a report from Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair and Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui, Co-Chair of the Housing Committee for a public hearing held on March 5, 2019 to continue discussions on the Affordable Housing Overlay District

Attachment A Opening Remarks for Housing Committee March 5, 2019, 6 pm in Sullivan Chamber "The Housing Committee shall meet to continue discussions on the Affordable Housing Overlay District and other related matters." Good evening, Tonight, the Housing Committee is meeting to continue our discussion on the proposed Affordable Housing Cominy testict wenchie Apethink at has lee wane long time in coming urists mething alt this. back even earlier, back to when Brian Murphy was head of the Community Development Department. But around April 2018, we specifically asked for language to be put together that would allow us to discuss and debate the idea of the Affordable Housing Overlay District. Initially, it was my hope and expectation that we would have had some draft language in front of us prior to last Thanksgiving, and we all must take a little ownership over the fact that this process has unfortunately been delayed and we're just opening this discussion NOW - but this means that for over half a year, members of the community have been left to fill in the blanks with whatever they imagined the Overlay MIGHT be. And unfortunately, that has led to a lot of wild conjecture of "worst case scenarios." Tonight, the CDD is going to give a presentation on what a proposed Affordable Housing Overlay District could look like. This is the first time the Committee has had a chance to review this, and this is the first time that the community has had a chance to review it. This is JUST THE FIRST of many conversations, and we shall have many discussions going forward to tease this out, pull it apart, get a better sense of what it does and does not do - and my hope is that we can all ultimately support it or reject it based on the FACTS. In the weeks leading up to this hearing, I and the other Housing Committee members have been receiving a number of emails from people; some emails are in support of the Affordable Housing Overlay concept, and some very much oppose the concept. Tonight marks the first opportunity for EVERYONE to start working toward a SHARED UNDERSTANDING of what, exactly, the Affordable Housing Overlay District ACTUALLY IS. 'And by establishing this shared understanding, together, my sincere hope is that we can separate fact from conjecture, and we can discuss and deliberate on this in good faith. I want to remind us all that, no matter whether you are in favor of this proposed zoning or you are against it, we should strive to be able to disagree WITHOUT being disagreeable. You may not agree with everything that's said in this meeting, but I would ask everyone to approach this ongoing discussion in good faith and attempt to work through any disagreements we may have with civility and respect for one another. Again: let us be clear that tonight marks the start of the discussion. This is the first time that we can all start figuring out what this Overlay will or will not be, how it would work, and how we can better understand it. What I am asking my fellow Committee members AND what I am asking of the community at large is to go into this with an open mind. Let's roll up our sleeves and ask the difficult questions. Let's make sure we all understand this, and that we create a SHARED understanding of what the Overlay District is. Let's base our discussions on the facts coming out of this committee, instead of basing the discussions on things you see in a chain email, in a scary social media post, or from a generic flyer being passed around the community. I think that is a fair thing to ask.

In a moment, I will ask my co-Chair if she has any opening words, and then we will turn the floor over to the CDD for their presentation. After the presentation, I will open the floor to questions from the Committee members, and then we will have public comment. I will also note that our next meeting on March 20 will be given over entirely to Public Comment, so if you do want to absorb and process what the CDD is presenting tonight before giving your comment, you may want to speak at the meeting on the 20th. Tonight's hearing is being broadcast and live streamed, as are the next two Housing Committee hearings, so that we can be sure that as many people who want to hear and participation in this discussion can do so. And with that, I turn the floor to Councilor Siddiqui.

Attachment B Opening Statement by Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui - March 5, 2019 Housing Committee Hearing I concur with my Co-Chair. I look forward to the questions from the committee members and to have thoughtful and respectful discussion on the matter. I've been able to benefit from living in affordable housing in North Cambridge and East Cambridge as many of you know. I wouldn't be here without it. Our number one goal as a council is to increase access to housing to all income groups. How have we done that and how do we continue to do that? We've approved zoning in Central Square, Mass and Main, and one of their projects-Union house, a four- story, 23-unit building on 47 Bishop Allen Drop is starting to lease and I checked online today and a 1 bedroom 1 bath 656 square ft apartment is starting at over $2900. We aren't discussing building units at those prices. We are building 100% affordable housing and the goal is different here because affordable housing developers like Homeowner's Rehab and Just a Start face the most stringent requirements to acquire and develop housing and also face significant challenges. In CDD's presentation today, we will see some of those examples. At present, the number of individuals and families waiting for housing--across all of the Cambridge Housing Authority's waitlists-- is 19,072. This includes public housing/CHA-owned units, section 8, and single-room occupancy, about 34% of which claim a preference on their application (i.e. living or working in Cambridge, or a veteran). Yes, I don't think any amount of building we do could meet demand--demand isn't being met for market rate housing, let alone affordable. but how are we increasing access to low, moderate, and middle-income families. We are trying to level the playing field and that requires making compromises and resources. I've heard various comments about buildings and building size, I do not appreciate when there are statements made calling my former home ugly. Please refrain from making assumptions about the needs, wants, desires of those who would benefit from the creation of affordable housing in this city. I am sure others who share my experience of growing up in affordable housing would agree that we would prefer NOT to have our experiences appropriated and misrepresented in support of views that ill-informed. I look forward to the questions from the committee members and to have thoughtful and respectful discussion here today.

Attachment C Mayor McGoveRn I would like to begin by apologizing that I cannot stay for tonight's meeting, as l have to chair the School Committee. I will, however, be able to attend the two other Housing Committee meetings that are scheduled. Afiyah Harrigan from my office will be here tonight taking notes. While we discuss issues like setbacks, open space, height and density, I hope that we remember that at the core of this discussion are people. People who want to remain in Cambridge or live in Cambridge for all of the same reasons we all do, but people who struggle due to the lack of affordable housing. People who are valuable members of our community and help to make Cambridge the diverse community we all say we love. As I have stated before, current zoning makes it virtually impossible for affordable housing to be built in certain areas. Although we don't have policies that explicitly segregate people, we have zoning that essentially does just that. I am hopeful that we can work together to draft an overlay that addresses concerns, but that makes it financially viable for more affordable housing to be built throughout our city. I believe that making neighborhoods more inclusive and more vibrant is a good thing, and I hope that we are willing to not just talk about our commitment to affordable housing but actually take action to do something about it because it's easy to talk about how much you support something, but the true test is where do you stand when it impacts you directly. I think there is some confusion in the community about the Overlay, so I hope CDD can address these and other questions, including: 1. What "as of right" means and doesn't mean? 2. Will these affordable units be affordable in perpetuity? 3. Will the overlay lead to a 25% increase in population? These are all concerns I have heard and hope they can be addressed. Thank you.

Attachment D 100%-Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Why it Matters: It's About Access and Equity Displacement and increasing rents has been of growing concern for Cambridge residents, who have consistently ranked the lack of Anticipated Process & Timeline* affordable housing as the community's #1 issue. The City Council has made creating and preserving affordable housing its #1 priority goal. Several factors make this goal challenging to achieve: Council's Housing Committee discusses policies to address housing crisis. A key • Land and construction costs continues to climb idea was a citywide affordable housing • Cuts at the federal level have reduced resources overlay concept. (2014 - Present) (despite increased funding at the City level) Current zoning severely limits where new affordable housing can be built. In many neighborhoods, zoning Envision Cambridge Housing Working Group discusses and recommends the idea. With does not allow existing structures to be rebuilt, let alone the multi-family or townhouse units that are analysis by consultants and input from staff and the community, the concept begins to affordable to working families. take shape. (2017 - 2018) By reforming our zoning, we can help the City's affordable housing partners access new neighborhoods and opportunities, streamline the permitting process to cut down on costly delays, use public Housing Committee to weigh priorities and funding more effectively, and allow for a more equitable approach to tradeoffs and discuss what growth to enhance the diversity of our community. should be included in a citywide overlay. (January - March 2019) The Idea: Zoning Overlay for 100%-Affordable Development Create a citywide zoning overlay to enable 100%-affordable housing development to better compete with market-rate development. Develop a 100%-Affordable Housing Overlay zoning petition and For 100%-affordable projects only, this would allow the following: design & development standards for • As-of-right* permitting consideration by City Council. (Spring 2019) • Density bonuses (greater number of units and total floor area with more flexible zoning dimensional standards (height, setbacks**, open space) and parking Public hearings at Ordinance Committee • Multi-family and townhouse developments in areas where and Planning Board; modifications and they are not currently allowed amendments considered before any • Conversion of larger residential buildings to affordable multi- decision is made. family housing (Late Spring - Summer 2019) • Community input and design review by the Planning Board *Public input will be incorporated throughout each stage. *As-of-Right: Complies with all applicable zoning regulations and does not require any discretionary action by the Planning Board or Board of Zoning Appeals. **Setback: The distance between a building and property line. Area Median Income (AMI) by Household What is Affordable Housing? 100% AMI 80% AMI Household Size • Permanently deed-restricted so residents generally pay no more than 1 Person $75,500 $56,800 30% of their income for rent or a mortgage 2 People $86,300 $64,900 • For income-eligibile households, typically earning less than 80% of 3 People $97,100 $73,000 area median income (AMI), but up to 100% AMI in some cases $81,100 4 People $107,800 • For a range of people, from formerly homeless individuals to $87,600 $116,500 5 People middle-class families 6 People $94,100 $125,100

100%-Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay FAQs What would happen to street level retail space? How tall would new buildings be in residential neighborhoods? What about other dimensional Neighborhood retail provides an important amenity standards (such as setbacks and open space) and to residents, and creating new housing benefits small parking? retailers by growing their customer base. Affordable Height, setbacks, open space, and parking are housing developments built in active corridors often incorporate street level retail. Overlay provisions could interrelated. For example, a taller building can have larger . setbacks that can allow for more parking or open space also require that ground floor retail be included in key locations and on properties that previously had active compared to a shorter building of the same floor area. ground floor retail. Keeping in mind such tradeoffs, changes to dimensional standards are currently being discussed based on the Who would be able to take advantage of this zoning density bonus needed to incentivize 100%-affordable overlay? housing projects. Most of the 100%-affordable projects in Cambridge are currently developed by non-profit (e.g. Homeowners Will there be community input? How can we ensure Rehab, Inc. and Just-A-Start) and public (Cambridge Housing Authority) entities. good design? However, any developer - public, non-profit, or private Affordable housing developers would be required to - building 100%-affordable housing would be able to hold community meetings to review their proposals with utilize the overlay zoning. Affordable housing created neighbors. Design review would be done by the Planning through the overlay would have deed restrictions to Board based on design standards and guidelines and ensure permanent affordability. Private developers would include additional public input. Projects that do building market-rate housing (with required inclusionary not meet the 100% affordable housing overlay standards housing) could not utilize the 100%-affordable housing would have to utilize existing permitting processes. overlay. Affordable housing created through the overlay would have deed restrictions to ensure permanent affordability. Would this mean historic building's would be torn down to How much new development would result from this build new housing? zoning overlay? How would it help create affordable All buildings that are more than 50 years old are subject housing? to the City's demolition review ordinance, which would 100%-affordable housing developments require not be impacted by the 100%-Affordable Housing Zoning significant public funding from City, State, and Federal Overlay. Local affordable housing developers also have sources. Based on current projections, the City aims to a long and successful track record of working with the fund 600-650 new affordable housing units by 2030 in Cambridge Historical Commission to preserve, renovate, addition to those created through inclusionary zoning expand and re-use historic buildings as affordable housing. in market rate buildings. However, meeting this target will be difficult without zoning intervention to support affordable housing Affordable Housing Distribution by Neighborhood as of 6/30/2018 Total Currently, affordable housing development is financially % of City's % of Affordable Affordable Affordable Housing Housing Housing viable only in certain parts of the city. Properties being Units Units Units Housing sold on the market often receive multiple bids - from 11.5% 12.3% 932 7,553 1. East Cambridge affordable housing developers as well as market rate 36 2.3% 0.4% 1,542 2. MIT developers (who can afford to pay more in anticipation 3,015 7.6% 620 20.6% 3. Wellington -Harrington of profit from creating high-end market-rate housing). 3,206 13.6% 4. The Port 34.5% 1,107 If we change zoning to create greater predictability 16% 5. Cambridgeport 6,491 1,296 20% and allow more affordable housing units on a property 6. Mid-Cambridge 6,736 5.6% 6.8% 455 (compared to market rate units), affordable housing developers would be more competitive in acquiring 7. Riverside 669 4,016 16.7% 8.2% land and the land cost would be spread over more 5.3% 1.4% 111 2,086 8. Agassiz units. Therefore, City funding would be more effective 9.8% 6,004 586 7.2% 9. Neighborhood 9 and efficiently utilized to help us reach our affordable 10. West Cambridge 53 4,210 0.7% 1.3% housing goals more quickly. 7,612 24.5% 1,862 22.9% 11. North Cambridge 2.9% 21% 1,108 233 12. Cambridge Highlands Questions or Comments? 13.8% 1.9% 157 1,134 13. Strawberry Hill Contact: Chris Cotter 100% 8,117 14.84% 54,713 Citywide Director of Housing, City of Cambridge ccotter@cambridgema.gov

Attachment E 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Why It's Needed & What It Will Do Housing in Cambridge is getting less affordable. Affordable Housing helps: Teachers • Healthcare workers A family must earn over $125,000 per Senior citizens • Social workers year to afford to rent Small business owners a 3-bedroom home Non-profit staff at market rate. Maintenance workers How Affordable Housing Is Built Affordable Housing Partners Available City Funding & Funding (Just-A-Start, Homeowner's Rehab Inc, from Other Sources Land & Buildings Cambridge Housing Authority Affordable Housing for the Cambridge Community Current Challenges $$→$$ Cuts in federal funds for Rising prices of affordable housing land & buildings MOVING Many residents are forced to leave Cambridge as Multi-family housing cannot rents continue to rise Competition between affordable housing developers be built in all areas of the city, & market-rate developers limiting the supply of affordable units (who can afford to pay more) The Idea: 100% Affordable Housing Overlay APPROVED Create new standards & design Create a faster approval process Allow affordable housing to be requirements that ensure built in bigger buildings than for new affordable housing for community input and market-rate housing Cambridge residents Planning Board review This will allow 100% affordable housing development to compete with market-rate development, creating opportunities to build affordable housing in Cambridge. Community discussion continues. Following a public process, zoning will be written in 2019. For details & updates, visit CambridgeMA.gov/AffordableHousingOverlay

Charles River signor Brian Hig areas from uninhabited onen coace. put the adjacent residential properties along Clifton St into a separate polygon. properties were divided into seven polygons in order to separate developed into a sinale solvaon. anor and ang grove uncha their leave a le • A loren Concue block at Froch Pond Raceration was divided into thras The Concue black at Buccall Fiald wac divided into two nolvanne in order to about the location of housing units. Census block boundaries were altered at four locations to increase clarity • Two Census blocks that included portions of Danehy Park and adjacent Notos on Census block goography: • Two Census blocks comprising Washington Elms were merged together Attachment F Map prepared by Brendan Monroe on September 13, 2018. CDD GIS C:Projects|Housing/AffordableNumberByBlock11x17.mxd Cambridge, Massachusetts by Census Block Number of Affordable Units No residential units in block 51 - 100 0 units 1 - 15 1096 101 - 200 201 - 318 ••.- Neighborhood Boundaries Number of Affordable Units Freshi Fresh Pind 0.5 0.25 Miles

0.5 0.25 Miles MMXRIPUD.S IMXRIPUD.S PUBS Charles River IAr1 SD-151 SD-7 Map prepared by Brendan Monrod on Dacomber 7, 2017. COD GIS C:Projacts/Zoning/Zoning11x17.m SD-8/ PROD Attachment G December 7, 2017 and reflects the latest changes to zoning boundaries. This map was prepared by the Community Development Department on es 5., SD-10(H). 05 al CO CRAGZA Ene si C.1- 7862/0 Special District-10(F) Special District-11 Special District-13 Special District-15 Special District-14 Special District-12 Special District-10(H) Special District-9 Open Space for the exact location of boundaries. C-2B Zoning Districts Special District-8A Special District-4A Special District-7 Special District-2 Special District-3 Special District-5 Special District-6 Special District-8 Special District-4 City of Cambridge, Massachusetts refer to the documents on file in the City Clerk's Office not appear on this map. The zoning lines are approximate. Please including Ordinance #1398 of October 23, 2017. Overlay Districts do As adopted February 13, 1961 and modified by subsequent amendments up to and Development District Mixed Use Residential Overlay Mixed Use Development Alewife Overlay District Ames Street District North Point District Planned Unit Development Overlay Cambridgeport Revitalization SD-1 Special District-1 Industry B Industry A Business C-1 Industry B-1 Industry A-2 Industry B-2 Industry C Industry A-1 Business C Office-2A Office-3A Business A-1 Business A-3 Business A-4 Business A-2 Business-1 Business 2 Business B Business A Office-3 B-1 BA-4 Fresh Pond Residence C Residence B Residence C-3B Office-2 Residence A-2 Residence C-3 0-1 Office-1 A-1 Residence A-1 C-1 Residence C-1 C-2 Residence C-2 c-3 C-2B Residence C-2B C-1A Residence C-1A C-3A Residence C-3A C-3B C-2A Residence C-2A Zoning Districts SD-AA,

asidential Max fAR 2.0.2.0 and max Charles Souare near Harvard. Medium 3.9. Heights allowed to 250' for non- (endall Square. Mixed use with office, esldential, retail, and a regured public public open space. Max FAR 3.0, incentives Kendall Square, "Volpe Center Parcel." Mix park. Max FAR 3.0 with restrictions. Max institutional development with required 235 million cauare tept of floor area May and residentlal. Max FAR 3.0, or 4.0 for Kendall Square, near riverfront. Mixed use of commercial office/lab and residential office uses, community services, and East Cambridge Riverfront. Office, retall residential and 300° for residential uses. North Point. Residential with retail and to encourage housing and development active uses, and community space. Up to 60' with conditional increases to 110. 2.0-3.0. Max height 120'-230", with to public open space. East Cambridge along First and Binney conditions and allowances. density mixed use with commerclal, office heights 250-350', one building up to 500°. with required open space, ground-floor heights 65'-250°, with limitations adjacent housing and ground floor retail. Total FAR residential uses. Max height 120. MIT at Kendall Square. Office and allowances. near transit. Max heights 85'-250', some Streets. Mix of retall, office, and height 65'-85', with conditions and with office, retall and residential. Max FAR and residential. Max FAR 3.0. Max height areas limited to 65'. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Districts Alewife Overlay Districts (AOD-1,2,3,4,5,6) PUD-2 PUD-4 PUD-5 PUD-7 PUD-3 PUD-6 PUD-1 PUD-4B PUD-4C PUD-3A PUD-4A PUD-KS mancino additional reouirements for anen soace receive copcial permit from the Plannine Board. See controls in lleu of the base district requirements, but must These overlays modify the dimensional provisions of the permeability, setbacks, etc. For details see Section 20.90 multi-site phased development with a variety of land uses by special permit from the Planning Board, but also of the Zoning Ordinance. base districts, generally allowing greater height and FAR The full Zoning Ordinance is available online at PUD overlay districts provide flexible zoning standards for and densities. A developer may choose to conform to PUD Articles 12 and 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. City of Cambridge Zoning Reference Sheet www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/zoninganddevelopment/Zoning nost recent update to the print version, remans the official version of the Ordinance. This sheet does not serve as a substitute for the Cambridge Zoning together with any amendments adonted by the Citv Council subsequent to the consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The print version of the Zoning Ordinance, CAUTIONARY NOTE. This sheet Is intended to serve as a quick reference to Ordinance. If any discrepancles exist between the print version of the Zoning Ordinance, and the City of Cambridge does not guarantee that this sheet is fully Ordinance and this sheet, then the print version of the Ordinance, together with any City Council amendments, shall be considered correct. dimensional standards and use regulations defined in the Cambridge Zoning (except where otherwise noted, detailed regulations are in Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance) North Point Residence, Office and Business District. Allows certain residential, office, laboratory, exceptions. Preservation of neighborhood character is encouraged. of the Zoning Ordinance. retail, and institutional uses. Maximum FAR 1.0, height 40 feet. See Article 16 of the Zoning resldential, hotel, and entertainment uses. Aggregate gross floor area of the entire district limited to Along Monsignor O'Brien Highway in East Cambridge. Regulations similar to Industry A-1 with At Massachusetts Ave and Albany Street. Regulations similar to Industry B with allowances for Near Grant and Cowperthwaite Streets in Riverside. Regulations similar to Residence C-1 with Zoing electer development density allowed through PuD-6 regulations: See Article 13 of the 1,900,000 square feet of non-residential and 400,000 square feet (or 400 units) of residential. Limits Brief Description and Overview of District Regulations Along railroad tracks and Memorial Drive in southeastern Cambridgeport / MIT Campus Area. Cambridgeport Revitalization Development District. Allows a mix of light industry, office, retail, floor area of the entire district limited to 782,500 square feet not including MBTA facilities or existing "Ames Street District" (ASD). See Article 14 of the Zoning Ordinance. district has a limit on aggregate gross floor area and a minimum open space requirement. Includes additional FAR and height. Regulations similar to Office 2 with exceptions. of open space is encouraged. on FAR and building heights vary. At least 100,000 square feet reserved for open space. See Article 15 Conversion to housing is encouraged. exceptions. exceptions. Near Alewife Station. Allows residential, office, Institutional, and limited retail uses. Aggregate gross Mixed Use Development District: Cambridge Center. Allows a mix of light industry, office, Regulations similar to Residence C with exceptions. Conversion to housing is encouraged. residential buildings. biotechnology manufacturing, retail, residential, hotel, entertalnment, and Institutional uses. Entire Along Memorial Drive in Riverside. Regulations similar to Residence C-2B with exceptions. Creation Between Albany and Sidney Streets in Cambridgeport. Regulations similar to Industry A-1 with Along Linear Park in North Cambridge. Regulations similar to Residence B with exceptions. Along Memorial Drive in southern Cambridgeport. Regulations similar to Office 2 with exceptions. Apen space encouraged Cambridge. Regulations similar to office 2 with exceptions. Preservation of Central Square Overlay District) with exceptions. Two locations in southern Cambridgeport near Henry Street, Brookline Street, Sldney Street. Along Memorial Drive in Riverside. Regulations similar to Residence C-2 with exceptions. Along Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridgeport. Regulations similar to Business B (as modified by Conversion to housing is encouraged. Along Brookine Street in Cambridgeport. Regulations similar to Residence C with exceptions. MXD SD-1 SD-2 CRDD SD-4 SD-6 SD-8 SD-9 SD-S SD-3 SD-14 SD-15 SD-11 SD-13 SD-12 Special SD-8A SD-4A District the wall of a building, in feet. The symbol (H+1) in a formula represents the height of the SD-10(F) hat district, but does not refer to specific allowed uses. See Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance General range of allowed uses gives an overview of the types of uses permitted by zoning in area of the parcel ("floor area ratio"). Where a slash (/) separates two figures, the first applies Min. Lot Area/DU = minimum allowed ratio of a parcel's lot area, expressed in feet, divided by Max. FAR = maximum allowed ratio of gross floor area on a parcel divided by the total land Max. Height = maximum allowed building height on a parcel, in feet. A slash (/) has the same Min. OS Ratio = minlmum required ratio of usable open space on a parcel (not including to non-residential and the second to residential & dormitory uses. Min. Setback = minimum required distance between a parcel's lot line (front, side, or rear) and the number of dwelling units on that parcel. parking) to total land area, expressed as a percentage. meaning as under Max. FAR (see above). Notes on Zoning Regulations Table SD-10(H) (incl. ASD) building plus the length of the building parallel to that lot line. for the detailed Table of Use Regulations. multifamily dwellings (apartments, condos) single- and two-family detached dwellings General range of allowed uses townhouse dwellings (by speclal permit) most institutional uses townhouse dwellings offices and laboratories limited institutional uses single-and two-family detached dwellings some heavy industrial uses single-family detached dwellings single- and two-family detached dwellings some institutional uses multifamlly dwellings (apartments, condos) townhouse dwellings most types of residential dwellings most types of residential dwellings open space, religious, or civic uses most light industrial uses most institutional uses offices and laboratories offices and laboratories most retail uses most types of residential dwellings 15% 15% 10% 36% 10% 40% 50% Ratio 10% Min. OS no min no min no min no min no min no min no min no min no min most institutional uses 50 80 35 120 no min 35/45 no min 35 or 44 Height 70/85 60/70 55/90 90/120 10% 90/120 60/70 no min some retail uses (H+L) +5 (H+L) + 5 (H+L) + 4 (H+L) + 5 (H+L) + 5 (H+L) + 4 no min no min no min no min (H+L) + 5 no min (H+L.) +5 no min no min (H+L) +5 at least 20 no min no min no min no min at least 20 at least 20 at least 20 at least 20 at least at least 20 at least 20 at least 20 Rear Yard 10 7.5 (H+L) + 5 (H+L) + 7 no min no min no min no min (H+L) + 5 (H+L) + 5 (H+L) + 5 no min no min no min no min (H+L) +6 (H+L) + 6 (H+L) + 5 no min no min no min no min sum to 20 sum to 35. (H+L) + 5 (H+L)+5 no min no min no min (H+L) + 5 sum to 25 at least 7.5 (H+L) +5 (H+L) +6 (H+L) +6 Side Yard 27.5, sum ≥20 (H+L) + 5 no min no min (H+L) + 4 (H+L) + 4 (H+L) + 4 (H+L) + 5 at least 5 at least 5 at least 5 (H+L) + 4 (H+L) +4 no min no min no min at least: no min no min no min at least 10 at least 10 at least 10 no min 10w/lImitations 10w/limitations 10w/lImitation: w/limitation no min no min 600 600 N/A 600 1,500 1,200 1,800 1,500 City of Cambridge • Community Development Department • December, 2017 no min no min no min no min 6,000 1,000 4,500 1,200 2,500 no min 1,200 no min Min. Lot Min. Setback Min. Setback Min. Setback no min nomin Area/DU Front Yard 0.75 1.75 1.25 0.75 0.60 1.75 2.50 3.00 3.00 0.25 0.75 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.75 1.00/1.75 Max. FAR 3.00/4.00 1.00/0.75 1.25/1.50 1.00/1.75 2.75/3.00 1.25/1.50 2.75/4.00 2.75/4.00 1.50/2.00 2.00/3.00 2.00/3.00 1.00/1.75 2.75/3.00 1.50/3.25 1.50/3.00 1.25/2.00 1.25/1.50 1.50/3.00 2.00 w/limitations BA BC IA-2 IB-2 BA-3 BB C-1 0-3 IB-1 IA-1 C-ЗА BB-1 C-3B A-1 C-2A BA-2 C-1A 0-2A BA-1 BA-4 BB-2 BC-1 C-2B 0-3А District

