O-2     May 2, 2016
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
MAYOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
WHEREAS: Cambridge continually strives to improve pedestrian infrastructure to encourage people to walk more as part of its commitments to Mass in Motion and Complete Streets; and
WHEREAS: Sandwich boards and A-frame signs can act as helpful tools for businesses seeking to attract new customers, but a profusion of such signs can contribute to visual clutter, which may actually defeat their intended purpose as advertising tools; and
WHEREAS: Sandwich boards and A-frame signs can create obstacles on crowded sidewalks that can make it difficult for pedestrians to maneuver; and
WHEREAS: In reviewing recent applications for sandwich boards and A-frame signs, the City Council has discussed reviewing the criteria by which such signs are approved and potentially creating a checklist that would better balance the reasonable desires of businesses for additional signage with the need to keep the sidewalk clear for pedestrians; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Economic Development and University Relations Committee be and hereby is requested to review City Ordinance 12.08.010 Encroachments onto streets – Permit required – Fee – Exceptions to discuss whether including additional approval criteria and adjusting the permitting fees is appropriate.

O-4     May 2, 2016
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
MAYOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: Candidate participation in municipal elections is high, with an average of 22 candidates for City Council and 10 candidates for School Committee during the each of the last 3 election cycles; and
WHEREAS: Despite the high candidate participation, voter participation in the City’s municipal elections has been low, with less than 28% of Cambridge’s estimated 65,791 registered voters casting their vote for their civic leaders; and
WHEREAS: A major barrier to voter engagement in municipal elections is lack of easily accessible information about candidates and their platforms; and
WHEREAS: Lack of information disproportionately affects citizens who are unable to attend in-person events, citizens who are not computer literate, and citizens who do not speak English as their primary language; and
WHEREAS: Residents who are new to Cambridge are not likely to be targeted by political campaigns and would be more likely to participate in elections with a mailed introduction to candidates and an explanation of the basics of our proportional representation voting system, which is not widely used; and
WHEREAS: A City published voter guide would be a cost effective lever for Cambridge to reach and to inform every voter during election season; and
WHEREAS: New York City, New York, Lawrence, Kansas, and other cities publish voter guides, which include candidate submitted biographical information, top priorities, and other relevant information, and include appropriately prescriptive guidelines to preserve the city’s impartiality; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to coordinate with the appropriate City departments to publish a Cambridge voter guide, to be distributed to each household in Cambridge a month before the 2017 municipal election; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to ensure that the voter guide will contain space for candidate-submitted summaries of their platforms and qualifications; will also include a list of additional resources voters can use to inform themselves of the candidates, such as links to candidate websites and questionnaires organized by community groups; and will include any other information deemed appropriate to engage and educate voters including an explanation of proportional representation and polling locations; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to ensure that the guide will be translated into all languages commonly spoken in Cambridge upon request, and that this option will be well publicized through the distribution of the printed guide to households with a pdf available online; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to coordinate with the appropriate City departments to report back with a timeline for roll out and implementation for the 2017 election within the next six months.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Apr 12, 2016 beginning at 1:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber for the purpose of receiving an update from the Cambridge Housing Authority on the RAD process and to consider the recommendation from the City Manager for appointment of Naomie Stephen as a Commissioner of the Cambridge Housing Authority.

Present at the hearing were Mayor E. Denise Simmons; Vice Mayor Marc C. McGovern, Co-Chairs; Councillor Dennis Carlone; Councillor Jan Devereux; Councillor Craig Kelley; Richard C. Rossi, City Manager; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Chris Cotter, Housing Director, Community Development Department; Greg Russ, Executive Director; Michael Johnston, Deputy Executive Director; Marcia Franklin, Director of Leased Housing; Dillon Harvey, Relocation/Housing Search Coordinator; Margaret Moran, Director of Planning and Development; James Comer, Director of Operations; Terry Dumas, Former Director of Planning and Development; Tara Aubuchon; Neal Alpert; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Naomie Stephen; Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli, Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust; Joseph Caparco; John Ziniewicz; Jean Hannon; Hasson Rashid; Glenna Wyman; Sherri Tucker; and Sonia Andujar.

