Planning Board - Planning Board Meeting

We are all set with the live stream and recording, so we should be able to start the meeting at 6.30. Thank you.

Good evening. Welcome to the May 20th 2025 meeting of the Cambridge Planning Board. My name is Tom Cinevich and I am the vice chair. I will act as the chair for this evening's meeting. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025 adopted by the Massachusetts General Court and approved by the governor the city is authorized to use remote participation at meetings of the Cambridge Planning Board. All board members, applicants, and members of the public will state their name before speaking. All votes will be taken by roll call. Members of the public will be kept on mute until it's time for public comment. I will give instructions for public comment at that time, and you can also find instructions on the city's webpage for remote planning board meetings. This meeting is being video and audio recorded and is being streamed live on the City of Cambridge's online meeting portal and on cable television channel 22 within Cambridge. There will also be a transcript of the proceedings. I want to start simply by welcoming a new planning board member tonight. It's her first meeting. Carolyn Zern will be joining us tonight. So welcome, Carolyn. And now I'll ask staff to take board member attendance and verify that all members, including Carolyn, are audible. Thank you.

Thank you, Tom. This is Jeff Roberts from Community Development. H. Theodore Cohen, are you present and is the meeting visible and audible to you?

Present, visible, audible.

Thank you, Ted. Mary Leydecker, are you present and is the meeting visible and audible to you?

Visible and audible.

Thank you, Mary. 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, audible.

Thank you, Carolyn, and welcome. Associate members now, Dan Anderson, are you present and is the meeting visible and audible to you?

Thanks, Jeff. Yes, to all the above.

Thank you, Dan. Joy Jackson, are you present? Is the meeting visible and audible to you?

Present, visible, and audible.

Thank you, Joy. Mary Flynn, are you present? Is the meeting visible and audible to you? Just to confirm that Mary is absent. And then back to Tom Sieniewicz. Can you confirm the meeting is visible and audible to you?

Present, visible, and audible.

Thank you, Tom. So that means that we have six planning board members present and two associate members.

Great. Thank you, Jeff. The first item is an update from the Community Development Department. So please also introduce any staff that's present at tonight's meeting. Jeff.

Thank you, Tom. Once again, Jeff Roberts. I'm the director of zoning and development in the Community Development Department. I have with me some staff from the zoning and development team, Swathi Joseph, and Evans Petrini, and we will likely be joined by some staff on our urban design. Oh, we have, I'm sorry, we have with us from the Transportation Department, Ryan McKinnon. They'll be joining us for the second hearing of this evening, and then we will probably have some urban design staff for the second hearing, but this is what we have for now. So just since there's a lot to get through, I'll just quickly go through the update. We have two public hearings this evening. We'll get to the first one shortly. The second one is a special permit case, 350 Massachusetts Avenue. So if you're tuned in for that hearing, hold tight, and we'll be getting to that later. The next meeting we have scheduled is not for June 10th. And for the June 10th meeting, we have confirmed the annual utility report. This is the meeting where similar to the town gown, we get reports from the Cambridge department of public works about the city's infrastructure and from the water system from the water department. And we also get updates from Eversource and vicinity to utilities, utility providers within the city. And we have a discussion of any future plans related to utilities in the city. So that's June 10th and that's all we have scheduled at this time. So stay tuned for any updates on additional meetings going forward. Then the last thing I'll mention for updates, the board knows we have been hearing a lot of zoning petitions. So I like to kind of give the score update on zoning petitions that we've heard. We're hearing one tonight, but of the other ones that the planning boards heard, the affordable housing overlay Heights zoning petition, the floodplain amendments and amendments to cannabis regulations, those all have been passed to a second reading. by the city council at this point. So those are teed up for potential adoption as we move into June. The zoning petition by Biomed Realty, which is related to development along Charles Street, that just had its hearing at the ordinance committee this afternoon, and that received a positive recommendation back to the council. So we'll likely be seeing that move forward in June as well. So that's where we are on four. of the zoning petitions that have been before the board. So with that, I'll turn it over to the chair, unless there's any questions.

Any questions from board members? Seeing shaking heads. Okay, we'll move right on to agenda item one. The next item on the agenda is a public hearing on a zoning petition by Mashla Marusso. at OWL to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance in sections 5.28.21, 8.22.1, 8.22.2, and table 5.1 to remove gross floor area, GFA, and floor area ratio, FAR, limitations for religious uses. Permit conforming additions to nonconforming structures without limitation for religious uses. and permit religious uses with the same dimensional limitations as the residential units, as residential uses, except that in a residence C1 district, permeable open space would not be required. Buildings would be permitted up to six stories and 74 feet above grade without meeting inclusionary housing requirements. and buildings taller than 35 feet and three stories above grade would not be required to notify neighbors and hold a meeting. I understand Mr. Anderson has his hand raised. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm a non-voting member on this issue, and so I'm going to recuse myself.

Thank you. Okay. We'll have an overview. First, CDD staff will begin by explaining why this is before us. and then we'll hear from the petitioners, then take public comment, and then the planning board will discuss the petition and decide whether to transmit a recommendation to the city council. Jeff.

Thank you, Tom. Just briefly, we'll kick off this case before the petitioners come forward. So this is a new zoning petition. It is from a resident group of at least 10 registered voters. Staff have provided a memo with some just contextual information related to this petition and we're available to answer any questions if they come up. I'll just give an update on the Ordinance Committee because the Ordinance Committee did also have their public hearing this morning on this petition. just to make sure you're aware of the outcome of that. They concluded by keeping the subject matter in committee. They requested that the city's law department provide a legal opinion related to some of the legal matters that are raised related to the petition. So with that, I'll turn it back over.

Great, thank you. THE PETITIONER WILL NOW DO HIS PRESENTATION, AND IT'S BEING REPRESENTED BY BENJAMIN TYMANN, AS I UNDERSTAND FROM THE RECORD HERE. PLEASE BEGIN BY INTRODUCING YOURSELF AND ANY OTHER SPEAKERS, AND YOU WILL HAVE UP TO 30 MINUTES TO PRESENT, BUT WE HOPE YOU CAN BE AS CONCISE AS POSSIBLE. WELCOME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VICE CHAIR Sieniewicz AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD. YES, MY NAME IS BEN TYMANN. I'M WITH THE LAW FIRM TYMANN DAVIS & DUFFY IN BOSTON, AND I'M Pleased and honored to be here representing Lubavitch of Cambridge, also known as Chabad House. We are proponents of this citizen's petition to amend Cambridge zoning to put religious use on par with certain residential zoning changes that were recently enacted. With me this evening to present are my colleagues from Weill Gottschall in New York. We do plan to divide the presentation into two parts. The first part will be handled by Weill Gottschall, and as indicated on the cover page that Ms. Joseph has put up, the first portion will be an overview of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a federal law also known as RELUPA. And then I will take the 2nd part where I will go through some of the particulars of the 3 sets of zoning amendments that we are that are proposed by this petition this evening. So, with that, I will turn it over to while.

Good evening, everyone. Thanks very much for the opportunity to present on this very important issue. My name is Yehuda Buckweitz. I'm pro bono counsel to the claimants here. I've been working on religious liberty cases and matters for over 20 years, including RELUPA matters. I've been before many, many municipalities over the years, and I prefer that court, but sometimes it's court as well. I reviewed the memo that your CDD staff prepared, and I think it was very well done. I think it shows the key issues as they exist in terms of your historical zoning rules, the new zoning rules. some of the legal issues as well as the very small amount of religious uses that there are in Cambridge and identifying that it's actually narrowing. Very few new religious uses are being built and for the most part in recent period of time religious uses have actually been converted to residential. The amendments that we've proposed aim to take advantage of the recent housing amendments and to bring them forward to also cover religious uses and which has the added benefit of preventing future violations of RLUPA like what the Chabad unfortunately has had been subject to. It also is very importantly would be to the benefit of all religious applicants in all of the city of Cambridge regardless of denomination, And they would be able to benefit from from having the same rules that are now being applied to housing to be applied to religious uses as well. I will say, because there was at least one comment in the CDD, which I thought was a good comment about what does it mean for Other non-religious uses, such as educational and other institutional, it's very clear that the religious use can be on its own, can stand on its own. RELUPA would allow it. The zoning amendments would allow it. It wouldn't lead to the need for, you know, education. USES TO HAVE TO BE EXPANDED AS WELL. AND THAT'S POINTED OUT CLEARLY BY YOUR MEMO. AND I THINK ALSO, YOU KNOW, THE MEMO AS WELL SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, RELIGIOUS USES ARE MORE DISPERSED IN THE CITY, OCCUPY FAR LESS OF THE CITY THAN EDUCATIONAL USES AND ARE DEVELOPED QUITE RARELY. SO IT WOULD BRING RELIGIOUS USE CONSISTENT WITH you know, federal principles and federal law, as well as, you know, for the benefit of all religions. So what is the RELUPA? RELUPA is the federal statute enacted in 2000 by Congress and signed into law at that time. It was a reaction to a broader law that previously covered many, many, many more activities, but was struck down by the Supreme Court. So Congress, in a very bipartisan way, as you'll see from one of the comments I have below, got together and said, what are the things that we can put in really sufficient evidence into the congressional record and say, these are activities that we can, we must prevent discrimination in certain local jurisdictions. And they hit the two things were religious land use and institutionalized persons. I'm not sure how many different things institutionalized persons and religious land use have in common, but they both have suffered, unfortunately, some discrimination. So RELUPA protects individuals and religious congregations in the free exercise of the First Amendment to practice religion free from government regulation or adjudication that discriminates on the basis of religion. The co-sponsors were Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy and Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. You know, again, Really both ends of the spectrum coming together for this principle. And one of the comments that we have from the congressional record that we put in the record here is the right to assemble for worship is at the very core of the free exercise of religion. Churches and synagogues cannot function without a physical space adequate to their needs. and consistent with their theological requirements. The right to build, buy, or rent such a space is indispensable adjunct of the core First Amendment right to assemble for religious purposes. And there's a number of other very interesting things in the Congressional record as well, and one of the things that it two of the things that they specifically identified as unfortunately applicants throughout the United States who have had suffered from some discrimination were synagogues and was described as black churches as well. Next slide please. So RLUPA protects religious rights in three ways. There's three different prongs of RLUPA, any one of which is enough to sustain a claim. The first is substantial burden. So it prevents governments from implementing a land use regulation, a manner that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise unless the government demonstrates that that burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest. So quite a high standard. Anti-discrimination as well prevents governments from implementing a land use regulation that discriminates against an assembly or institution on the basis of religion and then equal terms. which prevents governments from imposing or implementing a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a religious assembly or institution. So the one of these... Next slide, please. The one of these that comes up the most often in the cases that I've been involved in is substantial burden. And... And that's when there's government conduct, oftentimes it's a zoning board, sometimes it's other things like historical commissions and things like that, where a government body engages in conduct that imposes substantial burden on religious exercise of a person, institution, or assembly. And here are just some examples from the United States, but there's many, many, many, many, many others out there. The examples that are here talk about denying permits needed to facilitate growth of membership, times when land use restrictions are imposed arbitrarily, capriciously, and lawfully. Also, delay, uncertainty, and expense in constructing a project or obtaining necessary approvals are, you know, very often the hallmark of these types of cases. Next slide, please. Once established, the government action is presumptively unconstitutional. And then the burden shifts to the government entity to challenge it, to show that it's in furtherance of the compelling government interest and the least restrictive means of fulfilling that interest. So this is a very high burden. It doesn't mean it's not possible to be met, but it is very difficult to meet once a substantial burden has been established. There is not a need to show that there was an intent to discriminate, although unfortunately oftentimes that is the case. Next slide, please. So under the Supremacy Clause, the LUPA overrides any local zoning regulations, and a RUPA violation can be brought by private parties, by the Department of Justice, by attorneys general, and a decision of a local zoning board, which substantially burdens the right of exercise of religion, is again presumptively unconstitutional and can result in overturning by a federal court. Oftentimes, it's just... The decision is set aside and the project moves forward, but there are instances where there are money damages, including attorney's fees, contempt, pensatory damages, and even in certain instances, punitive damages. There's also cases that I'm aware of of insurance carriers that have dropped municipalities with a history of Lupa violations or have increased premiums. I know that they're There is quite a bit of training that some insurance carriers that I've seen have provided to municipalities that were not in compliance. Next slide, please. Just a few examples of cases over the years where there actually have been significant compensatory damages. Some of these were instances we saw earlier. The couple of just ones to call out, the second one, Fortress Bible, that was one where it was really focused on delays and delays and delays and delays that ended up leading to the inability to build that church. The third one, Westchester Day School, was of interest to a lot of people in part because the town of Mamaroneck, the village of Mamaroneck there was accused of really taking too much into account of a very small but vocal group of neighbor objectors. And, you know, what sort of that case has told people and that case is quite, you know, it's already like 17 years old at this point, has told municipalities, you know, it's your job to stand up against people that are objecting simply because they don't want to have a certain religious institution in their neighborhood. Next slide, please. By allowing religious applicants to expand, you know, as of right, these proposed zoning changes will help the city to make sure that it and all of its different subparts are in compliance with RELUPA, and it'll sort of on a citywide basis for all religions across the entire city reclaim sort of the discretion that some of these individual agencies and actors have by ensuring that the zoning laws are consistent with the most recently passed housing laws and you know, it will have the benefit of limiting opportunities for certain, you know, of the many different parts of Cambridge to improperly delay or deny applications that should not be. And having fewer clear rules for religious institutions, the laws will limit the potential for misunderstanding, animus, or improper application of zoning laws in a way inconsistent with federal law. So, you know, in the big picture, then I'll go through the actual amendments, almost all of which are just adding the words religious use the big picture. You know, we've had our our our group has had a not the best experience. We're hoping we're working with a federal mediation right now, which is public. We're hoping to have a new approved plan, but we also want to make sure that, you know, nobody else has to go through the kind of situation we had and that this is that we bring the city of Cambridge laws, which were recent, very recently amended for housing in line with federal law and to have them be beneficial and and consistent for religious uses as well thank you ben thank you huda