CDD 344 CAMBRIDGE March 5, 2019 City of Cambridge City Council Housing Committee Community Development Department 100% Affordable Housing Zoning: Background, Goals & Proposed Framework Attachment H

Community Development Department How we got here Background March 5, 2019

housing developers Action / Strategy Community Development Department new affordable units by 2020 Identify new City funding for affordable housing predictable as-of-right permitting for affordable housing Adopt recommended changes to Incentive Zoning Ordinance Adopt recommended changes to Inclusionary Housing provisions Maintain the commitment of 80% of CPA funds to affordable housing Affordable Housing Goals & Strategies • Actions & strategies identified by CDD in 2015 to advance this goal include: Creating streamlined process for the permitting of new affordable housing developments to allow Creating a new zoning standards or an overlay for affordable housing development which would allow additional development density, reduced parking and other relaxed dimensional standards to affordable • January 2015 - City Council policy order regarding teasibility of the City committing to creating 1,000 Status Ongoing Adopted 2017 Adopted 2015; Current discussion Current discussion reevaluation underway increased in FY2018 & FY2019 New City funds in FY2017 budget; March 5, 2019

Trust Community Development Department Development? • Just A Start Corporation new affordable housing: • Homeowner's Rehab, Inc. • Cambridge Housing Authority operating criteria of all funders competitions for scarce funding development is financially feasible What is Affordable Housing • Affordable housing developers must: • Capstone Communities / Hope Real Estate • Identify properties where affordable housing • Compete in the market for buildings and sites continued affordability of new housing created • Put in place long-term deed restrictions to ensure from city, state and federal funders, often through • Assemble subsidy funding needed to build new housing • Typically funded by the City's Affordable Housing • Affordable housing providers currently developing • Meet affordability, design, construction, management and The 70-unit Lincoln Way was approved by a comprehensive permit March 5, 2019

1096 1 - 15 0 units 16 - 50 51 - 100 201 - 518 101 - 200 Community Development Department Number of Affordable Units • Neighborhood Boundaries No residential units in block Challenges to building affordable housing: • High land costs and competition from market-rate developers • More difficult to build affordable housing in some areas of the city given zoning limitations Affordable Housing in the City • Appeal of discretionary approvals can add significant cost, long delays, and significant risk to affordable housing developers. Charles River March 5, 2019

FY2018 FY2017 FY2016 FY2019 to date Community Development Department that can be built 14 15 13 Providers Analyzed by New Opportunities Affordable Housing Existing Multi- family Housing • Often strong market interest makes a competitive offer inteasible; more per-unit in land costs than we have ever seen - and was outbid Sites for New Development • Approximately 1 in 10 opportunities recently assessed results in a successful purchase Offers Made Affordable Housing Development - recent challenges • City funds used for property purchases; CDD tracks properties analyzed by affordable housing providers Purchase prices that can be supported by affordable housing providers cannot be supported by the amount of housing Purchased Properties One recent example - affordable housing provider based an offer on 2x as many units as allowed by zoning, and offered March 5, 2019

Community Development Department Trolley Square: new construction of 40 affordable units in mixed-use development Goals of Affordable Housing Overlay units; of all incomes; can build needed housing more quickly; and citywide by expanding the viability of affordable • Make it easier to permit 100% affordable housing housing in areas where there are fewer affordable • Foster equitable distribution of affordable housing purchasing sites to create new affordable housing; accomplish more City with affordable housing funds. developments so that affordable housing developers • Create opportunities in all neighborhoods for residents March 5, 2019 • Help affordable housing providers have more success in • Help reduce costs of building new affordable housing to

Community Development Department March 5, 2019 Zoning Considerations

Community Development Department about Zoning • Building Code Land Use Regulation space, parking, e.g.) • Historic Regulations NOT Affected by Zoning • Sanitary (Housing) Code • Size and scale of development • Demolition Delay Ordinance • Historic Districts & Landmarks • Other City Ordinances & Jurisdictions What we talk about when we talk • Development standards (setbacks, open • Neighborhood Conservation Districts • Types of uses (residential, commercial, e.g.) approved by a comprehensive permit The 40-unit Frost Terrace to begin construction in Porter Square this year was March 5, 2019

Community Development Department two-family homes • Most districts allow • Some districts more restrictive than others Our Current Zoning only allow single-family or multifamily housing; some endene Recidence 88 Zoning Districts ITT ness B 7221 (SD-1) Special Distrit:1 e20 Mixed Ute Derelop Pi] North Point District A30] Ames Street District AOD Alewife Overlay District Rod Cambridgpart Rovitalizatio Mixnd Ube Residential Overlay Planned Unit Derelopment Overlay 3D-2 Special District. 8 Special Dietrict.2 pecial District-42 Special District.SA As adopted Februacy 13, 1961 and modified by subseg pecial Drstnct-1 aDd Special Dierict.9 ecial District-11 pect macre Decial District-15 Special Dusrict-10(F) Zoning Districts City of Cambridge, Massachusetts including Ordinance H139 or October 23, 2017, Orday Disit do ma March 5, 2019 December 7, 2017 and reflects the latest changes to zoning boundanes This map wes prepared by the Community Development Department on 10

parking) are typical Community Development Department • Special permit review • Many existing buildings processes and variances Our Current Zoning standards (e.g. setbacks, don't conform to current March 5, 2019

Community Development Department March 5, 2019 Conceptual Framework Citywide Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal

RECE Community Development Department The 40-unit Putnam Green was approved by a special permit by the Planning Board 1 person 2 persons 4 persons 3 persons 2018 Income Limits Housing" Household Size restrictions held by City $64,900 $81,100 $56,800 $73,000 80% AMI households at attordable amounts • Homes rented or sold to income-eligible • All units subject to long-term affordability earning less than 100% of Area Median Income $75,500 $86,300 $97,100 $107,800 100% AMI Applies only to "100%-Affordable March 5, 2019 earning less than 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) • Up to 20% of homes can be affordable to households • At least 80% of homes to be affordable to households 13

Community Development Department to be maintained Existing Buildings within existing buildings • Conforming additions allowed Attordable Housing Overlay: • Encourage preservation by allowing existing • Affordable housing allowed at higher density non-conforming buildings and site conditions apartments was approved via a comprehensive permit March 5, 2019 The conversion of a historic building on Bigelow Street into 10 studio and 1-bedroom 14

Community Development Department Auburn Court Apartments on Brookline Street space permits and waivers "Form-Based" Approach than density & floor area ratio (FAR) Affordable Housing Overlay: • Clear requirements for building and site design that are straightforward to apply • Advisory review instead of discretionary • Dimensional controls for setbacks and open • Focus on scale and height of buildings rather March 5, 2019 15

85/90' 85/90* 55/65-800 S/65-80" 70/85-105 70/85-105 0.2. 857105-125- Fresh Pond BA Community Development Department 35/70-105 AOD-: CHA45 BA 1g 35 285 45° с-2 85 0995. 80' 120* 135 35/45' BA- oS 85-100° 194580) 85) 1051 309s с- 135° PET BA 70-205 120* TO-N 35/457 354555579 35-85 Cз 120 Height and Scale - Current Zoning MXD os F35 вА 35/45 652 C-. [A1 55-75 B$80 420- 85 вл 25-25185 45/56 565 250-300* 65-85 Charles 40% 6565 River 150' 35' - 40' 45' - 78' 80' - 350' March 5, 2019 Open Space Districts Maximum Existing Height Limit 16

Housing Can Be: 100% Affordable Community Development Department If the District Allows: floor) 4 stories (~3 stories) 40 feet or less (up to 45 feet, or 50 feet with active ground Height and Scale - Affordable Housing Overlay More than 40 feet (~4 or more stories) / stories (up to 80 feet) District height, if greater March 5, 2019

If the District Allows: • More than 80 feet Community Development Department • 40 feet or less (~3 stories) Height and Scale 70/85-105 00. 85/105-125 Frest Ponc > More than 40 feet (~4 or more stories) 35/70-10 > 4-story buildings 100% Affordable Housing Can Be: > 7-story buildings (up to 80 feet) (up to 45 feet, or 50 feet with active ground floor use) > District height, if greater than overlay (more than 80 feet) 35' - 40' 45' - 78' 80' - 350* Open Space Districts Maximum Existing Height Limit March 5, 2019 18

Community Development Department Setbacks Open Space buildings restrictive • 5-foot sides • 20-foot rear • 10-foot front • Fixed, not formula-based • Permeability requirement • Minimum 15% open space open space with less parking Setbacks and Open Space • Flexibility in dimension/location • Front yards can match surrounding • Normal district setbacks apply if less • With same lot coverage, can have more March 5, 2019 19

Parking 1,000 feet to small site Community Development Department • Project is near transit Housing to 0.4 space/unit Where parking is provided: • Some layout/dimensional Not required in cases where: location/layout requirements requirements can be waived • Existing building is preserved • Ott-site parking allowed within Reduced ratios for 100% Affordable Bicycle parking provided, flexibility in • Curb cuts would be detrimental due BELMONI. ARLINGTON Units WATERTOWN. Properties Cars Parked Spaces provided 24 623 425 BOSTON 1,076 SO MEER VALL LE Cambridge. Massachusetts Quarter-Mile from Bus Stops Distance Buffer from Transit Half-Mile from Subway Stations and Parking utilization survey for affordable housing BROOKLINE 0.39 car/unit 0.58 space/unit MBTA Subway Station March 5, 2019 Planned Green Line Strion tries Rine Bus Stop Along Major Roure Distance Buffer from Transit Major Bus Route (1, G6, 71, 73, 77) BOSTON: Halt-Mile from Subway; Quarter-Mile from Bus 20 BOSTON

Community Development Department comprehensive permit Main and Cherry Condos: 10 affordable units approved by facades) locations) • Transparency on façades allowance for creative variation • Screening of parking, mechanicals Balance between prescriptiveness and • Massing articulation (separation of long • Transitions from higher to lower districts • Façade relief (bays, balconies, projections) • Ground floor design (with active use in key Building & Site Design Standards March 5, 2019

Community Development Department • Shielded site lighting • Trees and vegetation • Flood plain standards • Stormwater management • Green building requirements • Noise control for mechanicals Environmental Standards Rendering of Concord Highlands Apartments - approved by comprehensive permit. March 5, 2019 22

Community Development Department family-size units and the loss of 2 units The comprehensive permit approved for the 40-unit Temple Place was appealed, delaying the project for almost 3 years, and forcing a re-design of the building which resulted in the reduction of 5. staff preterred approaches concept and proposal Housing Trust and CDD Advisory Design Review 2. Neighborhood meetings to gather Community Engagement & met and review process is followed Planning Board, report to Affordable comments, help shape development 4. Public advisory design review session at 1. Design guidelines to establish objectives, 3. Design review and development with CDD March 5, 2019 Building permit if zoning requirements are 23

Parking Projects" Standards Standards Dimensional Environmental Advisory Review Height and Scale Building and Site Design Standards Existing Buildings Eligibility: "100%- Affordable Housing Community Development Department space arrangement parking and mechanicals Summary of Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning Proposal restrictions, occupied by income-eligible Planning Board, Affordable Housing Trust All units subject to long-term affordability Districts allowing ≤ 40 feet: up to 4 stories Districts allowing > 40 feet: up to 7 stories Ground floors, facades, massing, screening of Advisory process involving neighborhood, staff, near transit, small sites; off-site parking allowed 0.4 space/unit; waivers for existing buildings, sites Fixed setbacks rather than formula; minimum open households, rent or initial sale price is affordable to Non-conforming buildings can be adapted for reuse space with permeability standards, flexibility in open Green building, resilience, noise and lighting control, • Questions • Next Steps requirements zoning petition • Develop details of a • Gather comments on approach and proposed March 5, 2019 24

Attachment I Crane, Paula From: Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli < [email removed]> Tuesday, March 5, 2019 12:30 AM Sent: Denise Simmons; [email removed]; Siddiqui, Sumbul; Toomey, Tim; Mallon, Alanna; To: Devereux, Jan; Crane, Paula Cc: Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli Revised comments on the Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: AHO 3-5-19 comments.docx; ZoningParticipation_Perspectives_Final.pdf; Mapping the Attachments: black homeownership gap_Urban Institute.pdf; How 'Not in My Backyard' Became 'Not in My Neighborhood' - The New York Times.pdf; The Great American Single Home Problem.docx To the Honorable Members of the Cambridge City Council Housing Committee, Please see my revised comments on the affordable housing overlay. I would greatly appreciate you including my comments as well as these relevant studies in the Committee's report. Cheryl-Ann PIzza-Zeoli capz

5 March, 2019 A few years ago, I told a story about a woman "brandishing" a zucchini at a zoning appeal hearing, and saying that the developer would have do a shadow study in order to win a special permit, that every developer or abutter would have to prove that that his/her buildings didn't kill zucchini to obtain a special permit - in other words, have an 'avocado moment'. I wondered, was there a first avocado? It doesn't just happen here, or in Seattle, San Francisco, you don't have to be a tax-paying, property owning, abutter to have veto power over the affordable housing projects being proposed in this city. That's what local democracy or control has turned into. Planning theorists have suggested that it is possible to get out of this mindset of reaching beyond property lines to deal with Cambridge's housing problems, including the affordability shortage, the lack of appropriately-sized (family-sized) housing, and involuntary displacement (i.e., fair housing issues). Everybody seems to be afraid of losing their authority or of losing a lawsuit. Where are the boundaries of a Back Yard defined in terms of community self-determinism? Is it about marginality or the perception of being powerless over neighborhood change? Who decides who gets to live here and the quality of place that we grow up in? We come back to zoning. My first reaction to the CDD's overlay recommendation had to do with the community process - three hearings of the Housing Committee - and how little attention was paid to anything beyond the Cambridge City Council's political interests in their colleagues' questions and concerns. The CDD's review was dated Feb 25, 2019. How many meetings would be dedicated to questions/concerns of the general public BEFORE the Housing Committee version of the petition is considered at the Ordinance Committee in April? (25 Feb, 2019, CDD Memo Working Draft- For Review Only; 100% Opportunity-Affordable Housing Overlay District page 1 of 2.) Last week, the Urban Institute reported on the disparity between the white homeownership rate in the Boston-Cambridge- Newton, MA metropolitan statistical area, 68.4%, and the black home homeownership rate, 36.0%, which represents a significant difference in family financial stability among Black families. (McCargo and Strochak, "Mapping the black homeownership gap," 26 February, 2019) It is important to point out that no city or county in the US has closed the homeownership gap or the wealth gap. According to the 2017 Envision Cambridge Today report, Cambridge's rate of homeownership was more than twice that of black and Latinx residents during the period of 2010 - 2014 based on American Community Survey five-year estimates. (page 60-61) Does it matter? Nationally, Minneapolis has taken the most radical policy action as to producing permanent affordable housing by eliminating single-family zoning a "classification that has long perpetuated segregation." ("Minneapolis, Tackling Housing Crisis and Inequity, Votes to End Single-Family Zoning, " Sarah Mervosh, New York Times, 13 December, 2018.) Minneapolis black voters, compared to other sub-groups are more likely to speak in support of development even after accounting for homeownership. And there are additional factors involved. "As people are increasingly living in urban centers really close to each other, it starts to be the case that so much of the value of your property is bound up in things that are happening outside of your parcel," said a law professor who has written about what she calls the 'unbounded' nature of our homes. (page 17) Planners are collecting evidence from local zoning meetings as to who is the 'M' in NIMBY. The two biggest disparities are race and ethnicity. Does it matter if the people

who are the expected users of these new resources actually show up for the hearing to demonstrate their support? "At some point you have to say, now we've talk about justice and equity. Action? The right course of action justifies means and ends because of necessity. What it means not to do something. How can you not do it? How can you not do it?" (Einstein et al, "Who Participates in Local Government? Evidence from Meeting Minutes", June 29, 2018.) Wendell Joseph, a young neighborhood planner of color who works for the CDD, said at a November 7, 2018 Citizens' Housing and Planning Association forum on "Who Participates in Local Government? Evidence from Meeting Minutes" that participation is a function of privilege. This, Mr. Joseph observed, is something that people, particularly people of color, have very little time for. You have to understand what it means for someone with privilege, time, resources, relationships, is an expert, is educated, has power ... to be motivated and show up and get boos and be treated poorly. "Power is on the other side of no. " (Attendee at the forum Andrew DeFranza, Harborlight Community Partners.) Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli Member of the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust

Who Participates in Local Government? Evidence from Meeting Minutes* Katherine Levine Einsteint Maxwell Palmert David Glicks June 29, 2018 Forthcoming, Perspectives on Politics Abstract Scholars and policymakers have highlighted institutions that enable community partic- ipation as a potential buffer against existing political inequalities. Yet, these venues may be biasing policy discussions in favor of an unrepresentative group of individu- als. To explore who participates, we compile a novel data set by coding thousands of instances of citizens speaking at planning and zoning board meetings concerning housing development. We match individuals to a voter file to investigate local political participation in housing and development policy. We find that individuals who are older, male, longtime residents, voters in local elections, and homeowners are significantly more likely to participate in these meetings. These individuals overwhelmingly (and to a much greater degree than the general public) oppose new housing construction. These participatory inequalities have important policy implications and may be contributing to rising housing costs. *This research was funded by Boston University's Initiative on Cities. Many thanks to Mirya Holman, Spencer Piston, Jessica Trounstine, and participants at the Vanderbilt Local Political Economy Conference, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Political Science Research Workshop, American Political Science Asso- ciation "New Faces of Urban Politics" Mini-Conference, and Boston Area Research Initiative Spring 2018 Conference for their helpful comments. We gratefully acknowledge our outstanding research assistants Luisa Godinez Puig and Sarah Sklar. All errors are our own. † Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Boston University. [email removed]. ‡Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Boston University. [email removed]. § Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Boston University. [email removed]. 1

Many local leaders view neighborhood activism and participation as a key source of policy information and a critical form of civic engagement. Almost half of mayors selected neighborhood meetings as one of the top two ways they learn about their constituents' views (Einstein, Glick, and LeBlanc 2017), and the National League of Cities highlighted neighborhood meetings as a critical component of community engagement (Hoene, Kingsley, and Leighninger 2013). The celebration of neighborhood participation is not new. President Lyndon B. Johnson's Community Action Program—part of the 1964 Economic Opportunity Act-institutionalized neighborhood involvement in the allocation of federal urban spending. President Jimmy Carter made neighborhoods a cornerstone of his administration's housing programs (Carter 1980). Scholars of local government and normative theorists more broadly contend that institutions that spur neighborhood-based political participation help provide voice to underrepresented groups, enhance citizen efficacy, and are integral to a thriving democracy (Berry, Portney, and Thomson 1993; Fung 2006; Michels and Graaf 2010; Stone and Stoker 2015). Moreover, such institutions may offer opportunities for compromise via deliberative democracy (Gutmann and Thompson 2012). Indeed, the local level may offer the most potential to benefit from such institutions as participation and efficacy are greater in smaller jurisdictions (Oliver 2001; Lassen and Serritzlew 2011; Oliver, Ha, and Callen 2012). In some ways, local institutions that enable direct citizen involvement echo national efforts to increase political participation among socioeconomically disadvantaged voters. In response to participatory inequalities, some policymakers and advocates have pursued a variety of initiatives designed to facilitate registration, offer more early voting, and shorten lines at polling places, for example. These policies may, however, have unanticipated consequences. In some cases, they may exacerbate the very inequities they attempt to solve. Berinsky (2005) finds that reforms designed to facilitate voting actually increase socioeconomic inequalities in turnout; de Kadt (2017) uncovers a similar phenomenon in South Africa. Burden et al. (2013) discover that, while Election Day registration has a positive effect on overall turnout, early voting appears to decrease turnout in isolation. 2