Mayor Simmons gave an opening statement and overview of the meeting. She stated that the Housing Committee is looking to address two separate, but related, items pertaining to the CHA. She stated that the first thirty minutes of the meeting will be focused on the City Manager’s appointment of Ms. Naomie Stephen. She asked Mr. Rossi to introduce Ms. Stephen and then offer Ms. Stephen the opportunity to make remarks. The committee members may then ask questions. She stated that at the close of this segment of the meeting the committee will turn its attention to the representatives of the CHA who have been asked to provide the committee with an update on how their RAD program has been progressing. She noted that there is a substantial amount of ground to cover and as such, she has asked the CHA to provide written responses to a variety of questions. (Attachment A). She stated that if committee members have additional questions they are welcome to reach out to Mr. Russ or Mr. Johnston to receive answers to such questions. She invited the committee members to copy her on any emails that are sent to Mr. Russ or Mr. Johnston if they would like these future responses to be included in the record moving forward. She introduced Richard C. Rossi, City Manager.

Mr. Rossi opened by stating that he pleased to put forth his recommendation on the appointment of Naomie Stephen as a Commissioner of the Cambridge Housing Authority. He stated that Ms. Stephen is

a former employee of the Cambridge Housing Authority from 2006-2015. He said that Ms. Stephen has formed strong working relationship with various tenant councils, the Alliance of Cambridge Tenants (ACT), Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee (CEOC) and legal services, working on major policy changes such as the Administrative Plan, Federal Public Housing Lease, Smoke-Free Policy and the RAD conversion. He stated that while employed by the CHA, Ms. Stephen most recently served as the CHA Senior Program Manager for Customer Service & Communications and managed CHA programs and initiatives focused on improving the quality, comfort and ease of use of CHA’s business interactions among staff, clients, residents and others. He stated that Ms. Stephen grew up in Walden Square and is a current resident of North Cambridge. Mr. Rossi stated that the interview committee was impressed with Ms. Stephen’s knowledge and understanding of the housing policy and willingness to reach out and forge relationships with all tenants. He stated that Ms. Stephen would be a quality member of the CHA team.

Mr. Russ stated that he has had the great pleasure of knowing Naomie for some time. He said that she is thoughtful and fair-minded and noted that her time in Cambridge and seeing how residents live in the City is an invaluable asset to the CHA. He noted that Ms. Stephen has a great understanding of issues before the CHA.

Councillor Kelley stated his concern is that there is not sufficient focus on educational success at the CHA. He said that he would like to see someone with expertise in urban education within the CHA. He stated that Cambridge is not getting educational results based on data. He questioned how to build that capacity at the CHA. Councillor Kelley said that he wants to see a focus on educational success within the CHA. Mr. Rossi responded that if that is the case, it is important to include specific wording when advertising for these positions. He stated that specific wording can negatively limit the number of candidates that apply for such a position. Mr. Rossi added that if education is a direction in which the CHA wants to move forward, Ms. Stephens would certainly bring knowledge to the table. Mayor Simmons noted that the CHA board is a policy-making board, although she understands the points made by Councillor Kelley. Mayor Simmons stated that she would like the committee to meet with representatives from the CHA quarterly in order to improve interaction and communications with the CHA. She stated that one of the topics in these quarterly meetings could be focused on the educational aspect and the role of the CHA. She stated that it would be beneficial for members of the School Committee to attend this meeting as well. She stated that while she understands Councillor Kelley’s comments, it is important to use specific language in a job advertisement.

Mr. Russ stated that CHA is very engaged and estimated that through programs that are currently taking place as well as joint partnership initiatives with the City, the CHA is reaching 40% of the teen population currently. He noted that the Workforce Youth Program serves 211 teens. He stated that 50% of the participants of the Workforce Youth Program secure post-secondary degrees within 5 years of high school graduation. He noted that nearly 2/3 of these participants no longer live in public housing within 6 years of graduating from the program. He stated that this program consists of 11 staff members and 4 part-time workers who also staff a summer literacy program. He stated that the fundamental issue driving the ability to support what the Cambridge Public Schools are doing is the annual cost which is $3,400 per student. He stated that a source of funding is needed. He stated that this year the CHA launched a matched savings account program with the participants in the Workforce Youth Program. He stated that there are 120 participants taking advantage of this program that teaches savings. He stated that the This Way Ahead program is serving 80 participants. He stated that he is pleased with the robust set of connections in place.