AND THANK YOU, MS. JOSEPH, FOR ADVANCING TO THE NEXT SLIDE. AGAIN, MY NAME IS BEN TIMON AND I'M GOING TO GO OVER THE PARTICULARS OF THE THREE SETS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THANK YOU. SO AS YAHUDA MENTIONED AND AS THE BOARD UNDERSTANDS, THESE ARE CHANGES THAT WOULD BENEFIT RELIGIOUS USES ACROSS THE CITY. We do have a specific proposal that is slated for a hearing in front of the BZA on June 12th for the particular project that Harvard-Habbad has proposed. these changes would you know would certainly benefit that project but more broadly they are intended to to bring level with the housing amendments zoning protections for religious purpose uses as well i've done a lot of um subsidized housing work over my 22 years or so in practice. And so I, you know, like many people in the land use and zoning field in Massachusetts, found the changes that the City of Cambridge made earlier this year to be, you know, very admirable and truly groundbreaking. I mean, they're very far reaching and groundbreaking changes. And as Yehuda mentioned, the common thread of these amendments is to add religious purpose uses to certain of those recent housing changes. So starting with proposed amendment number one, it's quite straightforward in that GFA and FAR were exempted as part of these new housing amendments when it comes to residential uses, and this would add religious uses as exempt from GFA or FAR requirements. Next slide, please. Proposed amendment number two has a few different parts and they all pertain to prior nonconforming structures and the expansion of those. As the board knows under typical zoning law in Massachusetts and elsewhere, the expansion of a prior nonconforming structure or use typically requires a special permit where there's a determination as to whether or not that expansion will or won't be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. What the recent housing amendments in your city did was, and this is stated in the fourth line from the bottom of this particular provision, was to exempt expansion of residential non-conforming structures from that typical process. And so it says, except there shall be no limit in area or volume for an addition containing residences as listed in the particular part of the table of uses. And so, as you see, we have added religious purpose uses to that exemption from the conventional prior nonconforming structure expansion process. Next slide, please. Thank you. This slide and the next one are also part of proposed amendment set number two. And in 8.22, the exemption that was given to housing for a special permit or other special zoning relief in connection with expansion of a prior non-conforming use, APPLIES TO OFFICE BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. AND SO THAT'S WE'VE AMENDED THAT HERE. WE ARE NOT IN SUCH A DISTRICT FOR THE BANKS STREET PROJECT THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF THE BZA. BUT AGAIN WE ARE SEEKING TO HAVE RELIGIOUS PURPOSE USES PUT ON PAR WITH RESIDENTIAL USES IN THIS MANNER ACROSS THE CITY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. The next slide simply makes the same change, but in residential districts, which, um, as as the board knows, um, the property in question here is in the in the C1 residential district. Next slide. All right, and the final set of amendments are to the table of dimensional requirements. And so as part of the residential zoning amendments that were made earlier this year, for example, as the board knows, six stories was set as a maximum by right height. And you see that in column two. We are seeking to have religious purpose uses put in that same column of residential. And so you can see here, we've highlighted residential C1, which is the 1st district listed in the table and the district where my client's property is. And so if this were to pass, then the religious uses would be subject to the same liberalization of some of the dimensional requirements. And focusing on the footnotes 1 and 2 and 37, which you can see on this slide, the parentheticals in the bottom row are footnotes. And if we could go to the next slide. Thank you. I'd like to highlight some of the proposed amendments to those footnotes. So footnote number 1 pertains to open space. And as the vice chair stated at the beginning, when he was summarizing some of these changes, we do indeed seek to be exempted from. the open space requirements that are really geared more towards residential uses so on the one hand you know we believe it is appropriate and correct and consistent with ralupa that religious purpose uses be given the same dimensional BENEFITS AS WERE RECENTLY GIVEN TO RESIDENTIAL USES, BUT THEN THERE ARE SOME VERY RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC AND HOUSING SPECIFIC FOOTNOTES AND EXTRA REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE THERE THAT REALLY JUST DON'T APPLY TO RELIGIOUS PURPOSE USES. AND HAVING AT LEAST 50% REQUIRED OPEN SPACE IN THE C-1 DISTRICT IS ONE SUCH EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT REALLY IS MEANT FOR for residential purposes and not for, you know, what for religious purpose uses in any sort of example that at least I'm familiar with where that would be applied to a non-residential use. Next slide, please. Similarly, the six-story and 74-foot height change that was applied to residences came with a couple of provisos. Here, 2A stated that in order for a residence to avail itself of the six-story height permission, it would need to meet inclusionary housing requirements. Again, this is not a requirement that applies to a religious purpose use. Harvard Habat's particular proposal does call for parsonage housing, but that falls within the non-residential and religious purpose use provisions and classifications of the zoning ordinance. And there really is no connection between the inclusionary housing requirements in Section 11.203, which apply to housing that is put out on the market and available to all people versus religious purpose, parsonage housing. And so that is why we have added this language that says if the use is primarily residential to make clear that this particular requirement applies just to primarily residential structures and not to non-residential structures such as religious purpose use. And the next, the final slide, I believe. So here, and this is footnote 37, which again is one of the many footnotes that's part of the table of dimensional requirements. Yehuda made reference to some of the difficulties that arise in some RLUPA cases where there can be violations based on hearings and sometimes lengthy processes in municipal government where some of these sentiments sometimes come to the fore. Here we have asked that religious purpose uses not be subject to the consultative non-binding planning board advisory process that is set forth in footnote 37. That's not because we don't, you know, wouldn't like to be coming back in front of this board to talk about the project if these amendments were to pass, but we feel that there are sufficient protections in the context of of religious purpose use zoning evaluations where this is both unnecessary and something that could be susceptible to problems under some of the RELUPA legal standards that Yehuda outlined. and so for that reason we have asked that we uh that religious purpose uses not be subject to this which again does seem to be more appropriate for a residential development within the residence c1 district so with that um i think my colleagues Yehuda and Chris and myself are all um eager to field whatever questions the board may have, although I understand you may be taking public comment next.

Thank you very much for a very thorough presentation of the issues before us. Mr. Timon's right, we're going to take some public comment. Unless the rabbi is part of your team, Mr. Timon. Is he part of your presentation?

He is indeed. He's a panelist, so that's right.

Okay, I'd like to recognize Rabbi Zirachi, I guess it is. Forgive me for mispronouncing your name.

It's okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. And I want to thank you and the committee for the time to allow us to bring this petition this evening. I just felt, I wasn't planning on, but I felt I wanted to make a comment and a request or clarification. As the staff memo indicated, there's been almost no building of religious time, if anything, we've been seeing declines, spaces that were built for that purpose are being converted to residential use. It reflects a history, a very rich history of houses of worship that were built of extraordinary sizes, shapes, and architecture to accommodate and honor faith communities who chose to worship. That history is a little bit of an unfortunate one as it relates to the Jewish community, is the historical spaces that the city once had for the purpose of Jewish worship and congregations, those were converted to housing decades ago. It goes to a period, maybe a little bit of a darker period, where Jews were uncomfortable gathering in public spaces and complications of assimilation, integration, and anti-Semitism. Most of those Jewish spaces don't exist There's almost no Jewish convening spaces in our city. Two of the people generally point at, one at Harvard and MIT, are on property owned by the university. Those are the Hillels at Harvard and MIT. There is a synagogue on Tremont Street and a small house on Magazine. Considering the number of Jews that live in the city and the increasing, if you might say, coming home to Jewish tradition, and to jewish observance and jewish practice that exists within our city um the urgency for for space that can accommodate uh the jewish community in our case it's intense in the winter outdoors and that's a separate discussion um is a great urgency so you know we're we're delighted that um that the it's been recognized outside of this venue that our rights, our federal rights were being violated and that's being addressed, but we're certainly seeking to ensure this doesn't happen to anyone as a result of this process. My request then is, and this follows this morning's hearing, Not all the rules of these public hearings, but I would ask the chair and the committee if there are rules that require public comment to stick to the substance of the issues to please try to enforce that because we did witness and hear comments this morning that were slandering and making all kinds of characterizations about our intent and our efforts. that's not relevant to the petition. So, for example, our NubaPost project honors the existing number of residences that we currently have on Bank Street. It doesn't reduce it. I know that's not the subject of discussion, but if people are going to use the public setting to say things that are just untrue about who we are and about the Jewish community, I'm happy to address them if it's relevant. But if they're not relevant to the discussion, We shouldn't create the space for people just to throw out characterizations of bullying or whatever nature that we're being accused of for just trying to ensure our rights and the rights of the Constitution and of congressional law. So that's my request. Hopefully there's no need for any authority to kind of ensure that, but I have no choice after this morning and people had some feedback in the community that a lot of the comments and statements went unanswered by the hosts of the meeting. Hopefully we don't have a repeat of that here.

