3. A zoning petition has been received from Latoyea Hawkins Cockrill, et a., to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge to regulate short-term rental uses throughout the City.
Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board

Zoning Ordinance Amendment Petition to Regulate
Short-Term Rental Uses in Cambridge

To the Honorable, the City Council:

The undersigned residents of Cambridge hereby petition the Cambridge City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge to regulate short-term rental uses throughout the City. We respectfully request that the following amendments are referred to the City Council Ordinance Committee and the Planning Board for hearing and report:

1. Create the following definition within Article 2.000:
Short-term rental means the accessory use of all or part of a residential dwelling unit by rental for temporary occupancy for dwelling, sleeping, or lodging.

2. Amend Section 4.31.i.l of the Table of Use Regulations to permit 'Short-term rental' use in all Residential Districts.

3. Create a new section 11.900- "Short-Term Rental Use" to govern this use (attached hereto).

11.900 Short-Term Rental Use

11.901 The purpose of this section is to provide for the use of existing residential dwellings in Cambridge for temporary occupancy for dwelling, sleeping, or lodging. The standards of this section are intended to ensure that short-term rental use will not be a detriment to the character and livability of the surrounding neighborhoods.

11.902 Applicability of Regulations. Short-term rentals shall be allowed in Residential Districts A1 & A2, Residential B, Residential C, C-1, C-1A, 2, 2A, 2B, 3, 3A & 3B districts.

11.903 Categories. Two categories of short-term rentals are recognized, and shall comply with the standards set forth in Section 11.904.

(a.) Short-Term Rental, Owner Occupied
The accommodation of visitors conducted in a dwelling unit, the primary use of which is for household living, and where the provision of lodging to any particular visitor is for no more than thirty (30) consecutive days. The dwelling unit must be the primary residence of the person offering the short-term rental.

(b.) Short-Term Rental, Non-Owner Occupied
The accommodation of visitors conducted in a dwelling unit that is not occupied by the owner of the property. The primary use of the dwelling must remain for household living, and the provision of lodging to any particular visitor is for no more than thirty (30) consecutive days. In no instance may short-term rentals in this category be provided for more than one hundred eighty (180) days per year. Short-term rentals in this category are required to obtain a use permit, the conditions of which are set forth in Section 11.905.

11.904 Standards

(a.) Short-term rental use may not result in changes to the residential character of the residential building in which it is located. No separate building entrance or signage that is visible from the street may be provided for the sole use of the short-term rental.

(b.) Smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms shall be installed through the dwelling unit per the Cambridge Fire Code.

(c.) Short-term rentals may not adversely affect the residential character of the neighborhood. Short-term rentals may not, for example, generate noise, vibration, glare, odors, or other effects that unreasonably interfere with any person's enjoyment of his or her residence.

(d.) Short-term rental guests shall be notified ofthe following items:

1. Trash and Recycle Collection days and procedures

2. Limits on excessive noise as outlined in the City of Cambridge's Noise Ordinance and the fines and penalties associated with violations

3. When hosts are not present, the contact information of a designated emergency contact who shall be available for the duration of their stay to respond to unanticipated issues and have the responsibility to take action to resolve such issues.

(e.) Multiple short-term rental reservations shall not occur concurrently within the same short-term rental dwelling.

11.905 Registration & Enforcement

Prior to usage for short-term rentals, all non-owner occupied short-term rental properties must register with the City of Cambridge's lnspectional Services Department. The lnspectional Services Department will promulgate regulations relative to requirements for submission, fee requirements or structure, or penalties for failure to register.

The registration process must include:

a. Contact information for the owner or owner's designee of the short-term rental property

b. Contact information for an additional emergency contact that has the written approval of the owner to act on the owner's behalf

c. A description of the premises rented (number of bedrooms and other living quarters)

d. A means by which to apply online

11.906 Complaints

All short-term rental platforms operating within the City of Cambridge must develop a mechanism to communicate with the City in the event of emergencies occurring in a property being used for short-term rentals or repeated violations of City Municipal Code.

Signed by
Latoyea Hawkins-Cockrill, 141 Putnam Ave. #1, 02139
Jason Stonehouse, 28 Jackson St., 02140
Genevieve Kinder, 36 Rice St. #1, 02140
Francis Fox Spinks, 17B Bigelow St., 02139
Addisie Yeshaw, 210 Columbia St. #4, 02139
William H. Byrn, 60 Francis Ave., 02138
Mindy (Vanessa?) Bernard, 129 Franklin St. #403, 02139
Diane Taylor, 929 Mass. Ave. #6F, 02139
Nijae Ali, 303 Third St. #225, 02142
Jennifer Oberhauser, 424 Windsor St. #9, 02141
Andrew Haveron, 4 Douglass St. #3, 02139
Hilary Fabre, 88 Hancock St. #10, 02139
Brian Allyn, 240 Sydney St. #402, 02139
Cameron Brody, 240 Sydney St. #402, 02139
Michael Raysson, 308 Brookline St. #5, 02139
Anne Nagle, 80 Fawcett St. #473, 02138
Akos Szilvasi, 16 Lexington Ave., 02138
plus 11 others with undecipherable names or non-Cambridge addresses (based on Nov 2016 voter list) for a total of 28 signatures

2. Congratulations to the CRLS Boys Basketball Team on their Division 1 Championship.   Councillor Toomey

R-2     Mar 20, 2017
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: It has come to the attention of the City Council that the Cambridge Rindge and Latin Boys Basketball team defeated Central Catholic 60-44 to win the Division 1 North Championship; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record congratulating the CRLS Boys Basketball Team on their Division 1 Championship; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to the CRLS Boys Basketball Team on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-3     Mar 20, 2017
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the appropriate City departments on the feasibility of installing a hitting tunnel at Danehy Park for youth and high school sports and to report back to the City Council.

O-5     Mar 20, 2017
MAYOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: In 2017, Massachusetts continues grappling with a devastating opioid epidemic, with an estimated five opioid-related deaths per day occurring in the Commonwealth, mercilessly striking people regardless of their race, class, gender, or socioeconomic status; and
WHEREAS: It has been estimated that nearly 1 in 12 Americans suffer from some form of substance abuse disorder, opioid deaths have been steadily rising in Massachusetts over the past several years, and the statistic continues to sit well above the national average; and
WHEREAS: Fatalities stemming from opiate abuse in Massachusetts were four times greater in 2015 than they were in 2000, and this level has continued to sharply increase in just the past two years, prompting Governor Baker to launch an Opioid Task Force in 2016; and
WHEREAS: A number of organizations – including organizations like AIDS Action Cambridge, the Supervised Injection Facilities [SIF] Massachusetts Now Coalition, and First Church in Cambridge – have joined forces to raise awareness of the ravages of opioid addition, and to promote the resources that are available locally to treat this deadly disease; and
WHEREAS: On March 27, First Church in Cambridge will be hosting a screening of a documentary called “Everywhere But Safe,” followed by a Question and Answer session and a panel discussion about different actions the Commonwealth can be taking to combat our opiate addiction epidemic; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record in recognizing the efforts of AIDS Action Cambridge, the SIFMA Now Coalition, and First Church in Cambridge to promote greater awareness about the ongoing opiate epidemic crisis, and their collective efforts to increase access to effective treatment throughout Cambridge; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and is hereby requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to Jim Stewart from First Church of Cambridge on behalf of the entire City Council.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Tues, Feb 14, 2017 beginning at 10:02 a.m. at City Hall Annex, 344 Broadway, Second Floor Conference Room to discuss the Retail Strategic Plan and similar issues related to the retail environment in Cambridge.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Jan Devereux, Chair; Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Councillor Craig Kelley; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager; Lisa Hemmerle, Economic Development Director; Pardis Saffari, Senior Economic Development Specialist; Christina DiLisio, Community Development Department (CDD); Nicole Murati Ferrer, Chair; Elizabeth Lint, Executive Director, License Commission; John Nardone, Assistant Commissioner of Operations, Department of Public Works (DPW); Ranjit Singanayagam, Commissioner, Inspectional Services Department; Nora Bent; Jason Alves; Dave Mattei; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Larisa Ortiz, Principal; Patricia Voltolini, Associate, Larisa Ortiz Associates; Sarah Kennedy, Director of Government Affairs, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce; Matt Boyes-Watson, Evenflow G; Susan Labandibar; Frank Kramer; John Hawkinson; Claudia Majetich; John Ciancio; and Patrick Barrett.

Councillor Devereux convened the hearing and asked Ms. Farooq to give an opening statement. Ms. Farooq stated that there has been much interest in small business and retail in Cambridge. She noted that Cambridge is struggling with the same problems as others and having a consultant who has worked in the broader arena may be able to help with solutions. She introduced Larisa Ortiz from Larisa Ortiz Associates (LOA) who was hired to look at small businesses and retail in Cambridge who will present the scope of their study and their approach. She stated that to be able receive information in terms of needs that require modification in terms of the City’s approach will be great to hear at this stage so necessary changes can be made. Ms. Farooq added that additionally, this is an opportunity for Larisa Ortiz Associates to hear about the priorities of the City Council and the business community. She introduced Ms. Ortiz who then introduced her colleague, Patricia Voltolini.

Ms. Ortiz stated that the retail environment is changing and this study is an opportunity to have a holistic view of what Cambridge looks like currently and in the future. Ms. Ortiz gave a brief summary of her 25 years of experience working in Economic Development in commercial corridors. She stated that she caught the Economic Development bug early and dug deep into the retail environment. She noted that her firm has worked in over 100 communities nationwide.

Ms. Ortiz stated that most of the conversation will be for her firm to receive feedback from the public. She gave a summary of a PowerPoint presentation. She noted that the goal of the work is to develop best practice policies and programs that will support and enhance the ground level active use land and retail environment in Cambridge. She explained that this goal will be accomplished in four ways: Public Policies/Investments, Marketability/Visibility, Tenant Mix and Administration Capacity. She stated that she has worked in communities with many resources as well as communities with limited resources. She stated Larisa Ortiz Associates is excited to work with business associations as well. Ms. Ortiz explained that LOA plans to make recommendations for the right mix for each district. She stated that the idea is that each district has its own DNA, each district wants to be something. She stated that LOA approaches this by trying to understand who are the people who are going to these places currently. She stated that the main goal is to categorize all of the districts and improve what is there. She stated that they will look at who has the responsibility to take this work on. She stated that it takes time and effort to build relationships in the commercial real estate industry and they want to make sure the recommendations are a reflection of who can get this work done. She stated that it is the mission of LOA is that communities reap significant rewards when they take the time to accurately understand their stakeholders and local market dynamics before leaping into action. She noted that this will allow the prioritization of a set of solutions that temper market realities with the interests of diverse voices in the community. She explained that LOA will return to Cambridge at the end of February or beginning of March to have many more interviews with key stakeholders. She noted that her current visit to Cambridge was to visit all of the districts and explained that inclement weather made that very difficult. She stated that LOA will use the information from this hearing to do a deep dive into market data.

Ms. Ortiz stated that there are four areas that make retail work: Physical Environment, Business Environment, Administrative Capacity, and Market Data & Demographics. She stated that shoppers are often agnostic about whether they purchase something from a mall or a district. She stated that we live in environment where people have options so it is imperative that commercial districts are competitive. She stated that the physical environment is important and explained that data doesn’t talk about unique cultural institutions that bring people to a particular district. She said that data can only tell so much and LOA looks to communities to give flavor and texture to the data.

Councillor Devereux thanked Ms. Ortiz for her presentation.

Susan Labandibar stated that she would love to get a sense of the vision of what kinds of outcomes will come out of process and how this study will understand the needs of the community and then meeting them. She asked how this will make a real difference for the Cambridge retail sector. Ms. Ortiz responded that the outcomes are practical and include types of policies in place, potential tweaks that should be made to zoning or regulatory issues, and particular incentives that could be critical to supporting the growth of small businesses. She noted that with every incentive program there are decisions to be made and explained that LOA could help define those incentives. She said that the information that is received is intended to get the City to a set of actions that make sense.

Lisa Hemmerle stated that one of the great elements of this strategy is talking about administrative capacity. She said that that goal is actionable items including a discussion about capacity so that these items can be enacted. She stated that getting involved in partnerships and working better with the Chamber of Commerce will aid in the work with small businesses.

Councillor Devereux stated that she wants to challenge that shoppers are agnostic about shopping in a mall or locally. She noted that one of the big topics of conversation at the moment is the possibility that something that resembles a mall, but is not really a mall, may be located in Harvard Square. She stated that this may bring mall culture to Harvard Square. She stated her concern that the trajectory of Cambridge is becoming less unique and more like business districts and affluent communities. She said that the goal is to figure out how to create bulwark against that. She stated that there is strong interest in figuring out how to create formula business districts with the ability to do creative things. She said that she is interested in hearing about creative policies can be implemented. She stated that she is interested in hearing explicitly about access as it relates to Inman Square because it is a huge topic in the city as to how to encourage mode share which has a direct impact on local retail. She explained that this is part of Envision Cambridge and she stated that she assumes that this work will be folded into the Envision Cambridge process.

Ms. Ortiz explained that LOA is reviewing reports and data from 2012. Councillor Devereux stated that there are many studies that can be folded into this work. Councillor Devereux explained that she did not hear anything directly related to employment in the presentation. She said that retail has many purposes including, employment and workforce development. Councillor Devereux added that another topic of conversation could be how to give people a foothold in this market when rents are soaring and real estate is limited. She indicated that she is excited about the process.