Councillor Kelley stated that he cannot be the only one who goes to graduation and sees who is wearing the National Honor Society robes. He said that he wants everyone thinking about what more can be done. He stated that it when having such discussions he always wants to question how to do better.

Mayor Simmons pointed out that one should not assume every child not wearing the National Honor Society robes is coming from subsidized housing. She urged the committee to be cautious in that it that may sound like all children living in public housing are not succeeding, when this is not necessarily the case. She stated that the Port is one of the poorest neighborhoods in the city, yet her grandchild attended school in this area and recently made the Dean’s List once again. She added that some may glean from the comments that the committee is saying that certain populations of students are underperforming. She said that it is important to continue to push this conversation forward.

Mr. Rossi added that Mr. Russ and his team do an amazing job in areas where they do not have the appropriate kind of funding earmarked for programs that are being discussed. He stated that the CHA turns over every rock to benefit the lives of their residents. He stated that they stand above the rest of the housing authorities in this regard.

Councillor Carlone stated that he has had experience with children from the CHA through the Say Yes to Education program. He stated that this program transformed the participants. He stated that what most impressed him was the fact that the two leaders of this program would literally go to a child’s home in order to keep them involved with the program. He stated that he agreed with Councillor Kelley’s concerns regarding educational opportunities. Councillor Carlone noted that he is very pleased with the recommendation of the City Manager to appoint Ms. Stephen to the CHA board.

Councillor Devereux stated that she too shares the concerns of Councillor Kelley. She stated that while she thinks that the educational opportunities are important in the support capacity, she thinks it is unrealistic to think that a board member can increase these opportunities without more funding. She added that she is pleased with the recommendation of Mr. Rossi to appoint Ms. Stephen to the CHA board.

Mayor Simmons stated that last year the CHA held a series of customer service, diversity/cultural awareness and communications trainings for all of its staff. She stated that Ms. Stephen worked with the outside consultant to plan the training and attended many of the sessions. She asked Ms. Stephen her thoughts on what the CHA can do to improve customer service. Ms. Stephen stated that they recruited residents as advocates for the trainings which allowed for a small setting in which to talk and engage together. She said that people came away from that with better of understanding of each other. She stated that there was a lot of consensus that was gleaned. She noted that she was heartened by the reaction of the residents and staff. Mayor Simmons asked Ms. Stephen if she walked away from the trainings with ideas for improvements in services offered by the CHA. Ms. Stephen responded that the voices of all CHA residents are not always heard by CHA staff. She stated that her main takeaway from the trainings is that the CHA needs to better learn how to improve opportunities for communication among staff and residents. Ms. Stephen added that after leaving her employment at the CHA, she came to understand how many programs are taking place in Cambridge that are not taking place in other cities and towns.

Mayor Simmons asked Ms. Stephen if she feels that there are policies and procedures that the CHA Board of Commissioners should review in the next year. Ms. Stephen responded that if a policy is put in place it should be reviewed on a regular basis, although she does not feel that reviewing all programs and policies on an annual basis is always feasible. She stated that revising leases and incorporating the addendums set a tone that it is important to review policies.

Councillor Devereux made the following motion:
Ordered: That the recommendation of City Manager Richard C. Rossi on the appointment of Naomie Stephen to the Cambridge Housing Authority for a five-year term be forwarded to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation by the Housing Committee.

The motion passed on the affirmative vote of three members.