Thank you. We'll do our very best. Our experience here is it's a pretty civil It's a very civil discussion. We'll do our best to honor you.

Thank you so much.

Okay. So this is a public hearing and we're going to take public comment next. Any members of the public who wish to speak should now 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 comments on this petition from Helen Walker and Alan Joslin. Written communications received after 5 p.m. yesterday will be entered into the record. So we'll now see how many hands are raised. I see six hands. So I'll now ask staff to unmute the speakers one at a time. You should begin by saying your name and your address and staff can confirm that they can hear you. After that, you'll have up to three minutes to speak before you wrap it up. All right, Jeff.

Thank you, Tom. I'm going to read the names as they show up on the Zoom. I apologize if I get any names wrong or if it's a different person. In any case, you should introduce yourself with your name and address when you start. And I'll give the next speaker and then the speaker after so that the speaker after is ready. So Alan Jocelyn is the first speaker and will be followed by Deborah Epstein.

Hear me? Yes. Great. Thank you very much. Members of the Planning Board, I'm Alan Joslin, 36-year resident of 36 Bank Street, a 22-year member of the Cary Corner Neighborhood Association, and a direct abutter of the petitioner. On behalf of over 100 neighborhood leaders and concerned citizens across Cambridge who signed a petition we provided you via email, we strongly oppose this proposed zoning amendment. which seeks sweeping exemptions from a longstanding zoning protections that serve all residents of the city. In summary, the proposed amendment would remove critical size and scale restrictions on the construction of religious use projects citywide, allowing religious buildings to be built at six stories while eliminating requirements for affordable housing and neighborhood notification. These requirements were extensively discussed and incorporated in the recently approved multifamily zoning amendments. Additionally, now that the city is no longer exempt from the Dover Amendment, exempting religious institutions from shared institutional zoning standards, the city will create a precedent that will extend to non-religious educational institutions, despite what the petitioner has just told you. This proposal also contradicts the city stated commitment to affordable housing. For example, the petitioner's project on Bank Street alone has resulted in the loss of seven housing units. Granting blanket exemptions to institutional development will accelerate the displacement of housing stock. and increased neighborhood disruption due to increased intensity of use. What we're concerned about is how large these projects, the larger the projects, the more usage and higher population comes into a neighborhood. Both conditions that threaten the long-term stability of Cambridge's residential fabric. We ask you to be very clear-eyed. This proposed zoning amendment arises in the wake of the petitioner's unsuccessful request for a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeal. for a proposed project well in excess of allowable FAR. Along with a frivolous lawsuit against the city for claim discrimination, the petitioner is now proposing a citywide zoning change to override the BZA's decision. Lastly, don't let the petitioner threat about relupa swayu, that a city does not discriminate around religious use and currently treats institutions equally under the law. We ask you to postpone hearing this amendment pending completion of the petitioner's suit against the City and the City's thorough legal review around the fine points of the Dover Amendment and RELUPA. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is Deborah Epstein, who's followed by James Williamson.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Thank you. I have owned and lived at 36 Bank Street for the last 37 years and live next to the properties owned by the applicant since they moved here 26 years ago. We always had a cordial relationship focused on our kids and grandkids offering congratulations for Jewish passages. We have been very supportive of their activities through those years. Thus, I am saddened to have to state my objection to the zoning amendment that they are proposing. The difference between residential and institutional use in the case of a building the size that is proposed is the difference between an occupancy of perhaps 100 for residential and 1,000 for institutional assembly. When I pointed this out, I was insulted by the applicant and told that I don't know how Jewish rituals work, which as a Jew, I do know how Jewish rituals work. The petitioner would like us to believe that the spaces would not be used concurrently. However, as an architect of public buildings, I know that this cannot be controlled. So many situations would make them want to use the spaces concurrently, and if the spaces exist, and if the zoning allows that occupancy, I believe that there will be 1,000 people next door with some frequency. Chabad has had events on Bank Street and in other locations with upwards of 1,000 attendees. 1,000 extra people on Bank Street required police to close the street, preventing residents from getting to their homes. It's a lot of people for a small street. We have been supportive of the expansion of their building to a size and capacity that is compatible with this neighborhood. What they are asking for in a zoning amendment is to go around the neighbors to do as they please, no FAR restrictions, no setbacks, virtually no height limitations, no discussion. Approving this amendment will provide for intrusions in residential neighborhoods throughout Cambridge, specifically without oversight, without discussion, without buy-in or collaboration with neighbors. This invites religious institutions to make Cambridge residential neighborhoods unlivable at will. I implore the Planning Board to fully understand RLUPA and the Dover Amendment and not just accept the petitioner's explanation and threats of further legal action before recommending a zoning change that can make such a foreseeable mess of our neighborhoods. Thank you.

Thank you. And can you state your name and address again for the record? I'm not sure we forgot that at the beginning.

Sure. Deborah Epstein, 36 Bank Street.

Thank you. So the next speaker is James Williamson, who's followed by Helen Walker.

Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. So my name is James Williamson. I live in Churchill Ave in North Cambridge. Been a resident of Cambridge for over 50 years. I'm very familiar with this neighborhood. It's, to me, kind of a cherished little pocket of modest homes and a little residential neighborhood that has survived the aggressive expansion of Harvard for decades. And which is my understanding is that those battles led to institutional regulations around institutional expansion and the envelope for institutions like Harvard. And this is really in a boundary area where it really seems like the proposed use is is someone you know they're interested in really jumping across that boundary to create a significant institutional use an institutional looking building in what remains of this nice residential neighborhood so on on that from a planning perspective from a community perspective i think it's something that deserves to be resisted. I listened to some of the legal argument that was presented earlier. I didn't hear the public comment. I don't know what was said during public comment. I do think that I would urge the planning board to err on the side of allowing broad comment as long as it's not egregiously insulting, which I haven't heard. because I think it's important for people to be able to express their views and talk about the experiences that they've had during this process, which I've heard on previous occasions, you know, hasn't always been great. I think that the interpretation of the legal interpretation sounds a bit convoluted to me. I didn't, you know, I'd have to spend some time studying it. I do think that obviously to get the legal department of the city to express their analysis and present that would be important to happen as a previous speaker said before jumping into this would probably make sense. We don't have that legal opinion. I think it seems to me it's somewhat convoluted there. They're sort of patching together a little of this and a little of that and coming up with what is basically a change that is catered to what they want to achieve here. Um, so I, I also don't think that it's great. If you look at where the existing institutions are in the city, there's a, you know, if this were in fact going to be done by every congregation or every organization, the concentration of it would be in, uh, parts of Cambridge that already to some extent, but Riverside being one of them mid mid Cambridge being another, that certainly Riverside have experienced disparate impact. So I appreciate your consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. The next speaker is Helen Walker, who's followed by Heather Hoffman.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Thank you for the chance to comment. I'm Helen Walker of 43 Linnian Street. You have my letter already, so I won't be repeating that. You also have an excellent CDD memo, which, as you can see, clarifies that the extra dimension given to housing was specifically for the purpose of increasing the affordable housing stock. And that's not necessarily the case in the current circumstances. What I really wanted to say was that at the meeting this morning, the city council determined it was unable to make a determination on this until it had a fair analysis of all the legal issues from the city solicitor. And so they held... in committee until that analysis should be ready. And I'd like to say that I think the planning board should do the same. I think the issues are extremely complicated. I think there are intimations that there are many legal issues that would be threatening if the petition were not adopted. And I think the city solicitor may have a more refined outlook on that that you might want to wait for. Thank you.

Thank you. The next speaker is Heather Hoffman, who's followed by Doris Jurisen.

Hello, Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street. I was pleased to note that the petitioners improved the presentation by leaving out all of the wrong stuff that they said this morning. So I thank them for listening to me. But they didn't even talk about the Dover Amendment. And that's a very important thing. I disagree with the people who came before me who said that the CDD memo was good. I thought it was lame. I thought it left out the really important stuff about the Dover Amendment and Cambridge's previous exemption from it that it torched in February. So I'm gonna read to you a couple of sentences from CDD's 1981 Institutional Growth Management Plan. Chapter 565 of the Act of 1979 authorized Cambridge to impose use restrictions on the use of land for religious and educational purposes in residentially zoned districts requiring at least 1200 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. In 1980, chapter 387 of the act of the general court, additional home rule legislation extended this authority to apply to Harvard University exempted from the original law. Cambridge thus became the first community in Massachusetts to be granted the power to directly regulate institutional growth. As many people have noted, the reason that Cambridge wanted this power was institutional encroachment in residential districts that was taking away housing. Because amazingly enough, our current housing crisis is not new. We have had housing problems for decades. And so I echo everyone who has called for real legal opinion, because there were a whole lot of issues. And I also have this intense yearning for the return of the establishment clause to First Amendment jurisprudence, but I probably shouldn't hold my breath on that. I am not convinced by anything that I have read and by anything the petitioners have said that you need to go as far as they want to satisfy federal law, which I think goes farther than the Dover Amendment. And so I hope that you will in fact wait for a considered legal opinion from the city solicitor's office before you go making any decisions about whether this is a good or required idea. Thank you.

Thank you. The next speaker is Doris Jurison, who is the last hand that's raised. So if you haven't spoken yet and you plan to speak, now is the time to please push the raise hand button so we can have you in the queue and make sure we get your comments in. So we do have another hand raised. Doris Jurison will be followed by Marilyn Meyer.

Hi there, can you hear me?

Yes.

All right, great. Hello, my name is Doris Jurison, and I and my family have lived at 22 Bank Street for the last 24 years. I'm also a member of the Kerry Corner Neighborhood Association, which made many attempts to work with Lubavitch of Cambridge to achieve a positive outcome. I'd like to voice my opposition to this zoning amendment. I'm deeply concerned about the impact to the Kerry Corner neighborhood as well as the city at large. This proposal is based on a single institution that did not like the outcome of a zoning decision, so it is pursuing fundamental changes to all of Cambridge so they can build a structure that is simply too dense for the Bank Street neighborhood. The proposed change removes some fundamental tools the city uses to manage and maintain appropriate density critical for the health and safety and well-being of our city and its inhabitants. Without these tools to restrict density, we can expect to see more housing stock disappear and oversized structures appear without any neighborhood notification or city oversight. Lubavitch Inc. is not the only property owned by a religious institution on Bank Street, which leads me to believe many neighborhoods throughout Cambridge have properties that are owned by religious institutions. And this change could significantly change the amount of encroachment of institutions across Cambridge. And none of this does anything to help us achieve our housing goals, which we are desperate to do. I ask you not to accept this amendment and thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. The next speaker is Merrilee Meyer, who is still the last speaker. So begin.

