.

Councillor McGovern thanked all attendees.

The hearing adjourned at 2:36pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Marc McGovern, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee held a hearing on Dec 3, 2015 beginning at 5:35pm in the Ackermann Room.

The purpose of the hearing was to consider claims filed against the City.

Present at the meeting were Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Chair of the Committee; Councillor Marc C. McGovern; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Sean McKendry, Assistant City Solicitor; and Marybeth Cosgrove, Operations Manager, City Clerk's Office.

Also present was John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street.

Councillor Toomey convened the meeting and explained the purpose. Councillor Toomey moved to Executive Session to discuss pending litigation and claims filed against the city. The motion carried on a voice vote. Thereupon the committee moved to the consideration of the following claims:

Terrence and Amy Smith, 21 Manassas Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138
Snow blower damaged by debris left on sidewalk after excavation on Manassas Avenue, Cambridge, MA
Approved

Helal Uddin, 20 Chestnut Street #207, Cambridge, MA 02139
Vehicle was struck by a School Department vehicle in front of the Cambridgeport School, Cambridge, MA
Referred to next hearing

Councillor Toomey thanked all present for their attendance.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:50pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Chair,

Committee Report #2
Dec 21, 2015
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
ORDERED: That the City Council hereby approves payment of claims against the City of Cambridge in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the report of Dec 21, 2015 Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee in the total sum of $75.00.

Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Dec 1, 2015 beginning at 5:42pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to continue discussions on a petition by the Planning Board to amend Section 13.10 of the Cambridge zoning Ordinance so as to change the development controls applicable in the Planned Unit Development at Kendall Square (PUD-KS) Overlay Zoning District. The majority of the PUD-KS District is occupied by the Volpe Transportation Systems Research Center operated by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Leland Cheung; Councillor Craig Kelley; Councillor Nadeem A. Mazen; Councillor Marc C. McGovern; Councillor E. Denise Simmons; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department (CDD); Jeff Roberts, Land Use and Zoning Project Planner, CDD; Susanne Rasmussen, Director, Transportation and Environmental Planning, CDD; Stuart Dash, Director of Community Planning, CDD; Susannah Bigolin, Urban Designer, CDD; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Tom Evans, Executive Director, Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA); D. Margaret Drury, Vice President, CRA Board; Shuprotim Bhaumik and Alex Stokes, HR&R Advisors; Richard Goldberg, 170 Harvard Street; Charles Hinds, 207 Charles Street; Carol Bellew, 257 Charles Street; Gerald Bergman, 82 Elm Street; Rosemary Booth, 303 Third Street; Phyllis Bretholtz, 65 Antrim Street; Stephen Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street; Chris Matthews, 26 Sixth Street; Jerry O'Leary, 303 Third Street; Kenneth Taylor, 23 Berkeley Street; Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street; Hasson Rashid, 820 Massachusetts Avenue; Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street; Richard Krushnic, 20 Oak Street; Erik Thorkildsen, 253 Norfolk Street; Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street; Alan Oppenheim, 303 Third Street; Rhonda Massie, 211 Charles Street; Sherri Tucker, 854 Massachusetts Avenue; Bethany Stevens, 100 Spring Street; Ilan Levy, 148 Spring Street; Kathy Watkins, 80 Fawcett Street; James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place; Mike Connolly, 20 Harding Street; and Fred Salvucci, Brighton.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the hearing is being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the meeting.

Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development, stated that the Planning Board has formulated their recommendation on the petition. Based on their analysis and City Council comments, the Planning Board has recommended changes to the petition (the Planning Board Report was available at the meeting and will appear on the City Manager's Agenda for the Dec 7th meeting). Suggested modification were by the Planning Board are as follows: increase the minimum percentage of affordable low to moderate income housing to 15% of the total housing and 5% of total housing be affordable middle income; reduce the amount of public open space the federal parcel can contribute to public open space; allow greater flexibility in the distribution of heights while limiting building height and bulk above 250 feet (the Planning Board could modify the floor plate limitations above 250 feet and the number of buildings allowed to exceed 350 feet if a better urban design result is achieved), allow one building to be higher to allow greater open space, and require a pre-permit conference. The pre-permit conference would allow the Planning Board to understand what the developer is proposing as early as possible and offer the Board's insight prior to intensive developer project investment.

Ms. Farooq gave an update on the transportation study from K2 study. She stated that an update will be given on the financial aspect by the CRA. The HR&A consultants are available. Also distributed at the hearing was a memo dated Dec 1, 2015 (ATTACHMENT)

Susanne Rasmussen gave the K2 transportation analysis presentation (ATTACHMENT). The updated analysis assumes full building out of CRA, MIT and Volpe sites. She explained the calculation for new trips for those walking, biking, and using transit and car. She spoke about the projected pace of development and how it differed in 2012 with an updated projection conducted in 2015. In 2012, it was assumed that by 2030 the Volpe site would only be 33% developed and the remaining portion of the square would be 80% developed. Now based on the current intensive development interest, it is assumed that it would be full build out by 2030. Given the demand, development will happen significantly faster on the MIT, CRA and Volpe sites. The total amount of development allowed in the district would be unchanged; the difference is the pace.

The presentation's bar charts show the anticipated square footage in the district by 2030. The first bar assumes the amount of square footage originally assumed in 2012. The green on the graph represents research and development; the blue represents office, the red represents residential, and the top of the graph represents retail. An analysis was also done assuming there was 100% build-out by 2030, which was represented in the second bar. Assuming that all new commercial build-out would be office is represented in the third bar, and the fourth bar assumes that it will be research and development. This was done to analyze the transportation impacts under very different use scenarios.

The next chart showed how the square footage translated into person trips. The first bar is 2012; the second bar is the updated analysis and bar three is the analysis based on office versus research and development. The third chart showed the trips by mode. The additional trips that would be generated from 2030 compared to 2012 ranges from 18% to 31 % more in terms of how the commercial build out (office vs. R&D) will take place. An analysis was done on what this means at multiple intersections immediately surrounding Kendall Square. The graph shows how many cars show up at each studied intersection. Thirteen different intersections were reviewed in total. The accelerated pace of build out shows more cars at each intersection but not a huge difference because the volume is spread out. Ms. Rasmussen explained that an analytic tool called critical sum has been used for the long range transportation analysis. This shows how the increased traffic affects intersection operations. The updated analysis shows one intersection, Broadway and Third Street exceeds the critical sum threshold and is problematic.

Councillor Carlone asked if the critical sum shows the hour. She explained that critical sum is a measurement of conflicting movements at an intersection. This reflects how much congestion is experienced at an intersection. If you exceed 1500 critical movements in a peak hour, this causes a delay - one would wait for more than two red light cycles before getting through that intersection. The analysis is conservative and assumes full build out for Kendall Square in 15 years. She stated that there are regulations and planning tools available at the project approval stage that can address trip generation rates and impacts. She explained what the tools are. A specific proposal for the site includes a $10 per square foot investment where $6.67 would be provided for open space and transit investments. The Planning Board has proposed to lower the parking ratios for commercial development on the site to control vehicle trip generation. Normally 0.8 is allowed for research and development and 0.9 for office. The Planning Board has proposed to that 0.8 be the maximum for any type of commercial development as a means to reduce vehicle trip generation.

Tom Evans presented the financial analysis (ATTACHED IN PRESENTATION). He stated that he was asked by Planning Board to do a financial analysis of the zoning as proposed in the most recent petition. The CRA's consultants, HR&A, were used - they have done analysis on the nearby Foundry project. The value created by the zoning was investigated. Set up as a horizontal development methodology pro forma, there is a master developer creating numerous sites prepared for vertical development. This may or may not end up being completed by the same entity. The analysis is based on the site build out cost and the value created on the site. There are a number of financial assumptions including interest rates and upfront cost percentage for the site that needs to be financed, etc. The affordable housing assumptions are at 15% restricted at 80% AMI but the assumption for affordable housing assumptions were made at 65% for low income and 95 % AMI for moderate income, even though the range could go from 80% to 120%.

