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 November 28, 2018 to discuss the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay District and on the first annual Inclusionary Zoning report

Attachment A Opening Remarks for Housing Committee Hearing November 28, 2018, 12 pm in Sullivan Chamber "The Housing Committee will conduct a public hearing to continue discussions on the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay District and on the first annual Inclusionary Zoning report." Good Afternoon, Today, we are meeting to continue our discussion on two topics from previous Housing Committee hearings - we are discussing the 1st Annual Inclusionary Housing report by the Community Development Department, and we are also continuing to discuss the Affordable Housing Overlay District. We are going to begin by asking the CDD to give a brief overview of the Inclusionary Housing report, and after that BRIEF discussion, I have a number of questions l'li be asking, and I will also go around the table to ask if my colleagues on the Committee have any questions. If anyone asks any questions that the CDD folks cannot answer at today's hearing, I will forward those questions to Ms. Farooq and Mr. Cotter with the request that they provide written responses in the next week or so. Following that discussion, we will turn our attention back to the Affordable Housing Overlay District. I want to note that we are getting very close to "Crunch Time," in terms of moving the Affordable Housing Overlay District legislation forward. Hard as it may be to believe, January is right around the corner, and in practical terms that gives us just around seven months to bring legislation before the full City Council, send it to Ordinance and the Planning Board, possibly have further Housing Committee hearings on it, return it to the Council, and advance it to a final reading. In the best of circumstances, this process can take several months; we have asked the CDD to provide us with a timeline of the specific steps towards that final vote, which will allow us to gain a better sense of EXACTLY how much time we have to operate within. I caution everyone that if we do not have legislation to move to the full Council by February to start this process, then the clock may get the better of us. We can, and must, be methodical in getting everyone's questions answered while at the same time moving this process forward. With that, I will ask my co-chair if she has any opening comments, and I think will give the floor to Ms. Farooq to begin a brief overview of the 1st Annual Inclusionary Housing report. Councilor Siddiqui?

Attachment B Questions/Topics to raise Re the 1s Annual Inclusionary Report by CDD (broken down by page #) Page 12: Map of Inclusionary Unit Locations. • Ask CDD to give brief overview of the map. ASK: Does CDD anticipate that in the next two years new inclusionary units will be created in neighborhoods that have very little or no inclusionary housing? (As of now, the neighborhoods of Wellington-Harrington, Mid-Cambridge, Agassiz, and West Cambridge each had under 10 inclusionary units; Strawberry Hill had zero.) Page 18: Resident Income Levels (not including voucher holders) The Inclusionary rental program is targeted to households in the 50% — 80% income range. Most non- voucher holders have incomes in the range of 50% - 80% of AMI. The percentage of households with incomes below 40% of AMI increased from 8% to 10% of the total number of Inclusionary rental households. Existing households are eligible to pay a minimum rent if their gross household income falls below 50% of AMI. ASK: Does CDD track how long tenants remain on minimum rent? How long can a tenant afford to pay the minimum rent if their circumstances do not improve? What happens if an existing tenant's income drops to zero? • There was a four percent increase in households with incomes in the 40% to 50% of AMI range. Is there cause for concern about the stability of these households? Page 20: Rental Turnover Rate ASK: The turnover rate of inclusionary rental units has fluctuated from 11.2 percent, down to 10.8 percent, back up to 12.9 percent between 2014-2016. Then the turnover rate dropped from there down to 6.8 percent in FY17. Does CDD know what accounts for that decrease in turnover? Page 24: Emergency Need 26 newly housed tenants, representing 34% of the total of new households, were emergencies. Homelessness, overcrowding, and paying more than 50% of income in rent were the most common emergency needs. • ASK: During this period, how many applicants who met the criteria for emergency need remained in the rental applicant pool? How many applicants who claimed an emergency need failed to meet the criteria?

Page 25: Type of Housing Prior to Entering Program The report also states that in 2017 and 2018 the majority of households who moved into inclusionary units had previously been living in market rate housing. ASK: Do you know how many of these households were housing cost-burdened in the private housing market? ASK: Have you ever conducted exit interviews with households that leave inclusionary housing? Do we know how many leave for positive/negative reasons? Where do they move to? This is important to know because the inclusionary program is seen by many as a step up on Cambridge's housing ladder, the step between subsidized housing and the private market. Is that perception accurate? Page 27: The most common reason for denial for both voucher holders and non-voucher holders was an applicant's credit (76% voucher holders, 80% for those without vouchers). • ASK: Does CDD have any way of tracking the average credit score of applicants? Are there any successful applicants who do not have a credit score? (Is having a good credit score a requirement for successfully applying for inclusionary housing?) • ASK: Since 2010, there have been a total of 57 appeals of denials. 41 percent of non-voucher holders and 33 percent of voucher holders who appealed were successful. At what stage in the process are applicants informed that they can appeal the denial to the management company, and that they have five days to do so? Pages 28-29: Middle Income Program • ASK: What is the demand for middle income inclusionary rental units? Questions/issues to Raise Re Inclusionary Housing in General ASK CDD to talk briefly about what the role of the Senior Inclusionary Rental Housing Manager will be (it's a new position). SUGGEST that the Inclusionary Manager periodically meet with the Housing Committee to report on the "concerns and complaints" that have been raised by residents, managers, housing providers, and other parties who intersect with the program. These meetings would give an opportunity to ask how the Inclusionary Mgr addressed these problems. SUGGEST that the Inclusionary Manager do more than just survey applicants and residents to solicit feedback. This individual could also develop a survey for unsuccessful applicants, conduct exist interviews with households who leave the program, and find other ways of gaining greater insight into what is and is not working with our IZ program. ASK if the Council ever received response to July 30"* Council Order that asked the CDD to "contact an outside survey co. to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of inclusionary tenants' experiences w/ particular emphasis on biased practices"? A response was due to the Council by Sept. 17.

alachment C "Living in inclusionary housing has allowed me to live in the city that I grew up in. This in turn has allowed me to raise my children in a place that I hold dear to my heart. If it weren't for this program I would have never been able to afford to stay in my city." -Inclusionary Housing Renter 2018 Inclusionary Housing Report Community Development Department City of Cambridge September 2018 IRAM FAROOQ Assistant City Manager for Community Development 344 Broadway Cambridge, MA 02139 SANDRA CLARKE Voice: [phone removed] Fax: [phone removed] Deputy Director TTY: [phone removed] Chief of Administration www.cambridgema.gov KHALIL MOGASSABI Deputy Director Chief of Planning

TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 Introduction .4 Part I: Production Report 4 Affordable Housing Stock.. 6 Inclusionary Projects Complete and In Development 7 Activity Since 2017: Complete and Approved Inclusionary Projects 8 Units by Bedroom Size - Current and Changes in Past Year.. 10 Middle Income (80%-120% of AMI) 11 Development Pipeline. Conclusion. 11 12 Map of Inclusionary Units... 13 Part II: Inclusionary Rental Program 14 Overview of Complete Rental Units as of September 1, 2018 15 Characteristics of Households Living in Inclusionary Housing. 23 Characteristics of Recently Housed Tenants 26 Summary of Property Management Review.. 28 Middle Income Program. 30 Part III: Homeowners.. Attachment: Summary of the Rental Applicant Pool, 5/1/18