Hi, I'm Marilyn Meyer, Condena Street. And it really is important for the public to be able to speak their concerns without fear of retribution. And embedded in the presentation that there is a threat of lawsuit in the underpinnings. But in any case, Harvard affiliated Chabad seeking to expand into Siwon Residential District. It is also in the middle of a lawsuit against the BCA while simultaneously trying to make the city amendment amend its housing zoning in its favor. THIS PETITION NOW IMPLICATES THE LOSS OF CAMBRIDGE'S FORMAL EXEMPTION FROM THE DOVER AMENDMENT, WHICH PROTECTED NEIGHBORHOODS FROM RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIONAL EXPANSION. IT EQUATES RELIGIOUS USE WITH HOUSING ZONING AND IT LOOKS TO ELIMINATE NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION, OVERSIGHT, DIMENSIONAL LIMITATIONS AND ANY CITY PROCESS. Also waived would be the four plus two story inclusionary, which now is making up the six stories that they're looking for. And gone will be the protection of other public and private institutions demanding the same benefits in a C1 residential districts. I want to deviate and ask a question on WITH ALL THE CASES THAT HAVE BEEN STATED OF VIOLATIONS OF RELUPA, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE GUARD RAILS THAT RELUPA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR? WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO ANSWER TO OR IS IT JUST A VOID OF ANY CONSIDERATION OR RULES? THAT'S A SINCERE QUESTION OF WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO WATCH OUT FOR. The multifamily zoning amendments focuses on promoting housing, not non-residential use. This bank's street proposal expands institutional activity and volume while eliminating residential units. THEY WANT TO OVERRIDE THE PUBLIC PLANNING PROCESS CITYWIDE WHILE BEING OFFENSIVE AND CALLING QUESTIONERS NIMBYS AND ANTI-SEMITIC. THIS IS DEPLORABLE. THIS IS NOT A CASE OF RELIGIOUS LAND USE, BUT GROSS INSTITUTIONAL ENTITLEMENT. IT IS THE SIZE OF EXPANSION, THE FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF EXISTING REASONABLE ZONING REGULATIONS. THIS IS A FAR-REACHING CITYWIDE ISSUE. which is being manipulated solely for Shabbat's favor. This is a very consequential petition and we need a legal opinion. And we also need to find another compromise. I do not see how one entity can run roughshod over the whole entire city. Thank you.

Thank you. So that concludes the list of speakers. We'll turn it back over to the chair.

Thank you Jeff. We'll now move from public comment to board discussion. Additional written comments may be submitted for the record. Do board members have questions for the petitioners or for CDD staff at this point? Ted.

Thank you. Yes, I have a question and I want to take the discussion outside the realm of one particular proposal and put it back into the impact on the city as a whole. knowing that in the past we've had issues that had raised questions about Buddhist temples and mosques and other religious organizations and facilities. So my question for the proponents' attorneys, are you suggesting that RELUPA would allow no zoning regulations relating to a religious use at all?

No, that's not the key. Thank you for your question. No, they certainly, there are zoning regulations permitted. The issue really is if those zoning regulations or those zoning decisions substantially burden religion, then they need to be the narrowest means possible and serve a compelling government purpose. So there are situations where there can be compelling government purpose and the narrowest means possible to fulfill that purpose. So clearly there are zoning regulations that fulfill that. I'll give you examples, right? A lot of municipalities have various rules about fire trucks and fire lanes and how they have to roll up to buildings and have to be able to enter and exit. Those are, you know, certainly compelling government interests. And if it's the least restrictive means, then those would certainly be things that would override even a substantial burden on the rural population.

And do you think that RELUPA overrides Massachusetts Dover Amendment, which specifically authorizes reasonable regulations relating to height and density in Florida and other matters? Right.

So RELUPA can override the Dover Amendment. However, I think the Dover Amendment's principles and policies are the kinds of things that would support exactly this zoning amendment that we're proposing. Other than in Cambridge and in Boston, the Dover Amendment favors religious uses throughout the state. And while I understand that it was religious and educational, and I think historically Cambridge has been mostly focused on the educational, that doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of room by passing these amendments to favor religious uses fully consistent with the principles behind Dover.

Okay. Those are my questions right at the moment. Thank you, Ted. Ashley.

Thank you, Tom. I have a question I don't know if staff has an answer immediately. So I was curious why, I know Cambridge is exempt from Dover because of a home rule petition back in the 70s. And I understand why it was mostly for institutional given what is the number, like 20 to 30% of our land is owned by institutions. But I was wondering why it also included an exemption for religious uses. And was there a reasoning for that? And is that something we should be aware of? Thank you.

Thanks. This is Jeff Roberts. I don't think I have the answer to that question. I know that Cambridge's special legislation related to the Dover Amendment led to the creation of what we call institutional use regulations, which we described, and it covers a broad range of institutional uses. not, I believe, you know, as most of us are aware, you know, educational institutions are large landlords within Cambridge. And we know that historically that that's been a concern over a number of decades, but the special legislation did apply broadly to other institutional uses.

And that's, that's what was regulated by the by the institutional use regulations. So it did, it was inclusive.

Thank you. I was just looking at the actual home rule petition. It said educational uses and religious, and so I was just wondering why religious was one of them.

I could try to, I mean, and again, this is, I don't want to get too much into the legal analysis. I think that would be the place for the city's law department, but the Dover Amendment, which is a section of or it's a piece of Section 3 of Chapter 40A does specify religious, public educational uses and nonprofit educational uses as uses that are in special ways protected from regulation. And so I think that may be why those are the uses that are referenced in the home rule legislation.

Yeah, I just want to make sure there's no objective behind it that we should be aware of. Okay, thank you.

Great. So I have a question and maybe it's for my fellow board members more than the petitioners or community development staff, which is I'm so grateful to have lawyers on the panel tonight and it does not go unnoticed that it was the two of our attorneys that led with the questions here because the legal issues surrounding this are well presented, but still in my mind somewhat tangled from federal to state to local jurisdictions. And I understand also from testimony tonight and from a report from Jeff that the city council in its wisdom has decided to seek the counsel of the city solicitor. As I was reviewing this case, I was coming to that conclusion that perhaps that was something that we should also seek. But I don't know how others are feeling. Maybe others are seeing that planning issues may be override all of that. I'm not sure. But I love the wisdom of the board at this point, feeling at least to this non-legal mind that there is there are some questions that perhaps we should seek advice on. Ted?

Yes. I definitely agree that we need to get the opinion of the city solicitor as to the impact of RELUPA and the Dover Amendment as to what the city can and cannot do. WITH REGARD TO RELIGIOUS USES, WHETHER THERE ARE AREAS WHERE THE CITY CAN REGULATE, WHETHER THERE ARE AREAS WHERE THE CITY CANNOT REGULATE AND SHOULD NOT REGULATE. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE STAFF MEMO WAS EXCELLENT IN SETTING FORTH THAT IT IS A WIDESPREAD ISSUE uh certainly relates to religious uses uh but the impact it may have on educational uses and uh and and maybe they are separate maybe relupa puts things in one category and that has to be dealt with separately from other institutional uses, but I don't know the answer to that, and I'm hoping that city solicitor can give us their best opinion as to what the city can and cannot do on those two issues. I mean, we can talk about whether, you know, it being the same regulations as affordable housing, or whether it should be the same regulation as something else, or whether the city can't put any height regulation on it. I just don't know where we go and where the city can go without getting some guidance. I mean, it's terrific we've gotten the proponents' lawyers' point of view, and maybe they're 100% right, maybe they're not 100% right, but You know, the cases need to be analyzed and give us some guidance and give the city council guidance on what the city can do and can't do. And it, you know, it has nothing, from my mind, it has nothing to do with this particular proposal on Bank Street. It's a citywide issue. just as affordable housing was a citywide issue and just as other institutional issues, institutional uses are citywide issues. And I personally don't see how I could go forward or how the planning board or city council can go forward without having the advice of our council as to what we can do. Great. Thank you, Ted. Ashley.

Thank you. I agree. And I think what would be helpful from the law department is kind of an analysis or some descriptions of what I'm not familiar with for LUPA. I know under 48, you know, there's like language about safety welfare. And so if we can get more information about what There's like reasonable regulations. So if we can get more information, or as Ted mentioned about, if there's any cases, just so we can get a better sense of what can be imposed and what cannot. And then after that, I think, you know, the purpose of this board and the expertise on this board, we can weigh in about things about, you know, that open space or what I would call the good neighbor provisions of giving notice to neighbors. Are those reasonable? Are those allowed? I think there's definitely some of the zoning stuff that we should weigh in after there's a little more clarity.

Great. So I'm hearing at least strongly from a couple of board members maybe concurring where I am with this. And I also want to spend a little bit of time here maybe summarizing what the questions are that we might ask the law department. What I've heard so far is, you know, what's the impact of Lupa and how does it relate to the Dover Amendment? What can the city do given these regulations and these laws? Are educational uses really separate as has been well argued by the council, the presentation we heard tonight, or are we looking at potentially by allowing the religious exemption also opening the floodgate for institutional expansion? Look, I would say also analysis of 40A and RELUPA, what are the reasonable legs that we, regs that we work under? Can we, limit the notice to neighbors or public discussion or not under these regulations. And I would say, you know, there's certainly a government issue, a government concern about the environment and permeable open space is very much regulates to water table and flooding. And so that may be, is that a reasonable government concern that perhaps would warrant some regulation under our regs? I don't, I don't know. wouldn't see that. So those are some of the questions for the record that I think I would like the law department to address. Are there other questions specifically that we would like advice from city solicitor on? Does anybody have something else? Okay, great. Ted?

Well, just quickly, I'm just curious about the height limitation. Okay. You know, if, you know, I can understand, I guess, why they've selected the affordable housing height limitation, but, you know... I guess, is six stories the right height? Could it be four stories? If the church wants to have a steeple, can it go up a thousand feet? Is there some limit or is there no limit? And how do we determine, or how does the city determine what that limit is? And I guess it goes to other dimensional issues too, but it certainly goes to a lot of environmental issues, the open space issue, the tree canopy, the public works issues. I think there are just so many open questions that I certainly need some guidance on.

Great. Okay, I believe steeples are exempted and there's a bad choice, especially for a Jewish place of worship. But in all seriousness, our role as the planning board obviously is not to pass or not pass the particular zoning petition. It's simply to give wise and good advice from our perspective as people who think a lot about the physical form and the planning concerns of the city. And in order to do that properly, I think we need to get some more clarity to the extent we can around the legal issues that have rightfully been brought before us tonight. So what I would like to do is, I guess, frame a motion around really two things, we probably need two motions. One would be to, we'll probably put it into one motion, which would be to continue the hearing pending a report from the city solicitor's office addressing the questions that we have outlined in the discussions here tonight. And I think that would be the nature of that motion. Any friendly amendments to that motion?

Do we need to request the city solicitor issue an opinion on this?

Great. Jeff, maybe you could give us your view on that.

Yeah, I think that the planning board should vote to request an opinion from the city solicitor. I've been taking notes on this, so I think we've got a good... range of questions to help pose. Those will go along with the questions that the city council asked. So the law department will be able to consider that altogether. And I think I don't, it probably can be done all in one motion. I know that we often will have us make sure there's a vote to kind of conclude or continue the hearing. But I think the point is just to you know, take, I think just to take one vote to sort of put a period on this discussion and then in order to move on to the next item of business on the agenda. So I think just before taking a vote, it's helpful to get everything that you want to have in the motion and then we can conclude this and move forward.

Okay, great. So I've summarized some of the questions. I hope Most of them. They're also, Jeff has been taking notes and at least proposed a motion. Is there somebody willing to endorse that motion? Is Ted so moved? Thank you, Ted. Is there a second?

This is Carolyn. I'll second.

Thank you, Carolyn. Any discussion on that motion, on the motion that stands? No discussion. Jeff, we'll have a roll call vote on that motion.

