a report from Councilor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair and Councilor Sumbul Siddiqui Co-Chair of the Housing Committee for a public hearing held on April 10, 2018 to discuss the first annual report from the Community Development Department as called for in the updated Inclusionary Zoning ordinance

Attachnent A Opening Remarks For April 10, 2018 Housing Committee Meeting 5 pm in Sullivan Chamber The Housing Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the first annual report from the Community Development Department as called jor in the updated Inclusionary Zoning ordinance. The Committee will also continue discussions on the Comprehensive Housing Plan that was introduced in September 2017 by then-Mayor Simmons, and will select the top priorities for the rest of the term. Good evening, I want to thank you all for coming to this evening's Housing Committee hearing. The call of the meeting is as follows: "The Housing Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the first annual report from the Community Development Department as called for in the updated Inclusionary Zoning ordinance. The Committee will also continue discussions on the Comprehensive Housing Plan that was introduced in September 2017 by then-Mayor Simmons, and will select the top priorities for the rest of the term." We will start this hearing with a brief discussion about the Annual Housing Report that is being prepared by the CDD, as called for in the recent changes to the Inclusionary Ordinance. Our CDD representatives will briefly walk us through the preliminary report, and we will have a chance to weigh in on any additional information we're hoping to see included in the final draft. Since the Committee members are just seeing this for the first time today, I suspect we'll need some time to sit with this and then I would ask that Committee members email any additional information you wish to see included in the final report to the Co-Chairs of this committee within the next two weeks, so that we may forward those requests to the CDD. The balance of tonight's hearing will be given over to setting our priorities for the rest of this term. As l've previously mentioned, it is my hope that we can return to the Comprehensive Housing Plan that I submitted last September and hone in on the handful of initiatives that we feel are both worth further exploration, AND that we feel could be vetted and passed by the Council within the next 15 months. The items my Co-Chair and 1 are particularly interested in exploring are the following:

• Creating a Housing Overlay District • Establishing Tenant Protections, including "Just Cause Eviction" — what can Cambridge do expeditiously on a local level that wouldn't necessarily require a Home Rule petition? • Having the City commit $20 million over 5 years for affordable housing preservation and development • Looking at the Fees and Requirements we place upon affordable housing developers - does it make sense to consider easing some of these requirements? • Establishing a method of collecting Eviction Information from the city's landlords, which would give us a clearer sense of who is being evicted and why. Again, those are the items that Councilor Siddiqui and / would like to advance during this term - but we would like to hear from the rest of the Committee on whether there are other items we should be focusing on. I will again underscore how important it is that we be deliberate in how we move forward this term. The Community Development Department is looking to us for guidance and direction in terms of the Council's priorities - it is up to us to send them a clear list of priorities and then work TOGETHER to see if these new ideas can succeed in Cambridge. There may be a great temptation to pursue a cluster of new policies each week in the hopes of seeing what sticks, but unfortunately the legislative process only succeeds when we identify a goal and methodically work towards that. That's why I want us to put our heads together now, settle upon the 4 or 5 or 6 policies that we think we can vet and pass, and then work towards those throughout this term. This is about being mindful of how this process works, being mindful of what can realistically be achieved during a two year legislative term, and then working within those perimeters to the best of our abilities. Again, I want to thank everyone for coming today. I am going ask my Co-Chair if she has any opening remarks, then we will go around the table to introduce ourselves. We will then have the CDD lead us through their briefing, and we'll open the floor to discussion after that. We will end this hearing with time for Public Comment. Councilor Siddiqui, the floor is yours.

Attachment B Opening Remarks from Councillor Siddiqui Hi everyone, thank you for coming. I am looking forward to the discussion about inclusionary zoning from the CDD, and to discuss our priorities based on the Comprehensive Housing Plan from last term. Housing is an issue that is intertwined with so many othersissues of poverty, education, public health, economic development, and environmental justice. There is no doubt we have to take a multi-prong approach to the affordable housing crisis, and that there are many possible paths forward. Some solutions will be easier than others to start working on but I think if we can make sure we are choosing items that will have high-impact and that are teasible, we will be able to have a productive term. My first priority is to create a city-wide affordable housing overlay district. An overlay district would provide incentives to developers to build more affordable units by increasing density bonuses, increasing allowable heights, lowering car and bike parking requirements, streamlining us to implement the permitting process, and reducing fees. This would also allow recommendations from the Envision Cambridge working group, and would encourage more affordable units across the city (rather than being concentrated in a few neighborhoods). My second priority is to support a state real estate transfer tax which is dedicated to affordable housing. This would provide more money for the Affordable housing trust. Somerville is exploring this-will require a Home Rule Petition. My third priority is to eliminate the payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) to the City for CHA RAD and FPH developments. These fees already go back to non-profit developers; instead of collecting the fees and then redistributing, this initiative would eliminate these additional fees for nonprofit developers. My fourth priority is to reduce or remove motor vehicle and bicycle parking requirements for affordable housing projects. Based on data on actual usage and distance from public transit. Our non-profit housing developers have shared that the number of affordable units we can build is limited because of car and bike parking requirement. Especially for buildings located near public transit, these requirements are not based off of actual usage. Reduce motor vehicle parking requirements for transit-accessible residential developments in exchange for additional affordable My fifth priority is to expand the preference for Cambridge residents to include former residents who have been displaced due to the high cost of housing. Many Cambridge residents who have section 8 vouchers must use them outside of the city (because of the lack of affordable units in Cambridge); once they leave Cambridge, they are moved to the bottom of the "out of city" resident list and do not get priority over folks who have never lived in Cambridge. Many residents who lose their homes, also lose their support networks, communities, and access to resources as a resident.

Attachnlent C CITY OF CAMBRIDGE Community Development Department IRAM FAROOQ Assistant City Manager for Community Development To: Housing Committee From: Community Development Department Staff Sandra Clarke Date: April 10, 2018 Deputy Director Re: Chief of Administration Inclusionary Housing Program Production Report The revisions to the inclusionary provisions in the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance were adopted by the City Council on April 3, 2017. The new provisions call for an annual review and report on the Inclusionary Housing Program. This is the first annual report since the enactment of the new provisions and covers production activity during the last year, during which time activity in the program has continued at a rapid pace. Projects Completed or In Construction As of April 1, 2018, there are 1,101 affordable units approved under inclusionary zoning or similar zoning requirements, an increase of 126 units since last April. Eight hundred and ninety units (890) are rental and 211 are homeownership units. Of these, currently 845 units are complete and occupied (650 rental and 195 ownership). Currently, an additional 256 units are under construction (16 ownership and 240 rental). Approximately 80 of the units under construction are nearing completion and should be ready for occupancy in the coming months. Approved Units Total Complete Under Construction 890 650 240 Rental 195 16 211 Homeownership Total [phone removed] The chart below shows the growth of the inclusionary program over the years. Recent growth has been mostly rental units. Inclusionary Housing Stock Growth 1200 1000 800 - Rental 600 - Ownership 400 Total 200 344 Broadway Cambridge, MA 02139 Voice: [phone removed] FY06 FY08 FY10 FY14 FY13 FY99 FY09 FY17 FY18 FY11 FY16 FY15 FY07 Fax: [phone removed] pre TTY: [phone removed] www.cambridgema.gov