Institutions designed to encourage and empower neighborhood participation in local politics could also have distorting consequences for the distribution of influence. We examine this possibility using the substantively important case of housing policy. In the wake of the excesses of urban renewal (Rae 2004; Schleicher 2013) and the dominance of pro- growth, developer-oriented urban politics (Logan and Molotch 1987), local governments have promulgated institutions designed to constrain developers and empower neighborhood- level and environmental interests (Logan and Rabrenovic 1990; Gerber and Phillips 2003; Glaser and Ward 2009; Schleicher 2013). One example is a movement in many localities to allow and encourage neighborhood participation in zoning and planning board meetings. Such participation gives neighbors an opportunity to inform appointed board members and local elected officials of their views on projects ranging from large developments to modest renovations. It also offers the potential to extract concessions from developers (sometimes directly (Hankinson 2013)). However, greater participation may amplify some voices more than others. The concen- trated costs of development projects in particular may create strong incentives for neigh- borhood groups that are highly affected by a proposal to mobilize against development. In contrast, the diffuse benefits of an increased housing supply are less likely to motivate participation from the broader population of a city/region that might benefit from more housing. Land use regulations may provide these highly motivated individuals the tools with which to restrict higher density projects. This failure to construct an adequate supply of housing has important policy consequences. The Obama White House identified national housing affordability as a critical policy challenge, arguing that "the growing severity of undersupplied housing markets is jeopardizing housing affordability for working families, increasing income inequality by reducing less-skilled workers' access to high-wage labor markets, and stifling GDP growth by driving labor migration away from the most productive regions" (White House 2016). The lack of affordable housing in areas with high mobility could have a profound negative impact on many children's life 3

opportunities (Chetty, Herdren, and Katz 2016). While housing crises in some of the nation's coastal cities has been the focus of media attention, a lack of affordable housing is a national crisis. There is not a single county in the country in which a minimum-wage earner can afford an average two-bedroom rental (National Low Income Housing Coalition 2017). Housing affordability and supply are inextricably linked. Economists have attributed the current affordability crisis in large part to insufficient supply (Quigley and Rosenthal 2005; Glaeser, Gyourko, and Saks 2005; Gyourko, Saiz, and Summers 2008; Glaeser and Ward 2009; Glaeser 2011; Gyourko and Molloy 2014; Hsieh and Moretti 2015). Moreover, insufficient housing supply may hamper efforts at environmental sustainability. Greater housing density helps reduce sprawl (Glaeser 2011) and is a cornerstone of local efforts to mitigate climate change (Barro 2017). We ask how participation may play a role in restricting development. To assess local political participation, previous studies have relied primarily on surveys (Hankinson 2018; Marble and Nall 2017; Wong 2018), voting (Fischel 2001; Gerber and Phillips 2003; Wong 2018), case studies of meetings (Mansbridge 1980; Fiorina 1998), and aggregate-level analyses of meeting participation (Fung 2006). In contrast, we rely on directly observing both who participates in policy discussions about housing development, and how they participate. We do so across a range of communities by compiling and coding new data on all citizen participants in planning Board and zoning board meetings dealing with the construction of multiple housing units in 97 Massachusetts cities and towns. We match thousands of individual participants to the Massachusetts voter file to explore who participates in local political meetings. This data set is the first comprehensive effort to measure the behavior of community meeting participants. Moreover, we juxtapose the opinions of meetings attendees with the vote on a statewide housing ballot referendum to provide a novel comparison of attendee views with those of the broader public. This allows us to learn two separate attributes of meeting attendees: (1) whether they are demographically representative of their broader communities, and; (2) whether they are attitudinally representative of their broader 4

communities. We find that meeting participants are unrepresentative of the broader public in a variety of ways. They are more likely to be older, male, longtime residents, voters in local elections, and homeowners. Moreover, these individuals overwhelmingly oppose the construction of new housing: almost two-thirds of these participants speak out in opposition to new housing development. A sizable minority of meeting participants-especially housing opponents— are repeat participators who attend multiple meetings to speak out about local housing projects. Meeting attendees generally raise a wide variety of issues, from concerns about local trees to traffic. These results suggest that the structure of public meetings surrounding housing development likely contributes to a failure in many locations to produce a sufficient housing supply. More broadly, they reveal that institutions designed to enhance democratic responsiveness may have perverse consequences on participation, the views that policymakers hear, and/or outcomes. This article makes two important contributions. First, while a multitude of political science studies have identified inequalities in politica. participation, this article is the first able to document inequalities in who shows up to salient public meetings. Rather than using surveys or vote returns, this study is the only one to our knowledge that directly observes participants in politics to precisely measure inequalities. Second, it makes a novel theoretical argument about the nature of participation in housing policy. We argue, that even in areas where public opinion broadly favors redressing housing shortages with increased supply, specific housing development proposals will disproportionately garner opposition that is empowered by local institutions. In the housing policy arena, institutions and behavior align in a way that enable non-majoritarian outcomes with tangible implications for housing availability. 5

1 Who Participates At the heart of all of the predictions outlined below are general and fundamental questions about grass-roots democracy. Throughout our analysis, we consider two competing views about neighborhood-level civic engagement on housing policy. The first is that these meetings are an opportunity for efficacious civic engagement, mediation of competing interests (Dahl 1961; Berry, Portney, and Thomson 1993), and deliberative democracy (Gutmann and Thompson 2012). The second, in contrast, views neighborhood activism as captured by a small, unrepresentative group with strong views (Mansbridge 1980; Fiorina 1998; Kain 2012). A wide body of scholarship in American politics suggests that more socioeconomically advantaged individuals are more likely to participate and to have their voices amplified in key policy discussions (Schlozman, Verba, and Brady 2012; Gilens 2014; Hajnal and Trounstine 2016). Political science research also generally finds higher levels of political participation among the elderly, who have the time, resources, and policy interest that allow for and encourage involvement in politics (Campbell 2005; Schlozman, Verba, and Brady 2012). Those that have lived in the same place for a greater duration (Kang and Kwak 2003; Gay 2012), and own their homes (Fischel 2001) also participate in politics at higher rates. Men-especially white men—are more likely to engage in direct contact and collective action relative to women (Mansbridge 1980; Kittilson 2016). We suspect these broad findings will also apply to participants in neighborhood meetings. This would fit with research on participatory small-group decision processes that contends that such institutions are unrepresentative in similar ways to other forms of political participation (Mansbridge 1980; Sanders 1997). While participatory inequalities have been widely studied— though not precisely empirically measuredit is less obvious whether meeting attendees will be predisposed to hold particular attitudes. Accounts of anti-development, NIMBY (not in my backyard) sentiments among homeowners generally predominate urban politics research (Fischel 2001; Hankinson 2018). Many contemporary commentaries on housing, however, point to the influence of a new

housing coalition featuring poverty and affordable housing advocates, developers, and urban planners as a potential check on NIMBY sentiments from entrenched homeowners (Semuels 2017; Yglesias 2017). Indeed, recent evidence from ballot initiatives and surveys suggests that, in liberal communities, mixed-income developments may generate at least some public support, with individuals basing their preferences for housing on ideology rather than pure economic sell-interest (Wong 2018). We argue that the development of new housing may disproportionately induce participa- tion from individuals with unrepresentative opinions. The potential externalities of housing proposals are spatially concentrated while the benefits are diffuse. Proposed housing de- velopments have potentially protound effects on neighborhood property values, amenities, and quality of life (Fischel 2001). Increasing the housing supply reduces housing prices (Quigley and Rosenthal 2005; Glaeser, Gyourko, and Saks 2005; Gyourko, Saiz, and Summers 2008; Glaeser and Ward 2009; Glaeser 2011; Gyourko and Molloy 2014; Hsieh and Moretti 2015). This reduction in housing prices would adversely impact the economic interests of local homeowners. Interestingly, renters may also feel that new housing developments are detrimental to their economic interests. Recent experimental evidence suggests that renters in high-cost housing markets believe that new developments will raise their rents (Hankinson 2018). Moreover, housing developments frequently represent stark changes in neighborhood environments and composition. Studies of racial and ethnic politics have found such rapid changes to be strong motivators for attitudes and behavior (Green, Strolovitch, and Wong 1998; Hopkins 2010; Enos 2016). In contrast, we anticipate that proponents of new housing development will be compar- atively less likely to attend meetings on proposed projects. The economic benefits of new housing supply are diffuse. Any change in housing affordability from a single project is likely to be barely perceptible, particularly when weighed against the visible costs experienced by a narrower subset of the neighborhood. Indeed, even if the benefits were comparable, prospect 7

theory suggests that losses have a greater impact on behavior than equivalently sized gains (Kahneman and Tversky 1979). Moreover, at least some of the individuals most likely to benefit from a new housing development (potential new residents) live outside the jurisdiction in which the development is proposed. In contrast, virtually all of those experiencing the costs of new housing already reside in that jurisdiction. Relative to supporters, then, housing development opponents are more likely to: (1) be informed about developments happening in their community and (2) be able to target their own appointed/elected officials in voicing their views about housing. Both information (Lassen 2005) and efficacy (Shingles 1981; Finkel 1985) are positively associated with political participation. Interestingly, this bias towards opposition to specific projects may differentiate housing from some other areas. We contend that even those individuals who are predisposed to support the construction of affordable housing in the abstract will inclined to oppose specific housing project proposals in their communities. This sharply differs from immigration policy, for example. Iyengar et al. (2013) find that citizens in advanced industrialized democracies support the admission of individual immigrants, while generally opposing more open immigration policies. In addition, we also anticipate that those who participate will do so with high intensity and frequency. The factors listed above that should disproportionately spur opposition to local housing development will likely also foment strong public opinions. Intense viewpoints are linked with a greater propensity for political participation (Fiorina 1998; Kain 2012; Pew Research Center 2014). Therefore, we expect meeting attendees in general-and, in particular, opponents of new housing development-to attend repeat meetings. Finally, we expect participants to exhibit high levels of expertise. In previous predictions, we suggested that participants are likely to be socioeconomically advantaged and perceive significant costs of proposed housing developments. We might expect a highly educated group that views changes to the housing stock as a major threat to learn about and cite local zoning laws and land use regulations. They may also solicit the views of experts-such 8

as lawyers, engineers, architects, and other real estate professionals —to provide strong and well-sourced arguments about a potential housing development. This expertise might lead to well-informed neighborhood dialogue, but, it could also exacerbate political inequalities. Lupia and Norton (2017) suggest that deliberative democracy may not work as intended if participating interlocutors use sophisticated language as a form of political power to drown out other policy discussion. Perhaps strikingly in the context of rising national partisan polarization (Abramowitz 2010), we do not expect partisanship to predict participation in housing meetings or to affect the issues that individuals raise. While partisanship certainly impacts local politics (Tausanovitch and Warshaw 2014; Einstein and Kogan 2016), we anticipate that the immediacy of neighborhood-level concerns will swamp partisan leanings on housing issues. Indeed, Marble and Nall (2017) use survey experiments to show that liberal homeowners—while generally favorable towards redistributive programs—prioritize their home values over their ideological preference for affordable housing (though see (Wong 2018)). 2 Data and Methods To evaluate who participates, we assembled a novel data set of all citizen participants in planning board and zoning board meetings between 2015-2017 in 97 cities and towns in metropolitan Boston. One reason we focused on Massachusetts is data availability. As a consequence of the Commonwealth's open meeting law, Massachusetts localities are required to provide detailed meeting minutes for all public bodies. These minutes must include "a summary of the discussions on each subject." A majority of cities/towns in metropolitan Boston have interpreted this to mean including the names and addresses of all members of the public who spoke at the meeting. In addition to the data availability, the Boston metro region has other advantageous traits for studying participation in the hyper local politics of housing development. While compact,

the Boston metro area includes an unusual number of independent cities and towns. Indeed, there are dozens of autonomous local communities with their own demographics, politics, and local regulations within 50 miles of Boston. Boston's surrounding communities range from small, leafy, "bedroom" towns to more diverse small cities. The housing stock in the area includes estates, modest starter homes, three family "triple deckers," and taller modern apartment buildings. While the eastern Massachusetts economy and housing marking are doing quite well relative to other parts of the country, there is still great variation across municipalities in terms of housing demand, availability, and cost. Moreover, the strength of the overall housing market is an asset for this study because it means there is demand for housing, and a market for new development, almost everywhere. Lastly, the fact that Eastern Massachusetts is generally liberal makes it a difficult test for some of the hypotheses. It is disproportionately populated by people who, in the abstract, would tend to support more housing and efforts at improving access to affordable housing. In Table 1 we provide summary statistics about a variety of traits (mean, minimum and maximum) for the 97 cities and towns for which we have coded meeting comments. As the data show, our sample is, as would be expected in eastern Massachusetts, relatively white (86% on average) and affluent. More important than the means are the ranges of these variables, many of which are directly pertinent to the theoretical expectations. For example, the sample has tremendous variation in terms of residential density (237 to nearly 17,000 people per square mile), housing prices ($200K to $1.2MM median), population growth (0% to 11% from 2010-2015), and age (9% to 28% over 65). To assemble our dataset, we downloaded all available public hearing minutes for local planning and zoning boards. In all cities and towns, these are the two bodies responsible for reviewing any housing developments not permitted by right under local zoning code. Such housing projects were publicly reviewed by one or both bodies in such cases. In many of these meetings, owners or developers are petitioning for variances (exceptions) to the underlying regulations. Under Chapter 40A in Massachusetts, all public hearings for such bodies are 10

Table 1: Traits of cities and towns for which we have participation data max min mean 25772 4427 183382 Population 1976 237 16880 Population Density -0 5 11 Population Growth 2010-2015 42 24 53 Median Age 9 28 Percent Over 65 15 86 98 17 Percent White 15 2 Percent Black 0 5 Percent Hispanic 76 Median Household Income 199519 34852 97650 Median House Price 431844 205200 1170400 24 4 43 Distance from Boston (miles) 97 Observations published in "a newspaper of general circulation in the city or town once in each of the two successive weeks, the first publication to be not less than fourteen days before the day of the hearing." Cities/towns also are required to post a notice "in a conspicuous place in the city or town hall" with similar advanced notice. Moreover, the city/town also must mail a notice of a public hearing to "parties of interest," which are defined as "the petitioner, abutters, owners of land directly opposition on any public or private street or way, and abutters to the abutters within three hundred feet of the property line of the petitioner as they appear on the most recent applicable tax list" (Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2017). We utilized all minutes that were posted on cities' and towns' websites. The public hearings captured in our database covered a wide range of policy areas, ranging from the construction of large multifamily or mixed use housing developments with hundreds of rental units to the addition of wireless communication towers. We focus on all hearings concerning housing developments featuring the construction of more than one unit of housing.! This focus reflects our interest in the politics of increasing housing supply via 'By definition, all meetings are those in which a developer or homeowner is asking for an exemption to the local zoning code. Projects approved by right do not go through the local zoning process. It is possible that only those projects that require an exemption generate public opposition. Indeed, the drawing of these maps is in and of itself intensely political (Rothstein 2017). The meeting minutes feature many citizen opponents 11

densifying communities with high demand. Even within this more limited policy category, public meeting minutes exhibit enormous variation. Some of these projects are relatively small (e.g. a family seeking to add an accessory apartment), while others are expansive proposals from large professional development companies. Some meetings feature comments from one neighbor who shows up to support a friend in obtaining a variance from local zoning regulations. Others, in contrast, are filled with dozens of comments from residents with deep concerns about a proposed project. Using these minutes, we created a database of all public comments surrounding the development of more than one housing unit. Each observation—which is at the comment level-includes the name and address of the meeting participant.? We also code whether the individual supports, opposes, or is neutral about a proposed housing project. Finally, when available, we also include a code describing the reason(s) the participant expressed along with her support/opposition/neutrality. These reasons encompassed a wide variety of topics, including parking, environmental concerns, traffic, density, affordability, noise, aesthetics/history, property values and septic systems, among others. A full codebook describing these categories and criteria for inclusion is included in the appendix. Because some of the meeting minutes provide extraordinary detail-including in some cases exact transcripts of proceedings—we are also able to also analyze valuable qualitative data. Even without merging these data with any other information, we can make valuable observations. Because each public comment is an observation, we can calculate the proportion of meeting attendees who are repeat participants (and how many meetings these individuals attend). Moreover, we can learn the proportion of individuals who support/oppose the development of additional housing and the reasons they typically cite. to changes in the zoning code as well (these individuals are not included in the data set analyzed here). "If an individual speaks multiple times at a meeting about different housing developments, she receives one observation per housing project. If participant makes multiple comments about the same project at the same meeting, her comments are concatenated into one observation. Finally, if the same individual attends multiple meetings to comment about the same project, she is coded as one observation per meeting. 'Intercoder reliability checks showed that coders agreed 100% of the time about whether a comment should be labeled support/oppose/neutral. They selected the same set of 19 total topic categories 85% of the 12

What's more, because we have the names and addresses of these individuals, we can merge them with data from the Massachusetts voter file to learn more about their demographics. Using a fuzzy matching algorithm, we link meeting commenters with registered MA voters.* We were able to match 2,580 of the 3,123 people in the set of participants (82.6%). As many people commented more than once, we were able to match the speakers of 85.4% of the comments to the voter file. The voter file offers some important demographic data about these meeting participants, and allows us to compare these individuals to city/town-level demographics. In particular, the voter file provides data on individuals' age, gender, partisanship, history of voter turnout in elections at all levels, and registration date at current address (which we use as a rough proxy for duration of residence). While this analysis obviously will not convey a complete picture of (un)representativeness—it does not include income or race, most notably-it offers unprecedented insight into the individuals who participate in local democratic proceedings. 3 Results We begin by using the voter file to compare those who participated in local meetings to those in their towns who did not. Table 2 presents the difference in means between commenters and non-commenters. On average, meeting participants are older, have lived at their residence for longer (proxied by the length of their voter registration at that location), and are more likely to be men. Women constitute 51.3% of the voter file, but only 43.3% of the commenters at development meetings. As expected, we find no differences in partisanship. Democrats, Republicans, and Independent/Unaffiliated voters participate at similar rates. There are significant differences based on vote history. The individuals who participated in development 4 We matched on name and address, the only data on participants available. Due to a large number of typos and misspellings, we used a fuzzy string matching algorithm and manual review of the matches. A majority of the people who we were unable to match are likely in the voter file, but could not be matched due to name duplication and missing addresses. 13

meetings voted at roughly twice the frequency of those who did not." Table 2: Difference in Means Between Commenters and All Voters Non-Commenters Commenters N Difference Mean Variable Mean N 7.818** 50.893 58.711 1,535,520 Age 2,566 5.549** 17.377 11.828 1,618,375 Reg: Length 2,580 0.513 -0.080** 0.433 Female 1,618,375 2,580 0.317 0.002 0.320 1,618,375 Reg. Democrat 2,580 0.111 0.001 1,618,375 0.112 2,580 Reg. Republican 0.566 0.002 0.563 Reg. Independent 2,580 1,618,375 0.230** 0.502 0.272 % Elections Voted 1,618,375 2,580 Table 3 presents logit models using the full voter file, where the dependent variable is an indicator of whether or not the resident participated in a development meeting. The first specification includes only individual-level variables, the second includes town-level controls (town averages for each individual variable), and the third includes town-level fixed effects. The results are consistent across all three specifications. ® Voters are more likely to participate when they are older, have lived in the same address for longer, and vote more frequently. Female voters are less likely to participate, and we observe no partisan differences. These results broadly confirm that meeting participants are demographically unrepresentative of their towns in ways consistent with our theoretical predictions. One key independent variable that we cannot assess using the voter file is homeownership. While we are unable to collect homeownership data for the thousands of commenters in the data, we did match the 85 individuals who participated in the Town of Arlington's Zoning and Planning Board meetings with data from the Registry of Deeds. We selected the Town of Arlington because: (1) the relatively high number of comments (122 comments from 85 individuals) in the town allowed us to make reliable comparisons with town-level 5% Elections Voted is calculated as the share of elections between 2010 and 2016 in which in individual voted. The total number of possible elections varies by town. 6 We also examined various subsample models, including restricting the data to towns with at least 15 commenters. Such restrictions do not have any meaningful effect on the results. 14

Table 3: Logit Models of Commenters Relative to Full Voter File (2) (3) (1) 0.005** 0.004** Age 0.003* (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) 0.012** 0.017** 0.019** Reg. Length (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) -0.391** -0.408** Female -0.404** (0.040) (0.040) (0.040) 0.039 0.100 Reg. Democrat 0.109 (0.070) (0.070) (0.068) 0.149* 0.158* 0.113 Reg. Independent (0.064) (0.064) (0.064) 2.218** 2.088** 2.052** % Elections Voted (0.076) (0.075) (0.076) Observations 1,538,086 1,538,086 1,538,086 97 97 Towns 97 Town Controls X Town FEs Standard errors in parentheses **p<0.01, *p<0.05 demographics, and (2) the town has a good mix of homeowners and renters (39% of the population are renters and 61% homeowners). We find that, consistent with our predictions, homeowners are significantly overrepresented as meeting participants; while 39% of the town rents, renters only comprise 22% of participants. Next, we assess the proportion of meeting attendees in our full data set who participated in multiple meetings. Somewhat in contrast with our predictions, most participants only attended a single meeting. Eight-three percent of the commenters in our sample spoke at only one meeting. The average person made 1.3 comments, and 45 people made five or more comments. Among the participants that we matched to the voter file, the only significant predictor of the number of comments made is political party. Democrats were less likely to make multiple comments, and Republicans were more likely to do so. 15

3.1 Predicting Commenter Positions Turning to the positions expressed by meeting participants, the overwhelming majority of attendees spoke out in opposition to proposed new housing. Sixty-three percent of all comments were in opposition to proposed housing projects, while only 14.6% expressed support; the remaining 22.8% of comments were neutral. These results strongly suggest that, as predicted, the incentives to show up and oppose new housing are far stronger than those to participate in support. We also use individual-level variables to predict which participants oppose new housing. Table 4 presents the results of this analysis. Consistent with theoretical predictions, all else equal, those who appeared at multiple meetings are more likely to speak in opposition. Women and infrequent voters are also more inclined, on average, towards opposition. Democrats, in contrast, are more likely to support projects and less likely to be neutral or oppose them than independent or Republican participants. This last finding is consistent with Democrats having more progressive views on housing (Marble and Nall 2017), but contrasts with much of the media coverage on the NIMBY movement, which suggests that NIMBYism is particularly prevalent among progressives (Capps 2015; Paul 2015). Our results suggest that, within the progressive places facing housing crises likely to engender NIMBYism, Republicans are more likely show up to meetings in opposition to new housing. This finding suggests that liberal homeowners and renters may, in some instances, overcome a neighborhood-based opposition to new housing (Hankinson 2018; Marble and Nall 2017) to support more dense housing consistent with their ideological preferences. Overall, though, support for new housing remains low among both affiliates of both parties: only 19.4% of Democrats and 12.8% of Republicans expressed support for proposed projects at public meetings. The failure of individual-level demographics like age and gender to predict opposition to housing construction is methodologically important. We theorized that meeting participants would be weighted towards opposition because of a combination of the concentrated costs of new housing, prospect theory, and residence in the jurisdiction where housing is proposed. 16

