CITY MANAGER'S AGENDA
1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a request for authorization to transfer a leasehold interest in the property at 1-15 Vail Court to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust and to appropriation $750,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Department Extraordinary Expenditures to facilitate the abatement and demolition of the existing structures on the site.
Adopted 9-0

June 12, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am requesting authorization to transfer a leasehold interest in the property at 1-15 Vail Court, Cambridge, also known as 139 Bishop Allen Drive, (“the Property”) to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust so that the Trust may move forward with the redevelopment of the Property as affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households. I am also requesting that the City Council appropriate $750,000 for the demolition of the two structures on the Property.

As you know, in September 2016 the City Council approved the taking of the Property by eminent domain after many years and much frustration in the community about blighted condition of buildings there. Since that time the City has taken ownership of the Property, and has secured and inspected the two structures there. A Board of Survey has determined that the buildings are physically unsound and must be demolished. Building inspections have also shown that the buildings contain hazardous materials.

The City has developed a plan for abatement of hazardous materials and demolition of the existing structures. Bids have been obtained for this project and costs are estimated to be $750,000. I am requesting that the City Council appropriation $750,000 for this effort so that the buildings can be demolished in the coming months.

While planning for the demolition of the buildings, the City has also considered how best to advance the redevelopment of the property acknowledging the interest in using the property for affordable housing expressed by the City Council when approving the eminent domain order.

The City, through the City Manager’s Office, held a public meeting on Mar 23, 2017 to update the community on the status of the buildings, and to solicit additional input on the future use of the Property. The meeting was attended by more than 50 residents, including abutters, other residents, as well as representatives from affordable housing organizations. There was strong support at the meeting for redeveloping the property as affordable housing. There were also several comments from abutters advocating for the inclusion of green space, as well as comments that the height, size, and layout of any new buildings should be appropriate for the neighborhood. Many meeting attendees also expressed gratitude to the City for taking steps to address conditions at the Property after many years of frustration.

In keeping with the high priority the City Council has placed on creating affordable housing and the input we heard from the community, I am recommending that the City Council approve the authorization to transfer a leasehold interest in the property to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust for the construction of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income. Leasing the land to the Trust for 99 years will allow for the development of affordable housing while allowing the City to retain ownership of the underlying land.

The transfer of an interest in real estate to the Trust for the construction of low- and moderate-income housing is exempt from the provisions of the Disposition Ordinance, Chapter 2.110 of the Cambridge Municipal Code. Chapter 40, §15A of the General Laws governs the transfer of municipal property from one municipal use to another. Ordinarily, General Laws Chapter 40, § 15A requires a two-thirds vote for such a transfer; however, the statute provides that when the transfer is for the purpose of constructing low- and moderate-income housing, a simple majority vote is required.

I believe that the Affordable Housing Trust is best suited to initiate the redevelopment of the Property as affordable housing in a way that balances community housing needs with the desire for an appropriately scaled development and site layout. The Trust will also ensure that the City’s investment in the Property is leveraged with other public and private funding to complete high-quality development that benefits the community.

Next Steps

The City has scheduled a community meeting for June 14, 2017 to update the community on the plan for hazardous material abatement and demolition. Abatement and demolition work is expected to occur in the coming months.

City staff will also begin work with the Trust to schedule public meetings to solicit information on citywide housing needs and identify possible affordable housing uses so that the best affordable housing use of the Property can be determined. City staff and the Trust will also work with the City Manager’s office, the Community Development Department, neighbors, and other stakeholders, to develop guidance for the chosen developer around building and site design, to ensure a thoughtfully designed development that will benefit future residents of the housing as well as the surrounding neighborhood. The Trust will incorporate identified affordable housing objective(s) and guidelines for site design to into a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to select a developer capable of carrying out the project as envisioned.

To continue progress with advancing efforts to redevelop the property, I recommend the City Council appropriate of $750,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Extraordinary Expenditures Account to facilitate the abatement and demolition of the existing structures on the site, and that the City Council also approve authorization to transfer the a leasehold interest in property to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust for the construction of low- and moderate-income housing.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

---

Agenda Item Number 1     June 12, 2017
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge, per an Order of Taking dated Sept 26, 2016, acquired the property at 1-15 Vail Court, located at 139 Bishop Allen Drive, after the existing buildings sat vacant for many years; and
WHEREAS: There exists in Cambridge a severe shortage of housing affordable to low and moderate income residents; and
WHEREAS: A public meeting regarding Vail Court was held on Mar 23, 2017. At the meeting there was strong support for the creation of affordable housing on the property, as well as a desire expressed for appropriately scaled buildings; and
WHEREAS: The City Council has made affordable housing a top priority and desires to increase the supply of affordable housing for low and moderate residents; and
WHEREAS: Pursuant to Section 15A of Chapter 40 of the General Laws, as amended and accepted by the City Council on Nov 26, 1990, the City Council may, by a majority vote, transfer municipal land to another board or officer of the City for the purpose of constructing low and moderate income housing; and
WHEREAS: The City Manager is recommending transfer of a 99-year leasehold interest in the property to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust for development of low and moderate income housing; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager is authorized to transfer a 99-year leasehold interest in the property at 1-15 Vail Court, located at 139 Bishop Allen Drive, to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust for the development of low and moderate-income housing; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute and deliver to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust in the name of and on behalf of the City of Cambridge in such form and at such time as the City Manager shall approve (such approval to be evidenced by such execution and delivery) such documents, instruments, agreements, leases, licenses, warranties, indemnifications, releases or certificates, or amendments thereto, necessary for the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust to develop low and moderate income housing on the property at 1-15 Vail Court, located at 139 Bishop Allen Drive; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute, accept, and deliver such supplemental or ancillary documents as are reasonable necessary to implement the intent of this Order and to execute, accept and deliver amendments thereto.

2. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 17-4, regarding current or potential future public-private partnerships that could deliver an operational Foundry that consists of significant community space for the community.
Placed on File

June 12, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 17-4, regarding current or potential future public-private partnerships that could deliver an operational Foundry that consists of significant community space for the community, I am pleased to report that the City of Cambridge (City) and the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA) are continuing to collaborate and work closely with the broader community, various City departments, the Foundry Advisory Committee, and other stakeholders, to redevelop the Foundry building at 101 Rogers St. In 2017, the City and CRA began to explore a revised strategy to redevelop the building in a way that better meets the vision and expectations that resulted from an extensive community process.

The latest approach recognizes the challenges faced with the initial process of retaining a private developer to make required capital improvements in a manner that could measurably achieve the building vision, while also ensure a high level of community and public use.

The City and CRA are now proposing to invest approximately $25 million in public funding to make necessary capital improvements to the building. This publicly funded capital project will be designed to accommodate a mix of programming and uses that are identified as community needs including arts, cultural, educational, fabrication, and commercial activities. The City and the CRA are currently working to establish a design and construction process that will result in a building suitable for a wide range of activities, with universally accessible, high quality spaces, while respecting the historic form of the original structure.

The Foundry will have a mix of non-profit, public, and for-profit uses that all contribute to the life of the building and leverage the investment, energy, and activity already happening in the area. Through this strategy, the building will be financially self-sustaining, with building operational and programming costs paid for by the mix of building tenants. Building operating costs are estimated to be over $1 million per year including building maintenance; community programming and events; and recruitment of potential tenants.

It is estimated that approximately 60% of the building’s programmatic space will be dedicated for community and public uses, and 40% of the office space will be leased at rents at or close to market. The estimated 30,000 sf (gross floor area) of space that will be dedicated to public and community uses in the Foundry is comparable in size to other community facilities throughout the City. The CRA will select a program management team, through a competitive process, to operate and program the community spaces in a manner consistent with the Foundry’s redevelopment strategy. The Foundry Advisory Committee continues to play an important role in this process.

The City and the CRA are currently engaging the community to discuss the proposed mix of uses, project funding, and the overall redevelopment strategy. Several forums will be held over the next several weeks to receive feedback from the public. This broad outreach began with a community meeting on May 30th, attended by approximately 60 people; the presentation given by the CRA at the meeting is attached for your reference. I invite members of the City Council to participate in that process. We also expect in future weeks to request an appropriation for capital funding, as well as approval of a revised Foundry Building Demonstration Project Plan.

I am very confident that, through the extensive collaboration, input from residents, and discussions with stakeholders, and with your assistance and support, we are moving closer to achieving the vision for the Foundry building, and creating a truly special place for the entire community.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

9. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 17-39, regarding a report on the City's policy of conducting CORI checks on applicants of the Mayor's Summer Youth Employment Program.
Placed on File

June 12, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 17-39, regarding a report on the policy of conducting CORI checks on applicants of the Mayor's Summer Employment Program, please be advised of the following:

As part of the application process for the Mayor’s Summer Youth Employment Program, all of the youth fill out the application form to obtain a Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) history/juvenile record. It is a state requirement that every staff person or volunteer who works with children in a licensed summer camp or a childcare setting must have gone thru the CORI process. This requirement has been in place since 2003 and part of the Mayor’s program application process.

The CORI record results are not used in any way to deny young people an opportunity to participate in the Mayor’s Program. We believe that it is especially important that our youth who have criminal records be participating in the summer employment program rather than be out of work. The Criminal record information is used to support the assignment process so that those youth whose record would not support their work in a summer camp or child care site are assigned to a different program. Young people and parents are informed about the criminal record. They have the opportunity to work with our staff to support their thinking about how young people can best talk about their record if necessary in the future and how they can work to clear their record where that is possible.

Over the more than a dozen years that we have been doing the CORI checks, there has been a very considerable drop in the number of CORI hits for our young people. A big piece of the change is the work of the Safety Net Collaborative with the Police, Human Services, the Schools and community agencies. The Police have worked very hard to avoid having youth get criminal records.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

19. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following person as a member of the Community Benefits Advisory Committee for a term of three years, effective June 1, 2017: Kathryn Fenneman, Risa Mednick, Elizabeth Aguilo, Cibele Goncalves, Daniel Liss, Rowan Murphy, Amy Salomon, Geeta Pradhan, Susan Lapierre, Paul Parravano, Ellen Semonoff, Sandra Clarke, and Lisa Peterson (Chair)
Placed on File

June 12, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting notification of the following appointments to the Community Benefits Advisory Committee for a term of three years, effective June 1, 2017:

Representatives of the Local Nonprofit Community (3)
Kathryn Fenneman
Ms. Fenneman is the Executive Director of Tutoring Plus of Cambridge, a provider of free tutoring mentoring, and enrichment programs. She is the Co-Founder of the Cambridge Nonprofit Coalition and a member of the Needs Assessment Advisory Committee and a resident of Cambridge.

Risa Mednick
Ms. Mednick is the Executive Director of Transition House, a domestic violence intervention resource. She is a member of the Cambridge Nonprofit Coalition Steering Committee and the Needs Assessment Advisory Committee.

Elizabeth Aguilo
Ms. Aguilo is the Executive Director of Paine Senior Services, a non-profit organization that helps seniors to remain independent in their community and is currently Board President for Somerville-Cambridge Elder Services.

Residents (4)
Cibele Goncalves
Cibele has direct experience as beneficiary of City programs that have supported independence (i.e., housing, childcare) and is passionate about homelessness and domestic violence issues.

Daniel Liss
Daniel has operational experience at non-profits including grant management and budget monitoring and has strong interests in housing and transportation.

Rowan Murphy
Rowan has a background in non-profit administration, grant-making, organizational capacity assessment and strategic planning and is interested in community programs.

Amy Salomon
Ms. Salomom is experienced in conducting research to develop and evaluate community programs, as well as grant-making. She has a strong interest in maintaining affordability and diversity in the City.

Cambridge Community Foundation Representative (1)
Geeta Pradhan
Ms. Pradhan is the President & CEO of Cambridge Community Foundation and has a background in philanthropy, urban planning and economic development. She is a member of the Cambridge Nonprofit Coalition Steering Committee.

Business/Property Development Representative (1)
Susan Lapierre
Susan is the Senior Vice President at Cambridge Savings Bank. As Community Relations & CRA Officer, she oversees the Bank’s corporate giving and community outreach efforts. Susan is also the Board Chair at East End House.

University Representative (1)
Paul Parravano
Mr. Parravano is Co-Director, MIT’s Office of Government and Community Relations and has worked to strengthen MIT's involvement in science education for K-12 teachers, especially in partnerships with the Cambridge Public Schools. He also serves as MIT's federal relations officer.

City Staff Appointed by the City Manager (3)
• Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager (Committee Chair)
• Ellen Semonoff, Assistant City Manager for Human Services Programs
• Sandra Clarke, Deputy Director Community Development

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

20. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $3,728,500 from Free Cash to the Community Benefits Stabilization Fund.
Adopted 9-0

June 12, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $3,728,500 from Free Cash to the Community Benefits Stabilization Fund. During FY16, the City received mitigation revenues from various developers as a result of commitments related to zoning ordinance amendments and special permit conditions that specifically state that funds must be expended on programs and services that directly benefit Cambridge residents. By law, all mitigation revenues must be deposited into the General Fund and can only be appropriated after the Free Cash Certification is complete.

The Community Benefits Stabilization Fund was set up to provide financial support to non-profit charitable community benefits organizations servicing Cambridge residents. It is a revenue fund where appropriations for expenditures must first come before the City Council. The Community Benefits Advisory Committee will develop funding recommendations as guided by the Community Benefits Ordinance and present them to the City Manager for approval and subsequent appropriation to the Council.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

21. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $1,366,506 from Free Cash to the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund.
Adopted 9-0

June 12, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $1,366,506 from Free Cash to the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund. During FY16, the City received mitigation revenues from various developers as a result of commitments related to zoning ordinance amendments and special permit conditions. By law, all mitigation revenues must be deposited into the General Fund and can only be appropriated after the Free Cash Certification is complete.

Funds appropriated to the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund will be used to fund specific projects which will require individual appropriations by the City Council for the related projects in the future.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

22. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation not to adopt the Zoning Petition regarding rooftop spaces in the Harvard Square Overlay District.
Referred to Petition

Date: June 7, 2017
Subject: Zoning Petition Regarding Rooftop Spaces in the Harvard Square Overlay District
Recommendation: The Planning Board does NOT RECOMMEND adoption.

To the Honorable, the City Council,

On Apr 18, 2017, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this City Council zoning petition, which would amend Section 20.50 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow rooftop spaces that are otherwise included as gross floor area (GFA) on a lot to be exempted from GFA calculations by special permit from the Planning Board in the Business B portion of the Harvard Square Overlay District. The Board received briefing material from CDD staff and heard testimony from members of the public.

Based on a review of the petition and testimony received, the Board does not believe it necessary or worthwhile to make the proposed zoning change at this time. The key objective of the petition appears to be to allow restaurants and similar retail facilities greater flexibility to use rooftop space. However, such space already is typically excluded from GFA when it is located at the third floor or below. Therefore the Board does not believe the proposed change would facilitate such use, except possibly in rare cases where a restaurant or similar retail use is located on the upper floors of a building that already has met or exceeded its allowed GFA.

Several members of the Board expressed the view that the retail environment in Harvard Square deserves attention, and that support for bars and restaurants – and outdoor dining in particular – may be a key component to keeping the area active and lively, given the uncertain future of traditional retail. However, the Board believes that a more comprehensive examination of Harvard Square’s zoning needs, including community discussion, should be undertaken before implementing a single limited zoning change.

Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board,
H Theodore Cohen, Chair

23. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation not to adopt the petition to rezone the block bounded by Third Street, Cambridge Street, Second Street and Gore Street from Business A to a new designation Business A-5.
Referred to Petition

Date: June 7, 2017
Subject: Petition to rezone the block bounded by Third Street, Cambridge Street, Second Street, and Gore Street from Business A to a new designation Business A-5.
Recommendation: The Planning Board does NOT RECOMMEND adoption.

To the Honorable, the City Council,

On May 2, 2017, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this petition, submitted by representatives of Mark Lechmere, LLC and Amadan Management, LLC which control ownership of land within the subject area fronting Cambridge Street, Third Street, and Gore Street. The proposal would create a new zoning district that alters some of the development standards currently applicable in the block, specifically by modifying floor area ratio (FAR), height, and setback requirements for residential developments incorporating small-scale retail uses at the ground floor and providing all parking below grade. According to the petitioner, the proposed change would enable development of a four-story mixed-use building with the previously described components. The Board heard testimony from representatives of the petitioners, including a design presentation of the prospective development scheme, and from members of the public, who were predominantly residents living near the affected area.

It is important to note that the Board’s recommendation is on the specific proposed zoning change, and not on the proposed development. While Board members appreciated seeing the petitioners’ proposed design as an example of what might result from the proposed amendment, the Board focused its discussion on the particulars of the zoning petition and did not engage in development review that would only occur if, and when, a proposal is before the Board seeking project approval.

The Board is in general agreement that the subject area would benefit from redevelopment, given that it currently contains a preponderance of paved parking lots that contribute little to the area. Board members also saw merit in various aspects of the proposed zoning, such as supporting ground-floor retail use in an important mixed-use corridor, accommodating parking below-grade, allowing buildings to be built to front lot lines, and encouraging the creation of new housing near transit.

Nevertheless, the Board believes that the current zoning proposal may be too narrowly tailored to enable a particular project, and did not arise out of the type of planning and zoning studies that typically precede a zoning amendment proposal. It may be that some or all of the proposals for this small portion of Cambridge Street should be considered for other parts of Cambridge Street. Therefore, the Board believes that this petition would benefit from additional study and input from the community to determine if it should stand alone or if there should be a broader vision for the area as a whole, and also to determine the range of impacts such change(s) might have. Some of this study may occur in the future as the Envision Cambridge process focuses on major corridors, including Massachusetts Avenue and Cambridge Street.

Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board,
H Theodore Cohen, Chair

24. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation not to adopt the Observatory Hill Village (Mahon, et al.) Zoning Petition.
Referred to Petition

Date: June 7, 2017
Subject: Observatory Hill Village (Mahon, et al.) Zoning Petition
Recommendation: The Planning Board does NOT RECOMMEND adoption.

To the Honorable, the City Council,

On May 16, 2017, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this petition by Cambridge residents to create a new “Observatory Hill Village Overlay District” covering the area currently zoned Business A-1 in the segment of Concord Avenue between Walden Street and Huron Avenue. This overlay district would apply an additional set of development and use standards to the area, including requiring one of a range of non-residential uses at the ground floor, modifying some front, side, and rear yard setback requirements, allowing a limited exemption of gross floor area (GFA) for residential projecting bays, and modifying some height limitations for mixed-use buildings with residential above retail. The Board received a presentation by representatives of the petitioners and City Councillor Dennis Carlone, reviewed material provided by CDD staff, and heard testimony from members of the public, including residents of the area and some owners of property in the district.