Councillor Mazen stated that the citywide trend is that there are rising land costs and tenants are bearing the brunt of those increases. He explained that he has been a casualty of high rent costs that escalate (lease terms). He stated that this is untenable for a small business. He stated that the medium size businesses (50-100 employees) face a huge amount of difficulty hiring at entry level and getting good labor. He said that there are a lot of businesses are not seeing cross-pollination. He said that the niches that do exist do not have the type of foot traffic to maintain its footprint. He stated that City districts have not been shopping districts for the last ten years. Ms. Ortiz asked Councillor Mazen if this can be stated across the board. Councillor Mazen responded that it is worse everywhere else. He stated that the administration capacity is where it gets interesting. He stated that Cambridge has an unbelievable biotech and technology scene. Ms. Ortiz asked if there has been exploration for opportunities for procurement by the universities in Cambridge. Ms. Saffari stated that they did an initiative with the top 25 employers in the city to connect with some of the businesses. She explained that there is a yearly opportunity to talk about how to become a vendor and information of that type. She explained that there will something similar to a vendor fair by the end of 2017. Ms. Saffari explained that these gatherings are not attended by large numbers of the business owners because they are too busy and do not attend these events.

Councillor Mazen stated that as it relates to the administrative capacity, there is no marketing that aligns consumer interest. He stated that we have not reached the critical mass of buzz necessary to make it a consumer driven ideology.

Councillor Mazen asked what other density or FAR bonus can be given to allow real estate investors to write off the ground floor. He said that this would be an agent that fosters affordability. Ms. Farooq stated that there is a version of this in Kendall Square wherein what is devoted to retail does not count to your GFA limit. She said that this is essentially a bonus. She stated that this does not allow the City to ensure affordability and does not allow the city to prescribe tenanting and income level or rent rates. Councillor Mazen stated that maybe it could. He said that he would love something that would allow this type of means testing.

Councillor Mazen stated that we need more anchor tenants. He said that it is better for the city if we are courting anchors to specific developments rather than waiting for whoever applies for a larger space. He said that if there is going to be focus on signage, design, and university vending, it will have to come by way of an intervention. His said that his experience is that he never had a chance to take advantage to see if it is any good. He stated that the reason we are not hearing this is because there is not the attendance at critical events. He stated that outreach is imperative. He said that he is really talking about any goal and added that any goal has to have a number and then reach that number through outreach and engagement.

Ms. Ortiz asked about the big picture and what kind of changes have been seen in districts most recently, particularly since the last census. She inquired about the perceptions regarding how some of the districts are changing and competitive challenges.

Claudia Majetich said that as it relates to retail districts, there is also retail that is more like infill. She asked if the study entirely focused on the commercial district or are they looking at ways to support infill which is something like a little store on Concord Avenue. She asked if local shopping districts are meeting the day to day needs of the community. Ms. Ortiz stated that LOA will be looking at the nine defined commercial districts that the city has laid out. She stated that the question is who is the customer base for that business. She noted that the other piece is the survey work that has been done consistently. She said that LOA will try to overlay what people have said along with the data.

Councillor Devereux asked Ms. Ortiz what are the nine commercial districts that LOA will be researching. Ms. Ortiz responded: Harvard Square, Central Square, Kendall Square, Porter Square, Inman Square, East Cambridge, Lower Massachusetts Avenue, North Massachusetts Avenue, Alewife/Fresh Pond area and Huron Village. Claudia Majetich asked if this includes the quadrangle. Ms. Saffari responded in the affirmative.

Ms. Labandibar added that sometimes main street programs have businesses that have been left out. She stated that her business was not located in a main street district so there was a pushback. She stated that businesses on the edge of districts have a decrease in traffic. Ms. Ortiz stated that the approach is to look at the customer base for the district over a radial analysis and added that every business within a half mile will be counted. She said that there is no sharp boundary. Ms. Saffari added that staff has made every effort by sending out survey to get general information about the business, leases, sales, etc. She noted that some businesses out of districts have been targeted to ensure that their voices are heard in the process. Ms. Farooq added that they do not want to have unintentional and detrimental impacts to businesses.

Councillor Devereux stated that Harvard Square is at a turning point because of ownership. She explained that for many years, two of the major building blocks were owned by a family foundation trust and when one of them was sold for an astronomical amount, that put everything into play. She stated that one property owner has infinite resources, however, one of the major assets that he paid a great deal of money for has been empty (movie theater). She said that everyone on Church Street has suffered from the theater being closed. Councillor Mazen stated that it is expected to become a low traffic incubator.

Councillor Devereux stated that the city has no arrow in its quiver to press a property owner to use a property which is a huge problem. She mentioned the Legacy business program in Seattle. She mentioned shops in Paris own their shops. She stated that other tenants are turning over and there is a tremendous amount of instability in Harvard Square. She stated that there are ideas about requiring that retail spaces be ownership to give the merchants some degree of control over the rent cliff. She stated that she is interested in looking at expiring use affordable housing. She asked if we can create a category of expiring use retail. She asked if the City can do anything. She stated that they have talked about the property tax structure (pass through) and how that comes back to haunt in the triple net formula.

Frank Kramer stated that the city has to take strong action using examples from other cities. He said that zoning and planning is imperative. As it relates to shopping malls, Mr. Kramer stated that he likes that it is planned where everyone in the mall is located. He stated that planning a retail district for what use can go where is a great idea. He said that this can happen in a non-mall. He stated that underneath that must be some zoning. He stated that making zoning laws in favor of small and locally owned businesses is important. He stated that he is not hopeful about what is going to happen in Harvard Square. He stated that he believes that this will happen throughout the city. He said that the retail environment is an important part of what Cambridge has to offer. He stated that the management of the city does have interest in helping small businesses survive. Mr. DePasquale stated that he fully agrees with Mr. Kramer. He noted that it is a partnership and working together we can come up with a product for all. He affirmed that this is a great start.

Ms. Ortiz asked if there are challenges that are unique to other districts, similar to that of Harvard Square. Frank Kramer stated that one idea that he has seen in other cities is that they allow owners of the stores to park in those neighborhoods between 9 and 5. He noted that this will encourage more people to stay in their stores. Councillor Devereux questioned if other cities give resident permits to business owners. Mr. Kramer responded in the affirmative. Ms. Ortiz stated that LOA is working in a district where there is categorization for a special parking permit.

Councillor Devereux spoke about red tape and opening business in the city. She asked if Ms. Ortiz is something within her scope of services. Ms. Ortiz responded in the affirmative. Nicole Murati Ferrer stated that the City is moving forward in the EnerGov process and many City departments will be interrelated. She said that once all of the pertinent departments are utilizing the same system, it will be easier for an applicant to apply and for the application to move better through the necessary channels. She stated that unfortunately, for any business, there are a lot of steps that are mostly state law mandated and cannot be eliminated. She stated that EnerGov will be beneficial to link departments that are necessary to access when opening a business such as the License Commission, Inspectional Services, Department of Public Works and the Fire Department. Ranjit Singanayagam that this is a process that he is currently working towards. Ms. Murati Ferrer added that the Inspectional Services Department and the License Commission are partnering to interconnect information. Ms. Ortiz asked if there is a single point of contact for businesses or is that the intention. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that applicants are working independently with each department. She noted that CDD does help businesses navigate through these channels. She stated that a lot of these things are specialized in terms of zoning, districts or licensing. Ms. Saffari stated that it is beneficial that the Inspectional Services Department and the License Commission are located next to each other so that does relieve some of those difficulties.

Councillor Devereux said that Cambridge prides itself on being committed to sustainability on all levels, yet there is a mixed reception from business owners. She stated that these initiatives do have an impact on businesses. Councillor Mazen stated that he wants the lobbyist to say what is onerous and what is not onerous rather than all things creating a bad situation.

Susan Labandibar stated that she is in love with the City of Boston’s small business plan. She said that the conceptualization is “We are going to have a plan for you.” She stated that one of the things that made that plan successful is how easy they made it to get services which were valuable. She explained that her business opened in Boston in 1996 and she got nothing out of the city until last year when they received legal services.

Ms. Ortiz stated that one of the things she is curious about from the survey is the ability to secure stable, long-term leases that have a clear escalation. She said that they found the challenge of retaining businesses sometimes comes down to the lease. She explained that if the City can provide legal support early on, this helps address some of the fundamental issues. Councillor Mazen added that information regarding how and whether to negotiate the lease would be beneficial. He stated that there are predatory terms in the Cambridge real estate market.

Councillor Devereux asked if there are buyer agents and seller agents such as in residential. Mr. Kramer stated that an attorney helps the small business owner but advice on how to negotiate would be great. Ms. Ortiz added that education and understanding of leases would be great. Ms. Hemmerle stated that they always recommend that a person get their own broker. She said that the City does not recommend brokers but they do instruct them to get someone to protect their interests. Ms. Farooq added that the City is also offering in-person workshops. She added that the City is moving towards Webinars, as well, for convenience. She stated that there is a challenge in regards to what the city can and cannot do for private individuals when thinking about retail services. Ms. Farooq explained that CDD coordinates with the City Solicitor and explained that there are stumbling blocks around what the city uses its resources on in terms of support individuals as opposed to a district. Ms. Ortiz stated that they do look to engage business organizations as members of business organizations are sometimes attorneys. She said that she has come across instances where an attorney will offer free services. She stated that signing the lease is probably the riskiest thing that a business can do. Councillor Devereux asked if the Harvard Square Business Association offers these particular services. Mr. Kramer responded that he does not believe so. Ms. Saffari stated that a lot of lawyers who are members of business associations do offer time by way of workshops and giving time to new entrepreneurs. She said that there have been many people who have donated time in one way or another. Ms. Hemmerle added that they are always looking for additional outlets.

Councillor Devereux mentioned the Venture Café model of having businesses network. Councillor Kelley mentioned the need to update the city’s land use tables.

Councillor Devereux thanked all those present for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 11:58am.

For the Committee,
Councillor Jan Devereux, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Finance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, conducted a public hearing on Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:32pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the City’s Fiscal Year 2018 Operating and Capital Budget. Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor McGovern, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Cheung; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Mazen; Councillor Toomey; Mayor Simmons; City Manager Louis DePasquale; Deputy City Manager Lisa Peterson; Budget Director Jeana Franconi; Lee Gianetti, Director of Communications and Public Relations; Sandra Albano, Executive Assistant to the City Council; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present was Gary Mello, 324 Franklin Street and Hasson Rashid, 820 Mass. Ave.

Vice Mayor McGovern opened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the hearing was being live streamed because the broadcast was not working on the television and the hearing is also be audio and video recorded.

Vice Mayor McGovern explained why this hearing was scheduled. In the past years as he has been Finance Committee chair when the hearing in May comes up to discuss the City Budget there have been City Councillors expressing disappointment or a wish or desire to have had some input early on in the budget process. He wanted to schedule this hearing in September but it was difficult with City Manager Rossi retiring and no new City Manager in place. Between the holidays and the fire this got delayed. This is a new way of doing business for the City. He hoped that next year this hearing would be held earlier. He stated that today the committee will hear from the City Manager with a brief update about the budget process. This is an opportunity for the City Councillors to discuss things that they are interested in and priorities that they want the City Manager to consider when the budget is being put together. The topics can be specific or broad. He noted that the City Manager will not be able to all that the City Council would like. This will allow some input by the City Council as a group as opposed to individuals. He hoped that this is something that the City will continue to do. He asked City Manager DePasquale for comments.

City Manager DePasquale stated that this is a great opportunity to get a head start. He stated that the budget process has started. He stated that Budget Director Ms. Franconi will give an update as to where the City is on the budget process. He would like to hear from the City Council about where the direction of the budget is going. He stated that the City is facing some issues but this does not mean we cannot take a look at all the things that come up tonight and to come up with a balanced plan. The more the open discussion that the City Council has with the City Manager and the finance team the better it is for the budget and the residents. This will be a good process and will tie into the goals in the future. He gave a brief update on the financial situation. He stated that last year's budget grew at 5.3% and the main driving force was that the budget was increased by twenty-one positions. He stated that the five year average has been 4.1% and the ten year average has been 3.8%. He stated that what he was showing is that the growth has been consistent. He stated that the budget is the driving factor around property tax bills. This needs to always be kept in mind and Cambridge responds in the affirmative more than any other city. He stated that last year's property tax levy went up 5.1%. He stated that what the City uses to show what is being done with taxes is what percentage of the bills either declined, stayed the same or increased less than $100. In last year's budget it was 67%. He gave statistics on the five year average in which 75% of the residents have seen no increase, a decrease or an increase of less than $100. The ten year average is also 75% which shows consistency.

City Manager DePasquale stated that as the FY18 budget is started we look at where we may be based on some of the factors that are already seen. He added that the goal is always to say "yes." He stated that knowing that the City will be up positions because they have been approved in the budget this year, the City is facing in this point in time the first health insurance increase in the last three years. The City is still working with the schools and the tax number will be greater than it has been in the past. He stated that the Early Education Task Force will be coming on, there are issues with Community Development and housing. He stated that the City is probably around 7% increase where last year it was 5.3%. This is early on. As the departments prepare their budgets this is kept in mind. He acknowledged that the demands of the City Council must be met because this is what the residents want. How this is balanced out with the fact that we do need some new positions in certain areas and to address issues of affordable housing is all part of the plan. This year the City is starting out in an unusually high place with the budget. This is an opportunity for the administration to hear from the City Council. He stated that Ms. Franconi will provide an update of where the City is in the budget process.

Ms. Franconi gave an update on the planning of the budget. She stated that the finance team help to develop the guidelines. She spoke about the increases for the FY 18 budget. The increases are as follows: 2.5% COLA; 2% health insurance and a 5.8 % pensions. All departments are asked to level fund their Ordinary Maintenance, Travel and Training and Extraordinary Expenditure Accounts. All departments have been asked to look at the non-property tax revenue and to compare it with the surrounding communities. In mid-December a budget kick-off was held. She outlined the budget schedule. The proposed budget will be submitted to the City Council on April 24 with the Finance Committee hearings to be held in May and budget adoption thereafter will be May 22, 2017.