INTRODUCTION This report presents the current status of the City of Cambridge's Inclusionary Housing Program. Since the beginning of the Inclusionary Housing Program in 1998, 1102 affordable units have been successfully created through the inclusionary zoning ordinance or through similar zoning provisions. This includes 891 rental units and 211 homeownership units. In April 2017, the City Council adopted revisions to the inclusionary provisions in the zoning ordinance. 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. The report provides information on inclusionary housing production, the status of the inclusionary rental housing program, and information on the homeownership program. The report is divided into three parts: Part I - Production: This section details the status of all inclusionary units - both rental and ownership. It describes the current status of inclusionary housing production and describes the activity in the program since the adoption of the revisions to the Ordinance in April 2017. Part II - Rental Program: A report on the Rental Program was provided to the Housing Committee in April 2017. This section provides updates to the 2017 report and includes information on the status of applicants to the rental program and on the current tenants in inclusionary units. Part I - Homeownership: This section provides information on the resales and tenure of inclusionary ownership units. The changes to the inclusionary zoning ordinance approved in April 2017 were the first changes in nearly 20 years. These changes, effective as of December 1, 2016, include: • The set aside for affordable units is now based on a percentage of residential net floor area rather than a percentage of units. • The set aside for affordable units is 20% of total dwelling unit net floor area after the application of the inclusionary zoning density bonus (for a transition period from 12/1/16 to 6/30/17, the set aside for affordable floor area was 15% of total net residential floor area. Previously the set aside was calculated at 15 % of the units before the application of the bonus, which typically resulted in 11-12% of the units as affordable. • A monetary contribution is required if the dwelling unit net floor area designated for affordable units is less than the required 20% of floor area and the remaining floor area is not enough for a unit. • The monetary contribution is based on the amount of subsidy needed to create quivalent floor area in an affordable building funded by the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust and is currently $397 per square foot. • The inclusion of three-bedroom units is required in larger projects (over 30,000 square feet). For smaller projects, in which there are any three-bedroom units, an affordable three-bedroom unit is required. • Income eligibility for rental units remains at 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). The income eligibility for homeownership is increased to 100% of AMI. Ownership units will be priced at 30% of the income of a household at 90% AMI. • Rents for all units were based on 30% of a household's gross income. The rent for studio units under the revised ordinance is based on 25% of a household's gross income. Rents for all other units will continue to be calculated based on 30% of a houschold's income. • Tenants' incomes continue to be recertified annually; however, households remain eligible so long as their income is less than 100% AMI. • If a household's income falls below 40% of AMI when they are recertified, they will pay a minimum rent which is equivalent to the affordable rent for a tenant at 40% AMI. 3

PART I: PRODUCTION REPORT Production of new affordable housing through the inclusionary housing program has continued at a rapid pace over the last year. This new production includes developments approved both under the revised inclusionary provisions and those in effect prior to the 2017 amendments. Although the new provisions were adopted in April 2017, with an effective date of December 1, 2016, there continues to be a pipeline of developments that were permitted prior to the effective date of the new requirements and have yet to get approvals for their inclusionary units or sought a building permit. It is expected that these developments will continue to be added to the inclusionary housing portfolio over the next two or more years along with those subject to the new provisions. The information on inclusionary housing production which follows looks at inclusionary housing developments in two time frames: analysis of the totality of inclusionary developments to date (and those in the pipeline) and data on the changes in production since April 2017 when the revised ordinance was adopted. Data is provided on: the status of the affordable housing stock, specifically the inclusionary housing developments; the bedroom size of inclusionary housing units; and the pipeline of inclusionary developments. AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK Inclusionary housing is one of the ways that affordable units are created in Cambridge. Below is a chart showing the different types of affordable housing in Cambridge as of June 30, 2018. In the past few years, most of the new affordable housing units in the City have been created through inclusionary housing. However, affordable housing owned and operated by the Cambridge Housing Authority and non-profit and private affordable housing providers makes up most of the City's affordable housing stock. Affordable units make up 14.84% of the 54,713 unit housing stock in the City. This inventory is updated at the end of each fiscal year. Cambridge Affordable Housing Stock (as of 6/30/2018) Total =8,117 Scattered Site FTHB, 99, 1% Privately-Owned Housing, 1,264, 16% Non Profit Inclusionary Sponsored Housing, 1102, Housing, 2,937, 14% 36% Public Housing. 2,715, 33% Non-Profit Sponsored Housing • Public Housing Inclusionary Housing Privately-Owned Housing • Scattered Site FTHB Figure 1: Cambridge Affordable Housing Stock, as of 6/30/17). 4

Building Permits: The following table shows the number of units for which building permits were issued for new housing starts in privately-owned housing from 2015-2017. The As shown, there has been substantial activity in the first half of the year, as large residential projects have started during this time. Calendar Year # of Permits 381 2[phone removed] 409 2017 2018 - First six months 733 Table 1: Housing starts by year 5

INCLUSIONARY PROJECTS COMPLETE AND IN DEVELOPMENT All Inclusionary Units: As of September 1, 2018, there are 1,102 affordable units approved under inclusionary zoning or similar zoning requirements. Of these, currently 935 units are complete and an additional 167 units are under construction. Fourteen of the units under construction will be ready for occupancy within the next two months. Approved Units - Complete and in Development 9/1/2018 1000 935 900 196 800 700 600 500 400 739 300 200 100 Complete In Development Rental • Homeownership Figure 2: Approved Units, completed and in develop- Growth: The chart below ment as of 9/1/18 shows the growth of the inclusionary housing program since its inception in 1998 and the projected growth for the next three years based on developments currently in the pipeline. The majority of the growth in the program since 20u is due to an increase in the development of rental units. Inclusionary Housing Stock Growth 1800 1660 1600 150g / 1425 1400 1200 Rental 1000 891 800 Ownership 600 -Total 400 211 235 235 200 0 1 1171 Figure 3: Inclusionary Housing Stock Growth, current and projected. 6

ACTIVITY SINCE 2017: COMPLETE AND APPROVED INCLUSIONARY PROJECTS Developments and Units: Inclusionary housing units are counted when they are approved, just prior to the issuance of a building permit. From April 1, 2017, when the revised inclusionary ordinance was approved, through September 1, 2018, seven new inclusionary housing projects have been approved and are currently in development. These seven projects include a total of 127 affordable units, 123 rental units and 4 homeownership units. During the same time period, 56 new rental and 3 new homeownership units were complete. Units Complete and In Development 1000 891 900 768 152 800 700 143 600 500 400 739 625 300 211 207 15 200 100 193 196 0 Homeownership Rental Rental Homeownership As of 4/1/2017 As of 9/1/2018 In Development # Complete Figure 4: All units complete and in development, 2017 and 2018 Of the approved projects, the revised inclusionary provisions apply to three projects - 47 Bishop Allen Drive, 195 -211 Concord Turnpike, and 1699 Massachusetts Avenue. These are all rental projects which were permitted between December 1, 2016 and June 30, 2017. Therefore, 15% of the net residential square feet is devoted to affordable units. These 3 projects include a total of 49 new affordable units. The total size of the approved projects ranged from 17 units to 320 units. As the inclusionary requirement is now calculated as a percentage of net residential square feet in order to increase the production of family size units, the resulting percentage of affordable units is less than the percentage of affordable square feet in a development. In the three developments cited above there are 49 affordable units are out of a total of 360 units, or 13.6% of the units. It is expected that the percentage of units in developments which will be subject to the 20% net residential square foot requirement will be between 17%- 18% of all units. Monetary Contribution with New Ordinance: The net residential square feet of affordable units will not always add up to the required percentage of floor area. The aggregate amount of inclusionary floor area will be as close as possible to the required amount, while also meeting other requirements for the inclusionary units, such as the provision of three-bedroom units in certain developments, location of units, and bedroom size distribution. To make up this difference, a monetary contribution to the Affordable Housing Trust is required for the difference between the required residential floor area and the residential floor area of the inclusionary units. The contribution rate is currently $397 per square foot. The contribution for the three approved projects will amount to a combined total of $32,633. When the project is nearing completion, this amount will be confirmed and due prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building. 7