The Board agrees with the petitioners that this area is unique and worthy of special attention, given its strong interplay of residential and commercial uses serving a range of community needs within a village-like atmosphere. The Board also agrees that retail in this area is delicate, as it is in many parts of the City, given the current economic climate and the ongoing changes in the public’s patronage of brick and mortar retail stores. The Board agrees that it is crucial to employ strategies to preserve and support continued retail vibrancy where possible. Overall, the Board strongly supports the goals that have been set forth by the petitioners in their submission.

While the Board endorses the petition’s goals, the Board’s main concern is that the proposed zoning requirements do not seem to effectively serve these goals, because they primarily add restrictions to an area that already has strict zoning limitations. In the Board’s experience, since retail uses (particularly small-scale, local retail that is valued by the community) have to compete against other, often more economically viable land uses, additional zoning restrictions can discourage retail uses as an alternative to other use options. Rather than increasing the zoning restrictions in the area, the Board recommends the consideration of incentives, specials permits or other flexibility in zoning that would make retail uses more favorable and desirable to property owners when they are considering their land use options.

The Board also finds that there are aspects of the petition in need of clarification, including determining the exact area that is affected and the circumstances under which the different sets of dimensional requirements (base or overlay) would apply. The Board felt that the petition’s overlay of restrictions is too complex, and that the petition would benefit from simplification and from a consolidation of the multiple layers of requirements and restrictions.

The Board does not favor the petition in its current form, but strongly encourages the petitioners to continue to work with the City to consider revisions to the proposal that would make it a more effective tool in preserving and strengthening the mixed-use vibrancy that characterizes this area. The Board would welcome the opportunity to review a revised submission if the Council wishes to proceed in this manner.

Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board,
H Theodore Cohen, Chair

25. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation (no recommendation at this time) on the Zoning Petition regarding vacant or abandoned buildings.
Referred to Petition

Date: June 7, 2017
Subject: Zoning Petition Regarding Vacant or Abandoned Buildings
The Planning Board has no recommendation at this time.

To the Honorable, the City Council,

On Apr 25, 2017, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this City Council zoning petition, which would create a new Section 11.900 of the Zoning Ordinance entitled: “Maintenance and Security of Vacant or Abandoned Buildings,” establishing definitions for vacant or abandoned properties and requirements for the registration, maintenance, security, fees, and inspections of such properties. No public testimony was given at the hearing, although the Board received a letter from the Cambridge Residents Alliance in support of the intent of the petition.

Given that the Ordinance Committee had already referred the petition to staff for further review, the Board makes no recommendation regarding this petition, the apparent intent of which is to protect neighborhoods from deterioration, crime, and vandalism potentially associated with vacant and abandoned buildings and to limit the land-banking of properties that are purchased and held as investments without any use being made of them.

While the Board recognizes the seriousness of the issues the petition seeks to address, the Board has many concerns about the specific zoning proposal, and suggests that it be revised after consultation with, and input from, other City departments, particularly the Law Department. An exploration of how other communities have addressed these problems may also be beneficial.

The Board’s initial concern is whether the proposed requirements appropriately fit within the Zoning Ordinance, which typically controls the allowed uses of land, rather than mandating how a particular property must be used and maintained. The Board also believes that the proposed fee structure needs to be reconsidered, especially in consultation with the Law Department as to the legality of certain of its provisions.

Additional concerns of the Board are whether “vacant” and “abandoned” properties should be treated in different ways, given differing circumstances such as a property being in probate or a homeowner who needs to vacate (but not abandon) a property for some period of time. The Board also encourages further discussion of whether the main objective of the petition is to ensure the safety and appearance of a neighborhood, or the appearance and use of a particular property, or to encourage more timely occupancy of a property – all of which may have different implications and may require different strategies.

Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board,
H Theodore Cohen, Chair

26. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation to adopt the City Council Petition on Short-Term Rental Housing.
Referred to Petition, Accept Committee Report #4, Adopt 4 Orders, and Pass to 2nd Reading as Amended

Date: June 7, 2017
Subject: City Council Petition on Short-Term Rental Housing
Recommendation: The Planning Board recommends ADOPTION, with suggested elements to be clarified.

To the Honorable, the City Council,

On May 23, 2017, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this petition by the City Council to create a definition of and requirements for “short-term rental,” defined as “[a]ny rental in a residential dwelling stipulated to be less than 30 consecutive days and used for residential purposes only.” The Board received a presentation of the petition by City Councillor Craig Kelley and Wilford O. Durbin, Aide to Councillor Kelley, reviewed material provided by CDD staff, and heard testimony from members of the public. At the same meeting, the Board held a public hearing on a zoning petition by Latoyea Hawkins Cockrill, et al., which addresses the same topic but is a separate petition, for which the Board has made a separate recommendation.

With the current growth of online platforms that facilitate the renting of residential properties to guests for short-term stays, the Board believes it is important to make clear in the Zoning Ordinance whether or not the short-term rental of a dwelling unit (as distinct from principal use transient accommodations such as tourist houses or hotels) is allowed, and what limitations and regulations apply. The Board believes that now is an appropriate time to enact a policy, as this type of unregulated activity is becoming more widespread. Such policy could be changed in the future if it is found to have adverse consequences or if the City’s housing goals change over time.

The Board broadly supports the rights of residents to use their property in a fair way and agrees that short-term rentals can provide benefits, including additional income for residents with underutilized living space and new ways to welcome visitors into the city. The Board also understands that the “sharing economy” is an emerging reality made possible by new technologies, and will likely continue to grow and evolve in the future.

However, the Board is concerned by the potential for widespread conversion of long-term housing to short-term accommodations, effectively converting apartments into unauthorized hotels, which could drive up property values and thus housing prices, and potentially put the safety of guests at risk if not regulated. The Board is particularly concerned that the growth of online short-term rentals appears to be negatively impacting on the city’s already low rental housing vacancy rate. It should be noted that the Zoning Ordinance currently has rules allowing for transient accommodations, such as hotels and bed and breakfasts, in a regulated manner.

After considering the aforesaid concerns, the Board finds the approach proposed in the City Council petition to be reasonable, fair, and well thought-out, appropriately balancing the need to protect long-term residential units with residents’ ability to welcome guests into their homes, if they choose to do so, in an economically beneficial manner.

While the Board strongly supports adoption of the petition, the following comments are provided to suggest some aspects of the petition that might be given additional consideration in order to improve the clarity and effectiveness of the ordinance:

• The Board supports the short-term rental of both owner-occupied units and owner-adjacent units, but feels that the definition of “owner-adjacent units” and the limitations on the number of units that may be short-term rentals in both “owner-adjacent” and “owner-occupied” units could be clarified.

• It should be made clear that the ordinance does not supersede restrictions on short-term rentals that may be contained in leases or condominium documents. In particular, authorization from the property owner is important where a long-term tenant is the short-term rental operator, to demonstrate compliance with the lease and because the property owner is responsible for ensuring that the property complies with zoning requirements and other applicable codes. This authorization requirement should be set forth either in the ordinance or in its implementing regulations, to avoid involving the City in conflicts between landlords and tenants or among condominium owners.

• The Board is concerned that some of the provisions relating to building code requirements and inspections are too onerous and question how they will be enforced, since the City contains many older homes and long-term rental units that do not meet all the requirements of current codes but are nonetheless safe for habitation. Long-term rental housing does not mandate an inspection and compliance with current codes. The Board understands that short-term rentals might reasonably require additional safety measures, for the same reason they are applied in hotels and other guest accommodations. However, the Board speculates that if property owners contemplating short-term rentals are uncertain whether submitting to an inspection might result in the need for costly upgrades, they might be dissuaded from following the ordinance’s registration procedures. Some fine-tuning of the language, with assistance from the Inspectional Services Department and Law Department, would be beneficial to explain what specific requirements would be applied and to clarify the purpose of the inspections. Similarly, the Board questioned the rationale for “bookkeeping” requirements that apply only to owner-adjacent units.

Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board,
H Theodore Cohen, Chair

27. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation not to adopt the Cockrill, et al., Petition on Short-Term Rental Housing.
Referred to Petition, Accept Committee Report #6, and Lay On The Table

Date: June 7, 2017
Subject: Cockrill, et al., Petition on Short-Term Rental Housing
Recommendation: The Planning Board does NOT RECOMMEND adoption.

To the Honorable, the City Council,

On May 23, 2017, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this petition by Latoyea Hawkins Cockrill, et al., to create a definition of and requirements for “short-term rental,” defined as “the accessory use of all or part of a residential dwelling unit by rental for temporary occupancy for dwelling, sleeping, or lodging.” No presentation was made on behalf of the petitioners (Ms. Cockrill was present at the meeting but did not speak as an organizer of the petition). The Board reviewed material provided by CDD staff, and heard testimony from members of the public. At the same meeting, the Board held a public hearing on a zoning petition by the City Council, which addresses the same topic but is a separate petition, for which the Board has made a separate recommendation.

With the current growth of online platforms that facilitate the renting of residential properties to guests for short-term stays, the Board believes it is important to make clear in the Zoning Ordinance whether or not the short-term rental of a dwelling unit (as distinct from principal use transient accommodations such as tourist houses or hotels) is allowed, and what limitations and regulations apply. The Board believes that now is an appropriate time to enact a policy, as this type of unregulated activity is becoming more widespread. Such a policy could be changed in the future if it is found to have adverse consequences or if the City’s goals change over time.

The Board broadly supports the rights of residents to use their property in a fair way and agrees that short-term rentals can provide benefits, including additional income for residents with underutilized living space and new ways to welcome visitors into the city. The Board also understands that the “sharing economy” is an emerging reality made possible by new technologies, and will likely continue to grow and evolve in the future. But the Board is concerned by the potential for widespread conversion of long-term housing to short-term accommodations, effectively converting apartments into unauthorized hotels, which could drive up property values and thus housing prices, and potentially put the safety of guests at risk if not regulated. The Board is particularly concerned that the growth of online short-term rentals appears to be negatively impacting on the city’s already low rental housing vacancy rate. It should be noted that the Zoning Ordinance currently has rules allowing for transient accommodations, such as hotels and bed and breakfasts, in a regulated manner.

In balancing the rights of residents and the aforesaid concerns, the Board determined that it does not support the allowance of purely commercially-operated short-term rentals. Therefore, the Board does not support this proposal, as it would allow the continued conversion of long-term housing into such commercially-operated short-term accommodations. The Board also finds that some of the language in the petition is unclear and too generalized, and does not establish explicit standards and requirements that would be appropriate and customary in a Zoning Ordinance. It is also unclear how some of the provisions of the petition would work in practice, such as the limitation of short-term rentals to 180 days per year, without clarity as to how such dwelling units would be used during the remainder of the year.

Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board,
H Theodore Cohen, Chair

29. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 17-7, regarding an update on the City's Community Choice Electricity Aggregation Plan.
Placed on File

To: Louis A. Depasquale, City Manager
From: Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Nancy E. Glowa, City Solicitor
Date: June 6, 2017
Re: Council Order #0-1 dated 1/30/17 related to an update on the City’s Community Choice Electricity Aggregation Plan.

In response to the above-referenced council order, we are pleased to report that following a competitive bidding process, we have signed an 18-month contract with Agera Energy, LLC (“Agera”) to procure the electricity supply for City residents and small business basic service electricity customers who choose to participate in the Cambridge Community Electricity Program (the “Program”). In addition to providing 25% more solar energy than the state minimum, the Program will provide electricity cost savings at the time of its launch. The Program price is fixed at 10.486 cents/kWh from July 2017 through January 2019, while Eversource’s Basic Service prices (the July 1-Dec 30, 2017 Basic Service rate is 10.759 cents/kWh) will change two more times during that period (every six months). We anticipate that on average the Program’s price will be lower than or equal to Eversource’s Basic Service prices over the contract term. We will keep residents informed of changes in Eversource’s Basic Service Prices throughout the term.

Please see below as to the current status of the Cambridge Community Electricity Program, and prospective future events scheduled to occur with respect to the Program:

1. On Apr 27, 2017, the Department of Public Utilities (“DPU”) issued an order approving the City’s electricity aggregation petition under certain conditions (which required the City to make specific revisions to its proposed plan for the Program as well as the opt-out letter to be sent to Cambridge customers and the City’s aggregation plan).

2. On May 18, 2017, the City awarded the bid to Agera to be the competitive supplier for the Program. On that same date, the City and Agera executed an 18 month contract for Agera to supply electricity for the Program.

3. On May 30, 2017, the City submitted revised versions of the opt-out letter and Program plan to DPU pursuant to DPU’s Apr 27, 2017 order approving the City’s electricity aggregation petition. These revisions were subsequently approved by DPU.

4. The opt-out letter was sent out to customers on June 1, 2017. This letter indicated that customers who do not wish to participate in the City’s Program are entitled to opt out of it at any time for no charge.

5. Between June 5, 2017 and June 26, 2017, Community Development Department staff and the City’s consultant, Peregrine Energy Group, will be conducting multiple public education events where they will provide information and answer questions about the Program to members of the community. The first such event took place on Mon, June 5th at the North Cambridge Senior Center. The public is invited to attend one of the following information sessions:

Mon, June 12
Lesley University
1815 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA 02140
Room 3-076
6 PM

Tues, June 13
Citywide Senior Center
806 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139
12:30 PM

Mon, June 26
City Hall Annex
344 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139
6 PM

A discussion about the Program was broadcast live on Cambridge Community Television’s “Not for Nothin’” program on Mon, June 5th at 4:30pm. The segment is viewable at: http://neighbormedia.org/news/not-nothin-meganshaw-and-paul-gromer.

6. After July 5, 2017, Agera will provide Eversource with a list identifying customers enrolled in the Program, which will include all customers who have not opted out prior to July 5.

7. As previously noted, customers will be able to opt out of the Program at any time after this date for no charge.

8. Electricity will be delivered to customers enrolled in the Program for all meter reads after July 15, 2017. The first bill to participating customers to indicate the change to aggregation will be in August, 2017.

Residents with questions or concerns should be directed to contact the Cambridge Community Electricity Program consultants at 1-844-379-9934 or cambridge@masspowerchoice.com. Additional information is available on the Program website at www.masspowerchoice.com/cambridge.

34. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $750,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Department Extraordinary Expenditures Account to be used to conduct geotechnical, and environmental services to support the site assessment for a Concept Plan to site the new school on Callahan Field and future Feasibility Study for the Tobin School project.
Adopted 8-0-1 (Simmons ABSENT)

June 12, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $750,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Department Extraordinary Expenditures Account to be used to conduct geotechnical, and environmental services to support the site assessment for a Concept Plan to site the new school on Callahan Field and future Feasibility Study for the Tobin School project.

The existing school and playing fields were built over what was originally a clay pit that was mined for a brick manufacturing facility and operation ceased in the early 1900’s. The site was also a landfill prior to the school and ballfield use. The Tobin School property currently has an activity and use limitation (AUL) which allows continued normal use of the school building and grounds, but restricts access to the soil and groundwater beneath the site at depths greater than three feet below ground surface.

As part of the process to redevelop the Tobin and Vassal Lane Upper Schools, a Concept Plan of a school layout shall be performed to assess if it is possible to construct a new school campus over the current Callahan Field immediately adjacent to the existing school building, along Concord Avenue. If located on the field this construction would take place while the Tobin School is in use. No decisions have been made on this option, however geotechnical and environment services are required to evaluate both siting options. These services will provide data to for future designer (architect) to evaluate both site options during a future Feasibility Study.

Generally, data will be collected by drilling test borings at key locations on the site, and shall include installation of groundwater monitoring wells to characterize and evaluate impacted groundwater and to establish seasonal water elevation fluctuations. Environmental soil and groundwater analytical samples will be collected to evaluate the challenges of removal and/or capping of waste materials, and to evaluate how to remediate groundwater issues related to vapor intrusion during active construction and dewatering activities. It is anticipated that work will be completed by mid-year 2018.

This work is required to move the Tobin School project forward. By having complete geotechnical and environmental information, it will allow the City to make informed decisions on all possible building options for the site.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

36. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $1,000,000 from Free Cash to the Public Works Department Public Investment Fund Extraordinary Expenditures Account for the citywide curbside organics program.
Adopted 9-0

June 12, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $1,000,000 from Free Cash to the Public Works Department Public Investment Fund Extraordinary Expenditures Account for the citywide curbside organics program.

The City currently offers curbside organics collection to 5,200 households on the Monday trash route. The FY18 DPW operating budget contains funding for four new positions in the Solid Waste division in order to expand this service to all 1-12 residential unit buildings throughout the City. DPW will collect and deliver the food waste to a facility for processing.

This appropriation will provide for purchase of a rubbish packer and purchase and delivery of curbside bins, kitchen collector pails and other materials and services necessary to roll out the program to approximately 20,000 households. The equipment has a long lead time, and appropriating the funds in June will allow for a successful April 2018 implementation.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

O-2     June 12, 2017
MAYOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
WHEREAS: On June 1, 2017, President Donald J. Trump took an incredibly short-sighted, ill-advised, and ultimately destructive action in announcing that the United States would be withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement; and
WHEREAS: The Paris Climate Agreement, announced by President Barack Obama in December 2015, is a sweeping and necessary framework that 195 countries across the globe have reached in stark recognition of the fact that it will take unprecedented agreement and collaboration amongst the world’s countries to preserve our planet and protect it from the most severe climate changes, many of which are already taking place; and
WHEREAS: In announcing this agreement in December 2015, then-President Obama stated, “…this agreement will mean less of the carbon pollution that threatens our planet, and more of the jobs and economic growth driven by low-carbon investment. Full implementation of this agreement will help delay or avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change,” and these goals were lauded by millions of people across the planet; and
WHEREAS: By announcing his plans to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, President Trump has not only placed the planet on a significantly more perilous path in the coming decades, he has jeopardized our country’s ability to remain competitive in the global workforce of tomorrow, and he has also signaled to the world that the United States has lost its willingness to be the true moral leader upon the World Stage; and
WHEREAS: While President Trump may be intent on carelessly walking away from this most necessary agreement, governors and mayors across the United States have been standing up and speaking out about their own commitments to adhere to the ideals and policies as laid out by the Paris Climate Agreement, and the City of Cambridge shall stand in solidarity in word and in deed with those communities in the months, years, and decades ahead; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council go on record condemning President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, and in expressing a renewed commitment to the City of Cambridge doing all that it can to join the many other communities across the United States in honoring the ideals and actions that are laid out in that agreement; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Council go on record strongly urging Governor Charles D. Baker to publicly commit to ensuring that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts similarly adheres to the goals and ideals of the Paris Climate Agreement; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward suitably engrossed copies of this policy order to Governor Charles D. Baker and President Donald J. Trump on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-4     June 12, 2017
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: A Visual Preference Survey (VPS) is a technique for obtaining public feedback on physical design alternatives, and is often used when creating zoning codes, planning redevelopment, and conducting urban planning research; and
WHEREAS: A Visual Preference Survey allows citizens and decision makers to determine public preferences for various types of community design, architectural qualities, land/streetscaping, and/or built-environment options; and
WHEREAS: Commercial and residential development within Cambridge remains highly competitive, with developers often times building the most cost efficient structures with minimal community aesthetic appeal; and
WHEREAS: Incorporating a Visual Preference Survey will offer guidance to developers, policy makers, and citizens as they consider how the city should grow; and
WHEREAS: The Visual Preference Survey consists of a series of images that may be actual photographs or computer simulated images depicting potential urban environments, and, participants score these images according to their preference; and
WHEREAS: Effective Visual Preference Surveys are specifically tailored to the community and location, generated after multiple discussions and field investigations, and address eight or more related categories of visual and spatial characteristics; and
WHEREAS: Recent plans utilizing Visual Preference Surveys include Denver, Topeka, New Castle, Orlando and neighboring Somerville, Massachusetts; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Community Development Department and the Planning Board to determine how Visual Preference Surveys (VPS) could be incorporated into the planning and zoning process; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Community Development Department to report back to the City Council on the feasibility of incorporating Visual Preference Surveys (VPS) and a timetable for when this may take place.