Table 4: Logit Models of Commenter Positions (1) (4) DV=Neutral DV Support DV=Oppose DV=Neutral or Oppose -0.005 Age 0.004 0.005 -0.005 (0.005) (0.003) (0.004) (0.005) 0.004 -0.004 -0.013** 0.007 Reg. Length (0.005) (0.005) (0.004) (0.005) -0.253** 0.253** Female 0.013 0.123 (0.098) (0.098) (0.070) (0.080) -0.479** 0.466** 0.113 -0.360** Reg. Democrat (0.163) (0.163) (0.139) (0.119) -0.041 0.214 -0.153 0.027 Reg. Independent (0.158) (0.111) (0.129) (0.158) 0.661** % Elections Voted -0.460** 0.159 -0.653** (0.127) (0.155) (0.155) (0.111) -0.052* Number of comments 0.058** 0.038 -0.038 (0.021) (0.029) (0.029) (0.025) Observations 3,629 3,629 3,629 3,629 Standard errors in parentheses **p<0.01, * p<0.05 A propensity towards opposition, however, could also simply be a consequence of the un- representative demographics of meeting participants; perhaps older men, for example, are both more likely to participate in planning and zoning meetings and more likely to oppose the construction of new housing. Instead, we find that the predictors of participation in meetings are completely different from those that explain positions in meetings. Older and male individuals are more likely to participate in meetings, , but, conditional on participation, age and gender do not predict opposition to new housing. 17

Support for Housing in the Voting Booth, Opposition at Meet- 3.2 ings We have demonstrated that a large majority of individuals who attend zoning and planning board meetings express opposition to the projects under consideration. To assess if such opposition is disproportionate, we compare meeting participation to the results of an important ballot referendum concerning housing policy. In 2010, Massachusetts held a referendum to repeal Chapter 40B, a law promoting affordable housing that permits developers to bypass local zoning regulations if: (1) the town's housing stock is less than 10% affordable and (2) at least 20-25% of the proposed units have long-term affordability restrictions. Across the state, a majority of voters favored keeping the law, and the referendum to repeal Chapter 40B failed with only 42% of the vote. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the vote supporting 40B by town. Across the cities in our sample, 56% of voters in the referendum adopted the pro-affordable housing position and opposed repeal of Chapter 40B, and there was majority support against repeal in 61 of the 96 towns." This comports with state-level figures, where 58% of voters opposed the repeal. This is a significantly greater level of support than evinced by the mere 15% of meeting commenters who spoke in support of the construction of new housing. This is especially striking given that Chapter 40B deals exclusively with affordable housing. We would expect opposition to affordable housing to be greater than opposition to market-rate housing based on prior scholarship on public opinion surrounding housing (Tighe 2010).& If anything, then, our measure of general public opinion is biased towards opposition, and should be more similar to the opinions evinced in our meetings minutes. The relative toughness of this particular test makes the 40 percentage point difference between 40B support and support for housing projects at public meetings all the more striking. 7We do not have 40B repeal results for Boylston, MA. 8Only 3% of negative comments cited affordability. Thus, there is little evidence that our commenter data would be biased towards opposition because it featured market-rate, rather than affordable, housing developments. 18

Figure 2 shows the relationship between town-level vote against repealing Chapter 40B and the percentage of comments in each town that were supportive of multifamily housing developments.º While there is a positive correlation between opposition to the 40B repeal and positive comments, in every town, fewer than half of the meeting comments were positive. For example, in Cambridge, the town with the highest support for 40B (80% of voters opposed repeal), only 40% of comments at development meetings supported multifamily housing Indeed, almost every town in Massachusetts exhibited higher support for Chapter 40B than for the development of specific multifamily housing projects. While voters in these towns supported affordable housing construction in the abstract, a significant majority of those who attended development meetings opposed the development of specific project proposals. 3.3 Reasons Expressed for Supporting and Opposing Development Finally, we also investigate the reasons individuals cited when expressing their support/opposition on housing projects. While many meeting minutes simply noted whether participating indi- viduals supported or opposed a project, some provided greater detail—in some cases exact transcripts of individuals' comments. Figure 3 shows the frequency of each reason given by the position taken by commenters. Perhaps the most striking result is the variety of reasons offered, including flood sus- ceptibility, septic systems, environmental concerns, neighborhood character, and parking, among other things. Moreover, there are notable differences in the reasons provided by supporters and opponents. Supporters of new housing were significantly more likely to mention affordability concerns. Opponents, in contrast, were more likely to raise traffic, environmental, flooding, and safety concerns. The reasons cited suggest that, unsurprisingly, commenters raise issues that reflect the contexts in which their communities are situated. Almost one-quarter of opposing comments cited traffic, and most of these highlighted specific instances of congestion. A Manchester- 'We restrict the sample to the 70 towns where there were at least 10 comments. 19

30 20 10 100% 90% 50% 60% 70% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0% Vote for Affordable Housing in 40B Referendum Figure 1: Support for 40B Referendum 100% pments upporting Developm • • % Comments lultifamily Housing 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Vote for Affordable Housing in 40B Referendum Figure 2: Support for 40B Referendum 20

neutral support oppose Aesthetics Affordability Building Foundation Corruption Density Diversity Environment Flooding Height/Shadows Home Values/City Finances Neighborhood Character Noise Non-Compliance Parking Pedestrian Impact Privacy Safety Schools Septic/Water Traffic 0% 5% 10% 15%20% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% % of Group Naming Reason Figure 3: Reasons Given by Commenters, Grouped by Position Taken 21

by-the-Sea woman observed that "traffic has increased at a fast rate even without the new building" in her community. One Foxborough man "commissioned his own traffic study as he feels the impact of cars and children on the area have not been adequately addressed. He has lived in the area for a few years and compares the peak traffic periods to a demolition derby." (This commenter's ability to commission his own traffic study also illustrates the unrepresentative resources that many of these participants have available to them. Traffic studies typically cost thousands of dollars.) Similarly, almost 15% of comments opposing new housing mention flooding concerns, and many of these cited specific instances of water in basements, yards, or nearby streets. A Newburyport woman noted that "Boyd Drive already experienced flooding. The impact on existing homes was not assessed." A Reading man "explained that a couple of homes on Dustin Road have a lot of water and flooding problems, and opined that rain gardens will not work." Given the historically exclusionary aims of many zoning and land use regulations (Troun- stine 2016; Rothstein 2017), the comments may also provide a means of evaluating the extent to which race and racial bias drive opposition to the construction of new housing. In particular, the nearly 11 percent of commenters who cited "neighborhood character" in opposition to a housing project may be using racially coded language.l Indeed, many activists and media observers view such concerns in this light. Jacobus (2017) notes: "If you are like me, when someone says they want to 'preserve the character' of a community, what you hear is that they want to exclude poor people and people of color." A few of the comments that fell under the neighborhood character umbrella appear to be racialized. One man in Beverly—a town that is 83% white—critiqued the design of a building as "ridiculous" and said "Beverly is going to look like Chelsea." 62% of Chelsea's population is Hispanic (and Chelsea is six towns away). He went on to ask if "there is a restriction put on the building that there is to be no Section 8 housing in the building" Several other comments in the 10 Public safety may, on its face, also seem like it includes concerns evincing underlying racial biases. In most cases, however, these comments had to do with emergency vehicle access and pedestrian safety in heavy traffic. 22

database similarly argued that their homogenous communities would resemble much more diverse ones if a project were approved. Most of the comments referencing neighborhood character, however, are not explicitly linked with race. A Dighton woman opposed a project because she felt it was "not consistent with the neighborhood. A multi-family home built on a slab is going to negatively impact the values of homes in the neighborhood. The other homes in the neighborhood are single family homes that are owner occupied." There may very well be racial undertones to this woman's opposition-and there are almost certainly some class concerns. But, there is nothing explicitly in her comments that clearly ties her opposition to racial bias. Many of the comments that referenced neighborhood character across a variety of towns were remarkably similar to hers; a Concord man "spoke in opposition to the project and the change in the neighborhood character." A woman in Hudson "was worried about the character of the neighborhood and how this doesn't fit in." The content of these comments also allows us to qualitatively capture the knowledge and expertise of these commenters. Many commenters cited their professional backgrounds in law, design, engineering, architecture, and real estate in making assessments of housing projects that personally altected their communities. In addition, the content of many of their comments suggested an extraordinary familiarity with highly complex local land use regulations. Commenters would frequently cite specific statutes in arguing that a particular project was not in compliance with local zoning regulations. One commenter in Arlington "inquired about setbacks, the parking reduction bylaw, and whether the project would go before the Commission." An engineer in the town of Andover critiqued a developer's traffic study and stormwater analysis: "He stated that as an engineer he knows what kinds of games can be played with numbers. He gives no credibility to these counts. He added that Merrimack College traffic is not de minimus....He asked for a written report from the DPW on the impacts of proceeding with the facility." Participants in these meetings frequently displayed a high level of knowledge—often derived from their own professional backgrounds—that they 23

used when engaging in local political proceedings, consistent with our predictions. 4 Policy Impact Given the affordability and sustainability crises facing many American cities and towns, the participatory bias outlined above presents a potentially serious obstacle to change. Perhaps most importantly, our results reveal that zoning board and planning board officials are overwhelmingly hearing opposition to the construction of new housing: Often, the only voice that these public officials (and meeting attendees) hear speaking in support of new housing is the developer, whose financial stake in the project makes him poorly suited to make the case that new construction is publicly beneficial. This opposition can be persuasive. One local affordable housing lawyer we interviewed critiqued the Massachusetts system's emphasis on transparency as propagating exclusion: the towns are "controlled by older and richer people than the town as a whole, and it's bad! Under the guise of making things more transparent, we end up creating a much more exclusive system than would otherwise exist." A housing consultant recounted that, in her experience, neighbors' opposition typically resulted in money for neighbors, delay, and/or changes to the project-all of which render the project more expensive. A planning board member in a suburban MA town similarly highlighted delay as a frequent outcome of neighborly opposition: she "typically wouldn't deny a project because of public opposition, but would slow it down a lot." Another planning board official from a different town described a recent project delayed by months as a consequence of "older" opponents "concerned about parking." These delays are consequential. As another housing lawyer put it: "delay is the biggest enemy of development.... the ability of anyone to delay development is the ability to kill it." This corroborates academic work that implicates public opposition to new development as an important driver of rising housing costs (Fischel 2001). To more concretely illustrate the persuasive impact public comments have on plan- 24

ning/zoning decisions, we explore the meeting minutes of two cities in depth: Cambridge and Worcester, MA. We select these cities for several reasons. First, their meeting minutes were unusually detailed (indeed, Cambridge's minutes were exact transcriptions). Second, they are both locations where we would not necessarily expect NIMBY attitudes to prevail. Cambridge is one of the most liberal cities in the country and facing a massive affordable housing crisis; since we found a strong association between Democratic affiliation and support for new housing in our analysis of meeting minutes, we might expect local officials in Cambridge to similarly prefer a greater supply of dense housing. Worcester is one of the poorest cities in our data set; in less affluent cities, concerns about diminished tax base should, in theory, generate more official support for new residential developments (Peterson 1981). Both cities thus represent tough tests for observing a significant policy impact." Obviously, these case studies tracing the evolution of a couple of proposals cannot perfectly measure the policy impact of these land use regulations. In an ideal world, we would be able to randomize the implementation of measures encouraging public input in the zoning process, or at least observe variation in these institutions. Unfortunately, because all MA towns operate under the same zoning law mandating public input in the zoning process-and, indeed, these regulations are widespread nationally—we do not have the cross-sectional variation to measure policy impact in this way. Moreover, national-level data on land use regulations—including longitudinal data—are extraordinarily difficult to generate. The most detailed available data on land use regulations are cross-sectional MA regulations from the Housing Regulation Database, and required several years of painstaking work to assemble (Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research and Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston 2005). Finally, any study that did look for impact via changes in projects through the meeting process would also have to account for the fact that initial proposals may reflect existing institutional contexts. We believe, however, that these case studies —while imperfect-strongly suggest that these meeting comments shape important policy outcomes. 1In the 2010 referendum, 80% of Cambridge voters and 65% of Worcester voters opposed repealing the Chapter 40B law promoting affordable housing development. 25

In 2016, a group of neighbors attended a Cambridge Planning Board meeting in staunch opposition to a proposal seeking to convert an abandoned commercial warehouse into four residential units. Neighbors worried, among other things about "density," "insufficient parking," "demolition," "building foundations," and that "the development is very non- compliant." Members of the planning board took these concerns very seriously, and cited them in making multiple additional demands of the developer. Planning board member Tom Sienieicz observed: This board member would find it very, very difficult tonight.... in light of the input we've gotten from abutters and my review of the documents, to make findings in affirmative....It seems like there is the potential to engage in a more detailed conversation with the community to see whether.... the developer can assuage the primary concerns of parking, of density, and the issue of settlement....I would also include the potential...for the Board to ask for a parking analysis or a traffic analysıs. Fellow board member Ahmed Bur built on Sienieicz's concerns: "In addition to what Tom said, I would also request some sort of geotech engineering study done. More than one person mentioned houses sinking based on water." Other members of the Cambridge Planning Board largely echoed these concerns, similarly rooting them in neighbors' stated objections at the meeting. In one of the most liberal cities of the country, a group of neighbors uniformly opposed the development of new housing. The Cambridge Planning Board agreed that these concerns were valid, and suggested a variety of measures imposing significant new costs on the developer, including additional parking and geotech studies. The developer returned to the planning board three months later in January 2017, having completed both the parking and geotech study and altering his proposal in a number of ways to suit neighbors' concerns: "A number of the neighbors thought that four units was too many and whether we could actually consider having a successful project with only three, and we've come to a resolution that we are going to do that." The developer also agreed to increase the number of parking spaces per unit from one to two. Neighbors thus imposed multiple costs on the developer; geotech 26

and parking studies cost thousands of dollars. Additional months of delay similarly impose significant carrying costs. Finally, and most importantly, the developer has lost the value of an additional unit and use of space now occupied by the additional parking spots. This reduction is not only costly to the developer—it also reduces the overall housing supply in a city desperate for more housing (and likely made each of the three remaining units larger and more expensive). While one unit is obviously not going to have a significant impact on a city's overall housing supply, this process repeating itself hundreds of times starts to have a marked influence on housing availability. Moreover, anticipation of this process might deter meritorious projects from even being proposed and/or push the proposals that are made in the direction of more expensive, higher end, units to make the economics work. This policy impact is also evident in less affluent cities, where concerns about diminished tax base should, in theory, generate more official support for new residential developments. A proposed 36-unit condominium in Worcester, MA met steep neighborhood opposition at at a 2015 Worcester Zoning Board meeting. One man cited his status as a representative of the Brown Square Neighborhood Group and former zoning board member to question the legality of the proposal. The meeting minutes describe his views: "He stated that he does not believe the proposal meets the statute regulations to be considered hardship. He believes that the petition should be denied and that the developer is only looking to maximize for profitability. This does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood." Another man similarly worried about negative impacts on "neighborhood character and social structures" as well as "property values." As in our example in Cambridge, Worcester Zoning Board members were deeply concerned about neighborhood opposition. Meeting minutes described one board member's response to neighborhood opposition in the 2015 meeting concerning the development of low-rise condominiums: Mr. Abramoff [Worcester Zoning Board Chair] stated that he believes that , the design looks like this is an institution. The project needs to have a lot of landscaping to be more appealing. He is concerned the density is very high and 27

also about the amount of impervious area. He would like to see the applicant meet with the neighborhood again because right now there is a big gap from what is proposed to what the neighbors want. Other board members concurred in a unanimous vote. This meant that discussion of the proposal would be continued through the next meeting six weeks later, and that construction approval was delayed by a further two months. At the subsequent meeting, neighborhood opposition to the proposed low-rise condominium development remained intense, despite the developer having reduced the number of housing units from 36 to 24. This neighbor's comments perhaps most succinctly described his community's concerns: "NAME| stated that there was no compromise or agreement at the neighborhood meeting. They do not want to this type of project in the neighborhood." The board agreed: "Mi. Wanat Worcester Zoning Board member| stated that the applicant addressed some of his concerns, but that he is concerned with this development not quite fitting in to the neighborhood and the traffic that will be due to the density. Mr. Haddon concurred." The developer opted to withdraw his proposal at this point; neighborhood opposition successfully killed the project. The fact that neighborhood opposition had such a potent impact is striking, and speaks to the generalizability of the political inequality we have document in this article. Worcester is not the sort of advantaged city frequently featured in media and academic accounts of NIMBYism. As a former industrial city 40 miles outside of Boston, Worcester has considerably lagged the Greater Boston region's explosive economic growth. It nonetheless features housing policy dynamics that would not be out of place in San Francisco or Palo Alto. These case illustrate the potential of citizens to persuade local officials; commenters have other means, however, of effecting policy. Frequent attendance at meetings also in some instances indicates citizens' willingness to pursue legal challenges against developers and/or the city/town. Multiple individuals in our data set attended meetings with lawyers or identified themselves as lawyers opposing projects in a personal capacity. In a few cases, we were able to match individuals in our data set with lawsuits filed in the Massachusetts Land Court on the development in question. Given the importance of lawsuits as a key avenue for 28

stymying development (Glaeser and Ward 2009), such implied threats (or actual lawsuits) can have a potent impact. Finally, prior research using these data shows that the most highly regulated places in MA permit the least multifamily housing (Glaeser and Ward 2009). This fact is consistent with public meetings constraining the supply of housing. In the absence of stringent land use regulations, housing developments can be constructed "by right," without necessitating any planning or zoning board meetings. In contrast, review of variance requests by these boards—in concert with public meetings—-is associated with production of significantly less multifamily housing. 4.1 Generalizing Beyond Massachusetts One potential limitation of our analyses is that all of our data are from one state: Mas- sachusetts. It is possible that Massachusetts' town meeting tradition and strong local zoning control (1) lead to a particularly unrepresentative set of citizens who oppose new housing development and/or (2) make housing opponents particularly impactful. While we are unable to rigorously quantify meeting participation in other states, suggestive evidence indicates that these trends hold, at least to some extent, elsewhere. First, we conducted detailed case studies of the zoning codes in six cities with widely varying institutional and regional contexts: Charleston, SC, Charlotte, NC, Los Angeles, CA, Milwaukee, WI, Phoenix, AZ, and San Francisco, CA. The zoning codes in all six cities mandate the solicitation of public input at multiple stages in the development process, confirming that analogous procedures to those in the Boston area are present elsewhere. In addition, we surveyed 115 mayors of cities over 75,000 (a response rate of 25%).!2 Among other topics, we asked mayors whether they believed housing development was more influenced by "majority public opinion" or a "small group with strong views." 60% of mayors 12 We recruited mayors of all cities over 75,000 with a combination of personalized emails and phone calls. All interviews were conducted over the phone, ensuring that we spoke directly with mayors. The survey covered a wide array of topics, including climate change, federalism, and race. 29

selected "small group with strong views," and, in more qualitative elaborations, described opposition remarkably similar to that captured in our Massachusetts data. Multiple mayors mentioned dominant elderly groups, while others highlighted the impact of well-organized oppositional neighborhood associations. Interestingly, in all cases, mayors who elaborated on the "small groups" in their cities mentioned individuals/groups who opposed the construction of new housing-consistent with our finding that meeting attendees overwhelmingly oppose housing development. Finally, we highlight one case with a differing institutional and socioeconomic context: Milwaukee, WI. While NIMBYism has been well-documented in coastal cities like Boston and San Francisco, comparatively less media and scholarly attention has focused on whether opposition to higher density holds in less affluent communities with lower housing prices like deindustrializing Milwaukee—which, unlike many of the Massachusetts cities/towns, is governed by a strong mayor system rather than a town meeting. Nonetheless, at least in pockets of the city, media accounts and comments from local officials suggest that an unrepresentative group of neighbors dominate public hearings in similar ways that we observe in eastern Massachusetts. On multiple occasions, after attending hearings concerning housing developments in gentrifying parts of the city, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has remarked, "I didn't realize everyone on the East Side was an architect" (Jannene 2014). An interview with a Milwaukee alderman confirmed that the mayor used this comment repeatedly and was struck by "well-informed design critiques from professors" at local community meetings. The alderman noted at his community meetings that there were "a lot of regulars" and that he "knows] who I'm going to run into....architects and lawyers. Lawyers show up in lawyerly manner." He also believed—as we found in our limited quantitative data analysis—that a disproportionate share of meeting attendees were homeowners, not renters. Perhaps more importantly, the Milwaukee alderman-—like the individuals interviewed in Massachusetts-believed that the individuals who attended these meetings had important policy impact. He noted that "the voices of abutters carry a lot of weight," in how he voted 30

on a development project and that, in some cases it "only takes one voice" to influence a project. Local political bloggers similarly highlighted cases of neighborhood opposition delaying projects by months (Jannene 2012, 2014). 5 Prescriptions for Local Democracy This paper has uncovered two related forms of bias. The first is that an unrepresentative group disproportionately participates in public meetings concerning housing development. The second is that the concentrated costs and diffuse benefits of housing development spur a group of highly affected individuals to both participate and oppose new housing. The first can potentially be addressed with measures that help to mitigate disparities in participation. In particular, policymakers could do more to include renters in the housing development process. While there is some evidence that renters express hostility towards housing development (Hankinson 2018), Marble and Nall (2017) find that renters exhibit more progressive attitudes towards new housing compared with homeowners. One way to enhance renter participation is to ensure that they are aware of developments in their community. In many Massachusetts communities, notices are mailed to property-owning abutters. In other words, notices are sent to landlords, not their tenants who actually reside in the abutting properties (e.g. Town of Arlington 2016). In many cases, then, individuals who live nearby may not even be aware of proposed housing developments. Fung (2006) notes that, for institutions of empowered participation to operate effectively, they must be structured in ways that encourage participation by all. The bias towards opposition is harder to address, in part because it is normatively murkier whether it is problematic that the most affected individuals are the most likely to participate and oppose projects. While there are broader negative societal consequences of failing to increase the supply of housing, the era of developer-dominated politics suggests that ignoring (or even not privileging) abutters' concerns is also normatively problematic. Policymakers 31

might consider restructuring public hearings to encourage greater deliberation and genuine responsiveness to participating interlocutors (Fung 2006; Gutmann and Thompson 2012). Of course, genuine deliberation requires the representation of all sides of a debate. With only 15 percent of comments in support of new housing, it is difficult to imagine a well-informed back-and-forth policy discussion surrounding many of the housing developments in many of these meeting minutes. Finally, these meetings raise important questions about the level of expertise needed to participate in public deliberation (Fung 2006). Many of the commenters exhibit a high level of specialized knowledge about local land use and zoning. On the one hand, this bias towards high knowledge could dissuade some underrepresented voices from speaking up at meetings. On the other, as a society, we may want individuals to have a base level of knowledge about local land use prior to participating in important policy debates surrounding housing While this paper has uncovered some troubling participatory biases in public meetings, these issues do not necessarily mean that neighborhood-level politics are inherently unrep- resentative. Scholars have identified other policy arenas where these meetings do appear to significantly enhance the participation of socioeconomically disadvantaged groups (Fung 2006). Moreover, a developer-dominated system like the one that existed prior to the move- ment towards neighborhood participation is unlikely to yield significantly better outcomes in terms of affordability. Similarly, moving towards a system in which elites on zoning and planning boards wield the greatest influence may not necessarily yield greater democratic accountability; indeed, the demographic and attitudinal composition of zoning and planning board members may not be so different than that of meeting attendees. We hope that future research can build upon our findings to improve the functionality of these public meetings and that political scientists and policymakers alike can learn important lessons about implementing higher quality democracies from these meeting minutes. 32