The proposed zoning's development program was used with the percentage totals including elements of the retail and the innovation space that would be exempt from the GFA calculations. These FAR Exempt uses still generate revenue for the project. The residential is 38%, but the GFA still remains at 40% of the total GFA counted in the zoning. Mr. Evans stated that comparable projects done in the Kendall Square area generated construction and soft costs. These range from $430 a square foot for lab to $330 a square foot for retail.

The financial model is just looking at square footage development costs for horizontal development in three phases in proportion to commercial, housing, lab and retail uses. No assumptions are made on the physical limits of the site. The output from this creates the value of each use type to cover site costs. The site costs include: the replacement of the federal facility, site remediation, the cost of public streets and parks on this site, and on and off site infrastructure costs including parking. He stated that what is included in the land value are the vertical building construction costs and the related soft costs, the on-site improvements, inclusionary and middle income housing premium, the commercial linkage payments and the community fund at $10 a square foot. He stated that each of the uses - office, residential, lab, retail and innovation space - were developed with a land value on a square foot basis. This is based on the value of rent that could be forecast for these buildings in their lifetime. He spoke of the necessary outlay of funds before revenue comes in. He spoke of a supportable Volpe site value of $283,000,000. There are many ways that this could be modified. This is just a generic look at what the market developer will get out of the zoning as proposed and assumed.

Ms. Farooq stated the goal was to maximize public benefits and analyze what the proposed capacity could support in public benefits and whether or not the proposed zoning is leaving public funding opportunities on the table.

Jeff Roberts explained the Planning Board recommended modifications. He stated that the Planning Board recommended in favor of the adoption of the petition with modifications. The Planning Board had the presented transit and financial information. (Planning Board Recommendation) The Board stated this is consistent with and advances the goal of the K2 plan to encourage and support the continued growth of Kendall Square. Development will be used to leverage benefits including housing, open space, retail, active ground floors, sustainable development, and fund contributions to open space, transit and workforce readiness.

The Planning Board acknowledged the uncertainties in the analysis and believed this proposed zoning does not result in an enormous give away to a future developer. The benefits sought are balanced with the value of the development that will be created. Mr. Roberts stated that beyond the discussed planning, the Planning Board felt that the Volpe site does present one of the last opportunities to create new growth and a variety of uses that would be beneficial to transform the heart of Kendall Square. It reaffirms the City's redevelopment objectives before a developer is chosen. He explained the Planning Board recommended adoption with changes. He stated that the affordable housing recommendation was for a total of 20% units with a split of 15% for low-moderate income and 5% for middle income. The open space was recommended that there be a limitation of no more than 20% allowed on the federal land.

An urban design plan represented by a physical model incorporates the design framework explained at the last meeting. Architectural design was added as a component to development review and adds a requirement for pre-application consultation with the Planning Board. Transportation changes were recommended to include transit and to tighten the cap on parking for commercial uses and adding language around transportation for mitigation and management. He stated that of the 1,000 housing units; 200 would be required to be low-moderate-middle income housing. He explained the public open space recommended.

The Planning Board felt it was important to have flexibility in zoning - to be able to look at Volpe's 14-acres as a holistic plan and not overprescribe anything that would result in a negative urban design. The City Council could increase the percentage of open space. The Planning Board wanted flexibility in the design review process to consider alternatives that may have a superior outcome.

Regarding height, Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board recommendation included flexibility allowing greater height to be distributed across a larger area. Suggested limitations on building bulk were incorporated at 250 feet. He stated that the Planning Board felt they should have the ability to waive or modify the limitation if the result would be a better design. The active ground floor requirement includes at least one larger merchandise entity and space for smaller independent operators. Ground floor active use may include childcare, recreation, education and cultural uses for families, but not to include banks and office lobbies.

He spoke of urban design and adding language in the zoning to call out the quality of architectural design and added the pre-application conference as a requirement. He stated that the transportation recommendations are new and include office and lab uses be capped at 0.8 space per 1,000 square feet. He stated that the current zoning language for Northpoint includes traffic mitigation and requires that a program be in place for the course of the development. The Planning Board recommendation is amended to look at transportation broadly to include a plan for a traffic and transit study and a mitigation package. The summary included the anticipated development outcome for the Volpe site if the zoning were adopted. He outlined the benefits of PUD-KS Zoning proposal as recommended.

The Consultants from HR&A, Shuprotim Bhaumik and Alex Stokes, answered City Council questions about their financial analysis. Councillor Simmons asked whether the city could ask for more and if the city was leaving money on the table under the current scenario. She continued saying affordable housing is presently 15% but the City Council wanted more. Could a higher amount of housing be asked for? Ms. Farooq stated that there is no funding being left on the table. Mr. Evans stated that there are many unknowns about the federal needs for their site and the soil quality of the site. He stated that the cost of office and lab space have a direct effect on the viability of housing. Councillor Simmons asked if Volpe's proposed zoning precedes the dividends paid to the City. She stated that she wanted the City to get more from the development of this site.

Mr. Bhaumik stated that there are two sides to that question. He looked at the proposed zoning, programming and the use of the site; this scenario was valued $280 million of value in the proposed 3 million square feet. He stated that the other side, the Federal side, is presently unknown.

Councillor Simmons asked if the analysis is for the side that developers will develop and not the federal side? Mr. Bhaumik responded in the affirmative. He stated that the private development will generate the value that will fund the construction of the Volpe Center building. GSA has said Volpe wants 293,000 square feet of space for a combination of uses and parking for 1300 employees (4.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet). He stated that the proposed zoning value is at the margin. If you wanted to increase affordable housing from 15% + 5% to 20% + 5%, it would have a significant change in value generated from the residential property. The $280 million value does not leave money at the table given what is known. Mr. Bhaumik stated that this is a forward-looking model phased over a three-year period. He stated that projections have been made on growth, revenue and costs. A private developer would first invest their money to develop the Volpe site first and only then be able to develop the private portion of the site. This impacts the value of the project.

Councillor McGovern questioned the housing assumptions and requested 20% + 5%. He asked if this included 3 bedroom units? Mr. Roberts stated that this required 5% of total housing needs to be 3 bedroom units. Councillor McGovern stated that he is concerned with missing the other half of the equation. He feels that the City has all the leverage because if the City does not pass the zoning Volpe cannot do the land swap. He does not want to ask for less community benefits than the City wants. He stated that what Volpe asks for and what they need will impact what the City does. He stated that this cannot move forward without knowing what Volpe requires. He questioned why Volpe is not here. Ms. Farooq stated that City Council made it clear that the Council wanted to know what GSA needed. She stated that a federal government cannot negotiate like a developer can. She stated that the public benefits must come from the project. The affordable housing percentage of 15 + 5 is high. The City will continue to ask GSA for clarification as to what they require. Councillor McGovern stated that this is an opportunity for the community, but he is not in a rush and the City should leverage the best that can be leveraged. Councillor McGovern stated that he is not ready to vote on this yet.

Councillor Mazen stated that GSA has been asked to provide information that is critical. This project is not going well and asked why GSA was not here. They should be worried about their project. He is excited about a quality civic space at Volpe. He stated that the 20+5% affordable is hard, but what would the master developer need. He suggested showing the City Council how hard this is and how can this be achieved. He was confused about the presentation slides. Mr. Roberts stated that the first slide talks about the pace of new development and the next slide is the total development in the K2 development area. It shows the change in the proposed square footage. Councillor Mazen stated that each graph represents aspirations for the parcel. Councillor Mazen stated that a commitment is needed for the Volpe site and its potential. Ms. Farooq stated that this is a function of the City Council asking city staff to plan first before the developer is in place. She stated that there is no level of specificity without having a developer to provide information. Councillor Mazen asked that the pro forma be explained again.

Mr. Evans spoke about that the assumptions and methodology for the zoning proposal for 3 million square feet of development. He stated that the hard and soft costs are for the design of the building and its construction costs. The soft costs include fees. Mr. Evans spoke about the money borrowed. The interest rate is 6%, which is not high given the risky multi-phase process. Although there are creative ways to finance the development, this is just a standard pro forma method. In the RFQ the GSA was looking for developers with $500 million cash asset. This is industry standard for financing. The value of land is based on rent for the payoff for different types of development. Of the proposed uses the lowest value is residential development.