Homeownership Increase: Although new rental housing development has continued over the last several years and, as a result, the most significant increase in the number of inclusionary units is through rental developments, we have now seen a few homeownership developments in the last two years. For three years, from March 2013 to April 2016, no new homeownership projects were produced. Since April 2016, 4 new developments with a total of 17 affordable homeownership units have been approved. UNITS BY BEDROOM SIZE - CURRENT AND CHANGES IN PAST YEAR Family Sized Units - Changes Under New Ordinance: While the prior inclusionary housing provisions required affordable units to be provided in proportion to the bedroom size of all the units in the project, a goal of the 2017 amendments was to increase the proportion of family sized units and reduce the proportion of studio units. The revised inclusionary ordinance contains provisions to promote family sized units, which are 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 square feet of inclusionary housing floor area. Applying this requirement at 195-211 Concord Turnpike, resulted in six of the twelve, or 50%, of the three-bedroom units in the project, being designated as affordable. Although 23% of all the units in the property are studio units, only 8% of the inclusionary units are studios. 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 developments to which the new inclusionary provisions apply has a total of 17 units with two family sized units (three or more bedrooms). 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. The following chart compares the percentage of rental units approved by bedroom size under the prior ordinance and under the revised ordinance. Bedroom Sizes of Rental Units Created Before and After Ordinance Revisions - 50% 455 45% 43% 40% 34% 29% 16% 16% 12% 5% 1 BR Studio 2BR 3+ BR • Units Under New Ordinance (49 units) Units Under Prior Ordinance (842 units) Figure 5: Bedroom sizes of rental units created before and after the ordinance revisions. 8

Changes in Number and Percentage of Units by Bedroom Size Since April 1, 2017: The chart illustrates the change in the number and percentage of approved rental and ownership units by bedroom size, since April 2017. This includes developments which are complete and those in construction. It also includes middle income units. Distribution of Rental and Homeownership Unit Sizes, 2017 and 2018 100% 5%, 36 6%, 53 17%, 35 17%, 35 90% 80% 35%, 271 34%, 300 70% 48%, 99 48%, 101 60% 50% 45%, 400 46%, 357 40% 30% 33%, 68 33%, 70 20% 10% 15% 14%, 135 105 2% 5 0% Rental 2018 Rental 2017 Home Ownership 2017 Home Ownership 2018 1 Bedroom • 3+ Bedroom 2 Bedroom • Studio Figure 6: Rental Homeownership Units, 2017 and 2018. Three-bedroom units: Significantly. there are currently 30 completed rental units with three or more bedrooms. This number will significantly increase to 53, as 23 three-bedroom rental units are now under construction. This includes units in developments that are subject to the old or the new inclusionary housing provisions. Homeownership: There have not yet been new homeownership developments approved under the 2017 amendments to the inclusionary zoning provisions. Homeownership projects have always had more three- bedroom units than rental units. Three-hedroom units account for 17% of all inclusionary homeownership units. Studio Units: The impact of the change to rents for studio units in the revised ordinance, which reduces the rent from 30% to 25% of a household 's income, will not be evidenced until the first studio units built under the revised ordinance are complete in approximately 18-24 months.

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. There are additional projects which require middle income units in the pipeline. Two buildings are currently under construction - 249 Third Street with two middle income units and Mass & Main with nine middle income rental units. In addition, the second residential building to be developed by Alexandria also requires middle income units. The unit distribution is currently under review and is estimated to have 25 to 29 middle income units. 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). Middle Income Rental Units 70 58 60 Anticipated 50 32 40 # Approved 30 11 20 Existining 10 15 0 Number of Units Figure 7: Middle Income Rental Units 10

DEVRLOPMENT PIPELINE The pipeline of inclusionary housing developments 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. Several developments in the pipeline were permitted prior to the enactment of the new inclusionary provisions and therefore remain subject to the former inclusionary housing provisions in the ordinance. Developments Under Inclusionary Review: Four inclusionary developments are currently under review by CDD staff and are expected to be approved in the coming months providing 72 affordable rental units. Of these, one inclusionary development, 605 Concord Avenue, was granted a special permit in December 2016 and is subject to the new inclusionary provisions in the ordinance at 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. Three developments with approved special permits will be subject to the new inclusionary provisions with a 20% affordability requirement. These are 50 Cambridge Park Drive with 294 approved rental units; 1043-1059 Cambridge Street with 18 approved rental units; and 55 Wheeler Street with 525 approved units. Discussions have begun on the inclusionary unit requirements for 50 Cambridge Park Drive. The development at 55 Wheeler Street would become the biggest producer of new inclusionary housing. Other projects which are permitted and in the pipeline are a mid-sized building in North Cambridge on Elmwood Street, the next residential building in North Point (Parcel I) and MIT's residential building. Pre-approval Projects: In addition, there continue to be proposals for new residential projects submitted for approval to the Planning Board. Currently, the projects seeking approval include a small homeownership project and a mid-sized rental project. There are additional developments which are preliminary and have not yet submitted applications to the Planning Board. 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 assess 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 pipeline of residential projects that will create new affordable inclusionary units throughout the city. 11

Figure 8: Map of Inclusionary Unit Locations by status, September, 2018 Complere 1-4 5-15 31 - 58 16-30 ° 1-4 5 - 15 31 - 58 16-30 In Development by Location and Status Number of Inclusionary Units • 1-+ 5 - 15 31 - 58 16 - 30 Under Review Cambridge, Massachusetrs Inclusionary Unit Locations Map prepared by Brendan Manroe on Jung 4.2018. CDO GIS C. Projecks Hausing Hous 12

PART II: InCLUSIONARY RENTAL PROGRAM The last overview of the Inclusionary Housing Rental Program was completed in May 2017 and provided data on tenants housed during the period of April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017. This report summarizes the program's data on recently housed tenants through April 1, 2018 and compares tenant characteristies as of that date to April 1, 2017. The report also looks at approval and denial rates of applications from 2010 to April 1, 2018, and data on the middle-income portfolio. As for applicants, a detailed summary report of the applicant pool as of May 1, 2018 is attached. The waiting pool consists of 3,075 applicants. Of thesc, 767 are Cambridge residents, 361 non-residents who work in Cambridge and 1,947 non-resident applicants. Of the767 resident applicants, 270 hold a Section 8 Mobile Voucher through the Cambridge Housing Authority. In addition to working with applicants and tenants, the Housing Division maintains a continuous relationship with the property managers of inclusionary buildings. Staff works with the property management staff on all lease-ups, annual recertifications, and other issues as may arise. CDD meets with property managers regularly to review the goals and requirements of the program, train new staff, and to respond to concerns and resolve identified issues. 13

OVERVIEW OF COMPLETE RENTAL UNITS Since April 2017 many developments which were in construction have been completed. As of September 1st 2018, the City's Inclusionary Rental Program consists of 736 completed rental units, an increase of 114 units. This includes 15 units which are affordable to middle income households. (There are three rental units which are included in the Production section that are not included in this section, because those three units are owned and managed by the Cambridge Housing Authority, not CDD). As the tables below illustrate, more than half of the low-moderate completed units are studios and one- bedrooms. About 40% of the completed units are two bedrooms or larger. Though there has not been an increase in completed three-bedrooms over the last year, we expect to see an increase in family sized units in the future because of the new inclusionary provisions in the zoning ordinance. Completed Units by Bedroom Size, 2018 OBR 2BRs 1BR 3BRs 4BRs Total 1 100 341 250 29 721 Low-Mod Program 4% 47% 100% 35% 14% 0.1% 0 7 8 Middle Income Pro- 15 0 gram 0% 0% 47% 53% 0% 100% 100 Total 348 29 258 736 1 Completed Units by Bedroom Size, 2017 OBR 1BR 2BRs 3BRS 4BRs Total 73 1 221 287 25 607 Low-Mod Program 12% 47% 4% 36% 100% 0% 0 Middle Income 8 7 0 15 0 0% 53% 0% 47% 100% 0% Program Total 294 622 73 229 25 Tables 2 and 3: Total Completed Units by Bedroom Size, 2017 and 2018 14

CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS LIVING IN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING The data on households living in inclusionary units is analyzed as of April 1, 2017 and April 1, 2018. During this time 15 new tenants were added. Household Size: Since 60% of complete inclusionary units are studio and one bedrooms, it follows that most households (58%) in the program are single person households. Nineteen percent of households are two-person households and the remaining 23% are three or more-person households. There is little change since last year. HH Sizes - Occupied Units, 2018 Bedroom Total 5pp 6pp 3pp 4pp 1pp 2pp Size 1*** Studio 72 0 73 0 20 270 1 0 00 290 0 0 2 90 37 6 1 12* 71 217 3 1*** 3 24 0 5 10** 5 0 0 4 1 0 1 0 112 354 Total 42 81 5 11 605 Percent 59% 13% 19% 2% 7% 1% 100% * This includes residents with live-in aides or reasonable accommodations **This includes families with children of the opposite sex or with ages 10 years or more between them ***This includes families who have grown or shrunk in size while in the program Data does not include middle income units HH Sizes - Occupied Units, 2017 Bedroom Total 4pp 6pp 5pp 2pp 3pp 1pp Size 67 Studio 67 0 0 0 1 265 18 0 283 0 2 93 3 13* 0 70 36 215 3 0 3 0 6 11** 24 4 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 Total 345 111 81 40 4 590 9 Percent 58% 19% 2% 14% 1% 7% 100% *this includes residents with live-in aides or reasonable accommodation *this includes families with children of the opposite sex or with ages 10 years or more between Data does not include middle income units Tables 4 and 5: Occupied Units by Household Size, 2017 and 2018. Does not include Middle Income Program 15

Families with Children: The tables below show the number of households with children. One hundred and ninety-four tamilies in the portfolio have at least one child in their household. Of these families, 103, or 53%, have at least one child under 6. Ninety-one, or 47%, of families have children who are between the ages of 6 and 18. Eighty-scven percent of families with children reside in a two-bedroom apartment. The program's preference system prioritizes households with children under 6 followed by a preference for households with children under 18. Families with Children by Bedroom size, Occupied Units, 2018 Bedroom Size Children Under 6 Children Under 18 Percent Total 1 Studio 0 1% 1 0 0 0 0% 93 76 87% 169 9 3 14 12% 23 4 0 1% 1 1 103 Total 91 194 100% Percent 53% 100% 47% Data does not include middle income units Families with Children by Bedroom Size, Occupied Units, 2017 Bedroom Size Children Under 6 Children under 18 Percent Total 0 Studio 0% 1 1 0% 1 120 56 88% 176 3 23 14 9 11% 4 1 1 0 0.5% Total 201 135 66 100% Percent 67% 33% 100% Data does not include middle income units Tables 6 and 7: Families with Children by Bedroom Size, 2017 and 2018. Does not include Middle Income Program 16

Children in the Portfolio: These tables show the total number of children in the portfolio. In 2018, there are 304 children under 18 in the rental portfolio. Forty-one percent are under the age of 6 and 59% are between 6 and 18 years old. Fighty-one percent of children live in two-bedroom units. In 2017 there were 310 children under 18 in the rental portfolio. There has been a slight decrease in the number of children in the portfolio since 2017 (310). This is in part due to children aging in the portfolio. Total Number of Children by Bedroom Size, Occupied Units, 2018 Percent Total Bedroom Size Children Under 6 Children Under 18 1 0 Studio 0% 1 0 1 0 0% 0 2 81% 246 109 137 18% 14 41 55 0 4 1% 2 2 124 Total 304 100% 180 Percent 59% 41% 100% Data does not include middle income units Total Number of Children by Bedroom Size, Occupied Units, 2017 Total Percent Bedroom Size Children Under 6 Children under 18 0 0 0% Studio 1 0 0% 1 1 2 147 80% 101 248 20 18% 57 37 3 4 1% 4 3 1 168 100% Total 142 310 54% 100% Percent 46% Data does not include middle income units Tables 8 and g: Total Number of Children by Bedroom Size 2017 and 2018. Does not include Middle Income Program 17

Resident Income Levels (not including voucher holders): When a household initially leases an inclusionary unit their gross income must be between 50% and 80% of the AMI or they must have a housing voucher. (A tenant with a mobile housing voucher may have an income lower the 50% AMI). Upon annual recertification of non-voucher tenants, incomes change and are sometimes below 50% or above 80% of AMI. Tenants whose income falls below 50% of AMI remain eligible for their unit. Tenants whose income rises above 80% AMI remain eligible so loan as income does not exceed 100% of AMI, For these reasons, there are variations in the income levels of tenants who do not have vouchers. Most non- voucher residents still earn between 50% to 80% of AMI. There has not been a significant change to the proportion of tenants in this income range from 2017 to 2018. The percent of residents below 40% AMI also has not significantly changed. The significant changes are in the 40% to 50% AMI range, with an increase in households and a corresponding decrease in tenants with income over 80% AMI. Please note this chart does not include data from the middle-income program. AMI Levels, All Non-Voucher Holders <40% • 40%-50% 2019 10% 69% 12% 50%-80% # 80%- 100% • > 100% 2017 8% 68% 2017 • Total Figure 9: AMI Levels for all non-voucher holders, 2017 and 2018. 18

Voucher Utilization in Inclusionary Housing: The level of voucher utilization, as shown in the charts below, has remained the same between 2017 and 2018. Households with vouchers account for more than half of the portfolio. Both 2017 and 2018 voucher utilization rates represent an increase from previous years. The percentage of residents with vouchers in inclusionary units was 45%. In 2016 that percentage rose to 53%, followed by 56% in 2017 and 2018. For the last two years, 87% of all voucher holders in the portfolio have received their voucher from the Cambridge Housing Authority. Voucher Utilization, 2018 295, 87% 338, 267,44% 56% 43, 13% Non-Voucher Tenants • CHA Other Voucher Voucher Utilization, 2017 287. 87% 331, 56% 44,... •Non-Voucher Tenants= CHA Other Voucher Figures 10 and 11: Voucher Utilization rate, 2017 and 2018. 19

Length of Tenancy: Length of Tenancy: The chart below demonstrates that there has been a decrease in the households who have moved into their units in the last 24 months (49% in 2017 and 30% in 2018). It follows that there has been an increase in the length of time that houscholds are staying in their units. The percentage of households in their units for two to five years has increased from 24% to 45%. The percentage of tenants staying over five years has remained steady. Length of Tenancy 29% 26% 20% 19% 1995 17% 17% 14% 13% *0% 9% 8% 5% 0% 2017 2018 I <12 Months • 12-24 Months 24-36 Months • 36-60 Months • 60-120 Months 120+ Months Rental Turnover Rate: The chart below illustrates the number and percentage of occupied units which became vacant and leased to new households during each fiscal year during the past 5 years. In FY 2014, 11.2% of units turned over, followed by 10.8% in FY 2015 and 12.9% in FY 2016. In FY 2017, the turnover rate dropped to 6.8%. Inclusionary Rental Turnover Rate, by Fiscal Year 70 12.9% 60 11.2% 10.8% 50 40 6.8% 30 59 20 42 37- 10 FY2014 FY2017 FY2015 FY2016 Number and Percentof Units Turning Over Figure 13: Inclusionary rental program turnover rate, FY2014-FY 20

Race of Head of Household: When applicants complete their initial applications, they are asked, but not required, to indicate their race and ethnicity. As of April 1, 2018, 344, or 66%, tenants have provided this infor- mation. 27% identified as Black/African American followed by 22% who selected White, 5% who selected Asian, 1% who selected Native Hawaiian/Another Pacific Islander or American Indian/ Alaska Native. Race of Heads of Household 1% 5% 27% 44% 1% American Indian/Alaska Native • Asian Black/African American • Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander • White • No data* Figure 15: Race of Head of House Hold. Includes Middle Income Program Ethnicity of Head of Household: Ethnicity was voluntarily provided by 73% of current residents. Ten per- cent identified as Hispanic or Latino. Ethnicity of Heads of Household 10% 27% 63% Hispanic or Latino • Not Hispanic or Latino No Data Figure 16: Ethnicity of Head of House Hold. Includes Middle Income Program 21

Age of Head of Household: The number of households in the age ranges of 30-39, 40-54, and 55-69 are evenly distributed and have remained largely the same since 2017, except the 55-69 age range, which saw an increase of 14 heads of household. Age Ranges of Heads of Household Age in Years 2018 11% 26% 28% 7% • 30-39 40-54 • 55-69 12% 29% 2017 26% 7% • 70÷ Figure 14: Age Ranges of Heads of Household, 2017 and 2018. Does not include the Middle Income Program 22

