Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Mary is also absent. Diego Macias, are you present and is the meeting visible and audible to you? Present, visible, and audible. Thank you, Diego. Ashley Tan, are you present and is the meeting visible and audible to you?

Present, visible, and audible.

Thank you, Ashley. Carolyn Zern, are you present and is the meeting visible and audible to you?

Present, visible, and audible.

Thank you, Carolyn. Associate Member Dan Anderson, are you present? Is the meeting visible and audible to you? I see Dan is absent. And Thompson Avich, can you confirm the meeting is visible and audible to you?

Present, visible, and audible.

Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Tom. That means we have five planning board members present.

Great. Thank you very much. The first item is an update from the Community Development Department. And please also introduce any staff that might be present tonight at the meeting, Jeff.

Thank you again, Tom. Jeff Roberts, I'm the director of zoning and development. With me on the zoning and development team is Swathi Joseph, as well as Becca McCurry. And we also have from the urban design team, I'm sorry, and we have Evan Petrini also with us. So a lot of zoning people. We have also from the urban design team, Susanna Bigelin will be here to help with the second item on the agenda tonight or the next one. So looking quickly at the calendar, what's coming up, we do have a public hearing, which we'll get right to. After that, we have some general business items related to the Cambridge Crossing development in the North Point area, some designer view and use that's proposed. So if you're tuned in for that, we'll be getting to it after the hearing. Next week we have a planning board meeting and a public hearing scheduled on a residential proposal at 9 and 25 Birch Street and 30 to 36 Bay State Road. As I mentioned the last time, it's a lot of addresses, but it's really just one site. that stretches across a few streets. And so that's the one item that we have scheduled for July 21st so far. I don't expect we'll have any more classes coming up soon. And then the next meeting after that will be August 4th. and there'll be a public hearing on a city zoning petition to update short term rental regulations. Now we'll be hearing from the inspectional services department and the law department about those proposals. There'll be more coming up as we go through the summer. But other than that, I'll just give some updates on other things that are going on. The council is, of course, city councils on summer break they'll be meeting again uh at the beginning of August and then and then again in September um the or committees continue to meet the ordinance committee will have a hearing on the the Doug Brown at all zoning petition on July 21st that's next week at 3 p.m AND JUST AS AN UPDATE FROM LAST WEEK, THE ORDINANCE COMMITTEE HAD A HEARING ON THE ACTIVE USE ZONING PETITIONS FOR MASS AV AND CAMBRIDGE STREET, WHICH THE PLANNING BOARD HEARD AND MADE RECOMMENDATIONS ON. THOSE HAVE BEEN FORWARDED FROM THE ORDINANCE COMMITTEE TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ORDINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE SUGGESTED BY THE PLANNING BOARD SO THOSE HAVE MOVED FORWARD THERE ARE SOME OTHER ITEMS THAT I THINK ARE STILL UNDER SOME DISCUSSION BUT THAT IS ON TRACK TO COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL POTENTIALLY BE VOTED TO A SECOND READING ON AUGUST 4TH AND THEN would come up for a final vote in September. So that's, I think, an update on all the items of interest at this point, and I'll turn it back over to the chair.

Great. Thank you very much, Jeff. The first item is, sorry, the next item is an approval of meeting minutes. Board has received certified transcripts for the meetings held on June 2nd and 16 of 2026. Are there any questions from board members? Please state your name. IT APPEARS THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS. ONLY FULL BOARD MEMBERS WILL ACT ON THIS ITEM. IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE TRANSCRIPTS AS THE MEETING MINUTES? REMEMBER TO SAY YOUR NAME.

THIS IS CAROLYN. SORRY, TED, THIS IS CAROLYN. SO MOVED.

THANK YOU, CAROLYN. AND A SECOND. IT'S TED'S SECOND. THANK YOU, TED. ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

ON THAT MOTION, TED COHEN. YES. Diego Macias. Yes. Ashley Tan. Yes. Carolyn Zurn.

Yes.

And Thompson Avich. Yes. It's all five members present voting in favor.

Great. Thank you, Jeff. Agenda item number one. The next item on the agenda is a public hearing on a zoning petition by Douglas P. Brown et al. to amend articles to five six 11 and 19 with the intent of mending height setback open space requirements adding step back and building depth and width requirements and adding minimum off street parking requirements for residential uses in a C1 district including the affordable housing overlay as well as reducing the project review special permit threshold from 75,000 to 20,000 square feet for residential uses in residence C1 districts among other changes. First CDD staff will begin by explaining why this is before us. Then we will hear from the petitioners and then take public comment. Then the planning board will discuss the petition and decide whether to transmit a recommendation to the city council.

Thank you, so this is Jeff Roberts again i'll just quickly. know that this is a new zoning petition as the first hearing on it it's from a group of at least 10 people registered to vote in Cambridge who under state law can propose an amendment to the zoning ordinance. i'll let the petitioners explain it but staff have provided a memo providing some context and some comments related to the petition and will be available to answer any questions.

Okay. Petitioners being represented by Doug Brown, please begin by introducing yourself and any other speakers that would be helping with the presentation. And you'll have up to 30 minutes to present, but we hope you can be as concise as possible. Thank you and good evening.

Thank you, members of the board. Especially thank you for your time tonight. It's vacation time now. And so I'm going to try to move this discussion along quickly. We really appreciate you moving this to the front and getting this before you quickly. And I'll try to be brief. I think you already have the petition. You have CDD's response. And I can certainly go through everything point by point. But I think I'm more focused on wanting to sort of talk to you about what my motivations are in filing it and also provide any clarifications that you may need. Before I do that, I just want to say congratulations to the city in that as part of the MFHO, we have really achieved our goal of legalizing multifamily housing citywide, which I think is a bold step nationally. And I think there's a recognition now by all parties that maybe it's not perfect, but that it is having an effect. And I really see this process as sort of the first step in what's an ongoing review process to address things that have come up in the meantime. Most of the changes, I will say, were targeted to apply mainly to residential C1 and not to be across the rest of the zones. Let me start the presentation now just to get into that. All right. Can everybody see that? Yes. Okay. So about me, lots of online theories about who I am and what I'm trying to do here. I'm a longtime Cambridge resident, a property owner, have renovated a number of houses. I have three kids. And then I'm community involved. I'm our local block party organizer, member of the Neighborhood Association, a youth coach, and more than anything, a concerned citizen. And there also was a question about whether I was from Connecticut. I would say, yes, I am. Proud member of Connecticut. Here's some of the things that have been before you before that I've worked on. You know, it's been an ongoing thing over the last decade, starting in 2015. I was co-author with Patrick Barrett to expand ADU and basement use, clean up some of those issues that, and that's been quite successful. In 2018, Mike Nakagawa and I worked on climate resilient zoning and that was ultimately placed on file, but it did lead to a planning board petition and a process over the next four years where I was a member of the working group. 2022, I was the author of the alewife moratorium that passed and that ultimately led to a city council petition to rezone alewife and I served on that working group. And then three years ago I submitted a multifamily zoning petition, which was rejected, but then many of the concepts of legalizing multifamily were incorporated into the current ordinance. I also assisted Joe Ronan on his version of that, which was referred to the housing committee. Similar concepts were incorporated into the current ordinance. Why I proposed what I proposed. Well, I think we've it's been long enough and we've heard enough serious community concerns and that's really across all neighborhoods and I just felt like the changes really can't wait and that the discussion really needs to begin now because. the scope and the scale of what is in front of us has really expanded dramatically. And so my hope is to sort of frame the future discussions. And I think we needed to present these areas in sort of an actionable format. So you'll see, as I go through it, I really tried to address the issues that have been most concerning to people. I think as a side observation, the elimination of fluoride ratio As a sort of an ultimate development control has really led to much more dramatic changes than most people realize was possible. And I think if you compare what's allowed now to what was allowed a few years ago, the multiples are as much as 12 X or more. And so I think What I'm proposing is to back off that a little bit, not take it all the way back to where it was. This is not regressive. It's really to say, is that a level of change that is needed or can we live with something a little less? I think my basic principles are that first off that zoning changes really should always be the minimum that are necessary to address the issues. And so I tried to be as tactical as I could be I think also zoning serves a purpose, and one of its main purposes is to provide predictability. It provides predictability when buying and selling in terms of what can be done with a parcel. It provides predictability to the owners and to neighbors as far as what each has available. And I think it also provides predictability to the city itself so that it knows how things are going to develop over time. I think I'm always in favor of incremental development rather than wholesale demolition. And I think based on my past and my role in the city, I feel like one of the basic premises is I have is being a good neighbor kind of matters. So this is really a conversation about options. And I would just say that of all the things I've got in here, any of them can be struck or changed without really needing to be refiled. In effect, I, I made this as much of a change as possible with the idea being that if you guys think something is worthy but needed to be dialed back, that is open for discussion, I think. You know, I always refer back to Envision Cambridge only because I was a member of one of those committees. And it did talk a lot about the idea that we need to make progress, we need to develop, but that also it was important that we preserve some trace of the past that, you know, a lot of what is here is already quite good and we don't want to destroy the things that work in order to build a future that might not work. So these are the areas that were covered. And I think Jeff did a great job in his memo of sort of laying out, you know, what's currently in place, what I'm proposing. And they fall into these areas, which is height and the number of stories, sort of the general category of setbacks. But as was mentioned, you know, there's sort of also additional things around step backs and around the length of sidewalls. And, you know, the setbacks are really in line with what was previously recommended by CDD in their prior presentations. And the sidewall length is an idea that sort of came from Tim Love and some of his observations. There's also open space parking, including front yard parking, which I don't think is in your memo, but we can talk about that. And then the idea around design review for larger projects. And all I'm doing there is lowering the threshold to 20,000, which is roughly in line with where it was previously. It was raised to 70,000 and I think that's a little too big. What has not changed? So what are we not changing? Multifamily housing is still allowed everywhere. Okay. I think that's a core tenant. We eliminated lot area per unit and minimum lot size and minimum lot width. That all stays. We also eliminated FAR. And though I did allude to the fact that I think that has been the one factor that has caused the largest increase in project size, I'm not proposing changes to that at the moment. I'm also not introducing any limits on the number of units, the unit counts or unit sizes. I think that's up to the individual developers to decide. And I'm not making any adjustments to either heights along the corridors or in the squares. you know, areas that were proposed by Envision and that we're working on now, or also dimensional requirements outside of Res C1. So I was really focused on the resident C1 district. So the first one is around heights and stories above grade. And really what I'm trying to do is to come up with a way to sort of look at height in context, because there are certainly places in the city where tall buildings fit quite naturally. Even 10 or 12 story buildings fit naturally. But there's also other places where even a six-story building or a nine-story building is problematic. And so I'm proposing that AHO projects within the C1 district would be reduced from nine to six. Nine is really not a size that's commonly built due to the cost of steel construction. But even so, I think six is a more appropriate number there. I'm also proposing that in most cases the inclusionary projects would be reduced from six to four because I still think that allows for incremental growth across the neighborhood and that over time all structures would end up at four and then once they're at four the mechanism would allow other new projects to go to six. I'm also introducing what was recommended by CDD, actually, which is to increase the setback on one side, which allows room for a driveway or additional tree plantings for shade. I think the stepbacks are something that we haven't discussed, and it was, I added, and it's really designed to reduce some of the bulk of some of these upper stories so you can still have a building that's four, five, six stories tall, but it doesn't necessarily feel like that and it fits into the context. I also introduced a new sort of limit on the length of the building along a sideline and that's really designed to sort of limit this sort of oppressiveness that you get when you're five feet off the property line and you're spanning the full length of the property and going up six stories. And though some people said, well, that means you can't build on more than 60% of the lot, I'm not necessarily saying you can't divide it up into multiple buildings. It's really a limit on, it could be a limit on the structure. But if you want to add a second structure in the back, well, then you could probably go beyond that. Here's an example of sort of some of the new development that we're seeing that gives you a sense of how it can be kind of sort of oppressive. So on the left is 162 Otis Street, the existing building, and on the right is what's now being built. And it's a very narrow lot. And if you look on the left, you'll see that the overall length of the building, it's being extended. It's by 17% to where it's at 76% of the lot depth. Okay. But the problem is they're also going up. And they're raising the first floor and adding a floor. And so when you look at the area of the sidewall, it's actually increasing not 17%, but 78%. And that building is seven inches from the property line. And the new building, they're removing all the windows. So you have a completely blank wall, seven inches from the property line that's... you know, increased, you know, dramatically. And so that's, I look at a project like that and I say, that's not really ideal. That's not really what we'd like to see in terms of being a good neighbor, as it were. As far as the step backs go, we're already seeing that in current projects. So you're going to be talking about Birch Street coming up. You can see it on the right there. It already incorporates various step backs above the fourth floor. Same on Cushing Street.