Councillor Mazen stated this is a conservative pro forma. He stated that it would be helpful to know where the error bars are. Mr. Evans stated that one is just getting some of the other sites ready to develop until Volpe moves in. He added that Volpe wants to remain working in their existing facilities until their new building is complete. He spoke about the assumption made for a commercial or a lab building cost for Volpe's base structure is $160 million. A modest interior fit-out is $40 million and this does not include the cost for 1,300 parking spaces. He stated that Volpe will likely cost $240 to $250 million.

Councillor Mazen spoke about the possible disastrous outcome of this project. Mr. Evans stated that this is a risky adventure for a private developer, and yet there is tremendous interest. During the next phase of planning the detail will be planned for laying out the streets. Councillor Mazen suggested having the baseline on the travel mode would be helpful. Ms. Rasmussen stated that an analysis has not been done on this. Councillor Mazen asked what past projections are we right on. Ms. Rasmussen stated that the City conservatively estimates what traffic impacts are on the streets. She stated that settlement patterns travel modes are changing. There is a general decrease on the reliance of driving. New development is added on top of existing trips. She noted that there are unused parking spaces in Kendall's accessory parking garages. Councillor Mazen asked why is Volpe selling the land for a single building and why aren't they engaging in a long-term lease solution. He wanted to know what the alternatives are. Ms. Farooq stated that City has little say in telling property owners what they can do with their land, and even less with the federal government. Mr. Bhaumik stated that there are examples of sale/lease land, private entity build-outs, you take occupancy and then lease the land. These situations will arise after GSA does their analysis. If this does not generate enough value for GSA and the developer then they will have to rethink their plans and utilize more creative financing.

Councillor Carlone commented on the cost break down of $240 million. He mentioned that the development on the other side of Third Street had extensive cleanup costs. The Planning Board has left the door open about building heights and as a result of that he is concerned that the proposed zoning may not be as dense as what is financially needed. What was the cost to cleaning the CRA site? Mr. Evans stated that the CRA project evolved over a varied regulatory period and the work on the Volpe buildings began before there was a Department of Environment. This is part of the unknown characteristics of the Volpe site. When NASA originally built in 1960 there was not much remediation done. He further stated that the debris from the building was actually dumped into the adjacent portion of the Broad Canal and compacted. He stated that as this project evolved some of the Cambridge Center projects went in before there was environmental oversight and awareness.

He spoke about litigation for Parcel 2. Cambridge Center was built the way it is with structured parking underground to have a cap and contain method. He stated that Third Square is the best project that needed to deal with site remediation. The cost of disposal of the soil was expensive with very few locations accepting contaminated soil. Mr. Evans stated that he would work on getting comparisons. Councillor Carlone added that this Volpe petition is different than most up-zonings because it seems to be strictly economically derived. He stated that the density is needed to make the project work for the federal government. Based on Planning Board comments and recommendations, it appears the economics and square footage are open ended. He also said that the financial analysis was helpful to understand the recommended FAR. Ms. Farooq stated that the FAR emerged from the planning done in the K2 process and what would be feasible for the site.

Councillor Cheung requested the excel spread sheet on the pro forma.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment at 7:20pm.

Richard Goldberg 170 Harvard Street, asked would it not make sense to know what the true cost are. He read a prepared statement (ATTACHMENT A).

Charles Hines, 207 Charles Street, gave a historical overview of the Volpe site. He stated that the $407 square foot cost for residential development is low; check this out. This site was taken by eminent domain for a NASA facility close to Harvard and MIT. NASA decided not to build and transferred their interest to the Department of Transportation in 1970. He stated that there may be a significant cleanup costs and this should be investigated. This site was taken for eminent domain for federal use and now the government is trying to sell the land. He stated that changing the zoning now is not a good idea. Volpe should be at this hearing. Future discussion with the developer and the process should be public. Parking is expensive in East Cambridge. No green space should be eliminated. He calculated the rents for the commercial space. He projected that $136 million will be received for rents. This is not a good deal for Cambridge. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT B).

Gerald Bergman, 82 Elm Street, stated that this project is complicated. He spoke about so much that is unknown. This process is being driven by the want of affordable housing. He has been looking for a Marshall Plan for affordable housing. He stated that the City has left a lot on the table. He stated that 15% of housing is not good. The Mass + Main building is not the gold standard. He stated that the politicians do not care or they would do something. He questioned why building on City owned land does not happen. He suggested decreasing the residential exemption like Somerville does and use this extra money for affordable housing. He wanted 1/3 or more affordable housing from the Volpe site and the City should insist upon this. A contiguous piece of land for open space and affordable retail are essential. As proposed this should not be passed. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENT C).

Rosemary Booth, 303 Third Street, stated that she was opposed to the process and the amount of density and the petition itself. The existing process does not seriously consider citizen views. Tonight we are looking at the same plan as we were shown in May. The Volpe site is 14-acres of federal land and it will be given to a developer after a building is built for Volpe. She spoke about consequences for the density proposed. The FAR in the rezoning petition is misleading because it depends on the amount of land retained by Volpe. She urged that the proposal not be passed but be included in Master Plan process. She wanted a Volpe development that fostered a high quality of life for all. She read a prepared statement and also e-mailed a communication (ATTACHMENTS D-1 and D- 2)

Phyllis Bretholtz, 65 Antrim Street, urged the Ordinance Committee not to approve the Volpe petition as presented by Community Development and passed by the Planning Board without revisions that address the concerns of the community. She stated that the first issue is the up-zoning drafted by CDD would approve a100% build out of the Volpe site. She spoke of what the real values should be for Community Development. We are rushing to develop every parcel of land instead of seriously considering creating a true sense of community. The Planning Board allowed for the possibility of multiple 500-foot tall buildings that will dramatically increase the area's density. She spoke about the city's earlier plan for a 7.5-acre public park; the City deserves more open space. What is the point of having zoning if a developer asks for a waiver and it is granted? This is a charade. Please respect the citizens and let the citywide process guide the site's development. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT E).

Stephen Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street, stated that he agreed that Volpe GSA should be at the table. The presented traffic and critical lane analysis does help, but it leaves out pedestrians. He spoke about the intersection of Broadway and Third where transit would be used the most at Kendall Square. He stated pedestrians were left out of the busiest intersection in East Cambridge. He stated that zoning requires transit analysis and mitigation from the developers. This is the first time he has seen this information. The Volpe petition is getting better. The vitality and the importance of the Red line is starting to show though. He stated that more detailed analysis is needed from CDD. He noted that the CRA, Boston Properties and MIT are ahead of the City on understanding transit issues. He stated that the MBTA needs desperate help from anyone. He spoke about the skills and talent that is available to look at the MBTA. In summary, planning and zoning are incomplete, but they are getting better. He will submit comments on open space and architecture later.

Gerry O'Leary stated that the current Volpe petition has political and structural problems. The political problems need to be better negotiated and include FAR, residential/commercial split, affordable housing, height and public open space. The structural problem is that the petition is just wrong - it does not differentiate between the federal and non-federal portions of the site. The zoning has to be written in a way that deals with the range of uncertainty. Zoning is to control density. The FAR is based on the entire parcel. The public open space is the second uncertainty. The zoning needs to be rewritten and based only on the non-federal site and define the amount of non-federal open space would eliminate the problem. These changes would provide a sounder structure. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENT F).

Ken Taylor stated that this is a complicated project but the City has tried to define what is on the site. The City is poised to make a commitment of height, density and use based on inadequate information from the other partner in this deal. He asked why would zoning be changed without knowing the variables of the site? He stated that the GSA has this information. This impacts the City. This petition freezes the height, density and uses, which may or may not be appropriate. He did not see why the City has to vote on this now. There should be a way to find out what the other partner will do.

Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street, spoke about the details and the lack of planning and regulations. Who decides what a better product is when the Planning Board changes height? She spoke about the number of 500-foot towers. She spoke about unclear language in the proposed zoning. She gave the height of the surrounding buildings which are all under 300 feet. She wanted more specific information. This is not a complete process without Volpe, the other partner.

Hasson Rashid, 820 Massachusetts Avenue, stated that the revised Volpe petition is not advancement for the homeless sector. Volpe is in violation of Title 5 of the Homeless Assistance Act which outlines surplus land for homeless. This petition does not include anything for the homeless. The petition should help maximize better access for the homeless. This petition is out of step with the Master plan process. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENT G)

Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street, agreed with previous statements made. She stated that if this petition passed as it is now, it will be another major development circumventing the Master Planning process. She stated that this project is too big, too high, and the process too fast with not enough controls or public benefits. There is too much generated traffic. The proposed open space is paltry and not assured. It is paltry because it is one-half of the original and preposterous because roadways are defined as public open space. She spoke about the predictable side effects that affect the public's quality of life, such as wind, light, noise and cast shadows that have not even been studied.

Councillor Carlone announced that Mayor Maher was not in attendance because he was attending School Committee meeting.

Erik Thorkildsen, 253 Norfolk Street, spoke about broader environmental issues. He stated that what the city does will affect the outcome on land, energy and the ecosystem. He spoke about the desired urban situation: mixed uses, work, live, play, shop, cultural activities accessible without a car, density of habitation allowing for an efficient use of land, social interaction and opportunity. He stated public urban space is important. He stated that on the Volpe site's mix of uses should be more residential and affordable. He stated that high density has been proposed for the site at a Floor Area Ratio of 5.4. He wanted to see comparisons to districts in Paris, Rome and NYC to understand what 5.4 means. He would like to see a high density. Making a great urban space depends on the expertise of the design team. Cambridge should be able to state that it is looking for a coherent urban plan on a framework of streets, squares and parks. This site is an opportunity to move to the renaissance of our city. Mr. Thorkildsen submitted a proposed scheme for the Volpe site (ATTACHMENT H).

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, has comments from Cambridge Residents Alliance (ATTACHMENT I). She requested that this be kept in committee and ask for more changes from CDD. This would cut off how the Master plan would inform this petition. She spoke about the possibility of multiple tall buildings included in the most recent draft of the petition. There are no clear parameters on what the Planning Board would need to make this better so that the public knows that this better. She stated that 3 bedroom units do not accomplish what is needed - the 3 bedrooms need to be affordable. She suggested that it include an incentive for home ownership. She wanted more people who work in Kendall Square to live there which will increase the liveliness of the area. She noted that the presentation did not include traffic generated from the Court House and this should be included. She wanted a 5-acre public park, which does not include federal land. Community benefits are not mentioned and should include such language that it should go to areas affected by the development and should be part of the participatory budget process. She requested that this be left in committee.

Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street, said the process is screwed up because the information is unclear. She is unsure that the GSA can sell the land because it would be surplus land, but they can do a trade. She suggested that the legal parameters should be known as well as what GSA actually wants in detail. Could Volpe leave Cambridge? She was disappointed that the Planning Board gave this a favorable recommendation. This was voted on because of timing - before the petition expires. This should be recommended only if it is a good idea. She urged the City Council to examine if indeed it is a good idea. She noted that the federal contribution of open space has been moved from 50% to 20%. None of the public open space should be federally owned land. She spoke about the fear of going out on a limb. She stated that citizens make this possible, who vote and who attend these meetings and will stick around. Businesses come and go. This proposal was planned with money in mind. She stated that the planning did not support this petition. She stated that this needs more work.

Rhonda Massie, 211 Charles Street, stated that she is opposed to the up-zoning. She spoke about open space and the fact that access to meaningful green space is beneficial to everyone's health. She stated that the lack of butterflies and song birds is a sign of the deterioration of habitat. She stated that the rabbit population has been squeezed out of this area. She stated that residents were promised a field in Kendall Square. She stated that the Planning Board gives away too much to developers. She spoke about the traffic studies. Cars parked on the neighborhood streets will increase. The Watermark building stated that families do not stay in Cambridge. The traffic is reduced because the Longfellow Bridge is half closed. She asked if this was taken into account with the traffic study.

Sherri Tucker, 854 Massachusetts Avenue, stated that there has been little public process and this petition should be rolled into the city wide planning process or start the planning process. She asked the City Council not to pass this petition. She spoke about this land being acquired by the federal government through eminent domain and could the City get the land back. She asked if Volpe was legally allowed to trade this land. These issues should be addressed first. She stated that 500 jobs and affordable housing and Volpe staying in Cambridge is the reason for the petition. She asked if the 500 jobs are held by Cambridge residents. She stated that it is hard for homeless population to stay in this type of a setting; they need more support and are not treated well. The luxury apartments house rich foreign students. Take back the Volpe site and let Volpe move away and let the City build the affordable housing and a park.

Ilan Levy, 148 Spring Street, stated that this zoning petition should be stopped. He stated that this petition has cost the City money in staff time alone. This process is completely inverted. He stated that the GSA should have come with a precise plan with what they wanted. This is not serving the City, but is serving the developer. The Master Plan and Housing Plan is being working on. He spoke about the global impact of all the development that is going on in the City in the East Cambridge area. The additional traffic with Volpe cannot be accommodated. This petition is driven by the revenue that will be generated by the Volpe development. The K2 plan, which recommended less development, should be used as a basis and stop wasting resources to find accommodations for the GSA and Volpe.

Kathy Watkins, 80 Fawcett Street, spoke about transit, MBTA and that existing infrastructure cannot support this proposal. The affordable housing should be increased to 20% and 5%. She is worried about climate change and this is being built in an area prone to flooding. She stated that East Cambridge was promised 7.5 acres for green space. This needs to a public city park and not include federal land. She urged the City Council to keep this matter in committee.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, spoke about the staff making decisions. He stated that the public cannot get involved with what is wanted for the City. He stated that residents are not the major players in what should be in the City. He asked what the residents would like to see in Volpe and then think about what is feasible, the cost and does this require a private developer to provide a building for the Volpe. He spoke about the timing issue. Cambridge should not be held hostage.

Fred Salvucci works at MIT and lives in Brighton. He has come to a different conclusion. He stated that retaining Volpe and keeping its 500 employees in Cambridge is important. He worked on a Volpe contract 20 years ago. He stated Volpe helped regenerate the economy in Kendall Square. It is important to make Volpe happen and it will take more density. This should not be viewed in isolation without taking into account MIT and the East Cambridge Court House developments. He stated that Volpe is more important than the Court House and MIT plans. He stated that there is only so much transportation capacity and therefore he would undo the Court House and the MIT agreements.

MIT has not addressed its student housing issue. He spoke about housing in terms of transportation. MIT has dumped 4000 graduate students and 1000 post doctorate students on the regional housing market. He stated that these 5000 students are riding the T to MIT but should be living on campus and walking to MIT and not taking space on the T. He stated that Kendall Station handles under 15,000 riders a day and the 5000 students are a significant number taking up available capacity at Kendall Square. He would treat Volpe as a priority. Furthermore, the fact that MIT has proposed building a 1000 space underground parking garage is crazy - that money could be better spent on housing for students. Kendall Square should be a livable community and needs to be done correctly. We must set our priorities by undoing the Court House development. MIT's development will undercut Volpe development viability. The city process is upside down.

Mike Connolly, 20 Harding Street, spoke about the city physical model in the chamber, which only represents the Volpe site and he suggested the model should include all the district buildings. He spoke about the financial and economic information. He stated it would be good to see the creative financing at this point in the game. He urged the City Council to keep this in committee and include a true planning process suggested by Cambridge Residents Alliance. If the Redline is broken fast enough someone will fix it. He stated that affordable housing should go above 20%. He asked if there will be a net positive for affordable housing when this build out is completed.

On motion of Councillor McGovern public comment closed at 9:08pm.

Councillor McGovern stated that it clear that this is not ready to move from committee. He suggested keeping this in committee. Councillor McGovern had no problem having this petition expire. More information is required from Volpe. This has not been rushed as this is the second time that this petition has been filed.

