A Planning Board recommendation to adopt the MIT Volpe PUD-7 Zoning Petition with suggested changes

The Planning Board recommends ADOPTION, with suggested

revisions. To the Honorable, the City Council, The Planning Board opened a public hearing of this zoning petition on July 25, 2017. At that hearing, the Board heard an overview by the Petitioner, received many comments from the public, and reviewed documents prepared by CDD regarding planning efforts for Kendall Square that have informed and led to the current proposal. The Board raised a number of questions and issues to be discussed further by the Petitioner and CDD. The Board held a continued hearing on September 12, 2017, at which it received additional information from the Petitioner and from CDD in response to issues raised at the prior hearing (as well as the hearing held by the Ordinance Committee), and additional comments from the public. CDD provided a report containing background information on general issues that were raised and suggesting approaches to address specific issues in the zoning petition. The material provided by the Petitioner indicated agreement with many of these suggested approaches. At the conclusion of the September 12 hearing, the Board voted to recommend adoption of the petition, subject to revisions that incorporate the aforementioned approaches suggested by CDD staff and agreed to by the Petitioner, as well as revisions reflecting the Board’s policy recommendations on certain elements of the petition (summarized beginning on the next page). Generally, the Board believes this zoning proposal, and the future redevelopment of the Volpe Transportation Systems Center site that it enables, is important to sustaining Kendall Square’s role as a global center of technology and innovation as well as an economic and employment engine for the city. Given the geographical constraints of Kendall Square, the redevelopment of the Volpe site provides a rare opportunity to support future commercial growth at a location that is well suited for a higher intensity of use. Moreover, the redevelopment as proposed will provide many positive outcomes for the neighborhood and city, including additional housing, open space, active ground floors, tax revenue and other community investments. Important issues around transportation and environmental sustainability are addressed in the petition and will be subject to further study in the creation and review of a development plan. Page 2 of 5 The Board has been engaged in planning for this area for some time, including the foundational work of the most recent Kendall Square (“K2”) Study, and spent significant time in 2015 developing a zoning petition for this area. The current petition is broadly consistent with the approaches recommended in the K2 study and incorporates most elements of the 2015 proposal. Regarding the specifics of the proposal, the Board made recommendations on a set of planning issues related to particular elements of the zoning petition, as summarized below. Development parcel/master plan requirements. The Board believes it is important to have a development proposal show a master plan for the entire parcel, so that the Board can understand the development as a whole in the review and permitting process. However, it is understood that the parcel would have two or three distinct parts, and that the future Federal portion of the site would need to be treated differently because it would not be subject to zoning controls. Still, the Board stressed the importance of considering the design of the Federal building and site when reviewing the development proposal for the MIT-controlled portion of the site, and therefore it is the Board’s hope that the Federal design will be advanced enough for the Board to consider it when the remainder of the project comes to the Board for review. FAR. Given the concerns that have been raised around interpreting and applying Floor Area Ratio (FAR) controls, the Board suggests that if development is required to come forward as a single master plan, then intensity controls don’t need to be based on FAR but could describe the allowed development program more simply in terms of Gross Floor Area (GFA). This approach is used in other districts where development is permitted in accordance with a master plan, such as the MXD district. The Board feels that either an FAR or GFA approach could work, but using GFA is simpler because it involves fewer steps to arrive at the allowed development program. The only complication is the one small parcel controlled by the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority, which is not part of the 14-acre Volpe parcel and may or may not be incorporated into a development parcel. This detail is addressed in the attached text. Limits on non-residential development. The Board supports the proposed 60/40 ratio of commercial to residential use, with the important acknowledgement that 60% is viewed as a maximum for commercial and 40% is viewed as a minimum for residential. Hotel use. The Board believes that including a hotel could be beneficial in supporting the planning principles for the area, in terms of adding liveliness to the streets, promoting transit- oriented lodging, and contributing to the mix of uses in the area. However, the Board does not agree that hotel use should be fully included within the required residential uses because it would not provide the same types of benefits as housing. A hybrid approach is suggested, such as having up to 100,000 square feet (40% of a possible 250,000 square-foot hotel) count toward housing, with the remainder being counted toward the non-residential allotment, as included in the attached text.

Page 3 of 5  Dormitory use. There were varying opinions among Board members regarding dormitories, with some members viewing them a beneficial use that supports the city’s overall housing policies. However, in this case, the majority view of the Board is not to count dormitories as part of the housing requirement, because the planning intent for this site has been to support urban mixed-use development and not to promote campus expansion. The Board noted that there are other places in the city that could be more suitable for additional student housing.

 Affordable housing. Given that the current inclusionary housing requirements were the result of extensive studies and reports that were recently completed, the Board believes that these are the appropriate requirements to apply at this time. The Board also believes that the City Council should have the ability to decide when and how those requirements might be changed in the future, and should not be constrained in its ability to do so. In no event would the affordable component be less than 20%.