O-5     June 12, 2017
MAYOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: From May 26, 2017 through May 28, 2017, the Boston Calling music festival was held on the grounds of Harvard University’s Athletic Complex, located in Allston, after having previously been held at Boston City Hall Plaza in its earlier iterations; and
WHEREAS: Music festivals like Boston Calling are important cultural events for this region, boosting our local businesses and enhancing our already-thriving musical and artistic communities; and
WHEREAS: Nevertheless, numerous Cambridge residents have reached out to their City representatives both during and after the Boston Calling dates, voicing strong concern over excessively loud noise levels that were interfering with peoples’ quality of life, even within their homes; and
WHEREAS: While the concert itself took place outside of Cambridge, it nevertheless had an impact on the quality of life for many Cambridge residents, and these residents have urged the City to take a more active role in mitigating any future issues with the Boston Calling festival should it return to Harvard University in the future; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to reach out to the appropriate City of Boston representatives, Harvard University representatives, and Boston Calling organizers to ensure that the City of Cambridge has an active voice in any future iterations of the Boston Calling festival in order to address the concerns raised by Cambridge residents, and to report back on this to the City Council in a timely manner.

O-9     June 12, 2017
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: It has come to the attention of the City Council that some business owners holding Liquor Licenses with the City of Cambridge are experiencing dramatic devaluation of their license; and
WHEREAS: Small business owners have invested in the Cambridge economy, often taking great personal and financial risk to open their businesses and to serve the needs of the community at large; and
WHEREAS: The restaurant industry is identified as one of the fastest growing markets in Cambridge and growth is expected to continue; and
WHEREAS: The availability of no-value licenses is important in maintaining Cambridge’s vibrant restaurant community but it has also impacted the value of previous licenses; and
WHEREAS: License owners often use the asset to back commercial loans to improve their business, assist in business operations, and weather down turns in the restaurant business; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the License Commission with the intent of formulating a plan that will provide relief and fair compensation to liquor license holders that have been impacted by dramatic devaluing of their liquor license and to report back to the City Council on this matter.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee held a public hearing on Mon, May 22, 2017 beginning at 9:36am in the Ackermann Room.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the creation of a section in the agenda entitled “General Council Discussion;” and dedications to identify a suitable location site to honor the commitment to the City made by City Councillor and State Representative Timothy J. Toomey, Jr. and to identify an appropriate building to dedicate to Richard C. Rossi’s decades of service to Cambridge.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Maher, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Cheung; Councillor Mazen; Vice Mayor McGovern; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Devereux; Mayor Simmons; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Lee Gianetti, Director of Communications and Community Relations; Neal Alpert, Chief of Staff for Mayor Simmons; Sandra Albano, Executive Assistant to the City Council; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Robert Winters, 366 Broadway; and John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton St.

Councillor Maher convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He announced that the hearing is being privately recorded.

Councillor Maher spoke about whether the City Council can find a place on the agenda for City Councillor to discuss matters. During the discussion Vice Mayor McGovern spoke about what the School Committee does on this matter. He stated that at the end of the their agenda the School Committee has an announcement section, however, what the City Council wants is more than this. Councillor Devereux asked who makes the announcements at the School Committee level. Councillor Maher explained that it is the School Committee members and the Superintendent of Schools has used the time to make announcements. Vice Mayor McGovern noted that the Superintendent is in attendance for the entire meeting.

Councillor Maher asked is it improper to discuss something that is not on the agenda. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the purpose of Open Meeting Law is for transparency. She noted the requirements that must be included in the notice posted; this is from the Attorney General. If a topic is not on the agenda, the agenda must be posted as soon as possible as the topics was not listed. It is our understanding if it is to announce something it is less controversial, but to bring to attention of the City Council a project being worked on and if it is known about more than 48 hours before it would be good practice to include in the public meeting notice. Councillor Maher asked if a member of the City Council simply announces a meeting would this be a violation. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she believes this is the current practice of the School Committee. She stated that items not reasonably anticipated should be included in the agenda so that that public can determine if they wish to speak on the matter.

Councillor Devereux commented that a public service announcement about a committee hearing would be on the hearing schedule. She asked about items not on the City Council agenda to let the public know of an item of interest. Councillor Toomey used the example that if the chair of Veterans Committee announces to public that there will be a Memorial Day parade. City Solicitor Glowa responded that both are fine; it is an announcement to disseminate information. These are not items brought before the City Council to deliberate.

Councillor Kelley stated that the Open Meeting Law suggests that the City Council not discuss or take action on controversially items that are not anticipated within 48 hours. He wanted to share information with his colleagues about something that he has learned. He wanted to keep the City Council up to date on something that a member is working on without going to the City Manager on this. He stated that in this instance the City Council is not taking action on the item and it is a way to help others to understand what is being working on.

Mr. Kale stated that in his experience in Belmont there is a difference between deliberating and reporting.

Councillor Maher stated that if Councillor Kelley wanted to report to the City Council under Communications and Reports from City Officers he could. Councillor Kelley stated that he does not want to write a memo each time to transmit the information. City Solicitor Glowa stated that if you know about this 48 hours before the meeting and want to discuss his work this could be put on the agenda. She reiterated that if an item is being discussed and if known within 48 hours it should be flagged as part of the agenda.

Vice Mayor McGovern spoke about the details of the memo. He stated that the City Council needs to police themselves. In general we know what each member is working on. He spoke about showing respect for the City Councillor who is working on an item. He is concerned with this being on the agenda and the timeframe allotted. This could get out of hand.

Councillor Maher made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to review the feasibility, as it related to the Open Meeting Law, of adding to the City Council Agenda a written breakdown on the following:
City Council Announcements;
City Council updates; and
Daily placeholder for committee hearings; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee on this matter.

The motion carried on a voice vote of five members.

Councillor Mazen stated that the City Council should do this. He has proposed to have a daily open meetings to present to the public what is being worked on. He felt that an aide could take minutes. He stated that a project management update online is no difference than a post on social media. Daily meetings are more in line with what he said is a full time salary.

Councillor Cheung wanted more coordination. He suggested this being at the beginning of the meeting informally. He stated that the City Council could talk about things without substantial debated.

Councillor Maher asked if there is a way to get beyond the Open Meeting Law to discuss something informally at a meeting.

Councillor Kelley spoke about having a place on the website to add this information would be acceptable to share what the City Council is working on. He stated that it is difficult to keep the public up to date on items such as short term rental information. Councillor Cheung asked Councillor Kelley if he updates his page on the website.

Mayor Simmons stated that trying to be communicative to each other without violating the Open Meeting Law is the issue. This information can be shared with the public on the City Councillor's page. It can be difficult for the City Council to discuss information with each other. She stated that to update the City Council on work done by their colleagues would be easy to have an announcement section. She stated that committees can schedule hearings to discuss something of interest.

Councillor Mazen noted that he believes that meetings every day is a core feature of this job; the Open meeting Law makes this difficult. He suggested putting on the agenda a subsection for daily meetings on work being done. Mayor Simmons asked what time of day would this be. Councillor Mazen responded 8-9am or 4-5pm. He added that every day there is a time that would work for all. Councillor Maher stated that all meetings will need to be posted. Councillor Kelley stated that this does not give him an answer to what he is asking. This does not give a nimble way to talk to each other. What can we talk about and tell each other, he asked.

Councillor Devereux asked about permission to update their web page. Mr. Gianetti responded that the City Council Aides have been trained to update their page.

Mayor Simmons commented that to report to the City Council or colleagues there is no prohibition to scheduling a hearing. She spoke about calling a public meeting. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the City Council posts public meetings and the hearing schedule can be changed to have a standing hearing added and if this is done it will be in compliance with the Open Meeting Law. She stated that if known it should be posted and if known within 48 hours the agenda could be updated as soon as it is known.

Councillor Maher explained that the topic of the “Innovation Agenda” was added to each School Committee agenda so that it could be discussed by the members or the public. Years later it is still on the School Committee agenda. Mayor Simmons stated that the down fall of doing this is that no public notice is given because it is a broad category on the agenda. Mayor Simmons asked is this a committee of whole or just for each City Council to use. Councillor Mazen explained that it is a place holder and could be under the existing rules. The aides could be used for these meetings. Mayor Simmons spoke about the record of the proceedings.

Councillor Kelley asked does anyone think that this is the best way to converse with each other or what else can be done. The way it is done now is not the best it can be. Mayor Simmons stated that this is an important conversation to have and this is the appropriate place to discuss this. She spoke about the impact on the staff and about community involvement. It is full time work it is on the books as part-time work. She wants the rules of engagement to support all who may serve on the City Council to carry out the duties.

Councillor Mazen commented that scheduling will always be difficult; but each day there are available times. He stated that the website renders the data and we are not getting the most out of the technology and getting the information out to the public. This is an important tool.

Councillor Kelley stated that he just wants to be able to communicate with as many people as possible.

Councillor Maher opened public comment at 10:25am.

John Hawkinson suggested that the City Council work on this. Project updates could be part of the agenda and this gives flexibility under the Open Meeting Law to make this work operationally. With an issue such as housing, public comment can always be made.

Robert Winters suggested that every standing City Council committee should have a working web page; this would be a good practice and putting this on the agenda in a way that can be found. He spoke about the practice of the working groups. He stated that if this is a part of committee structure the public would know about these hearings; but this is not the same with a working group. He agreed with ad hoc committees that report to the City Council on a committee report. He does not want policy items acted on in the back room.

Councillor Mazen made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to work with the Director of Communications and Community Relations to review the feasibility of adding to the webpage the following:
An open portal for communications by the City Council;
A City Council Committee page; and
To explore any current methods of communication by the City Council.

The motion carried on a voice vote of five members.

Mayor Simmons wanted to have a place where all the work done is readily accessible for the public. Vice Mayor McGovern commented that this would make it clear for public. Councillor Cheung noted that IT will train you.

Mayor Simmons stated that ad hoc, committee page and working group are three items that should be discussed further.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he wanted to have a page for committees.

The committee now moved to discuss Policy Order # 6 of Sept 26, 2016 relating to the City Council selecting an appropriation building to dedicate to Mr. Richard Rossi in honor of his decades of service for the City of Cambridge. Councillor Maher suggested that one of major projects that Mr. Rossi worked on was the building of the new library. He stated that the City Council has no authority to name something at the library. He stated that the City Council could write to the Library Board of Trustees asking that they consider dedicating the new building or something suitable in honor of Mr. Rossi. A letter could be drafted to the Library Board of Trustees for a suitable naming opportunity at the new library for Richard Rossi.

Councillor Maher made the following motion:
ORDERED: That a letter be drafted, on behalf of the City Council, to the Library Board of Trustees asking the trustees to consider a suitable dedication at the library in honor of Richard Rossi.

The motion carried on a voice vote of five members.

Subsequent to this hearing a letter was send to the Library Board of Trustees on May 30, 2017 and is attached (ATTACHMENT A).

The committee then discussed Policy Order # 12 of Dec 12, 2016 to identify a suitable site to honor Representative Timothy J. Toomey, Jr. for his long and distinguished commitment to the Cambridge/Somerville.

Councillor Maher stated that in December Representative Toomey ended his 24 years of public service at the state. He suggested that after exploring alternatives and speaking with friends and associates of Councillor Toomey a site in East Cambridge was most appropriate. Councillor Maher recommended a site that is yet to be finished. The site is the Rogers Street Park which when finished will buffer the East Cambridge neighborhood from Kendall Square.

Councillor Maher made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the Rogers Street Park in East Cambridge, when completed, be dedicated in honor of Timothy J. Toomey, Jr. for his dedicated service to the citizens of Cambridge and Somerville.

The motion carried on a voice vote of four members.

Councillor Toomey stated that if this happens he would be humbled and his family would be honored.

Councillor Mazen stated that he wanted a future hearing to look at the type and number of resolutions submitted by members of the City Council.

Councillor Maher thanked all present for their attendance.

The hearing was adjourned at 10:49am on motion of Councillor Maher.

For the Committee,
Councillor David P. Maher, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Tues, May 23, 2017 at 3:31pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a proposed Municipal Code amendment to Title 8 entitled “Health and Safety” by adding a new Chapter 8.69 entitled “Running Bamboo Ordinance.”

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Mazen; Owen O'Riordan, Commissioner, Public Works; John Nardone, Assistant Commissioner of Public Works; Vali Buland, First Assistant City Solicitor; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing is being privately recorded. He outlined the format of the meeting. The petitioner, Councillor Kelley, will present, then City staff, City Council questions; public comment and then deeper discussion by members of the Ordinance Committee. There is a revised petition and will need to be substituted for the original petition.

Councillor Kelley turned the meeting to his Aide Will Durbin. A PowerPoint Presentation was provided to the committee (ATTACHMENT A). Mr. Durbin gave a legislative history of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Durbin spoke about the destructive nature of running bamboo. It provides year round foliage and this is the reason it is popular with landscaper. It is hard to dig up and reproduces quickly. It is a nuisance in urban environments because it is disruptive to structures. It is aggressive and is a threat to the wetlands. He stated that there are communities that are cracking down on running bamboo. He stated that many states have added running bamboo to aggressive growth that is banned.

Councillor Kelley stated that there are legal issues with running bamboo. He explained that the proposal is not to prohibit running bamboo; but to regulate its growth. The proposal is to create a duty to confine running bamboo so that it does not run and grow where it is not wanted. This will protect property owners and the City from the destruction of running bamboo. This will allow abutters to protect their property. A four foot buffer zone is required with certain characteristics. The City has a lot of property to protect. Violators may be fined up to $100 per day. He spoke about the definition of running bamboo and the responsibility of the property owners and if the running bamboo goes onto an adjacent property that property owner will be required also to put down a four foot buffer zone. He outlined the requirements of a seamless barrier. He stated that the ordinance is solid.

Councillor Devereux asked about defining a running bamboo owner - could property owner say they did not plant it or could the owner say it is not the owner’s responsibility. Councillor Kelley stated that the City is not forcing anyone to do anything other than to install the barrier.

The City only cares when it is within four feet of the property line; that is where the barrier needs to be installed. Mr. Durbin commented that even if not planted by you, you would be responsible if it grows on your property.

Councillor Mazen asked how common is this problem and how many spots across the City are there. Councillor Kelley stated that the exact number is unknown, but where it exists it is problematic. Mr. Durbin stated there is running bamboo around the City. This is an attempt to get ahead of the problem. Councillor Mazen asked about section 8.69.030C with the new added language - what the chances are that the abutter is not the perpetrator and they miss the window to say they are not the perpetrator.

Councillor Kelley responded that if running bamboo from an adjacent property spreads to a neighbor’s property (within four feet) a barrier needs to be installed. The City will not get involved in disputes with neighbors. Councillor Mazen asked what the cost is for the removal of running bamboo. Mr. Durbin stated he charged $30 an hour when he was a landscaper to remove running bamboo. He stated that the cost can be higher with the destruction to foundations.

Councillor Carlone stated that he had two experiences with running bamboo. It was a struggle to remove the running bamboo. Councillor Carlone asked City staff to comment on the proposal. There was no response from City staff.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment at 3:54pm.

John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton St., stated that 8.69.030C states that the victim has a year but only has five days to notify the Commissioner of Public Works of their notice to the violator. He stated that five days is not the right number.

Commissioner O'Riordan stated that this is to control running bamboo on property whoever is the owner. It is important for the city to take action as soon as possible to compel the running bamboo owner to do something sooner rather than later. If the City Council wanted to change the time he did not have a problem with this.

Councillor Kelley stated that given how quickly running bamboo can spread the responsibility was put on the property owner to control its growth. He is fine with any timeframe. When you see running bamboo and you do a notice, install a barrier.

Councillor Carlone stated that a notice needs to be sent to all real estate sales people and should be on the check list for the property review.

Councillor Devereux questioned if this is urgent why the City is allowing one year. She wanted the timeframe shorter for the running bamboo owner. Councillor Kelley noted that once shoots are up it is clear that they have running bamboo. Councillor Devereux questioned if it is encroaching underground. Mr. Durbin stated that the intention is to control the growth of running bamboo; it is to capture one or more growth seasons as soon as possible.

Commissioner O'Riordan stated that the amendment to the ordinance is that any property owner has responsibility to make sure that it does not grow any further. Once running bamboo is on your property you have an obligation to control the running bamboo.

Councillor Devereux asked if it would be a requirement in the ordinance to have disclosure be part of the real estate transaction as well as for landscapers. Commissioner O'Riordan stated that real estate agents can be informed with this ordinance by the City. Councillor Kelley stated that Connecticut has a notification requirement. He further stated that a notice of susceptibility to flooding should be added.

Councillor Carlone closed public comment at 4:04pm.

Councillor Carlone noted that this has been worked out by the Public Works and the Law Departments and it feels right with the petitioner. He added that he wanted the notification to be done more broadly.

At this time Councillor Kelley moved that the original ordinance be amended by substituting the revised ordinance (ATTACHMENT B).