You can see it's two floors, then a small step back, and then above the third floor, it steps back even further.

So you're seeing some of these projects are already sort of acknowledging the fact that it is actually desirable to step some of these upper floors back away from the neighbors. So all I'm really doing is saying, okay, well, that's a good idea. Let's go with that. Regarding open space, and the photo on the right is actually Donald Trump's Trump Plaza and the very last holdout while he was building his casino in Atlantic City. And notice those are only six-story buildings that are surrounding him. It's sort of a fundamental philosophical point for me that open space is located on the ground. That open space is where children play, where families, you know, where dogs run. And I don't really love the idea that more and more of that space is on rooftops or on small balconies. And so my sense is I would like to see that on the ground. So if you have required open space, you make room for it on the ground. And also that it's of a large enough dimension that it can actually be used. You know, one of the unintended consequences of the MFHO was that it actually eliminated the dimensional requirements such that open space can be a two foot wide strip. It doesn't need to have dimensions of 15 feet by 15 feet at a minimum anymore. And so I find it to be almost unusable. Of course, I'd like to see it as green as possible. It's easier to make it green when it's on the ground. Parking is probably the biggest concern that neighbors consistently have. If you look at the most controversial project, Wyman Road, the feeling is 56 units there would completely overwhelm the neighborhood and all the surrounding streets. And so I didn't apply it to one and two, three family houses. And that's because most of the time they're on smaller lots and it's hard for them to add parking without any relief. But when projects get larger than that, four or more units, I was saying you don't have to have one space per unit, but let's say one for every two units. So a 10-unit building has to find five spaces. I think the increased setback on the side, the 10 feet, allows you to have a driveway, allows you to access parking perhaps in the rear. And that's another thing that wasn't in the CDD memo, but I don't love that we've gone down this route of starting to allow more and more parking directly in the front yard. And so one thing I added was going forward, when you want to park in the front yard, what ends up happening is it's a special permit and it gets approved every single time. And you start to wonder why we have the restriction. And so I said, well, let's go forward and say, you got to have a variance. You got to have a higher standard to get that approved. It might be that you're handicapped and you actually need that access. But in many cases, people are just using it for convenience. And I would prefer that they parked on the side or to the rear. And then the last area is around design review. And I personally believe and I feel like you guys are a clear indication that the design review process produces better buildings than a process that doesn't include some level of review. I think it allows the planning board to add its expertise and it can assess things in terms of what's the impact on neighborhoods, because some of these projects have significant impact when you're talking about very large buildings. And I think the design review process, it's not just about what it looks like. I think it can be inside and outside the building. And it's not just for the neighbors, it's also for the residents. If you go back to 9 Wyman Road, As drawn, it doesn't have loading zones. It doesn't even have a space inside the building where you can handle the trash generated by 56 units of housing. So even a simple thing like that, I feel like someone looking at it from a design review perspective would say, hey, you got to address these other areas because they're necessary. And that building right now doesn't require design review. I would like to see buildings like that. subject to some level of review. You know, the threshold really here is if you're doing a four-story building on a standard 5,000 square foot lot, you're covering 100% of it, you're not going to need review. You're probably likely to be below the threshold. So it's only when you're going up more stories, when you're on a bigger lot, that you start to need that. Here's some scenarios. So I said, you know, I thought, well, we've got to be able to see this. What is this all about? And if you start on the left, that's the former, where I live, Res B zoning. That was the largest zone in the city, the most common zoning. Shows you the setbacks, 10, 10, 10, 25. Okay. And you say, why is that house so small? Well, the reason is because we had an FAR limit of 0.5. So that 5,000 square foot lot can only have a 2,500 square foot house on it. So it's a first floor of 1,000, the second floor of 1,000, third floor of 500 square feet, right? That's your full allowance right there. What the multifamily housing ordinance allowed is the three buildings in the middle. You have four stories, six stories, nine stories. And you can see they have a significantly larger footprint You know, a flat roof building typically is what we're seeing built. And four stories is by right. Six stories is with inclusionary units. And 100% affordable is nine stories. And if you look down the bottom, you can see the multiples over what was previously allowed. You know, so that 100% affordable AHO building, it has the FAR of over six. historically, we didn't allow an FAO above four anywhere in the entire city, including Kendall Square. So these are really big multiples. And they're they really overwhelm the existing sort of structures that exist. So my proposal is on the right and and I hope that you don't feel like it. I'm trying to draw I'm trying to walk a line here between bigger but not so big that they overwhelm the house on the left. It's already there and has been there for 100 years. And so if you look at the ratios there, you're still with affordable units, 100% affordable. You're still at an FAR of above 2.5. That's five times what was previously permitted in those areas. And for the by right building, you're still three plus times larger. You know, one thing you'll see is it does have a wider setback on one side so you can fit in a driveway. And but, you know, these are not insignificant buildings that are being allowed under my proposal. Of course, There's been a lot of discussion. What's the effect on 100% affordable projects? And some of these things only apply in the res C1 district. So the height reductions, the parking requirements, the design reprocess really only applies in the resident C1 district. So for example, 52 New Street, which was just built, it's not in the res C1 district, it's in an industrial district. So none of those restrictions would apply to it. The setbacks that I'm promoting, I'm adding, and so there are a few things that I'm saying that in effect I'm letting AHO get by with some things, but in other areas I'm saying, you know, this is a sort of a quality of life issue. And so I'm not necessarily saying that the affordable development should have different rules. So setbacks, for example, Yeah, part of it is about being a good neighbor, but part of it is also letting light and sun and air into the residence units. And if you're tight up on the line, it's hard to do that. And so the reason for sort of modifying the setbacks in a very minor way, basically going from 10 feet total for left and right to 15 feet, based off of what CDD already said, is because I think it creates better units. You know, my amendments don't prohibit balconies. They just don't count them as open space. What I'm saying is the actual open space needs to be on the ground because that's beneficial to the residents of those projects. You know, parking, we say, well, parking is going to cost more money. I'm going to not be able to build as many units. I don't have anywhere to put it. But we see every day that the residents of affordable developments depend on their parking. They depend on their cars to get to their jobs, to get their kids to school. And some level of parking really needs to be baked into some of these projects. And that you could say, well, that's a neighbor, you know, it's a good neighbor thing where you don't want to overwhelm the neighborhood, but it's really for the residents. Residents need places to put their cars. They depend on them. I also think, like I said, the design review process benefits both neighbors and residents. These are not things that are purely coming from the neighborhood perspective. We don't want you to do these things. It's coming from the perspective of these changes may help you develop a better project. That said, step backs and the sidewall length requirements really are more focused on the impact on neighbors. These are big buildings that we're dropping into existing neighborhoods. And I think we need to be careful about how oppressive they feel. Oh, sorry. Jumped around here. Okay. So one fallacy is, well, anything we do is going to restrict the size of what we can build, going to restrict the number of units, going to cut into the housing that we can produce. Okay. So isn't bigger always better? And so here's an example of why bigger is not always better. So this is the Regent International Center. It's in China. Building one single apartment building. It's 675 feet tall. It has roughly 16 million square feet of interior space, more than 300 acres. And within that is 11,000 plus apartments holding upwards of 30,000 residents. And you say, well, what's the goal? Inexpensive housing. Well, the prices in some of these apartments are as low as $209 a month. Of course, they're interior apartments that are the size of a closet and have no windows. This project is described as claustrophobic, dystopian. On the other hand, you could say, well, this would solve our entire wait list in one simple go. Taken to the extreme, I don't think it's a valid argument to say size is always better, that we should do everything possible to build the biggest things we can. There are other factors in terms of livability that matter. Buckminster Fuller took this to the extreme. He did a project in 71 which was, can we fit the entire city of East St. Louis in one bubble? And the project was for 125,000 people, the entire population of Cambridge in one square mile. It's silly to think that size alone is going to solve everything that's wrong with our city. So there are other alternatives beyond the 1,000 balloons and escaping. I think the most sensible alternative is to do as we've done in the past, which is convene a working group and draft some amendments. And I'm happy to have mine be the starting point or to be part of the discussion. I don't necessarily care that mine are the final result, but I think that's an important process. I think we do also need to look at the idea of developing a more holistic demolition ordinance that looks at impacts. we know for a fact that when you're going to build a building within five feet of the property line, there's going to be impacts on the neighborhood, specifically the direct to butters and their trees and their foundation and their windows and their peace of mind. So I would, I would wish that the city would explore the possibility of, of a more robust demolition ordinance. The other thing is frankly, you know, one of the big problems that still remains is is there's a vast number of students that go to school here that compete for housing on the open market. The town and gown report puts that number north of 6,000 kids that are in market rate housing. And I think we need to look at the institutional use overlay and say, what more can we do to compel them to build more housing to solve this problem? Because that problem right now is only growing. The other thing I think we need to look at is what can we do in the middle? You know, there's so much focus on inclusionary and affordable housing. And now with this new MFHO with market rate housing, Well, there's this whole group in the middle that's still struggling. And many of them are essential workers. They're teachers, they're firemen, they're policemen who don't live here. They actually commute long, long, long distances. And we saw during COVID, it would be nice that they could be closer. And I think we should look at the possibility of either including more middle income stuff or something specifically targeted at providing units for essential workers. You know, you could, You could put a citywide height restriction, pick a number of floors, three, four, five, six. You could reintroduce FAR restrictions. And of course you can always, you know, we've done in the past, we've done a moratorium while we figure this out. You know, these are all options that are out there. You're welcome to pick up the proposal that I've submitted and kick that around and see what you like and what you don't like. And I'm happy to discuss it. I really appreciate the time to sort of look at some of this stuff and talk about it. And I'm going to turn it back over to you guys for any questions and comments.