Vice Mayor McGovern opened the hearing to comments by the City Council.

Councillor Carlone stated that Cambridge is wealthy city with the lowest taxes in the state. No one wants to increase taxes, but we are in an unusually situation to do some things. He discussed three areas: safety, housing and development. He spoke about the most complaints he receives is motorists going through traffic lights especially on local streets. He stated that the new 25 MPH regulation needs to be enforced. He stated that cameras only take pictures when the law is broken and people do not like cameras. The budget does not reflect the number one priority of affordable housing. If this is really the number one issue then the budget should reflect this. On development and planning, planners work with architects and there is a need for an urban design component in the City. He stated that the City is not building places and there is no overall planning strategy. He stated that there is no plan for Harvard Square or a physical plan for Central Square. There is no clear idea on zoning in the City. No reason to increase zoning if any building in the future are not paying, planned or unplanned even for institutions. He wanted to be an equal partner in the development field. As for housing the City cannot depend on a developer to produce housing.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked if Councillor Carlone wanted these positions to be brought on or funding to be allocated for Community Development Department to provide 3D models. Councillor Carlone stated that in 1970 there were two urban designers in the City. Now there is a junior urban designer now but her experience is unknown. Mr. Booth was a senior consultant working for the City who was not replaced when he retired. He stated that Community Development Department has great planners, but they do not speak the 3D language why are they being put into these positions. He wanted staff to work on three dimensional studies so that when the City Council asked for information it is available. Vice Mayor McGovern spoke about different skill sets; job descriptions may need to be changed to do the job. He noted that one cannot be hired to do a job that they are not trained to do. City Manager DePasquale stated that he needs to hear and listen and get the requests and bring them to the budget discussions. He will try to incorporate what he can into the budget.

Councillor Kelley spoke about the Police Department is hiring a traffic data analysis. City Manager DePasquale stated that this is underway and will provide detail information. Councillor Kelley spoke about the effects of the Trump administration and the funding implications and our service providers. How nimble is the city to raise revenue after the budget is adopted and how much free cash does the City need to keep. City Manager DePasquale stated that it is difficult to replace everything if the cuts are made. He stated that he may have to come back to the City Council with what can be funded and what cannot be funded. The City cannot be a back stop when state and federal governments cut funding. Once taxes are set in September there is limited resources in terms of what funding can be provided. He spoke about free cash being used as one-time expenditure and not used for operating expenses because the following year this will not work. He stated that the priorities need to be discussed with the City Council. He stated that there is no City better prepared to face this than the City of Cambridge. Councillor Kelley stated that free cash is exactly the place to go for on-going operating expenses and then figure out how much extra tax revenue would be needed the next year to carry on the operating expenses and then bring back the free cash. He stated this discussion will be difficult unless there is better data. He stated that figuring out the ability of where the taxpayers are will be difficult to make decision based on whether free cash is used for operating expenses. He spoke about looking at all non-property revenue to make allocations would be a reasonable way to help with operating expenses. He spoke about increasing the parking sticker fee. City Manager DePasquale stated that he is not opposed to using free cash if there is crisis. He stated that trying to tie tax increases to income in not allowable under tax laws. He would look at the residential exemption which is one number for all categories. There are four residential categories and would have to file legislation to look at income and having that passed in time to address the impact may not be a reality. He stated that a decision needs to be made whether property taxes may need to be increased and non-tax revenue has been looked at every year. He stated that there have been excess funds in the fund balances. He stated that the Water Fund has always been there and because of the drought there was a need for $3.6 which was an unplanned expense. He stated that some balances are already being reached for expenses. He stated that he is looking to be prepared for the unknown. Cambridge has a low tax rate, but the values are high and grow dramatically and this affects the assessments. The property value increase in September will only be a single digit increase. Councillor Kelley stated that it is not the income, it is the wealth to pay taxes to pay for things that the state and federal government will no longer fund. City Manager DePasquale stated that there is $155 million below the levy limit; the highest in the state.

Councillor Devereux stated that she would like traffic enforced and would like a budget for Vision Zero, communication, education and culture change for the use of the streets and sidewalks. She wanted more resources dedicated to trees and tree canopy, including preserving the trees through better watering, better care and pruning less. She suggested that a non-tax revenue is imposing a tax for a property owner who cuts down a significant tree and the tax goes to the tree fund. She wanted to know more about the school budget especially around the increase in the budget related to staffing. She would support the increase for guidance counselors to support the students applying to college. She commented on the ratio of 1-100. She wanted more resources for the staff at Community Development Department and the reorganization of the department. The staff is stretched thin. She wanted the City to more aggressive about taking property. The values of property are not going down and if the City is going to acquire property she would like the City in this game. City Manager DePasquale commented that Vision Zero is important. He stated that $1 million has been added to the street budget. The City will need to bond more for streets. He stated that he has bottom line authority on the school budget. He stated that the school is the largest budget in the City and their increase has a large impact on the City. It is important to have the school budget funded as need.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he had a hearing scheduled with the School Committee; it was cancelled and will be reschedule in March. It may be a Roundtable format. The City Council does not have the authority to tell the School Committee how to spend their budget. He is trying to start the conversation with the School Committee around their budget earlier.

Councillor Cheung spoke about the need for more funding. He wanted more detail and analysis with the budget which has been historically requested. He expressed concern with the amount of on-going capital projects, schools, road and energy efficiency upgrades. He wanted to clearly understand the fiscal position of the City and the City's debt to ensure that the top and bottom lines are managed to do the projects. He stated that added in is the OPED has been funded for years and he wanted to see if we are on track with that. He stated that the uncertainty going forward he wanted scenario analysis such as what if the economy grows or retracts and how this effects the budget and that it is managed efficiently. He noted that there are some who can pay more property taxes, but there are many who cannot afford to pay more. He did not want the City to overextend itself to increase taxes for people who cannot afford to pay more. He spoke about if the City can bifurcate its commercial tax rate so that big businesses can be charged more and put more burden on large business rather than small businesses. He asked if there is a way to split the commercial rate. City Manager DePasquale stated that the rating agency presentation is coming up and this is the information that the City has to provide to them. He stated that the capital plan is laid out in the budget. The City is taking on more debt and this is a concern and is being carefully looked at. He stated that debt is not retired as quickly as it used to be. The City is working with an investment firm to prioritize the projects and debt. He stated that the City has to keep a careful watch on the number that can be bonded. Councillor Cheung spoke about how quickly the City may reach its levy capacity. He spoke about the long term fiscal picture over the next five years and if there will be tradeoffs. City Manager DePasquale stated that there has never been a discussion as to what will happen if all of a sudden there is too much because the City has been able to manage it. He stated that this will be coming in the near future.

Councillor Mazen asked what is the increase in the budget revenue and expenditure in the budget for the last two years. City Manager DePasquale stated that taxes go up 5% and the non-tax revenue would make up the difference. It is 2-3% and taxes are 66%. He stated that the sewer rate would be the driving force. After this is the building permits which is not a budgeted increase. He stated that most of the non-taxable revenue is limited and the largest increase would be the sewer rate which is a self-sufficient fund. This would increase by half of the property tax increase. Councillor Mazen commented that there should be significant decreases in the budget where things are not working. City Manager DePasquale traditionally the City has not reduced or decreased the budget; this has not been looked at but will be looking at this maybe not in this upcoming budget but it is on the table. Things will be looked at differently. Councillor Mazen stated that three factors are looming large and it is scary to see all three at the same problem. Councillor Mazen stated that he feels that he has inherited a problem. He stated that the problem is that the City has maxed out its borrowing power; the debt service is becoming a problem. He stated that the amount of debt the City has is not equal to the volume of our debt service conversation in budgeting or in general. He wanted to have the debt service discussion especially if more debt is being added for streets. He stated that the City is close to the edge of not being able to borrow for a long time. City Manager DePasquale stated that there is $48 million in the debt stabilization fund and this has allowed the City to increase its debt. It is important to maintain the stabilization funding. He stated that the City is clearly still in a good position. He stated that twenty year projects can affect the debt ratio. Councillor Mazen spoke about that not drawing down programs and services that are not working. He stated that he wanted the City to admit when project/programs are not working. He stated that the taxes will not be raised this time but will be increased next year. This is due to prior decisions made. City Manager DePasquale stated that if state and federal funding is cut could affect the situation dramatically. If the City continues to grow positions it will continue to affect the taxes. His role is to let the City Council know the impact if certain things are done. Councillor Mazen agreed with bifurcation the business tax. There is a large cost to doing business in Cambridge with a large return. Can the City appeal to the state to change the residential/commercial ratio. City Manager DePasquale stated that he would look at any legislation that may affect the way the City taxes. He stated that the commercial growth must stay in pace with the residential growth. He stated that at some point the commercial rate will not be able to be increased. The residential bills are so low now is because there is a balance that exists that the commercial continues to work. The Assessor is looking into this area to come up with some ideas. Councillor Mazen stated that the breakdown of residential and commercial is set by the state. City Manager DePasquale stated that it is based on the value of how much taxes; it is 2/3 - 1/3. We are getting to the limit. Councillor Mazen stated that Cambridge is in a position to levy more commercial tax. He asked if the City could move past the state threshold. City Manager DePasquale stated that this will require going to state legislature, after discussion with Mr. Reardon.

Councillor Mazen stated that he did not understand why those who are house rich and cash poor why aren't more people applying to the abatement. He wanted all to apply for abatements. Councillor Mazen stated that he wanted Vice Mayor McGovern to have the hearing with the School Committee televised because according to the rules of the School Committee Roundtables are not televised. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he would take this under advisement.

Councillor Mazen spoke about out of school time, access, equity and outreach. He wanted to see outreach helped by the universities and volunteers. He wanted to see the Police Department being more service oriented to the community and counseling services in the budget. Police have manpower and training to do this work. He wanted to see about local level accountability on project management and efficiency; this should be a full time position and funding is needed behind this. He stated that funding needs to be allocated for affordable housing and funding needs to be put behind friendly/unfriendly land takings and suggested a housing overlay for affordable housing. He spoke about a specific type of hiring for Community Development, for an urban designer and architect and 3D model prototyping. He stated that Information Technology Department does a good job with back office technology and support. Websites and prototypes need to look good and the fact of the lack of flexibility when done outside. Hiring from inside pays for itself with efficiency.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that there are not many municipalities that are discussing how to spend more money. It is not just Harvard and MIT that has put Cambridge in this position; it is careful planning by the City. The Triple AAA bond rating allows the City to do things for the residents that we could not do if we did not have this rating. The City Council met with East Cambridge Business Association about issues of how big and small businesses are grouped together needs to be reviewed. He stated that the next four years may be tough. He stated that there is a Supreme Court ruling that President Trump cannot cut funding to Sanctuary Cities. He is concerned with what will happen to HUD, the Department of Education and the most vulnerable in the City. He agreed with being more aggressive with purchasing property for affordable housing. He spoke about the different ways to help people out of poverty. He spoke about gap vouchers for housing. He spoke about the fuel assistance program, food for students and the difference between state and federal income guidelines. The City will move forward with the Early Childhood Task Force recommendations and how this can be sped up. He stated that the issues around homelessness, he wanted short and long term goals. He spoke about bike infrastructure and how is thinking changed about the use of streets and short term ways to achieve this. He stated that in reference to taxes. He has zero interest to raise taxes for those who are house rich, cash poor, but does want a distinction made between them and where a house is purchased for $2 million. He wanted the City to work with state on the Magazine Beach Project.

Councillor Toomey stated that there will be challenging times ahead. Affordable housing and alternative ways to acquire housing he wanted to use zoning to make this happen. The issue around the Foundry building and whether the City up-fronts more funding to get more bidders. City Manager DePasquale stated that the $6 million provided by the City the City felt it was workable; it is not the right number. What is the right the number and he is working with CRA with different scenarios to get to the right number. This just did not work; and in the end it was too low a number. Councillor Toomey asked is it economically feasible to tear this down and start anew.

Councillor Cheung stated that if the City Manager was challenged to cut $10 million from the budget the City could do this. Previously when asked to scale back programs the City Manager got his head handed to him; but this City Council is willing to make difficult decisions as to what programs should be cut. Vice Mayor McGovern stated cuts have not been made in his term and when a program is cut, employees are cut. If the programs are evaluated and found not to be effective and the funding if put into affordable housing is reasonable. City Manager DePasquale stated that the City is always looking to do things better. One of the difficulties is people are served in a program and when it is cut it creates difficulty.

Vice Mayor McGovern noted that programs, once started, are not evaluated. We need to be more efficient.

Councillor Carlone spoke about a two level commercial tax approach. With small businesses more money comes back to the locale and more jobs are created. He wanted to set a small business standard with the amount of employees he thinks this will be supported maybe by a ballot question. City Manager DePasquale stated that he and the Assessor are discussing this but more work is needed. Councillor Carlone spoke about those who are house rich and cash poor. He stated that there should be an account system set up based on the selling price of the house. The taxes could be accrued and only when the house is sold the City gets paid. The City does not lose the income on the selling price.

Councillor Mazen stated that Cambridge can be a world capital for the arts and with little investment because of the talent that is here in the City. He wanted to marshal the resources of talented individual.

Councillor Devereux stated that small businesses are hurt when the commercial tax rate increases.

Councillor Carlone noted that triple tax net the taxes go straight to the retail.

Councillor Kelley stated that the discussion is about funding for the Foundry, road improvements while huge cuts from the stated and federal government. We need to be cautious with what we ask the City Manager to do. He stated that the future will be leaner.

At 7:15pm Vice Mayor McGovern opened public comment.