References Abramowitz, Alan. 2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. Yale University Press. Barro, Josh. 2017. "Here's what mayors and governors should really do to support the Paris Agreement." Business Insider. Available at http://www.businessinsider.com/what-mayors- and-governors-should-do-to-support-paris-agreement-2017-6. Accessed on August 14, 2017. Berinsky, Adam. 2005. 'The Perverse Consequences of Electoral Reform in the United States." American Politics Research 33 (4): 471-491. Berry, Jeffrey M., Kent E. Portney, and Ken Thomson. 1993. The Rebirth of Urban Democracy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Burden, Barry C., David T. Canon, Kenneth R. Mayer, and Donald P. Moynihan. 2013. "Election Laws, Mobilization, and Turnout: The Unanticipated Consequences of Election Reform." American Journal of Political Science 58 (1): 95-109. Campbell, Andrea L. 2005. How Policies Make Citizens: Senior Political Activism and the American Welfare State. 2005: Princeton University Press. Capps, Kriston. 2015. "How Fair Housing Will Turn Liberal Cities Conservative." CityLab. Available at https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/07/how-fair-housing-will-turn-liberal- cities-conservative/398642/. Accessed on August 24, 2017. Carter, Jimmy. 1980. "Housing and Community Development Act of 1980. Remarks on Signing S. 2719 Into Law.". Available at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=45238. Accessed on August 15, 2017. Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Herdren, and Lawrence F. Katz. 2016. "The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment." American Economic Review 106 (4): 855-902. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 2017. "Chapter 40A, Section 11.". Available at https: //malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter40A/Section11. Accessed on August 18, 2017. Dahl, Robert. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in the American City. New Haven: Yale University Press. de Kadt, Daniel. 2017. "Bringing the polls to the people: How increasing electoral access encourages turnout but exacerbates political inequality.". Available at https://www.dropbox. com/s/g9787v81pq8mu53/dekadt_polls_to_the_people.pdf?dl=0. Accessed on August 15, 2017. Einstein, Katherine Levine, David M. Glick, and Conor LeBlanc. 2017. "2016 Menino Survey of Mayors.". Available at https://www.bu.edu/ioc/files/2017/01/2016-Menino-Survey-of- Mayors-Final-Report. pdf. Accessed on August 14, 2017. 33

Einstein, Katherine Levine, and Vladimir Kogan. 2016. "Pushing the City Limits: Policy Responsiveness in Municipal Government." Urban Affairs Review 1 (52): 3-32. Enos, Ryan D. 2016. "What the Demolition of Public Housing Teaches Us About the Impact of Racial Threat on Political Behavior." American Journal of Political Science 60 (1): 123-142 Finkel, Steven E. 1985. "Reciprocal Effects of Participation and Political Efficacy: A Panel Analysis." American Journal of Political Science 20 (4): 891-913. Fiorina, Morris P. 1998. "Extreme Voices: A Dark Side of Civic Engagement." In Civic Engage- ment in American Democracy, ed. Theda Skocpol and Morris P. Fiorina. Washington,D.C: Brookings Institution Press. rovernment laxation, Chel, went ma. 200, Too Homevote Hi pathe Use Holicio. CaMbridge, MA Carvard University Press. Fung, Archon. 2006. Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Gay, Claudine. 2012. "Moving to Opportunity: The Political Effects of a Housing Mobility Experiment." Urban Affairs Review 48 (2): 147-179. Gerber, Elizabeth R., and Justin H. Phillips. 2003. "Development Ballot Measures, Interest Group Endorsements, and the Political Geography of Growth Preferences." American Journal of Political Science 46 (4): 625-639. Gilens, Martin. 2014. Affluence and Influence: Economc Inequality and loltical lower in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cleate one, Hi them an of the pit, No Our Creater Mention Makes Us Richer, Glaeser, Edward L., and Bryce Ward. 2009. "The Causes and Consequences of Land Use Regulation: Evidence from Greater Boston." Journal of Urban Economics 65 (3): 265-278. Glaeser, Edward L., Joseph Gyourko, and Raven E. Saks. 2005. "Why is Manhattan So Expensive? Regulation and the Rise in Housing Prices." Journal of Law and Economics 6: Green, Donald P., Dara Z. Strolovitch, and Janelle S. Wong: 1998. "Defended Neighborhoods, Integration, and Racially Motivated Crime." American Journal of Sociology 104 (2): 372- 403. bean, Anand Dennis Thondeson 2512. Prine Spin, f: Pompeton University Pross. 34

Gyourko, Joseph, Albert Saiz, and Anita A. Summers. 2008. "A New Measure fo the Lo- cal Regulatory Environment for Housing Markets: The Wharton Residential Land Use Regulatory Index." Urban Studies 45 (3): 693-721. Gyourko, Joseph, and Raven Molloy. 2014. "Regulation and Housing Supply.". NBER Working Paper 20536. Hajnal, Zoltan L., and Jessica L. Trounstine. 2016. "Race and Class Inequality in Local Politics." In The Double Bind: The Politics of Racial and Class Inequalities in the Americas, ed. Juliet Hooker and Jr. Alvin B. Tillery. Washington, D.C: American Political Science Association. Hankinson, Michael. 2013. "Externalities or Extortion? Privatizing Social Policy through Community Benefits Agreements." Harvard Journal of Real Estate: 6-13. High Hankinson, Michael. 2018. "When Do Renters Behave Like Homeowners? and NIMBYisın." American Political Science Review. Price Anxiety, Rent, at Available https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science- review/article/when-do-renters-behave-like-homeowners-high-rent-price-anxiety-and- nimbyism/72B5F7B4CFEC099E9EC4A7A1EAD8611D Accessed on April 20, 2018. Hoene, Christopher, Christopher Kingsley, and Matthew Leighninger. 2013. "Bright Spots in Community Engagement.". Available at https://www.knightfoundation.org/media/uploads/ publication_pdfs/BrightSpots-final.pdf. Accessed on August 14, 2017. Hopkins, Daniel J. 2010. "Politicized Places: Explaining Where and When Immigrants Provoke Local Opposition." American Political Science Review 104 (01): 40-60. Hsieh, Chang-Tai, and Enrico Moretti. 2015. "Why Do Cities Matter? Local Growth and Aggregate Growth.". Technical report. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 21154. Iyengar, Shanto, Simon Jackman, Solomon Messing, Nicholas Valentino, Toril Aalberg, Raymond Duch, Kyu S. Hahn, Stuart Soroka, Allison Harell, and Tetsuro Kobayashi. 2013. "Do Attitudes About Immigration Predict Willingness to Admit Individual Immigrants." Public Opinion Quarterly 77 (3): 641-665. ." Shelterforce: The Voice of Com- lacobut, Rick. 2017, 4t. Available a It (sheletimes." Shelter/o9ce. We re-all-nicors- sometimes/. Accessed on September 20, 2017. Jannene, Jeramey. 2012. "East Library Replacement Project on Track" Urban Milwaukee. Available at http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2012/12/13/eyes/. Accessed on August 21, 2017. Jannene, Jeramey. 2014. "Developers Slay NIMBY Objectors." Urban Milwaukee. Avail- able at http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2014/09/01/eyes-on-milwaukee-developer-slays-nimby- objectors/. Accessed on August 21, 2017. 35

Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk." Econometrica 47 (2): 263-291. Kain, Bruce. 2012. Democracy More or Less: America's Political Reform Quandary. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kang, Naewon, and Nojin Kwak. 2003. "A Multilevel Approach to Civic Participation: Individual Length of Residence, Neighborhood Residential Stability, and Their Interactive Effects with Media Use." Communication Research 30 (1): 80-106. Kittilson, Miki Caul. 2016. "Gender and Political Behavior.". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford University Press. Available at http://politics.oxfordre.com/view/10. 1093/acrefore/9780190228[phone removed]/acrefore-9780190228637-e-71?print=pdf. Accessed on August 22, 2017. Lassen, David Dreyer. 2005. "The Effect of Information on Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Natural Experiment." American Journal of Political Science 49 (1): 103-118. Lassen, David Dreyer, and Soren Serritzlew. 2011. "Jurisdiction Size and Local Democracy: Evidence on Internal Political Efficacy from Large-scale Municipal Reform." American Political Science Reviews 105 (2): 238-258. Logan, John R., and Gordana Rabrenovic. 1990. "Neighborhood Associations: Their Issues, Their Allies, and Their Opponents." Urban Affairs Review 26 (1): 68-94. Logan, John R., and Harvey L. Molotch. 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press. Lupia, Arthur, and Anne Norton. 2017. "Inequality is Always in the Room: Language and Power in Deliberative Democracy." Daedalus 156 (3): 64-76. Mansbridge, Jane. 1980. Beyond Adversary Democracy. New York: Basic Books. Marble, William, and Clayton Nall. 2017. "Beyond 'NIMBYism': Why Americans Sup- port Affordable Housing But Oppose Local Housing Development.". Available at https: //www.dropbox.com/s/bdo3riekpnywgot/MarbleNall_NIMBYPaper.pdf?dl=0. Accessed on August 15, 2017. Michels, Ank, and Laurens De Graaf. 2010. "Examining Citizen Participation: Local Partici- patory Policy Making and Democracy." Local Government Studies 36 (4): 477-491. National Low Income Housing Coalition. 2017. "Out of Reach.". Available at http://nlihc. org/sites/default/files/oor/OOR_2017.pdf. Accessed on August 14, 2017. Oliver, J. Eric. 2001. Democracy in Suburbia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Oliver, J. Eric, Shang E. Ha, and Zachary Callen. 2012. Local Elections and the Politics of Small-Scale Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 36

Paul, Lauren Gibbons. 2015. "Not in Newton's Back Yard: Affordable Housing in Newton." Boston Magazine. Available at http://www.bostonmagazine.com/property/article/2015/ 02/24/affordable-housing-in-newton/. Accessed on August 24, 2017. Peterson, Paul E. 1981. City Limits. University of Chicago Press. Pew Research Center. 2014. "The 'U-Shape of Political Activism: Higher at Ideological Ex- tremes, Lower in Center.". Available at http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/section-5- political-engagement-and-activism/pp-2014-06-12-polarization-5-01/. Accessed on August 15, 2017. Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research, and Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston. 2005. "Massachusetts Housing Regulation Database.". Prepared by Amy Dain and Jenny Schuetz. Available at http://www.masshousingregulations.com/dataandreports.asp. Accessed on March 2, 2017. Quigley, John M., and Larry Rosenthal. 2005. "The Effects of Land Use Regulation on the Price of Housing: What Do We Know? What Can We Learn?" Cityscape 81 (1): 69-137. Rae, Douglas W. 2004. City: Urbanism and Its End. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Rothstein, Richard. 2017. The Color of Law. New York: W.W. Norton. Sanders, Lynn M. 1997. "Against Deliberation." Political Theory 25: 347-76. Schleicher, David. 2013. "City Unplanning." Yale Law Journal 122: 1672-1736. Schlozman, Kay, Sidney Verba, and Henry E. Brady. 2012. The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Semuels, Alana. 2017. "From 'Not in My Backyard' to 'Yes in My Backyard'" The Atlantic. Available at https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/07/yimby-groups-pro- development/532437/. Accessed on April 22, 2018. Shingles, Richard D. 1981. "Black Consciousness and Political Participation: The Missing Link." American Political Science Review 75 (1): 76-91. Stone, Clarence N., and Robert P. Stoker. 2015. Urban Neighborhoods in a New Era. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tausanovitch, Chris, and Christopher Warshaw. 2014. "Representation in Municipal Govern- ment." American Political Science Review 108: 605-641. Tighe, J. Rosie. 2010. "Public Opinion and Affordable Housing: A Review of the Literature." Journal of Planning Literature 25 (1): 3-17. Town of Arlington. 2016. "19R Park Avenue Abutters' List - 300 Feet From Site.". Available at http://www.arlingtonma.gov/home/showdocument?id=33197. Accessed on August 21, 37

Trounstine, Jessica. 2016. "Segregation and Inequality in Public Goods." American Journal of Political Science 60 (3): 709-725. White House. 2016. "Housing Development Toolkit.". Available at https://www.whitehouse. gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/Housing_Development_Toolkit%20f.2.pdf. Ac- cessed on March 2, 2017. Wong, Weihuang. 2018. "Our Town: Support for Housing Growth When Localism Meets Liberalism.". MIT Political Science Department Research Paper No. 2018-11. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.efm?abstract_id=3173813. Accessed on June 19, 2018. Yglesias, Matthew. 2017. "A promising new coalition looks to rewrite the politics of urban housing." Vox. Available at https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/24/16010720/ de-comprehensive-plan. Accessed on April 22, 2018. 38

Appendix Comment Coding Every time a public participant at a zoning or planning meeting was identified by name and address, and spoke about a project that implicated multiple housing units, we coded a) their information, b) information about the address of the project they spoke about, c) whether they were supportive, neutral, or opposed and, when they gave reasons or asked questions about topics that fit into one of our 20 categories. The two major coding decisions were a) how to code the participant's tone and b) how to code their reasons. Tone The support/neutral/oppose variable is coded support or oppose if the coder can detect any hint in either direction. Most supportive comments were quite explicit and included phrases such as "I support this project," and "this is good for the town" Oppose comments fell into two categories. Some explicitly expressed opposition in general: "this is bad for the town," "I'm opposed to this project." Other comments coded "oppose" focused on specific reasons (see below) with a negative tone or valence: "I'm worried about traffic," "it will make the street more dangerous," or "it doesn't fit the neighborhood." Comments coded neutral were generally sincere, or at least neutrally phrased questions. Asking "How will this affect the wildlife" would be coded neutral. Many of these neutral comments likely came from skeptical or even opposed residents who couched their views in a formally neutral question. We coded these as neutral rather than try to guess or assume why they were asking about things with a negative valence. This should make the coding reasonably conservative. Content When possible, we coded the substance of each commenter using the scheme depicted in Table 5. We allowed for multiple content areas per commenter such that a person who raised both traffic and environmental concerns would get both comment codes. Data Matching We matched the commenter data to a Massachusetts voter file from the voter data firm Nation Builder. For each comment, the only available fields to identify the commenter were their town, name, and address. We used probabilistic string matching on names and addresses using the Stata reclink2 package. We manually reviewed each match to eliminate false matches. We matched commenters to the voter file using three different combinations of the available fields. In all combinations, we required that the voter's mailing address town corresponded to the town of the meeting. 1. First name, last name, address, town: 94% of matches 2. First name, last name, town: 5% of matches. Each match reviewed to verify that first name differences were due to plausible nicknames or middle names. 3. First name from commenters to Middle name from voter file, address, town: 1% of matches. A small number of matches (10) were rejected because the commenter matched to multiple people in the voter file. Most often, one commenter matched to a father and son with the 39

same name and address. Without suffixes or middle initials, we were unable to differentiate between these pairs. 40

Table 5: Comment issue coding scheme Density Arguments that the new development will make the population too dense Height/Shadows in buildins will be too tall/ short and will cast unacceptabl shadows. Includes arguments about wind from the building (often a result of the height) Too much strain on parking, proposal doesn't account for enough parking Parking Vehicular traffic only (not pedestrian Traffic Schools Argue lots that the cavelopment will harm improve/infuence the quality Affordability Arguments about the development increasing housing prices, including affordable housing, etc. includes income diversity Diversity Arguments about impact on diversity. Includes disabilities (handicap accessible) Flooding Construction may lead to flooding either during or after. Project may affect drainage Building Foundation Construction will damage the foundation of neighboring buildings Noise Construction causing noise or the development making the area noisier New housing too close with views into property and other related concerns Privacy Trees/Green Arguments about trees, parks, green space, wildlife, and environmental impact, includes air pollution concerns Space/Environment "It's ugly" "it doesn't match the other buildings" "building doesn't fit" Aesthetics Includes arguments about visual and historic character of area. Not compliant with Complaining the development does not comply with zoning laws otten zoning argue that zoning laws are agreed to aiter a collective participatory process, therefore should not be ignored) Raises safety concerns about children, snow removal, intersections etc. Safety Includes pedestrian/bicycle traffic. Also sidewalk issues Pedestrian • To show difference between density and explicit fears of socioeco- Neighborhood Charac- ter nomic/racial diversity, arguments about preserving history and questions of "fit" that are not about the building itself. Concerns about who will be moving into the neighborhood and using neighborhood resources; ar- guments that this is a "great addition to the neighborhood." Arguments about "changing" the neighborhood Home value/city rev- Includes arguments about a development decreasing property values and enues reducing city revenues, "hurting my property values" or questions about whether a property will be a "net financial gain for the city" Only applies to suburbs without sewer systems Septic/water system Comments about unethical dealings, corrupt officials, developers cheating Corruption residents. Requires more than saying that developers have not listened to residents 41

Table 6: Top 10 Reasons Given by Position Taken Neutral Oppose Support Environment (14.3%) Traffic (23.1%) Aesthetics (11.1%) Septic/Water (8.2%) Environment (18.6%) Density (9.7%) Affordability (9.5%) Flooding (7.0%) Flooding (14.9%) Traffic (6.6%) Safety (14.8%) Environment (9.3%) Neighborhood Character (6.9%) Aesthetics (5.6%) Density (11.9%) Aesthetics (11:9%) Parking (4.2%) Parking (5.6%) Pedestrian Impact (3.5%) Septic/Water (10.9%) Traffic (5.3%) Neighborhood Character (10.5%) Home Values/City Finances (5.3%) Safety (3.4%) Parking (9.9%) Non-Compliance (3.3%) Pedestrian Impact (5.0%) Home Values/City Finances (3.2%) Non-Compliance (7.1%) Diversity (5.0%) 42

Mapping the black homeownership gap -INSTITUTE Urban Wire :: Housing and Housing Finance The blog of the Urban Institute Mapping the black homeownership gap Alanna McCargo, Sarah Strochak | February 26, 2018 In February, Urban Institute researchers writing on Urban Wire will explore racial disparities in housing and criminal justice and the structural barriers that continue to disadvantage the black population in the United States. Owning a home can increase a family's financial security, but black people and other minorities significantly lag behind white people in homeownership rates, a major factor contributing to the racial wealth gap. The drop in black homeownership has not been uniform. Some regions have wider gaps than other regions between black and white homeownership rates. To show the

Mapping the black homeownership gap We started by looking at where most black people live in America. We mapped the gap between the white and black homeownership rates in the 100 cities with the largest number of black households. The dots' color represents the disparity's magnitude, and the dots' size is scaled to the number of black households in the metropolitan statistical area. Black hou: Black hom gap 40-51 30-41 20-31 10-21 No city has closed the gap Not one of the 100 cities with the largest black populations has a black homeownership rate close to the white homeownership rate. Even in places where black households are the majority, like Albany, Georgia, the gap persists. The city with the smallest disparity is Killeen, Texas. The black homeownership rate is 48.5 percent among just over 26,000 black households, while the white homeownership rate is 63.0 percent—a 14.5 percent gap. Charleston, South Carolina, and Fayetteville, North Carolina, both in the South, are the only other cities in the top 100 with gaps below 20 percent. It's better in the South and the West Northeastern and midwestern cities have the widest homeownership gaps between black and white residents. Four of the five metropolitan areas with the largest number of

Mapping the black homeownership gap percent and Albany, New York, at 49 percent-are also in this region. Of the 100 cities we reviewed, northern cities tend to have larger gaps in than cities in the South and on the West Coast. Widest and Smallest Homeownership Gaps Black White Homeownership homeownership homeownership gap rate rate Widest gaps 74.8% 50.0% 24.8% 1. Minneapolis, MN 48.8% 68.9% 2. Albany, NY 20.1% 73.4% 28.9% 44.5% 3. Buffalo, NY 81.2% 38.0% 4. Salisbury, MD 43.2% 76.5% 34.1% 5. Bridgeport, CT 42.3% Smallest gaps 14.5% 63.0% 48.5% 1. Killeen, TX 45.4% 2. Fayetteville, NC 17.4% 62.8% 18.1% 53.5% 71.6% 3. Charleston, SC 21.5% 42.7% 4. Austin, TX 64.2% 21.7% 75.1% 53.4% 5. Augusta, GA Source: American Community Survey. A closer look at four cities Many factors contribute to the large homeownership gap in different regions, including the size of the city, economic and job opportunities, the makeup of the black population (native born versus foreign born), home prices, proximity to education centers and colleges, access to traditional financial services, type of housing stock, and affordability. We can understand how these differences play out by looking at differences between Minneapolis; Atlanta; Washington, DC; and Los Angeles.

Mapping the black homeownership gap - Black homeownership rate - White homeownership rate - Black homeownership rate White homeownership rate 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% г 2009 2013 2015 2007 2009 2007 2013 2005 2011 2015 2005 2011 Atlanta Washington, DC -- Black homeownership rate White homeownership rate - Black homeownership rate - White homeownership rate 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 2007 2009 2005 2007 2015 2011 2013 URBAN INSTITUTE Source: American Community Survey. Minneapolis has the country's widest gap and a historically low black homeownership rate. Minneapolis has two important factors to consider: • The city has a lower share of black households than most. Only 3.4 percent of the 2.7 million households were black in 2016, even though overall population growth has been rapid. Incomes have been stagnant, and home prices have seen rapid increases. • The city has a higher proportion of foreign-born black households than most. According to the Pew Research Center, 40 percent of black immigrants are homeowners versus 64 percent of Americans overall, and when compared with all US immigrants, foreign-born black people are less likely to own their homes. Washington, DC, has one of the country's smallest gaps, and the black homeownership rate (down 2.5 percent) has declined less than the white homeownership rate since 2005 (down 3.6 percent). DC has an economic center that includes affluent black households in proximitv to the

Mapping the black homeownership gap The Atlanta metropolitan area has seen declining homeownership among black households, with a 6 percent drop since 2005 and a rate that now stands at 44.8 percent, down nearly 10 percent from the 2007 peak. Atlanta previously saw significant gains in black homeownership, reaching almost 55 percent in 2008. But the region was hit hard during the 2008 housing crisis, and market dynamics have made it difficult for black households to regain a foothold as owners. Los Angeles has a 23 percent gap, the 10th-smallest gap of the 100 cities we examined: But the city's black homeownership rate is just 33.5 percent, on par with cities that have larger gaps. Elevated home prices put homeownership out of reach for most people, especially black households. Understanding the geographic dynamics of wealth and homeownership are important to determine how best to bridge the gaps. The cause and effect of the black homeownership gap will be different depending on the makeup of the local population and other important city factors. But these gaps are directly connected to black people having less wealth, less savings and retirement funds, less access to educational opportunity, and poorer health outcomes than white people. Narrowing these gaps should be a priority for anyone concerned with securing equality of opportunity and financial security for all Americans. Photo by Maura Friedman/Urban Institute. SHARE THIS PAGE SHARE https://urbn.is/2FxMOYz RELATED CONTENT

Mapping the black homeownership gap Three differences between black and white homeownership that add to the housing wealth gap Read more O&A with housing affordability leader Ellen Sahli, recipient of the Janice Nittoli Fellowship Read more SIGN UP FOR REGULAR UPDATES SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTERS FOLLOW US TAGS RACE AND ETHNICITY HOUSING AND HOUSING FINANCE As an organization, the Urban Institute does not take positions on issues. Experts are independent and empowered to share their evidence-based views and recommendations shaped by research.