Great, Mr. Brown, thank you very much for your succinct presentation. Actually at this point, we're going to turn it over to public comment because this is a public hearing and any members of the public who wish to speak should click the button that says raise hand. If you're calling in by phone, you can raise your hand by pressing star nine. So as of 5 p.m. yesterday, the board had received comments on this petition from David Haddis, Janice Ribello, Kavish Gandhi, Sarah Block, Carolyn Fuller, Dana Bullister, Ethan Frank, Carol Nagy-Kochelin, and Clara Faden. Written communications received after 5 p.m. yesterday will be entered into the record. I'll now ask staff to unmute speakers one at a time. You should begin by saying your name and address and staff can confirm that we can hear you. And after that, you will have up to three minutes to speak before I will be asking you to wrap up.

Thank you, Ted. This is Jeff. There's looks like there's a number of speakers. Um, hopefully, uh, everyone who would like to speak can raise your hand so we can, um, keep a good sense of the list and the timing as we go. Uh, and I'll read this next speaker and then the speaker after, so that you can be ready to, to begin. Um, and we can, we can get through everyone. So the first speaker is Sarah Barkan followed by Suzanne Blier. And you can begin by always by unmuting yourself and saying your name and address.

Thank you, Jeff. And thank you to the board. This is Sarah Barkin. I'm the executive director of HRI in Cambridge, one of the city's community development corporations and a mission affordable housing developer. We're deeply grateful for the affordable housing overlay to the council and to both CDD staff and the planning board for the implementation of this thoughtful and progressive approach to permitting affordable housing. The AHO allows mission developers like HRI to purchase and plan sites that maximize affordable homes, incorporate design feedback from neighbors, city agencies, and the planning board, and reflect the city's priorities to ensure the development of affordable housing. The Brown petition would make most AHO projects infeasible. At Four Mellon, we're preserving a historic mansion along Mass Ave with four affordable homes in the mansion and 25 in an adjoining new building. Our design approved through the AHO incorporates thoughtful step-downs in the new building that create a transition to nearby homes. While both historic preservation and step-downs reduce the total square footage and therefore number of units, the design maximizes affordability while honoring historic architecture. Under the Brown petition, we would lose four units and would reduce two of our precious three-bedroom homes to a one-bedroom, diminishing opportunity for families. And this is due to the side yard setbacks that would be required. In addition, we would lose our two private study rooms, which we found in other developments to be very useful, particularly during COVID, but for people who may have limited space in their homes. And these, by the way, are not in the C1 district, they're in C2A. Second, I want to talk about 2830 Wendell, which is not yet under construction, but is approved through the AHO process where we'll build 95 homes for families and seniors. There we've designed a sort of barbell shape that takes the building down from eight stories to six on either end. That balances our transition to other neighborhood buildings while maintaining density. Again, the setbacks and step backs required by the Brown petition would eliminate at least half of our units, if not more, and reduce the size of many remaining units, rendering the project completely infeasible. In particular, I want to note that we would lose about two thirds of the original affordable homes from the site, reducing it from 95 to 33. 27 of those lost would be family sized units. So we would be reduced to a five story, 37,000 square foot pyramid shaped building that would simply be impossible to finance. And these buildings don't happen to be impacted by the open space requirement, but other projects that we're planning would also be rendered infeasible by that requirement. I want to note that at Four Mellon Street, we already have 1,100 applications for those homes for people who would like to make their home at that location when we open in January. So demand remains great. I'll stop there and thank the board for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is Suzanne Blier, followed by Susan Kahle.

Thank you so much. Suzanne Blier, Five Fuller Place. And I wanted to begin by thanking Doug Brown for putting together this thoughtful proposal. And I also think his point about Harvard and MIT students is really critical because they often turn over far more quickly. That means that the owner of that apartment can then increase the rent. So this is a key part. And it's not just Harvard and MIT or even Lesley, it's also area schools. So this is really, really important. I would also add, and here I'm speaking for many of us, we get so many calls, so many emails, so much literature to sell our homes. And just yesterday, somebody told me that they were going around to a neighbor's home in the Huron area, wanting to buy a piece of that land, not the whole thing because they wanted to bring it up to a size that would allow them to build more. They're making tens of millions of dollars on each of these. And it's increasing the prices of housing in the city in an absolutely absurd way. And it's almost impossible at this point, even for AHO developers to compete with market rate developers. And we know for Frost Terrace that some 40% of all of the residents own cars. So that is a part of this as well, finding a means so that we can all live together. In terms of side yards and real space, Columbia University studies point out that green space is critically important for childhood development. The real studies of the impact of intelligence on access, close access to green space And with losing trees, the impacts of flooding are enormous because when you sink a cement basement, that water is being displaced to your neighbors. So, and add to that all of the impacts on infrastructure, sewage, electricity, et cetera, et cetera. So I like Brown's idea of the inclusionary at four and then going to six, it was closer to the three and six. I love the idea of design review. I think the length of the side is a critical factor. And I would say that for the current zoning, I think it's only 16% of those that have any affordable at all. Most of those are single family or one and two units. We're getting so many demolitions and it takes 40 to 60 years to make up the loss in terms of the environment when you have one of these demolitions. So whatever we can do to bring, as Brown suggested, light and sun and air into these residences, and as much as we can do to keep our very dense city, one of the densest in the country, together in this period so it's not just sold out to highest bidders, often with cash, We're finding that as well. There's some realtors that specialize in cash for these sales. So I applaud Mr. Brown, and I'm urging the planning board to take this seriously. Thanks so much.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Susan Kale, who's followed by Carolyn Fuller.

Hi, good evening. I appreciate you taking the time out to let me speak. I live at 5 Foe Street, which is a very small residential street in North Cambridge. And I'm sure that many of you actually probably don't know where that street is. I think it's great affordable housing, but unfortunately, my street, the house next to me, just sold for $1.6 million. 15 Foch Street sofa, 1.5, seven Gladstone sofa, 1.3. And guess what? They were all sold to a developer who intention is not to make affordable housing, but to make luxury housing. So in the interim, I'm going to have to deal with a loss of sunlight next to my house because he anticipates building at least four stories on a 5,000 square lot. which is permissible. The two other houses are going to be completely demolished and townhouses are going to be built. So I guess my question to you is how is the zoning benefiting the residents of Cambridge like myself and my neighbors who are going to have to incur an incredibly noisy next two years? Not only that though, my street is very small and you're going to have at least 15 people live in there with cars. So there'll be no parking. There'll be nowhere for the residents to park as it is when they put the bike lanes in Mass Ave. We have an abundance of people coming over to park on the side streets because Cambridge just doesn't have ample parking. So the solar panels that people did the right thing, tried to put up when the city came with this suggestion to put up solar panels, those are all gonna be blocked out by these huge, huge buildings. And the part that is very upsetting to us is they're not gonna fit in the neighborhood. We're in a residential neighborhood. They bought three houses and the rest of us are gonna have to be at odds because now They're trying to get the rest of us to sell the house. And to boot that, how is the city going to absorb the fact that the resources, the sidewalks, some of the houses already have overflow of raw sewage when it rains heavily. So these developers coming in don't have Cambridge residents' best interests at heart. They just want to come in, make a few million dollars and say, hey, Cambridge zoning. Thank you. We appreciate it. You let us come in and take the property. And guess what? were on our way the guy santana bought these houses he lives in miami guess what he flies up buys the houses and then he develops them so i don't understand how any of the zoning is beneficial to the residents of cambridge and i've lived here my whole life i've never moved zip codes so you're hurting the actual residents that live here that thrive by letting these zoning problems concur. So I do agree with the first speaker that, you know, we have to cut back at some point. Other than that, we're all going to be gone. Old-time Cambridge will be gone. I'll be living in affordable housing. Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Carolyn Fuller, who's followed by Bill McIvenny.