The motion to amend by substitution carried on a voice vote of three members.

Councillor Carlone moved that this petition as amended by substitution be referred to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation.

The motion carried on a voice vote of three members.

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:07pm on motion of Councillor Carlone.

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

Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Thurs, May 18, 2017 at 3:34pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a zoning petition filed by the Friends of Observatory Hill Village to establish the Observatory Hill Village Overlay District.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Maher; Councillor Mazen; Vice Mayor McGovern; Councillor Toomey; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Robert Reardon, Director of Assessing; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Housing and Development, CDD; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were Tom Simons, 34 Tierney Street; Graciela Galup, 36 Copley Street; Beverly Lyons, 244 Concord Avenue; Mairi Staples, 16 Chauncy Street; Helen M. Alpert, 56 Winslow Street; Kristin Mahon, 267 Concord Avenue; Carol Weinhaus, 271 Concord Avenue; Rich Tremaglio, 36 Tierney Street; Helen Bowdile, 8 Chetwynd Road; Linda Callahan, 330 Walden Street; Lauren Harder, 221-227 Concord Avenue; Mark Boyes Watson, 221-227 Concord Avenue; Randy Goodman 326 Walden Street; and Alan Sulikowski, 40 Huron Avenue.

Councillor Cheung convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the hearing.

Councillor Cheung announced that e-mails were received in support of the petition and they will be added to the record.

The petitioners gave a presentation (ATTACHMENT A). Kristin Mahon, 267 Concord Avenue and Carol Weinhaus, 271 Concord Avenue gave the presentation.

Ms. Mahon stated that the map distributed, in pink, is the area in question for the Observatory Hill Village Zoning Overlay District (ATTACHMENT B). It is 3 blocks long and has narrow sidewalks and streetscapes. She stated that this small residential business area relies on the services provided by the businesses. The section is isolated. She explained that the zoning petition was submitted to preserve the business residential mix. Developers have an economic interest and an incentive to replace commercial retail buildings with high end housing. This puts the businesses at risk.

Ms. Weinhaus gave background on the petition. She stated that this is the work of an informal neighborhood group of twenty-five residents and fourteen local businesses. The work on the zoning began in March 2014 and the petition has been scaled back. After 2.5 years of work and input from CDD, the petitioners went to Councillor Carlone for help with writing the zoning.

She explained that there was an extensive outreach that began in November and obtained 1,196 signatures of which 81% are Cambridge residents with 68% being Cambridge voters. She stated that 65% of the signers live, work, or own a business in the Concord Avenue area. She stated that this neighborhood is l mile from all the T stops. Ms. Mahon stated that that 3 local businesses have been lost by being displaced by development. The Planning Board had a negative opinion of the petition, including the viability of retail. The CDD map is the revised area (ATTACHMENT C). The residents are ready to work with the City and the Ordinance Committee to amend the petition to make it more workable as long as it contains the main objectives of the neighborhood.

Councillor Carlone continued with the information from the presentation. He stated that there is more information and that the petition is trying to remedy this situation. The area on Concord Avenue is only 3 blocks. There is a variety of uses in the area and they have gravitated to this area because the rent is reasonable. It is a business/residential community. This use mixture is Old Cambridge. All of the retail is in one-story structures and they are in jeopardy. The goal is not to lose the retail mix. Concord Avenue is heavily traveled during peak hours with no buffer on the east side and the sidewalks are narrow. Buildings are close to each other. The existing tree wells are undersized and the trees do not grow well. Pedestrians are right next to an active roadway and this does not promote a thriving pedestrian environment. He stated that experience at retail locations is key. If new trees are planted they will not comply with the ADA requirements. He stated that many of the houses are being converted to offices because it is a business district. He stated that what is unique about this area is that a two family that has been converted into an office; this mixture is through the neighborhood. This petition is to retain the amount of retail in the area, which is critical. The library comes forward to the street with Harvard housing. At the corners of Huron and Walden there were gas stations. He stated that the building with the Observatory Hill Studio is planned to come down. The neighborhood likes buildings that have ground floor activation. This is to encourage small local buildings with retail at the ground floor. This petition matches the Massachusetts Avenue between Porter Square and the Cambridge Common zoning. The neighbors want to maintain the 35 feet height. If the ground floor retail is higher, a few feet could be added to come to 37 feet and height. He stated that the building ratio and the height of the retail wants to be 15-16 feet and the height of the residential at 10.6 feet can be accomplished. He stated that given the tightness of the sidewalks, a setback of 5 feet at the ground floor and residential requires a setback of 10 feet. He noted that trees can grow within these setbacks and people can walk around the trees. There is an increase in the rear yard setback from 20 to 25 feet that matches the adjourning residential district. This should be green space. The proposal is to build green with 25 feet in the back. He stated that the focus of reducing traffic from 25 MPH to 20 MPH will be the commercial districts. He noted that the difference in the Business A-1 in the Observatory Hill petition are to have 5 feet for commercial setback to extend the sidewalk only in front of new construction. Upper floor set back will be 10 feet. Commercial can come to the sidewalk; it is proposed to be 7.6 feet and the rear goes to 25 feet. The residential portion shall be based on Residential C-1 which has a percentage requirement for open space. A slide of building heights was prepared by CDD and they were colored red for the properties that are one story which are the buildings that will change. The change is significant. This is the retail office one story buildings that exist now.

There are three proposals now that will change the buildings. This area is in transition and the goal is to retain the character of the unique village atmosphere. He stated that the Planning Board attacked the petition for being lengthy but 80% it is based on existing zoning elsewhere.

They stated that the petition needed to be refined. He spoke about Special Permits. The Planning Board stated that this can be done by Special Permits. He noted that Special Permits are mentioned in the petition three times. The Planning Board suggested that all this be done by Special Permit.

Councillor Cheung requested the City Staff to come forward to discuss the petition.

Mr. Roberts stated that CDD has met with the petitioners over the last few years. Last year they discussed the zoning for the area and the tools available to accomplish policy initiative. The petition outlined the goals of the initiative and were laid out clearly. He stated that background research was done on the area which is provided in the memo dated May 9th http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/CDD/ZoningDevel/Amendments/2017/ObservatoryHill/zngamend_observatoryhill_cddmemo_20170509.pdf?la=en.

The remarks were related to the scale and the use of development in the area the existing conditions fit closely with what the current zoning allows. The underdeveloped sites (gas station) will not likely see wholesale redevelopment in the current zoning given the fit with existing conditions. He stated that the concern expressed most by the neighbors is the changes of use and the alterations of existing properties which are harder to predict. He explained that an analysis was done on the specifics of the proposal and there is a summary of existing and proposed is included in CDD memo. He stated that the consultant, over/under, was asked to prepare diagrams showing the dimensional effects of the proposed zoning http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/CDD/ZoningDevel/Amendments/2017/ObservatoryHill/zngamend_observatoryhill_analysis_20170516.pdf?la=en. This is not intended to be a site analysis. There are complications in the zoning such as accommodating parking spaces on small lots that are in this district. The Planning Board heard this petition on May16th and agreed with the neighbors that the area has a unique character, it is valuable in the City given the interplay of residential and commercial uses. They did not recommend adopting the zoning petition as outline because it would not achieve the goals articulated. The proposal adds many new requirements into the zoning that may create additional burdens that would not encourage the retail uses valued. The Planning Board suggested including incentives be used to encourage the active use. He spoke about the North Mass. Avenue petition contained requirements that were aimed at achieving what the neighbors in the area felt was important to achieve but it also included flexibility with the zoning in terms of height, density and setbacks to facilitate the development outcomes that would be seen as favorable. He stated that it was suggested by the Planning Board that the petition could be simplified for clarity.

Councillor Devereux asked Mr. Roberts to explain the Over/Under Analysis relating to setbacks and parking.

Mr. Roberts stated that the consultant was asked to review different sites in the area, a corner and interior lot in the area. He stated that on page 5 looks at the proposed dimensional standards for ground floor requirements. The area in red is a commercial space that meets the proposed 5 foot front yard setback and fills out enough of the first floor to accommodate requirements. The dotted line is the setback requirement for the residential development. It may have been the petitioner’s intent to require only 7.5 foot setback rather than the formula setbacks. On page 10 shows an alternative scheme where the building envelope is based on the 7.6 setback. He stated that by the configuration that within the allowed density it would allow a building to be closer to Concord Avenue and have a more continuous street frontage along Concord Avenue and provide more generous space on Walden Street. Councillor Carlone stated that the second is the intent. If you look at the chart 5-3, Business A-1 is continued except when it borders a residential property there is a 7.6 foot setback; the formula is not used. Mr. Roberts said this was not clear with the petition. He stated that page 11 gives a 3D model. It shows the ground floor commercial space with at 5 foot setback and the upper residential floor space with the additional 10 foot setback and provisions for some limited projecting bays. This is meant to show one very schematic alternative for the massing of a development on a site like this. Mr. Roberts stated that parking could be provided on the side of the lot in this scheme, but there would be concerns as to how much parking would be required. There was no feasibility study done on this so the amount of parking was not discussed. He stated that the type of retail has different parking requirements.

Open space is maintained in the residential lots even though it is a mixed use lot. Page 16 shows the envelope with a larger green space in the rear, the building with the required setback. If the intent is to now apply the formula yard setback, on page 22, there is a massing configuration that places the allowed density of retail and housing on the site. In this instance because the rear yard green area open space which prohibits parking there would not be much of a feasible location to locate parking on the site except to put it underground. He stated that of the things that the consultant looked at which appears on page 25 show how a ramp would be accommodated and a footprint for underground parking for a use like this the actual number of parking spaces may vary. It shows on a lot that is this narrow having a ramp down for an underground parking facility becomes constrained. He spoke about the cost for the ramp for the underground parking facility is cost prohibited. He stated that the larger lot where the gas station is has the same complications and the amount of space that can be developed on the lot is pushed back.

Councillor Carlone stated that the mid-block retail requirement is 40 feet; parking could be underground for the first. He stated that parking is difficult for any site. He stated that the drawing is misleading. Parking could be on any of the corner lots underground. He stated that 40 feet depth was asked for the retail and with this put in the diagrams change dramatically. He stated that the sites are tight but this show what the existing density does. He stated that the diagrams prove that this works. He asked what the Planning Board wants; he wanted more specificity. He noted that any neighborhood petition has been ridiculed in the first round. Can this be refined to increase the FAR or does it have to be refiled. He stated that the refinement was based on the request of the Planning Board. Mr. Roberts stated that on page 21 of the analysis the scheme 2B show an interior version of the lot with a 40 foot depth. This shows the 40 foot depth, the 5 foot setback and the 25 foot rear setback and some space for parking in the back but is a limited number of spaces. There is a lot of detail dimensional requirements not included in the analysis. Under the existing zoning there may be some front setback and the rear yard setback is 20 could be allowed for parking, but if green space there will not be any surface parking. Councillor Carlone in Special Permit this could be done. Mr. Roberts all the additional requirement in the petition could be waived by Special Permit. He spoke about the different setback requirements for existing zoning. He stated that the current zoning does have different setback requirements for residential and non-residential use which is a burden for those designing buildings with ground floor retail and residential use. The Planning Board comments were about if the intention was to promote retail at the ground floor there are ways to incentivizing ground floor retail that would be amenable for the neighborhood. The specifics raised by the Planning Board dealt with a Special Permit. He spoke about existing requirements that are getting in the way to allow retail and look beyond existing zoning and incentivize if the neighborhood goals are met for retail and promoting the neighborhood character then some of the current zoning limitations could be more flexible in terms of density to allow more development so that the residential development could support retail use at the ground floor, or looking at the setback or parking requirements. The refiling would be dependent upon the refinements. If the subject of the petition remains overall consistent with what was proposed refinements can be made but if the petition is substantial different it could be refiled by the City Council and not require a signature drive. Refinements could be referred back to the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee for an additional set of hearings and could then act on the petition.

Councillor Cheung stated that regarding next steps does Planning Board have construction steps to craft modification by petitioners. Mr. Roberts stated that he would meet with petitioners and talk through any changes that might be considered. Mr. Roberts stated that he would follow the lead of the petitioners. The Planning Board did make a recommendation and the public hearing has been closed. The recommendation was not to adopt as proposed.

Vice Mayor McGovern has met with the petitioners for 1.5 years. If this is the will of the City Council to help the petitioners to make this work better. He stated that the Planning Board did not feel that this was the way to go. If the petitioners are making changes to make it work better there are City Councillors who would like to see this happen. The changes here are similar to those on Massachusetts Avenue to Porter Square. He was more on the side of density and increase height for housing, but this area needs to be treated carefully because of its uniqueness. Changes should be done in collaboration with the neighborhood. He wanted a good faith effort to make this work.

Councillor Maher stated that the neighbors have expressed a desire to support local retail and business community in Observatory Hill and Concord Avenue. He applauded this but the petition is difficult to understand. He is concerned by the number of nonconformity that will be created with this with current residential properties. This is putting these property owners at a higher standard than others in the City. Why weren't the 3 homes on Manassas Avenue taken out of the petition? This petition will make it difficult to respond to complaints about alternations made. This needs work to have a less of a negative impact on the residential properties. He does not think that this is the intention. Councillor Carlone asked what the impacts are on residential properties that he is referring to. Councillor Maher responded that all of these properties will be deemed non-conforming and will require variances and not special permits. Councillor Carlone stated that the Planning Board has the final decision on this and would get an exemption. Ms. Farooq stated that the Planning Board concurred with the petitioners with the value and character of this neighborhood and the goal to preserve this. Part of the character value is the mixture of retail and residential. The concerns were about the requirements to achieve the desired results and were concerned with non-conformity. The intent for allowing waivers may not have been clearly worked into the petition. She wanted to understand the will of the City Council. She asked if the City Council was comfortable with figuring out ways to incentivize the use.

Councillor Mazen stated that he understood this is to work with the conditions on the ground to create an incentive outside of the existing petition. He stated that there is zoning and there is also interest of the neighborhood and developers. He commented that the interests have not been combined in any formal consistent way. There have been 12 unexpected consensus based decisions over the last few years. He wanted to see this go forward, but wanted to see more interest and relationship in the plan.

Councillor Devereux stated that she lives in this neighborhood and appreciates the value of the stores in the area. All have the same goal to preserve the village feel and the local retail and not overwhelm a narrow street with additional height and bulk. She has difficulty with understanding the petition; it is super complicated. She spoke about the local retail on Huron Avenue and asked why they were not included. There is an elephant in the room and there is a lot of emotion around this petition. A developer has disrupted the vibe of the area. What aspects of the current zoning are inhibiting being able to preserve some of the retail and what aspects of this would make it potentially harder to do what we want that person to do? She was clear that she wanted staff to work with the petitioners and Councillor Carlone to fulfill the goals but need to work with the facts on the ground because the property is going to be developed and it should be a development that people can get behind. She spoke about the difference in the corridors and this area is different of Massachusetts Avenue.

Councillor Carlone responded that those properties do add value and are non-conforming and are unlikely to change. He suggested that this be included in the petition; but the petitioners felt it was unnecessary. He stated that the properties on Manassas Avenue can be excluded from the overlay. The developer has rights, they own the property and he will meet with them. He noted that no retail has parking now in the district. He stated that raising the FAR to 1, and the study done by over, under, needs to be studied based on the conclusion reached. He commented that the study stated that what proposed works is. Almost all the existing buildings are at the maximum FAR and do not have parking on their properties. He stated that all are agreeable to refining this petition to make it work.

Councillor Cheung stated that Observatory is overdue for attention. There is a lot of retail activity which has been disrupted with the roadway construction. He stated that the City Council should support retail and it should be continuous. He noted that having retail on the ground floor is important to him. He stated that City Council is supportive but the petition may need to be tweaked. He supports the goals outline in the petition and he wants to see this go forward and not be refiled.

Councillor Cheung opened public comment at 5:09pm.

Kristin Mahon stated that she appreciates the desire to have a conversation with the parties involved. The petition was never to address to a particular developer or plan.

Lauren Harder, 221-227 Concord Avenue, stated that she is a developer of historical homes in Cambridge for ten years. She explained the lot she owned; it is a historical structure. There is a large undeveloped paved lot in the back for parking. The development plan has been studied for two years and have failed to come up with an economically viable plan containing open space, retail space and residential space. To meet the existing zoning she was forced to do underground parking. This is a one story building there is no existing residential use on the lot to support the retail. So due to these factors they re-proposed a residential plan, which met all the goals except for the preservation of retail. Some uses requires parking which is a barrier. She wanted to be part of the conversation and have a path to develop their lot. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT D).

Mark Boyes-Watson, owner and developer of the lot. This is a complex part of the City in relation to the zoning. There has been little development in the B-A zones in the City. This proposed zoning lays another layer of complexity on this and makes it hard to navigate. If the complexity of the zoning could be simplified the goals could be reached. The overarching goal of the petition is to encourage retail but there is only one provision in the petition that encourages retail. He suggested that the specificity of the petition be removed and that the Planning Board be given the authority to grant. In a mixed use project allow GFA be increased to 1; this helps in what is really a low traffic retail district. He thought that there would be enough of a subsidy from the residential to pay for the retail, but the underground parking eliminated this. It is intimated that small retail should be walked or biked to then the parking should be eliminated. He hopes that all can work together and do a beautiful project as part of this village. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT E).

Alan Sulikowski, 40 Huron Avenue, supported preserving the retail. He spoke about the property at 150-152 Huron Avenue, a residential 2 family home, and explained that he was approached to see if they were interested in this property. He renovated that 2 family home and it could be used as a residential or business because of the zone. He proposed to focus on the retail sections of the corners and other office space that could negatively impacted. He stated that his business has grown and he wants to stay in this area. Councillor Carlone explained that his occupation is allowed in the petition.

Public comment was closed at 5:27pm on motion of Councillor Maher.

Councillor Carlone in zoning on page 7 there is a broad use category.

Vice Mayor McGovern made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Assistant City Manager of Community Development Department to work collaboratively with the Observatory Hill petitioners to amend and refine the zoning petition filed to achieve the stated goals in the petition.

The motion carried on a voice vote of five members.

Councillor Mazen great to figure out what are the quick wins and then figure out what needs more work.

Councillor Carlone moved that matter be keep in committee. The motion carried on a voice vote of five members.