Over the last year, inclusionary projects have been approved both under the revised inclusionary provisions and those in effect prior to the 2017 amendements. The revised provisions in the Ordinance are effective for projects that received special permits, or building permits on or after December 1, 2016. The requirement for projects permitted from December 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 is that 15% of the net residential square feet must be inclusionary housing. For projects permitted on or atter July 1, 2017, the requirement is 20% of net residential square feet. There remains a pipeline of projects that were permitted prior to the changes in the inclusionary requirements. Approved Projects Since April 2017, six new inclusionary projects have been approved. These six projects include a total of 126 affordable units, 122 rental units and 4 homeownership units. The revised inclusionary provisions apply to three of these projects - 47 Bishop Allen Drive, 195-211 Concord Turnpike, and 1699 Massachusetts Avenue, all rental projects for which 15% net residential square feet are devoted to affordable units is 15%. These 3 projects include a total of 49 new affordable units. The size of the approved projects ranged from 17 units to 320 units. Although there is still limited experience with the implementation of the new provisions, some impacts are already evident. Of the inclusionary projects approved under the new provisions, the total floor area of affordable units ranged from 14.5% of the residential square feet in one project to 15% in another. A monetary contribution to the Affordable Housing Trust is due for the difference between the required residential net floor area (i.e. 20% for projects permitted after July 1, 2017) and the residential floor area in the units. The contribution rate is $397 per square foot. The contribution for the approved projects will amount to a combined total of $32,633, and will be due prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building. In the approved projects, 13.5% of the total units are designated as affordable. The requirement for the provision of three-bedroom units has also had an impact, as is detailed below. Unit Size The revised ordinance contains provisions to promote family sized units, defined as units with three or more bedrooms and at least 1,100 square feet of floor area. For buildings with more than 30,000 square feet of net residential floor area, a family sized unit is required for every 6,000 of inclusionary housing floor area. Applying this requirement at 195-211 Concord Turnpike, has resulted in six of the twelve total three- bedroom units, or 50% of the three-bedroom units in the project, being designated as affordable. Only 6% of the studio units in the project are affordable. While the prior inclusionary housing provisions required affordable studio and three-bedroom units to be provided in proportion to the project, a goal of the 2017 amendments was to increase the proportion of family sized units and reduce the proportion of studio units. 2

For smaller projects, the proportion of affordable family sized units to all affordable housing units must be equal to or greater than the ratio of all family sized market rate units to all market rate units. For example, one of the inclusionary projects, to which the new inclusionary provisions apply, revised has a total of 17 units with two family sized units. The result is that at least one affordable unit must be a family sized unit, while the previous inclusionary provisions would not have required any affordable family sized units for this project. Bedroom Sizes of Rental Units Created Before and After Ordinance Revisions 50% 45% 43% 40% 34% 29% 30% 16% 16% 20% 12% 5% 10% 0% 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR Studio • Units under new ordinance - Rental • Units under prior ordinance - Rental There are currently 26 completed rental units with three or more bedrooms. This number will more than double to 53, as 27 three-bedroom rental units are now under construction. This includes new units subject to both the old and new inclusionary housing provisions. As for homeownership projects, there have not yet been new developments approved under the 2017 amendments. Homeownership projects have always had more three- bedroom units than rental units. Three-bedroom units account for 17% of all inclusionary homeownership units. The chart below shows the breakdown for all currently approved projects by unit size. Units per Bedroom Size - all Inclusionary Housing 2 BR 3+BR 1 BR Studios Total 300 53 397 890 140 Rental 16% 34% 45% 6% 70 35 211 5 101 Ownership 2% 48% 33% 17% 88 [phone removed] All Units 401 42% 13% 8% 36% 3

Homeownership Increase Although the rental market has been robust over the last several years and, as a result, the most significant increase in the number of inclusionary units is through rental projects, there are signs that the homeownership market is beginning to pick up. For almost three years, from March 2013 to April 2016, no new homeownership projects were approved. Since April 2016, 4 new projects with a total of 17 affordable homeownership units have been approved, and more are expected from projects in the pipeline. Middle Income (80-120% of AMI) Middle income units have been required to be included in some rental projects. There is one occupied project with middle income units at 270 Third Street, developed by Alexandria, and currently owned by Aimco. There are additional projects which require middle income units in the pipeline. The special permit for 249 Third Street requires 2 middle income rental units. Mass & Main will also provide 9 middle income rental units. The second residential building to be developed by Alexandria also requires middle income units, although the number has not yet been determined. Finally, the special permit for 40 Thorndike Street (the Sullivan Courthouse redevelopment) requires 8 of the 24 residential units be middle income (along with 8 low and moderate-income units). For homeownership, the revised ordinance increases the income limit for homeownership units to 100% AMI. When homeownership units are approved under the new provisions middle-income households will be eligible for them. Development Pipeline The pipeline of inclusionary projects has remained active over the past year. This is a summary of the projects that are currently permitted and expected to be developed in the future. Projects Under Inclusionary Review Four inclusionary projects are currently under review by CDD staff, and are expected to be approved in the coming months providing 11 affordable units, including 9 rental and 2 homeownership units. Three of these projects were permitted prior to the effective date of the new inclusionary housing provisions, while 605 Concord Avenue was granted a special permit in December 2016 and is subject to the 15% requirement. Permitted Pipeline Projects There are several projects with approved special permits, including multi-phased planned unit development (PUD) projects, that are expected to result in applications for inclusionary housing approval over the coming months. One example is the residential buildings within the First Street PUD which will be subject to the previous zoning provisions. Other projects which are not subject to the new zoning provisions and are expected to submit applications for approval include the next residential building in North Point (Parcel I) and the next residential building in the Alexandria PUD. Another 4

notable project, at 55 Wheeler Street, recently received a special permit and will be subject to the new provisions with a 20% requirement. This project was approved to create more than 525 total units and would become the biggest producer of new inclusionary housing. Pre-application Projects In addition, there continue to be proposals for new residential projects. Two residential proposals - a large development on Cambridgepark Drive and a smaller project on Cambridge Street -- are currently in the "pre-application" phase of Planning Board review prior to coming to the Planning Board. The new inclusionary provisions will apply to these projects, though the number of affordable units cannot yet be determined. Conclusion Over the last year, residential projects have moved forward under both the old and new inclusionary housing provisions and new residential projects are continuing to be approved and proposed. While three projects have been permitted under the new inclusionary provisions, it will take some time to fully gauge the impact of the revised ordinance. One early finding is that the new ordinance is resulting in a greater proportion of larger, family size units. In addition, there continues to be a strong pipeline of residential projects that will create new affordable inclusionary units throughout the city.