Hi, Carolyn Fuller, 12 Douglas Street. And I'm here tonight to please reject the Doug Brown petition. He is seeking to override the voters of Cambridge who have repeatedly voted for majorities of councilors who support policies that promote more housing and fewer cars in Cambridge. This petition is nothing more than a carefully crafted in run around the election results from four election cycles. Doug Brown and his handful of petition signers have successfully stopped new affordable housing from being built and paused the construction of new multi-unit family, multi-family housing. It is an outrage that this loophole in our democratic process is allowed. Thank you very much.

Thank you. The next speaker is Bill McEvaney followed by Merrilee Meyer.

Bill McIverney, 12 Douglas Street. I'm here to strongly oppose this petition. It does not help us who live here and who aren't very rich. What the attempt, and we haven't seen what our current zoning will actually do, but it seems logical that what it will do is reduce the amount of displacement in Cambridge. How that benefits me is, well, it's not gonna benefit me and my son because he's already been forced out, and as have many of my friends, but you don't treat a famine by reducing the amount of farmland. You don't treat a lack of housing which in turn makes housing very expensive by reducing the amount of housing. Our current New zoning is intended to increase the amount of housing and it probably will, but we don't know for sure that it will until we give it a chance to see what happens. We know what happens from the 20 or 30 years of our old zoning, hugely increases in prices. So please reject this petition. Thank you. Thank you.

The next speaker is Marilee Meyer, who's followed by Phyllis Simpkins.

Hi, Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street. And if you're in a leaky boat, you don't bail like crazy. You stop and fix the boat so you can move forward. This type of discussion, which should have been taking place before the election effect, these kind of granular details are highly important for the city itself, integrating where to put places and how they fit in. Actually, a lot of the demolition, which is happening all over the place, is demo quickly. AND THEN POSSIBLY FLIP THE LOT. AND IT IS FOR MOSTLY MARKET RATE. SO YOU TAKE DOWN A TRIPLE DECKER, PUT UP THREE MARKET RATE HOUSES FOR $4.2 million each of those townhouses, that is not adding units to housing, and that is not affordable housing. What we have done is not doing anything for affordable housing. And you can just look at the stats. I do like the idea of eliminating the balconies and rooftops as open space because open space should benefit the public and not protrude into the five-foot side setbacks, which also makes the use of those side setbacks more difficult. And actually, the AHO actually respected the conservation districts, unlike the multifamily. And the multifamily counselors want to eliminate any guidelines to facilitate quick demolition. And the AHO also had more public meetings. And they were a lot more user friendly, not so in multifamily. So I'd like to see that kind of ironed out somewhat. And it is true that design review does make for better buildings. What really gets me frustrated is that if you're building like 27 units and you lose two because you have to put in a transformer or something, people decry losing those two units. Well, you've gotten 25 units. You have gotten 25 units. This petition does not say no units, you are not getting any more housing. It says yes and, yes and. and we need to do it right for everyone. Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Phyllis Simpkins, who's followed by Heather Hoffman.

Hi, my name is Phyllis Simpkins. I live at 249 Huron Avenue. I first would like to thank Doug Brown very much for his thoughtful presentation and particularly for his good neighbor concept. The people who live here seem to frequently get lost in the conversation. I live way too close to 99 Wyman Road. These 56 units are gonna be at least 75 cars, and there is no place to put these cars. Spaces on Huron fill up by seven in the morning, people drive here from elsewhere, pull a bike out of their car, scooter out of their car, or walk to the bus stop, go to the square and go elsewhere. So, and there's no enforcement here. I also wanna talk about setbacks. I testified at a council meeting that the five foot setbacks are now, with a balcony, two and a half feet setbacks. And so these setbacks are having these balconies in the abutter's face, if you will. I think we seem to have lost the distinction between affordable housing and market rate housing. And the market rate housing that these developers are building as they tear down two family homes and build five luxury condos is really a problem for those people who want to remain in Cambridge. So I hope the board will take a long look at Doug Brown's suggestions, which seem pretty sort of reasonable in the long run. Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Heather Hoffman, who's followed by Jana Odette.

Hello, Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street. I would like to remind you of what Marilee Meyer said about transformers. Transformers are not the only thing that our zoning doesn't deal with. It nonetheless affects how much you can build. There's stormwater, there's safety, which we have been told is no longer the province of zoning, even though it's one of the reasons for zoning. It is in our preamble. We have public health. Other people spoke of trees and green space as being part of public health. There were all of these things. the solar panels that people put up with the suggestion and assistance of the city. And they're now being told that anyone who put up a solar panel thinking that the sun was gonna be there was really stupid and that they shouldn't have believed anything they were told. We in East Cambridge are used to being told that listening to promises from the city It's a fool's game. And other people around the city are finding that out as well. We need to think about what kind of building we really need and whether, as so many people before me have said, this zoning is not being used for what it was sold as, which is, oh, increase in affordability. It isn't. It isn't, it isn't, it isn't. You cannot build a number, even up to infinity, of million dollar apartments, which is the proponent's number, not mine, and get affordability out of it. You just can't. None of us are that innumerate. Well, maybe some of us are. But the point is, Zoning should not be sold as or considered the only thing. And zoning should work with all of the factors that go into our built environment and what makes a desirable built environment, what makes a built environment that brings about public health, happiness, air, light all of those silly intangibles that make for a good life and a good place to live. Being able to see trees reduces the number of calls to the police. We should think about all of these things in deciding what our zoning should be. Thank you.

And the next speaker is Jana Odette, who is the last hand raised at this point. So hopefully if anybody else thought they were ready to speak, but haven't spoken yet, they can push the raise hand button now. Thank you. You can go ahead.

Thank you. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Great. My name is Jana Odette. I live at 176 Larch Road in Cambridge. I would like to thank both the board and Mr. Brown for their time and thoughtfulness here. I think that, you know, the speaker before me, Heather Hoffman, just alluded to a numeracy. And Mr. McAveney, I believe it was, talked about the fact that increasing the amount of housing is going to lead to an increase in or an increase in affordability, which is just not what we're seeing. And it's a numeracy in its worst possible form, which is it's taking a concept, which is that if you flood the market with something, then the price will go down. And it just doesn't happen to apply in this case. So I think that of all the things that Mr. Brown proposed, a moratorium while we figure this out is really what we need because this isn't a matter of relitigating I think it's a matter of bait and switch, rather, that the people that were elected to this council said that they were running on such and such, you know, increasing affordable housing. And I don't think that that is what they really... have been giving us. This is based on many, many factors. And I think that what the first speaker, Ms. Barkin, talked about, I think that that can be something, because she is talking about affordable housing, that maybe it gets a lot of exceptions to that rule. But I think that it is very interesting that Mr. Brown alluded to the Maybe it's called the missing middle. But the point is that we have very needy people who are looking for affordable housing and then millionaires who are looking to increase their income. portfolio um and yet we're not really talking about teachers and so forth that you know have some income but not a lot anyway i i i like the idea of um increasing the the middle i i like it sorry i'm getting a call i like the idea of um a moratorium while we figure this out and thank you for your time thank you everyone thank you

Thank you. So that is the last of the speakers with their hands raised. I will turn it back over to the chair.

Thank you, Jeff. So we'll now move from public comment to board discussion. Additional written comments may be submitted for the record. So at this point, two board members have questions for the petitioner or for CDD staff on the proposal, the zoning proposal. Ted, your hand's up. With some icon that looked like a hand anyway. Ashley, we'll start with you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted a little bit of clarification. I believe in the staff memo there was, I think I alluded to maybe there was another similar proposal in the works. Did I read that correctly? And if so, What's the status of that? Is it meant to be parallel run or separate process or whatnot? Thank you.

This is Jeff. I'll answer that question. So this is explained in the memo, and I believe I told the planning board about this in an update at one point. The city council jointly through their housing committee and neighborhood long-term planning committee have been reviewing and discussing the housing development since the multifamily zoning amendments back in February of last year. And at the latest discussion or meeting of those committees, CDD staff presented some potential changes that might be considered based on some of the issues and feedback that were discussed at that series of meetings. It really covered some pretty targeted issues having to do with um setbacks in relation to um you know things like the tree protection storm water mitigation and you know other other standards and um you know things that were coming up in as part of interdepartment review we also talked about some issues that some counselors had raised and wanted some more information about having to do with unit sizes and and what kinds of units were being produced um or being proposed as part of multi-family zoning and there was some discussion too of of just process uh related questions and and availability of information about proposals so i'm not really prepared to go into that because i don't want to kind of conflate things too much but um that's a discussion that's been happening um it it's not a petition it's not really scheduled to to become a petition at any particular point There'll be another meeting to discuss those issues in the future and for counselors to consider and weigh in on those. But we did put things out there that people are reacting to, and that was part of the point, was to get people to react to some ideas. And we can share that information with the planning board members as well. We just kind of summarized it briefly in the memo.