Gary Mello, 324 Franklin Street, stated that he wants the City to join the state's group health insurance and will save Cambridge tax payers millions. He stated that the GIC is acceptable for the Governor. He stated that when Somerville joined the program five years ago premiums dropped instantly. He spoke about Cadillac tax as it relates to health insurance. He stated that all borrowing should be suspended. He proposed and allocation of $2.00 for the CRA to seal the lid on this authority. He wanted all to refrain from using the phase "AAA bond rating." He noted that many communities have a AAA bond rating. His comments are attached as (ATTACHMENT A).

Hasson Rashid, 820 Massachusetts Avenue, wanted to see funding allocated to address the areas of imbalances in social growth. Two specific areas of imbalance are: Homeless Human Rights Commission syndrome. The Homeless go into the Human Rights Commission to make a complaint. The Human Rights Commission does nothing. Homeless is not a protected class and funding can be put into the budget by a public ordinance law to protect the homeless as a protected class. The black historical site markers are in need of repair and nothing has been put into the budget for repair of these monuments.

On a motion by Councillor Kelley public comment closed at 7:21pm.

Councillor Devereux asked who is responsible for the black historical markers. City Manager DePasquale stated that he will look into this.

Councillor Mazen spoke about the alternative health care group insurance commission. City Manager DePasquale stated that the City has made the right decision regarding health insurance for their employees. Councillor Mazen spoke about getting the most out of the Election Commission and any other commission in the City that may over or under performing. Vice Mayor McGovern noted that the only time the City Council hears from departments is around budget time. He wanted more updates on commissions and departments.

Councillor Cheung stated that GIC is terrible for the communities that have this insurance. What Cambridge has done for health insurance for employees is good and the City should not go to GIC.

Councillor Mazen made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with Finance Department to craft a proposal to the state that would allow a more favorable, larger portion commercial tax increase over the portion that the City currently has.

The motion carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Councillor Mazen made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Finance Department to review the abatement process to see if there is a different way that the tax abatement process can be structured for condominiums or a proposal to make property owners apply for a residential exemption based on the purchase price of the property.

The motion carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Vice Mayor McGovern thanked all attendees.

The hearing adjourned at 7:30pm on motion of Vice Mayor McGovern.

For the Committee,
Vice Mayor Marc C. McGovern, Chair

Committee Report #3
The Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 4:05pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to draft language for short-term rental regulations to be forwarded to the Ordinance Committee.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Kelley, Chair of the Public Safety Committee; Councillor Mazen; Vice Mayor McGovern; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Devereux; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Nicole Murati Ferrer, Chair, License Commission; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Ranjit Singanayagam, Inspectional Services Commissioner; Joseph Barr, Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation; Gerald Reardon, Fire Chief; and Gerald Mahoney, Deputy Fire Chief; Will Durbin; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were John Merrill, 2353 Mass. Ave.; Hilary Fabre, 88 Hancock Street; Monta Lertpachin, 14 Lee Street; Jeff Cummings, 215 Pearl Street; Marielle Remillard, 1558 Mass. Ave.; Rachel Wyon, 283 Sidney Street; Caitlin O'Neill; and Charles Henebury, 30 Andrew Street.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and stated the purposes. He announced that the meeting is being privately recorded. He stated that there is proposed draft ordinance on short-term rental (ATTACHMENT A). He stated that he has met with City staff, AirBnB and other organizations and representatives at the state. He stated that he often uses AirBnB as shorthand for short term rentals but that there are many other platforms such as FlipKey and HomeAway that offer the same short term rental options. The notes from the Public Safety Working Group that met on short-term rentals in Cambridge is attached (ATTACHMENT B). He requested all attendees to read the draft ordinance. He stated that short-term rental is any rental less than 30 consecutive days. He stated that the City Council has to decide the policy and whether the City Council wanted to limit short-term rentals such as living in a building or house and renting rooms or investing in rooms to rent out for short-term. He wanted to keep AirBnB short-term rentals associated with someone living in a building. He suggested a 4 unit building because there is an existing mortgage category that cuts off at that level. He stated that 3 unit buildings were excluded in rent control and this limit could also be used as guide. He wanted to ensure that AirBnB does not change the neighborhood negatively or take too much housing off the market.

Councillor Mazen spoke about the pros and cons about AirBnB’s. He stated that regarding 4.30.040 (5) could a three-unit building owner live in one unit and rent out rooms in that unit, rent out an entire second unit but not rent out the third unit. Councillor Kelley responded in the affirmative. This limits AirBnB. He stated many owners have multiple units. He stated that there are times that mediation is necessary between occupants and neighbors and absentee investment landlords many not be responsible for the AirBnB unit. He wanted a solution to be considered. He added language in (3) of 4.30.030 Definitions after the word four he added "or fewer."

Vice Mayor McGovern wanted amendments added for safety issues, such as the Fire Code. He stated that regulations are needed to protect both the host and the renters.

Councillor Devereux stated last week's meeting was a feedback meeting. She asked what the implication is of limiting short-term rentals to a four unit building. She spoke of a situation where there is no family occupying a unit and they do not live in the same building and they are responsible, on the spot hosts; hosts who stated that they are in Cambridge. She spoke about insurance, licenses and registering the AirBnB with the License Commission. If a condo association did not want short-term rental, would the ordinance prevent this. She asked if condo regulations trump this ordinance. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the Zoning Ordinance would trump the condo regulations. She stated that a Municipal Code amendment may not be needed; but a zoning regulation would be.

Councillor Kelley stated that this conversation is about AirBnB in a property other than where the owner lives. He spoke about the regulatory aspects for license, fire and health concerns. The City departments feels that this could be done as a regulation.

Fire Chief Reardon stated that fire and life safety is the primary concern. He stated that Certificates of Occupancy and inspection would be needed before the units are rented and that they be inspected yearly. He spoke about the fact that smoke detectors may be old and not work properly, egress, or a fire escape need to be adequate be properly inspected. Chief Reardon further stated that out of state renters assume they are safe and the regulations need to be in place to ensure their safety. He wanted basic standards. He stated insurance is needed and ensuring that contact people are listed and that this information is listed. He stated Fire Department and the Inspectional Services Department would have to work the standards out and whether smoke detectors are grandfathered or brought up to standard. Councillor Kelley stated that non-STR renters may wind up renting a unit that is not safe for years as there is not the same level of City inspection.

Councillor Devereux spoke about the lead paint laws and that units cannot be rented to families with children. How this would be handled. City Solicitor Glowa stated that lead paint laws pertain to longer rentals. This would have to be looked into. Mr. Durbin stated that the proposed state statute does not mention lead based paint but allows local municipalities to establish local regulations.

Councillor Cheung spoke about the fact that Cambridge is a safe community. He wanted standards established. AirBnB can help communities, but some are run like slums. He wanted safety issues insured. He stated that he wanted to move this forward.

Councillor Kelley noted that 4.30.040 (3) would require more work from the Fire and Inspectional Services Departments to take a closer look at this. The inspection will have hosts putting in a higher standard smoke detector. A reasonable amount of safety must be assured when the City is promulgating regulations. Councillor Kelley stated that it would be easier to create regulations rather than to handle those details by ordinance.

Commissioner Singanayagam spoke about safety issues and that the unit must state that it is a short-term rental. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she wanted the department that would be promulgating authority listed.

License Commissioner Murati Ferrer stated that bread and breakfast establishments are not part of Chapter 40. She stated that the License Commission has nothing do to with bread and breakfast establishments; this is done at ISD. Councillor Kelley stated that having a license procedure should be streamlined. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that the inspection would be done by ISD and ISD can enforce the Zoning Code. This should be kept in one place. From the City Council's perspective this would be a registration process and would follow the ISD regulations. He spoke about neighbors commenting on AirBnB rental. He stated that without an application process this could not be done. Councillor Devereux spoke about having no obligation to tell their neighbors.

Councillor Kelley stated he is fine to drop the application process. Commissioner Singanayagam stated that an application could be created and filled out in ISD. He stated that a change of use for an AirBnB would get approval from the condo association. He stated that the state legislation would require an application.

Councillor Devereux spoke about fire code violations. Councillor Kelley noted that this is the responsibility of the host/owner if the unit does not meet the code. Councillor Devereux stated this could be a way to upgrade the housing/rental stock. Councillor Kelley stated that this is something that a short-term renter does not have any responsibility for. Chief Reardon explained that there is no way to go through houses and look for things. He spoke about the importance to have insurance.

City Solicitor Glowa commented that 4.30.040 (3) only requires the owner of an adjacent unit be inspected and does not cover the owner-occupied rental unit. Councillor Kelley stated that this is to make it easy for people and he stated that the level of inspection for a lived in unit is less of a requirement. He stated that 4.30.040 (3) will need the most work from city staff to finalize the wording. He stated that it is an application process. He stated that in the ordinance process the penalties can be discussed.

Mr. Barr spoke about violations of visitor parking passes and whether the visitor passes should be limited for AirBnB. Councillor Kelley suggested a different permit which would collect more revenue. Vice Mayor McGovern asked what the rules are on who can use a visitor parking permit. Mr. Barr responded that visitor parking permits can only be used by a guest of who the pass was issued to. It would not be able to be used for the adjacent AirBnB. It is unclear about the transfer of the parking permit. Vice Mayor McGovern stated we need to be careful that the City is not over-regulating. Councillor Kelley wanted to remain silent on a different type of parking permit for fear of complicating the overall issue and noted that a variety of STR- related and non-STR-related parking could be taken up separately.

Councillor Mazen spoke on increased cost for a parking permit for owner-occupied and owner-adjacent unit AirBnB’s. Councillor Kelley wanted AirBnB’s to work out in Cambridge but without changing the nature of the city.

At 5:03pm Councillor Kelley opened the hearing to public comment.

John Mirak, 2353 Massachusetts Avenue, stated that he represented Local 26 of hotel employees. He suggested a positive approach rather than to issue "fake" hotels. There is a difference for those who support themselves renting their homes. He supported one home and one policy on short-term rentals.

Hillary Fabre, 88 Hancock Street, stated that she was a single mother and a teacher. She rents out her daughter’s bedroom when she is in school. She charges $85. She meets people from all over the world. She stated that there are two CHA units in her building.

Monta Lertpachin, 14 Lee Street, stated that she is an AirBnB host and that she enjoys it. She has been on both sides of the housing market in Cambridge. She stated that have an AirBnB helps her to pay bills and to help restore her house. She visits local restaurants that she recommends to the renters. She stated that supporting AirBnB’s helps to support businesses and makes the City stronger Caitlin O'Neill, Sounder, 267 Cambridge Street, stated that short and long-term rentals are provided by leasing property from landlords. She stated that she wanted the more professional model considered in the ordinance and it is disappointed that it is not.

Rachel Wyon, 283 Sidney Street, stated that she purchased a three family home and she tried an AirBnB for short-term rentals. She has had a good experience with AirBnB and is aware of what renters are in her home. She believes that AirBnB guests should be taxed and the proceeds should go into affordable housing or help with short-term emergency housing. She wanted more restrictions on renting out full apartments. She wanted Cambridge to be a socially diverse community. She did not want every apartment becoming a hotel.

A male, 258 Brookline Street, stated that condo are not allowed to be an AirBnB.

A female expressed concerns with problem AirBnB’s. She stated that she has had problem with renters. She stated that ISD has been to her building many times. What can she do about month-by-month renters?

Charles Marvin, Account Professional and Fraud Examiner, stated that since he has become an AirBnB host this ensures that his house is well kept and stated that ISD can inspect his home. He spoke about the popularity of people coming to Cambridge.

Maryann Hart, 13 Hollis Street, generally supported the draft. She stated that adjacent owners should be able to have short-term rentals. She rents to people who are on sabbaticals. She suggested limiting the days that can be rented for adjacent owner AirBnB’s. She urged light regulations for adjacent owners.

Charles Henebury, 35 Andrew Streets, stated that he rents bedrooms through AirBnB and it has worked well. It helps with debt and fixing up his home. He added that he is not taking rental units off the market.

At 5:24pm Councillor Kelley closed public comment.

Councillor Kelley stated that month-to-month rental is not a short-term rental and the City Council was not looking to change this. Commissioner Singanayagam stated that a 30 day rental is a regular rental.

Councillor Mazen stated that 4.30.040 (3) this needs to be stricken for condos or to a new paragraph needs to be added for condos. Councillor Kelley stated that under this proposal condo AirBnB’s cannot be short-term rentals if the owner does not live in it or does not live in the building, which must be four units or less and entirely owned by the host. Councillor Devereux commented that this will limit the units. Councillor Kelley stated that he reviewed the data from the Assessor’s Office. It may not have a big impact. Councillor Devereux questioned how residential exemption proof is shown. Councillor Kelley responded that owner-occupied residential exemption would be used to show who the owner is. He stated that the state regulation requires a signed affidavit.

At the conclusion of the hearing there was a revised draft of the ordinance (ATTACHMENT C) that required work by the City departments. Councillor Kelley added that when the revisions to the draft are received the matter will be referred to the Ordinance Committee.

Councillor Kelley thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 5:30pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair

Committee Report #4
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 3:34pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code in Chapter 8.12.010 entitled “Self-service station regulations which was referred to the Ordinance Committee on Feb 6, 2017 (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Mazen; Councillor Kelley; Nicole Murati Ferrer, License Commissioner; Ranjit Singanayagam, Commissioner, Inspectional Services Department; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were Attorney Megan M. Kemp, Adam Dash & Associates, 48 Grove Street, Somerville; Jarred Hanshow, 261 Ledyard Street, New London, CT, owner of Pecten Properties, Inc.; and McMillan I.G., 221 Walnut Avenue.

Councillor Cheung convened the hearing, stated the purpose and announced that the hearing is being privately audio recorded. He stated that he submitted this on behalf of the owner of the Shell Station at 820 Memorial Drive. He requested the Attorney Kemp to come forward.