On that motion, Ted Cohen? Yes. Mary Leydecker?

Yes.

Diego Macias? Yes. Ashley Tan?

Yes.

Carolyn Zern?

Yes.

Thompson Navich? Yes. That's all six members present voting in favor.

Great. Okay. Well, thank you very much. And thank you to the petitioners for what was a succinct presentation of a pretty complicated petition. So we'll see you again soon after we get a little advice from our city solicitor. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Okay, we'll wait till then. Okay, thank you. Agenda item number two. So the next item on the agenda is a public hearing in case, planning board case 409, a special permit application by BRE-BMR350 Massachusetts LLC. to renovate an existing building at 350 Massachusetts Avenue to convert office use to lab use. We're going to begin with the CDD staff explaining why this is for us, and then we'll have a presentation from the developer, followed by public comment. Then the board will have a chance to ask questions. And finally, we will deliberate and decide how we want to proceed on this case. Jeff or Evan?

Thanks, Tom. I'm going to introduce the project and I want to recognize that Susanna Bigelin is also here now from our community planning and design team who also reviewed this case. So this is the first public hearing on this application. The project involves the renovation of an existing five-story building, converting office to lab use, and it's located in the Cambridge Port Revitalization Development District.

Excuse me.

Because the proposed change of use is greater than 50,000 square feet, a project review special permit from the planning board is required. The proposal includes roughly 110,000 square feet of lab use and 4,000 square feet of retail on the ground floor. There are no additional vehicular parking spaces proposed, but the project does include 30 new bicycle parking spaces in a bike room inside the building. The CDD memo summarizes the planning and zoning characteristics of the proposal and the urban design comments on the proposal. Staff are present if there are any questions. There's also a separate memo from the Department of Public Works and one from the Department of Transportation. So the board's action is to grant or deny the requested special permit. I'll turn it back to you.

Thank you. Great. Thank you. So the presenter is Ashley. Myslinski, and she's representing the applicant. You will have up to 30 minutes for your presentation, though we hope you can be as concise as possible. So please introduce your project team and begin.

Thank you so much. Hi, everyone. My name is Ashley Myslinski, and I'm here on behalf of BioMed Realty to present the redevelopment of 350 Mass Ave. Next slide, please. Tonight, I'll be presenting with our architect, David, from Demela Schaefer. Next slide. 350 Massachusetts Avenue sits on the corner of Mass Ave and Sydney Street, right in between Central Square and Kendall Square. We like to think of this building as the gateway to University Park. University Park is where we host various events that support city initiatives, such as Cambridge Carnival, Taste of Cambridge, and this Cambridge 5K series. We really look forward to revitalizing the neighborhood with some redevelopment of this building, including a new ground floor plan, enhanced retail, and changing the pedestrian experience of this building. Next slide, please. The existing building is a zero lot line condition. It's a five-story office building that's 95% vacant. It was built in 1998 and is fairly outdated at this time. Next slide. What we are proposing is not just a lab development on the upper floors, but also revitalizing the ground floor space. We'll be adding new retail along Massachusetts Avenue, as well as redesigning the lobby and making the pedestrian experience that much more friendly, encouraging people to enter Central Square to the north. I'm now going to turn it over to David, who's going to talk through the design. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Ashley. I'm David Godfrey, Demela Schaffer. I'm going to walk you through some of the requirements and then how we address those requirements in the final design. So this first slide I want to talk about, this is about context, the surrounding area and how that might inform how we might approach changes to the building and this change. So on the top left is a view from Mass Ave. Bottom left is Sydney Street. Both of those views show where you have long distance views. So where you can see the building from a distance and how that might inform particularly the mechanicals that are going to go on the roof. where you might and how you might place those as you walk around uh to bland street which is the top right you can see that there's a much more urban street tighter uh space in between the buildings which is going to give you a narrower profile in terms of how you experience the building and how that might change some things as you continue to walk around to the green street you can again see this is a another sort of urban move and urban physicians so your moves are going to be more on the ground level and pedestrian level next slide please uh bigger picture context uh this building is just under 70 feet it's context the buildings around it 300 mass ave is 130 feet to the top of the penthouse 20 sydney street is also substantially higher as well as market central so you can see it nestled in with some larger context buildings next slide please The regulatory requirements that we need to follow are going to be the Cambridge Port Revitalization Development District. We comply with everything within those requirements. The next are University Park guidelines and following those standards. And then lastly is Article 22, the green building requirements, which we'll go over those in a little more detail. Next slide, please. So on the CRDD, the things to note, our building is going to stay the same as 70 feet. We are going to need two loading bays. We will continue to have two loading bays. And then lastly, as previously mentioned, we're going to add 30 bike parking spaces that are not required for the project, but we feel that the Cambridge's multimodal transportation is really important, both to the city as well as to Biomed and the potential tenants. The University Park Guidelines, we're following what's in the University Park Guidelines. The key things to note are materiality, keeping of the brick facade, as well as transparency of retail on the ground level. Other things to note, the architectural concept of base, middles, and tops. How can we enhance what's there and continue to build what we have? Next slide, please. On that base middle and top concept, the slide image on the left is more of what we're trying to achieve, i.e. with greater depth of the arches on the ground level, so you have a more enhanced and better developed building plane, as well as a band course, the middle course, and then, of course, the top cornice. What are things that we can do? The image on the right is of 350 Mass Ave. You can see it's a fairly flat building. What are things that we can do that we're changing that we can improve as we go forward? Next slide, please. Article 22, we are going to achieve lead gold with the project. For the net zero narrative, we are proposing 25% electrification on day one, as well as the ability to expand to 100%. through the life of the project. We filled out the green factor form, the embodied carbon we'll talk about in a little bit later. And the flood resiliency, that is very impactful in terms of how we start to lay out and structure, particularly the ground level. The 10-year floodplain 350 Mass Ave is within it, but it is right around the first floor level, a little over it. The 100-year floodplain is substantial over it and affects all of this area of Cambridge. We've addressed those in our design. Next slide, please. The thing that we want to incorporate is retail. Retail is really important, both to the success of the building and activation of the city streets. So we want to understand what are things that we can do with the retail as part of this project to make it work. Our goal, we don't know what the retail is, so our goal as architects is to make it flexible, to make sure that whatever ends up there becomes successful and thriving retail. So some of the things that we've studying to think our important options are variety of uses, potential how you interact with the street, the types of windows and fenestration and how you can have that interaction between inside and outside, the ability to link that retail directly to the lobby. Is that something that we can accommodate and work through there? So next slide, please. uh this is showing the first floor plan we're going to walk around the plan in detail sort of highlighting specific areas but the things to note um on this overall plan as ashley mentioned we're a zero lot line building and that's zero lot line on all four sides um so that means all of our moves have to be internal to the building um The other subtle thing to note is that this site is not flat. It feels flat, but it's not really. It does have a over two foot grade change between Massachusetts Avenue to the low point, which is on the Green Street and Sydney Street corner. That sort of affects how you enter the building and the types of uses that can occur around the facade. With that, next slide please. going to focus on the retail and lobby the massachusetts ave portion what are things that we're trying to do there uh per the zoning requirements we need 75 of the ground floor facade that faces uh massachusetts avenue to a depth of 42 feet that is retail we are going to propose that we're showing a retail design that is really just a placeholder the concept is We have multiple entrances to this retail. It can get broken out into different sizes. They don't all have to be equal in ways that really reflect what's going to happen later in the future. On the bottom toward Blanche Street, we're going to have multiple entrances to encourage some activity that might spill over onto Blanche Street. And on the top toward the lobby, we're showing the possibility of a connection into that lobby. And we're envisioning that lobby to have seating, to have places for people to interact and really start to engage all of those uses along that stretch of the building. Next slide, please. um you can start to see this image of how this can work where those concepts of creating deeper arches to really activate uh the building and give it a richness to the building so we're showing pushing the ground playing glass we have to replace the the curtain wall to meet the energy code so as part of that we want to say can we make it better so we're opposing to push that glass back we're proposing to have movable glass walls to really encourage transparency and interaction um between the street and the um the retail um and setting it up for success we want to have glass that goes all the way to the ground as you can see there's a slight grade change between mass avenue and the inside which i'll explain a little bit more later but that's part of the concept is to improve that connection and activation of the street next slide please This is a view of Blanche Street. So we specifically have an entrance onto Blanche to allow the, particularly if it's a restaurant, seating that could spill out over to Blanche Street. Again, our goal is to make sure that we have the ability to react to whatever happens in the future and design flexibility. Next slide, please. This is the opposite corner of Mass Ave and Sydney. As Ashley mentioned, this is really the entrance to University Park. It defines where it is and really encourages people to travel down Sydney. So we want an entrance and a canopy that's really going to start to define that corner as two fronts, Sydney and Mass Ave, and really giving equal weight to those to start to bring the eye down towards Sydney and define that prominent corner. Next slide please. As you're walking around the building on Sydney Street, there's a significant grade change as you start to go down. We're proposing to put that bike room right on the street, full glass all the way down so that you have transparency into the building. Encourage the use of that bike room and really give a visual connection inside and outside. As you dip down, you do dip in further into the flood zone, and we'll show that shortly. Next slide, please. The next thing that we need to do as part of the electrification of the building, we have to increase the electrical vault size. So from one transformer to multiple transformers. We are proposing to locate this vault room on the corner of Sydney and Green. As I mentioned earlier, that is the place where the grade is lowest. And that is also the place that meets the requirements with Eversource. So we've met extensively with Eversource and DDPW. Eversource needs a grade at grade roll up door and a certain clear height. This corner of the building meets those requirements. We've also have a concrete ring wall and stairs to meet the passive resiliency requirements. Next slide, please. Lastly, on Blanche Street, this is the current loading area serving both 300 Mass Ave and 350. The 1998 building was a three bay design for loading. We're proposing to keep the two bays that are there. The third bay was filled in at some point with another use. We just want to convert that back to trash and recycling. Next slide, please. This is a plan showing the 10-year storm event, how we're allowing the floodwater to enter areas of the building that can accommodate it and be easily recoverable, and raising the first floor up, everything else to protect it in a 10-year event. Next slide, please. In a 100-year event, all critical infrastructure is protected either through rays or through a concrete ring wall, really to make sure that the building can survive a major event. Next slide, please. Typical upper floors, floors two through five, open floor plate, compact floor, suitable for flexible spec lab or office. Next slide, please. Working up onto the roof, this is where I mentioned the view corridor, how that comes into place. Sydney Street is planned north. Mass Ave is planned right. We're proposing the taller equipment to be away from Mass and Sydney so that gray box is the interior penthouse area. The taller equipment, the air handler or the exhaust air handler and generator are along Blanche and Green. We really looked at those because we understand how you can see it, perceive it. and areas that we can um make the the roof scrape work um visually from grade the chiller array and heat pump array is along sydney that's much lower um and then we can do elements to screen that the other element that i mentioned earlier the cornice that's going to start to come into play in terms of how we screen these and stopping your visual eye next slide please This is a quick diagram of our basic concepts existing condition stepping back to the volumes, which is the middle top middle right we studied the facade and how that can inform our the architecture of the penthouse bottom left. Enhancing of the horizontal divisions as the corners and defining the base in the middle, with some moves middle bottom is the depth of the archways activate that ground plane. and the bottom right are uses and other activations to really encourage pedestrian travel and improvements. Next slide, please. This is just a quick section showing the site angles and some of the moves that we're doing to screen that both visually and looking at it from the surrounding context. Next slide, please. What does it all look like in a rendering? So this is a view from Lafayette Park. We've pushed back the ground plane to enhance that experience. We've added a crisper line at the belt course. We've increased the height of the corners to serve as a screen for the mechanical and then the actual screen step back behind that. It feels comfortable within the context of the existing building, and we really worked hard to set that up. Next slide, please. This is stepping back to see, does it still work from a further viewpoint? Again, you start to get obviously more obscured views, but the penthouse area is still in proportional with the facade of the building. Next slide, please. This is a view from Mass Ave. You can see that our penthouse, even from further back, the volume of the penthouse doesn't exceed the sort of volume of 300 Mass Ave immediately behind it. It still fits within the context of University Park. Next slide, please. Lastly, we looked at shadow study and does that, are there significant impacts of anything that we're posing? There are no significant impacts. It's a pretty modest change to the shadows. Next slide, please. Now I'm going to walk through elevations. You've seen this in renderings. So the mass of elevation, key things are activation and change of the ground plane. And then obviously the rear escape changes and in its context of the size of the adjacent buildings. Next slide, please. Along Sydney Street, there was some, one of the other opportunities I didn't mention earlier is that the Cambridge, we are not in, but our part are near the Cambridge Square Cultural District. Biomed has a great relationship with with that group and we wanna figure out other ways that we can use our design to incorporate the arts into the building. So obviously infrastructure on an outside wall, what can we do to improve that experience as you're walking by? One of our ideas is to create art boxes So those can be changed throughout time depending on what an artist might want to do. So that's what we're starting to indicate here in the colored elements are art boxes that we could be curated over time. We could even begin to take whatever that art idea is extended into the bike room to continue to give visual interest there. Next slide, please. What that can look like from the street. So you're seeing the... corner of Sydney and Mass Ave and then the art boxes and bike room along Sydney to improve that visual scape as you go through that and walking along Sydney. Next slide, please. Continuing to walk along the building on Green Street, you can see some of the same moves addressing the corners, addressing the arches and the depths, providing art boxes where we have infrastructure and then entrance spaces. Next slide, please. Similar moves here, showing how we're incorporating some of the required things for the vault room into the architecture and making it feel cohesive. Next slide, please. Lastly is Blanche Street. Not a whole lot of change on Blanche Street, still the service street. We can still have some opportunities for murals, a little change of glazing, but it's pretty similar to what was there today. Next slide, please. uh materiality largely we're working with the brick the brick is a nice brick what can we do to enhance that um so the metal panels that we're looking at the it is a the brick is a blend of colors we're looking to take the darkest color over there take that color and use that as our accent trims provide the depth that the arches provide a color for the cornice and start to use simple moves that give them more richness to the building um On the curtain wall, we are improving the double-glaze to triple-glaze curtain wall. We want to have a high visual transmittance glazing to encourage connections between the inside and outside. Next slide, please. Tying it all together and as part of embodied carbon, we've minimized the new structure. We're salvaging and reusing a majority of the brick. We're using majority of the structure, and then we're improving the flood resiliency at the ground plane, all of which sets us up to have an embodied carbon footprint of less than 50% of what a new build would be. So it's part of our overall strategy from sustainability. So with that, I'm going to hand it over to Ashley. Next slide, and she's going to finish up.