And I would second that. I think probably some of that will inform the Ordinance Committee's discussions in the next week or two, you know, because they now have that memo and they may look at what I'm proposing in light of what you've sent in.

Thank you, that was helpful.

Anybody else with a question? Diego, you had your hand up there momentarily or your concern addressed.

I had the same question as Ashley.

Okay, great. Thank you. Well, I have a question. You know, listening to my good neighbors in the public comments here, I can certainly hear concerns from our residents and, frankly, emotion around this. And I'm a resident of this city. I've heard and seen stuff that's going on anecdotally, lots of stories of how the city is transforming both in good ways and also in challenging ways. So I wonder how CDD is potentially helping the council to gather data around what's happening to take these anecdotal issues that we've all been, that every one of us had our attention drawn to and try to draw some conclusions of how the zoning is actually working so that we could help a council process to perfect what we've got in place. So I wonder if Jeff, if you've got an answer to that slightly long winded question.

Um, thanks. I'll try. It's a bit of a bit of a tricky question to unpack. And, you know, again, I don't maybe don't want to get too far off of the, this petition, the specifics of what's being proposed here. But, you know, certainly there, there's been a lot of discussion kind of at a high level of what's, you know, what's going on, what kind of proposals are we seeing, you know, we covered a lot of that in the annual housing report, you know, every year now we take a look back at what's been happening in the past year and our conclusions from from when we did this back in March, and we talked about it with the planning board at the same time, was that we are seeing proposals come forward. Development is responding to the multifamily zoning changes. We're seeing a lot more activity and really a different kind of activity in residential neighborhoods than we had seen. I think most of the development we were seeing in residential neighborhoods was know single family development sometimes enlargements of buildings sometimes you know converting you know more you know the two smaller two families into single families and we've seen you know we're still seeing some of that but we've seen a significant shift you know into more multifamily and increases in in units um and we've seen that kind of starting at a smaller scale and I think what a lot of people are reacting to is you know development on you know smaller scale Lots where you know we're seeing more units than than people are used to seeing um but also uh you know starting we've seen some proposals um which are are looking to utilize you know one of the key policy um provisions of the multi-family zoning was to allow six-story um development you know larger apartment you know, style development for inclusionary housing development. And we're starting to see some of those projects come forward, although, you know, there's we acknowledge that some of those proposals have not really made it to building permit yet because they're There's a variety of reasons. I guess it's a slower process for a larger building, but also some of the economic headwinds have made a difference. So we started with that sort of big picture overview, and I think that hasn't changed very much. We're still seeing, I think, more of the same over the few months since then. And then we've been looking... just a little bit more, I think, a little bit more closely at some of the proposals that have come through. And they're really, frankly, a variety. Once you really drill down and start looking at the proposal, you see a variety of different things in terms of approaches to setbacks, approaches to, you know, to retention of existing buildings. And, you know, we've seen some enlargement of existing buildings. We've seen some demolition and replacement. We've really seen a large variety of different kind of approaches to, you know, to developing you know new units and new housing um you know we we've seen that there are some you know issues when it comes to sort of squaring some of the dimensional requirements in zoning with some of the performance-based standards that we have like the green factor requirement um the storm water management which gets triggered for for a lot of these developments Transformers have been mentioned. That's another piece that's been relevant. So there's a lot of that kind of site design detail that has required some working through, sometimes some back and forth with developers and staff in different departments. A lot of coordination among the various departments that are involved in review. And we've talked about that. And so it is still somewhat of a, I think, a learning process, you know, as we're starting to see what takes shape, because, you know, we, you know, as with a lot of development you know under any kind of zoning it takes a variety of different forms and each project is somewhat unique so you know we're still I would say the overall conclusion I'm being a little bit long-winded just to say I don't I don't want to sound like a cop-out to say that we're seeing a lot of different things and it's hard at this point to see what the what the broader Trends are because you know you can you could point to one project and say, Oh, look, look at all these things that are happening. And then, and then, you know, you look, you look at another project and it's something totally different. Um, so we, I think, you know, we, we can't really draw any sort of firm conclusions, but we're starting to see the direction that some things are taking and, um, you know and as I said the council wants to stay involved in that conversation and we'll we'll do our best to keep the planning board involved in that conversation um at this point it as I mentioned the housing committee and neighborhood long-term planning committees have kind of taken this joint approach to sort of meeting regularly to stay you know in touch with what's going on and to talk about different topics and I think that old guy will probably see more of those meetings in the fall um and we'll keep the plane board updated on on what's happening and and where the conversations are going.

It's reassuring that the CDD has got a citywide view of what's happening and you're working with those housing committees looking for patterns, looking for ways in which to improve the zoning. And that's, I think, what we need. And after all, Mr. Brown, one of Mr. Brown's arguments at the outset was change is happening fast. We've got to do this now. And it's reassuring to That's certainly his point of view. It's reassuring to know that our city staff is well aware of what's happening in the city. In fact, working with our housing committees to look for patterns and way to improve the zoning over short-term and long-term, so.

I was gonna put in a plug for Councilor Zuzzi has an online tracker and it's called Cambridge Redevelopment Tracker. And it's sort of a, you know, crowdsourced effort to document sort of the patterns of change across the city. I think they, right now, I think there's 127 different ones they've got documented. Great. Thank you. Yep.

Any other questions for staff or the petitioner? Okay, seeing none at this point. Discussion amongst the board. What are we seeing here? What gets our attention? Caroline, thank you.

Thank you. So I have a question for the board. As the... still newest board member who joined after the overlay was adopted and the design review process was changed. And we have now a much more advisory role than a approval role on projects of a certain size. I'm curious how you all feel about that and kind of where, if you think that that's, I mean, I will say broadly, you know, I believe that we should not hold up the process and that more housing is better. And I don't think, you know, we want to add additional steps and overregulate. but I am thinking about an AAHO project that came before us while I was on the board that on Broadway, if you all recall, it wasn't super pedestrian friendly. The experience of it from the pedestrian point of view was, it struggled with that. And frankly, I kind of wish we had a little bit more of a chance to kind of put our thumbprint on that. And I don't know if it has changed since they came before us and if they took our advice or not, But I'm curious to hear back from other board members about how you're experiencing that.

Anybody want to take that on? Somebody with longer tenure than Carolyn. Ted seemed to be gesturing.

There he goes. I'll take it on.

Thank you.

Well, I'd say two factors. The one is when special permit was required for everything. It really put the proponents at great risk. I live near the Beach Street buildings that was made and took 10 years from when we approved it to when all the litigation about it was resolved. And so if it's if it's purely discretionary on the board, Yes, we seem to have more power because we can say no to something, but even if we don't do that and say yes, it butters and other people can challenge it and it just drags on for a long, long time. I think we have a tremendous housing crisis. and that that was one of the main rationales for doing away with the special permit and making a lot of things as of right. I somewhat miss the feeling that we could control exactly what was happening. I do think the design review advisory has been working really pretty well. I think the people who have come before us have listened. It would be better if it started earlier. because a lot of times we don't get a proposal until it's really been almost fully baked. And then they say, well, if we don't like something, they can change little things. There was a recent proposal, maybe six months ago, where they came and said, we're starting to think about this, and this is where we're looking at. And we had an opportunity to talk about it. And I think if the design review, Somehow started earlier in the process so that the developers could get our input earlier and then deal with it. That would be better. I don't know quite how we do it, but I think that would be better. I also think the fact that many of the the ahl projects rely upon city financing or cities approval and other areas to a certain extent, and that the. hopefully the financing people are not going to approve something that we and other boards have said, this is really horrible, don't do it. So I don't think we have seen really terrible things happen. I was very pleased when we had the review about, where we've been and where we're going a couple of months ago that the aho really has been working and we have been getting a lot more housing um yes it was always a concern you know will there be instances when somebody tears down a small single or two-family house and builds you know a mcmansion and there were some attempts to try to prevent that from happening um you know if it is happening um there's not much we can do about it at least from my point of view because i think the overall goal of getting more affordable housing and more housing altogether uh is is being promoted by the current zoning um So I'm actually been really pretty pleased with the way everything has been developing. Uh, yeah, I missed that. We may have had more power in the past to put our thumb on the scale and say, no, you can't do this. Um, but I think for the most part, people have been listening. Um, and I think, you know, people want it to look good and want it to work out. And, uh, That's where I are in response to your question of what's been happening.

Wonderful perspective, Ted. You know, I would add this. I mean, I agree. The advisory, to my surprise, actually, the advisory design review seems to be working really well. And I think two things. To have a public discussion about the quality of design is good. It lets other neighbors see and it's facilitated here, right? Because we're kind of formal. lets other neighbors see what the general feeling is about the particular design, makes people more aware of the design and the details and nothing but good can come out of that and people can express themselves in a relatively safe environment and formal environment here at the planning board. And I think it does in a very real way affect proponents. And I would say secondly, as a design professional, who traditionally design professionals chafe at design review, but actually, as an architect, it's a very useful tool, right? Because you can point to your client and say, well, there are some good ideas, or there was something that I was recommending that actually seems to have credence in the neighborhood, and we've tested it. And so it's a way to recognize even enrich the discussion between a client and a design leader or an architect. So that's the perspective of an older architect. It's like, yeah, okay, there's a way in which this is actually a pretty powerful tool to get a better building from my client. I don't think that the requirement of this special permit is vital. I mean, I agree with Ted. I mean, they've got some nostalgia. I'd like to be able to waive that, but no. And with the affordable housing projects, by the way, there's funding that is contingent. It's city-based funding that's contingent contingent on the quality of the review that happens at the planning board. And those funds and the people that control those funds are well aware of the nature of the conversation that happens on these tiles. So in a way, that advisory design review has significant teeth for affordable housing developers. I think that's real. I really do. Ashley.