The following e-mails were received and made part of the record:
Communication from Graciela Galp, 36 Copley Street, in support of the petition (ATTACHMENT F).
Communication from Andy Zucker, 35 Winslow Street, in support of the petition (ATTACHMENT G).
Communication from Richard Tremaglio, 36 Tierney Street, in support of the petition (ATTACHMENT H).
Communication from Wendy McCluskey, 1 Cutler Avenue, in support of the petition (ATTACHMENT I).
Communication from Lucy Patton, co-owner of 333 Walden Street in support of the petition (ATTACHMENT J).
Communication from Zaid Mongell, 36 Copley Street, in support of the petition (ATTACHMENT K).
Communication from Carly Hughes, Donnell Street, in support of the petition (ATTACHMENT L).
Communication from Randy H. Goodman, in support of the petition (ATTACHMENT M).
Communication from Pamela Hart, 18 Donnell Street, in support of the petition (ATTACHMENT N).

Councillor Cheung thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 5:30pm motion of Councillor Mazen.

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

Committee Report #4
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Wed, May 31, 2017 at 3:30pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a petition by the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance to create a new chapter 4.60 to regulate short-term rentals (STR).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Maher; Vice Mayor McGovern; Councillor Toomey; Mayor Simmons; Ranjit Singanayagam, Commissioner of Inspectional Services Department; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning and Development, CDD; Chris Cotter, Director of Housing, CDD; Cliff Cook, Senior Planning Information Manager, CDD; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Vali Buland, First Assistant City Solicitor; Will Durbin, Aide to Councillor Kelley; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were Lee Goodwin, 24 Granville Road; Caroline Whitney, 60 Buckingham Street; Charles Redmon, 18A Highland Avenue; Kitty Beer, 17 Haskell Street; Nikita Bernstein, 270 Cardinal Medeiros Avenue; Whitney Gecker, 25 Magee Street; Arya Olson, 93 Belmont Street; Adam Cavanaugh, works at267 Cambridge Street; Kathy Watkins, Fawcett Street; Kristina Nies, 105 Second Street; Alan Fincke, 93 Belmont Street; Bryan Ames, 35 Fairfield Street; Judith Wilson, 36 Jay Street; Lydia Harrington, 47 Prince Street; Manny Lusardi, 15 Lambert Street; Connie Chamberlain, 42 Bowdoin Street; Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street; Marisa Henderson, 25 Fairfield Street; Shelley Rieman, 201 Franklin Street; McMill, I.G., 2 Landon Court, Lynn; Mary Ann Hart, 13 Hollis Street; Sheli Wortis, 106 Berkshire Street; Kathryn Anderson, 51 Ellery Street; Rachel Wyon, 283 Sidney Street; Kiril Alexandrov, 406 Franklin Street; Caroline Hunter, 23 Rockwell Street; Jen McConnell, 94 Thorndike Street; Sherry Madden, 70 Griswold Street; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; Monta Lertpachin, 14 Lee Street; Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street; and Laurie Gaines, 34 May Street.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded and that the hearing is also being privately recorded. He outlined the format of the hearing.

The petitioner, Councillor Kelley, gave a brief introduction on the work on this petition to date (ATTACHMENT A). He stated that the zoning amendment before the committee has struck a balance. Short term rental units should be registered and inspected.

Will Durbin gave the PowerPoint Presentation (ATTACHMENT B). He stated that Councillor Kelley has offered minor amendments to the original petition (ATTACHMENT C). He stated that he would be using the term operator occupied rather than owner occupied as it appeared in the original amendment. He read the key findings from other communities. He read from reports from NY, Toronto, Vancouver, and Los Angeles. There were many similarities in the various reports. He read from the Los Angeles report "Airbnb facilitates the inappropriate merging of the residential and tourist markets on an unprecedented scale, and unlike with a shortage of, say, shoes or oranges, neither the market nor the public sector can swiftly replace the housing units that Airbnb removes from the marketplace." He stated that at this point this has been about affordability, which is only one aim hoped to achieve along with safety and legal. He spoke about STRs in Cambridge as of April 2017. Information was provided by Host Compliance, a private company, which offers collecting services to municipalities.

The presented map has a breakdown of STRs and Airbnb units in Cambridge. The red areas are Airbnb; blue and green are HomeAways. There is a concentration of STRs in the neighborhoods of Riverside, Mid-Cambridge, Harrington-Wellington, Agassiz and Kendall. There are few in Strawberry Hill and North Cambridge. Cambridge has experienced an explosive growth of STRs. He stated that there were 600 STRs in 2013 to over 2,000 now. The presentation had a page with three maps: map one information provided by Home Compliance; map two by Boston Globe and map three by Community Development which outlined the short term distribution in the City. He stated that data collected as of 2015 on the map represented 1/3 of the information available at the time. The next map showed STR units in Cambridge by Airbnb; HomeAway and Flipkey. This was put over a diagram of the zoning districts, which do not permit tourist accommodations. This resulted in 1/4 of STRs are operating in areas where tourist accommodations are not permitted. He stated that information cited in the Boston Globe shows a breakdown of units operated by the number of operators and the cost. He highlighted the operator with the most STR stretching across four properties, which removes nine dwelling units from the long-term housing market. He added that renters staying in an entire apartment are offered parking spaces. He stated that Airbnb and STRs do not distribute equally amongst the neighborhoods of the City. They are located more near public transportation modes and tourist attractions. He had a graph of the number of dwellings by neighborhood from 1980-2010 and with the exception of Cambridgeport and Riverside the availability of housing stocks in a lot of the neighborhoods are either flat-lining or going down. The amount of renter occupancy in the aggregate is about 68%.

He stated that goal of the City Council petition is to make STRs legal, safe and fair. He highlighted the goals set by Vancouver as its policy objectives and then highlighted Cambridge's STR ordinance goals of legal, safe and fair. He stated that owner occupied has been changed to operated occupied and owner adjacent. He stated that STR would be limited to these two categories. Operated occupied is a new designation. He read the definitions. An illustration was shown as how this would be applied. He added that in no cases would there be owner adjacent operation permitted where there are multiple property owners. He added that STRs would be allowed in condos subject to the condo association documents.

Councillor Kelley stated that the goal was to set up a clear regulatory program that all can understand and be followed, enforced and makes sense. He stated that in the petition there are operator occupied units and owner adjacent units and this keeps people from speculating in Cambridge's real estate market, such as purchasing a three family home and turning it all into STR. He outlined the requirements. A lot of STR rental units are currently in areas where they are not allowed by zoning and where they are allowed they are not being done in a legal manner.

The goal is help bring STR units into a legal status and not have Cambridge subject to investors coming in and turning long term residential units into small hotels. He is suggesting registration prior to use and occupancy and the units be in compliance with the standards and regulations established by ISD and Fire Department and that this be done under a regulatory provision rather than ordinance which would be too cumbersome.

He stated that a STR that he stayed at offered illegal rental space and had unsafe conditions. He stated that there is liability insurance requirement for $1 million, which is a standard set by Airbnb, and relevant fees and taxes must be paid. He wants STR units rented for days, not for hours. The number of STRs in an operator occupied unit is going to be limited by the number of bedrooms licensed for occupancy. This will eliminate the amount of bedrooms rented than the host has actual bedrooms to rent. Owner adjacent units can only be rented to one party at a time.

Individual rooms cannot be rented in a unit in which the owner does not live. He stated that all owner adjacent units will have a variety of requirements because if you are living in a unit with the owner there will be less of a concern about safety. He spoke about the standards and that ISD has a big role to play in this. ISD needs to make sure that the rooms are rentable and also inspect the units/rooms within 30 days from registration. Re-inspection will be determined by ISD. He stated that no owner adjacent unit be rented without being inspected. He stated that STR operators must keep accurate records. The operator will register with the City; registration will be on line and permits will be renewed every two years and provide proof that one of the units is the operators primary residence. All operators of STRs must notify their immediate neighbors; renters are included. The renters need to be able to contact operators if there are issues. This ordinance would become effective on Jan 1, 2018. He noted that if the STR operator registers within 60 days of enactment the operator can continue to operate unit an inspection has been completed.

Mr. Durbin spoke about the diagram published from Vancouver Report with additions from Portland Oregon and Cambridge. He stated that Cambridge falls into the balanced category. There is no restriction on the number of nights that can be rented. No caps on STR to be licensed throughout the City. He stated that license holders must be an owner or renter.

Councillor Kelley stated that he wanted STR to be legal. This proposal would apply in all districts where residential use is permitted with the limitations that there must be registration with ISD, pay fees and taxes and get liability insurance. He wanted the use to be legal which in most cases it is not now. The units need to be safe. The owner of the unit has a direct connection with the renting going on. Emergency exits must be posted on owner adjacent units. The property owner has the right to do this, but still has to notify their neighbors. He spoke about STR being fair for all.

Councillor Kelley stated that he has collected people’s comments and concerns, and has incorporated most into the revised ordinance proposed. He stated that a new legal use is being created that does not exist now. He stated operator occupied units should not be rentable while the owner is away unless the whole unit is being rented out.

Councillor Kelley outlined the proposed revisions to the ordinance. In 4.62 c, “owner” was changed to “operated-occupied” unit. He read the new definition. He stated that he wanted to be clear that people who rent should not be left out of the shared economy.

He stated that the next change is the addition in 4.64 after sub-bullet (6) there is additional language. Advertising was stricken and renting was added. He stated that 4.65 (3) was amended to strike out the words "or advertised on any short-term rental platform". In 4.66 the current (2) was stricken and a new (2) was added relating to the provision for an affidavit. In 4.66 (b) a new sentence was added at the end, which reads as follows: “The property owner of the unit to be used for short-term rentals must be notified in the same manner if the operator is a primary lease holder.”

Councillor Carlone asked the City Council if they had questions or clarifications.

Councillor Devereux said phrasing needs to be more consistent. Mr. Durbin stated that the comments were raised by the Planning Board or by the public.

Councillor Cheung asked that the presentation be sent to the City Council. He is concerned with drafting policy through zoning. He does not understand the difference if he has a unit in his building versus owning a home a couple of doors down. Why draw this distinction, he asked.

What if there is a building and there are different doors. He felt different residents are being treated inequitably based on a circumstance that does not matter. Councillor Kelley stated that owner adjacent in a four unit or smaller building fits a certain type of building category that one street away does not. He noted is two houses away any worse than five houses away. This is to provide direct connection between the operator of the unit and the person who is the owner. He stated that e-mails have been received from residents that do not know who owns the Airbnb unit across the street; this is what we want to avoid.

Councillor Cheung stated that it can be that the unit can be rented or you get to rent out your primary residence plus one more in Cambridge. This allows the City not to have ISD going around the City to do a physical inspection to see if units are connected. He stated that this is a reaction to the rise of Airbnb and home sharing platforms and that he has received e-mails from places such as Sonder and the Bed and Breakfast Associates. He commented that renting out homes has been done for years. He asked how the distinction is being drawn between the rise of these on-line platforms and slum-lords who are creating defacto hotels. He stated that the Bed and Breakfast Associates has been around longer than Airbnb and what the distinction is between these two businesses and this language. How are we going to make sure that we are not penalizing businesses that have been here well before Airbnb?

Councillor Kelley stated that this ordinance will make STR legal under the provisions of the proposal. There are lodging house rules now and this ordinance does not impact the lodging house rules. He added that most of the current Airbnb are illegal. This ordinance clarifies and makes this use legal.

Councillor Carlone requested City staff to come forward. Ms. Farooq, Mr. Roberts and Mr. Cook came forward.

Ms. Farooq stated that the Planning Board had a hearing and made a positive recommendation on the petition, which will be before the City Council on June 12th. The Planning Board recognized the complexities of this issue and that this is new in the shared economy. She stated that there was a fair amount of discussion by the Planning Board that tenants should be included under the umbrella of the ordinance. The Planning Board stated that tenants also face affordability challenges as do property owners. If the purpose is to allow Cambridge residents to have some way of enhancing their income to be able to allow them to live in Cambridge it is important to include tenants as well as homeowners in the ordinance. She stated that the second point of discussion was that inspections should not be so onerous as to create a major deterrent to the utilization of this provision by residents. She stated that there is supplemental information on Cambridge specific data on the housing market as well as information gathered from Airbnb a year ago. She stated that Airbnb be treated as a proxy here for STRs because of the magnitude of gathering all of the different sites information at the same time would be comprehensive. She stated that the City Council should view this as a preview because CDD has been working on a housing profile, which is an update from 2010 housing profile. There will be a broader picture of the Cambridge housing market provided shortly.

Mr. Cook had a PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT D). He stated that there are a number of STR platforms running in the City, the most prominent being Airbnb. The City was interested in their effect on the housing market. Data was received from a 3rd party source. From Sept 16, 2016. The third party collects information from an active Airbnb listing. He outlined what the data included. In 2017 from the Airbnb report entire home listing units from Airbnb there were 2700 listing for Cambridge. He stated that of these 1900 had hosted one or more guests for one or more nights. During 2016 there were 1100 individual listings hosted guests. There were more full unit listings than private or shared rooms. There were notable concentrations of STRs in Harvard, Central and around Kendall Squares. He stated that for full unit listing Kendall Square seems to be ground zero. There are a significant number between Harvard and Central Squares and south of Central Square on Pearl and Franklin Streets. He stated that room concentration is around East Cambridge and Central Square and North Cambridge. He stated that for individual neighborhoods three neighborhoods stood out - Cambridgeport, East Cambridge and Mid Cambridge had a large number of listings, over 200. This does not tell the intensity of use. Reviews were evaluated for each listing and Mid-Cambridge had 6,000 reviews. He stated that overall there were 31,000 reviews. He stated that 37% of full unit reviews had more than seventy-five reviews and over one-half of rooms listing had more than twenty-five reviews. He stated that most hosts are listing 1-2 units and would be within the bounds of the proposed ordinance. He stated that hosts with 3 or more listings have a small percentage but has the largest listings at 32%. He stated that there are 209 more units listed than there are hosts offering unit listings and 236 more rooms offered than there are hosts offering room listings. He stated that 6% of hosts control 27% of full unit listings. He noted that 61% fall within the bounds of the ordinance. He stated that STRs with 4 or more unrelated persons may run into issues with the ordinance. He stated that 441 units can accommodate more than three people and in total if all listings were unique, over 4000 guests could simultaneously stay in an Airbnb unit in Cambridge, which is slightly over 4% of the population of Cambridge. This would have a noticeable impact in the City.

Mr. Cook spoke about the cost of STR per night and how often listings were booked. He stated that full units are booked for 42 days per year and private or shared rooms are booked 67 days. He stated that 64% of full units are booked up to 90 days per year; 16% are booked 91-180 days and 20% are booked over 180 days. He added that 36% of the units are booked 90 days or more. He spoke about the ten largest hosts. He stated that the 10 largest Airbnb hosts control 12% of all listings and all were professional real estate management operations. He stated that 10 hosts control almost 2,000 listings in Cambridge and elsewhere. He stated that 338 units are being removed from the market for more than 90 days. Airbnb is presently using 0.5 to 1.0% of the housing stock.

Councillor Toomey asked how data was collected. Mr. Cook explained that tomslee.net is the source of the data. He is a skeptic of the shared economy. A service that he provides from his website is to collect data of units being offered through Airbnb platform between a particular geographic area and to provide a type of file that provides geographical information he will use the shape file to collect data and provide a listings for a particular date.

Councillor Cheung stated that information was received from Bed and Breakfast indicated their concerned as to how this ordinance could impact them. He wanted questions answered as to whether this ordinance applies to them. He wanted to know the impact on staff time and how long will it take ISD to visit each site and clear them for rental. Ms. Farooq responded that in the zoning there are regulations, which relate to both boarding houses and hotel/motels. That is how Bed and Breakfasts and boarding houses currently function. That will be unchanged by the provisions of this ordinance. She stated that units that are available for long-term rental throughout the year will be unaffected by this provision. She noted that the Commissioner of ISD is not ready to answer on the affect to staff time at this point.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment at 4:51pm.

Lee Goodman, 24 Granville Road, stated that he benefits from high property values but struggles to pay his mortgage and upkeep. He rents a room in his condo. He stated that Airbnb offers a platform to make rentals possible. The big difference from a host perspective is that he has to become more entrepreneurial to succeed in the months that he does STR. He spoke about the danger of over regulation. He spoke about the notification of neighbors. He explained that one of his neighbors is a physiologist and has people going in and out and he asked does she have to notify him and abutting neighbors about this. He responded of course not. He spoke about home inspection and has a real problem with additional inspectors looking around his apartment and creating more regulation, fees and penalties. This is like an audit. People who rent out rooms on a monthly basis are not subject to inspections and fees. He does not see why the City should start now with STRs. This approach is in search of a problem. He suggested starting with minimum regulations and see how that works. He stated that the few problems that do exist stem from absentee owners and hosts. He is glad that there is a distinction for homeowners with a stake in hosting and their neighborhood versus those who host remotely.

Kitty Beer, 17 Haskell Street, spoke about neighborhood, which is precious to her. She stated that the distinction between host absent and host present is essential. She supported Councillor Kelley's long overdue attempt to regulate this. She is surprised to see how far this has gone in Cambridge. She stated that a house in her neighborhood was sold for use as an Airbnb and the property owners do not live in Cambridge. They charge $250 a night on weekends. This will change the tenor of the neighborhood. This is fair game for developers because everyone wants to live in Cambridge. She provided information about the Airbnb (ATTACHMENT E).

Nikita Bernstein, 279 Cardinal Mederios Avenue, stated that he is a local entrepreneur and Airbnb lets him be an entrepreneur. What is the purpose of these regulations? The purpose stated is to make STR legal, safe and fair. He stated do not regulate homes any different than from residences, which are already legal and safe. He stated that fairness is a difficult issue. The core aspect of this is changing the pricing and availability of housing. He stated that what is missing from the conversation is what affects pricing and demand. He stated that the number of jobs has grown 13% from 2010 to 2016 and it grows at 1-2 % each year. With such a substantial growth along with Harvard and MIT these are the dominant forces. He does not understand the fairness of regulating Airbnb in this context. He stated that prices went up 5.9% in 2015 and is up 55% since 2010. If Airbnb takes 1% off of market he fails to understand how this regulation contributes to solving the problem except to protect hotel revenues. He stated that he would benefit from this regulation because prices would go up. He noted that Airbnb fills a much-needed demand for STRs because the people who come to Cambridge come for a reason. There should be minimal regulations.

Adam Cavanaugh, stated that he works at 267 Cambridge Street as a general manager at Sonder Boston. He stated that Sonder is a professional provider in the alternative accommodation space industry. He prided himself for excellent customer satisfaction. He stated that this model came about with frustration with the owner occupied model. He used the example of the owner going to France and being unavailable for the stay of a renter. He is saddened with the proposed regulation. This will affect his business. He requested consideration for a longer close out plan for his type of business or a grandfather clause for the business that is currently running in the market.