Attachment D CITY OF CAMBRIDGE Community Development Department IRAM FAROOQ Assistant City Manager for Lows Del'asquale, City Manager To: Community Development From: CDD Housing StaffUL Date: May 15, 2017 Sandra Clarke Overview of Tenants and Applicants for Inclusionary Rental Re: Deputy Director Chief of Administration Units We have prepared an update to the report which describes the status of the Inclusionary Rental program as of April 1, 2017 and the lease up activity trom April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017. There has been a focused interest on the inclusionary housing program over the last year as the City Council discussed and adopted amendments to the inclusionary housing provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. During these discussions, several issues were raised about the procedures and regulations of the program. Now that the Ordinance has passed, CDD is drafting regulations that will govern the rental program and address many of these issues. The regulations will be vetted through a public process and will be promulgated by the City Manager's office. The information in this memo will help to inform these discussions as they move forward. This is an overview of the inclusionary housing stock, the composition of the households living in inclusionary units, and information on recent lease ups, and provides an update to a similar report completed a yeat ago. Current IZ Rental Stock The City's Inclusionary Zoning Rental program has 622 completed units, of which 603 are currently occupied. The 19 vacant units include recently completed units which are being filled for the first time, and some older units which are turning over and being offered to new applicants. Also included are the 15 middle-income rental units at Vivo (at 270 Third Street). Total Completed Units as of 4/1/17 % # Units" 97% 603 Units Occupied 3% 19 Units In Process 622 100% Units Completed Data includes 15 units that are part of the Middle-Income Program at VIVO. Table 1 344 Broadway Cambridge, MA 02139 Voice: [phone removed] Fax: [phone removed] TTY: [phone removed] www.cambridgema.gov

As the table below illustrates, nearly 60% of completed units are studios and one- bedroom apartments (not including the 15 middle income units). Forty percent of the units are two bedrooms or larger. It is expected that the adopted changes to the inclusionary provisions in the Zoning Ordinance will increase the amount of family sized units created in the years to come. Completed Units by Bedroom Size Total OBR 1BR 2BRs 3BRs 4BRs 1 607 221 25 287 73 Low-Mod Program 36% 0% 100% 12% 4% 47% 7 8 0 Middle Income Program 47% 53% 0% 0% 100% 0% 622 1 294 229 73 Total Table 2 Characteristics of Households Living in Inclusionary Rental Housing The following charts look at the composition of tenants currently living in inclusionary units. Household Size: Since nearly 60% of inclusionary units are studio and one bedrooms, it follows that the most households (58%) in the inclusionary program are single person households, with the majority of those households living in one bedroom units. Nineteen percent of houscholds are two person households and the remaining 23% are three or more person households. Household Sizes - Occupied Units 6pp Total 4pp 3pp 5pp 2pp 1pp Bedroom Size 0 67 0 67 Studio 283 0 265 18 215 70 3 13 36 93 24 6 11 3 4 0 1 1 0 4 590 111 81 Total 9 40 345 14% 58% Percent 19% 7% 100% 2% *this includes residents with live-in aides or reasonable accommodations or more betwe families with children of the opposite sender or with ages 10 yoars Data does not include middle income units Table 3 2.

Age of Head of Household: The number of households in the age ranges of 30- 39, 40-54, and 55-69 are evenly distributed. Heads of household under 30 years and over 70 make up 12% and 7% respectively. Age Ranges of Heads of Household % Age in Yrs. 68 12% < 30 153 26% 30-39 29% 174 40-54 26% 55-69 156 7% 70+ 39 590 100% Total Data does not include middle income units Table 4 Children in the Portfolio: There are 310 children under 18 in the rental portfolio. Fifty- four percent are under the age of 6 and 46% are between 6 and 18 years old. 80% of the children live in two bedroom units. Total Number of Children by Bedroom Size, Occupied Units Total Percent Bedroom Size Children Under 6, Children under 18 0% 0 0 Studio 0% 1 1 1 80% 248 101 147 2 18% 57 37 20 3 1% 3 4 1 4 100% 310 142 168 Total 46% 100% 54% Percent : Data does not include middle income units Table 5 As shown in Table 6, 201 families in the portfolio have at least one child in their household. Of these families, 67% of families have at least one child under 6 and may also have other children between 6-18. Thirty three percent of the families have children who are between the ages of 6 and 18, but no child under 6. Eighty-nine percent of families with children reside in a two-bedroom apartment. A comparison of tables 5 and 6 demonstrates that of the two bedroom units occupied by families, the average number of children per unit is 1.4. The average number of children in 3 plus bedroom units is 2.5. Overall there are 1.5 children per unit among the units occupied by families with children. 3

Families with Children by Bedroom Size, Occupied Units Total Percent Children Under 6 Children under 18 Bedroom Size 0 0% Studio 1 0% 1 1 0 2 176 88% 56 120 11% 14 9 3 23 1 0.5% 1 4 135 100% 66 201 Total Percent 67% 100% 33% No household was counted more than once. If a household has two children ages 4 & 10 they would be counted once under "Children Under 6. Data does not include middle income units Table 6 Length of Tenancy: As of April 1, 2017, nearly half of households (49%) had moved into their unit within the last two years. Twenty percent of all households moved into their unit within the last 12 months. When compared to last year, we can see that the length of a household's tenancy is increasing. Last year's report showed that the percentage of households who had moved into their unit in the previous 12 months was 32%; this year 20% of households moved in within the last 12 months. At the same time the percentage of households living in their unit between 12 and 24 months increased from 19% in last year's report to 29% this year. This accounts for half of the current tenants. Twenty-seven percent of current households have been in their units for 5 or more years. The average length of tenancy was 44 months on 4/1/17. (To note - The number of tenants (119) who have moved into their unit in the last 12 months is greater than the number of recent lease-ups (101), as shown in Tables 10 and 11. This is due to a distinction between what is being measured in each table and how they are calculated. The calculation for the length of tenancy is based on the move in date, while the recent lease ups are derived from the date the lease is signed.) Length of Tenancy as of 4.1.17 - All Units Years in Current Unit 119 20% <12 Months } Last 12 Months (20%) 29% 172 12-24 Months 14% 24-36 Months 82 · 1-5 Years (63%) 10% 61 36-60 Months 110 19% 60-120 Months } 5-10+ Years (26%) 46 8% 120+ Months 590 Total 100% Data does not include middle income units Table 7 Participation of Voucher-Holders in Inclusionary Housing: Over the last couple of years we have seen an increase in voucher utilization in the Inclusionary Rental Program. From July 2010 through August 2014, the percentage of residents with vouchers in inclusionary units was 45%. Last year that percentage 4

rose to 53%. As of April 1, 2017, 56% of all households were voucher holders. The continuing increase in the proportion of voucher holders in the overall portfolio indicates that the percentage of voucher holder leasing up new units is exceeding the current voucher utilization rate (56%). Additionally, 86% of voucher holders hold their voucher through the Cambridge Housing Authority. Voucher Utilization # Дуре 44% 259 Non-Voucher Tenants 56% 331 Voucher Tenants 86% 284 CHA 14% 47 Other 100% 590 Total Data does not include middle income units Table 8 Resident Income Levels: Of non-voucher tenants, nearly 70% earn between 50- 80% of AMII for their household size. 17% of non-voucher tenants are below 50% of the AMI while 6.5% are above 80% of the AMI. AMI Levels* - All Non-Voucher Households by Family Size** % of % of non- Total брр 4pp 3рр AMI 5pp 2pp 1 pp vouchers portfolo 2.2% 0. 5.0% 13 0 1 3 <30% 5.3% 12.0% 0 5 2 31 6 16 30%-50% 68.3% 30.0% 177 31 30 15 99 50%-80% 5.3% 12.0% 0 31 2 20 80%-100% 1.2% 7 2.7% 2 >100% 43.9% 100.0% 4 0| 259 146 Total *Based on 2016 AMI limits and City 80% AMI (o.g. calculated 80% of 100% of median) **This information includes non-voucher households who are on minimum rent and below 50% of the AMI Data does not include middle income units Table 9 Overview and Characteristics of Recently Housed Tenants Between April 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017, 101 new households were housed in rental units. This does not include tenants who transferred units within the same property. Preferences of Recently Housed Applicants: As shown in Table 10, of the 101 tenants housed, 90 or 89% of new lease-ups were households that received Cambridge residency preference. Studio units were sometimes filled with tenants who did not receive Cambridge residency. This occurred in the first part of 2016 5