Thank you. And I was just going to add, you know, when the proposal first came up, I don't remember, was it last year, two years ago, I was concerned that there was going to be a segment of project sizes that are, you know, between the sizes that we would review and versus what would not be reviewed. But I think it's been reassuring to know that You know, the projects are like halfway in between. They still go through staff review and, you know, once in a while I do walk around the neighborhood and then these projects are by pre this project. But, you know, there are projects I see I don't recognize, but they look good. There's nothing crazy. So, yeah. But yeah, it's reassuring. We have good staff. We trust that they have spent a lot of hours reviewing these projects. So that's been reassuring.

Diego.

I think I'll add some perspective on the affordable housing overlay and multifamily zoning change that I experienced because I kind of came into the planning board when those two changes were happening. And they each seemed like such long processes of like, you know, city staff presenting us with documents. really long documents a lot of public input and there were a few few meetings of them and then I remember just researching past meetings with City Council about each of those changes and then I think this has happened before we get a petition to change it and it seems so sudden so when I look at all these petition changes it it kind of sets me back a little bit and I hesitate because before we had a long process where we would get presentations from the staff of these changes and the possible implications. And my mind sees a lot of these like high setbacks and setbacks, designer views and sort of the implications that that would have. And a lot of these seem really restrictive. So it would just pare back a lot of the construction that's happening and projects that are coming out. So, I mean, I just don't know how to approach that because I guess I'm just used to that process because I came on when affordable housing and multifamily was being introduced and now something like this seems to tone it back a little bit, which I think I'm okay with some of these amendments. I did attend the... the housing and long, the neighborhood study meeting, and there was some good discussion on that. So I'm all about sort of having amendments, but I'm just a little worried about these. I'm not sure how other people feel about that.

Okay, Ted.

Yeah, there's no question that there went through many, many months and years of discussions. And I guess my feeling about this petition is that it's really too soon, that we haven't had enough time. From what I've seen, being built so far I've been happy with. And, you know, I like tall buildings, but I think, you know, we have such a housing crisis that we can't stand still. And this petition feels to me like it's a rollback. um you know many years ago when i first got on the board i thought six stories all along mass ave from one end to the other would be great i don't think six stories is sufficient at this point in time that we need the taller buildings the occasional taller buildings i don't think four stories is good enough um And, you know, I think we massage things and the ordinance committee and the city council did. And there's obviously ongoing discussion all the time that I think the process has to go forward. I think we have to see what is actually built. The mansionization, we couldn't come up with anything to prevent it really, but I think to the extent that's happening, it's a small side issue versus the need to build more housing. All housing. I mean, I believe that all housing is good, that if somebody moves into a McMansion, they're probably moving out from a smaller, less expensive house that somebody else is going to be able to move into. And if you get nine stories, you know, you're going to get more people moving into it. You know, I was really impressed by the staff memo, what the changes would mean, and also the comments from the Cambridge Housing Authority and from Just to Start of the impacts that these changes would have on what they've been able to build and what they plan to build. And I think that a lot of these things would be a step back from where I think we have to go to keep building. We're concerned about the tree canopy. We've got to deal with that. We're concerned about climate change. Maybe we're getting flat roofs now because people are moving the utilities up to the roof, getting them out of the basement. I mean, there's so much going on. um you know the city council in its wisdom decided to do away with the parking requirements um you know i don't i don't know that we ever really said do this you know do away with it completely but at least for the aho aho that was going to be the big carrot for developers to to build that and then they changed it and did it citywide, and so they've had to come up with other carrots to get the AHOs being built. And I think we're at it, from my point of view, a pretty good spot right now. Obviously nothing's perfect, and obviously there will need to be changes over time. I just don't think it's quite yet the time to make these changes. That's where I am out on this. Thank you, Ted. Ashley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess first of all, thank you, Mr. Brown for your proposal. I appreciate how you do listen to the community. You know, this summer actually has been a hard one for me. I've recently learned of three or four friends who are in that group. we call maybe missing middle their musicians their teachers one friend is a social worker and one is um the handyman and they've all decided to leave the city because either the landlord is selling or because um it's just too hard to find parking after work and they need a car for work um on the other hand like ted was saying i you know i do think we there has been change in a good direction and there just hasn't been enough time to really see if you know how how things have played out um and i do think you know we do need more time um before any chain like drastic changes are made and um personally one of my concerns with this proposal although i think there's some really great stuff i um you know i think about setbacks a lot um especially after That one recently we had a project where there was no setbacks so there's a wall of the windows and. You know the setbacks I think are. Good thing to think about and like open space, but. I think my concern with this and some of my concern about the original proposal is. It's a lot of blanket proposal or changes. And even within C1, there is different nuances. Different neighborhoods are different. Some neighborhoods may not need any step backs. They currently don't have any step backs. And some do. Some may already have like alleys that they don't need step backs and some don't. THINK OVERALL I WOULD WANT TO SEE A LITTLE MORE NUANCE INSTEAD OF SOMETHING JUST BLANKET IN TERMS OF ALL OF THESE, YOU KNOW, TWEAKING IT BACK. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I STAND. SO I'M EXCITED TO HEAR THAT THE STAFF IS CHATTING MORE OF, YOU KNOW, THE CITY COUNCILORS ABOUT HOW TO MAKE TWEAKS GOING FORWARD. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. FIRST, THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR RESPONSES AND FEEDBACK TO MY EARLIER QUESTION. THANK YOU MR. BROWN FOR THE PROPOSAL AND TO ALL THE COMMENTERS. I am in Ted's camp. I think we should let the city, let the existing zoning play out a little bit longer. Let the city respond as they get feedback. I know they are getting feedback regularly. And, you know, I mean, I think that there's... Potentially you know room to kind of tweak and but to think about it comprehensively and to really understand what the implications are before we before we start kind of chopping this thing up. And I think the city is equipped to do that and to really kind of be able to look at the whole picture and really. HELP TO KIND OF GET EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND THAT. I DO THINK I DON'T THINK MR. BROWN MENTIONED THAT HE MENTIONED THIS SOMEWHERE IN HIS PROPOSAL. I DO THINK THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH DEMOLITION HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IN A VERY UNSAFE MANNER IN SOME INSTANCES. AND I THINK THAT'S NOT A ZONING PROBLEM TO SOLVE. BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT IS Caroline Miller, has been has been on their toes reacting to some of this, so thank you to them and, hopefully, we can kind of get that solved and I appreciate the call out on that and Mr brown's proposal. Caroline Miller, But generally, I think that that we need to let this play out a little bit longer.

Thank you carolyn. Well. First of all, I was struck by something Mr. Brown said, which was being a good neighbor really matters. And starting with your litany of civic engagement, Mr. Brown, you're the very definition of a good neighbor and a good citizen. You know, you're looking at five people here who spend a fair number of their hours in a given week focused on this community. But I could see that... You also do that and I want to applaud your engagement and you're really thoughtful. proposal here. It reeks of a lot of work and a lot of thoughtful work. So thank you. And I really respect that. I would just picking up on what Carolyn said relative to the point that you made, and it isn't actually one of your seven points, but around demolition. Yes, I agree that the The risk around demolition is a building department issue, probably not a zoning issue. But what may be a zoning issue, in fact, is the embodied carbon that we're losing. And one of the questioners, one of the public spoke, alluded to this issue. And that's very real, right? That there's a lot of energy in a building. even an old building, and just putting it in a dump is probably not something that this community should be encouraging without more careful examination. I think if there's one thing I would point to City Council to would be OK. Well, maybe there's something we could do around demolition. Examining that relative to to the pressing image issue of climate change, and that's obviously needs to be balanced against Ted's statement, and I agree, I'm also in Ted's camp, that it's not time. I think we have to let this play out a little more. I was struck by the statistics and the analysis that we got from many of the affordable housing developers of what the impact might be on their proposals of this particular zoning change, and it was dramatic. very dramatic. And so I don't want to I take that that critique of the zoning proposal very, very seriously, because of the actual just critical crisis relative to the housing production in the city. So my first question I wrote in my tablet tonight was timing of the adjustments and I or the beginning of the close of this hearing was still that question. And I think I agree with the wisdom of many of my other board members here that the timing is not right to begin to so dramatically change the proposal that's beginning to produce a lot of change in our community at this point. So that's where I am. So We have a... Oh, Ted, yes, thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I would just like to add my two cents to thank Mr. Brown. He has appeared before us numerous times, and I served with him on the Climate Committee, and I know his heart is... to do what is the best thing for the city and what is the best thing for his neighborhood and all of Cambridge. And I really applaud what he has done in the past and what he's continuing to do. And I thank him for that. We may not always agree, but he always comes before us with very thoughtful thoughts. ideas and engenders very thoughtful discussions, I think. So, Doug, thank you. Thanks, Ted.

And Tom also.

You're welcome. So, we're here at a juncture, I think, in our hearing. I think the will of the board has been expressed by all of us here. We need to make a recommendation on the item to we can continue the hearing, but given the pace at which things are happening here, I think we I don't have a sense that we're proposing an adoption here. I think perhaps we're recommending that this not be adopted, but with some some of the comments that have been made in our discussion here might be added to a memo. So I think that's where we are. So the motion would be to not adopt the petition as drafted and that we had a lively discussion around the issues of why that was and some of the things, including the discussion around demolition, which would be, I think we should transmit to the city council for something to think about. I also appreciate that there's a systematic monitoring of what's happening citywide by CDD that Jeff described in great detail for us. So I'm looking for a motion to not adopt it unless there is somebody that might disagree.

I would so move the motion as you've laid it out.

Great. Thank you, Ted, very much. A second?