Kristina Nies, 105 Second Street, stated that she is incredibly privileged being white, able bodied, born in the United States, speaks English and has a master’s degree. She stated that she is far from the most vulnerable people in our City, but she is 1-2 monthly rent increases away from being priced out. She is disappointed that this petition fall short of addressing the housing crisis faced now. Airbnb has been operating illegally for years and its impact has increased pressure on the existing housing market. This impacts real lives. She stated that many friends and neighbors have been displaced. Real leadership and solutions on this issue are needed now. Cambridge cannot be a Sanctuary City if no one can afford access or sanctuary here. She questioned why wait until Jan 1, 2018. She suggested freezing all STRs immediately until this crisis is addressed and people can continue to live and to work here. The housing crisis needs to be addressed fully and she applauds the effort but this does not go far enough.

Alan Finke, 93 Belmont Street, stated that he owns a 3 family residence. He stated that he rents 2 units and he lives in the other. He also rents two bedrooms through the Harvard and MIT off campus housing site. He stated that he has used Airbnb over the last three years. His typical rental is for 2-6 months. He generally has visiting academics and post doctorates from all around the world. He stated that the type of operation he is conducting would not be affected by the ordinance. He stated that the Airbnb is getting more medium to long-term hosts and they might consider making a division between the two so that the type of rental he has does not fall under the regulations. He stated that it would be a financial burden on guests if they to pay 8% tax on the monthly rentals.

Bryan Ames, 35 Fairfield Street, stated that he agrees with the proposal. He spoke about inspections going too far. He has been hosting for 4 years. He stated the he struggles with the multiple listings; this is not the supposed model of Airbnb, which was to connect visiting people with local people and businesses. He sends guest to local businesses. The guests could not afford to travel here with the price for hotels. He spoke about the high price for a hotel in May in Cambridge. Cambridge is an inaccessible City to come to. He stated that he hosts guests once a month, honeymoon guests for free, for those who cannot afford Cambridge. He stated that this is the side of Airbnb that is ignored. He stated that this is a great option but somewhere in between is the resolution. The absentee host is the problem and all can agree on this.

Judith Wilson, 36 Jay Street, thanked Councillor Kelley for his work on this. She stated that she lives in Riverside and sees a lot of strangers who are doing Airbnb now and do not care about the neighborhood. She wanted this controlled.

Lydia Harrington, 47 Prince Street, stated that living in Cambridgeport is getting very expensive. She stated that she worries that STRs are increasing housing costs for graduate students. It is getting hard to afford to live in Cambridge. She supports the ordinance to limit STRs to owner occupied and owner adjacent units.

Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street, sent a communication (ATTACHMENT F). She stated that ordinance took work from Councillor Kelley and Mr. Durbin. She stated that this ordinance would protect more than just hotels; it would protect neighborhoods. She has concerns about permitting owner adjacent units to be rented to Airbnb. She stated why not just start with owner occupied units. She explained that San Francisco among seven cities in this month’s issue of Consumer Reports has only had an increase in Airbnb by a small percentage compared to six other major cities in the country which have had enormous increases in the last two years. Why? San Francisco does not permit secondary units; only owner occupied units or tenant occupied units to be rented on Airbnb.

Cambridge should try this first before having secondary units rented. She has problems with allowing tenants to short term rent their apartments because it would be very easy for a landlord owner to rent to numerous tenants with a shared Airbnb agreement that would allow the landlord to reap the benefits of said multiple units by charging high rent and allowing the tenants to lease to Airbnb for the going rent. She has suggested a number of definitional changes. She further suggested that the ordinance include a provision that states it is not intended to authorize Airbnb type rentals if your condo documents or rental agreement prohibits this so that unsophisticated people hearing about the Airbnb law do not evade this law unintentionally.

Shelley Rieman, 201 Franklin Street, stated that San Francisco is the City most like Cambridge with rampart development and lots of displacement, everyone wants to live there and the prices are exorbitant. She stated that she would prefer starting with only owner occupied units in your house.

Mary Ann Hart, 13 Hollis Street, stated that the City Council petition strikes a balance between residents who are willing to open up their homes to guests as a welcoming, affordable and personal alternative to expensive corporate hotel chains and to preserve housing in Cambridge. She hoped that the City Council would move quickly to approve this petition. This petition has been thoroughly vetted in a fair an open way. It has a strong support of the Cambridge community. The preservation of housing stock from developers and speculation is an urgent matter. She submitted her communication (ATTACHMENT G).

Kathryn Anderson, 51 Ellery Street, stated her support for this ordinance as a starting point. She is nervous about owner adjacent units being STRs. Who has access to this help? She stated that it has been stated that Airbnb allows people to stay in this community if you are not able to buy your own unit. She asked who is this really helping to stay in the City.

Rachel Wyon, 283 Sidney Street, stated that she has a 3 family home in Cambridgeport and in her unit she rents out a bedroom periodically. She supported the ordinance and she has no problem paying taxes, fees and having an inspection. She is invested in having wonderful tenants and becoming interested in City. She wanted long term tenant and homeowners living in the City. She wanted more money for affordable housing and felt that Airbnb fees should help pay for this.

Kiril Alexandrov, 406 Franklin Street, spoke of those who have come to Cambridge because of Airbnb and spent their money here. He spoke about the negligible impact of Airbnb. He stated that Airbnb brought $38 million to Boston in 2015. He spoke about the guests spending dollars in Cambridge. If there is 100% enforcement and 100% abiding by the rules to show their income and tax statement there will not be many Airbnbs left or those who want to do STRs. There are plenty of units to go around for the Airbnb crowd. He uses Airbnb because he cannot afford hotels for his family of six. He noted that anywhere where restricted Airbnb legislation has been enacted hotel prices go up 25%. He asked do we really want to bring people into Cambridge. He stated that we cannot fight City Hall and we have already lost. He asked can we fight Mother Nature which philosophically is Harvard and MIT.

Caroline Hunter, 23 Rockwell Street, stated that she is a Cambridge homeowner and taxpayer. She owns a 3 family house and her professional daughter cannot afford to rent or purchase in her hometown. She stated that what is not represented here are people like her daughter and families. It is about balance, not fairness, which needs to be achieved. She supports STRs for owner occupied homes only and does not support the proposal to allow STRs for owner adjacent units; this creates a loophole that will allow more affluent buyers to purchase additional housing adjacent to their property to remove them permanently from the housing market. The adjacent home proposal seems to be inserted to grandfather current homeowners. She wanted to know how many are in this situation and how many properties are affected because it is out of the bounds of everything that you see in Airbnb regulations throughout the country. This loophole will further erode or eliminate the availability of housing stock that is already very limited in Cambridge. She stated that she believes that STRs should be registered and monitored and homeowners should not be burdened with added inspections. She stated that absentee host owners are a problem but she is also concerned with the large professional organizations that are buying up housing stock to turn them into STRs. This proposal still needs more review considering the lack of diversity of families in this room.

Jen McConnell, 94 Thorndike Street, stated that she owns a home in Cambridge and can only survive in Cambridge by doing Airbnb. She stated that regulations would put her out of business. She stated that having a STR has made her emotionally and financially sound as a business. She sends her guests to the local restaurants. She wanted the City Council to keep the face of the everyday normal person in mind as the regulations are made.

Sherry Madden, 70 Griswold Street, stated that she has been on both sides of the economic sphere. She hopes that there will be a fair and equitable regulation put into place. She urged the City Council not to over regulate home-occupied unit owners.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, commented about the ongoing telephone surveys about Airbnb on behalf of Airbnb. The survey was providing misleading information about the City Council petition. She is concerned with Airbnb's political involvement in our City. She only wanted owner occupied units at this time, but if there really was a need for owner-adjacent units she would consider this. Why do we need owner adjacent units and why can't these people simply rent their units out in a normal way long term. She added that any rental over thirty days is not covered by this ordinance. She stated that the academic rentals could be done. She questioned what the difference is between a good long-term tenant and an Airbnb tenants at owner adjacent full time empty units. The difference is the money made from rental units. She stated that we are not in the business to help people make more money out of rental units. She stated that if the Bread and Breakfast Association do not like how the regulations fit their current owners they could apply to be a lodging house. She is happy about the provisions that tenants renting need to notify landlords that they are renting, but this language is not strong enough. She stated that she prefers that the landlord needs to apply with tenants for an STR. She submitted her communication (ATTACHMENT H).

Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street, stated that what would help her to understand what is at stake is a description of the various ways that people can occupy dwelling units in the City. There are bread and breakfast and lodging housing and a host of different ways that there are. There is little understanding what this is and how many there are in the city. She submitted her communication (ATTACHMENT I).

Laurie Gaines, 34 May Street, spoke about her situation with Airbnb. She teaches public school in Cambridge and has lived in Cambridge for twenty-five years. She has a small two family, she is a single mother and her children are in college. She explained that her son's room is the size of a converted porch and his dorm room is bigger than his room at home. The downstairs has been a rental for twenty years. She loves living in Cambridge and cannot afford to live in Cambridge without renting out part of the downstairs. She stated that her space is so small and Airbnb has given her the opportunity to take the downstairs apartment and make it partly her own and rent out space in the short-term basis. She stated that she is not unique in Cambridge. She does not know if she can absorb the regulations. She stated that she is family first and safety first. She stated that her house is well maintained and her neighbors know that she rents her space. She stated that she wants to stay in Cambridge but cannot build up and will not have space for her family if this gap is not bridged.

Public comment closed at 5:40pm on motion of Councillor Carlone.

Councillor Carlone asked Mr. Cook citing the presentation on page eight the top image, how often are listing booked. It showed that full unit listing 42 days. The Councillor asked does this mean for over 300 days they are not being used. Mr. Cook responded in the affirmative; this is the median number of listings each listing is booked within a year. A large percentage of the listings are by hosts who offered 1-2 units. Councillor Carlone asked Mr. Cook for more work in clarifying this statistic because it can be interpreted in a broad way. Mr. Cook stated that the next page, how often listings are booked, gets at the question by looking at the percentage of full unit listings booked for less than 90-120 days, 91-180 days and more than 180 days addresses the issue. He stated 36% are booked for more than 90 days. He could provide more detail on this.

Councillor Carlone asked given the high number of people renting their units through Airbnb, Sonder and other sources, that assuming this ordinance passes, would these units become nonconforming but be grandfathered as-of-right.

Mr. Roberts stated that the question here is if people are operating their property currently in a way that is found to be not conforming to current zoning it would not be grandfathered in because it would have to be legal at the time it was first established. Councillor Carlone stated that in residential zoned areas it might not be allowed, but asked about a commercial zone. Mr. Roberts stated that this is in the report provided by CDD (ATTACHMENT J) under the current zoning ordinance there are uses categorized as tourist houses or hotels/motels. These are the two principal zoning use categories that allow transient accommodation. He explained that it is complicated how it lays out in the zoning ordinance but for each of these uses it is allowed in some districts and not allowed in other districts and there are districts that require a special permit. He stated that generally they are not allowed in single or two family residential districts, Residence A and B districts. But when you get to Residence C districts and some lower scale commercial districts it varies whether the particular uses are allowed. Most are more permissive in the higher density commercial districts.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that the City Council has tried to be clear that most STRs will be fine and will be protected by this ordinance. He stated that the majority operating Airbnb are presently operating illegally. The ordinance would make STRs legal and in exchange you need to do things because you are operating a business. The proposed requirements are not onerous. Hosts will have to operate differently; this is good practice and the hosts will be operating legally. This is primarily impacting those operating as a commercial business. He stated that he supports this ordinance. He stated that most hosts do a good job and this is to look at the whole community. He added that the owner adjacent is worth more discussion. No one has stated that Airbnb is the cause for outrageous housing prices. This is a piece of the puzzle. There are more Airbnb units being operated by people outside of the Cambridge. This is not asking a lot to ensure safety and security for the hosts and the guests.

Councillor Devereux stated that the City would not get out in front of this if the City is waiting until Jan 1, 2018. She suggested the ordinance be enacted 3 months from ordination and this would give staff and ISD time to get registration system up and running and put people in the queue for inspections. She spoke about owner adjacent STR and stated that it is fair to give owners of small multifamily houses the flexibility to use STR the same way and allow the flexibility to host family members. If one owns and occupies a small multifamily house this is a right you have. She stated that notifying neighbors is not onerous. She spoke about grandfathering those operating now in ways that may not be allowed. She spoke of language suggested by Ms. O'Hare as "except as provided herein STR are prohibited" this would give a blanket statement that the rules have to be followed and there is not grandfathering. Councillor Devereux urged incorporating Ms. O'Hare comments into the ordinance.

Councillor Cheung asked how this would be operationalized. He likes the work done and wants to allow people to continue doing Airbnb but rein in the bad actors in the City. He stated that does not get the owner adjacent issue. What is the recourse someone has if this is becoming a nuisance to neighbors and abutters; do they contact the City and how. Commissioner Singanayagam stated that the City needs to get the data first as to how many units there are in the City and create a data base. He stated inspections may be 1-2 times per year.

Councillor Cheung wanted to ensure that units are safe and habitable and what happens if a person is renting out their home and they are not here. Commissioner Singanayagam stated that he would address any complaint or violation with the owner. Councillor Cheung asked how the regulation is enforced. Commissioner Singanayagam stated that a data base will be created and a notice will be sent to those operating a STR. Councillor Cheung stated that if he has a tenant who operates an Airbnb and slips and falls does the $1 million insurance cover this or would the owner of the unit be sued. Commissioner Singanayagam stated that the City does not get into insurance issues. Councillor Cheung wanted to know if a tenant rents out the unit who would be held liable, the tenant or the owner. Commissioner Singanayagam stated that usually the owner of the property is the person the City goes after.

Councillor Cheung asked what Boston and the State were doing on this issue. Councillor Kelley stated that neighboring cities and towns are following Cambridge. The State is looking at legislation that would enable people to tax Airbnb and other forms of STRs. He explained that municipalities do not have this fund raising authority absent specific state approval. He added it is unknown what will happen with state approval and until it is passed. The hope is that the number of units and size are left to local communities and incorporate the State’s taxing authority. Councillor Cheung asked how could those who are operating Airbnb remit the same hotel/motel occupancy tax payments. Councillor Kelley stated that the State has not given the communities the fund raising authority yet. He stated that state legislation does not care about zoning. If the state got ahead of Cambridge they may cramp what Cambridge wants to do.

Councillor Cheung stated that he is all for going after those who are renting out 10 or more units and displacing people seeking apartments. He wants to make sure that this is not circumvented and it is not revisited in a year. Councillor Cheung wanted ISD to think about the implication of the increased home inspections. He wanted more clarity on this point. Commissioner Singanayagam noted that this will depend on the amount of inspections that will be needed and whether additional staff may be needed. Councillor Cheung wanted clarity on how this will be implemented.

Councillor Devereux wanted information on when the ordinance would take effect. She proposed that the ordinance could take effect three month from Council approval or Jan 1, 2018 whichever is sooner. She wanted to give ISD time to figure out the registration process and how it would work. Commissioner Singanayagam stated that if the ordinance is passed ISD could begin working on this. Councillor Devereux commented that another Ordinance Committee hearing could be scheduled to move this along and have it adopted in the summer.

Councillor Kelley stated that this proposal makes generally legal what is not now. Most STR operators will come out in a better place than where they are now and with more confidence that they can operate legally. The effective date will allow the regulatory program to get into place and allow those operating STR to have time to adjust to changes.

Councillor Carlone made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance be referred to the full City Council as a substituted amendment for the original short term rental ordinance proposal as attached.

The motion carried on a voice vote of six members.

Councillor Kelley stated that he wanted to refer this to the City Council as soon as possible and wanted the clarifications to come back to the City Council as a whole.

Councillor Carlone stated that there are a number of issues to be discussed.

A discussion ensued about the best way to move the proposed amendment forward together with the motions that were made in committee.

Councillor Kelley stated that keeping this in committee would require an aggressive scheduling and response to make sure that this is passed. He stated that if this is not passed what is done now continues to be illegal. All need to understand the calendar and the expiration date of the petition and the summer break of the City Council.

Councillor Carlone stated that he is not in support of the owner adjacent units. He stated that small two-family houses might be considered one unit. There has been no detail on this. He noted that there are two other ordinances that are facing expiration given the timing of the summer meeting. He stated that there is still a lot of discussion that is needed on this.

Councillor Kelley stated that the petition could be referred to the full City Council and also kept in committee as another option. He understands that there are issues that are not comforting to people in the room, but he wanted an eye kept on the calendar. He stated that the challenge faced that is unique to this petition because what people are doing now is illegal.

Councillor Cheung noted that there are a number of things that need to be discussed and City staff has been asked to come back to the City Council. He understands the urgency. He stated that Jan 1, 2018 is in the future and provides time to resolve this and get the petition ordained.

Councillor Devereux questioned the expiration date of the petition. She was informed that the petition expires on Aug 29, 2017. She stated that if the petition was refiled, how much does that slow the petition down. She stated that she felt that this petition has been discussed enough and does not need to be discussed into the fall. Small wording details can be worked out and questions answered. She wanted to find a way to possibly ordain this petition at the summer meeting and if this is missed then it can be refiled. She asked if the petition needs to expire before it can be refiled. City Clerk Lopez stated that the petition could be refiled as of Aug 30, 2017; this order could be submitted at the summer meeting.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he is concerned about running out of time. He stated that the City Council does not want to vote on initiatives at the summer meeting because it feels to the public that the City Council is acting behind closed doors. He stated that the information that the City Council is asking the staff to provide are things we want to know. He asked if this information would change their vote and if it is not he is ready to vote for this. He stated that he wanted to know how this would be implemented but stated that he trusts ISD to figure out the operational aspects. He stated that he has questions about the owner adjacent unit, but will still vote for this.

Councillor Cheung stated that he has issues about grandfathering, if the Bed and Breakfast Association is affected, enactment and implementation. He stated that this does make a difference where to go on this Councillor Kelley stated that he sees a letter from Bed and Breakfast Associates (ATTACHMENT K), which is a property management company. He has met with the owner to discuss her specific operations and some properties would be impacted. He added that the rules are not being changed for the traditional bed and breakfast. He stated there is 60 day window in January to register with ISD and you can still operate until ISD states you cannot operate. He stated that he wanted to make this legal as soon as possible and to have the City figure out how to regulate this.

He asked if another Ordinance Committee hearing is held do we have to wait for the committee report to pass to a second reading. He noted that there are questions. He stated that STRs are not allowed uses and cannot be grandfathered. If this is kept in committee it will not be passed and will need to be refiled. Councillor Carlone stated that this is the first ordinance hearing and there are questions that remain. He wanted more information about full unit rentals. He does not believe that there should be adjacent units allowed because it will reduce the number of apartments for yearly rent.