Mayor Simmons moved the conversation to a discussion of the RAD process by introducing Mr. Greg Russ. Mr. Russ gave a quick overview of many issues. He stated that each year, the CHA produces an Annual Plan and Report which is available on-line. He stated that the front of the document gives a short and quick way to see what the CHA is thinking about in the coming year. He stated that the plan also gives a quick window into capital improvements by the CHA. He stated that they are looking in the vicinity of $605 million in future construction. He said that as construction is completed, they have cut electricity by 63% which is a savings of $1 million dollars per year. He noted that they anticipate that in Phase 1 of RAD there will be 50% in water reduction. He stated that the plan articulates twin goals: preserving of public housing stock that the CHA owns and preserving as much affordable housing that is owned by others in the city. He stated that RAD is a cost neutral proposition. He stated that the CHA is in the midst of Phase 1 of RAD. He said that right now if we include RAD as one element of preservation, Jefferson Park is the second element that is not a RAD site. He noted that they are at $204 million dollars in construction at six sites. He stated that for every CHA and city dollar, their leverage is $8.86. He stated that the partnership extends across the city and into the schools. He stated that the CHA almost lost the Manning Apartments in January because of the State’s change in the bond cap but they had everyone pull together to come up with a plan. That is one of the largest property rehabs at approximately $60 million dollars. Mr. Russ noted they have begun the selection of engineering firms for Phase 2. He noted that Phase 2 is smaller with approximately 960 units. He said that they anticipate that Phase 2 may be more difficult to raise tax credit dollars on. He stated that they hope to go out later this year with an RFP for the Millers River site. He said that they will compile the planning documents and then approach the community once they have ideas. Mr. Russ noted that the remaining sites are Roosevelt Towers and the Putnam School. He said that it is the goal of the CHA to touch everything they own to put into service for the citizens. He explained that the CHA wants housing that begins to shed the institutional feel that one sometimes gets.

Mr. Russ explained that as privately owned or non-profit properties come to the end of their contract with HUD, they have the opportunity to opt out of servicing low income families, and both the CHA and the City have been working hard to preserve as many of these “expiring use” units as possible. He indicated that through the CHA’s expiring use program, 493 units have been preserved. He said that there is potential for many more units to be preserved as well. He stated that the CHA will become a different agency due to RAD criteria. He talked about the adult programs that the CHA is running. He stated that later in the year or early next, they will launch a Human Capital Campaign. He said that they will be looking to raise more money from foundations and others to create an opportunity to show that there is an investment in the hard units as well as the families that live there.

Mike Johnston stated that he would like to update the committee on the closing of the waiting list. He stated that at the last meeting they estimated 190 units in public housing and all of the vacancies would be used for relocation purposes due to RAD (rather than being used as units that would be populated by people who have been on the waiting lists, as per usual). In March of 2015, the CHA thought about ways in which to help offset these numbers. They decided to reach out to everyone with a local preference on the waiting list who was waiting for public housing and find out if they were interested in receiving a voucher instead of waiting for the renovated units. He said that 2,400 letters were sent out. He noted that 50% responded to the letter and almost all of them said that they were interested in getting a voucher and going through the screening process. He explained that in an average year, the CHA places 116 elderly/disabled applicants and 84 family applicants. He stated that although the voucher program is fantastic, the elderly and disabled do have trouble finding units in this scenario. He noted that if we do not preserve the stock of affordable housing, there will be problems housing this specific population going forward. He said that the CHA will hit the mark for family applicants using the voucher program as an alternative.