CHARACTERISTICS OF RECENTLY HOUSED TENANTS Recent Lease-ups: Between April 1, 2017 and March 31, 2018, 77 new households were housed in rental units, 89% had Cambridge residency, which is the same percentage as the last overview (April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017). Studio units were sometimes filled with applicants who did not receive Cambridge residency but who work in Cambridge. Cambridge Residency Status of New Tenants 100 11 90 80 77 8 70 60 50 90 40 69 30 20 10 2018 2017 • Cambridge Resident Non-Cambridge Resident Figure 17: Recent Lease-ups by residency status, 2017 and 2018. Families with Children: There were 22 families with children who entered leases during this time, representing 29% of all recent lease-ups. The percentage of families with children is driven by the size of units that are available. Most of these families had children under 6. This is a decrease from last year, when 39 families with children were newly housed. New Tenants with Children 45 39 40 35 30 25 22 36 20 15 18 10 4 2017 2018 • With Children under 18 With Children under 6 Figure 18: Recent Lease-ups by families with children, 2017 and 2018. 23

Emergency Need: During this time period there were 26 newly housed tenants, 34% of the total, who had an emergency need. Homelessness, overcrowding, paying more than 50% of income in rent were the most prevalent emergency needs. Emergency Need, New Tenants 45 - No Fault 39 Eviction 40 35 • Paying over 50% 30 26 25 • Code Violation 20 16 10 15 Over- crowded 10 6 12 5 • Homeless 2017 2018 Residents with Emergency Need Figure 19: New tenants by emergency need, 2017 and 2018. Voucher Utilization in New Tenants: Participation of voucher holders is lower than in previous years. Between April 1, 2017 and March 31, 2018, 25 voucher holders were successfully housed, representing only 32% of new lease-ups. This represents a decrease from last year, when voucher holders comprised 59% of new lease- ups. Of those 25 voucher holders, 21 (80%) obtained their voucher through the Cambridge Housing Authority. Most of the new units were one- and two-bedroom units. Voucher Utilization, New Tenants 21 2018 52 4 56 2017 41 • Other Voucher CHA Non Voucher Figure 20: Voucher Utilization among recent lease-ups, 2017 and 2018 24

Type of Housing Prior to Entering Program: In both 2017 and 2018, prior to moving into inclusionary housing, most households new to the program were living in market rate housing. In 2018, 24 (31%) of new tenants lived in some type of affordable housing, were in a shelter, or had been homeless prior to moving to their inclusionary unit. In 2017, 30, (30%) of recent lease-ups were living in affordable housing, were in a shelter, or had been homeless prior to moving to their inclusionary unit. Prior Residency - New Tenants 9 53 77 2018 8 5 101 16 71 2017 • Non-profit/Other Affordable Public Housing Market • Transitional Housing/Shelter • Other Inclusionary Figure 21: Prior residency among recent lease-ups, 2017 and 2018 25

SUMMARY OF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REVIEW The Community Development Department approves applicants for eligibility for the inclusionary program, based on their income and assets. When applicants are approved, their applications are sent to a property with an available appropriately sized unit. Property managers review applicants for credit, CORI, and, in some cases, landlord references. Each property has its own standards which are reviewed and approved by CDD prior to the leasing of the units in the building. The standards for tenant approval must be consistent with those of market rate tenants. For instance, landlord references can only be used as criteria for approval if they are also used for market rate tenants. Applicants' incomes are not used to determine creditworthiness. Based on the property management review, applicants are approved or denied for the unit. If they are denied, applicants have five days to appeal the denial to the management company, who may or may not overturn it. This section provides information on the results of reviews by properties between 2010 to April 1, 2018. Total Reviews, 2010-April 1, 2018: Between the beginning of 2010 and April 1, 2018, 829 applicants were reviewed by a property management company in at least one building. One hundred and fifty-seven applicants (18%) were denied and 705(82%) were approved. Applicants Processed, Total 157, 7H% 705, 82% Approved Denied Figure 22: Approvals and denials, 2010 to 4/1/18 Reviews by Voucher Status, 2010- April 1, 2018: Between 2010 and April 1, 2018, 289 applicants were voucher holders and 573 were non-voucher holders. The overall approval rate for voucher holders was 81% and for non-voucher holders was 83%. Approvals and Denials, 2010- 4/1/2018 600 573 500 289 300 32O% 200 81.3% 235 100 Voucher Holders Non-Voucher Holders Approved • Denied Figure 23: Approvals and denials, total, all years. 26

Applicant Appeals for Tenancy Denials, 2010-2018: If an applicant is denied by a property, they can appeal the denial to discuss reasons for the denial with the property management. There have been 57 appeals since 2010, of which 24 (40%) were by voucher holders and 33(60%) were by non-voucher holders. Non- voucher holders have a slightly higher appeal success rate, at 41%, than voucher holders, at 33%. Appeals by Voucher Status 33 35 30 24 25 19 20 15 15 10 14 5 9 0 Non-Voucher Voucher Holders Holders Approved Denied Figure 24: Appeal results, 2010-4/1/2018 Reasons for Denial: Between 2010 and April 1, 2018, the most common reason for denial was an applicant's credit, followed by eviction history, landlord reference, criminal history, and civil court. Denial of Non Voucher Holders Denial of Voucher Holders 5% 3% 5% 3% 6% 8% 6% 8% 76% 80% Credit • Eviction Landlord • Criminal Civil Court Landlord = Criminal = Civil Court Credit • Eviction Figure 25 and 26: Reasons for Denial by Voucher Status, 2010-4/1/2018 27

MIDDLE INCOME PROGRAM There are currently 15 middle income units in the rental portfolio for households whose incomes are between 80% to 120% AMI. The middle-income units are at one property in Kendall Square. They were first leased up in 2015. This is a small number of units from which to identify trends; however, a few characteristics can be noted. The information below, unless otherwise noted, is based on households in these units on April 1, 2018. On that date, 14 of the 15 units were occupied with one vacancy. Since the units were first leased up until April 1, 2018, there has been a total of four vacancies here. Tenants by Household Size: There are 7 one-bedroom units and 8 two-bedroom units in the portfolio. The following chart shows the household size of all tenants. The seven one-bedroom units have one or two occupants and the two-bedroom units have two to five occupants. Middle Income Tenants by Household Size 2 2 1pp • 2pp 3pp • 4pp • 5pp Figure 27: Middle Income Tenants by Household Size Number of children: As of April 1, 2018, there were nine households with children under 18. The total number of children is 15 with 6 under 6 years old and g between 6-18 years old. Children in the Middle Income Program 10 9 9 8 6 2 Children Under 6 Children Under 18 Figure 28: Middle Income Tenants by Household Size 28

Tenant Income: The following chart shows the percentage of AMI for the 14 occupied units. It should be noted that 8 of the 15 units are designated for households at 80%-100% AMI and 7 units are designated for households at 100%-120% AMI. The range of incomes are governed by this requirement. The vacant unit is a two-bedroom unit designated for a household in the 80%-100% AMI income range. The one household who is over 120% AMI moved out of the unit after April 1, 2018. Middle Income Tenant AMI Percentages 140% 124% 116% 118% 120% 110% 107% 107% 104% 97% 100% 90% 88% 88% 86% 83% 83% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Middle Income Inclusionary Households Figure 29: Middle Income Tenant AMI Percentages 29

