potential amendments to the AHO - Beware of the unintended consequences

1 Taylor, Bernice From: Young Kim <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 2:11 PM To: Siddiqui, Sumbul; Mallon, Alanna; Azeem, Burhan; Carlone, Dennis; McGovern, Marc; Nolan, Patricia; Simmons, Denise; Toner, Paul; Zondervan, Quinton; City Clerk Cc: City Manager; O'Riordan, Owen; Farooq, Iram Subject: City Manager's Agenda Item #3 re potential amendments to the AHO - Beware of the unintended consequences. Dear Mayor, City Councillors and City Clerk, Please do not accept City Manager's Agenda Item #3 re potential amendments to the AHO ZO but return it for further consideration. The CDD report CM transmitted to you has two glaring issues: 1. It shows how interest driven this amendment is. The report continues the totally biased approach of the sponsoring Councillors crafting their proposed amendment in consultation with Local Affordable Housing Builder. Any amendment to the ZO should be done deliberately and in the best interest of all Cantabridgians, not just special interest groups 2. Given the above, CDD staff didn't exercise due diligence of modeling potential developments based on the proposed amendment at proposed areas that will be impacted by the amendments. The report should justify how these potential developments will fit into the City's master plan and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood (traffic and parking issues for one). Please require CDD to develop such model scenarios and justify that the proposed amendment confirms the intent of the ZO. It might be true that all the non-profit affordable housing developers CDD consulted are truly driven by the altruistic motif of helping housing insecure members of our community. However, in reality that most likely is not the case for the majority of real estate developers. If you want an actual example of the extreme extent a developer would go to achieve their intended financial goal, take a look at the case of 54R (now 56) Cedar Street. Originally, the lot had one house behind 54 Cedar Street with a large open space in the front. After renovating the original house, the developer applied for a special permit to build the current house in the front because there was a small corner of the original house that didn't meet the zoning ordinance requirement for being within 75 feet from the street property line. The Planning Board agreed with the neighbors and rejected the application as not fitting in the context of the neighborhood. The developer carried out his threat made during the hearing and at the first chance allowed under the Zoning Ordinance rules, the developer lopped off the part of the renovated building that didn't meet the ZO and built- as-of right what the neighbors dubbed "spite house" that the PB had rejected. In the case of the proposed AHO amendment, a developer, be it for-profit or non-profit, can do bare minimum to check off the steps required and come before the PB for non-binding review. Regardless of the PB's review opinion and neighbors' concerns, the developer can claim the desperate need for affordable housing outweighs them all and carry out the project. This will destroy the "fabric of neighborhood" and the character of Cambridge we cherish and want to pass down to our children and many more generations to come. Thank you for your consideration, Respectfully yours,

2 Young Kim Norris Street