Thank you, David. We're most excited to reuse this existing building and convert its use to something that's a little bit more vibrant for the neighborhood. Most importantly, we're really looking forward to enhancing the pedestrian experience around the ground floor with new retail, artwork, support for the local economy with new professionals coming to the area and increased tax revenue for the city. We'll now turn it over to questions. This is our last slide, the last and look forward to hearing from you all. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your presentation. We're actually going to move to public comment. I'm sure questions may arise out of that or from the board at that point. So this is a public hearing. And so if there are any members of the public who wish to speak, they should click the button that says raise hand. If you're calling in by phone, you can raise your hand by pressing star nine. And as of 5 p.m. yesterday, the board had received written comments on this case from David Marr, Peter DiMero, and Debbie Bonilla. 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. And you should begin by saying your name and address. And staff can confirm that we can hear you after that. You'll have up to three minutes to speak before I ask you to wrap up. And it appears we have two hands raised. Jeff?

Thank you. I'll get started. Looks like there's a few more hands coming up. And so since there's only a few, I'll ask that Please try to raise your hands now if you'd like to speak. So the first speaker is Michael Monestim, who's followed by Alexandra Adamo-Ciofredi. And you can begin with your name and address.

Good evening, members of the Planning Board. My name is Michael Monestine, a resident of 4 George Street in Cambridge and president of the Central Square Business Improvement District. I'm calling in tonight to express my strong support for the proposal to repurpose 350 Mass Ave. This is a timely and exciting opportunity to bring new life to a building that has been vacant and underutilized for far too long. Biomed Realty, the petitioner, has been a consistent and responsible neighbor in Central Square, supporting events like Indigenous Peoples Day, the Central Square Night Market, Taste of Cambridge, and Cambridge Carnival. They've also welcomed activations on the adjacent areas of University Park campus, contributing to the vibrancy and public life of the district. There's a lot to appreciate in this proposal. The setback arches and enhanced ground floor facade demonstrate thoughtful design that strengthens the pedestrian experience on Mass Ave. The reuse of over 70% of the existing structure and more than 90% of the original brick is a sustainable and respectful choice that keeps the building grounded in its architectural context. THE FLEXIBLE GROUND FLOW RETAIL PRESENTS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EXPERIENTIAL OR CULTURAL USES, CREATIVE TECH, GALLERY SPACE, OTHER INTERACTIVE PROGRAMMING. THESE ARE THE KIND OF USES THAT DRAW PEOPLE IN AND BRING THE STREET TO LIFE. AND I ESPECIALLY ENCOURAGE THE TEAM TO UTILIZE BLAND STREET AS A CONNECTIVE ACTIVE CORRIDOR AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR MORE THAN JUST FOOD AND BEVERAGE IN TERMS OF RETAIL STRATEGY. This is the kind of adaptive reuse that supports the growth of Cambridge's innovation corridor without displacing the unique character of Central Square. And from the BID's perspective, this proposal isn't just about creating lab space or adding a floor, it's about reactivating a block in the heart of the district. The streetscape improvements, intentional design, and commitment to high quality, transparent retail all contribute to a more welcoming and engaged public realm. I also hope this repositioning will support the overall leasing strategy for the area, ideally attracting a single tenant that could potentially occupy both 350 Mass Ave and the soon to be vacant Takeda Space. Activating both buildings with a thoughtful long-term tenant would be a major win for the district. And what Central Square needs right now is intentional reinvestment, projects that balance job creation with placekeeping. This proposal does that. It improves safety, elevates public experience, and strengthens the local economy, all without significantly increasing height or density. I respectfully encourage the planning board to approve this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. The next speaker is Alexandra Adamo-Chilfredi, followed by Nicola Williams.

Hey there, folks. My name is Alexandra Adamo-Chafredi. I'm a leader in creative experiences through my creative enterprise, Alex Makes Art, rooted in belief that creativity should be joyful, accessible, and a part of the everyday fabric of our neighborhood. I'm writing to share my strong support for the proposed reconstruction of 350 Mass Ave, a site that has become central to both my creative work and community impact. That's my studio space right now. So not included was my smiling face in the window of the block. As an independent artist and business owner in Cambridge, I've had the good fortune of experiencing firsthand how Biomed shows up for the creative community, not just in words, but in action. The studio space Biomed Reality generously offers at 350 Mass Ave has become a true lifeline for my work. In my very public, community-centered practice where I regularly engage with people of all ages, from toddlers to elders, this space serves as a vital retreat. It's where I safely store my art supplies, welcome volunteers, I process materials, fabricate installations and programming inside these doors. It's my personal maker space, a place to focus, dream, and build. And yet, thanks to its street-level visibility, it also functions as a point of connection. With the window open, the work becomes part of the city itself, a kind of performance art where passerbys can witness and engage with the creative process I'm doing in real time. The proposed reconstruction of 350 Mass Ave represents a really exciting opportunity to invest more deeply in a location that already supports the cultural and creative life of Central Square. My experience working within this space has showed me how intentional Biomed is in their support of artists and small businesses, not just through access, but through listening, care, and collaboration. I trust that this next phase of redevelopment will reflect those same values and open the door to even more inclusive, imaginative use. I also want to share my hopes for what this space can continue to be. I see myself as a creative connector, someone who helps link the work of artists and small business to the people who live here, while weaving shared experiences that make our neighborhood feel more alive. I deeply understand the need for innovation, nuance, and thinking outside the box, all while honoring the roots of those who have long been cultivating this creative landscape. Many local partners have already planted seeds through music, food, art, and education. Now we have the opportunity to tend that garden together while still leaving space for new growth. At a time where space is increasingly out of reach for artists and makers, preserving and improving places like 350 Mass Ave is essential. Its transformation should be one that builds on the creative energy already rooted here, ensuring that local artists, educators, and entrepreneurs continue to have a place to grow, gather, and contribute meaningfully to the community. I wholeheartedly support Biomed Realty's reconstruction plans and encourage you to do the same. With thoughtful design and strong partnerships, 350 Mass Ave can continue to be a beacon of creative possibility in Cambridge. Thank you for your time, y'all.

Thank you. The next speaker is Nicola Williams, who's followed by Chris Hope.

Good evening, folks. My name is Nicola Williams. I live at 8 Brewer Street in Cambridge. I am also the president of the Cambridge Carnival International, a volunteer grassroots school. that started 31 years ago. I strongly support the repurpose of 350 Mass Avenue. I'm excited about the possibilities. For the past five years, this will be the fifth year, University Park has hosted via biomed realty the Cambridge Carnival. This is especially important space for us because that's where the carnival started on University Park 31 years ago as a small street fair to now one of the largest, most spectacular festivals in Cambridge, multicultural festivals. And we're happy to be back in Central Square and Biomed Realty afforded us that opportunity in collaboration with the Center Square Bid, the city, and other community partners. So they've been very generous in offering the space. The open space and park works very well for us and our vendors and the community. Post-COVID, we were worried and concerned, like where we would be. and they opened the doors and we very much appreciate it. I'm also the facilitator of the Cambridge Somerville Black Business Network, and I fully support additional ground for retail, especially if it's affordable and accessible to some of our small enterprises who desperately are seeking new spaces. So I'm hoping, I was glad to see the bull market photo there because as you know, that concept works very well with small enterprising businesses. So I hope you strongly consider something like that because we have a lot of businesses that would like to be there. I love the incorporation of art and alignment with the Central Square Cultural District. And so we thank you for that. I'm an arts advocate. So I was very pleased to see that and hear that. I hope that this will be a place welcoming place, continue to be a welcoming place for artists and all forms of art. This space will also increase the vibrancy, which is already vibrant in Central Square. And I'm looking forward to the possibilities. So thank you very much. Have a good evening.

Thank you. So the next speaker is Chris Hope, who is the last raised hand. So if anybody was planning to speak, and hasn't spoken yet, now's a good time to push the raise hand button or star nine on your phone. So we'll go to Chris Hope now.