when several new buildings were being leased up and there were a lot of one bedroom units available. With a large number of units available, most Cambridge residents were not interested in studios. More recently, there have been tewer units available and all applicants who have been housed are Cambridge residents. Thirty-nine percent of the households served were families with children. The percentage of families with children is driven by the type of units that are available as shown in Table 11. Ninety-two percent of the family sized households had children under 6. Of all recent lease-ups, 39% had an emergency preference with homelessness and overcrowding being the prevalent emergency needs. Recent Lease Ups (4/1/16 - 3/31/17) % of Total Preference Status new # % leaseups 100% 101 Total New Leased Units 89% 90 Cambridge Residency 39% 100% 39 Families with Children 8% With Children under 18 3% 3 92% 36 36% With Children under 6 ** No household was counted more than once. If a household has two children ages 4 & 10 they would be counted once under "Children Under 6." 39% 100% 39 Emergency Need 12% 31% Homeless 12 41% 16% Overcrowded 16 3% 1 1% Code Violation 6% 6 Paying over 50% 15% - 10% No Fault Eviction 4% 4 Data does not include middle income units Table 10 Voucher Activity: Participation of voucher tenants has remained high. Between April 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017, 60 voucher holders were successfully housed, representing 59% of new lease-ups in that same period. Ihis represcuts an increase from last year, when voucher holders comprised 52% of new lease-ups (7/1/15-4/1/16). Of those 60 voucher holders, 92% obtained their voucher hrough the Cambridge Housing Authority. Most of the new units were one-an‹ wo-bedroom units 6

Recent Lease Ups (4/1/16 - 3/31/17) 3br+ # 2br % 1br Obr Type 41% g 41 19 13 Non Voucher 59% 60 4 18 31 7 Voucher 55 92% 5 4 CHA 30 8% 5 2 1 2 Other Voucher 37 40 101 100% Total This number includes two households in accessible units that do not have children. Data does not include middle income units Table 11 Type of Housing Prior to Entering Program: Prior to moving into inclusionary housing, 33% of new lease-ups were living in some type of affordable housing or shelter or had been homeless. 67% of new lease-ups were from market rate apartments or had unknown origins. This is a significant change fiom last year when 54% of new lease ups had been previously lived in affordable housing ot were homeless and 46% had appeared to be living in market rate housing. Recent Lease Ups (4/1/16 - 3/31/17) Prior Residency* % # 70% 71 Market/unknown 16 16% non-profit/Other Affordable 8 8% Public Housing 1 1% Other Inclusionary 5 5% Transitional Housing/Shelter (YCWA, YMCA, Heading Home, etc.) 101 100% Total Data does not include middle income units • Table 12 Summary of Rental Applicant Pool Attached is a summary of the rental applicant pool by preference groups as of 10- 17-2016. This is the most recent report of this activity. As you can see, the applicants who are in the lower preterence groups canno asily access inclusionary rental units. The applicant pool was initially created it May 2010 and there are applicants in the lowest preference groups who have never been served through the program. The previous report on this activity covered activity as of 3-31-16. Since the last report, the total applicants in the rental pool has increased by 26% from 1623 to 2037.

May 2010 June 2010 June 2011 May 2010 May 2010 May 2010 May 2010 May 2010 May 2010 May 2010 May 2010 July 2016 May 2010 May 2010 May 2014 June 2014 May 2010 June 2014 May 2010 June 2014 June 2011 April 2016 August 2022 April 2016 August 2016 January 2016 October 2013 January 2016 considered** November 2014 February 2016 oldest application not yet. 53 97 voucher:* G non- voucher cambridge "Cambridge" applicants. 88 516 516 604 Non- Voucher applicants 5% 0% 11% 2a255 16% 57% ----. 639 applicants applicants * ! points points tier total total resident subtotal resident subtotal resident subtotal non-resident subtotal non-resident subtotal Cambridge resident, child under 18, emergency need Cambridge resident, emergency need Cambridge resident, child under 6 Cambridge resident Non-resident, work in Cambridge, emergency need Non-resident, work in Cambridge Non-resident, no preference Non-resident, child under 18 Non-resident, child under 18, emergency need Cambridge resident, child under 18 3 Bedroom Cambridge resident, child under 6, emergency need Non-resident, work in Cambridge, child under 18 Non-resident, emergency need Cambridge resident Non-resident, child under 6 Cambridge resident, child under 18 Non-resident, work in Cambridge, child under 6 Non-resident, work in Cambridge, child under 18, emergency need Non-resident, child under 6, emergency need Non-resident, work in Cambridge, child under 6, emergency need Cambridge resident, child under 18, emergency need 2 Bedroom Cambridge resident Cambridge resident, emergency need Summary of the Rental Applicant Pool by Preference Group on 10.17.16 Non-resident, emergency need 1 Bedroom/Studio Cambridge resident, child under 6, emergency need Non-resident, no preference Cambridge resident, child under 6 Non-resident, work in Cambridge Cambridge resident, emergency need Non-resident, work in Cambridge, emergency need

May 2010 May 2010 May 2010 May 2010 May 2014 May 2014 April 2013 March 2013 _ May 2010 considered * October 2012. December 2013 oldest application not yet 328 224 105 104 voucher* vaucher* "Cambridge" 182 143 voucher "Cambridge" voucher applicants* applicants 311 373 186 186 Non- 1526 Voucher. Voucher applicants. applicants. 3% 8% · 1% 58% 100% 31% m Ma see Mes Les the [phone removed] applicants applicants total non-resident subtotal - me are are and as as ass des poo say an and and e a ta Non-resident, work in Cambridge, child under 18, emergency need Non-resident, work in Cambridge Non-resident, work in Cambridge, child under 5, emergency need Non-resident, child under 18 Non-resident, child under 6 3 Bedroom (con't) Non-resident, work in Cambridge, child under 6 *This is an accurate account at the time of application of Cambridge residents which have a "Cambridge" voucher and includes Cambridge residents who have a non-Cambridge Non-resident, work in Cambridge, emergency need Non-resident, child under 6, emergency need All Applicants Non-resident, work in Cambridge, child under 18 Non resident, child under 18, emergency need Non-resident, emergency need All Resident Applicants. Non-resident Non-resident Non-resident, work in Cambridge NOTES TOTAL ALL POOLS The data in this report is from the Rental Applicant Pool on 10.17.16 - studio units not considered separately as they are being offered to every resident applicant group; many studios are being offered to "non-resident applicants Voucher. Non-residents are identified as having a "Cambridge" voucher and non-Cambridge voucher. **oldest application not yet considered" are applicants who have not been sent to available property.