Councillor Mazen stated that it is important to communicate to collaborators that the petition can be made better. Councillor McGovern expressed his concern with the number of City Councillors in attendance tonight. If a developer put forward a plan that is good for the City he will vote for it, but this is not good for the city. Councillor Mazen agreed that this be kept in committee. Councillor Cheung stated that the petition could be refiled in the next legislative term.

Councillor Carlone spoke about the concept of high-rise buildings. He understood that there is an economic sweet spot in high-rise of no more than 26 stories. Mr. Bhaumik stated that the financial model only looked at density and the square footage and how the infrastructure is laid out. Mr. Stokes stated that there is a cost premium with greater height and this requires a more detailed analysis. Councillor Carlone stated that Cambridge is primarily known for low-rise building. He stated that a superb urban design is a necessary key to maximizing desirability and livability.

Councillor McGovern announced that Councillor Toomey was not in attendance because he was having a medical procedure at 7am tomorrow.

At this time Councillor McGovern moved that the matter be kept in committee - and the motion carried on a voice vote of four members.

The following e-mails were received and part of the report:
Three communications received from Bethany Stevens, 100 Spring Street, Chair, East Cambridge Planning Team Volpe Subcommittee: an alternative proposal, an economic presentation and relating to the Volpe proposal (ATTACHMENTS J- 1, J-2, and J- 3).
Communication from Ann Fleck-Henderson, Richdale Avenue, urging that the Volpe petition not be approved. (ATTACHMENT K)
Communication from Apratim Sahay urging that the Volpe be included in the citywide planning process (ATTACHMENT L).
Communication from Ovadia R. Simha, 303 Third Street, urging that the current proposal be sent back to the drawing board (ATTACHMENT M).
Communication from Jack Boesen requesting that no decision be made on the Volpe petition and that it be included in the citywide planning process (ATTACHMENT N).
Communication from Michael Hawley requested that the Volpe petition be allowed to expire (ATTACHMENT O).
Communication from Marie Elena Saccoccio, Esquire and Betty Lee Saccoccio, 55 Otis Street, in opposition to the Volpe zoning petition (ATTACHMENT P).
Communication from Adam Liebling urging that the community should be given priority over development (ATTACHMENT Q).

Other documents available at the meeting:
Community Development Memo dated Nov 9, 2015
Kendall Square Design Guideline 2013
PUD-KS Urban Design Framework

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 9:22pm on motion of Councillor Carlone.

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

Committee Report #4
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Dec 8, 2015 beginning as 5:18pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a zoning petition filed by Kiril Stefan and Catherine Alexandrov, et al. to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance to extend the Business BA-3 zone on Western Avenue currently in existence from Howard to Jay Streets onto the even number side of Western Avenue from numbers 158-168 which is three houses from the corner of Kinnaird Street to Jay Street (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan and Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Leland Cheung; Councillor Craig Kelley; Councillor Nadeem A. Mazen; Councillor Marc C. McGovern; Councillor E. Denise Simmons; Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.; Jeff Roberts, Land Use and Zoning Project Planner, CDD; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Kiril Stefan Alexandrov, 158 Western Avenue; Rita Kane, 45 Kinnaird Street; Jeremy Butler, 299 Western Avenue; Leonard and Susan Lucas, 36 Kinnaird Street; Maggie Compher, 31 Kinnaird Street; Nancy Carpenter, 27 Kinnaird Street; Aleta Cane, 32 Kinnaird Street; Carol Greenwood, 10 Kinnaird Street; Kalman Glantz, 12 Kinnard Street; Barbara Gaffney, 47 Kinnaird Street; Jesse M. Bolden, 153 Western Avenue; John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street; David Cohen, 37 Kinnaird Street; Matt Murphy, 27-29 Kinnaird Street; Velmer Brooks, 155 Western Avenue; Saundra Graham, 189 Western Avenue; and Jennifer Brill, 138 Western Avenue.

Vice Mayor Benzan convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the hearing is being audio and video recorded.

Kiril Alexandrov, the petitioner, gave a presentation on his petition (ATTACHMENT B). He explained why the petition was filed. He is petitioning to extend the zoning along 158-168 Western Avenue because he has been unable to buy or rent affordable office space. He stated that more housing is being built in the area, but there is very few office space that goes for sale for small business owners. There are good reasons to keep small businesses or startups in Cambridge. There are about 2 spaces per year for sale. He bought the property on the corner of Kinnaird and Western Avenue with the hope of using the building for business. This house has a history of being used as a business. He stated that River Street is zoned commercial. There are 21 businesses on Western Avenue. He is asking for an extension to include three houses. The third house is owned by the Western Avenue Baptist Church, who provided a support letter. He stated that the space is tight. He stated that there is no issues with parking. He had pictures of Kinnaird Street and Western Avenue that showed the parking in the area at 2 PM on a Monday. He stated that there has never been a parking issue in the area for the 25 years that he has lived in the area. He listed the reasons why his neighbors would like to have a business near where they live. He stated that he has support from abutter neighbors and the business uses that have been previously used were commercial. He read the letter from the Pastor Jeremy D. Battle of the Western Avenue Baptist Church (ATTACHMENT C). He read a letter from Patrick Barrett, 234 Broadway and other letters of support. He stated that he and his wife are involved in the city. He stated that he feels strongly that this extension should be granted.

Vice Mayor Benzan opened public comment at 5:38pm.

Rita Kane, 47 Kinnaird Street, stated that she wanted the area to remain residential. She asked why Mr. Alexandrov's business is not located on Franklin Street.

Leonard Lucas, 36 Kinnaird Street, stated that zoning is here to protect the neighborhood. He bought a home and rebuilt the house as a single family and relies on Cambridge to protect the area through zoning. He stated that previously the area was downzoned. This is a residential neighborhood. There is enough of commercial space in the City. The neighborhood character will be hurt by this proposal. It is better to have an owner-occupied resident. If the zoning is changed it is opening the door for various types of businesses. He listed the businesses that would be allowed if the area where rezoned. This is not an appropriate use. There is only a down side that will come from this.

Susan Lucas, 36 Kinnaird Street, stated that she believes in the residential character of the area. This will allow small business uses. She commented that only 40% of the structure can be used for business and she questioned what will the other part of the lot would be used for.

Maggie Compher, 31 Kinnaird Street, presented a letter with 45 signatures from homeowners on Kinnaird Street, Western Avenue and Jay Street who are opposed to the proposal (ATTACHMENT D). She stated that she is not in agreement with this change. She stated that there was a study done by CDD with the goal to be residential and to have families live in the area. From Jay Street to Howard Street on both sides of Western Avenue the area is designated as BA-3. She stated that Central Square and Harvard Square are also designated as BA-3. If the property is sold any business can end up in the site.

Nancy Carpenter, 27 Kinnaird Street, stated that the residents are opposed to the zoning. This is a residential area and this will not help the area to grow. She urged keeping the zoning as is.

Aleta Cane, 32 Kinnaird Street, stated that this change will affect parking. She stated that with the opening of school and the ongoing construction there has been a tremendous problem with parking. This will increase in the winter with the snow. She stated that it is incumbent on the homeowner to check the zoning. She spoke about flipping the property and the possibility of a variety of businesses that can be conducted and the affect it will have on the lives of the residents.

Carol Greenwood, 10 Kinnaird Street, stated that she is a 35 year resident of Kinnaird Street. She moved to Kinnaird Street because of the mixed use area. She and her husband are opposed to this petition because of the parking problems. She spoke about a young mother who went out last winter to buy groceries and could not find parking when she returned with her groceries. She stated that the memo of Jeff Roberts on the support of small businesses will be negligent at best. The impact for this additional business will not help the tax base for the City. There is no added value to the neighborhood except to Mr. Alexandrov. She submitted a communication (ATTACHMENT E).

Kalman Glantz, 12 Kinnaird Street, agreed with the parking problem. He spoke about the issue of opening the door to additional non-residential uses. There was a petition to open a bar across the street. This petition will be an attempt to change the residential area to commercial. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT F).