Good evening, everyone. I am Christopher Hope. I am from an organization called the Loop Lab. We are an organization dedicated to bringing young people of color into the creative arts space, mainly audio and video production, and then job placement. We are partners with Biomed Realty, and I'm here to really speak on behalf as a community partner in support of this proposed project at 350 Mass Ave by Biomed Realty. As an organization over the last five years, we've worked with Biomed Realty. We have many Cambridge based young adults that are looking to get into the audio video trades. And through our partnership, we've been able to set up shop at 301 Binney Street, which has allowed us not only access to our production studio, access to companies like Google, Audible, but it's also allowed us to serve a lot of young adults and bring them into the audio video trades and get them credentialed and certified in a time where opportunities for job placement are shrinking. And so Valley Med Realty has been a fantastic partner in that initiative and that's led us to actually create space for us to get an actual regional Emmy nomination as well as getting awards from organizations like the Tele Award, Social Innovation Forum Award, and other accolades for the work. First, I want to speak to the importance of trust and collaboration in development and my experience working alongside Biomed Realty They've only demonstrated a consistent commitment to community engagement in Cambridge. This is not just about checking a box. For me and for my team and the participants in our programming, it's really about showing up. It's about listening. And ultimately, I believe it's about adapting plans that are based on real neighborhood feedback. And just this entire process has been that feedback partner. I think that kind of responsiveness builds trust and they have earned a reputation as a developer that really is listening to the community. Over the years, they've proven themselves to be a good neighbor in Cambridge and to us and beyond. And so whether it's through sponsoring local events, I know that the Loop Lab is not the only organization that's benefited. There's several other community agents and folks that can attest to this. Whether it's contributing to open space initiatives or working directly with residents and small businesses, I've only seen Biomed Realty go beyond their obligations to invest in the health of our community. That's why I'm really urging everyone tonight, I'm urging the planning board to truly support this project. It's a thoughtful proposal from a proven community-minded partner. And I do believe that it will bring lasting benefits to both the neighborhood and to the broader city of Cambridge. Thank you and have a good evening.

Thank you. And we do have another speaker, Patrick Barrett.

Can you hear me? Yes. Just calling in, and I had some technical difficulties with Zoom. I'm Patrick Barrett, 907 Main Street, where the butter across the street. I'm just calling in to offer my support. I can't believe they put together this great presentation for really such a minor build. If they can activate the ground floor, that would be wonderful for Central Square. And I think just considering what's been going on, generally, anyone who wants to invest in Central Square, we embrace them with open arms. So I hope you guys approve them tonight. And thank you.

Thank you. So that concludes the speakers who have indicated they'd like to speak.

Great. Thank you, Jeff. We'll now move from public comment to board discussion. Additional written comments may be submitted for the record. Do board members have questions for the project team or for staff? Diego.

Hi. Two questions. One of them was in the memo, which was the Sydney Street elevation. And I think one of the elevations shows the bike room as being curtain glass and the art mural stopping. And then your rendering shows that art mural. It looks like it's going into the bike room. I wonder if you can clarify that a little bit. And then the second question I have is on the. have a rendering with an outdoor space for possible dining or outdoor dining. And it looks like that might be in the way of some turning radius from some of the loading docks nearby. So I'm wondering if that's going to be a potential hazard or if that's something that's not so big of a deal.

Thank you. Great. Thank you, Diego. I'll try and answer those. So the renderings show the art boxes are where we have the transformer behind that. We are allowing for the art can extend into the bike room, but the bike room is still the bike room. So that you'll see into the bike room. But if there's an art, some idea that extends beyond multiple window boxes, it can extend to a larger move that's inside the bike room. And I think so you can have a bigger gesture and smaller gestures. And so we want to show it in a way that it's very flexible. But no, we're not going to block the bike room with that, unless somebody has an idea on that. But it would be part of an art idea, not part of an architecture idea. Your second question on outdoor dining on Blanche Street. We studied truck turning day radiuses. I actually have a slide on that, but I didn't share it because I figured it would be too boring. So we looked at that. There are certain size trucks that might impact outdoor seating, but the time of day is not the same. Those types of trucks deliver early in the morning breakfast. The lab buildings, they like their deliveries early, not during dining hours. So we think because Biomed manages both 300 and 350, they're not going to be an issue with managing when large trucks come and outdoor dining. And you'll just have to set it up and take it back, which is fairly common. So we're not terribly worried about it. I think it's an operations, not an architecture issue.

Thank you. Great. Mary.

That same truck and diners question, but that sounds resolvable. There are two trees that it looked like they don't exist. There are the cobbles on Green Street and the mulch on Mass Ave. Are you going to plant a new tree there? Or was there a reason you couldn't plant a tree?

None of the trees, so we are zero lot line on all facades. So none of the trees are on our property. So that's why we didn't include additional trees.

Got it.

Thank you. Dan. Yeah, Mr. Chair, thank you. So a couple of questions. So I think first and foremost, I'm kind of looking at this from an urban design standpoint, but I can't help but thinking of things architecturally as architect. My office for 15 years was across the street right next to Patrick Barrett's address. So I know this this property quite well. So. I guess backing up a fairly general question. Is this, is the core remaining as is? Is this a full rebuild out of this property or are you putting in new stairs, new elevators, new locations?

We are putting in new stairs, new elevators, new locations to make it work. The service elevator and one of the stairs stays. The passenger elevators move toward the front of the building so they will work with the new entrance, the new flood resilient entrance. So we moved those elevators up because we need new shafts. We have to have new shafts for air. There's all sorts of new things. So that centralized core is basically a new core. that works for a lab building?

So the reason I'm asking is that Sydney Street has always been the more active, for lack of a better word. When there was seating for Asgard, even though it was a little tight along there, there would be outdoor seating. Hertz had their operation there. Cambridge Trust had the other corner entry. And I'm the primary entry for the building, for those who weren't familiar with it, is the sort of second to last bay towards Green Street. And it's the only facade articulation on this otherwise fairly quiet building. So, Urban Design staff had some comments about activating that front and questioning about the transformer. I don't want to second guess all of your planning decisions, but I guess it is unfortunate, I think, not to have the primary entry on Sydney Street, I think for a lot of reasons for that activation. And I'm assuming that that was the only possible location with Eversource, who's enormously difficult for placing this. But I do have to ask, did you consider dry transformer rooftop locations?

The roof is very full with the equipment that's on there. The air source heat pumps take a massive amount of area. There just is not the area up there to support additional infrastructure other than what needs to be on the roof. And then there's some other things. The floodplains, one thing to note on Sydney Street, you're actually two and a half feet into the flood zone along Sydney. So I can't put uses there that are not easily recoverable there. Like retail that you want at grade, they're not easily recoverable there. I have to have everything two and a half feet that can be recoverable. So we wanted to put uses there that are recoverable. I can design a bike room that gets wet and then you can clean it out and it's fine. So we really work to things that we could put there that do meet those requirements. And then, you know, the lobby moved to Mass Ave. Again, we want the occupants of the building to exit near the retail. They will be the primary users of the retail. They really should be near the retail.

Again, these are... They're good questions. Architects second guessing and asking questions. I think in context, it's great to have this building reused. I think lab use here is... absolutely fine, better than in residential locations. So, you know, I'm totally supportive. I'm just asking kind of probing questions to understand what some of the urban design opportunities may or may not have been. And I think you're working within tough constraints, particularly with all the air handling requirements for lab space. I guess the only... Push maybe is, you mentioned trying to get seating in the lobby. I think you've kept the lower area fairly small, but with the vestibule, it's tough to fit seating in there. So maybe an opportunity for continuing to develop that as you move forward. And I guess my only other comment was just continuing to work with staff on addressing any of their concerns. That answers all my questions at the moment. Thank you.

Thank you. You're still muted. I'm muted, Carolyn.

Thank you. I shared a lot of those questions and share the kind of urging to activate the lobby space, given how they typically lately have seemed to be a lot of kind of very neutral, calming spaces that do not engage a lot of kind of pedestrian activity. My question was originally I was going to go down a similar road on Sydney. but you answered the main questions that I had there. I am curious about the chemical storage rooms and what, can you just talk me through that a tiny bit? And what happens if they are, is there a chance that they're not going to be needed and those spaces will revert to some other use if the, if the winds of kind of the market change and it's a, tenant that doesn't need as much chemical storage as you have allocated?

I'm happy to answer that question. So typically how we operate our buildings, we usually see larger quantities come in off of a truck more so than tenants can use upstairs. So these are typically used as rooms for temporary storage. before the experiments are needed with the solvents upstairs. So of course, if the tenants don't need them, they wouldn't be utilized.

And the current treatment shows them as brick walls. Is there not any glazing on those spaces right now, David, or whoever?

Majority of the places that we've allocated for tenant chemicals are internal spaces today. I think the one place that you're commenting on, the old vault room. So as we move the vault room from the old location to the new location, um that's a space that we've it currently is a blank wall it will we're going to put a chemical storage room where there already is a bank wall so we're not taking glass and turning it into a chemical storage room but I think to Ashley's point there's there's a a lot of it gets stored there tenants really like storage by the loading dock even if it's not chemical use they're going to say I'm going to put my freezes there I'm going to have my loading in there they will always use those spaces they're very desirable for leasing for the upper floor tenant. They want to have a home base on the first floor, even if it's not chemicals.

It's not magically going to turn into retail at some point.

Yeah, it won't turn into retail. They're going to take it. They will use it.

Okay. Okay. Well, I appreciate how much you're dealing with and how constrained you are on the ground floor. Can't help but try, but thank you.

Okay. I have a few questions. Oh, Dan, why don't you go?

Sorry, I didn't mean to jump on. No, no, that's okay. Just one last comment. I think it was already addressed by Diego and all the Blanche Street has always been this kind of potential except it's you know loaded on both sides double loaded uh with loading docks um i guess given some of the um supportive organizations that called in it would be great to see temporary events and things held there i think that maybe that's um what the movable furniture is maybe gesturing towards but I'd love to see that space activated with more kind of event programming rather than permanent fixturing just given the dual use so just one last comment for public

Well, that was well-timed because my first question is about Blanche Street, Dan, because I had my eye on that. I've been on the planning board long enough to remember the special permits that we granted for the building next door, which made some promises about the nature of what Blanche Street would be like. And the renderings, I remember fondly, had catenary lighting across Blanche Street. And every time I go up and down Mass Ave on the number one bus, I always look down, like, when is the catenary light going to appear. And the rendering, sure enough, these renderings today are also showing catenary lights and it looks very European and fantastic, like a Roman street or something. And I've learned, I guess, because I asked the staff, like, where's the catenary lights? And they say, apparently the fire department takes issue with that because they have to raise apparatus along the surfaces of the buildings and they don't. appreciate the catenary lighting. So I would say number one, I would like you guys to potentially consider another way to have an extraordinary, beautiful lighting situation, which might work with the fire department. So I'd encourage you to do that. And maybe you've had those conversations already and gotten permission for the catenary light. I don't know, David.

We haven't gotten that level of detail with the fire department. You're 100% right. It's always a give and take. But the goal, we've seen those same renderings as you, and our goal is to activate it. We think it could be a nice space, and we want to make sure we set it up so it can be activated.

Yeah, so it gets some sparkle in there somehow. You're a pretty sensitive designer. You can figure that out. I just had a question about, you made a mention that at the outset, it's 25% electric and it'll eventually be 100%. So what's the other 75% of the energy inputs at day one?