Attachment J Dear Chairwomen Simmons and Siddiqui, My name is Esther Hanig, and I am a proud resident of the Port. I am very excited about the Affordable Housing Overlay District proposal and the efforts to increase funding for affordable housing in the city budget by $20 million for the next five years. First of all, I am excited about the potential for the additional affordable units that these two initiatives would provide. As we all know, given the current state of our real estate market, the need for additional affordable housing is huge. But also, I think what we are talking about is what kind of city we want to live in and what kind of city we want to leave for future generations. I love my adopted city of Cambridge. I love that we are a city of equity that welcomes immigrants, that works to make Black Lives Matter, that was the first city to offer gay marriage and that works hard to increase our affordable housing stock. When I moved to Cambridge, I chose to make Cambridge my home because it was diverse in a way that none of the places I lived growing up in Indiana and Texas were, and it was a city where my fellow residents cared about equity and diversity. And as a proud resident of the Port, I love my neighborhood and my street because it is so diverse. The Affordable Housing Overlay District would help to spread the diversity that I experience daily walking down my street, or that so moved me at my nephew's graduation from CRLS, to every neighborhood in our city. I do have one concern about the current proposal, and that is the parking requirement. I think we should eliminate the parking requirement. As we look to the future, it is imperative that we make every effort to make our city as sustainable as possible for future generations. We need to do everything we can to reduce the number of cars in Cambridge and to discourage car ownership. Eliminating parking requirements is critical to that effort. I am here today because I want to help make certain that our city continues to be a sustainable city of opportunity, equity and diversity by making it easier to construct affordable housing in every neighborhood in our city and expanding the stock of affordable housing available. For these reasons, I am here to express my strong support for the affordable housing overlay district proposal - minus the parking requirement - and for an additional $20 million in city funding for affordable housing for the next five years. Esther Hanig 136 Pine St., #2

Attachmentk Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 11:31 AM Crane, Paula To: Subject: FW: Housing Committee: Support for Overlay District & $20 million funding From: Lawrence Bluestone <Ibluestone @verizon.net> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 11:25 AM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Housing Committee: Support for Overlay District & $20 million funding Hello City Council Housing Committee members - For your upcoming March 5th Housing Committee meeting, I strongly urge you to fully support the adoption of the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay District zoning proposal, as well as the proposal to provide $20 million in funding for such affordable housing. Both proposals go hand-in-hand and each is necessary for the other's success. Cambridge urgently needs more new affordable housing now. The passage of these two measures will be a litmus test as to whether our city is really willing to put deeds behind our rhetoric to alleviate our housing crisis. I look forward to hearing your discussion next Tuesday evening. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence Bluestone, 18 Centre St. Cambridge

Attachment L Crane, Paula From: Blier, Suzanne « [email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 8:19 PM Crane, Paula To: Carol O'Hare Cc: Subject: My comments at the Housing Meeting -I strongly support affordable housing AND I believe in the primacy of economics. - CDD overlay not expected to add much more affordable housing -certainly little in West Cambridge but in North, East, Inman, riverside, the port, -do something - end single family (cost won't change) -Moving from FAR to height AND property line - is a problem - it will bring massive big box units (2 and 3 times higher than now -The key thing in both architecture & planning is CONTEXT - this is entirely left out -I am opposed to economically segregated units and support mixed income units (this is equity) - economical segregation is against or city goals - schools, sports -If you live in affordable housing you can't take a better job (so you can't move up into the middle class) -with affordable housing you can't buy a home; the stats on black home ownership and white ownership are terrible. we need to prioritize this instead. economically segregated housing precludes this home ownership. -The root of the problem is the big box businesses - Amazons, Labs - and the highly paid employees from the outside who ae forcing out local residents - at risk especially. - the city must require these businesses to provide area housing. Suzanne Preston Blier 5 Fuller Place

Crane, Paula Blier, Suzanne < [email removed]> From: Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 5:16 PM Crane, Paula To: Subject: FW: Letter of concern on the proposed city-wide up-zoning that will be discussed March 5 From: "Blier, Suzanne" < [email removed]> Date: Monday, March 4, 2019 at 11:21 AM To: Cambridge City Council <council@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Letter of concern on the proposed city-wide up-zoning that will be discussed March 5 Dear Honorable Cambridge City Councillors, I write to voice my strong opposition to the city-wide zoning ordinance for 100% Affordable Housing for the following reasons. I.The city-wide affordable housing overlay up-zoning proposal removes current city-wide democratic rights in two ways. • The proposed new design review process moves power from the citizen Planning Board and other citizen review practices to the unelected City Manager and his personnel (CDD) • All proposed building changes will be "as of right" meaning that unlike currently, citizens will no longer have legal recourse for any affordable housing project. Il. The proposed changes will negatively impact architectural design for years to come • by applying fixed set-backs for affordable projects throughout the city rather than following current city and nationwide standards which specifically address context. • By changing criteria from current city-wide FAR to lesser stringent height attributes. This not only is a major giveaway to developers, but will assure that future projects are of generic big massive box-like constructions that will be completely out of keeping with the city's neighborhoods. • By removing the need for special permits including Art.19 review and replacing it with something "Art-19 like" without the ability to appeal. • In many parts of the city for areas with two-three story houses (40 feet or less) to allow increases to 4-5 stories (up to 45 feet) will completely dwarf those surrounding structures; similarly the move from 4 plus stories (more than 40') to 7-8 stories (up to 80 feet) if we use the standard 10 feet story height. II. There are far better (more effective and smarter) ways to add even more affordable housing (why will the city not consider these first?) While Cambridge has met its state affordability housing goals through 2023 there are other far better avenues the city should be going to add more affordable housing that will not take away citizen rights. • Enrich City Owned Properties: build affordable units above all new schools, libraries, police stations; Put parking lots underground and build affordable housing above this. 1

• Grocery Store and Cinema Affordability Housing: Contract with local grocery stores and cinemas for air rights for affordable housing. • Reimagine Rindge: Explore a major renovation and reframing of Rindge Towers that would expand over the railroad track into the cinema area (much like the grocery store over the highway on 1-90). Change the criteria for Rindge Towers and the added new housing here (on top of and across the rail tracks) to include mixed affordable and market rate. Consider adding a primary school or day care as part of this renovation. • Jump-start ADUs (Accessory dwelling units): Provide tax rebatement and other incentives to property owner for creating affordable unit; Help make affordable loans available for owners willing to add ADUs or house divisions; Contract with an outside agency who can help with clients and rent (important for non-resident owners). Give them financial incentives to make matches. • Create Affiliated) Group Housing: Encourage the creation of affiliated group housing throughout the city. Creating neighborhoods within neighborhoods for shared interests. Key groups: Artists, Public School Teachers, People sharing language or cultures. Couple these homes with daycare facilities. • Support home divisions: Pay seniors and other home owners to divide their homes to allow affordable housing apartments. • Create a Path to the Middle Class: Provide the means for current residents of affordable housing units to acquire down payments for homes. III. There are key questions thạt remain to be answered. • Where is the city manager's report on impacts of re-zoning on taxes and other issues? • Where is the evidence of an affordable housing crisis that cannot be solved with current zoning regulations and other changes that are not as-of-right? • We are seeing only one proposal, with no alternatives, no choices but accept or reject. The CDD presentation for March 5 considers only one form of action (zoning), only one type of zoning (housing), only one type of housing (100% affordable) and only one approach to affordable housing. Essentially there is only one choice and no alternatives. Why does City Hall not want to address any alternative actions? • Are City Hall and its agencies planning any public hearings on accepting or amending the Envision plan? Apparently no since there is no requirement by law to hold a public hearing and instead simply to state that this will be the plan that the City will be following. Will one be able file a legal appeal of this decision? • Since this plan does away with limitations on FAR (building height and scale) and includes only height and setbacks, why. Does this benefit developers rather than serving the public good? • A development lawyer once asserted that downzoning by the city would reduce the value of his client's property and therefor his client should be paid damages by the City. Can the reverse not also be argued? • What type of housing will be built? Will they be micro units such as Boston Properties has built on Ames street or family-oriented housing? • With the city's proposed 25% to 30% increase in residents what are the implications for increases in public services: schools, parks, libraries, police, fire, social services? • What are the implications for transportation? Where is the plan for bus and transit increases to serve this growth? • Does the city's budget reflect the new needs as reflected in the proposed growth? If so where can citizens see this? • Where is the problem of economically segregated housing addressed, via-a-vis limitations on economic mobility of residents to take higher paying jobs or lose housing? • How does this housing proposal help rebuild Cambridge's middle class? 2

• Where is the evidence that this overlay will bring more affordable housing than already being added with current zoning? • What is the city planning to do about affordable property solutions for local businesses who are now in dire straits in many parts of the city, and suffer from the city's own taxing policies that they have to pay for when values on their properties increase and the owners pass along the tax increases (20% or more) directly to them? Cordially, Suzanne Preston Blier 5 Fuller Place

Current discussion Current discussion comments, help shape development concept and proposal met and review process is followed preferred approaches Board, report to Affordable Housing Trust and CDD Advisory Review Community Engagement & Language from City Proposal Below: 3. Design review and development with CDD 1. Design guidelines to establish objectives, 5. Building permit if zoning requirements are 2. Neighborhood meetings to gather *source: Housing Committee 3.5.2019 DRAFT3(2] Language from City Proposal Below additional development density, reduced parking and other relaxed dimensional standards to affordable Creating a new zoning standards or an overlay for affordable housing development which would allow housing developers predictable as-of-right permitting for affordable housing Creating streamlined process for the permitting of new affordable housing developments to allow removes current city-wide democratic rights in two ways: citizens will no longer have legal recourse for any affordable housing project. The city-wide affordable projects up-zoning proposal 1. The proposed new design review process moves power from a citizen Planning Board 2. All proposed building changes will be "as of right" meaning that unlike existing policy, A. Public advisory review session at Planning and other citizen review practices to the unelected City manager and his control (CDD)

1,000 feet requirements can be waived to small site Housing to 0.4 space/unit Reduced ratios for 100% Affordable Not required in cases where: Parking • Curb cuts would be detrimental due • Existing building is preserved • Some layout/dimensional • Project is near transit Where parking is provided: • Off-site parking allowed within Language from City Proposal Below *source: Housing Committee 3.5.2019 DRAFT3[2] • 10-foot front • 5-foot sides • 20-foot rear restrictive open space with less parking buildings • Normal district setbacks apply if less • With same lot coverage, can have more • Flexibility in dimension/location • Front yards can match surrounding • Fixed, not formula-based • Permeability requirement • Minimum 15% open space Open Space Setbacks Setbacks and Open Space Parking, Setbacks, and Open Spaces setbacks when applicable; or to match less if applicable in neighborhood Proposed Affordable Housing changes "As of Right" and city-wide less than ½ parking space per house unit Fixed setbacks for affordable projects throughout the city Change parking to 0.4 spaces per unit Open space fixed 15% minimum • can remove parking to meet this • 5' side, 10' front, 20' rear (or lesser district

(up to 45 feet, or 50 feet with active ground floor use) • 4-story buildings • District height, if greater than overlay • 7-story buildings (up to 80 feet) 100% Affordable Housing Can Be: Language from City Proposal Below If the District Allows: • More than 40 feet (~4 or more stories) i 40 feet or less (~3 stories) Cammunicy Development Department *source: Housing Committee 3.5.2019 DRAFT3[2] but especially in "at risk" areas neighbors and other forms of citizen oversight to improve/impact future design. * Residential height requirements (10 feet = average story height) Proposed city-wide changes for Affordable Housing Projects "As of Right" the ability to appeal. Remove current city-wide FAR restrictions (height and width/depth) to restricting height only Change residential height requirements • This gives far more power to developers to build as big/wide/deep as they desire on the lot. • For structures now 4 plus stories (more than 40') an INCREASE TO 7-8 stories (up to 80 feet) • For structures now 2-3 stories (40 feet or less) an INCREASE TO 4-5 story buildings (up to 45 or 50 feet) • Remove the need for special permits including Art 19 review and supplanting it with something "Art 19-Like" without • We will see far more generic design and big box like housing projects throughout the city - • This will impact not only current green space and tree cover but also will make it difficult for the Planning Board,

following. Will one be able file a legal appeal of this decision? being added with current zoning? City. Can the reverse not also be argued? the public good? includes only height and setbacks, why. Does this benefit developers rather than serving Envision plan? Apparently no since there is no requirement by law to hold a public hearing and instead simply to state that this will be the plan that the City will be has built on Ames street or family-oriented housing? value of his client's property and therefor his client should be paid damages by the one approach to affordable housing. Essentially there is only one choice and no Where is the evidence of an affordable housing crisis that cannot be solved with current only one type of zoning (housing), only one type of housing (100% affordable) and only limitations on economic mobility of residents to take higher paying jobs or lose housing? where can citizens see this? increases to serve this growth? zoning regulations and other changes that are not as-of-right? alternatives. Why does City Hall not want to address any alternative actions? increases in public services: schools, parks, libraries, police, fire, social services? We are seeing only one proposal, with no alternatives, no choices but accept or Are City Hall and its agencies planning any public hearings on accepting or amending the Where is he city manager's report on impacts of re-zoning on taxes and other issues? • A development lawyer once asserted that downzoning by the city would reduce the • Does the city's budget reflect the new needs as reflected in the proposed growth? If so • What type of housing will be built? Will they be micro units such as Boston Properties • How does this housing proposal help rebuild Cambridge's middle class? • Where is the evidence that this overlay will bring more affordable housing than already • What are the implications for transportation? Where is the plan for bus and transit • Since this plan does away with limitations on FAR (building height and scale) and • With the city's proposed 25% to 30% increase in residents what are the implications for • Where is the problem of economically segregated housing addressed, via-a-vis What is not included in this up-zoning proposal

Better Ways to Add Affordable Housing market rate. Consider adding a primary school or day care as part of this renovation. Key groups: Artists, Public School Teachers, People sharing language or cultures. Couple cinemas for air rights for affordable housing. would expand over the railroad track into the cinema area (much like the grocery store housing here (on top of and across the rail tracks) to include mixed affordable and available for owners willing to add ADUs or house divisions; Contract with an outside affordable housing units to acquire down payments for homes. throughout the city. Creating neighborhoods within neighborhoods for shared interests. incentives to property owner for creating affordable unit; Help make affordable loans police stations; Put parking lots underground and build affordable housing above this. over the highway on 1-90). Change the criteria for Rindge Towers and the added new agency who can help with clients and rent (important for non-resident owners). Give these homes with daycare facilities. allow affordable housing apartments. Create Affiliated) Group Housing: Encourage the creation of affiliated group housing • Grocery Store and Cinema Affordability Housing: Contract with local grocery stores and • Jump-start ADUs (Accessory dwelling units): Provide tax rebatement and other • Reimagine Rindge: Explore a major renovation and reframing of Rindge Towers that • Enrich City Owned Properties: build affordable units above all new schools, libraries, • Create a Path to the Middle Class: Provide the means for current residents of • Support home divisions: Pay seniors and other home owners to divide their homes to While Cambridge has met its state affordability housing goals through 2023 there are other far better avenues the city should be going to add more affordable housing that will not take away citizen rights. What other affordable housing options are there?

suz Bler

Print Attachment m Subject: please suppert Affordable Hot From: Teresa Cardosi ([email removed]) To: council@cambridgema.gov; Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 11:31 AM Dear City Councillors, Please support the Affordable Housing Overlay. Affordable housing is a necessity. So many people are being forced out because of high rents. Very few people can buy in Cambridge. A sense of community is being lost. Diversity is being lost. I grew up in Cambridge and love the city. I am lucky to have met people of all races, ethnic backgrounds, people with less money, and people with more money. It is a shame that Cambridge is being gentrified. We need people of all income levels in order to absorb different points of view, different opinions, different perspectives of what is happening. Stereotypes are eliminated when people meet others on a casual basis as opposed to fighting over an issue. Being neighbors encourages that casual atmosphere. Besides that, anybody can become financially strapped. Even if you have a high income, you could get divorced, become seriously ill, be scammed--multitudes of reasons in which you would suddenly have less money and need to adjust your living circumstances. Think about it. A lower income level or higher income level does not make you a different person. It just makes you the same person with less money. Please realize that people are people. We are all of worth--that's because of who we are, not how much money we have. Money doesn't necessarily buy happiness, but it definitely buys choices. In order for things to be equal we all need to be able to live together as individuals---with money, or without. The only way stereotypes will be eliminated is for people to meet each other. All people have hearts. Nobody wants others to be homeless. People of all income levels care about housing. Let's not lose the unique atmosphere that Cambridge is known for. Please support the Affordable Housing Overlay so that all neighborhoods will have enough housing for everybody, no matter what the income. Thank you for your time. Teresa Cardosi 7 Woodrow Wilson Court, #47 Cambridge, MA 02139 3/5/2019 https://mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.sre=ym&reason=unsupported_browser

Attachment N Cambridge City Council Housing Committee Meeting, March 5 2019 Re: Statement in Support of the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal and $20MM/year in Affordable Housing Trust Funding Dear Councilors, My name is Rebecca Schofield and I am writing in strong support of the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay and the $20MM/year over five years for the City's Affordable Housing Trust. I am from Cambridge and have a deep connection to the City, but have been disappointed by the lack of action that the City has taken to protect and grow our affordable housing stock. There is an urgent need to build more affordable housing and provide an opportunity for lower, moderate, and middle-income people to live in Cambridge; many who grew up here have been unable to stay, myself included. I work at a local affordable housing nonprofit but had to move to Boston. I love being from here and feel grateful for the inclusive community that raised me, but that is not how I experience Cambridge now. I fully support the proposed height increases and other zoning updates described in the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay proposal, although I would go further and eliminate all parking requirements for buildings developed under these guidelines. The Overlay will not drastically change the architectural context and development patterns in the City; in fact, it would not be possible to build the majority of housing in Cambridge under the current restrictive zoning. The small multifamilies, historic mid-rise buildings, and affordable and mixed-income developments that blend seamlessly into their neighborhoods are essential to a liveable, inclusive urban environment. Affordable housing developers need a streamlined zoning process and access to funding in order to compete in our highly competitive real estate market. Without the overlay, nonprofits and others working to provide affordable housing in the city are losing out to speculative developers who bid higher, underwriting luxury market rents or condo sale prices instead of affordable rental/ownership options. An overlay supported by funding from the City's Affordable Housing Trust makes the development of new affordable units in Cambridge more feasible. We also need to embrace denser development in our efforts to be a more sustainable and liveable city. Affordable housing is held to very high standards for resiliency and energy efficiency. These projects are models of good quality and design; most new affordable housing developments in Cambridge are LEED certified, using solar power and green building technologies to reduce their carbon footprint. In closing, I want to address some fears that have come up related to the proposed overlay: 100% affordable developments will be restricted for the long term, not flipped into condos or bumped up to market rate after completion. Qualifying households will have access to high-quality, stable homes that can provide access to all the educational, professional, and other resources Cambridge has to offer. Furthermore, affordable and mixed income housing in Cambridge (and in other high-cost cities around the country) has decidedly not reduced local property values. Finally, building 100% affordable housing as of right does not circumvent the standard review process that all projects must go through in order to be permitted. The overlay will simply allow affordable housing developers to streamline their process, getting these desperately needed units completed in order to better support lower, moderate, and middle income people hoping to build a life in this City. Please vote for this overlay as a measure towards making Cambridge more accessible, equitable, and inclusive. Sincerely, Rebecca Schofield

Attachment O Cambridge City Council Housing Committee March 5, 2019 Testimony My name is Tina Alu and I live at 113 ½ Pleasant Street. I am here tonight testifying as a Cambridge resident and as the Director ot Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee (CEOC.) I am here to support the Affordable Housing Overlay and an increase in City funding of $20 million a year for five years. erinare Tony re want fo spe Couhil st port both he out in ahd the increased Over the past four months, I have had the opportunity to attend the Cambridge Digs DEEP sessions designed to engage the community in conversations about equity, privilege, diversity, inclusion, and race. Thank you to Mayor McGovern and Councilor Siddiqui for launching such an important initiative. The sessions have been very enlightening, forcing me to look at my own biases as a person and also to challenge CEOC to continuously explore its policies and practices when it comes to race and class. At the initial event at the Fletcher Maynard School, I was particularly struck by the presentation on the difference between diversity, inclusion and equity. Throughout the discussion, I couldn't help thinking of how these issues play out around affordable housing as a whole, and the Overlay in particular. At so many meetings, residents speak about how they love the diversity of Cambridge. That this is the main reason why they choose to live here. As Dr. Amante shared that night, diversity is just the beginning. To truly have increased equity in the City, it takes a lot more. The definition of Equity was presented as "fairness in procedures, processes and the distribution of resources. Equity exists when disparities in the outcomes experienced by historically under-represented populations have been eliminated. Equity requires changing structures of power and privilege." Current zoning laws make housing more segregated and less affordable. Although prohibiting multi-family and townhouse developments in certain areas of the City and inflexible standards regarding height, setbacks and parking don't explicitly discriminate by race; they effectively exclude families with low or moderate incomes from entire neighborhoods. The overlay and increased funding would be important steps in achieving equity. By reforming our zoning, we can help the City's attordable housing partners access new neighborhoods and opportunities, streamline the permitting process to cut down on costly

delays, use public funding more effectively, and allow for a more equitable approach to growth in Cambridge. I know that there are a lot of residents who are opposed to the Overlay. Many have testified tonight and at other meetings. The reasons for the opposition have ranged from the impact that it will have on parking and traffic, how shade from a 3-story building would affect their ability to grow plants that need sun and how it would change the "character" of their neighborhood. I know that you want to be responsive to these residents and their concerns. But I also know that the issue of equity is one that all of you care about. I am asking you to remember that achieving equity requires challenging the current structures of power and privilege. I ask you to use equity as the lens that you look through as you decide whether to support the Affordable Housing Overlay and the increase in City funding. .... "

Attachment P. Crane, Paula Braga, Patrick < [email removed]> From: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 3:17 PM Sent: Crane, Paula To: Subject: Statement from Housing Committee hearing Hi Paula: Below is my statement from last night's Housing Committee meeting. Best, Patrick Good evening. My name is Patrick Braga (11 Everett St). I am a resident of the Agassiz neighborhood and am pursuing my Master in Urban Planning degree at Harvard. I fully and strongly support the proposed affordable housing overlay. I'd support allowing affordable projects by right not to have to provide parking. For instance, with the 0.4-space proposal, a 10-unit building would need to provide 4 spaces, roughly the area of 2 studio apartments. I'd rather provide the housing than the parking spots. The 4- and 7-story provisions are also great. Please don't succumb to pressures to lower these proposed heights. I strongly believe in evidence-based and form-based zoning, and these proposed heights provide precisely the beautiful low-and mid-rise density that proliferates around Cambridge. 4- and 7-story buildings are not scare; there are some lovely examples of 7-story buildings near and around Harvard Square, and I can point to places as far west as Fresh Pond where 2-, 3-, and 4-story buildings intermingle peacefully. Plus, the streets between City Hall and Harvard have some great examples of buildings with large masses in the backyard; frankly, the bulkiness is fine, land FAR is a less accurate and less useful predictor of building bulkiness than actual height and setback regulations.] Finally, remember that lots of buildings in Cambridge hardly conform to the current zoning requirements. Make no mistake: noncompliance is the norm in our city, not the exception. With that in mind, for front setbacks, the 10 feet proposed is fairly deep; 10 feet is the width of a driving lane on a street, and many buildings in Cambridge come way closer to the property line. I recommend allowing the front setback to be the average of adjacent buildings, especially if that measure is lower than 10 feet. This can add a few extra square feet to make units more livable, and it helps make projects more contextual. In short, the overlay would be a welcome addition to our city's laws, and I'm happy that it would bring in more neighbors. Thank you! Patrick Braga '20 Master in Urban Planning Real Estate and Urban Development Harvard University Graduate School of Design 1