Attachment E IN 83 MILLION EVICTION RECORDS, A SWEEPING AND INTIMATE NEW LOOK AT HOUSING IN AMERICA New York Times - 4/7/2018 By EMILY BADGER and QUOCTRUNG BUI There are pictures and graphics at this website: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/04/07/upshot/millions-of-eviction-records-a-sweeping-new-look-at- housing-in-america.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first- column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news Nearly one million American households received eviction judgments in 2016 in new data spanning dozens of states. Candace Williams was evicted in Richmond, Va., which has one of the highest eviction rates in the data. Matt Eich for The New York Times RICHMOND, Va. — Before the first hearings on the morning docket, the line starts to clog the lobby of the John Marshall Courthouse. No cellphones are allowed inside, but many of the people who've been summoned don't learn that until they arrive. "Put it in your car," the sheriff's deputies suggest at the metal detector. That advice is no help to renters who have come by bus. To make it inside, some tuck their phones in the bushes nearby. This courthouse handles every eviction in Richmond, a city with one of the highest eviction rates in the country, according to new data covering dozens of states and compiled by a team led by the Princeton sociologist Matthew Desmond Two years ago, Mr. Desmond turned eviction into a national topic of conversation with "Evicted," a book that chronicled how poor families who lost their homes in Milwaukee sank ever deeper into poverty. It became a favorite among civic groups and on college campuses, some here in Richmond. Bill Gates and former President Obama named it among the best books they had read in 2017, and it was awarded a Pulitzer Prize. But for all the attention the problem began to draw, even Mr. Desmond could not say how widespread it was. Surveys of renters have tried to gauge displacement, but there is no government data tracking all eviction cases in America. Now that Mr. Desmond has been mining court records across the country to build a database of millions of evictions, it's clear even in his incomplete national picture that they are more rampant in many places than what he saw in Milwaukee. 2016 eviction judgment rates for renting households In states with more complete data Mr. Desmond's team found records for nearly 900,000 eviction judgments in 2016, meaning landlords were given the legal right to remove at least one in 50 renter households in the communities covered by this data. That figure was one in 25 in Milwaukee and one in nine in Richmond. And one in five renter households in Richmond were threatened with eviction in 2016. Their landlords began legal proceedings, even if those cases didn't end with a lasting mark on a tenant's record. For landlords, these numbers represent a financial drain of unpaid rent; for tenants, a looming risk of losing their homes. In Richmond, most of those evicted never made it to a courtroom. They didn't appear because the process seemed inscrutable, or because they didn't have lawyers to navigate it, or because they believed there is not much to say when you simply don't have the money. The median amount owed was $686.

Inside the courtroom, cases sometimes brought in bulk by property managers are settled in minutes when defendants aren't present. "The whole system works on default judgments and people not showing up," said Martin Wegbreit, director of litigation at the Central Virginia Legal Aid Society. "Imagine if every person asked for a trial. The system would bog down in a couple of months." The consequences of what happens here then spread across the city. The Richmond public school system reroutes buses to follow children from apartments to homeless shelters to pay-by-the-week motels. City social workers coach residents on how to fill out job applications when they have no answer for the address line. Families lose their food stamps and Medicaid benefits when they lose the permanent addresses where renewal notices are sent. "An eviction isn't one problem," said Amy Woolard, a lawyer and the policy coordinator at the Legal Aid Justice Center in town. "It's like 12 problems." Block-level eviction data was compiled by The Eviction Lab; population data is from the American Community Survey. The new data, assembled from about 83 million court records going back to 2000, suggest that the most pervasive problems aren't necessarily in the most expensive regions. Evictions are accumulating across Michigan and Indiana. And several factors build on one another in Richmond: It's in the Southeast, where the poverty rates are high and the minimum wage is low; it's in Virginia, which lacks some tenant rights available in other states; and it's a city where many poor African-Americans live in low-quality housing with limited means of escaping it. "This isn't by happenstance — this is quite intentional," said Levar Stoney, Richmond's mayor. A quarter of households here are poor, leaving many people a car repair or a hospital visit away from missing the rent check. But that poverty collides with a legal structure that responds to such moments swiftly. For cities with a population of 100,000 or more. Eviction filing rate refers to eviction cases filed per 100 renter households. Some households experience more than one summons in a single year. This is a state, Mr. Stoney and others say, that favors property owners, as it has since plantation days. And aid to the poor has been limited. Mr. Desmond's eviction calculations are probably conservative: They include only households that touched the legal process, not those in which people moved with an informal warning. The data undercount places where eviction records can be sealed or are harder to collect. In his eviction rates, Mr. Desmond counts the moment when a court delivers a judgment, not when the sheriff shows up. Tenants have often left by that point. In Richmond, property managers say that filing an eviction is their only recourse when tenants have not paid, and that they allow many to stay even after court judgments if they pay in full before the sheriff arrives. This means the court process also functions as a cumbersome rent-collection system, one that attaches attorney fees and court costs to rent checks, and one that saddles even tenants who don't lose their homes with lasting eviction records. Candace Williams experienced the threat, the judgment and the sheriff's visit when she fell behind on her rent in 2016. She was making $178 a week at a convenience store, a job she could reach without a car. Some of that money went to the space heaters and foam insulation she needed for the holes in the walls on the cheapest home she could find for her family.

She brought photos of the neglected repairs on her phone to court. When she learned she couldn't bring in the phone, she hid it under a trash can outside. When she arrived, late, to the courtroom, a default judgment had already been entered against her. "I definitely understand my fault in it," Ms. Williams, 43, said. "But they don't allow you any opportunity to make a mistake." The process is meant to be efficient, said Chip Dicks, a lawyer in Richmond who works on property management issues and has written provisions in the state's landlord-tenant law. Efficiency is good public policy, he argues: Neither the landlord nor the tenant benefits from a drawn-out process that would burden renters with even more unpaid rent, late fees and attorney costs. And landlords can't provide housing if they can't pay their mortgages, he added. "The landlords are the victims because they're the ones not being paid when they're supposed to be paid," Mr. Dicks said. "What happens when you don't pay your car payment? They come and take your car. What happens when you don't pay your mortgage payment? They come and foreclose on your house." Poor tenants here, however, are not ensured access to legal aid or shielded from steep rent increases, as in some cities. And they have no right, as tenants in some states do, to deduct their own repair costs from the rent. Laura Lafayette, the chief executive of the regional realtors' association, which has been supportive of more tenant protections, fears that this system can become a "churning machine" that fails to distinguish between the tenant who made one mistake and the tenant who habitually flouts the lease. Today, both walk away from court with the same consequences. After Whitney Gulley was evicted in 2014, she and her three children passed through many of the places people go when they carry an eviction on their record. They doubled up with family. They stayed in a long-term motel. They moved into a homeless shelter. They finally found an apartment willing to risk an evicted family — with a two-month deposit up front. Ms. Gulley was evicted over $569, her share of the rent on a home that was subsidized by a housing voucher. Her landlord said she did not receive the check, and Ms. Gulley did not go to court because she said she believed she could not bring her children with her. Before that disputed $569, Ms. Gulley was in recovery from an addiction to pain pills. She got her G.E.D., her driver's license and a car while in that home, one she remembers happily. After the eviction, she said, she relapsed. "I felt stripped down," she said. In the eviction she lost the writing journals she used as therapy. "It was like the only power and inspiration and the motivation had been taken out of me." This part of the process — what happens after the eviction - isn't efficient for anyone. Landlords, too, have to turn over vacant apartments, and they face a rental pool full of potentially disqualified tenants. The public housing authority in town, which was responsible for about 9 percent of the eviction judgments citywide in 2016, spends on average 50 days turning over apartments, costing the agency more in lost rent than unpaid rent cases are often worth. The median amount owed on a public housing eviction here, according to Mr. Desmond's data, was $328. The agency provides housing of last resort. But it is also a property manager. "I don't think you ever eliminate that tension," said Orlando Artze, the interim C.E.O. of the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority.