Jesse Bolden, 153 Western Avenue, spoke about the parking photographed by Mr. Alexandrov. He stated that when people come home from work there will be no parking spaces. He is opposed to the petition. River Street has an opportunity for a business being zoned BA-3. He stated that there is a lot of uncertainty with this petition. He sees marginal businesses and empty businesses on River Street as cited by the petitioner as a model for the future. The record for businesses on Western Avenue is not great.

Matt Murphy, 27-29 Kinnaird Street, supports Mr. Alexandrov's company, but is opposed to the change in zoning. He spoke about the Western Avenue Concept Book published by Cambridge which list the goals on page 19. Goal #3 is to reinforce residential character of Western Avenue.

Velmer Brooks, 155 Western Avenue, stated that she lives across from petitioner. She is opposed to taking away residential property. She stated that parking is seriously tough.

Saundra Graham, 189 Western Avenue, stated that she is a 50 year resident. She lives diagonally across from the house being requested to change the zoning. She stated that the community is fine and diverse with students living in the area. She spoke about the petitioner buying the property and then changing the zoning to put his activity into a residential community. She stated that the BZA denied Mr. Alexandrov's petition in July for a variance to change a single family house from a residential use to an office use (BZA CASE # 006969-2015) The petitioner took another route and got people to sign a petition to change the zoning. She stated that the residents decided to file a petition in opposition. She stated that residents have invested in their property and do not want a business to lower the value of their property. Mr. Alexandrov purchased the property and wants to change the zoning for his business. She hoped the City Council will vote with the residents of the community.

Jennifer Brill, 138 Western Avenue, stated that the mini extension of the zone cited by the petitioner is the neighborhood. She stated that there may be misleading supporters listed on the map shown by the petitioner in his presentation. She objects to the petition because it sounds like small businesses should be supported at the expense of the residents. She stated that this business will not enhance the neighborhood. She stated that parking has become difficult since 1994. It is extremely difficult to find parking, especially in winter. She stated that she can rarely park in front of her house. This is an actually neighborhood and the residents want to preserve this. A communication from Jennifer Brill and Laurence Weil is attached (ATTACHMENT G).

Public comment closed at 6:16pm on motion of Councillor McGovern.

Mr. Alexandrov stated that he did not know that this hearing was scheduled today. He stated that his supporters could not make this hearing on such short notice. He stated that he has 211 supporters. He explained that he needed supporters from the neighborhood. He disagreed with the stated difficulty with parking in the area. There are 2 resident parking spaced in front of Beantown. Western Avenue is not residential - it is a mixed use area. He stated that the structure was previously used as a Law Office and accounting business. He stated that he rents space from the Western Baptist Church. His employees do not drive; only he and his wife drive. There are 13 businesses on River Street and 21 businesses on Western Avenue. He stated that the house was bought out of desperation to find office space. There is nothing affordable for commercial use. There is no other options. This is the last effort to stay in Cambridge to have a place where you work and live. He stated that the Western Avenue Baptist Church will be looking to develop their lot. He stated that he and his wife are part and parcel of the fabric of this community.

Vice Mayor Benzan opened the hearing to the City Council.

Councillor McGovern spoke about King School renovation which is coming to an end and it is spectacular. He stated that neighborhoods in the City are changing. How does the City support and balance the businesses with the neighborhood. There is concern about this petition. This petition does not expire until Mar 7, 2016 and he does not see the need to move this forward tonight. He wanted to have a conversation with individuals to see if the differences can be worked out. He wanted this petition to be kept in committee. He wanted more information on the BZA decision.

At this time Vice Mayor Benzan noted that there is a Planning Board hearing on this petition tonight at 7 PM.

Councillor Simmons stated that she wanted to hear the thoughts from CDD about this. She agreed with Councillor McGovern. She has not heard from the neighborhood. She commented that it is easy to get signatures. She would not press this to move forward. She hoped that the petition and community could work together on this. She wanted to see if there is authentic community support for this petition. It would be premature for the City Council to take any action on this. There is no rush on the City Council's part to move this forward.

Mr. Roberts noted that the BZA decision was on a request for a use variance for business use. It was denied. He prepared a memo on the petition dated Dec 2, 2015 (ATTACHMENT H). He stated that the change is minimal and will affect few properties and will only affect residential property. This only allows 40% of the gross floor area in the building to be used for business. If the zoning was extended it will cover a row of townhouses on Jay and Western Avenue and one single family home.

Councillor Simmons asked Mr. Roberts to explain the zoning change. Mr. Roberts stated that it would allow non-residential use, but only 40% and the remainder must be residential use. This non-residential use may only be located on the first floor or basement of the building.

Councillor Maze spoke about the assertiveness of the petitioners approach and the housing shortage are working against the petitioner. This does not comport with what your neighborhood wants or needs. He hopes that the petitioner can work with the neighborhood toward resolution. Councillor Mazen found fault with the parking video being only one snapshot of time. This just does not fit with the neighborhood. He suggested mediation or provide a benefit to the community. He stated that the petitioner is not on the winning side of this.

Councillor Carlone spoke of the space used by a lawyer and an accounting business while the operators lived in the space. Mr. Alexandrov stated that the basement can be occupied. The residential side could be used as housing for an elderly parent or for out of town employees. Councillor Carlone stated that if the unit upstairs was affordable this is a give and take and may be more agreeable with the community. He counted 9 properties that this would affect. Mr. Alexandrov stated that it was not his intention to include the townhouse. This could be a standalone for properties on Western Avenue. Councillor Carlone stated that through the Master Plan zoning will be looked at differently.

Councillor Cheung spoke about community engagement and that the petitioner actually lives in the City and is trying to stay in the community. He wanted some kind of consensus between the petitioner and residents. He stated that the City Council tries to support businesses, but when they file a zoning petition the level of expectation is high and it is difficult for residents. The City needs to do a better job of what is expected. He spoke of another situation where mediation was used and a compromise was reached.

Councillor Simmons spoke about the concern of keeping the character of the neighborhood versus the neighborhood is somewhat of a mixed use. Is this about being in Cambridge or in the location, she asked the petitioner. Can the petitioner find a place to grow his businesses elsewhere? Mr. Alexandrov stated that he looked for a commercial home but there was nothing available. This property became available and this was a chance to make this happen. He wants to stay in Riverside. He stated that he nor any of his workers on his house had a problem with parking. He does not think that this change will impact the parking in this area. He looks forward to working to resolve this.

Vice Mayor Benzan read the e-mails received in opposition to the petition. They are as follows:
Communication from David Gunther and Bari Brodsky, 16 Kinnaird Street, in opposition to the conversion of residential to business and the threat to parking conditions worsening (ATTACHMENT I).
Communication from Jytte Klausen in opposition to the zoning proposal filed by Kiril Stefan and Catherine Alexandrov (ATTACHMENT J).
Communication from Professor Janet Sonenberg, 30 Jay Street, in opposition to the zoning petition (ATTACHMENT K).
Communication from Patrick W. Barrett, III, 41 Pleasant Street, in support of the expansion of the BA-3 zone along Western Avenue (ATTACHMENT L).
Communication from Dennis Freeman, PhD, MIT in support of the Alexandrov petition (ATTACHMENT M).
Communication from Ethan Corey, 18 Kinnaird Street, in support of the extension of the BA-3 commercial zone to cover the even sided block of Western Avenue (ATTACHMENT N).
Communication from Adam Melonas supporting the extension of the existing BA-3 zone (ATTACHMENT O).
Communication from Joyce B. Patterson, 162 Western Avenue, supporting the extension of the BA-3 zone (ATTACHMENT P).

Councillor Kelley stated that the petitioner is here because the BZA denied the petitioner. Mr. Alexandrov is doing this the right way. He stated that the City needs to be more open minded about what the City will be and needs to move away from parking issues.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that he appreciated the residents coming out to speak on this petition. The development issue is not creating enough opportunities for small businesses. He stated that there will be more entrepreneurs like Mr. Alexandrov coming into the residential areas of the City. The City is booming for large businesses.