Atlachment @ Crane, Paula Carolyn Fuller <[email removed]> From: Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 8:36 PM Clerk; City Council To: Subject: In Support of the Affordable Housing Overlay Carolyn Fuller - 12 Douglass St a proud 40 year resident of The Port where our son was born and raised and now lives a whopping 2 blocks away. It is the rich diversity of The Port that nourished our son throughout his growing years and continues to make The Port his chosen neighborhood. But it is well past time for all of Cambridge to welcome the diversity of population they claim they celebrate into their neighborhoods. I strongly support this Affordable Housing overlay with the exception that there should be a parking maximum not minimum. Carolyn Sent from my phone

Atlechment R Crane, Paula Sergey Petrov <[email removed]> From: Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 8:44 PM To: Crane, Paula from Sergey Petrov, 10 Dana St. # 508 Subject: Affordable housing, March 5 2019: I don't need to repeat that affordable housing is needed and would like to raise three issues and make one short remark: 1. The project based on two ideas: (1) increase housing supply (2) control housing prices. Question: did you consult any qualified economist to be sure it won't work the opposite way? In Economics, there are plenty of examples when price control and increased supply led to skyrocketing prices. In our case, prices of the rest real estate can change unpredictably. 2. The projects has no section dedicated to its consequences: what about (1) schools, (2) other children facilities (3) parking, (4) traffic, (5) shopping places, etc. Who when and where is going to address and research these issues before the project starts? 3. What do you know about share of the people living in Cambridge who supports the idea? How did you identified or can identify the number? This is the third time I participate in a discussion of a city government project. First one was a kind of zig-zag street traffic to break the speed. Died unimplented. Second, cyclist traffic organization. Result of the pilot - forever stuck Cambridge street. Each time I see promotion of s certain agenda without thorough research of the agenda support level and project consequences. I believe, this is wrong. When you thinks about a city government, you envision a team of qualified managers trying to use wisely money belonging to people to the benefit of these people. Instead, I see an attempt to claim some kind of community leadership and entitlement to implement various political agenda at the people expense. Kind of lead instead of serve. I find this hardly justified. Especially in Cambridge. Thank you. Sent from my iPhone

Attachment S Thoughts on Affordable Housing Overlay, 3/5/19, by Lee Farris First, I want to state that I strongly want to see more affordable housing in Cambridge. To that end, I would like to see the Envision Housing Working Group recommendation for $20 million per year included in this year's budget, for at least the next 10 years. I like the stated goals of the Overlay. I like the decision to focus on height rather than FAR, but I think it needs some more work. I am glad to see 20% of the affordable housing being for middle income people. I like the inclusion of specific setback amounts. More information is needed in several areas, including defining and requiring a strong community process, and explaining how to protect existing trees, older buildings, and affordable rents for existing small, local retail. On the design process, it was stated that the Affordable Housing Trust would be the final decider on design. I'm not sure enough Trust members have the design skills to be the final decision-maker. I would prefer the final decision is made at the Planning Board. If the Trust is the final decider, I request that the Trust's public meetings be held after 5pm to enable the public to fully participate in the discussion of the final design. I also like the idea of creating a new board or entity to give input on design, which would have a substantial resident component. I would like to see some requirement for affordable homeownership and family units. To help residents better understand the Overlay proposal, I would like city staff to show a comparison of proposed setbacks and open space in the Affordable Housing Overlay to existing setbacks in C1 and C2 zoning districts. I would like city staff to show a photo of an area of the city where the typical actual setbacks are similar to those proposed with the AHO. I would like city staff to take 2-3 actual affordable housing projects that are similar to what is being proposed and show height, setback, and parking, so people could see what future projects would look like. Could city staff more clearly explain the difference between as-of-right vs. comprehensive permit? Is the only difference "as-of-right approval"? p. 16 and 18 of the Overlay presentation - Make the legend box for the Height Limit much bigger and easier to read. p. 18- Please clarify, if a building includes ground floor retail, would the building height increase in the green and purple areas on the map in the presentation? How much? Would an 80' building become a 95' building, or would retail fit within the 80'? p. 19- Define "permeability requirement" p. 20- Parking- I agree with the reduction in required parking to 0.4 spaces/unit. I am not sure I agree with zero required parking if near transit. Lower income people with kids often need cars, and they should be able to have them. Sometimes a car is the only good way to get to a job. It might be better to have the 0.4 space/unit be as-of-right, but a further decrease be determined by the BZA or Planning Board.

If parking requirements are reduced as-of-right below 0.4/unit, I would prefer that the reduction result in increased open space rather than in a larger building. This increased open space is a benefit to the building residents. Also, if the reduction instead resulted in a larger building, this would incent developments near subways, which would reduce success at achieving a primary goal of the Overlay, which is to distribute affordable housing more evenly. I think that if the street does not allow resident parking, either onsite parking or free nearby parking should be required; this is relevant to both Alewife Triangle and Quad. I think that with regard to the Alewife Quad, the distance to the subway should be measured by actual walking distance, not "as the crow flies", because there is no bridge over What if an existing building that is being preserved already has parking - is the developer allowed to remove the existing parking to add more housing? Clarify what can be Define small site. waived, and how much can it be waived? Several bus routes seem to be omitted from the map- please explain/define "Major Bus Route". For example, there are bus routes on River, Magazine, Pearl, and Brookline Sts., Cambridge St., Huron Ave. and Concord Ave. Is it a question of frequency? If these routes are included, virtually all of Cambridge is within ¼ mile of transit, and therefore there would be no parking. p. 19-20- The dimensional réquirements should mention trees. For example, could there be less parking if the only way to create the minimum required parking is to cut a 6" diameter or larger tree? p. 20- Make the legend box for the Distance from Transit much bigger and easier to read. p. 20- "Some layout/dimensional requirements can be waived." Please explain. I do not want setbacks and open space to be waived. I am fine with flexibility on setbacks, eg, if the setback is 4' on one side and 6' on the other, especially in relation to the setbacks of abutters. Please clarify and set bounds on the extent of the "flexibility". I encourage staff to consider guidelines that would set a minimum allowed proximity to adjacent buildings; this would reassure existing homeowners. p. 22- I ask that city staff add language stating that after possible passage, new urban tree and climate safety recommendations will be integrated. Clarify that affordable housing will use the same environmental standards as the rest of the city. Lastly, I want to note that I had already planned to be out of town before the next two Housing Committee meetings were scheduled, so unfortunately I will not be able to attend them. Sincerely, Lee Farris 269 Norfolk St. 02139 <[email removed]>

Attachment T Brad Bellows 87 Howard Street Cambridge MA 02139 [phone removed] 7 March 2019 Cambridge City Council 875 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge MA 02139 c/o Paul Crane, Deputy City Clerk re: Affordable Housing Overlay Dear City Councilors and Housing Committee Members, There is no disputing the fact that Cambridge has a housing affordability crisis that we urgently need to address. It's important however, as we do this, that we not damage the very qualities that have made our city so appealing to so many. People want to live her not just because we have good jobs and public services, but because centuries of wise stewardship have left us with an enviable combination of urbanity and livability, where shops, cultural venues and public transit are within easy walking distance, where trees are plentiful, buildings attractive and humanely scaled for the most part, and yes, neighbors are diverse in experience, culture and income. This is a magical and all too rare concoction that if lost would be almost impossible to replicate, that makes us the envy of much of the world, and didn't happen by accident. It took wisdom, effort, and great care by citizens, public officials, business leaders, architects and countless others to shepherd our city to this point. Yes, there have been missteps along the way, but in general, we have learned from them and tried not to repeat them. As a result, solutions forged here have often set the standard other cities try to emulate. Now we need to do this in our housing policies. But let us not carelessly and needlessly sacrifice one set of important values to serve another. In the name of economic diversity, the current zoning overlay proposal would do just this, granting a unique and powerful license to violate zoning regulations that have served the city well for 50 years, so as to enable construction at a discordant scale, to create housing inimical to the economic diversity it seeks to advance - namely, housing that is entirely income segregated.

All available evidence suggests that mixed-income housing would be far more likely to create the diverse civic fabric we seek. In fact, our current affordability regulations mandate just this, requiring that low-income units be indistinguishable from market rate units, with separate entrances strictly forbidden. The proposed zoning overlay would turn these sensible requirements on their head, by marking every resident of the buildings so-constructed as a recipient of public assistance. In what universe does this make sense? Cambridge needs to grow, and has sufficient space to address current needs, without throwing other important values under the bus. The most logical places to increase density are the major arteries of the city. Massachusetts Avenue, our widest boulevard, is flanked for much of its length by 1-story buildings. It's absurd to ask low-rise neighborhoods to absorb 7- story buildings while Mass Ave is still at 1-story. The fact that the overlay proposal has come as far as it has without such basic questions being asked, is more than a little concerning. While we appreciate the efforts Community Development Department staff and others have made to find creative solutions, the current overlay proposal is a needlessly blunt instrument. CDD's expertise would be better directed toward developing policies that will shape development in coherent ways, in accord with the qualities that make Cambridge uniquely desirable. Bond Bellemms Brad Bellows

Attachment U Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 1:56 PM To: Crane, Paula Subject: FW: support for affordable housing overlay From: Ira Nichols-Barrer <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 1:41 PM To: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov>; City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Subject: support for affordable housing overlay Greetings, I am writing to voice my strong support for the proposal to introduce a 100% affordable housing overlay to encourage denser affordable housing on a citywide basis. In my view, Cambridge is not allowing enough new housing units to be built to accommodate the number of people who want to live here, and this is pricing out lower-income and middle- income families and causing a loss of diversity in our community. Homeowners (myself included) have experienced an extreme and wealth-building run-up in home values, and it's completely reasonable to ask us existing residents to tolerate some change in our neighborhoods in exchange, for the benefit of the city. Allowing denser development of affordable units is a meaningful first step to address the housing crisis. In addition to supporting this overlay proposal, 1 also hope the council will consider facilitating denser market-rate housing as an an accompanying measure (for example, by removing parking minimums and allowing more height for buildings, especially near transit). Since market-rate projects must include affordable units as well, these new developments would grow our affordable housing stock and to help alleviate the extreme buyer-demand that makes regulated/subsidized affordable housing so necessary in the first place. Sincerely, Ira Ira Nichols-Barrer 175 Richdale Ave., Apt. 105 Cambridge, MA 02140

Attachment V Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 1:56 PM Crane, Paula To: FW: Affordable housing overlay proposal Subject: From: Nancy E. Phillips <[email removed]> sent: Monday, March 4, Z019 1:30 PIM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>; Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Affordable housing overlay proposal To the City Councillors: I can't be at the meeting this evening but want to state that I am strongly in favor of the proposed overlay for attordable housing. As a tormer development consultant for attordable-housing developers, I am absolutely persuaded that this zoning would significantly reduce the per-unit cost of building attordable housing-- both by reducing overall legal and consultant costs and by enabling a developer to allocate various fixed costs (land, site clearance/excavation, potentially the building foundation and roofing and some systems costs) among a larger number of units than would be possible without the proposed overlay. Cordially, Nancy E. Phillips

Attachment W Good evening Councillors - RE: Council Housing Committee Meeting, March 5, 2019: Statement in support of the 100% affordable housing zoning proposals now under your consideration My name is Lawrence Bluestone and I'm a long-time Cambridge resident. I'd like to speak not about the detailed specifics of the proposal presented to you tonight, which I fully support, but about where I think our city now stands in regard to providing the additional affordable housing we all need. We've clearly reached a critical inflection point in our city's history and political deliberations where we must decide if we really support our rhetoric for more affordable housing with actual deeds. It's clearly decision time. Here's what I know: o Our city's companies are growing. Our universities are growing. Our city is increasingly vibrant, dynamic and attractive. As a result, more people than ever want to stay here, live here, and seek housing in our community. And these people add to our city's dynamism, not detract from it. o Our housing supply, particularly our affordable housing supply, has not begun to keep pace with this growing demand, in spite of the city's many admirable efforts, including our recent revisions to our Inclusionary Housing zoning ordinance. o As a result, housing prices and rents have rapidly increased. The consequence has been that many of our neighbors - both young and old - can no longer afford to live here and are being forced to relocate. o Our non-profit affordable housing developers cannot afford to compete with private developers because of our high land prices and because of current zoning restrictions - including both dimensional and density limitations, and the sometimes onerous extended review processes. o And, though I'm sure that everyone in this room supports more affordable housing, at least in theory, many neighborhoods still resist affordable housing when actual projects are proposed within their own communities. o And finally, as a student of cities, I know that all cities, by definition, change and grow over the decades. Or, they whither and decline. The Cambridge of 2019 is not the same city as it was in 1999, 1979, or 1959. In fact, we've become only better and more vibrant over time. And so, we cannot freeze our city in amber, as some would like, and fight the change needed to support our current demands and societal dynamics. Change is part of life and we must embrace it. 1

As the Council's Housing Committee now deliberates on how to craft and perfect the proposed provisions of the 100% Affordable Housing ordinance, I urge you to embrace the fact that increasing our city's affordable housing supply is our city's current highest priority, and consequently embrace the changes necessary to achieve this priority, even if some cherished neighborhood characteristics must be reconsidered. My own attractive neighborhood, Mid Cambridge, and my very own street, contain an eclectic mix of single family homes, duplexes, triple deckers, carriage houses, and five- story or more apartment buildings - all living compatibly side-by-side. Many other neighborhoods contain many non-conforming residences that do not meet current zoning height, setback or density rules. Nevertheless, those non-conforming residences are also equally embraced as a part of those same neighborhoods, and in fact have become a part of their historic context. Going forward, I'm sure small changes to the mix of housing types in other neighborhoods, to accommodate our much needed increased supply of affordable housing, can be equally accommodated. So, if in my own neighborhood, the 100% Affordable Housing Ordinance passes, I will embrace the change, welcome new neighbors, recognize highest priorities, and won't complain. o If new affordable housing is built at heights one or two stories taller than my own residence, I won't complain because we all need more affordable housing. o If some backyards are cast in shadow for an hour or two more hours per day, I may not like it, but I won't complain because we all need more affordable housing. o If some front yards or side yards are a little closer to my own residence, I won't complain because we all need more affordable housing. In conclusion, we should all welcome change when it's in support of a more vibrant, inclusive, and interesting city. In the end, we must all look forward, and not always turn behind us to look to the past. Cities change! Respectfully submitted, Lawrence Bluestone 2

Atlachment X March 4, 2019 The Cambridge City Council City Hall 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 RE: Housing Committee Meeting, 3/5/19 - Proposed Overlay Zoning To the Honorable City Councillors: I write today to voice my strong opposition to the proposed city-wide zoning ordinance for 100% Affordable Housing. Trees, Shrubs, Roses, Perennials, Lawns, and more will die! • An unintended consequence of going from two and three story houses to four to five story buildings is that this will create deep shadows, lack of air circulation for plant life, loss of gardening space and a significant loss of our tree canopy and greenery. Were this to take place on my street or nearby, all of the gardens would die. plantings in my garden and my neighbors' In addition, construction could damage the roots of any nearby trees. • An unintended consequence of going from the current height of 40' to the proposed height of 80' is that this will create long, deep shadows, lack of air circulation, loss of gardening space and a significant loss of our tree canopy and greenery. It seems apparent that the planners in the Community Development Department lack knowledge about horticulture and the needs of trees, shrubs and all plant life in order to survive. If they had that knowledge, they would not have proposed such tall buildings throughout the city. The city-wide affordable housing overlay up-zoning proposal removes current city-wide democratic rights in two ways: • The proposed new design review process moves power from the citizen Planning Board and other citizen review practices to the appointed, not elected, City Manager and the staff of the Community Development Department (CDD). • All proposed building changes will be "as of right" meaning that unlike current zoning, citizens will no longer have legal recourse for any affordable housing project. The proposed changes will negatively impact architectural design for years to come by: • applying fixed set-backs for affordable projects throughout the city rather than following current city and nationwide standards which specifically address context. • changing criteria from current city-wide FAR to lesser stringent height attributes. This not only is a major giveaway to developers, but also will assure that future projects are of generic big massive box- like constructions that will be completely out of keeping with the city's neighborhoods. • removing the need for special permits including Art. 19 review and replacing it with something "Art-19 like" without the ability to appeal.

The proposed changes that would allow structures of 4 to 5 stories to replace two and three story houses would not only destroy the character of residential neighborhoods such as Cambridgeport, but also the added height will insure that no trees or other greenery would survive. In many parts of the city for areas with two-three story houses (40 feet or less) increases to 4-5 stories (up to 45 feet) would be allowed and will completely dwarf those surrounding structures; similarly the move from 4 plus stories (more than 40') to 7-8 stories (up to 80 feet) would produce the same detrimental effect. HOWEVER, the proposal to build up to 12 stories in Central Square and along the Charles River is astounding! Is a 12-story wall of concrete and steel to shut off the city and residents from the river and parkland along the river? Will a 12-story wall create damaging wind currents on the river which will kill aquatic life, plant life, animals, and make the river more difficult for sailing, thus shutting down the many sailing clubs along the river? There are many more questionable points in the overlay zoning proposal, but I feel confident that others in Cambridge will voice their opinions regarding the other many problems presented by the proposed zoning. Yours truly, /s/ Carolyn Shipley 15 Laurel Street Cambridgeport cc: Ms. Donna Lopez, City Clerk Please enter this letter into the permanent record of the City Council.

Attachment Y Crane, Paula Lopez, Donna From: Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 8:24 AM To: Crane, Paula Subject: FW: More Questions on 100% Affordable Housing Proposal From: Carolyn <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:42 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>; Lopez, Donna < dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: More Questions on 100% Affordable Housing Proposal 3/6/19 To the Honorable City Council, Sitting home because of a cold I watched most of the live stream of the Housing Committee meeting last evening. It was interesting to hear the different questions from some of the City Councillors and it helped me to understand a bit more about the affordable housing proposal. Although I have to admit that my knowledge and understanding of all the fine points of the city's zoning needs improvement. However, I have some questions not about the fine points of overlay zoning, but about other related factors that complete the equation of successfully adding more affordable housing. 1. Fixed setbacks. 2. Water, utilities. 3. Allowance for greenery/lawns. 4. Families with cars? 5. Proximity of public transportation? The Fixed Setbacks: Front -10', rear - 20', sides - 5'. Since some parts of Cambridge were developed in the early- to mid-1800s, the street layout is, let's say, non-conforming. > Cambridge was not laid out in a grid as happened >> Our street layout just happened. Think, with Washington, D.C., for instance. especially Cambridgeport and Riverside. So-called city blocks do not follow any size standard. >>Example: The distance between Laurel Street and Kelly Road on River Street is 70': Compare that to Huron Avenue between Holly Ave. and Garden St.--a measurement of 344' where one property, 120 Huron Avenue measures 72.5 on one side and 75' on the other, or 24 Gray Gardens West has a frontage of 103 >> Getting back to that 70' measurement from Laurel St. to Kelly Road: As a result of that limited space, the 3-story house on Kelly Road that backs onto my property leaves about 12 feet from the rear of that house and the rear of my house. Owing to the East- West orientation of Kelly Road house and mine, very little sun reaches my back garden since the 3-story house blocks the sunrise and houses across the street from the front of my house block the sun in the afternoon. It seems that not only space available, but also the East-West orientation of any properties to be expanded up to 45' or 7-stories

should be considered before approving an increase in the height of the building or a new structure of 45' or 80' tall so that some garden plants would be possible. >>>Well, I guess I've made my point that some neighborhoods have non-conforming street patterns which could ruin the neighborhood feeling if a number of 4-story or 7= story buildings with only 10' between them were to replace a number of 2.5 story Greek Revival houses or 3-decker type houses. What about Side-Entrance Houses?: In Cambridgeport and Riverside plots of land for houses were laid out with 25' to 37' foot front widths and under 5' allowance on each side of the house. Because of that, some early Cape Cod style houses and Greek Revival houses were built with a side to the street and with the front entrance on what would normally be thought of as the side of the house and were called Side Entrance houses. SO--and maybe this is a stupid question--what is considered the front of a property if the front of the building does not face the street? >> There are some side entrance houses that were built close to what was then a dirt road with no sidewalk and now have about 2' between the wall of the house and the sidewalk that was since added. >> Some of these houses also tried to make the most of what land they had and built the rear of the house within 3' or 4' of the property line of what would be considered a side of the plot of land. In some cases, this allowed more footage for a "front yard" along the other side of the plot. ...What then is considered the front clearance (10) and the rear clearance (20')? Does "front" just translate to the edge of the property contiguous to the street? Basically, side entrance houses have almost no land on either side or on the rear of the house. So, are those buildings exempt from the criteria in this 100% Affordable Housing Overlay proposal even though they might have a non-built plot of land on one side of ~15' - ~25' by ~30' - ~35' (opposite the side entrance of the house)? This is a large plot of land ripe for development. How does such an irregular plot of land fit into the criteria in this proposal? Off-street parking: Could expanding the non-built areas of a property (10-20-5 criteria) encroach on the off-street parking on the site? Some properties might have a parking area in the rear of the building in an area of a depth of 25' or 30'. Building out to just a clearance of 20' could remove some of the parking area. >> 53 Ellery Street has a large parking area in the rear of the building approximately 40' deep and a very narrow driveway on the right side of the building barely a foot wider than an average car, so if that side were reduced to 5' no vehicles could reach the off- street parking area and said parking area could theoretically be reduced to 20' from 40' thus allowing maybe only two cars to park there. >>> The left side of the building is perhaps 7' and has a path and a narrow garden. Removing 2' would reduce the space for any greenery of any significance. 2

So, ...another example of an unintended consequence of this zoning proposal. >> One would hope that a developer would ignore the 5' zoning in a case like this and leave the garden alone. If a developer embraced the EC recommendation of only 0.4 space/unit in a building with 4 units only one resident could park in the off-street space. In a 7-story building that formula would allow only 3.5 parking spaces for 14 units. CDD wrote that if the building is near public transportation, no parking spaces are needed and no new curb cut would be granted. What does CDD describe as "near" public transportation? Two blocks, three blocks, four...? >>That is not stated and its omission is legally inexcusable. What about wheelchair bound residents or someone who has to use a cane? What distance would work for them? Further the 0.4 space/unit assumes that the residents of the affordable housing cannot afford a car. I find that rather biased thinking. >> This restriction does not consider that families with children need a car to transport their children to medical appointments, to visit grandparents, to church, to go shopping for food or for clothes, to day care or school. etc. Young children require certain car seats or booster seats depending on age and weight and need a car for installing them. Does CDD expect that a parent will transport two or three children on a bike? How does CDD imagine a parent can bring home a week's worth of groceries without a car? Realistically, the parent without a car would have to make several trips to the grocery store, go through checkout, bag the groceries and tote them home. Meanwhile what does the parent do with the children? Hire a babysitter while she/he makes several trips to the store? Take the children with her? Imagine that situation. This restriction will certainly add to the profits of Uber, Lyft, or taxi companies. >> However, it seems that the affordable proposal is designed to encourage the building of studios and micro-units and not 3 bedroom units for families. Water, Electricity, Gas One member of the public yesterday mentioned a problem with the water main pipes on her street. The city has been replacing old water pipes for some years and performing sewer separation. >>However, it seems the age and condition of water pipes near any potential site of 100% affordable housing needs to be considered--seriously. >> Today, there are 5 notices on the Water Department web page regarding current water pipe leaks throughout the city. Electricity capacity: Eversource plans to add a transformer to its site on Putnam Avenue behind Whole Foods. This will provide electricity to commercial establishments only. When asked if Eversource will be able to meet the needs of additional housing units being proposed by Envision Cambridge, the rep did not have an answer, nor did he know anything about Envision Cambridge. Eversource reps stated that there was no land in Cambridge that they could buy in order to add transformers to meet any added demand from residential properties. Land might be available in Belmont. However, electricity cannot be transmitted further than 4.5 miles from a transformer. >>>Finally, I repeat my concern (mentioned in my letter dated 3/4/19) that only 5' on the sides of two contiguous 45' tall buildings and 10' in front of said buildings would produce day-long shadows that would limit what plantings would grow on that 3

property. Trees between two buildings would present a hazard to roofs, decks/porches and the siding of buildings with only 10 ft. between them since the spread of the tree could be 30' to 40' or more and trees crowded within a 20' backyard would also present the same problems. very truly yours, /S/ Carolyn Shipley 15 Laurel Street Cambridgeport Please enter this email into the official record of the city council.