This is Diego. Second.

Thank you, Diego. We'll have a roll call vote on that motion. Thank you.

On the motion, Ted Cohen? Yes. Diego Macias? Yes. Ashley Tan?

Yes.

Carolyn Zern?

Yes.

Yes. It's all five members present voting in favor.

Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Thank you. Okay. We'll move to the next agenda on our item, agenda item number two. The next item on the agenda includes design review of parcel and determination of a proposed use at 22 Jacobs Street, which are part of Planning Board 179, a previously approved planned unit development known as Cambridge Crossing. City staff will begin by summarizing why this is before us. Jeff.

Thank you. This this is really we're doing two in one on this. It's really two actions, but they're both related to the same case. So we're kind of bringing them forward together and we can we'll then figure out how to proceed with the finishing them up. Just some background in the special permit. This is the Cambridge Crossing, the original North Point special permit that was granted in 2003. It's been amended several times. The latest major amendments from 2016. There's over 20 building sites that are in development right now. Part of this item includes the design review of a site known as Parcel 1C, which they'll talk about. It's not a building parcel. It's sort of an unbuildable site, but it has some kind of in a key location with some landscape interest. So the board has seen and talked about this site a few times before, and it's coming back now. It's coming back as a subject of design review, which every site um both the building sites and the open space sites are subject to design review and approval by the planning board so the board's action on that would be to approve the design as presented subject to further review and certification by cdv staff or ask for additional study or modifications to be presented at a future meeting so that's the first item the second one is a request to locate a dentist office in the ground floor OF ONE OF THE BUILDINGS AT PARCEL JK. AND THIS DISTRICT OF THE CITY PERMITS A BROAD RANGE OF USES. BUT THE BASE ZONING DOESN'T PERMIT AS OF RIGHT A MEDICAL OFFICE. AND THE PUD SPECIAL PERMIT DIDN'T EXPLICITLY AUTHORIZE THE USE AT THIS LOCATION. BUT THE ZONING DOES UNDER THE PUD ZONING DOES ALLOW THE PLANNING BOARD TO MAKE A WRITTEN DETERMINATION TO ALLOW THE PROPOSED USE IF IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH AND ADVANCES THE POLICY OBJECTIVES OF THE EASTERN CAMBRIDGE PLAN AND THAT IT'S NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE PREDOMINANT RESIDENTIAL USE IN THE PUD IN THE NORTH POINT RESIDENT RESIDENCE DISTRICT SO WE CAN GO BACK AND KIND OF TAKE THOSE TWO THINGS APART WHEN WE NEED TO BUT WE DID ALSO PROVIDE A MEMO THAT SUMMARIZES SOME OF THE RELEVANT GUIDELINES AND FINDINGS AND STAFF COMMENTS So I think we can proceed. I think there might be a presentation from the- From the proponent, yeah.

So yeah, I see that a number of members representing that developer. I suspect there's a presentation here of some sort.

Good evening, yes.

John, if you could introduce yourself and anybody else who may be speaking. in support of your proposal here, the two elements. That would be great. Thank you. Absolutely. Will do. Just getting things set up here.

Okay. Similar to how Doug started, well, I know it's vacation season, so we'll try and keep it brief. Thank you. My name is John Rappaport. I'm on the development and construction team at Divco West. With me tonight is Mark Johnson, head of development and construction at Divco West. John Maxson with Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates. And we're represented by Darren Baird with Goulston Stores and Anthony Galluccio with Galluccio Watson. We're before you tonight seeking two actions from the planning board, design review approval of parcel 1C and a finding that the dentist practice classified as a professional office use is consistent with our neighborhood retail plan as outlined in our PUD and the broader Eastern Cambridge plan. As Jeff mentioned, we've had several meetings with staff on both agenda items and appreciate the feedback and collaboration with the city. We thank staff for their supportive memo on both issues and agreed to continue collaboration on both fronts. As you know, we're requesting design review approval for an area that will help us better manage Cambridge Crossing. Excuse me. With a large portion of the development complete, operations and maintenance have moved to the forefront. Our plans hope to address some of the operational inefficiencies we face today. First, I'm very pleased to report that Divco West has completed all of our mitigation projects required by the special permit. Here you can see some before and after photos of portions of the Monsignor O'Brien Highway. This is a major milestone for Divco West and the city. The next series of slides shows some of our popular events over the summer, all of which highlight the activation of the space and quantity of people coming to the site. It's hard to believe we're in our 10th year hosting CX Summer Nights. As the event has grown, so too has the scope and scale of hosting such events. We hope to see you at the next Summer Nights this Thursday evening. Next is our CX Fit series. This is a free guided fitness class held every Wednesday evening and Saturday morning. You can see from the photos that the classes are well attended and like Summer Nights have grown in popularity over the years. And just last week, we were honored to host a world cup watch party in collaboration with the city and Kendall square association. When we designed the open space, these are the open spaces. These are exactly the types of events we envisioned hosting. And it brings our team great joy to see not only the spaces being used as envisioned, but community being built, people enjoying and appreciating a well-run event and a well-maintained space. Finally, as members of the board may not be aware, all 42 acres of Cambridge Crossing are privately maintained. I share this because Cambridge Crossing is an operationally intensive neighborhood. We're proud of the high standard that we've set in maintaining it, but we've outgrown several of the spaces we currently use and need to make improvements to support efficiencies in operations.

Okay.

With that context, we'd like to present the proposed Parcel 1C plans for design review. Again, I want to thank staff for their support of memo. Of course, we're happy to continue to work collaboratively with the city on the details outlined in the memo. Okay, Parcel 1C is the strip of land outlined here in blue. It's the land over which MassDOT holds an easement in perpetuity for the Gilmore Bridge. It's directly behind two completed buildings on parcel N and parcel H and entirely below the bridge. It's worth noting that the easement has many restrictions which highly constrained what activities and improvements can be located on the parcel. That being said, we have permits and approvals from MassDOT. for the work being proposed with the exception of the proposed public art, which I can speak to later in the presentation. The improvements to parcel one C serve two purposes. The Northern portion is focused on operational efficiencies. The Southern portion is focused on public realm improvements around the community path and sidewalk intersections. This area, This is the area behind Parcel N building and under the bridge. We're proposing a gravel and asphalt surface storage areas for maintenance equipment. We're also installing a concrete block material bin for storage of bulk materials like planting soils, mulch, and gravel. Still behind the Parcel N building and still below the bridge, we're proposing a segment of asphalt paved surfaces that we would locate storage containers to hold the smaller handheld tools and equipment and materials for events. We're also proposing a concrete paved surface for a trash compactor, dumpsters, and recycling bins, all within a fenced enclosure. At the southern end of this plan, you can see the improvements to the area around the community path shown diagrammatically. I'd like to turn the presentation over to John Maxson with Michael VanValkenburgh Associates associates, our landscape architect to describe the improvements to this area in more detail.

Thank you, John, and good evening, everyone. My name is John Maxon. I'm a senior associate and landscape architect at Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates. We have had the pleasure of working with Ditko West on the landscape design at Cambridge Crossing over the last 10 years, and we're glad to be in front of this group to talk about this small piece of the city's urban realm. Before discussing the design, I'd like to thank city staff for the several meetings we've had throughout this process and for the thoughtful collaboration they've brought to the project. We appreciate their support of this plan outlined in their memo and look forward to continuing to refine it with them with a shared focus on improving pedestrian, cyclist, and vehicular safety. So the revised design here establishes a very clear east-west connection by realigning the Jacob Street crosswalk and connecting two ends of the community path and sidewalk together that you see on the left and right of the screen. This simple geometry responds or is responding to changes in the roadway alignment and path relationships to the roadway while still maintaining required clearances around the existing bridge piers. Beyond circulation, we've worked closely with city staff to create a robust and engaging landscape for visitors in this pretty small area. The most prominent element is a reclaimed granite stone feature. This is constructed from boulders that are excavated on site. Through our discussions with staff, we've lowered its height to maintain clear pedestrian and cyclist sight lines and have coordinated with MassDOT to maintain bridge pier minimum access requirements to the north. Other site amenities here include a bicycle repair station, column light poles, and updated cyclist signage. And although most of this site is underneath the bridge, you can see on the left we were able to introduce two new canopy trees along Jacob Street to create a stronger landscape presence here. We're also working with MassDOT on a series of painted graphics on the bridge structure. John Rappaport will talk a bit more about that later, but you'll begin to see them in the following before and after views. So this initial image you can see that there's a very unclear alignment from this Jacob Street crosswalk. We're standing at the community path right now and the crosswalk directs you directly or right at that bridge pier requiring a very sharp turn at the curb cut once you cross the street. In the proposed design, the crosswalk and the community path are a single clear continuous desire line connecting Jacob Street with the pathway beyond. One graphic that we're exploring with MassDOT is a reflective green paint on the underside of the Gilmore Bridge, which will serve as an art installation and a wayfinding device as it aligns to the extents of the community path below. And then on the left, you can see that low stone feature and the new tree plantings. And in this photo you can see the really unclear existing condition so sidewalks just sort of end abruptly in an unmarked patch of asphalt pavement here pedestrian and cyclist routes overlap and travel paths are not clearly defined. the proposed design you can see that the simplified geometry and clear material palette establishes intuitive paths for pedestrians and cyclists moving through the space on the left is the bicycle repair station in orange followed by the concrete sidewalk and then the striped asphalt community path and cyclists now as they're approaching can clearly see both of those stop signs at the jacob street crossing as they approach On the right, granite pavers, the rectangular pavers that you see right in the center of the image, create an accessible buffer between the path and the stone feature, providing space to pause without interrupting the flow of traffic. New column lights emphasize the pathway geometry, improving visibility and creating a clear pathway through the site. You'll also notice the painted bridge structure in this image, which John will talk a bit more about.