Councillor Toomey stated that he would not vote for anything until questions have been answered. He wanted all departments to know how they will implement this. He did not want unintended consequences, which could occur when something is rushed.

Councillor Carlone stated that it is the goal to ordain this at the summer meeting and he will work with Councillor Kelley on this.

Councillor Kelley stated that the questions could be asked tonight and answered. This ordinance is not like any other ordinance.

Councillor Carlone made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to provide the City Council with clarification on the feasibility of grandfathering non-conforming use as it relates to existing short term rentals and to provide language, if feasible, to amend the proposed ordinance regulating short term rentals as amended by substitution; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to report back to the City Council on this matter no later than June 25, 2017.

The motion carried on a voice vote of six members.

Councillor Carlone made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department provide to the City Council a more detailed breakdown of owner adjacent full unit statistic short term rentals; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council with this information no later than June 26, 2017.

The motion carried on a voice vote of six members.

Councillor Carlone explained that if a two family home and one family uses bedrooms in both small units can this be considered a one family and therefore would meet the condition of an owner occupied unit.

Councillor Carlone made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the City Solicitor to provide clarification if it is allowed for an owner occupied small two family home can be treated as an owner occupied single unit STR; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter no later than June 26, 2017.

The motion carried on a voice vote of six members.

Councillor Cheung made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council by no later than June 26, 2017 with a timetable on implementation details of the regulations by Inspectional Services Department.

The motion carried on a voice vote of six members.

Councillor Carlone moved that the matter be referred to the full City Council and to leave the subject matter in committee. The motion carried on a voice vote of six members.

The following e-mails were received and made part of the report:
Communications from Jean Pascoe, 48 Irving Street, stated that short term rentals are a detrimental to Cambridge residents and that the ordinance contain language to prevent absentee owners renting to tenants who rent out rooms for the profit of the owner of the property (ATTACHMENT L)
Communication from Patrick Barton, 130 Appleton Street, stated that if STR are allowed they should be not be able to use visitor parking permits, should be ADA compliant, smoke free, and free from lead paint, radon and asbestos (ATTACHMENT M).
Communication from Marie Elena Saccoccio, 55 Otis Street, in support of the language submitted by Carol O'Hare (ATTACHMENT N).
Communication from Nicholas Hernon, 105 Second Street, in support of registration of STR and the requirement of owner occupied units (ATTACHMENT O).
Communication from Brigitte Moeller, 162 Cushing Street, in support of the measure to limit short term rentals (ATTACHMENT P).
Communication from Kathy and John Roberts, 321 Huron Avenue, in support of regulating and limiting Airbnb (ATTACHMENT Q).
Communication from Ann Robbart, 55 Alpine Street, in support of the short term rental ordinance by the City Council (ATTACHMENT R).

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

The hearing adjourned at 6:45pm on motion of Councillor Carlone.

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

Committee Report #5 (based on the abysmal grammar, this report was clearly not written by anyone in the City Clerk’s Office)
The Neighborhood & Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebration Committee held a public hearing on Thurs, June 1 beginning at 5:37 p.m. in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss the open data portal, hear an update from the open data review board, and plan future opportunities for open data in Cambridge.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Devereux; Councillor Carlone; Lee Gianetti; Josh Wolff; Harlan Weber; Eric Belford; Noel Isama, Open Cities Analyst; Katya Abazajian, Open Cities Analyst; Naseem Makiya, Council Aide.

Also present was Saul Tannenbaum, John Hawkinson, and Kent Johnson.

Councillor Mazen convened the hearing and briefly reviewed the call of the meeting. He provided the Committee with an agenda for the hearing (Attachment A).

He stated that after going through the agenda we could have a more informal open discussion. He invited the audience to participate in that discussion. He stated the goal was to think about best practices about current infrastructure and setup and where we plan to go next.

He stated when Cambridge first did open data ordinance, it was great work on Lee’s part and on the City of Cambridge’s part, but it was also a compromise. “We knew we wouldn’t be able to put into it all the resources we wanted” said Mazen. He confirmed that this is phase II out of several phases.

Josh Wolff from the Open Data Review Board started the agenda with a presentation (Attachment B) serving as a progress report on the open data program. He thanked the other attending open data review board members. He also thanked residents for input and involvement throughout the process.

Josh began by discussing the background on open data and overarching goals of the program. Data should be shared with public to further its goals of transparency and engagement and further city goals of effective services.

He continued by covering the ingredients of a successful civic data program. These attributes of a good open data program reinforce each other.

He discussed the recent successes they’ve had as a program. Regarding data supply, he showed a graph of the number of datasets uploaded to the portal. Up from 0 in 2013 to 200 in 2017.

He highlighted the bicycle counter project in Kendall square. A script uploads newest data count to the open data portal on a regular interval automatically. They are doing this with 17 other data sets. Using tools to automate the data portal keeps things easy for the city. Automation also increases data quality. He also cited the project done with What Works Cities: Bloomberg. “The engagements they did with us helped us come up with data governance strategies.” Said Josh. He presented a flowchart of how the open data process works from upload, to QA, to Sensitivity review, to Risk mitigation, and finally Publication.

He discussed the process of the board itself. Both City staff and community are currently serving on the board. They’ve had some great meetings so far and good participation from the public. And Josh is happy with the insight they’ve gleaned from this board and suggestions they’ve had for program policies moving forward.

Josh also discussed user outreach and engagement. Currently they average about 5000 visitors per month. They are an active city partner with Code for Boston.

He also highlighted the work done with Jennifer Angarita, an Open Data Research Fellow out of Harvard Kennedy School, to look at ways we could improve civic innovation and engagement. This work had some great press afterwards as a result of its success. She did 40 interviews, a focus group, and a survey and found great insights into amplifying civic innovation.

Josh also highlighted the positive effects of holding office hours and dashboard training sessions. Once a month, he goes to a new department and chats with people who want to drop in and discuss what they’re doing with data, challenges, IT tools Cambridge has that might be able to help, etc. He also leads power BI data dashboard trainings. IT invested in power BI to make sense of data. Now he’s training departments in the city around how to use this.

Next, Josh discussed the launch of the civic innovation challenge inventory in winter 2017. Whenever a “data steward” in a department around the city uploads a new dataset, they write a problem it could be used to help solve. Each day they scrape those problems into a big list of problem statements next to open data sets and next to the API endpoints for those datasets. This just recently got attention from the StateScoop publication. He’s also talked about it at a few conferences. “We’re excited about this. Most importantly for Cambridge, this is getting traction over at Code for Boston.” said Josh.

Kent Johnson built a dashboard around a board of zoning appeals data set. He showed how residents might be able to visualize that data in a new way to better keep track.

“The new open data site went live last week. I’m very happy with it. It looks so much better than our old portal.” said Josh. Josh moved onto reviewing Power BI Employee Demographics, the Pay Equity Dashboard and Green Building Dashboard: Facts & Trends “I’m excited about this new tool that can very quickly help us make sense of data and communicate it in an engaging and interactive manner.” he said.

Josh cited one example in which CDD was assisted with a simple join that took maybe 15 minutes programmatically and potentially saved an intern weeks of work.

Finally, Josh moved onto plans for the coming year. He mentioned they will be building out Cambridge’s data analysis and visualization toolkit, building capacity and staff to do this, and identifying more opportunities to use these tools.

He admitted, they need to do a good job of pairing open datasets with other strategic initiatives the City is working on. Things like Vision Zero and Envision Cambridge are great opportunities for this.

He also wants to involve the public in data analysis and civic innovation that helps “further our other strategic initiatives.”

Additionally, they’d like to pilot new tools, techniques, and processes for analytics, and internal data sharing related to IOT (Internet of Things) data.

Next, the Sunlight’s Open Cities Team joined via Skype for a presentation on their work and best practices they seen used in cities across the US.

Noel started the Open Cities presentation by discussing their overall mission and goal. He stated that Open Cities helps cities adopt open data initiatives throughout the country. In many places, they’ve used Cambridge’s policy passed in 2015 as an example of what good open data is. They see an affirmation of many of the best practices they preach to cities of what a good open data program is through what Cambridge is doing. They’re also glad to see the policy being revisited as they encourage annual periodic review of open data programs. They see that citizens and cities are demanding that data is more dynamic and engaging.

Katya mentioned she had previously spoken to Josh about the civic innovation challenge and all the new things going on in Cambridge and their goals for the program. She mentioned the following themes when it comes to a good open data program:
Identify best practices in open data.
Add value to open data you’re putting online.
Most cities are posting data online and hoping citizens and groups use it, but they should also be helping citizens use it.
Align the data with strategic priorities of the city.

She mentioned they are currently working on a “Tactical data engagement guide”. A guide that will walk cities through a series of steps of how to go into the community and engage people on how to interact with city data.

Due to some ongoing technical difficulties on Skype, Councillor Mazen switched from Skype to dialing in the Open Cities Team on his phone.

They gave a quick recap of what was discussed. Katya reiterated that she was commending Cambridge for thinking about community engagement. “That’s where open data is going. We’ve been collecting stories across the cities doing this. One example is Cambridge’s program.” she said. One important thing she highlighted was the goal to connect with strategic city goals.

Jan asked for an overview of the organization. Noel responded that they are a non-profit dedicated to facilitating government transparency and accountability using technology.

Open data is a big part of that. They feel that transparency isn’t just something a government should do but something they can do to improve the relations of the community. The idea is to use open data as a tool to solve government problems.

Katya said that much of what has been achieved aligns with best practices—things like making sure data formats are acceptable, training city employees, making data available—Cambridge is doing exceedingly well already.

If Cambridge is pushing the program forward, the guide is something we’re trying to make as a resource for cities to know exactly which steps to take.

It starts with sharing open data with residents. Then you create success stories that have impacted communities. And you continue finding opportunities to use open data in the community, framing those opportunities (which you can already do with civic innovation challenge), figuring out how you can best facilitate someone else using your open data to do good for the community.

She spoke about facilitating action on the community’s part, encouraging citizens to build a product, talking to residents and see what needs to be built for the city. She emphasized the need for open communication channels. “Not a lot of cities have done this. We’re still really at the beginning of this process.” she said.

The civic innovation channel is a good start. Seattle is doing very resident centered focus system. They’ve created a system of signage for posting food ratings. This opens the doors to city hall and allows residents to feel they really have a say in the process.

After the end of the presentation, Councillor Mazen remarked he was glad to hear Cambridge is already leading the way in terms of best practices and that sunlight is circulating our legislation elsewhere as a leading example.

Next, Councillor Mazen called for public comment.

John Hawkinson was first to comment. “As a data guy who is a journalist, worrying about open data in Cambridge is tough for me. I want to write about it, and I want to write about it in a fair way.” He said. Hawkinson stated that although Josh did an awesome job describing his work, he spoke little about what the board has done. Hawkinson said he was previously told “The ordinance has teeth”. He said that Josh has done a good job putting data on the web and on the data portal, but that he would like to see some real utility with the ordinance. He said he would like to view the open data review board as a board of directors giving some guidance to the city, but it’s very difficult to find out when the meetings are. He said he asks lots of questions, but he doesn’t hear back. It’s very hard to get engaged. There needs to be a strategic vision. There needs to be an assessment of all the data the city has and what should be made available. He remarked that the community wasn’t very involved in the process. He said there is a lot of potential, but part of the problem is a lot of the citizens on the open data review board are new to the city. As a result, they don’t quite know how to engage and drive the city forward and so they kind of take a backseat.

“I’m assuming you’re saying this because you want to help.” Mazen responded.

Hawkinson confirmed he absolutely wanted to help but it seemed like the administrative gears were swallowing the process.

Mazen said he didn’t want to “dance into trying to understand people’s motivations.” But he did want focus on the brass tacks laid out here to find something to agree on and move forward with.

Saul Tannenbaum was next to speak. “While I agree with a lot of what John said, I am optimistic.” He began. He described when the city didn’t have an open data program and he thinks this is largely headed in the right direction. He complimented Nadeem on having this meeting, saying it’s rare in this city where a big policy decision is made and actually followed up on to see how it’s going. It’s very important for city accountability. He said he’s also had trouble figuring out when the open data review board meets. There are good processes for doing this, the city already does this. They should just copy those practices. “I looked at the same flow chart John did, my first question was where are the notes for that process from the data set. Is that going to be transparent? You’re promoting transparency but you should be as transparent as you want the city to me. I was looking for the minutes of the open data review board but I couldn’t find them.” He said.

John Hawkinson added that there is no way to find the minutes of a specific meeting. But admitted that it’s great that there are minutes.

Saul Tannenbaum added that Josh ended the presentation with rough ideas for the next year, but he would like to see a more specific plan. Something where the vision for the next few years is laid out so we can go back and assess progress.

He also was curious on the ways in which the city is trying to increase civic engagement. “What’s the most requested data set that you don’t have?” He asked.

“I think the civic innovation challenge is exactly the right idea. Throwing a bunch of datasets online people won’t use it. Planting ideas is a good thing and if you can get those ideas to fuse through the city so each department is thinking like that I think that would be a great thing.” He concluded.

Kent Johnson was last to speak for public comment. He mentioned he is a prolific user of open data. Regarding the civic innovation challenge, “I think there is a bit of a disconnect between the questions posed and the data given to answer those questions.” he remarked. The city should take a deeper look into if the data provided can actually answer those questions. He agreed with what both John and Saul said about transparency of process. He found it very difficult to find out when the meetings were. He said despite the shortcomings, there is a lot of interesting data there, certainly there could be more. He found city staff to be very responsive when asking questions. “To Saul’s point about actual impact, there actually is zoning law on the books (Barrett petition) which was designed with some of the open data.” He said. He highlighted this as a success story for the initiative so far. But he agreed with Hawkinson that he didn’t see much public engagement. “Thank you for making the data available, there is a lot that’s there that could be useful.” He concluded.

Councillor Mazen provided a brief synopsis of what was heard during public discussion to start the debate on how to move forward with next steps. “I’d like to get to a productive outcome.” he said. He said the key themes seem to be that it’s hard to engage in the open data process for purely logistical reasons. He highlighted the need for community engagement and for better dissemination. He emphasized the formulation a strategic plan.

He also brought up a new issue of trying to test for measurable effects before there has been a chance for new initiatives to mature. He said many non-profits and government teams are asked for metrics so often and early that they end up in a marketing role trying to talk about what they’re doing and publicize it before it’s really had an effect. “It would be good to have this be a conversation about real substance, real equity, aligning with housing and other goals.” he said.

Saul agreed that creating more housing is a measurable effect and the city should be touting that loudly to everyone. It’s very hard to help the housing situation.

“When you’re talking about assessment, it’s important to talk about how you’re going to measure it too. Give a roadmap for measurement. I don’t mean met by a certain date but just what the metrics are.” Hawkinson remarked.

Mazen said he thinks a strategic plan with metrics is certainly important. He’s interested in how outreach will work to lay the groundwork for engagement. He thinks of that as going door to door or giving lectures at universities. He mentioned when kicking off this process of the ordinance, they did an event at Harvard, and they should continue to do that type of thing. In addition to increasing outside attendance, he thinks there could be some kind of presentation later in the year on how people in the city are using data.

“The more examples you have of how data is being used, the more people will come close to the data you’re providing as they see the value and the power.” He said. “It would be great to have a celebration of everyone who is doing that with you. It would be great to have some metrics and numbers for the policy makers as well to understand how it’s going. Specific examples of how that data permeates certain departments would be interesting as well.” He continued.

Next, Councillor Mazen asked Josh Wolff about participation at office hours. Josh stated that the ones he’s done so far have been 1-2 hours. He normally talks to 8-10 people lasting 5-10 minutes each with a handful of longer ones. Normally he’s had one kind of “bite” that led to a longer term project. He did an office hours at DHSP and it led to some involvement that led to an informal committee that is looking at data governance.

“I think the buzz is a hallmark of A+ work. The absence of that buzz doesn’t mean anything at all so it’s difficult to gauge. But I’d love to hear that other people have your work on your lips. If they are interested enough to evangelize it to others that’s how you know it’s going well. I can’t stress how powerful it is for someone to come in and have an intervention with certain folks in order to show them the power of data processing.” Mazen responded.

Josh Wolff said the GIS division started that so he has to give them credit.

Mazen said that these are all problems we’ve had before in tech, but it’s amazing to have someone with that skill set to help with them. I have all these different lists in different formats and I need to merge them together and all of a sudden it takes only 15 minutes and once you’ve written the code you can do it over and over again. He’d really like to understand how the city is making use of Josh and those resources.

Lee Gianetti said that Josh has been giving a lot of thought to the long term process. He thinks the comment about the strategic plan is very helpful for this and that the board is really in its infancy. It’s a very thoughtful group. As it grows, he believes it can address some of the concerns that have been raised. He highlighted several successes of the initiative thus far. He discussed opportunities to be looking at coding camps, engaging high schools to get students interested, and ensuring departments were now trained and using the portal at the staff level. He highlighted the diversity dashboard and the pay equity tool and described the process in building these tools. He said it was a very long exercise to go through, a sensitive dataset, and a good learning opportunity. “Josh is teaching us, he doesn’t just grab it and say let me do it. [...] He’s building internal capacity that is going to have bigger returns.” Lee remarked.

He said that it was a direct result of Josh’s work that so soon after the diversity dashboard was released that information from CDD came out. “As the city staff sees what the public does with this data that will help guide what we do next as well. It’s going to be an iterative process.” He concluded.

Councillor Mazen moved on to another question regarding the Internet of Things (IOT), “IOT is notoriously slow moving in its infancy, but it will be extremely important to this city all at once over the next 2-5 years. So we should be prepared for that and prepare people to be able to participate in that part of the future. If we were to get that going, what would that look like?”

Josh gave a quick recap of the data process. “At its heart, it’s a system of pairing each new dataset with one or more problems that the dataset might help with. The way it works is whenever data stored is uploaded to the portal it is compiled with a list of problem statements next to it that may apply to that data set. That way people don’t have to guess at what problem would the city find to be a valuable thing to work on with this dataset. Certainly they can work on whatever problem they want, but this serves as a guide.” he said.

“To the IOT question, it’s certainly a much bigger question than open data. I have a meeting with our new STEAM coordinator next week to see how we can start making inroads with our public schools so students interested in open data and learning how to code can do that. I think you’re right that 5-10 years down the line those students may be interested in looking at IOT data.