PART 3: HOMEOWNERS The Housing Division oversees sales and resales of affordable homeownership units which are developed through a variety of programs, including non-profit development, financial assistance, Homebridge, and inclusionary housing. Inclusionary homeownership units account for approximately 40% of all affordable ownership units. The data below provides information on the frequency of resales and the length of time that owners remain in inclusionary ownership units. Turnover of Ownership Units: The first resale of inclusionary homeownership units was in 2008. There have been between one to five inclusionary homeownership units resold per year since that time. The chart below shows the number of units resold per year, the bedroom size, and the total inclusionary homeownership stock occupied each year. The rate of resale of inclusionary homeownership units is low. The highest rate of resales was in 2014 and 2016 when 2.4% of the units were resold. Inclusionary Sales Total TZ HO Annual Turnove: - % Occupied Stock by Date FY 1 Bedroom IZ Total Sold Units 3 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 1 0 1 0 123 0.8% 2008 1 2009 0 158 0.6% 2010 2 182 1.1% 2011 4 2 187 2.1% 3 2012 2 187 1,6% 2 2 189 2013 1.1% 2014 5 194 2 2.6% 2015 2 194 1.0% 5 2016 194 2.6% 1 4 2017 2.1% 195 2018 2 2 195 1.0% Table 10: Inclusionary Sales 2010 to present Inclusionary Homeownership Tenure: Most inclusionary homeownership units were first occupied between FY2006 to FY2010. 152 of the 195 total occupied units, or 78%, were made available to buyers for the first time during that period. To date, there is not a lot of difference between the age of the unit and the length of current owner tenure. The chart below shows the median age of inclusionary units compared to the median length of time they have been occupied by bedroom size. Median Age Unit Size by Median Length of of Unit in Number of Ownership in Years Years Bedrooms 9.5 0/1 8.8 2 11.1 10.6 3 12.1 10.6 Table 11: Homeownership Tenure There are many reasons that owners sell an affordable unit. For units where the seller's motivation is documented, the most common reason is a change in family size, such as a marriage, birth of a child, or addition of clderly parents to the household. This was the reason given in 36.2% of sales. Other common reasons were job relocation (18.8%); the desire to own an unrestricted home (15.9%); or the death of the owner (8.7%). 30

Summary of the Rental Applicant Pool by Preference Group on 5.1.18 non- % of total Non: Cansbridze D-br. "Cembrides". eldest application not number of tler Voucher. pointe Studie voucher* yet considered"* applicants voucher applicants in alicants applicants the pool 1% March 2015 Cambridge resident, emergency need 13 4% 11 July 2017 Cambridge resident 13 14 resident subtotal N/A 2. Non-resident, work in Cambridge, emergency need Non-resident, work in Cambridge March 2016 24 2 23 October 2016 Non-resident, emergency need 210 70% May 2010 Non-resident, no preference 18 17 288 non-resident subtotal 100% 23 19 13 302 total % of total number of 1.hr. 1 Bedroom applicants in the poo N/A 5 0% Cambridge resident, emergency need 101 26 12% 126 December 2016 Cambridge resident 4 131 26 101 resident subtotal April 2016 0% Non-resident, work in Cambridge, emergency need 150 May 2010 Non-resident, work in Cambridge 14% 72 790 91 19% 138 May 2010 Non-resident, emergency need 650 61% May 2020 Non-residant, no preference non-resident subtotal 790 953 72 91 100% 1084 891 95 98 total % of total. 2-br numberef points 2 Bedroom appilcents.jn. puplicants the pool April 2017 2% Cambridge resident, child under 6, emergency need 20 0% September 2017 Cambridge resident, child under 5 0% August 2017 Cambridge resident, child under 18, emergency need 180 15 129 141 May 2010 13% Cambridge resident, child under 18 June 2011 19 2% Cambridge resident, emergency need May 2010 128 12% Cambridge resident 318 123 15 180 resident subtotal January 2013 17 Non-resident, work in Cambridge, chlid under 6, emergency need 94 May 2010 Non-resident, child under 5, emergency need October 2013 35 Non-resident, work in Cambridge, child under 6 June 2014 Non-resident, work In Cambridge, child under 18, emergency neec 123 May 2010 Non-resident, chlld under 6 52 May 2010 Non-resident, child under 18, emergency need 61 48 633 Non-resident, work in Cambridge, child under 18 May 2010 Non-resident, work in Cambridge, emergency need November 2014 Non-resident, child under 18 May 2010 May 2014 Non-resident, emergency need Non-resident, work In Cambridge May 2010 May 2010 Non-resident, no preference 633 non-resident subtotal! 5~8523ET 100% total 1060 813

% of total Non- H-br vaucher "Cambride" eldest amallcation not niamber of 3. Bedroom Voucher tier points spoilsante yet consideredee applicants in. applicents voucher" applicants the pool 14 2% Cambridge resident, child under 6, emergency need March 2016 103 17% Cambridge resident, child under 6 August 2012 6 Cambridge resident, chlid under 18, emergency need 2% 15 June 2011 1 160 17 113 130 21% Cambridge resident, child under 18 May 2010 5 1% May 2010 Cambridge resident, emergency need 23 4% Cambridge resident 4 June 2010 290 113 resident subtotal 160 17 1% Non-resident, work in Cambridge, child under 6, emergency need May 2014 53 9% Non-resident, child under 6, emergency need May 2010 12 Non-resident, work in Cambridge, child under 6 2% May 2014 0% Non-resident, work in Cambridge, chld under 18, emergency need October 2012 Non-resident, child under 6 12% 71 May 2010 23 4% Non-resident, child under 18, emergency need May 2010 2 250 27 42 10 Non-resident, work in Cambridge, child under 18 2% March 2013 0% Non-resident, work in Cambridge, emergency need Non-resident, child under 18 13% 82 May 2010 Non-resident, emergency need 1% April 2013 1% Non-resident, work in Cambridge December 2013 Non-resident 45 7% May 2010 250 27 42 319 non-resident subtotal 609 total 410 140 100% 59 % of total. 4-br number of tier paints 4 Bedroom applicants applicants in the real Cambridge resident, child under 6, emergency need 10% 2 August 2015 Cambridge resident, child under 6 20% February 2012 Cambridge residant, child under 18, emergency need 15% June 2104 6 8 Cambridge resident, chlld under 18 25% April 2012 0% N/A Cambridge resident, emergency need Cambridge resident 0% 14 resident subtotal 8 Non-resident, work in Cambridge, child under 6, emergency need 5% October 2017 10% Non-resident child under 6, emergency need December 2015 Non-resident, work in Cambridge, child under 6 October 2015 10% Non-resident, work in Cambridge, child under 18, emergency need 0% N/A Non-resident, child under 6 April 2015 0% Non-resident, chlid under 18, emergency need 0% N/A 0% Non-resident, work in Cambridge, child under 18 N/A 0% Non-resident, work in Cambridge, emergency need N/A 0% Non-resident, child under 18 N/A /Non-resident, emergency need N/A [Non-resident, work in Cambridge N/A Non-resident December 2015 12 20 100% 12

Non- voucher "Cambridke Voucher TOTAL ALL POOLS applicents applicants* "voucher" applicants 2134 3075 100% 237 457 All Applicants 767 460 270 37 25% All Resident Applicants 361 12% Non-resident, work in Cambridge 187 [phone removed] 63% Non-resident NOTES *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 Voucher. Non-residents are Identified as having a "Cambridge" voucher and non-Cambridge voucher. Applicants may be eligible for more than one bedroom size. **oldest application not yet considered" are applicants who have not been sent to available property. The data in this report is from the Rental Applicant Pool on 5/1/2018

CDDO 344 CAMBRIDGE September 2018 City of Cambridge CITY OF CAMBRIDGE - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Housing Report 2018 Inclusionary Community Development Department Attachment D

created housing stock housing stock housing in the City CITY OF CAMBRIDGE - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Affordable Housing Stock • Inclusionary units comprise 14% of the city's affordable • Affordable units make up 14.84% of the 54,713 units of • Inclusionary is one of the ways that affordable units are • In 2015 inclusionary units comprised 11% of the affordable 1495 Inclusionary Housing, 1102, 16% Housing. 1.254, Privately-Oned • Scattered Site FTHB = Inclusionary Housing = Non-Profit Sponsored Housing 2,715, 3335 Public Housing. FTHB. 99. 1% Scattered Site Total=8,117 • Public Housing • Privately-Owned Housing 35%6 Sponsored Non-Profit Housing. 2,937, Cambridge Affordable Housing Stock (as of 6/30/2018)

provisions adapted in 2017 units are under construction CITY OF CAMBRIDGE - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 1,102 affordable units approved Production • 891 rental units and 211 homeownership units • 935 units complete and 167 under construction • 49 of these units approved under the inclusionary Inclusionary Housing • 15 complete units are middle income and 11 middle income 200 400 TORI 900 300 [phone removed] 100 935 196 739 Complele Rental • Homeowmership Development 9/1/2018 15 167 152 In Development Approved Units - Complete and In