Mr. Johnston stated that people have been concerned about how long it will take to find a unit when using a voucher. He remarked that on average, those applicants that succeeded in finding a unit did so in approximately 2 ½ months. He explained that a voucher is valid for 4 months which includes an automatic extension of 2 months. He said that if someone cannot find a unit within the first 4 months they typically will not find a unit. He stated that voucher holders are competing with students and others in the market. He stated that they are still going through the 2,400 applications. He stated that when looking at page 4, table 3, 50% of the public housing applicants that received vouchers have moved out of Cambridge and that overall, 38% of utilized mobile vouchers are being used outside of Cambridge. He said that 62 public housing applicants were housed with a voucher. He said that Table 4 talks about whether someone has decided to pay more than 30% of their income for rent. He stated that in Cambridge, 14 households found units in Cambridge where the tenant’s portion of the rent was 30% of their income or below. He said that with the help of CDD, it was determined that all 14 units are inclusionary zoning units. He stated that 11 people found units in project based units where the CHA and owner have entered a contractual agreement to dedicate a voucher to that unit. These people are also paying 30% or less. He said that 5 are paying more than 30%. He stated that half of those that moved out of Cambridge are still paying more than 30% to rent. Mr. Johnston pointed out that the CHA has always continued to receive emergency applications. He said that they have done intake for 245 individuals who claimed to have an emergency. He explained that the CHA meets with the individual, conducts an intake and if the applicant’s intake is accepted, it goes to a committee for review. Since January, 95 have been recommended to the committee based on the four criteria used to determine emergency status. He said of those, 65 have been approved as emergency applicants.

Marcia Franklin stated that the CHA recognizes the need to assist voucher holders to stay in Cambridge. She stated that they hired Mr. Dillon Harvey who has met with community members to help to incentivize landlords to accept the vouchers.

Mr. Harvey explained that their major goal is to help get community members housed in Cambridge. One major function of his role is being more of a customer service contact for landlords and property owners in the community. He explained that the other piece is through the tenant education program, with the goal of empowering voucher holders to have a successful search. He said that under the tenant education program they are hoping to deal with financial issues and mediation skills with landlords. He stated that workshops on transitioning into housing will take place. He added that he is hoping for an optional course to help tenants and potential tenants deal with issues surrounding CORI mitigation.

Ms. Margaret Moran stated that the CHA has a robust capital improvement plan currently. She stated that it is a significant investment in public housing. She stated that they were asked to provide information on the status of RAD Phase 1. She said that the chart on page 15 shows that they are spending money every month. She said that at this point 16% has been spent and on schedule for ending dates for all projects. She noted the delay at Putnam Gardens and Newtowne Court and explained this is due to the learning curve for the contractor. They anticipate that this project will catch up to the deadline. She said that at this point of RAD Phase I, Wilson Court should be completed at the end of this month. She stated that there is lot of construction at Jefferson Park, and that the mild winter allowed for work to move forward at a brisk pace. She stated that the projects are contingent upon tax exempt bond financing. She stated that the key for financing issues is access to a significant amount of tax exempt bond financing.

James Comer stated that one of the big focuses over the past year has been relocation. He stated that two more employees have been brought on to assist with the relocation effort. He explained that over 180 relocations have occurred. He stated that one of the concerns has been what will happen to the people on the waiting list. He stated that beginning this month, they will start to re-occupy some of the units that have been held. He stated that the demand for the elderly/disabled has not been there. He stated that they will be drawing people off the wait list but first have to deal with people who have approved reasonable accommodation requests for units with special requirements. He stated that as more people get permanently housed they will be able to get a better picture.

Cheryl Ann Pizza-Zeoli stated that when talking about inclusionary zoning, her key point is that 50% of the inclusionary units are occupied with tenants with mobile vouchers. She stated that she was thinking about policy ideas around voucher placement. She stated that if you are a poor person, place matters more to you in a variety of ways. She noted that the other big thing is Matthew Desmond’s book. Mr. Desmond has a policy prescription to make a universal voucher program. Her reaction to this is: what good would that do in Cambridge? She stated the need to think about the people who are being issued vouchers right now but also there are changes related to RAD to project-based assistance. She said that at Miller’s River, people who are tenants as of June 1st have the right to immediately access a voucher. This is a new right. She questioned how to help the people to use that resource. She said that inclusionary zoning is an important connection. She stated that choice mobility is a housing need that is not talked about. She stated that CDD has a pilot program to help the homeless transition into housing. She stated that the CHA is preserving hard units for a long time. She stated that other communities have used RAD to privatize housing.