Attorney Megan Kemp, Adam Dash & Associates, stated that she was here on behalf of Pecten Properties, Inc., owner of the Shell Station at 820 Memorial Drive. She spoke about the proposed municipal code amendment. Her client has a petition before the BZA to convert a 312 square foot service bay into an additional retail convenience store. She stated that this application is supported by residents in the neighborhood. She explained that making the service bay operational, which has not been operational for years, would mean the use of additional hazardous materials and waste material across from the Charles River and increased traffic. This would be alleviated with the expansion of a convenience store as well as allowing her client to better serve customers and residents using the Riverside Park. She stated that when the BZA was ready to approve this application the existence of this ordinance was brought to light. No one understands how this ordinance came into existence. She stated that the Board of Fire Prevention noted that no other city in the Commonwealth has such an ordinance requirement. The ordinance does not make sense. The BZA hearing was continued until Apr 13, 2017 hoping that this ordinance will be amended. She asked the City Council to approve this ordinance amendment. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT B).

Councillor Carlone reaffirmed a statement made by Attorney Kemp that no other city/town has this regulation in the state. Ms. Kemp stated that the Fire Prevention Board were unaware of this regulation. There is no requirement for self-service stations to have service bays.

Councillor Kelley noted that there are self-service stations in Cambridge. Attorney Kemp stated that there are self-service stations that have service bays. The statute only allows self-service stations to be operable with service bays. The interpretation is that this is required. She stated that Speedway may have been in operation before this ordinance was adopted. Councillor Kelley asked if the variance is independent of this. Attorney Kemp responded in the affirmative. She further stated that the BZA stated that there is an ordinance on book that this cannot be done.

Councillor Devereux asked if there is there any other requirement in the ordinance on self-service station. Attorney Kemp responded that there is only a requirement for a service bay.

Councillor Carlone spoke about the petitioner allowing the public to use restrooms. Attorney Kemp responded that this is a courtesy of the owner to let the park goers use the restrooms. There is no requirement for this.

Councillor Cheung stated that this ordinance did not make sense. Self-service systems do not mean that the service bay is operable. He stated that having expanded retail at this location is a good thing.

At this time Councillor Cheung request City staff to come forward.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that this is a matter of policy for the City Council. She stated that she is not aware of the reasons for this ordinance. Commissioner Singanayagam stated that he had not concerns.

Councillor Devereux commented that she had no problem with what petitioner wanted to do. She stated that she is concerned with unintended consequences. Commissioner Singanayagam informed the committee that any gas station has to have a special permit. A retail store also needs a special permit that is why this application is before the BZA.

Councillor Cheung asked if self-service stations needed to be manned. City Solicitor Glowa spoke about employment reasons and jobs. She added that the public wanted to be able to do emergency repairs.

Councillor Kelley spoke about the restrooms being opened for use by the public. He asked if the City could write an ordinance to require public restroom accommodations. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the conditions of a special permit need to be related to zoning. There is no law that would require this. Councillor Carlone stated that restrooms are going to have to be installed in city parks which is costly. Gas stations offer restrooms to their customers, but self service station are an environmental issue. He wanted restrooms adjacent to parks to remain open as a public service. He stated that the BZA could require this in the variance.

Councillor Kelley asked what can be expected to be attached to this variance. What are the City's limits? Commissioner Singanayagam responded that the petitioner has applied for a special permit from the BZA. He added that restrooms are required by the state building code.

Councillor Cheung stated that he has never seen a self-service gas station when no one is there. He stated that the petitioner is trying to go from a non-use. The BZA asked the City Council to change this ordinance so that they can proceed with the special permit. This has not been a problem.

Attorney Kemp stated that the BZA hearing is scheduled for Apr 13, 2017 which is a continuance from their November hearing.

On a motion by Councillor Kelley at 4:02pm public comment was opened. No on appeared and public comment was closed.

Councillor Carlone questioned if the License Commission had any issues with this proposed ordinance amendment. Ms. Murati Ferrer responded that the License Commission does not deal this this issue.

Councillor Carlone moved that this matter be referred to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation.

The motion - Carried on a voice vote of five members.

Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:03pm.

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

Committee Report #5
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Tues, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:17pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to conduct an additional hearing to discuss a petition by the City Council to amend provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as it related to Inclusionary Housing, including the insertion of new definitions in Article 2.000 and the substitution of revised zoning text for the current text to Sections 11.200 through 11.206.

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

Also present were Adam Hasz, 19 Trowbridge Street; Doug McPherson, 24 Herald Street, Somerville; Jason Kleban, 10 Museum Way; Felix Oloruunfeni; Anizan Isahak, 32 Orvis Road, Arlington, Alex Auuriema, 51 Rice Street, Minnie McMahon, 25 Mt. Pleasant Street, Jennifer Oberhausen, 424 Windsor Street, Elaine DeRosa, 4 Pleasant Place, Ben Simon, 67 Bishop Allen Drive, Carol O'Hare, 272 Magazine Street, Ellen Shachter, 346 Concord Avenue, Vatsady Sivongxay, 59 Kirkland Street, Kathy Watkins, Fawcett Street, Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, John Ratliff, 218 Thorndike Street, Abru Berkowitz, 253½ Broadway; Peter Day, 280 Franklin Street; Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place; and Michael Brandon, 27 Seven Pines Avenue.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing, stated the purpose and outlined the format. He announced that the hearing is being audio and video recorded. He stated that refinements would be discussed first. After refinements are discussed there will be public comment for five minutes. The Ordinance Committee will have comments and questions and at the conclusion a recommendation will be made to the full City Council.

Ms. Farooq asked Mr. Roberts to speak about the changes to the petition based on elements requested by the City Council. There are a series of documents including the original petition (ATTACHMENT A). Some are informational documents. Changes to the zoning petition will be the focus.

Mr. Roberts referred to the memorandum from Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development to Louis DePasquale dated Feb 8, 2017 (“CDD Memorandum”) (ATTACHMENT B). He explained that the CDD Memorandum responded to requests made by the City Council at the Ordinance Committee hearing held on Jan 4, 2017. The changes are listed on page 2 of the CDD Memorandum.

Mr. Roberts stated that the first change was to Section 11.203.2 (c). This deals with the reevaluation and review of the Inclusionary Housing Requirements. The Ordinance Committee request was that the reevaluation should be undertaken no more than five years from the last amendment and that an annual review be conducted by the Community Development Department. He noted that when the City Council received the CDD Memorandum there was conversation to refer back to the Ordinance Committee to add the annual review and report and this would be included when this moved forward.

The second change is to Section 11.203.3(g) relating to the Planning Board recommendation to evaluate the threshold under which a minimum amount of three bedroom family size units would be required with the affordable component of the Inclusionary Housing Project. The Planning Board recommendation suggested changes to the threshold and stated that at a 30,000 square foot project applying the standards that were originally recommended of having 1/5 of the required floor area be three bedroom units would result at least one family sized unit. As the details were reviewed there appeared to be complications when applying the provision as written requiring 20% of the affordable floor area which might result in some cases with one very large unit, and that it would be clearer in the language to express this requirement as a number of family sized units that would be required based on the total amount of affordable square footage required. This is reflected in the revised language submitted.

Mr. Roberts stated that the third change is to Section 11.203.4 (a) to strike out "policies" and add "transfers" as an element of procedures for implementation.

He stated that a change to Section 11.203.5(c) relates to the threshold that triggers a special permit review for a project. He stated that in the current zoning the Inclusionary Housing bonus is not counted in the threshold for special permit review, because the bonus is intended to be as-of-right. Both the Ordinance Committee and the Planning Board discussed this and recommended that this be changed so that the threshold would apply more uniformly based on the total size of the project and would not vary based on the bonus. This change would be effected by deleting the word "not" in that Section.

He stated that on pages four and five of the CDD Memorandum there were changes in the Implementation and Enforcement sections, Section 11.204 and 11.205. One of the changes was to change the reference in the Implementation and Enforcement section to end at Section 11.205. There would be a public review period provision for any drafted regulations on promulgating the affordable housing requirement. He noted that when the City Council received the CDD Memorandum there was conversation to refer back to the Ordinance Committee to strike out "Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department" and replace with "City Manager" and this would be included when this moved forward. He stated that additional material was provided on PUD Special Permits and outstanding PUD projects. He stated that additional information regarding the build-out schedule of PUD Special Permit Projects was provided on Feb 24, 2017.

Councillor Carlone stated that questions were submitted formally at the City Council meeting of Feb 27, 2017 for a response from the City Solicitor. He wanted to review the questions with the City Solicitor (ATTACHMENT C). He stated that there is cloudiness on what is stated in the base zoning code and whether long-standing PUD Special Permits are still valid when the specific schedule is not either outlined or met according to the questions. This concerns the entire PUD process.

City Solicitor Glowa read Chapter 40A, Section 9 of the Massachusetts General Laws relating to the definition of Planned Unit Development and addressed questions posed to the City Solicitor at the Feb 13,2017 City Council meeting by Councillors Devereux, Carlone and Mazen. City Solicitor Glowa read Question # 1 and proceeded to respond to it. She stated that the North Point PUD Special Permit itself, which contains language on page 37, states that the application documents indicate and the permittee has specifically affirmed that the gross floor area bonuses permitted by the Inclusionary Housing Provisions of Section11.200 for residential construction will not be employed. Utilization of any such bonuses shall be permitted only after the granting of a major amendment to this decision. Nevertheless all residential construction shall comply with the Inclusionary Housing Provisions of section 11.200. She stated that there is no section of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance in 13.70 or otherwise that grants special permission to North Point to depart from the provisions of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance at the time that the permit was issued.

Ms. Glowa further stated that in her zoning opinion dated Aug 30, 2016 which cites Chapter 40A, Section 6 and Article 8, Section 8.25 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance, both provide that subject to certain exceptions a zoning ordinance or amendment will not apply to a building or special permit that has been approved before the first publication of notice of the public hearing on such zoning ordinance or amendment, provided that a special permit must be acted upon within two years of issuance, use or construction of the property must be commenced within the period of not more than six months after the issuance of any building permit and construction must be continued through to completion as continuously and expeditiously as is reasonable. She stated that there may be other things that she may refer to in answering these questions but the permit itself provides that the developer will not be taking advantage of or that the Planning Board put into the decision in any event that the developer would not be given the bonus provisions, but they are required to comply with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance provisions in effect at the time that the special permit was issued. She noted that as her opinion states this is the established law in Massachusetts and is codified in the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance. The further part of the question that suggests that a developer who has already been issued a special permit would need to comply with subsequent amendments to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance if it were adopted after the special permit was issued are simply inaccurate as a matter of law. The question states that one of the normal requirements of the district that are otherwise required seems to suggest that it would be a subsequent amendment to the zoning ordinance that came into effect after the issuance of the special permit decision. She stated that this is not the law so the question is inherently problematic from this point of view.

Councillor Kelley stated that this is one issue that the City Council needs to understand. The law cannot be pushed back retroactively. He stated that the real question is what can be done moving forward. He stated that the City cannot legally take the proposed 20% or any other percentage and retroactively apply it to any previously granted PUD. City Solicitor stated that there are situations where a special permit could lapse but if the PUD special permit has been issued and has not lapsed and is still in effect the clear law in Massachusetts under Chapter 40A as well as the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance is that subsequent amendments to a zoning ordinance do not apply to a permit that has been issued. So if the permit is still in place and is valid, subsequent amendments to the Zoning Ordinances do not apply. She added that there may be circumstances or conditions that may occur in the life of any particular special permit where there might be a different outcome but as a matter of general law this is very clear.

Councillor Carlone stated that this is the issue; the lapsing of the permits. City Solicitor Glowa continued reading the Section 13.70 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinances, North Point PUD 6, the provision of public benefit.

City Solicitor Glowa read Question # 2. She responded to the first part of the question. She read that it must follow that the developers must comply with current provisions at the time of construction and this relates back to the response she provided to the first question. She stated that so long as a developer or property owner has a building permit or a special permit that has been issued prior to the date of the first advertisement of a subsequent zoning amendment and has acted upon it appropriately with respect to the statute that must be followed subsequent amendments to the zoning ordinance do not apply. So it does not follow that at the time of the building construction you must comply with the subsequent amendments. She further stated that whatever the Inclusionary Zoning requirements were when the special permit was issued stay with the special permit for the life of the special permit so long as there are no other conditions of various sorts, which might affect the efficacy of the special permit. She responded to the second part of the question by stating it is the same answer as provided above as well as provided in the legal opinion dated Aug 30, 2017. She stated that it is codified in both the state statute and in the zoning ordinance the protection for those holding a special permit have with respect to future zoning amendments.

City Solicitor Glowa moved onto Question # 3, which related to the PUD Special Permit at North Point and what would constitute the lapse of the Special Permit. She explained that PUD special permits are by design intended to contemplate the build-out of a large development on a large area of land and typically involve multiple phases and are contemplated to take a number of years to be fully built-out and this is also codified in Article 12 of the zoning ordinance. She stated that the question of lapse where a special permit had been granted and acted upon previously is intended to be determined by the Planning Board and because PUD special permits have phases which have flexibility built in typically that under the current circumstances at North Point where three buildings have been constructed and where the phasing requirements in the special permit do not state that if you have not built seventeen buildings by a certain date the special permit lapses. It would not be typical for a Planning Board or a special permit granting authority to determine under these circumstances that a lapse has occurred. The whole purpose of PUDs is provide the kind of flexibility that differing economic circumstances and differences in all sorts of conditions may make and to adjust the timeframes and other circumstances related to the build-out as time goes on. This is a legal question in terms of what the aspects mean and a practical aspect in terms of the factual determination that would be made by the Planning Board.