That tension is built into public housing, just as it is embedded in a school system that struggles to serve transient children while producing well-educated ones, or in a court system that tries to offer due process but in mass quantity. "A lot of people get caught up in: 'Oh, is it the tenant's fault? Oh, is it the landlord's fault?' " said Elora Raymond, an assistant professor at Clemson University who has studied eviction in Atlanta, where many of these same forces converge. "I think it really doesn't matter," she said. "Because this doesn't work. As a societal way of renting housing, this doesn't work." Eviction rates for Alaska, Arkansas, North Dakota and South Dakota are not yet available. The researchers caution that the eviction rates are underestimated in parts of Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming. Data for incomplete states is available at The Eviction Lab. Eviction counts are based on court records collected by The Eviction Lab in 13 states and other records purchased from LexisNexis Risk Solutions and American Information Research Services Inc. Estimates of the number of renter households are based on census and Esri Business Analyst data.

Altachment F A Comprehensive Housing Plan for Cambridge The City of Cambridge, which is home to 45,569 households, is facing a housing affordability emergency. In January 2015, the Cambridge City Council unanimously approved an order setting a goal of creating 1,000 new affordable homes by the end of this decade. Since 1997, the City has maintained a ratio of roughly 15% of the overall housing stock as affordable, despite the loss of 15,700 rent controlled units (rent controlled units represented 40 % of Cambridge's total rental housing stock in 1995); the market conversion of 349 low and moderate income rental housing units in expiring-use properties, and the conversion of thousands of housing units into condominiums. Given the present conditions of one of the most expensive housing markets in the country, and the federal government's retrenchment of its role in providing housing assistance to lower income renters, it is clear that the City's existing policies and programs will not produce the number of affordable units and the diversity of housing types to meet the housing needs of our community. Even it the council's vision of building 1,000 new affordable units was realized, which according to the Community Development Department, would be a • "significant increase to the City's historic rates of affordable housing creation," it would not counteract the other major influence on the housing market generating the affordability problem, the dramatic increase in income inequality in this "high opportunity" city. The change in incomes in Cambridge over the past three decades is one of the consequences of ever rising housing prices. During the period of 1990 to 2011, the number of households in Cambridge earning 50 - 80% of Area Median Income (low and moderate income households) declined by 49%, while the number of households earning over 120% increased by 60%. Developing a comprehensive local housing plan that would expand the supply and affordability of housing in Cambridge, and ensure greater housing security for low and moderate income renters and homeowners, would serve to protect those people who are most at risk of displacement, and maintain socioeconomic diversity in our community. The 2017 City of Cambridge Community Needs Assessment Report identified affordable housing and homelessness as top tier community needs. But have we made the City's commitment to affordable housing a top priority? A comprehensive local housing plan that is not merely another housing report would shift our thinking about what the City's role should be in creating an affordable Cambridge. Local decisions would be framed within the question, "How will this affect housing affordability in Cambridge?" To this end, City Departments would be required to produce impact statements that look at how affordable housing would be affected when ordinances, policies, regulations, and fees are enacted or changed. Beyond considering whether the city's goal of expanding the supply and affordability of housing would be undermined by an action or decision, every City Department would be charged with developing ideas and practices that would promote affordable housing. There would be a process for measuring and reporting on the changes that occur as a result of this new approach to community planning. The demand for housing in Cambridge seems to have no limits, but what kind of community do we want to be? A comprehensive local housing plan would describe the specific actions that we can take to make Cambridge the kind of place that develops inclusively.

What are the dimensions of Cambridge's affordable housing emergency? What are the consequences? Escalating rents Between 2000 and 2015, median asking rents for a one-bedroom apartment in Cambridge increased 90 % from $1,268 to $2,403. For a two-bedroom apartment, median asking rents increased 70% from $1,691 to $2,882; and for a three-bedroom apartment, 64% from $2,050 to $3,368. (City of Cambridge Housing Profile 2016) Housing cost burdens In 2013, 65.6% of extremely low income (at or below 30% of Area Median Income or AMI) renter households in Cambridge were housing cost-burdened (paying more than 30% of their gross income on rent); 55.8% were severely cost-burdened (paying more than 50% of gross income on rent). (HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Data, 2000 and 2009 - 2013) Seventy-eight % of very low income (31 - 50% of AMI) renter households in Cambridge were cost- burdened; 49.9 % were severely cost-burdened. Seventy-four % of low income (51 - 80 % of AMI) renter households in Cambridge were cost- burdened; 22.1 % were severely cost-burdened. Twenty % of renter households in Cambridge with incomes above 80% of AMI were cost-burdened; 1:6% were severely cost-burdened. Changing incomes in Cambridge The number of households in Cambridge earning 50 - 80% of AMI has declined by 49% since 1990, while the number of households earning over 120% of AMI has increased by 60%. (Memo to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust, Analysis of incomes in Cambridge since 1990, CDD Staff, 28 August, 2014) Voucher usage inside/outside Cambridge Forty-three % of Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) Moving to Work tenant-based (mobile) voucher households live outside Cambridge. This represents an 11 % increase since 2011. (CHA, 11 May, 2017) Over half of recent lease-ups who located outside Cambridge are paying more than 30% of their income on rent. 1

The success rate of recent CHA voucher holders was 59 %. Forty-eight % of elderly/disabled households were able to use their voucher compared to 63% of family households. (This was a group of preference applicant households on the CHA's public housing waitlist who were issued vouchers during the period of spring 2015 through April 2017 when the public housing wait list was closed, and vacancies were held for current CHA tenants who were relocated due to construction.) Waiting lists for housing assistance CHA Waitlists All applications: 13,700 (CHA, 18 May, 2017) Total applications for püblic housing/RAD/former public housing: 4,909 Applications for elderly/disabled developments: 797 (Preference applicants: 264 No preference: 533) Applications for family developments: 4,112 (Preference applicants: 754 No Preference: 3,358) Total applications for the Housing Choice Voucher program: 8,791 (Preference applicants: 3,214 No preference: 5,577) The great majority of applicant households on the CHA's waitlists are extremely low income (income at or below 30% of AMI). (Note: The CHA's public housing waitlists were closed January 1, 2015. The CHA's voucher waitlist was re-opened October 1, 2016 after being closed for eight years.) Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Waitlist All applications: 1,235 (CHA, 18 May, 2017) There was a 23% increase in applications for SRO units in 2015, and a 147% increase in 2016. Inclusionary Housing Rental Applicant Pool All applications: 2,250 (Community Development Department, 16 May, 2017) Between March 31, 2016 and October 17, 2016, there was a 26% increase in applications from 1,623 to 2,037. 101 households were served during the period of April 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017. Thirty-nine % of these households had emergency needs (i.e., living in an overcrowded situation; homeless). As of April 1, 2017, 56% of all inclusionary rental housing units were occupied by voucher holders. 2