Councillor Carlone stated that he was impressed by the presentation. He said that the goals are remarkable. He asked if the Cambridge Housing Authority is the primary user of the RAD program in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Mr. Russ responded that the CHA got into the program early. He stated that he is not aware of another public housing authority in Massachusetts using this program. He said that you have to layer on more subsidy to make the numbers work here. He stated that CHA has made an imprint in the program and has benefitted from being early. Councillor Carlone congratulated the CHA on implementing this program. He said that in a separate discussion it would interesting to talk about the perennial problem of expanding the number of units in the community. He stated that it would be interesting to get the CHA perspective and that of other non-profits.

Councillor Devereux thanked the CHA for the presentation. She asked about Millers River. She stated that when looking at chart on page 16, she is struck by how much higher the Millers River cost total is. Mr. Russ responded that they have been able to maintain the buildings built in the 1970s. He explained that significant work has been done at Millers River around the heating system. He noted that the level of work is significantly higher at Millers River because it was built at a time when concrete and denser, longer-lasting materials were often used to construct buildings, but a consequence is that these buildings require more extensive work to renovate. He explained that in order to make the building more energy efficient, all new windows and a wrap are necessary. He noted that they learned from the LBJ building that wrapping presents an enormous potential to save energy. Ms. Moran added that part of the reason for the cost is the premium that is associated with doing work in a high rise property, as well the fact that it is more expensive to rehab a property that is partially occupied.

Mayor Simmons thanked the CHA for the presentation. She stated her thanks to the CHA for answering previous questions. She said that she will send the entire City Council a copy of the presentation for their information.

Of the 50% of applicants that chose to take a voucher, Mayor Simmons asked if these families can come back to Cambridge. Mr. Johnston responded that they would not automatically get a Cambridge unit but could use the voucher in Cambridge if they could find a unit. He explained that if an applicant has actually been relocated because of the RAD program, they have an automatic opportunity to return to Cambridge. Mayor Simmons added that she is pleased to hear the work of Mr. Harvey as it relates to working with applicants on credit restoration.

Mayor Simmons asked if there is some way that the city can be more intentional in making sure that people have more opportunity to get into the inclusionary zoning units. She asked what it would take for a more cooperative relationship with the CHA in this context. She added that a mobile voucher is a “golden ticket,” but that it may not necessarily be a useful tool for obtaining a unit in Cambridge if there is not greater collaborating between all the housing providers.

Ms. Iram Farooq stated that there is a great partnership with the CHA and the City of Cambridge. She stated that the inclusionary zoning program has been a real godsend. She noted that the pipeline of units is critically important to maintain because the CHA does not have the ability to house everyone. She noted the need to think about what the impacts will be on the market but it is also important to maintain the pipeline in order to continue to serve the people.

Mr. Chris Cotter stated that when talking about potential changes to the inclusionary program, it is important to understand what the supply has allowed the city to accomplish. He stated that they have undertaken an analysis of the city’s rental programs. He stated that this year, since July 1 of last summer, they have housed 160 new tenants in inclusionary units. He said that more than half of those have new vouchers with the majority assisted by the CHA. He stated that CDD is attempting to understand what

CHA programs people are coming through. He stated that the City is serving a significant number of voucher holders in the program, but we do need to talk more about some ideas or recommendations to streamline the process.

Mayor Simmons thanked all for attending the hearing. She thanked the CHA for their updates and explained that the next item on business for the Housing Committee will be the discussion of inclusionary zoning.

Mayor Simmons thanked all those present for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 2:42pm on motion of Councillor Carlone.

For the Committee,
Mayor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Apr 27, 2016 beginning at 3:06pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

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

Present at the hearing were Councillor Cheung, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Vali Buland, First Assistant City Solicitor; Owen O'Riordan, Public Works Commissioner; David Lefcourt, City Arborist; David Webster, Supervisor of Parks and Urban Forestry, Public Works Department; Nora Bent; Wilford Durbin; Dave Mattei; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Jazmyne Jackson, 575 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston; Marilyn Wellons, 651 Green Street; and John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street.

Councillor Cheung convened the hearing and explained the purpose. This hearing is a result of Policy Order # 1of Feb 22, 2016 which was referred to the Ordinance Committee together with a Communication and Reports from City Officers from Councillor Kelley on Feb 22, 2016 transmitting information about complaints received regarding Running Bamboo. (ATTACHMENT A- 1 AND A -2). He stated that the hearing was being private audio recorded. He outlined the format of the meeting.