This should not affect the City Council determination at this point. It is not before the City Council as to whether it lapsed it is for the Planning Board to decide. She further spoke about the substantial use or good cause is something that legal advice has been provided on in the past to the Planning Board or other bodies. However, there is no requirement that the Planning Board seek legal advice in order to determine this.

Councillor Mazen stated that this is not before the City Council; it is before the Planning Board, but how (d) of 11.202 is articulated or applicability would be affected in a matter that is before the City Council. He stated that he felt that three things could happen with North Point. The first is that North Point could be expected to lapse at the end of the time of 2030 and not be completed and could need subsequent action and any incomplete building should be subject under the current inclusionary percentage, not the original percentage at special permit time. He stated that it could be considered a lapse if there were no movement in a three year period.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that she did not agree because PUD special permits are a different concept than ordinary special permits and there are large periods of time built into the approval process. She stated again that PUDs are designed to incorporate the fluctuation of the economy or other financial factors as the phasing requirements are being met on the entire permit. She stated that she did not want to speculate nor answer a hypothetical question. It would not be typical that under a period of three years of inactivity under a PUD Special Permit conclusion would be drawn that a lapse has taken place. Councillor Mazen requested clarification of the three years in the language. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the three year language is in section 9 of Chapter 40A and PUDs are a subset of special permits and are a different concept than an ordinary smaller Special Permit where the entire build-out would have occurred within two years. Councillor Mazen stated that if a PUD were a subset of Special Permits he thought that they would be subject to the master language considered by all Special Permits. He asked where in the language it states that the PUD abrogates the Special Permit condition that mentions three years. City Solicitor Glowa stated that there is case law on this issue and reported decisions in Massachusetts; it is not consistent with Massachusetts case law to conclude with a PUD special permit that merely the passage of three years of time with inactivity would cause a legal conclusion that a lapse has occurred.

Councillor Mazen stated that if the proposed strong language for PUDs is adopted it will be evident at North Point that by 2025 their commitments to affordability are no longer looking at or are as impactful as they once were when it was first signed. He stated that his hope is that if improvements to the project are made through minor changes it may not trigger an addition to the new inclusionary housing standard. He encouraged consideration of an alternative that small changes should trigger the new standard. He stated that the City should review every PUD in process in Cambridge and explain that the City wants to work with the developers to make any changes in the stream now and want to negotiate about the Inclusionary Housing to achieve this together in such a way as to improvements, whether minor or major are exciting for both sides. He asked if this could be done and is there anything in the current language that would diminish the City's position. He asked could a carve-out for minor additions be avoided in order to have the most stringent possible approach now and the most opportunity during negotiations later.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that this was a question from the City's recommendations and is not a position that he has placed into this ordinance nor is it a position that he wrote. He stated his question was how we maintain flexibility for making minor changes that would improve the project that does not discourage the developer from making minor changes because the cost is great. Councillor Carlone noted that minor amendments are not the issue.

Councillor Mazen stated that no one is suggesting a retroactive application of the new inclusionary standard, but how can we bring the PUD in process into the standard either through renegotiation or through making the threshold between major and minor amendments as clear and as minimal as possible. He asked if the City Council could have control of minor and major amendments. City Solicitor Glowa said there is a provision in the ordinance relating to major and minor amendments. She stated that if you are introducing a standard to this petition that has not been previously been part of the petition she would not recommend this because this is not part of the petition before the City Council. She stated that regarding negotiation any two parties willing to negotiate can negotiation anything; it is always an option. She further stated that any public discussion and negotiation would have to comply with the then existing provisions of the special permit at issue as well as the then existing provisions of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance and state law. If something is being negotiated that is different from the terms of the permit that the Planning Board granted it would have to go back to the Planning Board for review and approval. Councillor Mazen stated that it would be a negotiation with the Planning Board, City and stakeholders. City Solicitor Glowa stated that it would also have to comply with the current provisions of the ordinance.

If it is not allowable under the ordinance at the time that the discussion took place there would need to be a zoning petition and an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversation to take place. It is more complicated and time consuming than a couple of meetings. Councillor Mazen responded that he is thinking about the huge amount of inclusionary units at stake.

Councillor Kelley stated that there is still some thought that this could be retroactive. He spoke about a case where the court ruled that the special permit had not lapsed even though seventeen years had passed between phase II and phase III. He wanted all to agree that the retroactive discussion is not applicable. He stated that the City Council could have a discussion regarding 11.203.1 (d) which is about what triggers what. He stated that some are uncomfortable with the language, which can be deleted or amended. This should be the focus of the discussion.

Councillor Carlone stated that this is what the focus will be on. He stated that the broader issue is about immunity from zoning for twenty-seven years on the same project from any zoning change. He noted why any developer would not do a PUD to gain protection while also gaining extra FAR/Height. He stated that the difference in North Point is that the North Point developers expressly stated that they would not seek public funding for public infrastructure improvements; this is untrue. This was relatively recently approved by the City and State. North Point was going to pay in full for the Green Line MBTA station and will now only play for a portion.

Councillor Carlone stated that many of the earlier PUD conditions were not met and this raises serious questions. He understands that there is a different entity that received a Fall 2016 major amendment. He stated that something about the process seems odd. He noted that this issue represents an additional 100-200 affordable housing units in North Point. This is huge and why this is being discussed and there is concern about the PUD-related text in the existing petition. The PUD issue was included by those associated with the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce in a memo early in the process and not by the City. He stated that for all these reasons he will be submitting an amendment at the end of the discussion.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked what the City Council could and could not do. He spoke about discussion and evaluating the North Point PUD separately. He did not want to delay moving forward with the things that can be controlled. If this cannot be retroactively changed and correct a mistake this may be a separate discussion. He wanted information on what triggers a minor or major amendment. He wanted clarification on what triggers what. He stated that developers are motivated by the bottom line they will not raise minor amendment if they think that it will trigger $100 million in new affordable housing that they have to provide. This type of negotiation will never occur because they will never come forward with something that can improve the project or the community if they think that it will cost $100 million. He asked how we get to a point where we can have these conversations resulting in a better.

Councillor Cheung asked why we could not engage the developers about what are their future long-term plans. He noted that this has been before the City Council for more than a year. This is a major issue and affects many units of affordable housing. He does not understand how this did not come up earlier. These are massive developments that are happening all the time and why there is no guidance, advice or modeling provided to the City Council to make an informed decision on this. He stated that the City Council has to make decisions based on data not on guessing. He stated that CDD has failed to provide good data so that the City Council can make a decision. He complained that engaging the business community has not been done and he is frustrated by this fact. The City Council should engage the developers to discuss increasing affordable units. He stated that not knowing is the most frustration point of all.

Councillor Carlone noted that this is a complex subject and there is history that everyone inherits which is what the City Solicitor is informing the City Council. He stated that regarding the approved major amendment for North Point in 2016 could the Planning Board have raised the amount of affordable housing requirement. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this is a complicated legal question that is beyond the scope of what she can answer today. Ms. Farooq stated that the MIT change was not for the PUD it was for the discussion on their rezoning that the Planning Board raised the question. She added that the 2016 change was to the North Point PUD and was not a zoning change. City Solicitor Glowa stated there is a difference between the conversation that the City Council engages in with proponents who approach the City Council for a zoning amendment and are willing to do some "horse trading" and provide concessions to the City for exchange for some zoning benefits, and this PUD conversation because the petition before the City Council is to amend the zoning ordinance going forward.

Councillor Carlone stated that the question is the validity of a PUD over time. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the retroactivity question is not as available as the City Council thinks. There may be amendments sought by a developer they are brought to the special permit granting authority, which is the Planning Board. There may not be much opportunity for the City Council to engage in conversation about amendments to existing PUD special permits.

Councillor Mazen stated that this proactive outreach and negotiation is labor intensive. He stated that this is an opportunity of hope. This would be a meeting between the City and the PUD special permit holders. He spoke about negotiation and conversing about this issue. City Solicitor Glowa stated that there are criteria in the zoning ordinance that the Planning Board must apply when considering granting a special permit and there is case law that establishes conditions that go outside of the scope of the ordinance that may not be legally permissible.

Councillor Mazen stated that he is talking about using the law to achieve the issue. Ms. Farooq stated that there are many possibilities as to how policy is determine. The Community Development Department has been reminded by Councillor Cheung that the staff is not the policy makers. This is the role of the policy makers. She explained that staff spent a lot of time talking to business owners and developers who were willing to speak with staff. The elements that are under discussion now are a result of those discussions with developers and business because they felt strongly that flexibility in a long term PUD was very important to the developers. She stated that she has been clear that this is the genesis of this particular clause. If the City Council as policy makers would like to eliminate this clause it is the prerogative of the City Council to do this. She stated that it is not an appropriate role for the Community Development Department to be in a negotiating role.

Councillor Cheung stated that the business community asked the Community Development Department to put in provisions, which is a policy issue and they should have come to City Council. He would love the PUDs at 20%. If buildings were taller could there be more housing. He is uncomfortable to eliminate this provision. He stated that he wanted to engage in a discussion with the PUDs. He wanted the City Solicitor to provide guidance as to how the City Council can get to the 20% as a reality.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that this was discussed in the Housing Committee and there are still questions on this. The PUD is not coming out of left field; it is still unclear. If there are still legal questions why we should leave this in, or take it out, have the appropriate conversations. He stated that there is a lot of good in this ordinance that will dramatically increase the amount of affordable housing, but the focus is on the PUDs. The percentage cannot be retroactively changed. There are a lot of affordable units in this petition and he does not want this to get lost in the PUD conversation.

Councillor Devereux wanted to apply the 20% to North Point’s as of yet unbuilt buildings. She spoke about North Point and the lapse of the phase on the City’s submitted chart. She asked will North Point naturally lapse by 2023. In 2003 the special permit was supposed to be complete in twenty years, 2023. In 2012 there were amendments that extended it to 2030. She stated that looking at the phasing in the chart on page two of CDD memo dated Feb 24, 2017 (ATTACHMENT D) in Phase 1A three buildings have been completed out of 10. There is design review for one building. She stated that Phase 1B is 5 buildings and Phase 2 is 6 buildings. She stated that this is a lot of buildings to be built by 2030. It is not feasible to build this many buildings. This needs to be put into the ordinance even if it needs to be taken out and put back in. The buildings will be subject to whatever the Inclusionary is then.

Councillor Devereux noted that with the Incentive zoning passed last year PUDs were not a topic of conversation at that time. She asked if the commercial PUD buildings would be paying the higher incentive rate. Clearly there is a lot of grey area; this should have been discussed six months ago. She stated that this became an issue because of the Chamber of Commerce. She is anxious to move forward with the process. Ms. Farooq stated that the last amendment for North Point was after the adoption of incentive zoning changes by the City Council and it applies to the North Point PUD. She further stated that with the phase provisions those are part of the zoning that was in effect at the time of this amendment.

City Solicitor Glowa proceeded with Question #4 which she read. Mr. Cotter responded that the application of density bonus was noted in the Planning Board decision applicable to the additional FAR. The unit count through that density bonus as far as the calculation of the units this calculation was done as for all PUD since the adoption of the Inclusionary zoning ordinance in 1998 and this allows for the benefit of the bonus to be included in the calculations so that the net yield of units in North Point to date in the first three buildings at about 11.5% equaling a total of 79 units out of the 684 that have been built.

At 4:33pm Councillor Carlone opened the meeting to public comment.

Adam Hasz, an MIT student stated that he lives on Trowbridge Street. He stated that he wanted to live in Cambridge after graduation. This is important to him to live and contribute to the City. Residents want the PUD not be exempt. They want 20% to apply to the PUD. He urged the City Council to do what is legally feasible and to create a win-win opportunity with the developers for as much affordable housing as possible. He stated that 2030 is long time away and what will the housing crisis be then. He hopes Cambridge passes this as soon as possible.

Jason Kleban, two year homeowner in North Point, he spoke about the state of affordable housing and the high level of displacement of people in Cambridge. He stated that it should be the moral duty of the leaders of the City to combat this trend and provide affordable housing to long-term residents of Cambridge. Large developers prioritize profits in their projects over the wellbeing of the communities that they are building in. This has had a negative impact. Communities are fundamentally transformed by economic diversity and lack of diversity harms long standing small businesses operating in the area. He stated that he gets angry when said developers threaten reduced home market value for homeowners. He stated that the diversity of his community is more important than maintaining high housing costs and the resulting displacement and gentrification efforts that harm the community. He urged the City Council to remove language from the proposed ordinance that would exclude existing PUDs, in particular in North Point, from the increased inclusionary housing rate. He stated that the moral perspective is not debatable.

Alex Auriema, 51Rice Street, stated his concern about housing trends in Cambridge that prioritize the creation of wealth before housing people. He stated that this is a critical issue. This adversely affects people of color and the trends are a0 recipe for homogenous and inaccessible segregated communities. He urged the City Council to remove the PUD language and to reach a compromise to find a resolution.

Minnie McMahon, 25 Mt. Pleasant Street, wanted Cambridge to house people comfortably, regardless of incomes. Special permits and variances cannot be granted easily. She stated that economic, racial, ethnic and cultural diversity is directly impacted by decisions like these. She noted that middle-income people are also impacted by this legislation. She stated that PUD’s are for larger projects, larger land and have different circumstances built in because of economic circumstances and this should be done for all people. She stated that this is an issue of economic and racial justice because a lot of people of color in Cambridge are being displaced. She read a communication from Didi Delgado (ATTACHMENT E).

Elaine DeRosa, 4 Pleasant Place, stated that this needs to happen. She understands the angst for North Point. The City Solicitor has advised the City Council. She stated that she is concerned that the City Council is fixated on North Point. She is worried about all the development that will go on while the City Council is still discussing this. She urged the City Council to stay on schedule. She would hate it if this cannot be passed. She stated that the Federal government will eliminate the funding for affordable housing and the urgency felt at CEOC and the people who come every day for housing. This is critical and needs to be moved. She would hate the PUD to come out of this - this proposal needs 6 votes.