Displacement; evictions from affordable housing Cases filed and evictions of CHA public housing households: In 2016, CHA filed 141 cases in court for non-payment of rent and 12 cases for cause. There were five evictions. Between January and April of 2017, there were 32 cases filed in court for non-payment of rent and 15 for cause. There were five evictions. '.. (CHA Director of Operations Dean Petruzzi) Terminations of CHA voucher households: - During 2016, CHA commenced the termination of 83 voucher households. Thirty households were terminated. - Iwo terminations were upheld in conference panel. 20 households that filed an appeal failed to appear for the conference panel. - Fifty-one households resolved the matter which had caused CHA to commence a termination. One household was reinstated in conference panel. - There were 37 informal hearings; six of which resulted in repayment agreements. Fourteen households resolved the matter which had caused CHA to commence their termination prior to an informal hearing. - There is one termination that is still pending (as of June 27, 2017). - The reasons for terminations: Twenty-seven were for failure to recertify or provide the necessary documents to complete recertification. Eleven were for other program violations. Six were tor unreported income. The remainder were for other reasons or a combination of reasons, including failure to show up for a scheduled appointment and failed inspection. (CHA Director of Leased Housing Hannah Lodi) Homelessness Cambridge counted 517 persons who were experiencing homelessness on the night between January 27 and January 28, 2016, the annual Point-in-Time census of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons. There was an increase of 53 persons from 2015, which was related to an increase in shelter beds. (City of Cambridge: 2016 Census of Persons Experiencing Homelessness) 3

Seventy-seven % of persons experiencing homelessness in the 2016 Point-in-Time count were single individuals and 23 % were members of households with children. The average bed utilization rate in Cambridge emergency shelters which serve individuals is 90% compared to 97% for emergency shelters which serve families. (City of Cambridge, "2016 Cambridge Homeless Housing Inventory Count") The average bed utilization rate in transitional housing is 91 % compared to a 95% utilization rate in permanent supportive housing. Fifty % of families in Cambridge emergency shelters stayed for longer than six months during the period of October 2014 - September 2015. (2015 Annual Homeless Assessment Report) Cambridge residents who are Black disproportionately experience homelessness. Though Black residents constitute only 11% of the city's population, they are 29% of the total homeless population. (2016 Census) Current residents at six Single Room Occupancy (SRO) sites in Cambridge have annual average earned incomes in the range of $153 - $4,278. Annual median total incomes of these SRO residents fall in the range of $9,797 - $10,193. (Memo to CHA Board of Commissioners, Amendments to the Administrative Plan (Parts 1-3) and ACOP regarding Single Room Occupancy Waitlist Policy and Program Description Updates, Martha Tai, 18 May, 2017)

The Cambridge City Council Housing Committee will consider a range of strategies to address Cambridge's housing needs. Goal: Create and preserve affordable housing for low and moderate income households 1. Increase local and state resources for affordable housing. - Commit additional funds in the City's budget. - Issue affordable housing minibonds. Establish dedicated streams of city revenue to be used for affordable housing development such as parking fees, building permit fees, short-term rental taxes, and a local transfer tax. - Support a state real 'estate transfer tax which is dedicated to affordable housing. 2. Maximize the use of zoning to increase the supply of affordable housing. - Review the incentive zoning and inclusionary housing ordinance on a regular basis. - Create a city-wide affordable housing overlay district. - Make the permitting process for affordable housing projects expeditious and predictable. - Reduce or remove motor vehicle and bicycle parking requirements for 100 % affordable housing projects based on data on actual usage and distance from public transit. - Reduce motor vehicle parking requirements for transit-accessible residential developments in exchange for additional affordable units. - Require that large commercial development projects include a residential component. 3. Coordinate all of the local government roles and departments that affect housing affordability. - Local affordable housing providers will meet on an ongoing basis to update one another on projects, and discuss possible solutions to the challenges to affordable housing preservation and development. - The City Council will hold quarterly Roundtable/Working Meetings to discuss how to expand housing affordability in Cambridge, and educate local officials and the public on policy, planning, and funding issues. - Produce a guidebook to all of the City departments, boards and commissions, housing agencies, and community organizations that make up Cambridge's housing system: - Require every City department to produce affordable housing impact statements when ordinances, policies, regulations, and fees are enacted or changed. Provide training to key staff on how to do an affordable housing impact analysis. 1

- Require every City department to develop an action plan that will identify what they can do to promote (or at least not impede) affordable housing development. Provide training to key staff on how to develop an affordable housing action plan for their department. 4. Remove barriers to new development by understanding and challenging NIMBY (not in my backyard) and LULU (locally unwanted land uses) responses to affordable housing projects. 5. Recognize that higher density allows for a greater number of affordable housing units to be built, and make the case that an anti-growth sentiment can serve to thwart one of the core values of Cambridge, equality. Bring attention to the social and economic consequences of exclusionary zoning. 6. Create a more inclusive planning process. Increase the participation of underrepresentéd' communities, including lower income tenants, individuals and families who have experienced homelessness, and people for whom English is not their first language. - Collect demographic information about the membership of City boards and commissions, particularly, those bodies that make decisions that affect housing alfordability, with the goal of increasing the diversity of experiences and perspectives that inform the City's housing policy. 7. Prioritize the preservation of existing low and moderate income housing that is at risk of losing affordability restrictions and/or is in need of major capital improvements - Continue to commit 80% of Community Preservation Act funds to affordable housing. - Strengthen state law 40T notice requirements for expiring-use housing by enacting a home rule petition. Project-base tenant protection vouchers at Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) Former Public Housing (FPH) developments. • Support adding units at CHA Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) and FPH developments. ..- Support adding units at other affordable developments that are being preserved. - Eliminate the payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) to the City for CHA RAD and FPH developments. - Reduce the building permit fee for affordable housing projects 8. Reduce the competition for private market rental housing, particularly, for family-sized apartments, by requiring universities to build more student housing 9. Require the Cambridge Community Development Department to produce an Annual Housing Report for the City of Cambridge that would include data on the number of new market rate and affordable housing units that were created, and the number of affordable housing units that were preserved and lost by neighborhood; and an overview of the households served by affordable housing programs in Cambridge. 2