Councillor Kelley, the petitioner, provided a PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT B). This is not to ban bamboo; but rather to confine Running Bamboo because it is destructive. He stated that a resident had a problem with bamboo coming onto her property. His aide researched what is done by other communities to confine bamboo. He stated that the proposed ordinance may work for Cambridge. The proposed draft ordinance has been approved by the Public Planting Committee. Running bamboo is very difficult to stop; it grows anywhere, including inside buildings, in concrete and underground. When bamboo encroaches on property it is hazardous. Bamboo being green for a long period of time can hold snow and when the snow melts the plant can spread. He highlighted all the communities that have banned Running Bamboo. He wanted to get in front of the Running Bamboo issue before it becomes a problem and a threat. Running bamboo is not needed in Cambridge. He stated that there are laws in other states that regulate Running Bamboo. Containment and setbacks can regulate Running Bamboo. He reiterated that this is to confine Running Bamboo. He highlighted the provisions of the proposed Running Bamboo Ordinance as follows:

• confusion is removed about the responsibility of the bamboo owner;
• fills a gap in existing regulations on plants over and under property lines;
• establishes a duty to confine Running Bamboo and establishes a four foot buffer zone;
• establishes fines for continuing offenses;
• allows abutters to protect their property; and
• makes owners of Running Bamboo responsible for damages and removal.

He stated that the ordinance contains guidelines. He stated that Running Bamboo is a hazard that the City can regulated and mitigated from private property.

Mr. O'Riordan referred back to the presentation that was made to the Public Planting Committee on this issue. In principle the committee supported the proposed ordinance and felt it should be on the state's invasive species list which it is not on now. There are city parks, the Old Morse Park and Franklin Street Park that have Running Bamboo. The city maintains both parks and cuts back the bamboo. He stated that the key concern with the proposed ordinance is with private property. He noted that the role of the Department of Public Works in terms of compliance with the proposed ordinance is working on private property. The proposed ordinance does not require city personnel to work to remove the Running Bamboo from private property. He stated his concern with the timeline of removal of bamboo in section 8.69.07. He suggested that it should be 90 to 120 days. He stated that the last sentence in the 8.69.090 needs more work relating to incidental damages.

Councillor Cheung opened public comment at 3:21pm.

Marilyn Wellons, 651 Green Street, urged that caution be used when planting bamboo. She wanted the city to help property owners. This used to be called invasive weeds. She spoke above them being referred to as "invasive" currently. She spoke about the speed that this proposed ordinance was acted upon compared to the Noise Ordinance and the proposed Lighting Ordinance. She noted that the city is reluctant to go to court to collect the Noise Ordinance fines. She spoke about the difficulty to control or regulate bamboo. She is concerned about how easy this was acted upon.

On a motion by Councillor Kelley public comment was closed at 3:26pm.

Councillor Cheung opened the hearing to comments by the City Council.

Councillor Devereux agreed with the intent of the proposed ordinance. She agreed that the timing should be longer. She was in support of the city staff consulting the City Solicitor regarding incidental damages.

Councillor Cheung stated that this could be a model of expediency for quality of life issue in the City. He noted that bamboo can be planted responsibly. The issues Commissioner O'Riordan raised with the proposed ordinance needed a quick reply regarding any changes to the proposed ordinance, collecting fines, and enforcement and incidental damages. He asked if 30 days was a reasonable amount of time to draft changes to the proposed ordinance. Commissioner O'Riordan expressed his concerns with incidental damages on private property, timing and the city working on private property.

Councillor Kelley stated that he understands concerns about private property issues. He stated that he wants this to be strong ordinance and enacted quickly. He stated that the problems at 43 Cedar Street cannot be solved with this proposed ordinance.

Commissioner O'Riordan stated that it is unreasonable to excavate and remove bamboo with a significant amount of growth within thirty days. He suggested 120 days. Councillor Kelley responded that residents can go to Public Works with their bamboo removal plan within thirty days and then the Commissioner of Public Works can examine property in 120 days. Mr. O'Riordan stated that property owners need discretion with their property. He asked how are incidental damages determined when trying to rid property of Running Bamboo.