Our non IOT data that’s updated at most once a day will hopefully evolve into those datasets with a higher velocity. I think Socrata or any open data provider has these same issues top of mind and they’ll be working on those systems to do that as well.” He responded.

Harlan Weber spoke next giving a quick introduction and describing his experience on the open data review board. “I run a volunteer group called Code for Boston. I’m also the design director at the state department. I advocated for open data here for a long time. Before I was on the board, before I was a state employee, from that perspective I really want to congratulate Josh. Josh was tasked with starting up an entire program from scratch. And I understand there are a lot of complaints, but that is a difficult task. Those are difficult things to build, teach, and we grasp with these issues at the state level as well. Josh has done a great job building these things and creating the foundation for this future work we’re talking

about.” He said. He said that having all the data feeding into the departments regularly like this is a great first step. He believes the civic engagement challenge is something the city has done well; remarking that his colleagues are jealous of Cambridge’s open data program especially the Cambridge innovation challenge.

“We are not necessarily experts in the kinds of problems the city needs to be solved. It’s difficult for coding community members to understand that. Josh has been great with the follow up and making sure those problem statements come to light. I also really like the idea of office hours. That’s part of building that data literacy.” He said.

Lee gave a brief overview of the What Works Cities initiative, “2 years ago Michael Bloomberg started an initiative to help cities and provide technical support to cities to help them use data. There is no prescribed way you have to do it. It’s about your individual city and the issues in it. The issues we are facing are being explored across the country. So there may be other cities further along in their outreach and we can learn from them. We’ve been receiving good insights and guidance on that front from them.” He also described how, 3 to 4 years ago, FindIt Cambridge came out of his conversation with Harlan.

Harlan remarked that there is a big data community here in MA. Boston and Somerville have big data communities. If everything is open source, Cambridge can supercharge the speed at which they get there by working with these groups. Part of the way he’d love to see it grow would be to build it into more of a data analytics program. He’d love to see the city using this to improve its own process.

“Envision Cambridge, Master Planning, all of those things we should be applying this data to. There’s employment data out there now, awesome, is that having an effect on actual hiring? What about the traffic data? Is that informing efforts to fix the Inman square intersection? I don’t know. I’m not on other boards. But I would love to see more of that. Data generated by the city flowing back into performance management and business process improvement. That’s the big power of data. It’s not just the transparency key or civic engagement piece. If we are going to be a smart city we have to get good at using it ourselves.” Harlan said.

Councillor Mazen asked Lee and Josh how we get to what Harlan is describing.

Lee mentioned that he and Josh have had a lot of these conversations. There is a lot that is really data-driven. He gave the crime analysis department as an example. He mentioned traffic analysis that is helping with vision zero. He also said the CDD is very data driven. He mentioned Betsy Allen, who is the city’s new equity inclusion director, was thrilled with the dashboard. “There were things that didn’t make sense and you start to look at well why do you have heavily male dominated tenure lines? How do you get a diverse pool of candidates into the pipeline?” He said. He said civil service rules play into it too. “Can you change the way you market and communicate to improve the pipeline?” He asked. He also mentioned that they didn’t want it to be a massive data dump where it’s unclear what to do with it. “It’s not just an exercise of are we doing it, how do we get to the point where what we’re doing is making the lives of residents better.” He concluded.

Councillor Carlone brought up the issue of how data could be used to improve city planning. Mentioning several development metrics, including the square footage of property in the city and maximum density, he said that projections could be made on how big Cambridge is going to be. This would help us track where we’re going and also get into traffic implications. “If we know we are getting 500 kids, that tells me we need 2 new schools.” Carlone said. He said this kind of analysis should be discussed with Envision and the power of this would be dramatic.

Harlan Weber responded that there is an example of rerouting traffic based on sensors in Pittsburgh. “We have MIT and Harvard, we can turn them loose on data like this.” He said.

Mazen mentioned that at some point Cambridge is going to have to analyze things and change its traffic patterns in a substantial way. A lot of the data work should pop out of basic urban planning questions. They need a researcher to sit down next to someone and think about what that looks like to come into basic policy conclusions.

Councillor Devereux mentioned that she’d been on the open data portal and it’s pretty overwhelming for someone who is not a technician, not a data person, with no background in coding. She’s not sure we can fault them for the lack of civic engagement. “It’s a different language for some people and we’re not teaching people this language.” She said. She also said she wasn’t sure how to figure out how to ask the right questions. While there are many people in the city with data fluency, there are many more who don’t have that fluency. She’d like to see more staff capacity in this regard. She knows we have data analysts in certain departments, but it can’t be a silo. She thinks the next step is to look for this skill in more hires and suggested Josh should maybe be doing open data office hours with Councillors to help them understand what questions to ask. She concluded that the initiative is off to an excellent start and it’s good it’s being discussed again now.

Naseem Makiya suggested incentivizing the civic innovation challenge in a way similar to the way Kaggle does it. The city could post a problem that they need solving with a prize so that datasets that are posted correspond to a specific civic need and incentivize the community to be more involved. He mentioned that the equity inclusion data was very interesting and it’s great to have the foundation in place because gathering that data over time along with all the data being collected over time will be very valuable for analysis in the future. His final point was that the city should make sure it’s collecting the right data as well. If many of the datasets posted online aren’t that useful, then what data points are we not collecting that would be useful to look into collecting. The city should be identifying the right attributes and the right meta attributes it needs to collect in order to be able to solve specific problems the city has.

Councillor Mazen remarked that this job is a lot for one person to do. He mentioned to please reach out to Naseem and himself if they’d like to get involved as well. He gave his email nmazen@cambridgema.gov and Naseem’s is nmakiya@cambridgema.gov. “If you have ideas, please email me and let me know what to follow up on. I’d like to get a concrete list of feedback.” He said. Councillor Carlone also mentioned that anytime the open data team learns something interesting, they should definitely inform the council. He remembered when the Council learned how many people in Cambridge went to bed hungry and that was something that significantly affected the way they see the city.

Harlan mentioned that when he engages with government, he almost always spends a ton of time defining problems before getting into a place where people can work with us.

Jan followed up that her impression of the civic innovation challenge is that some of the questions are a bit generic. They should start with the right question and then figure out what data we have that could answer those questions. To her it feels a bit backwards to post the data and then figure out the question.

Councillor Carlone mentioned that the city does a survey every couple years. It would be interesting to get a group like this and talk about questions and maybe define a few. Building on what Jan said, he agreed he found the civic innovation challenge questions a bit generic and sometimes predictable. He mentioned that Councillors all hear different concerns and they know what the problems are from their perspective.

Harlan responded that thinking about what data can solve is wonderful and exciting, but then it falls to Josh to find out who can get them the right dataset.

Josh acknowledged that the open data initiative was a work in progress. He said the first step is a cultural change. “We want to be starting initiatives in terms of problems and solutions. We are certainly going to be trying to do more of that moving forward.” He stated.

John Hawkinson mentioned that Envision Cambridge provided him with data that informed their analysis, but that wasn’t on the open data portal. He worried that other people don’t know who has what data and how to get it. He also mentioned several features that had been removed from the city website for example no longer being able to subscribe to calendar updates. He mentioned it would be great would be if the calendar data was accessible through an API or data portal.

He also mentioned if you go to the board of zoning appeals with your case, maybe ¼ of the time meetings “continue” and it’s difficult to find out when a meeting was continued to. He gave the example of the &Pizza case. “That’s an example of how the data we have and the data we want isn’t there.” he said. Councillor Mazen thanked all those present for their participation and said he was looking forward to doing this again in the fall.

The hearing adjourned at 7:39pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Nadeem Mazen, Chair

Committee Report #6
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Wed, May 24, 2017 at 3:38pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the zoning petition filed by Latoyea Hawkins Cockrill, et al. to regulate short-term rental uses throughout the City.

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; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning and Development, CDD; Cliff Cook, Senior Planning Information Manager, CDD; Ranjit Singanayagam, Commissioner, Inspectional Services Department; Robert Reardon, Director of Assessing; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place; McMillan, I.G., 2 Landon Circle, Lynn; Nicole Nistor, Cambridge Street; Lon Liong, 26 King Place; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; Sherry Madden, 70 Griswold Street; and Shelley Rieman, 201 Franklin Street.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing is being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the hearing. Petitioners, City staff, City Council to ask clarifying questions, public comment and then the City Council will discuss the petition.

Councillor Carlone asked for the petitioners to come forward. No one appeared.

Councillor Carlone asked staff from the Community Development Department to share the recommendation of the Planning Board from their hearing.

Ms. Farooq stated that the Planning Board heard both petitions on the short term rentals. The Planning Board recommended to strongly support the City Council petition. The Planning Board felt reservation about the Cockrill petition and suggested that the City Council not adopt this petition. The reasons that the Planning Board made the recommendation to not adopt this petition is that having a commercial entity be responsible for a short term rental was a problematic component of the petition and the zoning language was unclear that could lead to interpretation and implementation issues. She stated Ms. Cockrill came to the Planning Board hearing and expressed consternation and stated that she did not support this petition.

Mr. Roberts stated that the two petition before the City Council referring to short term rentals which deals with the use of dwelling units in the City built and occupied by households for permanent residency and using the dwelling units for transient accommodations for a term of no more than 30 days is only permitted as tourist housing, bed and breakfast, hotels/motels. He stated that as a land use issue this is something that has been more or less a prevalent situation which has attracted more attention in the era of internet companies such as Airbnb and similar platforms that have provided for people to make the units and market them for transient stays.

The Planning Board held a hearing on May 23, 2017 on both STR petitions. Mr. Roberts is only focusing on the Cockrill petition and what it proposes. This petition defines a STR as an accessory use of all or part of a residential dwelling unit by rental temporary occupancy for dwelling, sleeping or lodging and it defines 2 categories of short term rentals. He stated that one category is an owner occupied STR being conducted by the person who owns the dwelling unit. A non-owner occupied STR would cover other cases where a dwelling unit is made available and as an accessory use in all residential districts of the City. This would exclude nonresidential or mixed use areas such as the major commercial squares and corridors or industrial or office areas and in all of these areas this would not be allowed. He stated that the basic limitation that it proposes is that if a dwelling unit is not owner occupied then it would be allowed to be used for STR, but limited to only 180 days during the year. It also puts a limitation on multiple reservations that must not occur concurrently within the same dwelling, which is referred to overlapping reservations. The Planning Board was unclear as to what the intent of the petition is.

The Cockrill proposed standards for safety measures related to the residential characteristics of the neighborhood and notification of certain information to guests and proposed a registration process that would only apply to the non-owner occupied short-term rentals uses. It also proposes that there would need to be a mechanism for STR platform which is not clearly defined in the ordinance but refers to online platforms like Airbnb. There would need to be developed a mechanism to communicate with the City for violation of municipal code or in emergency situations. The Planning Board recommended that the City Council not adopt this petition based on the fact that the petition seemed to be too permissive allowing the commercial use of dwelling units as short term guest accommodations. This was a concern in terms of the impact on the availability of housing in the market and other concerns regarding nuisance on others in the neighborhood. The Planning Board felt that the language was not clear about the intent of what the requirements would be. He stated that the memo was prepared as an overview of the petitions and the effect on zoning (ATTACHMENT A).

Councillor Mazen stated that some of the discussion has been in comparing the two petitions. He asked is there specific things on this petition that are missing that the City Council needs to consider that could be problematic. Ms. Farooq stated that nothing in this petition should be incorporated in the City Council petition. She stated that more detailed data information will be provided at the Ordinance Committee hearing on the City Council petition. She stated that the data sheds light on the shape of the petition and the policy considerations discussed by City Council. Mr. Roberts stated that there are certain issues such as unit safety, guest safety, and notification of the building operations that are covered in both petitions; but in the City Council petition the language is clearer. In this petition there are limitation on the districts where it would be allowed and limitation for non-owner-occupied units for the duration of the year. The Planning Board questioned having the 180 day limitation and whether this was a useful purpose. Councillor Cheung stated that this allows short term rentals in the commercial districts. Ms. Farooq stated that it would allow it to be a broader commercial use. The City Council petition is only owner occupied or owner adjacent units that are allowed to be utilized for short term rental and not have a limitation like this in the Cockrill petition opens it up to anyone and an investor may be able to purchase multiple properties and use them for STR without having a direct adjacency which impacts both the care at the local level and also raises a concern about purchase of units for the sake of STR and taking them out of the housing market.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked how many staff hours have been spent on this particular petition. Mr. Roberts responded more than one. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that this petition is named after someone who does not support the petition and the petitioners did not show up to either of the public hearing. This is shameful.

Councillor Carlone stated that Councillor Kelley wanted his aide, Will Durbin, to read the comments made by Ms. Cockrill at the Planning Board hearing and Mr. Cockrill approved Mr. Durbin reading this communication (ATTACHMENT B).

Councillor Carlone opened public comment at 4:03pm.

Nancy Ryan, 4 Asburton Place, stated that the Community Development Department memo was helpful to this discussion. She opposed the Cockrill petition. She spoke about an investigation into this citizen petition that possibly includes fraud. There was no petitioner at the Planning Board hearing and the presentation was left to the Community Development staff. She stated that when public comment was over, Ms. Cockrill came forward. She stated that the petitioner knew nothing about the petition, knew nothing about Airbnb before last evening and new nothing about the petition that bears her name. She explained that she spoke with Ms. Cockrill and recognized her signature but had been given the petition with the introductory language covered and had no idea of what she was signing. Ms. Ryan stated that Ms. Cockrill appears to be a victim of deception. She added that the signatures on the petition were called into question. She stated that the corporation known as Airbnb hired a lobbying and public relations firm, the Novice Group, to oppose efforts to regulation STR. She stated that it appears that this citizen’s petition was the creature of the Novice Group. This petition represents an abuse of the cornerstone of the democratic process and may represent fraud. She stated that Airbnb will profit if minimal regulations are not adopted by the City Council and/or the state legislature. She stated that the Cockrill petition has redirected many hours of precious staff, elected and appointed officials and residents time. There needs to be an investigation into this petition. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT C).

Nicole Nistor, Cambridge Street, stated that she is a host. She supports the Cockrill petition. She supported the STR platform which is a hotline for the neighbors to contact police. She prefers the hot line and does not want to notify her neighbors. If the owner is in the same building as the guest why do neighbors have to be involved? She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT D).

Lon Liong, 26 King Place, stated that he is a host and has run a short term rental. He supports the Cockrill petition. He likes the short term especially to keep the unit clean.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, agreed with Ms. Ryan that an investigation into fraud was needed and about wasting City staff on the Cockrill petition. She is opposed to the Cockrill petition because it does not provide adequate protection for the neighborhood. She used an incident in Somerville where neighbors, tenants and firefighters did not know each other and did not know if all were out of the building during a fire. The Cockrill petition endangers Airbnb users and neighbors will bear the negative effect because there is no one to care for the unit. She stated that another negative aspect of the Cockrill petition is that it will allow a corporate short term rental. Also Cambridge cannot afford to lose rental housing. She stated that unregulated or slight regulations of Airbnb would lead to gentrification. She stated that the intent of all is to balance the needs of homeowners, community and all others. She stated that homeowners should be able to rent their units without causing an effect on the rental housing. She stated that the Cockrill petition does not strike this balance. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT E).

Sherry Madden, 70 Griswold Street, stated that she has been a host since 2015. She supported the Cockrill petition. She stated that the restriction of the City Council petition would create a hardship on her. She rents a twin bed in a room. The City Council petition is too restrictive. She stated that it is an imposition to tell her neighbors her business. She did not think that the petition is fraudulent. She urged caution to not over-regulate. She was affected when rent control was eliminated. She sees apartments being built everywhere and she is baffled by the fact that it is doomsday that Airbnb rentals are ruining the City. How is Airbnb taking away housing when all this development is occurring. The Councillor Kelley petition is heavy handed to her and is intrusive.

Shelley Rieman, 201 Franklin Street, stated that she has been an Airbnb host for three years. She has mixed and negative feelings about Airbnb in the last year because of the experience that some of her guests have had. A house on her street was sold to be an Airbnb. Cambridge needs housing and there are many good short term rental hosts and it is not morally correct to have whole buildings be an Airbnb.

Public comment closed at 4:23pm on motion of Councillor Carlone.

Councillor Kelley spoke about the process here was wrong; there was a rouse here. All can disagree but the process needs to be honored.

Councillor Mazen stated that this was a rouse and a distraction and desperate action to lobby on behalf of a special interest. This is bad and the signatories were not valid. It is wrong for a group that campaigns on behalf of the City Council to lobby for a group on another issue. This seems to be a conflict of interest. The City Clerk explained the petition filing process. Councillor Mazen stated that the perception is wrong and spoke about conflict. He wanted the process to be clear, transparent and fair.

Councillor Devereux spoke about rethinking how zoning petitions are accepted and how they are named. She asked if there is another way to identify petitions. She spoke about what can be learned from this situation. She stated that it was awkward to listen to Ms. Cockrill's testimony at the Planning Board hearing. She stated that she is not in support of this framework. She spoke about a requirement in Brooklyn, NY that there was a logo on the front door that the unit was an Airbnb; this was a requirement. She stated that even with building new units there is housing crisis and if this is not put into place these units will be Airbnb and defacto hotels. There are rooming housing and there are many ways for short term rentals. We are not limiting opportunities for people to visit here.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he opposed this petition. The threshold to file a petition is low. No City Councillor has blamed Airbnb for the affordable housing crisis. Airbnb is part of the bigger puzzle. The percentage of taking apartments off the market for Airbnb is an increasing percentage and the City is getting out in front of this problem.

Councillor Devereux stated that her request to ask the City Clerk to review the process in naming petition is not to make it harder for citizens to file legitimate petitions. This petition was used to subvert the process. She stated that the state law was circumvented.

Councillor Carlone stated that it seems to him that whoever is filing a petition should list their name and contact information on the petition form and then verified through a communication.

Councillor Carlone requested a recommendation.

Councillor Kelley stated that he would like to vote this petition down tonight. The Planning Board memo stated that this petition is not similar to the City Council petition and should not have any subsequent impact on this petition.

Councillor Carlone move that the petition be referred to the full City Council with an unfavorable recommendation. On this motion the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillors Carlone, Cheung, Devereux, Kelley and Mazen, Vice Mayor McGovern and Councillor Toomey – 7
NAYS: None - 0
ABSENT: Councillor Maher and Mayor Simmons - 2
and the motion - Carried.

A communication was received from Jacquelyn Smith, 7 Ashburton Place, in opposition to the Cockrill petition (ATTACHMENT F).

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

The hearing adjourned at 4:44pm on motion of Councillor Carlone.

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