Thank you, John. So MassDOT has a separate permitting process for the public art, which requires more specific information about the art and the artists. Since we don't have the necessary details to advance the permit application, we're deferring the process until after the planning board design review approval. We're thinking this is another opportunity to partner with local artists groups as we've done in the past on the areas like retail storefronts and the Brian P. Murphy staircase, both images you're seeing here. And this is also something we're happy to work with staff as we advance this. So this concludes our Parcel 1C presentation. We're happy to answer any questions you might have. I'll defer back to the chair. I will just say we have just, I think, three slides for the dentistry use, so happy to However, the chair wants to handle this, whether we close this one or keep going.

John, I think given the scale of what you're proposing, I think it makes sense for us to also learn about the details of your retail conversion to dentist office, if you can, then we'll take it all as one. Absolutely, absolutely.

Okay. So again, we've met with city staff a few times on this request and we've discussed the impact the proposed use has on the retail storefront in particular. We appreciate staff support in the request. And again, we're happy to continue working with staff and our tenant on the details mentioned in the memo. So tonight we're really asking for the planning board to find that the proposed professional use, office use within a designated space for retail use is consistent with the East Cambridge plan and the CXPUD retail plan. So we're very proud of our retail program and what we've been able to accomplish at Cambridge Crossing. Highlighted in pink on the screen, you can see the retail core at Cambridge Crossing. A key part of the plan is the continuation of engaging public realm up the First Street corridor. We believe the dentist use is aligned with that goal and will activate what is currently vacant retail space. Now zooming in on the parcel JK, the proposed dentist practice is shown here outlined in red along First Street. Infilling the space provides continuous ground floor activation and an engaging pedestrian experience along First Street. The image on the right shows the existing conditions of the storefront, which is partially screening vacant retail space. This slide depicts the extent of frontage that the dentist practice would occupy. We're happy to continue to work with staff to develop frontage that maintains a balance between an engaging storefront and also patient privacy. So this concludes our slides on the dentistry use. I'm happy to answer any questions.

So do board members have any comments or questions for staff or the developer at this time, Ted?

Yeah, thank you. The question is about the dentist's office. Could you go back to the slide which would say show to further back? I just want to see. So this is Parcel JK?

Yes, Parcel JK, 222 Jacob Street.

And the dentist's office would be on the left-hand side. Okay, great. And then my other question is, what does HIPAA actually require?

Great question. I don't know the nuances of the HIPAA requirements. I do know that there's patient privacy and the plans that the dentists have produced has a mix of their waiting room along the storefront. There's a front desk, there's a private office, but there's also patient chairs, like patient rooms where you'd actually be receiving care.

And a follow up to that, if you are a patient inside, can you see out through the film or it's going to be opaque from both directions?

It would be opaque from both directions.

Thank you. Okay, Carolyn.

Thank you. So just to stick on this while we're talking about it, I think what you submitted, the documentation you submitted showed that it would be just a blank white covering on those windows. Is that right?

Our materials did have that. And then we've worked with staff a few times. We've asked the dentist to come back with some other options. we didn't want this hearing on the use determination to be kind of co-mingled with a design review. Some of the proposed screenings had kind of a blend of signage as well as, you know, colorful activation. So I think it's more appropriate. So it wouldn't be the white screening. I think we've moved off of that, but this is something I think we should work with staff on and we'd be comfortable doing that.

Okay, great. And then a question going back to the Parcel 1C. I think I saw something about city staff asking about bollards being installed and I think maybe John Maxon coming back and saying that bollards aren't safe for pedestrians and cyclists and so I'm curious both about on both sides of that one is there kind of staff reacting to any Evidence that cars do turn down that that pathway and two There are tons of bike paths that have bollards at intersections. I'm surprised to hear that that's a safety issue for pedestrians or cyclists, and I'm curious to hear more about that.

Was the first question for staff?

The first question was for city staff, yeah, about just kind of what if there is any evidence that cars are going down there.

Thanks, this is Susanna Beagle in urban design. We, I'm not aware of any evidence of cars going down there, but I'd have to reach out to the transportation folks to confirm. I know there's been incidents in Kendall Square where MIT has added bollards, so we may know about other incidents, but we can reach out to them and we can add that to the continuing design review list if board members would like.

That's okay. I don't need a follow-up from you on that.

I have a question relative to the proposal for murals. You were saying you were waiting for feedback from the planning board before you pursued it. So you're looking for some affirmation that this is a good idea from the planning board's perspective?

Yes, I think approval on the concept. And then we would advance the... we would work with our team and develop, I think a partnership would be most appropriate.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, you have one vote here. We'll poll the rest of the members in a minute. Any other questions for the developer or staff at this point? Doesn't appear to be any, but although this is a general business item, the board's practice is to take public comment on design reviews. So any members of the public who wish to speak should click the button that says raise hand. If you're calling in by phone, you can raise your hand by pressing star nine. As of 5 p.m. yesterday, the board had received no written comments. So let's see, Jeff, if anybody is interested in giving us some feedback or asking questions of the developer.

I don't see any hands raised at this time.

Yeah, neither do I. OK, we've done our due diligence around that. So discussion from board members on the two items that have been brought before us tonight. What's the feeling of the board? Diego.

uh just to also say yes to the mural I think it's a great idea and uh yeah and I'm also concerned about the uh the screen and I know you're gonna go with the city staff review the the film but I'm pro like environmental graphics on that and making it more lively um I don't think that we should not allow the dentist office to be there because I think it's good to have something there as opposed to being vacant.

So it's consistent with their plan? Yep. Yes. Thank you, Ashley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I third the mural. And also my comments are more towards the dentist office. I do think it's a good use, good way to activate the space. But, you know, in order to really activate a space and a frontage, having an opaque space you know, glazing is not the best. I just wanted to throw out a suggestion. I recently did see a dental office I really liked. What they did there was They used a mix of, it was an older building, so they had a mix of glazed windows. But on the front, they had planters and shrubs, which did a lot of the covering without making it look like just one piece of white opaqueness. So something to consider. And I know a staff member also talked about whether it's artwork or art displays. So anything to do to enliven this space would be greatly appreciated.

Great. Thank you. Carolyn.

Thank you. Yeah, I think you'll get unanimous support for the mural. And I like all the plans. I'm supportive of the plans for 1C, though I think a bollard's on either end of that. are probably a pretty good idea. So I'd push back on any concerns about safety on that. And I love Ashley's idea about the plantings in front of whatever screening is on the windows. But having something that I'm glad you'll have something there. Generally, I'm supportive of the use and appreciate all that you guys are doing.

Thank you. So you've got four. Anyway, my tally is you've got four votes for your bureau. So I think you're over that the line.

I'll give you the fifth vote.

It's unanimous. That'll help with the state. Mr. Gluccio, you have your hand up.

Thank you. No, Mr. Chair, while I think an oral health theme may violate the sign ordinance by way of advertising for commercial activity, but I was thinking for the mural, a picture of me getting a tooth extracted with a picture of me eating a Reese's after Halloween just to send the message of what happens to you when you ignore cavities. And Ted, I did want to say, since I really haven't had a legal contribution to the presentation, my title for tonight was From Rocks to Root Canal.

A little humor at this hour is appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Count on you for that. So I very much appreciate how many design ideas have been put into a space underneath the bridge. What a terrific opportunity, right? Often completely ignored in our urban environment. So, and actually putting majority of it to useful purpose, but then where we are crossing it, making something of it. So I think it's a terrific idea and tell the state that the planning board unanimously supports your efforts to paint some of their structural support. So we'll split the vote into two separate things. I also just for the record want to say that I believe that the dentist's office is consistent with your plan and also consistent with the East Cambridge plan as well. So much better than having the empty space there and a dentist office as they're conceived of these days does feel very retail-like. Okay. So is there a motion to grant design review approval subject to continuing design review by staff? And I'll remember to say your name for the work under the bridge. This is Diego. So moved. Great. Thank you, Diego. Second.

Ashley, second.

Thank you. On that vote, can we have a roll call, please, Jeff, on that motion?

On that motion, Ted Cohen? Yes. Diego Macias? Yes. Ashley Tan?

Yes.

Carolyn Zirn?

Yes.

And Thompson Avich? Yes. All members present voting in favor? Great. Five members.

Okay, great. Are there any objections to making a determination that the proposed use as proposed is compatible and advances the policy objectives of the East Cambridge Plan and that it is necessary to support the predominant residential use? PUD OF THE NORTH POINT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. SO DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY OBJECTIONS. IS THERE A MOTION TO MAKE SUCH A DETERMINATION? REMEMBER TO SAY YOUR NAME. THIS IS DIEGO. SO MOVED. THANK YOU DIEGO. A SECOND PLEASE.

THIS IS CAROLYN. SECOND.

Thank you, Carolyn. Jeff, let's have a roll call on that motion, please.

On that motion, Ted Cohen? Yes. Diego Macias? Yes. Ashley Tan?

Yes.

Carolyn Zern?

Yes.

Thompson Avich? Yes. It's all five members present voting in favor.

Great. Thank you. And I do note that it's 10 years that DivCo West has been coming before the planning board. It was 2016 when you started. So you get some kind of a Boy Scout badge for hitting the 10-year mark. Anyway, congratulations. I think it's a really wonderful contribution to the city. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. That concludes the business on our agenda for this evening. Are there any additional comments from staff?

Don't just a reminder that there is a meeting next week. You won't see me if I'm on vacation, but I'll see you at the next one.

Don't they have internet where you're going to be?

I'll have to check.

Yeah. I mean, I'm sure they've got Zoom. Yeah, I would check. All right. Thank you, Jeff. Do board members have anything to add before we adjourn? everybody's exhausted. Seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you everybody.