Natural gas. I mean, those are heating, so we heat with natural gas. But the 25% electric, it sounds like not a lot, but it is the vast majority of your energy usage. I think Samira is on and can answer more effectively than I can, but it is a vast majority of where you get your bang for your buck.

Okay. Samira, how can you help us?

Sure. Good evening, everyone. Yeah, as David noted, the 25% electrification is actually the peak heating. So that 25% peak heating is going to cover at least 90% of electricity. the heating throughout the year, we're going to rely on the natural gas boilers for the times that we cannot basically get enough efficiency from the air source heat pump, which is going to be when it's very cold outside.

Okay. And you eventually have a scheme where you're going to move to 100% electric. Is that what I understand?

That is correct.

Okay. Well, that's exciting to think about. To Mary's question about the trees, the photographs of the existing conditions along Green Street, those are some of the saddest trees I ever saw. It's not a great place for trees, but I'm wondering, even though they're not on your property and I can't really mandate you to do something on somebody else's property, but I would like to strongly encourage you to figure out whether there's some way you can contribute additional tree canopy to the urban tree. I don't know if anything can grow on Green Street, but I would very much appreciate you trying to do something about that. Those are my comments at this point. Anybody else have questions? Okay. I'd like to move to discussion. What are board members feeling about where we are with this? Okay, Ted, thank you for rescuing me.

It all looked excellent to me. It looked like a nice reuse of this building that will fit in well with Central Square. My concerns were the amount of equipment on the roof and the screening of the roof, which is always an issue I have. But looking at it today, you know, at the site and seeing your presentation, it seems to me you've really thought about it in great detail and thought about where the sight lines are and where people are actually going to be seeing the roof. And at those locations, the equipment is much smaller and much lower. And so, you know, I don't think I can ask for anything more. I mean, it really seems that you've thought about it and did the best you can with the amount of equipment that you apparently are going to need. I would just ask that you continue to work with staff to make sure that it's screened really as much as possible. So often we see buildings where they haven't really thought about anything above the roof. But it really appears that you have thought about it as a complete building with what's going to go on the roof too. And I think it looks great.

Great. Diego, I think you hit the button next.

Thank you. Yeah, that was a great project. I loved hearing from the community on the support for biomed and how you can be a trusted partner. It's always nice to hear that. Architecturally, I think what you've done with the facade and the depth of those arches has been pretty impressive. I think it looks a lot better. Um, I love the aesthetic of the black and the brick and then the art display that you have, which is why I'm a big fan of. Pushing that Sydney street are into the back room. I think it activates that street. To be more lively as opposed to being like, sort of a sterile bike room. And then Blanche Street. I only asked about the turning radius because I feel like it needs to look a little bit more permanent. And it also goes back to the lighting that Tom commented on. So I don't know if you can look at that somehow and... maybe extend those planter boxes that you have on the Mass Ave entrance and make those sort of semi-permanent temporary that you can move that sort of connects with Mass Ave or maybe the lighting that you have on Mass Ave and just wrap that around so that outdoor dining space feels more connected and Blanche Street thus also becomes more of a lively place. I think that's my only comment. One more comment was the lobby. I know that we touched on the lobby space. It doesn't look like it's a multi-use space, but it certainly looks like it from the renderings, which I think would be pretty interesting if it was like a multi-use space. But yeah, all around, I think it was a pretty great presentation and project. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Diego. Mary.

Thank you. And so I'll echo that, thrilled that it's taking use of an existing building, very thoughtful design and really helpful to hear from the community who feels, you know, reflects the partnership that you've shown. So my comments are, Some of them, yes, I can't make you do it, but I would say in the spirit of the urban design guidelines for this area, in creating a more green and pedestrian-oriented space, it looks like on Mass Ave, that's the easier one to deal with. There are two what look like relatively new, like Swamp White Oaks from 2024. I'm looking at the street view. And so I feel like you could work with the city to get that extra space. tree in there. I definitely agree. Green Street is harder, but if there's the tree opening there, that feels like a collaboration. It looks like you're doing minor work with the concrete, and so that feels like it's just kind of the appropriate stitching around the edges, but especially there by the, because that's where the, looks like there's a bus stop on Mass Ave, which is great as this kind of civic place. So I think anything to make that corner, especially as you're inviting so much more loading into Blanche Street, I think would be really appreciated. So that segues to my second point, which echoes what everyone's saying, but I think Blanche Street, it looks like it has so much potential, but With all the loading, I kind of wonder, and it looks like the property across with those planters that Diego mentioned, the black ones, something that feels more like that might feel more protected. In the rendering, it looks a lot more temporary, which might be the case because you're thinking they're coming in and out a lot more. But in looking at the rendering, it looks like... the people and the waiter right on the sidewalk. So I feel like giving some thought to how a temporary condition might work would go a long way to taking that to the next step because you've been very thoughtful about the art in there and do pursue the catenary, anything to make this lively. Realize the vision that Tom... felt like he approved way back. I will echo the mechanical penthouse. You know, that was my main concern kind of coming in, but I feel like in discussing it and you're thinking about it and also really relative to the building massing next to it, I feel comfortable you know, with the ongoing attention of Citi, who's so attentive to making sure that feels as screened and pushed back as possible. And then the last piece that I would just encourage ongoing development of is the curation of these art boxes. I think the CDD memo brought it up. Is it, you know, local artists? Is it temporary installations? Is it something that's curated with the schools? And these are the sorts of things that are such great ideas. And so I'm kind of curious where you'll go with that. And I know Alex Makes Art is such a kind of a wonderful advocate for art all over the place. So I know you have good eyes watching you, but that's what I'm kind of looking for is what are you going to do with these art box displays? Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Mary. Well, I don't want to I'll echo my fellow board members. I think a very careful redevelopment of this particular building. I very much appreciate it. And I think this is the first time in my experience I've seen a graphic made a case for the levels of embodied carbon that you were addressing in the design. I really appreciate that. That's the future. That's going to be one of the fastest ways to bend the curve if we can. I think your strategy on the depth of the facade is kind of a subtle idea, but I think really, really effective to take what is a pretty flat building and give it some light and shadow, I think it's a really good strategy. And well done to put that effort in on the Mass Ave side. I would say it's definitely responsive to the existing context because you're reusing that building. And I think public testimony, especially from your abutters, suggesting how well that works. You're bicycle friendly. These are the criteria coming out of the urban design section that we need to hold your feet to the fire on. Not required, but you've got 30 spaces in there. It's going to get wet when it floods, but we'll have to deal with it. We can't have everything. The building and site design, I take Mary's comments to heart on that. I think you could do better to mitigate the adverse impacts of development on neighbors and reinforce the patterns that are there. That district has done so well with its open space and its green spaces. I think there's a tradition there that you've got to keep building on. We're not overburdening the city's infrastructure. There's no additional parking and obviously you're reusing that envelope. And you're actually, you know, again, reusing a building so it's consistent with that urban design and urban complexes that exist there today. So those are basically the most of the relevant citywide urban design objectives, which I believe we can easily make the findings by this board that you have met them. You have to also face the burden of the overall standards for a special permit. Those are well known. Section 10.43, I won't go through those in detail, but based on the discussion of the presentation tonight, I think this board easily makes the findings that this project is consistent with those criteria. So based on that, are there any further comments or questions from the board? So I would, we have a, just, oh, sorry, Dan, go ahead.

I think just subject to as is typical to continuing. Yes.

Yeah, to the extent that what I described was the beginnings of the framings of a motion, you're absolutely right, Dan, to cite the continued ongoing staff support for design review as well as the list that's been developed through the transcript tonight of issues that are of concern to the planning board. My sense from the board is that we're looking at a granting of the special permit. So we've cited the findings with the conditions that Dan has just added. Is there a motion to grant the requested special permit with those conditions and based on the findings that the board is able to make based on testimony tonight? Say your name, please, and state whether you're going to support the motion or move the motion.

This is Mary. So moved.

I'm looking for a second. I've also got a flag here from a staff member. It's a yellow thing. It's sort of like a football game. Jeff?

Yeah.

This is Jeff Roberts, just in something we often have to remind. So we have six planning board members present, two associate members. So in order to proceed with voting on the case, one associate member needs to be appointed. And I've gotten word separately that the last time it was Dan who was appointed to act on the case that we tend to alternate.

Yeah. So it's fair that we will take a vote from Joy then tonight.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you for your input, Dan. Sorry. Okay. So the motion has been moved. I'm looking for a second.

This is Diego.

Second. Okay. If he's not voting, can he move? Would Robert's Rules of Order let me do that, Mr. Roberts?

Was it Diego that seconded that?

Maybe it was Diego.

I'm close on my time.

Excuse me. Okay. All right. So we've got the motion to stand. Any discussion on the motion?

I'm sorry. Can you restate who made the motion and then who seconded the motion?

Mary Lydecker made the motion. There was the yellow flag on the field and then Diego made the second.

Okay. Just to make sure it's clear. So on that motion, Ted Cohen. Yes. Mary Lydecker.

Yes.

Diego Macias. Yes. Ashley Tan. Yes. Carolyn Zern.

Yes.

Joy Jackson.

Yes.

And Thompson Avich.

Yes.

So that's all seven members voting in favor.

Great. Okay. That concludes this particular case. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Have a good day. Thank you all. Thank you. And that concludes our business for tonight. Are there any additional comments from staff or members tonight?

I have, I have one, this, sorry, this is Jeff Roberts again. I just have one thing I, whether we save till the end and I won't take up too much time, but I wanted to note that our, Our very own Swathi Joseph was honored this past week as one of the city's outstanding employees of the year. Unfortunately, she had to miss the ceremony. We had a small kind of sort of substitute reception for her today, but I wanted to also know for the planning board members, many of you have worked with Swathi for a very long time and know how deserving she is of this recognition. And so I just wanted to acknowledge that before we go.

Well, thank you, Jeff. And congratulations, Swathi. Well-deserved, really. And consistent with your humility that you wouldn't show up at your humbleness. We wouldn't show up at the actual ceremony. So that's how I know you.

Thank you, Tom.

Thank you for everything you do for us. You're very patient.

Thank you. Thank you very much. And I really appreciate all of you being on the board and getting us through the many, many nights of planning board meetings.

You're welcome.

Any other comments? Great. All right. Thank you, everybody. Oh, Ted.

well i was just going to ask i've never met carolyn before i wonder if she could without being intrusive if she could tell us a little bit about herself and uh welcome to the board thank you very much um happy to take two minutes and i will try to keep it to that just to give a quick background um i have um

Some experience, I got a master's in urban planning many moons ago down in New York City and worked for New York City's housing department for a while after that. Transitioned from that chapter of my life into the real estate development chapter, working mostly for multifamily developers up here in this area, a little bit for some commercial. We did a little bit of commercial work. And then I spent a little bit of time working as a sustainability consultant for a global engineering firm. I am now doing kind of, I have a constellation of non-traditional jobs now, I will say. And I can fill you in in more detail in person at some point.

Well, thank you. And welcome to the board. It seems like you'll be a great addition.

Yes, thank you. Speaking of in person. Jeff, you were mentioning we were beginning to get the date in focus for the potential dinner for the board. Is that right?

I believe that, yeah, that's being worked on. So we'll have information for the board about that.

Okay. Let's do that when we formally figure it out. Okay. But stay tuned on that. All right. Anything else? Good night. Nothing from us. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good night.

Thanks, all. Good night.