Ben Simon, 67 Bishop Allen Drive, grew up in a rent-controlled apartment and was evicted when rent control was eliminated. He was concerned with the housing trends and large-scale developments. He fears the day he will be pushed out of Cambridge. He spoke about the developers not having to abide by the law. He wanted 20% applied to all PUDs.

Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street, spoke about the phase in of 15% at adoption and 20% at the end of June. With regards to the project at the Lanes and Games on Route 2, she stated that at the Planning Board hearing for a special permit Ms. Farooq explained that the 320-unit PUD at this location would be subject to the affordable housing amendment. She stated that if the affordable housing amendment is approved and the phased in new requirement at 15% and then increasing to 20% at the end of June and if the Planning Board approves the 320 housing development planned for Lanes and Games before the end of June then the City would be foregoing a significant number of units, the 5% additional. She stated that the Planning Board does not realize that there is an increased plan and if the special permit is approved between now and June 30th and if adopted before June 30th the City would lose 5%. She stated that imposing the 20% requirement at this stage on that development may have the unwanted effect of making the development financial unviable, but she wondered if this has been considered and reviewed with the developer. She stated that the Planning Board should know about this before approving the special permit. She spoke about the PUD lapsing or phasing and the discussion and explanation given by the City Solicitor and she suggested that the City seek another legal opinion. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT F).

Ellen Shachter, CASLS, 346 Concord Avenue, thanked CDD for meeting with CASLS. She stated that many responses by CDD on major displacement could be reviewed in the regulations. She stated that when she has pressed CDD and the developers she has been told by CDD that if it is not in the ordinance and if it seems that things are being done that exceed the scope of the ordinance the City is subject to challenge. She stated that what is important is that the tenant protections are clearly stated in the ordinance so that there cannot be a challenge later by stating that it is in the regulations, but not in the ordinance. She stated that her perspective is that the inclusionary ordinance is about units of affordability and about the individual family that need and reside in the units.

Ms. Shachter stated that there are three areas where the current ordinance is failing that can be corrected tonight with amendments and not hold up this process and move forward. There are two issues related to rent and both relate to the crisis situation that arises when someone moves into an inclusionary zoning unit with sufficient income to pay the rent and then something happens and are unable to pay their rent. She suggested two amendments that would help to prevent displacement of families in these situations. The first, is what the City is proposing now is a step back in rights for existing low-income tenants in these circumstances. The current practice is if a tenant goes to an annual recertification and have lost their job and have no money they get a six month reprieve where their rent will be lowered to 30% of income to try to stabilize and/or get a job. She stated that the City is considering rolling this back and making it clear that under no circumstances could rent be below 30%. She stated that the City has stated that rents are enshrined in a twelve-month lease and therefore cannot be lowered or changed.

Ms. Shachter stated that this is untrue. She proposed language in the ordinance and the lease can have language in the addendum that reserves the rights under specific circumstances to have decreased rents. This is not an obstacle. She stated that the six-month reprieve is critical to tenants who find themselves in a desperate situation. She stated that there is specific ordinance language in her comments and this could be passed today.

She stated that the second issue gets complicated and deals with what happens in between the annual review of rent recertification. She stated that if a tenant losses their the job could they go back to CDD to seek a recertification to go down to the minimum rent which is the 30%, or return to mod rent. This should be included in the ordinance. These amendments can be done in the ordinance. This affects a small number of families; it is not a huge money issue.

The third issue is families trying to get into inclusionary zoning units. She stated that people with Section 8 vouchers, where rent is guaranteed to be at an affordable level, are being denied access to inclusionary zoning units because of poor credit reports. The absolute essence of poverty is poor credit. People do not have enough money to pay all their bills. She suggested a prohibition that states tenants with Section 8 vouchers should not be denied access to housing based on credit other than for a history of nonpayment of rent. She requested that this prohibition be put into the ordinance. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT G).

Vatsady Sirongxay, 59 Kirkland Street, stated that she is a family looking for opportunities to stay in Cambridge and to provide opportunities to other residents. She read a statement of Karen Shin, Aerhart Street, who owned an inclusionary affordable housing unit at North Point. She explained the opportunity provided to her in Cambridge to purchase a home as part of the first time homeowner. She supported the Inclusionary Housing proposal.

Kathy Watkins, 90 Fawcett Street, an inclusionary zoning unit, stated that she wanted the ability to transfer from one building to another. She stated that residents need to be able to transfer if a unit is substandard; this is important. People should not be stuck in substandard units that are not addressed by the City. She supported that the PUD should be 20%. She stated that the laws are immoral. They favor billionaires over Cambridge residents. People need to be put over profits. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT H).

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, thanked the City Council and staff and supported the amendments in the ordinance proposed. She appreciated the many improvements to the ordinance. She wanted protection in the ordinance, not just the regulations. She wanted the PUD language removed from the ordinance so that PUDs are not exempt. If there is a major amendment is made and to figure out whether the 20% would apply. She did not want to see delays in the passage of the ordinance.

John Ratliff, 218 Thorndike Street, stated that this is an important step forward to go from 11% to 20 %. He is against delaying the process. At one time human beings were considered commodities and Cambridge has a history of being a leader for change and housing is still be increasingly commoditized. He wanted affordable housing increased. He stated that the state has blocked the ability to apply affordability to the PUD, which could add many units at one time. He did not want the City to put handcuff on itself on this ordinance. He wanted the PUD language eliminated. The North Point development will go to 2030 before completion.

Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashbuton Place, understands the flawed conception of the PUD. This is land banking. North Point has been sold a few times. This needs more discussion. If the state law is in the way and if changed she urged PUD exemption be eliminated. She did not understand why North Point should not be building 15% instead of 11.5%. It is too late to change the 15% phase in; wanted it to go to 20% North Point should be included 12% of incentive zoning and why not for inclusionary zoning.

Michael Brandon, 27 Seven Pines Avenue, spoke about the Lanes and Games/Gateway Inn project. A special permit has not been issued and the Planning Board has conducted one public hearing and has asked for revisions. He has met with developers and has urged them to increase affordable units to 20%. They will comply with the ordinance. It is unclear if the 20% will be required. He does not see the rationale not to go to 20% immediately. He stated that 25% would be more appropriate amount with 5% for middle-income housing. He is confused with City Solicitor's legal opinion of Aug 30, 2016. He supports eliminating the carve-out for PUDs. He stated that the stronger provisions in the ordinance the better the leverage that the City will have. He suggested changes to 11.203.1(c). He stated that under the state law before a Special Permit becomes valid and can be acted upon and building permits pulled it is required by the State Zoning Act that it be recorded at the local registry. He spoke about the difference between permits granted versus permits issued; this may cause confusion. A Special Permit may be grandfathered included granted or approved and recorded; this needs to be clarified.

Councillor Carlone closed public comment at 5:29pm.

Mayor Simmons stated that she appreciated the amount of work done by the Housing and Ordinance Committees. She stated that there are amendments. She wanted to know what the deadlines are. She does not want this petition to expire. She wanted any issues resolved and answered by Mar 20, 2017 so that this does not run the risk of expiring. She wanted this to move forward. She stated that incentive and linkage is only a small piece of housing. This ordinance is another way to provide housing for the City's toolbox for affordable housing. The City Clerk outlined the timeline for the petition. Mayor Simmons expressed the importance of having an amended Inclusionary Housing Ordinance by Apr 3, 2017. Councillor Carlone stated that this is the intent of the Chair.

Councillor Mazen stated that he supports the comments made by Ms. Shachter and wanted the language added verbatim and to remove the delay language. He stated that he would like to remove (d) from 11.202. He wanted the 15% explanation reviewed for North Point because so many were confused the first time around. Mr. Cotter spoke about the North Point calculations in done how the PUD calculations are done, which do not take advantage of the density bonus which allows for additional FAR, but the benefit of the bonus is and has always been for unit count. The density bonus is an offset in the original ordinance to account for the costs associated with the creation of the affordable units. The logic has been that with the PUD is available by right at the density bonus that has otherwise been available has been applied to PUD projects in districts and has received the benefit of the bonus when the affordable unit count has been determined.

Councillor Mazen stated that it seemed that they opted in for the strictures of the affordable housing count but waived the benefit of the density bonus and as such should be at a flat 15%. He did not understand waiving the benefits for building the bonus how they entailed the benefits of calculating the bonus. Mr. Cotter stated that he could not speak to the original permits but has discussed the most recent amendment that speaks to the density bonus not applying for additional FAR units. The interpretation and application of the inclusionary provisions in PUD districts has always been this way. This is consistent as has been done in other cases in PUD districts. Ms. Farooq stated that this interpretation predates all of us and this is one of the reasons why it is clear that the change in the ordinance to have a flat percentage and eliminate the complication of the calculation is a wise approach. She stated that the formulation now is to not have all of the mathematical calculations, but to just have a flat 20% so that there is not a lot of confusion about what is the percentage.

Councillor Mazen noted that if this predates us does not make it sound. He asked how the PUD could have a lower number. How could they have less affordable if there is no actual density bonus at all? He stated that this does not make sense and one could not get to the 11.5% because there is no way to get there. He stated that this equation does not exist. He stated that he does not understand how this interpretation could be allowed to stand.

Councillor Devereux stated that it would help her to have a hypothetical situation with a building and the number of units. Mr. Cotter explained the way that the density bonus works. This would apply to a base number of units to which the affordable unit as well as the additional market units would be added. In the case of a project where 100 units may be allowed by the zoning the inclusionary zoning would require 15% of those to be affordable. The fifteen units would be allowed to build in excess of what might be allowed by zoning with the provision under the current inclusionary ordinance that would allow for 2 additional units for each required affordable units. This is the 30% increase in the density that is allowed by the ordinance. He stated that 130 units could be built of which fifteen would be required to be affordable under the current provisions. The fifteen units over the total project of 130 would yield about 11.5%. He stated that the interpretation has always been applied to PUD districts. Mr. Roberts stated that this is the way the current ordinance has been applied to any project that is entitled to a higher density as a result of the inclusionary bonus, but voluntarily makes the size of the project such that it fits within some lower limitation, whether it is what the current base zoning allows or something different from the maximum allowance would be under the full inclusionary bonus for any project that is voluntarily providing less and is in conformance with the zoning because the zoning establishes a maximum FAR. The calculation is applied the same way to be fair so that any project that is in compliance with the zoning in the same way provides the same affordable housing component.

Councillor Carlone stated that the original North Point project under question was a custom zoning site-by-site where each parcel was different depending on the circumstances and the maximum that was proposed was approved and the 11.5% was considered the average because more than this was not asked for because custom zoning was indeed the maximum that was on the site. He stated that this is consistent. He explained that he was indirectly a part of this process.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that North Point is not before the City Council. He clarified public comments that were heard to not exempt PUDs. He stated that when this 20% petition is approved, it would apply to PUDs going forward. This cannot be retroactively changed for a special permit that is already in place. He that that PUDs are not being excluded, and moving forward PUDs will have to comply with the 20%. Previously approved PUD, per state law, cannot be retroactively changed. It would be disastrous if this ordinance were to be held up for 2-3 years because of a lawsuit from a developer. He noted that the legal advice received from the City Solicitor is that this cannot be retroactively changed for special permits, but moving forward if there are any changes to special permit at North Point they should be held accountable to the 20%. He stated that the amendments submitted by Ms. Shachter are important. Vice Mayor McGovern spoke about the tenants in these units and the fact that they do not have the flexibility to absorb changes in their life the way he may be able to. He agreed with Mayor Simmons that this has to be passed. He also noted that the ordinance will be reviewed in five years.

Mayor Simmons asked City Solicitor Glowa about appropriateness in the ordinance versus regulations. She wanted to ensure that this was the way to do this. She stated that the ordinance would be reviewed every five years as well as an annual review. She stated that she has requested several times that the language in 11.204 be changed to read that the City Manager has have the authority to promulgate regulations, etc. Ms. Farooq stated that the memo does not include two edits because they were discussed at the Ordinance Committee meeting. She stated that the second modification was 11.203.2(c) to add "annual review and report on" the Inclusionary Housing Program. She wanted to see this move forward.

Councillor Carlone announced that the Planning Board is meeting at 7pm tonight and Community Development staff will need to leave shortly.

At this time Councillor Toomey made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the original Inclusionary Zoning petition be amended by substituting the text contained in the memo from the Community Development Department dated Feb 8, 2017 which appeared on the City Manager's Agenda on Feb 13, 2017 as Agenda Item # 7.

This motion carried on a voice vote.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that this type of detail would usually be found in regulations especially where circumstances may change over time and it is easier to amend regulations and these types of details. She stated that these are policy considerations and they could be incorporated into the ordinance. Mayor Simmons stated that she did not want to compromise the ordinance but wanted them incorporated where they would have maximum enforcement. She stated her concern is the impact on the ordinance. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she wanted more time to review this because the issues are outside the scope of what the inclusionary ordinance has been about and with respect to the petition before the City Council this is getting more into landlord/tenant issues and regulations of these types of concerns. She stated that it would be beneficial if the City Solicitor could review. She stated that it is the will of the City Council as to what to do.

Councillor Cheung moved that the Ordinance Committee endorse in spirit of the amendments submitted by Ms. Shachter.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that these amendments have been previously submitted. He stated that it makes more sense to put the amendments in the ordinance because it makes it stronger and offers more protection for residents. He stated that this also makes this more legally justifiable because when CDD applies a certain rule to a tenant if questioned by a developer if it is in the ordinance that has passed it gives legal standing versus it being an applied rule. He wanted these amendments added before the ordinance is ordained; it is easier to do this now.