rental units CITY OF CAMBRIDGE - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT rental and 4 homeownership units Stock Growth • Projected growth for the next three years • Growth since beginning of program - 1998 • Since April 1, 2017, 7 projects approved - 123 Inclusionary Housing • Majority of the growth in the program since 2011 in 200 400 [phone removed] 1000 1400 1600 1800 Figure 3: Inclusionary Housing Stock Growth, current and projected. Inclusionary Housing Stock Growth [phone removed]' 211, 1337/ /1126 1265 1 235 1500, 235 1660 1425 -Total Rental - Ownership

bedrooms are studios these is affordable reduce studio units units will be affordable; CITY OF CAMBRIDGE - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT new inclusionary housing provisions Units by Bedroom Size • 2017 amendments - increase family sized units and • A smaller project with two family sized units, one of • 195-211 Concord Turnpike, 6 of the 12 three-bedroom under construction in developments subject to old and • Currently 30 completed rental units with three or more • Will increase to 53, as 23 three-bedroom rental units now 23% of all units are studios, only 8% of inclusionary units 2595 5095 2035 1085 40%5 3095 4595 3595 1595 1096 Studio 1295 45% 1 BR 43%6 BUnits Under Prior Ordinance (842 units) 3455 2BR 29%6 Bunits Under New Ordinance 149 units) 3÷ BR 1685 Bedroom Sizes of Rental Units Created Before and After Ordinance Revisions

requirement. • Pipeline remains active CITY OF CAMBRIDGE - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT units currently under review by CDD enactment of the new inclusionary provisions • Four inclusionary developments with 72 affordable DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE • Developments permitted both prior to and after the new inclusionary provisions with a 20% affordability • Three permitted developments will be subject to the • Continues to be proposals for new residential projects

to March 31, 2018 City of Cambridge - Community Development Department • 736 occupied units as of 9/1/2018 children driven by size of units available • 30% of new lease ups were families with • 77 new households housed from April 1, 2017 • 22% of new lease ups had an emergency need • 70% of lease ups moved from market rate units INCLUSIONARY RENTAL RESIDENTS

five years 45% in 2018. remained steady (9%) CITY OF CAMBRIDGE - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT households are staying in units Tenancy • Corresponding increase in the length of time • Percentage of units vacated and leased to new in the last 24 months (49% in 2017, 30% in 2018) • Percentage of households in their units from two years to five years increased from 24% in 2017 to • The percentage of tenants staying over five years tenants fluctuated from 6.8% to 12.9% over the last • Decrease in households who moved into their units

managers program and train new staff • Nearly 40 different properties CITY OF CAMBRIDGE - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • CDD continuous relationship with property Property Management J • Regularly meet with property managers to review • Work together on lease ups, annual recertifications and other tenant and applicant issues that may arise

2018 53% to 56%) of the portfolio CITY OF CAMBRIDGE - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT the Cambridge Housing Authority Vouchers • Both 2017 and 2018 voucher utilization rates represent an increase from previous years (45% to • Voucher utilization remained the same in 2017 and • 87% of voucher holders received their voucher from • Households with vouchers account for more than half 259, 44% 267,4456 56% 331. 338, 56% • Non-Voucher Tenants • CHA 295. 87% Voucher Utilization, 2018 Voucher Utilization, 2017 87% 287. • Non-Voucher Tenants • CHA • Cther Voucher 43, 13% Cther Voucher 44, 13%

applicants • 767 Cambridge residents • 1,947 non-resident applicants CITY OF CAMBRIDGE - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 361 non-residents who work in Cambridge Applicant Waiting Pool • As of May 1, 2018, the waiting pool consists of 3,075

Attachment E comprehensive permit Court Condominium was approved by a Just A Start's 14-unit affordable at Columbia 100% Affordable Citywide Overlay District: City Council Housing Committee November 28, 2018 Background, Concept, Considerations & Next Steps

Adopted 2015, reevaluation now underway Current discussion 2016 - first commitment of City budget funds for Current discussion affordable housing since 2001 Adopted 2017 ongoing Status developments to allow predictable as-of-right permitting for affordable housing Creating streamlined process for the permitting of new affordable housing Adopt recommended changes to Inclusionary Housing provisions Creating a new zoning standards or an overlay for affordable housing development which would allow additional development density, reduced parking and other Adopt recommended changes to Incentive Zoning Ordinance Maintain the commitment of 80% of CPA funds to affordable housing relaxed dimensional standards to affordable housing developers Identify new City funding for affordable housing Affordable Housing Goals & Strategies Action / Strategy Actions & strategies identified by CDD in 2015 to advance this goal include: new affordable units by 2020 January 2015 - City Council policy order regarding feasibility of the City committing to creating 1,000

Charles River No residential units in block 16 - 50 101 - 200 51 - 100 1-15 0 units 201 - 318 1096 •.- Neighborhood Boundaries Number of Affordable Units Number of Affordable Units by Census Block More difficult to build delays, and significant affordable housing in risk to affordable market-rate developers given zoning limitations housing developers. some areas of the city significant cost, long approvals can add competition from Challenges to building affordable housing • High land costs and • Appeal of discretionary

Purchased Properties Offers Made Development Sites for New Existing Multi- family Housing 14 13 15 Providers Analyzed by New Opportunities Affordable Housing and offered more per-unit in land costs than we have ever seen -- and was outbid housing that can be built One recent example - affordable housing provider based an offer on 2x as many units as allowed by zoning, FY2018 FY2017 FY2016 • Purchase prices that can be supported by affordable housing providers cannot be supported by the amount of • City funds used for property purchases; CDD tracks properties analyzed by affordable housing providers • Often strong market interest makes a competitive offer infeasible; • Approximately 1 in 10 opportunities recently assessed results in a successful purchase Affordable Housing Development - recent trends

approved by a comprehensive permit Cascap's 24-unit Print Shop Condominiums was developments so that affordable housing developments can be build needed housing more quickly; and citywide by expanding the viability of affordable units; affordable housing to accomplish more. housing to allow limited City funds dedicated to success in pursuing opportunities to create new residents of all incomes; affordable housing housing in areas where there are fewer affordable Create opportunities in all neighborhoods for Foster equitable distribution of affordable housing Help reduce costs of building new affordable • Help affordable housing providers have more • Make it easier to permit 100% affordable Why consider an Affordable Housing Overlay district?

a special permit Homeowner's Rehab's 40-unit Putnam Green was approved by 5001000) open space) and parking where necessary structure (including existing residential) to affordable multi-family housing Residence A and B districts); dimensional standards (height, setbacks, approvals input instead of discretionary permitting required design review and community townhouse developments in all districts (varies by zoning district) (e.g. not currently an allowed use in developments only: For 100% affordable housing • Allow affordable multi-family and • Allow for as-of-right approvals with • Allow for conversion of any existing • Offer density bonuses and relief from What would the 100% Affordable Housing Citywide Overlay include?

Corridors and 'Evolving Areas' other areas Residential neighborhoods and would need an FAR of 2.0 to be financially feasible in all current base zoning to be areas developments would need 2.5 times the density allowed by affordable developments competitive in the market corridors and evolving areas and other areas (light blue), (dark blue), affordable • In areas such as mixed-use • In residential neighborhoods Overlay would apply to the entire city • The 100% Affordable Housing 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Ideas for Discussion

The special permit approved for the conversion of the former Immaculate Conception Church into 14 affordable condominium units was appealed by abutters; the size of the project was reduced by 2 units during the approval process; the appeal delayed Just A Start's work on this project by more than TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD completive zoning to be use underway analysis = 2.5X Evolving Areas analysis of parking Main Corridors and TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD areas Residential use underway 33 and 44 feet Neighborhoods be feasible in all analysis of parking examples shown at analysis = 2.0 FAR to • Open space vs. parking on open areas • height vs. bulk (setbacks) target density: Open Space Parking Setbacks Development Density • How to balance related development standards to achieve Standard Height Development Standards - What needs to be considered