Councillor Kelley moved that this matter be kept in committee and he would work with the Commissioner of Public Works and the Law Department to draft language to address the concerns expressed.

The motion to keep the matter in committee carried on a voice vote of three members.

Councillor Cheung noted that when the Ordinance Committee co-chairs hear back from Councillor Kelley with additional information another hearing may be held.

The following e-mail was received from Carolyn Shipley transmitting information about planting bamboo and bamboo species (ATTACHMENT C).

Councillor Cheung thanked all those present for their attendance. The hearing adjourned at 3:39pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Leland Cheung, Co-Chair

LATE COMMITTEE REPORT
Committee Report #3
The Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee held a public hearing on Fri, Apr 29, 2016 beginning at 10:32am in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the recommendation of the City Manager regarding the reappointment of Conrad Crawford to the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Maher, Chair of the Committee; Vice Mayor McGovern; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Devereux; Richard Rossi, City Manager; Tom Evans, Executive Director, CRA; Kathy Born, Chair of CRA; Margaret Drury, Vice-Chair of CRA; Conrad Crawford; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street.

Councillor Maher convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the meeting was being privately recorded. This is one of two appointments that the City Manager makes and requires City Council confirmation. This matter appeared on the City Manager's Agenda on April 11, 2016 (ATTACHMENT A). In the City Council Rules a new process was created where the appointments to the CHA and the CRA would be referred to a committee for a hearing. City Manager Rossi stated that CHA and CRA appointments require City Council confirmation and this is the process that was developed a year ago. He stated that CRA Board has done excellent work and has fostered great relationships with residents, businesses and the City Staff. He spoke about the continuing nature for the CRA Board. He did not seek other applicants because he was going to reappoint Mr. Crawford to continue the continuity of the CRA Board. He stated that Mr. Crawford has been a member of the CRA Board since 2012. He works hard for transparency and has a master’s degree from Tufts. Mr. Rossi commented that Mr. Crawford has developed good working relationships and he is pleased to announce Mr. Crawford reappointment to the CRA Board.

Councillor Toomey stated that he enthusiastically endorses the reappointment of Mr. Crawford. He stated Mr. Crawford lives close to Grand Junction path. He has contributed much to the City and is an asset to both the CRA and City. He will vote for the reappointment of Mr. Crawford to the CRA.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he will vote to reappoint Mr. Crawford. He spoke about the process. Mr. Rossi stated that he would bring any appointment before the City Council that requires confirmation. He noted that there is one member to the CRA Board who is a state appointment that the City Council does not need to confirm. He stated that he has no concerns about the reappointment of Mr. Crawford. He supported Mr. Crawford. Mr. Rossi stated that this process is a good process. He stated when appointments need to be confirmed he lets the applicant know this. He stated that there was a concern about the contact between the CRA board members and the communities groups.

Councillor Devereux stated that it was nice to meet Mr. Crawford. She wanted to keep the continuity for the CRA.

Councillor Maher stated that today’s hearing allows us to pause and look at the CRA today and where it was previously. He stated that gratitude is owed by the City Council to the CRA board members and Mr. Evans. They are committed to transparency and including community input. Today there is public confidence in the CRA. He stated his belief that there is an expanded role for the CRA where they can provide assistance to the City Council and residents going forward. Mr. Rossi agreed. The City views the CRA as city partners. Councillor Maher stated that the CRA is independent and this gives the CRA credibility. He hopes that thru the Envision Cambridge process confidence is built.

Councillor Toomey stated that the CRA members are participants in the East Cambridge Planning Team meetings.

At this time Councillor Toomey moved that the appointment of Mr. Crawford be approved and forwarded to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation for confirmation. The motion carried. Councillor Maher thanked all present for their attendance.

The hearing was adjourned at 10:47am on motion of Councillor Toomey.

For the Committee,
Councillor David P. Maher, Chair