Councillor Simmons stated that this is why it is important to look at ground floor retail in another light. She wanted a policy, practice or procedure around ground floor retail. The next City Council needs to take this up in the next legislative session. Councillor Cheung stated that this a great opportunity to create a retail model. Councillor Simmons stated that it is not fair that the petitioner and resident have to fight because there is no procedure in place by the City Council.

Councillor McGovern moved that this petition be kept in committee. The motion carried on voice vote of six members. He offered his help to bring people to the table to reach a resolution.

Vice Mayor Benzan thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 7:06pm on motion of Councillor Simmons.

For the Committee,
Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan, Co-Chair
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair

Committee Report #5
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Dec 14, 2015 beginning at 10:30am in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to continue discussion on the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code Chapter 2.121 entitled "Living Wage Ordinance" (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Leland Cheung; Councillor Craig Kelley; Mayor David P. Maher; Councillor Nadeem A. Mazen; Councillor Marc C. McGovern; Councillor E. Denise Simmons; Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.; Richard Rossi, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Amy Witts, Purchasing Agent; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Jan Devereux, 255 Lakeview Avenue; Ingrid Nava, SEIU 32BJ, 25 West Street, Boston; Katie Belgard, SEIU 32BJ, 45 Sudan Street; and Amy Sugimori, SEIU 32BJ, 25 West Street, Boston.

Vice Mayor Benzan convened the hearing and explained the purpose.

Councillor Simmons thanked the Ordinance Committee for holding this hearing today to discuss proposed amendments to the living wage ordinance as it relates to the City's procurement of janitorial and security services. She gave a brief history of the ordinance. She started working on this a year ago which she learned that the janitorial contracts for the Healy Public Safety building were being bid. She learned that some city contracts were being awarded to low road contractors who pay well below the community standard. The workers were facing a potential significant cut in their wages and the loss of their jobs depending on how the City acted. In this case the City chose a responsible contractor seeing the value of the high quality of work performed by these workers. She stated that Cambridge needed to do better. Cambridge needed a system that insured that employees subcontracted by the City to provide cleaning and security services were paid a fair wage equal to those in the private sector, in the buildings all over Cambridge and needed to be offered health insurance. These workers needed a level of assurance that when contractors changed that they would have the opportunity to keep their jobs. The proposal before your achieves these three goals. She stated that the wage standard is based on the standard wages that other cleaners and security officers in the area make. When this wage standard goes below this we undermine the standards the standards that these employees have long fought for. The City Manager proposed this component in his proposal, however, this component alone was not enough. She stated that in October the City Council adopted amendments to the Living Wage Ordinance and sent the ordinance back to the Ordinance Committee for ordinance review. Councillor Simmons stated that she is requesting adoption of the benefits supplement. This will ensure that workers subcontracted by the City have health insurance. The second component is to provide protection for workers when contractors change. She introduced Ingrid Nava, Associate General Counsel, Katie Belgard, Political Director and Amy Sugimori, Director of Policy and Legislation represented SEIU 32BJ.

Councillor Simmons introduced the amendments to the Living Wage Ordinance in Section 2.120.040 Standard Compensation and Section 2.121.070 Duties of Covered Employers (ATTACHMENT B).

City Manager Rossi stated that when we last met he spoke about the position that the City staff took. He explained that meetings were held with representatives from SEIU and there were agreements. There were some agreements not agreed upon. He objected to the language before the Ordinance Committee today. Mr. Rossi stated that in his letter dated Oct 19, 2015 Attachment B was his recommended revised Living Wage Ordinance and the proposal submitted by SEIU was labeled Attachment A. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the version on the table is the proposal by the City Council and the representative from SEIU 32BJ. The proposals are different. The changes are the Standard benefits in sections v, vii, viii and ix and x. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the transition employment period, section H, has a 90 day retention period when a new company is coming in.

Councillor Simmons stated that the Transition Employment Period is the displaced worker provision. The City Council passed this version to a second reading. The City Manager's version is moot. She stated that on page 10 section (h) is the displaced worker which had the 90 day provision this allows for a smooth transition if the contractors change.

Vice Mayor Benzan noted that the City offered the text they wanted to pass. Councillor Simmons stated that the City Council wanted the displaced worker and standard benefits in the ordinance. Vice Mayor Benzan stated that there were reservations about adopting these amendments and he asked Mr. Rossi why this would not be in the best interest of City. Mr. Rossi stated that he worked with the union; this is a contract provision. There is no contract that requires a new contractor to retain workers from another contractor.

City Solicitor Glows stated that regarding section v, Standard Benefits on page 5 legal advice was provide to the City Council that these benefits and wage provisions are covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) laws and are not permissible areas of regulations to impose on contractors working in the City. She stated that if challenged these provisions will be struck down. Mr. Rossi commented that this will take away bidders who may not be able to bid with their workers. He would like to keep the balance of having these bids or keep services in house.

Vice Mayor Benzan asked the representatives from SEIU 32BJ for their comments.

Katie Belgard spoke about the importance of this legislation. She stated that SEIU 32Bj represents cleaners and security employees. She stated that SEIU were brought to Cambridge because contracts slipped to rogue contractors that do not meet the standards. This legislation is set to the prevailing wage. The standard benefit package provides for health insurance. When the City is putting out bids he cost of health insurance is included. She stated that this also includes the displaced worker piece. She is not opposed to keeping these services in house. Vice Mayor Benzan asked how many municipalities have adopted this in Massachusetts. Ms. Belgard stated that Cambridge c would be the first municipality and that SEIU is working with Boston. Vice Mayor Benzan asked how many employees would be impacted by this. Ms. Belgard responded only a small number of workers; less than 20. Mr. Rossi stated that he was unsure of the exact number of employees affected.

Amy Sugimori stated that the ERISA preempts the model and the language taken is to prevent an ERISA challenge. The living wage could be the full cost of benefits. This is a compensation in the wages. It allows for a dollar figure between employers who are providing compensation. This is requiring a compensation package that would include compensation for health benefits. The transitional employment period and this type of requirement has been adopted by other areas of the country. The first encounter with this is uncomfortable. In certain sectors, custodians and security workers, it is not uncommon to get contract first and then hire workers to do the work. If there is cause to fire an employee they can be fired. This provides continuity and stability for the workers. She stated that in the instances where litigated the workers were fired unlawfully. This has not resulted in a lot of litigation.

Vice Mayor Benzan commented that this language has been adopted outside of Massachusetts. He asked if there was any challenge with the legality. Ms. Sugimori responded in the negative. Vice Mayor Benzan stated that contracts go out to bid with living wage and how is benefit package done. Ms. Sugimori stated that the state includes the standard for the dollar figure for wages and dollar figure for benefits. With a clear amount stated for wages and benefits there is compliance with the law. Mr. Rossi noted that the state prevailing wage was agreed to by the City in this. He explained that the City gets the wage rate from the state and this is included in the contracts and it includes everything. It was $22 in October. Ingrid Nava stated that it is $22-23 and will change in January and includes the standard benefit amount. The state breaks out wage and benefit amounts but the legal requirement is to include both. The wage amount is $17. Mr. Rossi stated that the City agreed to pay the state prevailing wage and asked why the other language is needed. Ms. Sugimori stated that the wage rate and benefit rate was to be based on the Department of Labor but it is a matter of semantics; she wanted the wage and benefit amounts to be included.

Councillor McGovern stated that the prevailing wage is $22 and includes wage and benefit. He stated that the union representatives are not suggesting that contractors pay $22 plus benefits. This language needs to be made clear. Councillor Simmons stated that this needs to be codified in the law and holds the contractor to the same standard. This allows for transparency. She wanted that the law to be clear as to what it includes. This makes adherence easier. This will part of the bid and there will be no mistakes. Mr. Rossi explained that in bids for custodial services the City includes the Department of Labor and this material is included in the bid process. If this is a standard Cambridge wants to be fair and transparent what will the law say. If this is a trend that the City wants to continue then there are standards that are codified into the municipal code.