Landing required variances granted by the BZA Capstone Communities & Hope Real Estate's 20-unit Port Historical Commission & NCD where applicable proposals design review - Planning Board considered as part of design review historic review - Cambridge Entrances, windows, roofs, ground roofs relationship to adjacent buildings building massing, articulation, bays, floors • community review & input into • mixed-use (e.g. retail) where desired permitting with advisory vs. discretionary Create New Design Review Process for 100% Affordable Housing -- as-of-right Design Requirements / Design Standards approval Cambridge Street. among other things, reduced to size of the retail space on Just-A-Start chose to move forward by-right option which, Development Process: Community & Design Review The comprehensive permit approved for the 19-unit Elm Street Place was appealed by an abutter; rather than delay the project

10 size units and the loss of 2 units. trial was to begin. Construction costs increased considerably during the delay, The project was delayed by almost 3 years and the litigation settled just before and CHA was forced to re-design the building, resulting the reduction of family- The comprehensive permit approved for the 40-unit Temple Place was appealed. hearings Housing Committee permitting • affordable housing distribution / density • height / bulk • design review or approval / expedited • design requirements / design guidelines • January - February: develop proposal with • March - April: file zoning petition & begin • open space / parking and balance trade-offs: where to advantage affordable housing development Housing Committee comments will inform how & Next Steps • Suggested Schedule • CDD continuing work to develop concept

Attachment F. Lopez, Donna From: Randall, Janet < [email removed]> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 12:48 PM To: McGovern, Marc; Siddiqui, Sumbul; Mallon, Alanna; Simmons, Denise; Toomey, Tim; Carlone, Dennis; Kelley, Craig; Devereux, Jan; Zondervan, Quinton Cc: Lopez, Donna; Nicolai Cauchy Subject: for tonight's meeting Councillors, I want to express my opposition to the out-of-scale development being proposed as part of the overlay for West Cambridge/Huron Village. The issue is not about pitting low- and moderate- against high-income folks as some people have characterized it. Those of us who oppose the development in certain sections of these neighborhoods are not against affordable housing, or even against building higher structures on certain streets. But it IS about the architecture and the idea to put the higher structures everywhere. I am interested in retaining the charm of Huron Village and Observatory Hill with shops in low buildings that are set back with enough room for outdoor seating or barbecues, shops and cafes that can be places where people gather, where small businesses can thrive. We want to keep the local businesses and not see them replaced by chainstores. There are plenty of chainstores at Alewife, two whole malls of As far as I am concerned, this is not a debate about affordable housing at all. There is no necessary opposition between affordable housing and the village feel. But I see a problem when affordable housing - in fact when ANY housing - completely changes the character of a neighborhood. Look at the housing going up all around Fresh Pond - large structures, little green space, no street parking, minimal setbacks. It is really counterproductive to think that those of us who are interested in maintaining architectural integrity - the defining character of a neighborhood - are against affordable housing. It's simply false. There are ways of incorporating affordable housing into existing structures such as subdividing large single family houses (Brattle Street area, Huron Village, Avon Hill) but keeping the green space around them. Please don't pit the people who want to preserve Huron Village as a village against those who are in favor of affordable housing. We all want affordable housing in EVERY neighborhood. I think it's important that we have neighbors of a variety of socio-economic backgrounds. But the housing has to be judiciously and carefully integrated. Janet Randall 64 Granville Road Cambridge Massachusetts 02138 [phone removed] [email removed]

Attachment o Crane, Paula Farooq, Iram From: Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 10:03 AM Simmons, Denise; Siddiqui, Sumbul To: Lopez, Donna; Crane, Paula; Corinne Espinoza Cc: Subject: FW: Can't join Housing Committee meeting today Dear Councillors Siddiqui and Simmons, Ms. Espinoza has requested that I forward her comments to you for inclusion in today's Housing Committee meeting. Best regards, Iram From: Corinne Espinoza [mailto: [email removed]] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 9:37 AM To: Farooq, Iram <ifarooq@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Can't join Housing Committee meeting today Good morning Iram, In my excitement to support a Housing Overlay and Affordable Housing in Cambridge, I said that I would like to attend today's committee meeting at noon. However, when I looked at my calendar I realized I have a doctor's appointment in Boston that interferes, and unfortunately I cannot join the hearing. If it were permissible, as an individual community member and as a PB member, I would have said (if they were taking public comment): • I understand there is a perception that the Planning Board was against the Affordable Housing overlay. I disagree with that assessment and would say the board had a diversity of opinions and comments. Folks could review the transcripts or videos to learn more about the support from some members and the concerns raised by some members. • I support any and all efforts that could move the needle on providing more affordable housing for people in Cambridge, I do view the dearth of affordable housing as an emergency. Families are being evicted, separated from their community, disconnected from their networks of support (including extended family, schools, friends, doctors and child care), other families are spending more than half of their take home pay on rents, affecting their ability to pay for other things their family needs including urgent medical care. I know a family in Cambridge who needs an epi-pen but can't buy one because they spend most of their money to stayed housed. • I am not okay with Cambridge becoming a wealthy enclave with nearly no economic diversity. I am not okay with increasing Cambridge's economic inequality. We need to act now in order to stave off these trends, and solutions will require uncompromising attention and commitment. • I was disappointed to learn how many Cambridge neighbors espouse egalitarian values yet literally said "not in my backyard" when the idea was offered of allowing taller buildings for 100% affordable housing developments.

See you at the next PB meeting and best wishes for a good day, Corinne

Attachment# Crane, Paula Lopez, Donna From: Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 12:10 AM To: Crane, Paula Subject: Fwd: Affordable housing overlay Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Devereux, Jan" < jdevereux@cambridgema.gov> Date: November 28, 2018 at 9:31:33 PM EST To: Allan Sadun <[email removed]> Cc: "Lopez, Donna" < dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Re: Affordable housing overlay Thank you. I'm sorry we ran out of time and you didn't get a chance to speak. Your comments will be placed on the record for the hearing (I've cc'ed the clerk). Jan Devereux Vice Mayor Cambridge, MA idevereux@cambridgema.gov For updates on City Council issues and events visit http://jandevereux.com/ All emails to and from this City address should be considered subject to Massachusetts Public Records Laws. From: Allan Sadun <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 2:36:23 PM To: City Council Subject: Affordable housing overlay Dear members of the City Council,

I attended the Housing Committee meeting today which adjourned five minutes ago, but did not sign up to speak before the sheet of paper was taken away, and the meeting ran long, so I was evidently not able to speak. I'm emailing in what I had planned to say. Thank you for reading, and apologies for misunderstanding the procedures. Allan Sadun, 17 Pleasant Place, Cambridgeport Thank you to members of the committee, and to the city staff. I want to voice my strong support for a citywide affordable housing overlay and for a super-inclusionary density bonus - really, for anything that makes affordable housing developers, both the City and private, more able to compete with market-rate developers for scarce and expensive land. We have a few THOUSAND people on our affordable housing waitlists. A lot of the comments earlier today discussed how to prioritize and shuffle them, and that's important, but it's tragic that that's where we're at, because we ought to be doing our best to house them all. We want a system that serves as many people as possible, and that requires as many units as we can get. It requires opening up as many parcels as we can, and allowing as much affordable housing by-right on them as we can. I want to speak to two concerns that have been brought up - one about neighborhood character, another about parking. Housing is what anchors retail, and creates a Cambridge, as Councilor Carlone said. As someone else's written commentary stressed, it is important that we have neighbors of a variety of socio-economic backgrounds, but we must also take into account the impact of our housing market on the neighborhood character. I believe that neighborhood character is made up of characters in the neighborhood, and I worry that as low-income folks continue to get squeezed out, we're seeing a much greater danger to the neighborhood character of Cambridge than is posed by the look of a few low-rise apartment buildings. On parking - in the 21st century, with the imminent climate crisis, in a dense, relatively flat inner ring city like Cambridge, there should be absolutely nowhere where you have to own a car to live. Everywhere in this city should be a safe place to bike, everywhere in this city should have micro-mobility and bus access. And if that is not the case, that is a reason to improve cycling infrastructure and transit service, not an excuse to duck our committment to building affordable housing. Buildings are a lot more permanent than bike lanes and bus routes - we should build for the city we want. Thank you. 2