Goal: Strengthen tenant protections 1. Enact just cause eviction legislation through a home rule petition. 2. Establish and fund the right to counsel in certain housing cases. (House No. 3589. An Act establishing a right to counsel in certain eviction cases.) 3. Adopt a local condo conversion law. (Acts, 1983 - Chap. 527. An Act enabling cities and towns to regulate the conversion of residential property to the condominium forms of ownership.) 4. Create the position of Housing Ombudsman/Advocate'for the City of Cambridge. 5. Develop a Tenant Harassment Prevention Program. 6. Create an online Landlord Watchlist to share information about buildings with multiple serious violations of City laws and codes relating to housing quality and safety 7. Provide information on landlord-tenant laws on the City website which would include the obligations of landlords, the obligations of tenants, and city ordinances that affect tenants and landlords. Goal: Promote housing stability 1. Enhance the enforcement of Cambridge's source of income discrimination ordinance. 2. Offer tenant education programs to test whether requiring participants to successfully complete a series of workshops dealing with topics such as budgeting and credit, housing search basics, maintaining stable housing, tenant rights and responsibilities, and CORI mitigation, before they are issued a tenant-based • voucher would improve the rate of voucher takers who are able to use their voucher. 3. Establish a Landlord Liaison Program. Provide benefits and guarantees to landlords who agree to use an alternative screening/application process to reduce barriers to housing (e.g., waive credit history screening, not screen out applicants for non-payment eviction history, individualized assessments of applicants with a criminal record history. 4. Expand tenant outreach to track and analyze the causes of displacement, including physical evictions and forced moves; develop targeted solutions for vulnerable subpopulations of tenants; incorporate displacement risk in planning decisions. 5. Create an inventory of the stock of affordable accessible housing in Cambridge. 6. Increase the housing choices of CHA tenant-based voucher (TBV) households. Offer CHA TB V households who are located outside Cambridge the opportunity to apply for a transfer to a newly 3

renovated apartment at a RAD/FPH development. Interview and survey CHA TBV households to find out the reasons for their locational choices. 7. Increase the housing choices of CHA ceiling rent (so-called over income or above 80% of Area Median Income) public housing/RAD/FPH households who are interested in transitioning out of CHA housing by creating a time-limited right of return subsidy; establish a set-aside program for these households in the City's Inclusionary Housing Program or change the inclusionary tenant selection policies to preference these households. 8. Expand the preference for Cambridge residents to include former residents who have been displaced due to the high cost of housing. 9. Include an evaluation process in the City's homeownership program HomeBridge for moderate- and middle income households to see which types of households (i.e., household size and composition, income level, resident or employed in Cambridge, and type of housing they moved from) choose to apply for the program, and which ones are successful. 10. Establish a state income tax credit for owners who charge below market rents. 11. Provide assistance for lower income households who move; the cost of moving, including first month's rent, last month's rent, security deposit, and realtor's fee, has been estimated by CHA to be $7,200.

Attachment G 4/10/18 Dear Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and City Councilors, I am writing regarding the Council's Housing Committee meeting today to set priorities. As a member of the Envision Cambridge Working Group, I wanted to make sure you were of aware of the priorities the group has set so far, although these are not yet final. I have attached the priorities. They are not in priority order. I also want to share with you the housing priorities of the Cambridge Residents Alliance. This list is in priority order. You will notice that there is a great deal of overlap between these two lists and the Housing Plan forwarded by Councilor Simmons in Nov. 2017. While the city has worked for changes to create new below-market housing units, there has too little progress on protecting existing tenants. For this reason, I encourage you to also prioritize the actions listed under Councilor Simmon's goal "Strengthen tenant protections", and also actions 3 and 4 under the goal of " Promote Housing Stability." I thank you for your work on housing issues, and look forward to working with you as you develop priorities. Sincerely, Lee Farris 269 Norfolk St., 02139 The Cambridge Residents Alliance: Working for a Livable, Affordable and Diverse Cambridge www.cambridgeresidentsalliance.org [email removed]

Allachment # Cambridge Residents Alliance Housing Priorities, 4/10/18 1. City subsidies such as zoning changes must only support development projects that have a majority of neighborhood resident support, have an enforceable Community Benefits Agreement and provide living wage jobs. We reject adding density and height to create 80% luxury housing without significant additional community benefits. 2. Our universities, particularly MIT, must be required to provide affordable housing for their thousands of off-campus graduate and post-graduate students and fellows as a condition for any zoning increase. 3. City policies must prevent no-fault evictions of residents who are paying their rents; establish a Housing Stability Office to implement this policy and other means of reducing displacement. Oppose all tenant displacement due to condo conversion, Air BnB, etc. via new regulations. 4. Public land must be used for 100% permanently affordable housing, open and green space. 5. Cambridge's Community Development Department must prioritize creative solutions to housing and land use that benefit the city's residents, including supporting enforceable Community Benefits Agreements created by residents. 6. The inclusionary zoning formula for new residential development must include at least 20% moderate- and low-income and 5% middle income units with a commitment to regular future increases. 7. Any housing built to greater height or density than allowed by zoning should be required to provide something like 1/3 low and moderate income, 1/3 middle income, 1/3 market rate units. 8. Increase city money/ general revenues allocated to build affordable housing. The Cambridge Residents Alliance: Working for a Livable, Affordable and Diverse Cambridge www.cambridgeresidentsalliance.org [email removed]

36 39 38 40 33 Housing Housing Housing 43 Housing Housing Housing Housing Housing Housing Housing Housing Housing Housing Focus Area High Impact / High Difficulty Actions Increase overall housing production. Increase overall housing production. suited to them as their housing needs change. Strategy Expand resources for affordable housing production and preservation. Expand resources for affordable housing production and preservation. Expand resources for affordable housing production and preservation. Expand resources for affordable housing production and preservation. Expand resources for affordable housing production and preservation. Envision Housing Priority Actions Expand tools and resources to prevent displacement and housing insecurity. Expand tools and resources to prevent displacement and housing insecurity. Encourage affordable housing production through regulatory and zoning incentives Encourage affordable housing production through regulatory and zoning incentives. Maintain a range of housing options to enable households to transition to the units best- Page 3/5 bedrooms). High Impact / High Difficulty affordable housing. supportive housing regulatory mechanism. tenants are at risk of being displaced. Action accommodate growth and are well-served by transit. speculative owner tax, and lodging tax on short-term rentals. provide a design advisory review instead of a discretionary approval. revenue from the general fund, and exploring options for new resources. major corridors and in other transforming areas that have the capacity to units provide a certain amount of family-sized units (i.e. units with at least 3- funds to address identified gaps, and increase awareness of available services. housing developments through a citywide affordable housing overlay or other Require the creation of significant new housing in areas that are being rezoned. Institute a production-focused incentive for owners of multifamily buildings who increment financing to support affordable housing at the project or district scale. Modify the development approval process for fully affordable housing projects to Prioritize City and other public property that is available for disposition to develop to develop affordable housing or purchase multifamily residential buildings where Establish or expand the use of taxes that provide dedicated revenue for affordable construct more affordable units than required by the Inclusionary Housing Program. Change base zoning to require that developers of multi-family projects of at least 10 housing including a local real estate transfer tax (supplemental to state stamp tax), a Increase existing City funds dedicated to affordable housing through higher dedicated Establish new City funding sources such as the regular issuance of bonds and using tax Change zoning to enable more housing, including affordable housing, to be built along Maintain a range of housing options to enable households to transition to the units best-Engage housing and service providers to prioritize the production of quality permanent Expand existing financial support to match rising costs associated with nonprofit efforts Offer density bonuses and relief from other dimensional regulations for fully affordable Evaluate gaps in supportive housing services provided by the City, increase capacity and Study / plan Zoning Changes Zoning Changes Zoning Changes Zoning Changes Zoning Changes New expenditures Ongoing expenditures Ongoing expenditures Action type Ongoing expenditures Other regulatory changes Other regulatory changes Other regulatory changes Atachment I