Councillor Mazen stated that Ms. Shachter stated that when this is left up to a regulation it becomes a matter of implementation and legal challenge. This needs to be codified so that CDD has the strongest enforcement position.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that if it is the will of the City Council to move this amendment now she did not want to hold this petition up. She stated that she would be happy to look into this and report back to the City Council.

Vice Mayor McGovern now made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the amendments to the Inclusionary Zoning petition submitted by Ms. Shachter in 11.203.4(c) (iii), 11.203.4(c) (v) and 11.203.4(a) contained in the communication dated Feb 28, 2017 be incorporated into the Inclusionary Zoning petition as amended.

No action was taken on this motion at this time.

At this time Councillor Toomey stated that he would like to defer to the City Solicitor and request a report back from the City Solicitor on this matter.

Mayor Simmons stated that the recommendation was that this not be in the ordinance. She stated that if we are going to put this in the ordinance it has to be defensible. This is worth taking another look at this. She further stated that she, nor the staff, wanted this in the ordinance.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked Ms. Glowa if these were put into the ordinance today would you still offer a legal opinion on this between now and the end of Mar 20, 2017. He stated that he did not want to get to March 20th and the amendments are not incorporated and he submits them again and it is too late in the process to add them. He stated that it is easier to remove them then to add them at the last minute. He asked either way the City Council would get a legal opinion. City Solicitor Glowa responded in the affirmative. If the City Council asks for a legal opinion she would provide it by Mar 20, 2017. She further added that the ordinance can be amended now and the amendments can be taken out later. The ordinance can be legally amended a number of times by the City Council.

Councillor Cheung noted that it seems that all want to do this and he requested that this be voted on.

Councillor Carlone moved that the amendments submitted by Ms. Shachter and submitted by Vice Mayor McGovern as follows:
ORDERED: That the amendments to the Inclusionary Zoning petition submitted by Ms. Shachter in 11.203.4(c) (iii), 11.203.4(c) (v) and 11.203.4(a) contained in the communication dated Feb 28, 2017 be incorporated into the Inclusionary Zoning petition as amended.

The motion carried on a voice vote.

Mayor Simmons made a motion to further amend the Inclusionary Ordinance as amended as follows:
ORDERED: That the amended Inclusionary Housing Ordinance be further amended as follows:
That the last sentence in section 11.203.2(c) read as follows:
The Community Development Department shall also conduct an annual review and report on the Inclusionary Housing Program and further that the first sentence in section 11.204(a) read as follows:
The City Manager shall have the authority to promulgate regulations for the implementation of the provisions of Sections 11.200 to 11.205.

The motion carried on a voice vote.

Councillor Carlone stated that according to base zoning PUDs are exempt from changes in future zoning. He added that there is protection in PUDs as they stand. City Solicitor responded that this is not related to base zoning it is a provision that is in the Zoning Ordinance and in Chapter 40A that states that if a special permit is held or a building permit prior to the enactment of a zoning amendment then one is exempt from the provisions of the new amendment. Councillor Carlone stated that there was no reason to add all the additional PUD comments in the petition. He stated that if they have protection there is no reason to cite this again. He wanted to rely on Chapter 40A.

Councillor Carlone moved to amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as amended as follows:
That the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance be amended by striking out the language relating to PUDs.

No action was taken at this time on this amendment.

Councillor Cheung stated that he was not comfortable with this. He made a motion to amend Councillor Carlone's motion by substitution as follows:
That the City Council designate Housing, Ordinance or Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee, to meet with all holders of PUD special permits to discuss how to get the PUD special permit holders to 20%.

No action was taken at this time on this substitution.

Councillor Carlone noted that this reaffirms what is currently in Chapter 40A and this clouds the issue. This should not be in the Ordinance and it was not part of the City or the City Council's thinking. To put this back makes it more difficult to challenge the credibility of the PUD over time. He added that affordable housing is the number one issue in the City. He stated that this is totally unnecessary. Councillor Cheung stated that he is uncomfortable to remove this.

Councillor Carlone stated that he is uncomfortable to leave this in. Councillor Mazen agreed that this does not belong in. He stated that the burden is on those who are uncomfortable to remove this to say why in any case that this is here.

Councillor Toomey made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the City Solicitor to review the amendments submitted by Ellen Shachter and provide an opinion regarding the incorporation of these amendment into the Inclusionary Zoning petition; said information be reported back to the City Council no later than Mar 27, 2017.

The motion carried on a voice vote.

Mayor Simmons clarified Councillor Cheung's motion is to keep the PUD language in and to refer to a committee to discuss with the PUD special permit holders in an effort to get 20%. She added that the committee has to do the work with the developers, not the developers doing the work. She moved to amend his substitution by moving that the language stay in and that the subject matter move to a committee for further discussion and review. The committee would come back to the City Council with recommendations.

Councillor Mazen suggested that the motion submitted by Councillor Carlone be withdrawn. Councillor Carlone stated that meeting with the developers without teeth will lead nowhere. At this time Councillor Mazen withdrew his suggestion that Councillor Carlone withdraw his motion. He stated that his hope is for the substitution to fail and the original motion to prevail.

Councillor Carlone reiterated that the state law, Chapter 40A, is the basis and it is already there and putting new PUD language in the ordinance does not gain.

City Solicitor Glowa requested clarification which section is being discussed for the record. City Clerk Lopez stated that it was her understanding that what is being discussed is on page six of the document dated Feb 8, 2017 Section B is what is being removed. City Solicitor Glowa explained that this is not part of the petition; it is the requested additional information. She stated that section 11-4 of the original petition, being 11.203.1 (c) and (d) is what she understood is the discussion. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he has concerns about this. He stated that if this language is deleted tonight the ordinance could be in jeopardy. He stated that he is not committing to vote to keep this the PUD language in moving forward. This language can be put back into the ordinance.

Councillor Carlone asked why this PUD language is in the ordinance if it is not necessary and why keep it. This language did not come from the City in their original proposal. He stated that this complicates any future discussions on lengthy PUDs and is against the spirit of the PUDs. It does not belong and was not put in by the City.

Vice Mayor McGovern requested the City Solicitor to explain why this language is in the petition? He asked why Somerville included language regarding PUDs. Councillor Devereux responded that the question asked of Somerville was not related to protecting PUDs. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that on page six of the Feb 8, 2017 memo it states that the Somerville regulations: that the new requirements shall become effective on the day of passage by the Board of Aldermen but shall not apply to any project that has received approval for a Special Permit with Site Plan Review prior to the date of the vote of the Board of Aldermen to adopt said amendment. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that Somerville did put into their ordinance any PUD and other things that have approval are exempt from compliance with their new ordinance. He asked why this was done and why would Cambridge add this if it is in state law. Councillor Devereux noted that the question that was raised was why Assembly Square was subject to the new requirement.

Ms. Farooq informed the committee that the question was not asked of Somerville why their ordinance contained this language. Councillor Carlone stated that the question is why Cambridge has this language in our proposal if it is already in Chapter 40A. Ms. Farooq explained that 11.203.1(c) and (d) were arrived at from discussions with the business community who felt that these are important elements to have in the proposal. She explained the genesis of the two sections. She stated that the first is to clarify the protection under Chapter 40A and the second on PUD is to provide flexibility desirable for a long term phased development to be able to incorporate desired changes over time that did not have an impact on development capacity and did not have a major impact on the financial capacity of the project to deliver a certain percentage or higher of inclusionary units.

Councillor Cheung shared the concerns of where and how this was included in the proposal. He stated that he wanted the 20%. He stated that given the legal uncertainties he would prefer something enforceable going forward and may potentially be challenged. He stated that reaching out to the holders of the special permit PUDs and talking about the 20% gives us an avenue to pursue that the 20% is included right away. He spoke about the ability to lose the holders to go to 20%. He stated that he is more comfortable keeping this in the proposal and moving forward have the conversation with the holders of the PUDs to get to 20%.

Councillor Mazen stated that it is important that these provisions be seen as being in the state law and for the flexibility for the Planning Board to establish special permits. He stated that the City does not was to be in a position where they are artificially constrained. He wanted the Planning Board to be able to respond in the affirmative for a Special Permit or the flexibility to not lock in the percentage. Why not allow the Planning Board the flexibility to make the decision as they come up? He asked why this language would be kept and constrain the Planning Board.

Councillor Toomey moved the question.

The City Clerk read the motions as follows:
Motion by Councillor Carlone to remove reference to PUDs.
Motion by Councillor Cheung to amend motion by Councillor Carlone to leave the language of the PUDs in and refer to a committee to meeting with the PUD special permit holders.
Motion by Mayor Simmons as an amendment to the amendment to leave the PUD language in and the subject be referred to a committee for a review.

At this time Councillor Toomey moved to close debate and on this matter the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Cheung, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toomey and Mayor Simmons – 4
NAYS: Councillor Carlone, Devereux and Mazen – 3
ABSENT: Councillors Kelley and Maher – 2
and the motion – Carried
(The result of the vote announced was incorrect. Closing or limiting debate requires a 2/3 vote.)

The committee now proceeded to act on the amendment offered by Mayor Simmons which reads:
That the PUD language remain in the Inclusionary ordinance and that the subject matter be referred to a committee for review.

The question now came on the amendment and the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillors Cheung, Toomey and Mayor Simmons – 3
NAYS: Councillors Carlone, Devereux, Mazen and Vice Mayor McGovern – 4
ABSENT: Councillors Kelley and Maher – 2
the amendment - Failed.

The committee now proceeded to act on the amendment offered by Councillor Cheung which reads:
That the PUD language remain in the Inclusionary ordinance and refer to a committee to meet with all holders of PUD special permits to discuss how to get the PUD special permit holders to a goal of 20%.

The question now came on the amendment and the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillors Cheung, Toomey and Mayor Simmons – 3
NAYS: Councillors Carlone, Devereux, Mazen and Vice Mayor McGovern – 4
ABSENT: Councillors Kelley and Maher - 2
the amendment - Failed.

The committee now proceeded to the original motion submitted by Councillor Carlone as follows:
ORDERED: That the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance be further amended by striking out in 11.203.1 entitled "Applicability" sections (c) and (d).

The question now came on the amendment and the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Carlone, Devereux, Mazen and Vice Mayor McGovern – 4
NAYS: Councillor Cheung, Toomey and Mayor Simmons – 3
ABSENT: Councillors Kelley and Maher – 2
the amendment - Carried.

The following communications were received and made part of the committee report:
Ann Fleck-Henderson, 113 Richdale Avenue, urging that the PUD's not be excluded from the 20% inclusionary requirement (ATTACHMENT I).

Mo Kim requesting that North Point PUD provide 20% affordable units (ATTACHMENT J).

Jessica Landau-Taylor supporting that the 20% inclusionary housing requirement be changed so that the PUDs are not exempt (ATTACHMENT K).

Hubert Murray in support of the 20% inclusionary housing and requesting that the clause that exempts PUDs be deleted (ATTACHMENT L).

Leyla Isik, 351 Harvard Street, expressing concern with the PUD exemption to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (ATTACHMENT M).

Roseanne Sommers in support of affordable housing in Cambridge and would like to see PUDs provide affordable units (ATTACHMENT N).

John MacDougall, 175 Richdale Avenue, stated that PUDs should not be excluded from the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (ATTACHMENT O).

Jacquelyn Smith, 7 Ashburton Place, urging the City Council to vote in favor of requiring PUDs to provide 20% inclusionary housing (ATTACHMENT P).

Sally Benbasset, 92 Henry Street, stated that Cambridge needs as many affordable units as possible and that big developments such as North Point should exceed the 20% rather than be exempted from it (ATTACHMENT Q).

Robert Manduca encouraged the City Council not to exempt PUDs from the 20% inclusionary housing requirement (ATTACHMENT R).

Georgia Lagoudas requested that PUDs be included in the draft petition for the 20% inclusionary requirement (ATTACHMENT S).

Carolyn Magid, 71 Reed Street, in opposition to the exclusion of PUDs from the ordinance (ATTACHMENT T).

Jack Boesen, 25 Suffolk Street, in support of the increased percentage for affordable housing requirement (ATTACHMENT U).

Sherri Tucker urging that all PUD language be excluded from the language (ATTACHMENT V).

Stacy Braga urging that the North Point PUD be included in the Inclusionary zoning (ATTACHMENT W).

Melanie Cohn-Hopwood, 2 Earhart Street, in support of the Inclusionary Housing being expanded to include PUDs (ATTACHMENT X).

Beth Huang in support of the changes to the Inclusionary Housing including increasing affordable housing requirement to 20%, requiring three bedroom units, affordable housing units be required in buildings over 30,000 square feet and not excluding PUDs from the Inclusionary requirement (ATTACHMENT Y).

Karen Chen in support of the changes to the Inclusionary Housing including increasing affordable housing requirement to 20%, requiring three bedroom units, affordable housing units be required in buildings over 30,000 square feet and not excluding PUDs from the Inclusionary requirement (ATTACHMENT Z).

Liz Layton urging the Ordinance Committee to increase the percentage of affordable inclusionary units in new construction from 11.5% to 25% and further to require developers to acknowledge the 25% in any new proposal to be built (ATTACHMENT AA).

Nancy E. Phillips, Rice Street, in support of increasing the Inclusionary Housing to 20% (ATTACHMENT BB).

Patricia Lotterman requested that North Point provide 20% affordable units (ATTACHMENT CC).

Kristina Nies, 105 Second Street, urging adoption of a 25% Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (ATTACHMENT DD).

Tom Batcho in support of the 20% Housing Ordinance and that the PUDs not be excluded from the 20% (ATTACHMENT EE).

Councillor Toomey moved to refer the matter to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation as amended. The motion carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 6:53pm on motion of Councillor Cheung.

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