Councillor McGovern stated that Cambridge has always been a leader for workers' rights. The details can get murky. Ms. Sugimori noted that she is aggregating the cleaning and security services from other employees. Ms. Nava explained that if the employer did not provide the benefits the wage would be $22; if benefits are provided the wage would be $17.

Councillor McGovern asked about displaced worker provision. If there is a new contractor how does this contractor employ the workers from the previous contractor? Ms. Sugimori responded that the job is bid using the current staff. This has become the norm. She stated that some contractors do not bid on public work because they cannot use the same staff from previous contractors. Councillor McGovern asked at the end of the 90 days is the contractor obligated to keep these employees. Ms. Sugimori during the first 90 days an employee cannot be terminated unless there is a good reason. This gives people a chance to prove themselves. Ms. Nava stated that there is no obligation after the 90 days. Mr. Rossi asked who is responsible for the employees from the previous contractor. This was not something that the City has been obligated to do. He would agree to use language that the contractor be encouraged to maintain the employees from the previous contractor. Ms. Sugimori spoke about clearing up the ambiguity. This is clearly in the bid documents and that the work will be done with the current staff. There is no expectation that the City has to employ these employees. Councillor McGovern stated that the City can and should do this. The City holds other entities accountable for things such as this. This is about closing loopholes and making something better. This is good for workers and includes the City's value. He supports this.

Councillor Cheung stated that he is open to modify this. He would prefer that services be kept in house; the services are better in house than those contracted out. The 90 day provision is because this is a problem area with some unscrupulous behavior from contractors. Cambridge is not a business even though run like a business. Everyone who works for the City should be paid a wage so that they can live in the City. He appreciates controlling costs. He stated that another reason this should be codified is so that other entities in the city will do the same.

Councillor Mazen stated that the city is not a normal employer and paves the way for better practices. He spoke about documenting underperforming of employees and that the City should document underperforming employees. He stated that trying something in good faith, such as this, is justifiable. He suggested it is reasonable for a contract to be negotiation on wages. Is it appropriate for a $22 wage to go to $16? Ms. Sugimori stated that if there is a complicated wage it goes to the prevailing wage. Mr. Rossi stated that the market is for the prevailing wage. Councillor Mazen stated that this language switches to the prevailing wage. Mr. Rossi noted that it is his job to give his professional advice. He can do a better job for citizens and he disagrees with this proposal. Councillor Mazen stated that contractors looking at the bottom line rarely do what is right for humans. He stated that it is not fair that good employees are terminated. Ms. Sugimori stated that the wage rate will be the prevailing, living or current wage paid and employees will not be paid less than what was paid under the previous contractor. Councillor Mazen asked is the new contractor bound to pay the employees for 90 days. Ms. Sugimori stated that the contractor is bound to pay the wage that is in the contract. Ms. Nava stated that in Cambridge and Boston there are no contractors who are paying about the prevailing wage.

Councillor Kelley stated that he does not disagree in principle. He understands the concerns of the City Manager but does not see a way around this for a new contractor keeping employees. This is an attempt to make an unfair system fair. He supports this.

Vice Mayor Benzan opened the meeting to public comment.

No one appeared in public comment and public comment was closed at 11:42am on motion of Vice Mayor Benzan.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that if the provisions are adopted and a contractor has to hire employees working with an existing contractor, how does this work. Ms. Sugimori spoke about access to good jobs and keeping a small number of people working for a long time is better than a larger number of employees for a smaller time. Ms. Nava stated that the more stability that can be created the better for all.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that this may hinder competition. Ms. Nava stated that this allows SEIU contractors to bid. This is good for competition, the market and workers.

Councillor Simmons moved to forward this to the full City Council. The motion carried on a voice vote.

Vice Mayor Benzan thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 11:48am on motion of Councillor Simmons.

For the Committee,
Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan, Co-Chair

Committee Report #6
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Dec 10, 2015 beginning at 5:12pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a zoning petition filed by Milford Medicinals, Inc., to amend the Cambridge Zoning Map to included 1001 Massachusetts Avenue in the MMD-1 Zoning Overlay.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Dennis J. Carlone and Vice Mayor Dennis Benzan, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Leland Cheung; Councillor E. Denise Simmons; Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.; Jeff Roberts, Land Use and Zoning Project Planner, CDD; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Attorney Sean D. Hope, Hope Legal Law Office; Michael Dundas, CEO, Milford Medicinals, Inc.; Juliet Blackett, 30 Churchill Avenue; and John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the hearing is being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the hearing.

Attorney Sean Hope stated that he is here with the CEO of Milford Medicinals, Inc., Mr. Michael Dundas. Attorney Hope stated that the petitioner has requested that the Ordinance Committee not conduct a substantive hearing on the petition. He stated that the petition has legal deficiencies that will detract from what the petitioner is attempting to accomplish. He stated that the petitioner would like to wait until the petition is a more accurate representation of current thinking before making a full presentation. He explained that the petitioner intends to meet with the neighbors and to conduct tours of the company's Milford facility. The petition procedurally will most likely expire so it is the petitioner's intention to refile a revised petition in 2016. He requested that that the petition be kept in committee. He stated that the previously overlay district was drafted in 2013 and there have been changes in the industry. This will be patient oriented petition.

The Chair asked Mr. Roberts, Land Use and Zoning Project Planner, CDD, if he wished to comment. Mr. Roberts responded in the negative.

Councillor Cheung moved to remain in committee. He stated that when the zoning was adopted two years ago siting was discussed and where the facilities would be allowed both from a federal and statewide legal perspective. There were restrictions as to where these facilities could be placed. He noted that there are revisions as to how the state is approaching this. This is a medical facility. Massachusetts is taking a tighter approach then other states on medical marijuana dispensaries. In order to better serve the medical needs of patients these facilities need to be located near mass transit.

Councillor Simmons noted that the petitioner at this juncture is not ready to proceed and plans to do outreach. She asked whether the petitioner will come to the City Council to explain the progress made. Attorney Hope stated that this will be parallel tracked. The tours will be offered. He spoke about hearing concerns about safety. The petitioner plans to go out to the community to educate the public about the changes at the state level. He plans to work outside of the Ordinance Committee. The petition language needs to be changed so that it is not site specific. This will come back to the Ordinance Committee when it is in proper form for discussion. Councillor Simmons suggested to Attorney Hope to provide the Ordinance Committee with an update. She spoke about the negative image of marijuana. She stated that the tours will give people more information. She stated that myth needs to be separated from fact. Attorney Hope stated that he would report back on the progress made and the feedback from the committee.

Councillor Carlone stated that the petitioner has requested that this matter be kept in committee.

At 5:23pm Councillor Carlone opened the meeting to public comment.

Juliet Blackett, 30 Churchill Avenue, Burns Apartments, stated that she is a potential patient of such a facility. She listed the qualifying diseases in the State of Massachusetts that can be serviced by such a facility. They are any form of cancer, glaucoma, AIDS, hepatitis C, ALS, Crohn's disease, Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis. These are state mandated illnesses for which medical marijuana has been approved. She submitted a communication (ATTACHMENT A). She spoke about addictive substances and the proximity within neighborhoods in the City. She listed the number of licensed venues that sell alcoholic beverages in Cambridge. There are 86 venues that sell tobacco products in Cambridge. She added pharmaceuticals and other health related facilities. She noted that there is not one facility that she named that is not within a relatively short distance of a public/private school, daycare, church, mosque, etc. It is absurd that we cannot zone one medical marijuana facility in the City of Cambridge without generating fear and prejudice. It is absurd that we need to even create districts to serve medical needs of residents. She stated that Cambridge has taken four years to enforce the law in Massachusetts. She stated that we are not being governed efficiently by the delay in enforcing this proposed zoning and people continue to suffer unnecessarily. She urged that it be kept in committee and let this be refiled move this forward.

On motion of Councillor Carlone public comment closed at 5:30pm.

Councillor Simmons moved that this matter be kept in committee. The motion carried on a voice vote.

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 5:31pm on a motion by Councillor Toomey.

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