Crane, Paula Atlachment Z From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:59 AM To: Crane, Paula FW: Housing Committee Meeting, 3/5/19 Subject: Ltr-CityCouncil-Zoning-2019.doc Attachments: From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 4:18 PM To: Crane, Paula < pcrane@cambridgema.gov> Subject: FW: Housing Committee Meeting, 3/5/19 From: Carolyn <carolyn [email removed]> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 3:52 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil @CambridgeMA.GOV>; Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Housing Committee Meeting, 3/5/19 Please see attached letter. Please enter it into the official record for the 3/5/19 Housing Committee meeting. Thank you. Carolyn

March 4, 2019 Atlachment AA The Cambridge City Council City Hall 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 RE: Housing Committee Meeting, 3/5/19 - Proposed Overlay Zoning To the Honorable City Councillors: I write today to voice my strong opposition to the proposed city-wide zoning ordinance for 100% Affordable Housing. Trees, Shrubs, Roses, Perennials, Lawns, and more will die! • An unintended consequence of going from two and three story houses to four to five story buildings is that this will create deep shadows, lack of air circulation for plant life, loss of gardening space and a significant loss of our tree canopy and greenery. Were this to take place on my street or nearby, all of the plantings in my garden and my neighbors' gardens would die. In addition, construction could damage the roots of any nearby trees. • An unintended consequence of going from the current height of 40' to the proposed height of 80' is that this will create long, deep shadows, lack of air circulation, loss of gardening space and a significant loss of our tree canopy and greenery. It seems apparent that the planners in the Community Development Department lack knowledge about horticulture and the needs of trees, shrubs and all plant life in order to survive. If they had that knowledge, they would not have proposed such tall buildings throughout the city. The city-wide affordable housing overlay up-zoning proposal removes current city-wide democratic rights in two ways: • The proposed new design review process moves power from the citizen Planning Board and other citizen review practices to the appointed, not elected, City Manager and the staff of the Community Development Department (CDD). • All proposed building changes will be "as of right" meaning that unlike current zoning, citizens will no longer have legal recourse for any affordable housing project. The proposed changes will negatively impact architectural design for years to come by: • applying fixed set-backs for affordable projects throughout the city rather than following current city and nationwide standards which specifically address context. • changing criteria from current city-wide FAR to lesser stringent height attributes. This not only is a major giveaway to developers, but also will assure that future projects are of generic big massive box- like constructions that will be completely out of keeping with the city's neighborhoods. • removing the need for special permits including Art. 19 review and replacing it with something "Art-19 like" without the ability to appeal.

The proposed changes that would allow structures of 4 to 5 stories to replace two and three story houses would not only destroy the character of residential neighborhoods such as Cambridgeport, but also the added height will insure that no trees or other greenery would survive. In many parts of the city for areas with two-three story houses (40 feet or less) increases to 4-5 stories (up to 45 feet) would be allowed and will completely dwarf those surrounding structures; similarly the move from 4 plus stories (more than 40') to 7-8 stories (up to 80 feet) would produce the same detrimental effect. HOWEVER, the proposal to build up to 12 stories in Central Square and along the Charles River is astounding! Is a 12-story wall of concrete and steel to shut off the city and residents from the river and parkland along the river? Will a 12-story wall create damaging wind currents on the river which will kill aquatic life, plant life, animals, and make the river more difficult for sailing, thus shutting down the many sailing clubs along the river? There are many more questionable points in the overlay zoning proposal, but I feel confident that others in Cambridge will voice their opinions regarding the other many problems presented by the proposed zoning. Yours truly, /s/ Carolyn Shipley 15 Laurel Street Cambridgeport cc: Ms. Donna Lopez, City Clerk Please enter this letter into the permanent record of the City Council.

Crane, Paula Attachment BB From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 4:18 PM To: Crane, Paula FW: 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal Subject: From: Elizabeth Gombosi <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 3:19 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>; Lopez, Donna <[email removed] Subject: 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal Dear Cambridge City Councillors, I am writing today to express my objection to the proposed citywide overlay for 100% affordable housing. 1. The idea that the decision process is taken away from citizens and citizen boards and given to the city manager and his employees is undemocratic. The residents must have a say in how their neighborhoods are developed and how the character of the neighborhood is preserved. 2. The idea that buildings that are architecturally insignificant (or worse) and much larger than existing structures can be shoe-horned into already overbuilt neighborhoods as-of-right goes against all that we have been working toward for the last 30 or 40 years. Much of what makes Cambridge a great place to live depends on preserving our historic buildings and streetscapes. 3. The idea that parking will be reduced to less than ½ space per unit is absurd. We all choose to reduce our driving as much as possible, but for many of us the need for a vehicle is critical. 4. Our city has a major tree and open space crisis. Reducing setbacks and minimizing green space requirements goes against everything this city stands for and this planet needs. 5. I fear the proposed housing overlay will not provide housing in all parts of the city, will create ghettos rather than help mix neighborhoods, and will result in buildings that will not provide the quality of life all residents of Cambridge deserve. There are many ways to provide more affordable housing for our current residents without reducing quality of life. There are many questions that need to be answered before the Council can address the overlay. I will not attempt to list them here as you are well aware of them. We are all for affordable housing and wish all residents of Cambridge to have a high quality of life, but let's not rush this process and end up with something we will all regret. That has happened too often in the last few years. Let's have a real conversation, look at alternatives, and listen to the concerns of your many intelligent, informed residents, not just developers. Elizabeth Gombosi 42 Irving Street 1

Attachment CC Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 12:19 AM To: Crane, Paula Subject: Fwd: Affordable Housing Overlay for Cambridge Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: tara greco <[email removed]> Date: March 4, 2019 at 5:06:24 PM EST To: "Dlopez@cambridgema.gov" <Dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Cc: tara greco <[email removed]> Subject: Affordable Housing Overlay for Cambridge City Council, Unfortunately I am unable to attend the upcoming meeting so I want to make my vote AGAINST the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay for Cambridge. I think it is shortsighted and will only cause more harm to the collective reality of current and future citizens of Cambridge. Tara R. Greco Cambridge MA [phone removed]

Attachment DO Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 12:17 AM To: Crane, Paula Fwd: New Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Mary-Ann Donofrio <[email removed]> Date: March 4, 2019 at 7:33:07 PM EST To: City Council < citycouncil@cambridgema.gov>, MAD <[email removed]>, citymanager@cambridgema.gov, cityclerk@cambridgema.gov Subject: New Affordable Housing Overlay To the Cambridge City Council and City Manager I wrote you a few weeks ago about a wall being built around East Cambridge. Your map of the Affordable Housing Overlay shows. it, You have a wall between the houses that are there now and the river towards the east. The heights are not the greatest. Yes we need housing but how about MT, Allexandria, DIVCO and other developers in East Cambridge building housing instead of Office buildings I know you are looking at the money that the City will be getting from the development of great heights. You are not looking at the quality of life that is being taken away from those living in the area. You are adding heights. It is not right. We get all the noise from the mechanics on the buildings and no relief. We will also get the traffic from those trying to get to the new office and Tech places. 1

Please think not just twice but atleast three times on the heights you are looking at. This is not New York. I love looking at the sky and seeing a sunset. With all the building I will not be able to do either when you finish you plan. Sincerely yours Mary Ann Donofrio 120 Gore Street Cambridge Ma 02141 i..:i

Crane, Paula Alachment EE From: Young Kim <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 11:24 AM To: Siddiqui, Sumbul; Simmons, Denise; Devereux, Jan; Mallon, Alanna; Toomey, Tim Cc: McGovern, Marc; DePasquale, Louie; donnalopez@cambridgema.gov; Crane, Paula; Kelley, Craig; Zondervan, Quinton; Carlone, Dennis Subject: Housing Overlay - Housing Committee Hearing 3/5/2019 Dear Members of Housing Committee, I understand that the proposed housing overlay will be the subject of tonight's Housing Committee meeting. However, I couldn't verify this because I could not find the agenda at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=2378. My wife and I have been long time residents of Cambridge (except for few years in the suburbs) having bought our first home back in 1978. Cambridge is an ideal city to be retired in - close to countless places to explore that are easily accessible by public transit. We intend to live out the rest of our lives in Cambridge and pass our house to our children. As such, equitable and reasonable developments that "preserve the fabric of the neighborhood" is of utmost importance to us. We first got involved in the City politics when we opposed the rent control as small property owners. We agreed with need to protect the tenants from unscrupulous large landlords who only cared about their bottom lines. But we opposed the rent control because it had to also protect the small, well meaning landlords, to be able to provide the necessary services without undue difficult process. We got involved again in 2010 when Dr. Rizkallah applied for SP to convert former North Cambridge Catholic High School into apartment building, packing it as densely as possible which PB termed worse than tenement. He also applied for SP to build a second house at 54R Cedar Street which was denied but he built the house anyway as of right by demolishing part of the original house that didn't meet the Zoning Ordinance.. As you may recall, in 2015, PB conducted a SP Process Improvement and I fought for compliance monitoring of SP decisions. I tried to convince the PB that the SP Process doesn't end with PB granting the permit; rather, it ends when the occupancy permit is finally granted. From the time the SP is granted to the issuing of the occupancy permit, there has to be inter-departmental compliance monitoring process that includes neighborhood participation. Unfortunately, even though PB understood where I was coming from, nothing was implemented. Once again, I am speaking up for the process; not the concept. Before you pass any kind of Affordable Housing Overlay I implore you to formulate an enforceable plan to monitor a 100% affordable housing project from its initial conceptual stage all the way to its obtaining occupancy permit and beyond. This plan should, at the minimum 1) require developer to conduct outreach discussions with abutters 2) mitigate parking, traffic and other infrastructure issues in enforceable way 3) include periodic City review of the project to ensure it is complying with all the requirements of "affordable housing" 4) ensure for-profit developer does not find a way around the ordinance to make windfall profits. Too many officers of so called "non-profit" organizations are earning way too high compensations compared to the clients they serve To sum it up, the 100% affordable housing project has to "preserve the fabric of the neighborhood" and the project has to be held to strict compliance monitoring. Thank you for your attention, Respectfully yours Young Kim 17 Norris Street 1

Attachment FF Crane, Paula From: Young Kim <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 10:41 AM To: Siddiqui, Sumbul; Simmons, Denise; Devereux, Jan; Mallon, Alanna; Toomey, Tim Cc: McGovern, Marc; DePasquale, Louie; Farooq, Iram; Kelley, Craig; Zondervan, Quinton; Carlone, Dennis; Roberts, Jeffrey; Lopez, Donna; Crane, Paula Re: Housing Overlay - Housing Committee Hearing 3/5/2019 Subject: Dear Co-Chairs Siddiqui and Simmons and Members of Housing Committee, Last night's CDD presentation on the Citywide Affordable Housing Ovelay was an eye opener in two ways. First, according to Sec.3.12 of Zoning Ordinance, "overlay districts may be established from time to time. As specified elsewhere in this Ordinance, each overlay district shall have special regulations which shall be applicable in lieu of or in addition to the regularly applicable regulations for the base zoning district." Since the proposed 100% Affordable Housing zoning regulations applies citywide, it should not be called an "Overlay". Second. Councilor Carlone's questions to CDD regarding their presentation clearly highlighted glaring omission in their presentation - omission of case studies. For the concerned citizens to properly assess true impact of the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay and give comments at the next Committee meeting, please require CDD to post case studies of potential projects including a site with deep, undeveloped backyard (reaching beyond 75' from the sidewalk) well before next meeting. The case study should include parking impact. When Dr. Rizkallah applied for SP to convert former North Cambridge Catholic High School into an apartment building in 2010, then Mayor Maher spearhead Zoning Ordinance amendment for Conversion of Non Residential Structures to Residential Use (Addition of a New Section 4.29; Changes to Existing Section 5.28.2) to address neighborhood's concern over density. We had many meetings in Mayor's office with CDD to review their proposed changes going over their proposed formula for Gross Floor Area. With each revision of proposed changes, CDD provided calculation of how many units will be allowed under the revised formula. Using the formula, we were able to independently calculate the impact it might have on other potential conversion sites. We finally agreed on a compromise which reduced the number of proposed units from original 35 to more reasonable 25 residential units and 2 commercial spaces. With just "focus on scale and height of buildings rather than density & floor area ratio" ", it will be too subjective to determine if the proposed project will fit into the "fabric of neighborhood". Furthermore, the optimistic 0.4 parking space/unit is totally unenforceable (ref - https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/02/18/cambridge-wanted-big-drop-car-ownership-that-hasn-exactly- happened/sBu3TbWIBQLi5NIo00L6AM/story.html?camp=breakingnews:newsletter) We need measurable and enforceable means to determine how well a development to be shoehorned into existing neighborhood will fit into that area. Thank you for your attention, Respectfully your, Young Kim 17 Norris Street On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:24 AM Young Kim <[email removed]> wrote: Dear Members of Housing Committee,

Atlachment 66 Crane, Paula From: Young Kim <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 7:46 AM Carlone, Dennis To: Siddiqui, Sumbul; Simmons, Denise; Devereux, Jan; Mallon, Alanna; Toomey, Tim; Cc: Farooq, tram; Roberts, Jeffrey; Crane, Paula Subject: Fwd: Housing Overlay - Housing Committee Hearing 3/5/2019 Attachments: 5_28_2_Calcs_Table_061611.pdf; 5_28_2_Changes_Language_Jun2011.pdf Dear Councilor Carlone, Thank you for your insightful questions regarding the CDD's presentation of the Citywide 100% affordable housing overlay. I would very much appreciate your efforts in getting CDD to prepare case studies of how their proposed zoning might work in each residential zones as I requested in the email below. It will be far easier for the CDD to prepare these scenarios as they have deeper understanding and the tools to generate them. And it will far more authoritative than if I or someone from the community generate such a study. I am attaching an example of such a study CDD prepared the Conversion of Non Residential Structures to Residential Use ordinance amendment. I would greatly appreciate hearing back from you whether you will be willing to work with CDD to produce such a case study. Thank you for your consideration and efforts, Respectfully yours, Young Kim 17 Norris Street - Forwarded message ------ From: Young Kim <[email removed]> Date: Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:40 AM Subject: Re: Housing Overlay - Housing Committee Hearing 3/5/2019 To: Siddiqui, Sumbul <ssiddiqui@cambridgema.gov>, Simmons, Denise <dsimmons@cambridgema.gov>, Devereux, Jan < jdevereux@cambridgema.gov>, Mallon, Alanna <amallon@cambridgema.gov>, <ttoomey@cambridgema.gov> Cc: McGovern, Marc <mmcgovern@cambridgema.gov>, DePasquale, Louie <|depasquale@cambridgema.gov>, Farooq, Iram <ifarooq@cambridgema.gov>, Kelley, Craig < ckelley@cambridgema.gov>, Zondervan, Quinton <gzondervan@cambridgema.gov>, <dcarlone@cambridgema.gov>, Roberts, Jeffrey <jroberts@cambridgema.gov>, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov>, <pcrane@cambridgema.gov> Dear Co-Chairs Siddiqui and Simmons and Members of Housing Committee, Last night's CDD presentation on the Citywide Affordable Housing Ovelay was an eye opener in two ways. First, according to Sec.3.12 of Zoning Ordinance, "overlay districts may be established from time to time. As specified elsewhere in this Ordinance, each overlay district shall have special regulations which shall be applicable in lieu of or in addition to the regularly applicable regulations for the base zoning district." Since the proposed 100% Affordable Housing zoning regulations applies citywide, it should not be called an "Overlay". Second. Councilor Carlone's questions to CDD regarding their presentation clearly highlighted glaring omission in their presentation - omission of case studies. For the concerned citizens to properly assess true impact of the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay and give comments at the next Committee meeting, please require CDD to post case studies of potential projects including a site with deep, undeveloped backyard (reaching beyond 75' from the sidewalk) well before next meeting. The case study should include parking impact.

When Dr. Rizkallah applied for SP to convert former North Cambridge Catholic High School into an apartment building in 2010, then Mayor Maher spearhead Zoning Ordinance amendment for Conversion of Non Residential Structures to Residential Use (Addition of a New Section 4.29; Changes to Existing Section 5.28.2) to address neighborhood's concern over density. We had many meetings in Mayor's office with CDD to review their proposed changes going over their proposed formula for Gross Floor Area. With each revision of proposed changes, CDD provided calculation of how many units will be allowed under the revised formula. Using the formula, we were able to independently calculate the impact it might have on other potential conversion sites. We finally agreed on a compromise which reduced the number of proposed units from original 35 to more reasonable 25 residential units and 2 commercial spaces. With just "focus on scale and height of buildings rather than density & floor area ratio", it will be too subjective to determine if the proposed project will fit into the "fabric of neighborhood". Furthermore, the optimistic 0.4 parking space/unit is totally unenforceable (ref - https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/02/18/cambridge-wanted-big-drop-car-ownership-that-hasn-exactly- happened/sBu3TbWIBQLi5Nlo00L6AM/story.html?camp=breakingnews:newsletter) We need measurable and enforceable means to determine how well a development to be shoehorned into existing neighborhood will fit into that area. Thank you for your attention, Respectfully your, Young Kim 17 Norris Street On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:24 AM Young Kim <[email removed]> wrote: Dear Members of Housing Committee, I understand that the proposed housing overlay will be the subject of tonight's Housing Committee meeting. However, I couldn't verify this because I could not find the agenda at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=2378. My wife and I have been long time residents of Cambridge (except for few years in the suburbs) having bought our first home back in 1978. Cambridge is an ideal city to be retired in - close to countless places to explore that are easily accessible by public transit. We intend to live out the rest of our lives in Cambridge and pass our house to our children. As such, equitable and reasonable developments that "preserve the fabric of the neighborhood" is of utmost importance to us. We first got involved in the City politics when we opposed the rent control as small property owners. We agreed with need to protect the tenants from unscrupulous large landlords who only cared about their bottom lines. But we opposed the rent control because it had to also protect the small, well meaning landlords, to be able to provide the necessary services without undue difficult process. We got involved again in 2010 when Dr. Rizkallah applied for SP to convert former North Cambridge Catholic High School into apartment building, packing it as densely as possible which PB termed worse than tenement. He also applied for SP to build a second house at 54R Cedar Street which was denied but he built the house anyway as of right by demolishing part of the original house that didn't meet the Zoning Ordinance.. As you may recall, in 2015, PB conducted a SP Process Improvement and I fought for compliance monitoring of SP decisions. I tried to convince the PB that the SP Process doesn't end with PB granting the permit; rather, it ends when the occupancy permit is finally granted. From the time the SP is granted to the issuing of the occupancy permit, there has to be inter-departmental compliance monitoring process that includes neighborhood participation. Unfortunately, even though PB understood where I was coming from, nothing was implemented Once again, 1 am speaking up for the process; not the concept. Before you pass any kind of Affordable Housing Overlay I implore you to formulate an enforceable plan to monitor a 100% affordable housing project from its initial conceptual stage all the way to its obtaining occupancy permit and beyond. This plan should, at the minimum 2

1) require developer to conduct outreach discussions with abutters 2) mitigate parking, traffic and other infrastructure issues in enforceable way 3) include periodic City review of the project to ensure it is complying with all the requirements of "affordable housing" 4) ensure for-profit developer does not find a way around the ordinance to make windfall profits. Too many officers of so called "non-profit" organizations are earning way too high compensations compared to the clients they serve To sum it up, the 100% affordable housing project has to "preserve the fabric of the neighborhood" and the project has to be held to strict compliance monitoring. Thank you for your attention, Respectfully yours Young Kim 17 Norris Street

Attachment HA Crane, Paula Young Kim <[email removed]> From: Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 12:26 PM Siddiqui, Sumbul; Simmons, Denise; Devereux, Jan; Mallon, Alanna; Toomey, Tim To: McGovern, Marc; DePasquale, Louie; Farooq, Iram; Kelley, Craig; Zondervan, Quinton; Cc: Carlone, Dennis; Roberts, Jeffrey; Lopez, Donna; Crane, Paula Re: Housing Overlay - Housing Committee Hearing 3/5/2019 Subject: Dear Co-Chairs Siddiqui and Simmons and Members of Housing Committee, I may be stating the obvious, but I think there are two main obstacles for affordable housing. First is the funding issue. Whenever a property that could possibly be used for affordable housing, it is very hard for non-profit organizations to compete with for-profit developers in acquiring that property. Can City work with local banks to create some kind of credit line that these organizations can use to compete in equal footing? Second is the permit process. This is where we will need a zoning amendment similar to the conversion of non- residential use to residential use amendment; and establish procedure to expedite permitting process whereby community will have a voice in approving a development that will best fit in their neighborhood, preserving the "fabric of neighborhood." Thank you for your attention to this matter, Respectfully yours, Young Kim On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:40 AM Young Kim <[email removed]> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs Siddiqui and Simmons and Members of Housing Committee, Last night's CDD presentation on the Citywide Affordable Housing Ovelay was an eye opener in two ways. First, according to Sec.3.12 of Zoning Ordinance, "overlay districts may be established from time to time. As specified elsewhere in this Ordinance, each overlay district shall have special regulations which shall be applicable in lieu of or in addition to the regularly applicable regulations for the base zoning district." Since the proposed 100% Affordable Housing zoning regulations applies citywide, it should not be called an "Overlay". Second. Councilor Carlone's questions to CDD regarding their presentation clearly highlighted glaring omission in their presentation - omission of case studies. For the concerned citizens to properly assess true impact of the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay and give comments at the next Committee meeting, please require CDD to post case studies of potential projects including a site with deep, undeveloped backyard (reaching beyond 75' from the sidewalk) well before next meeting. The case study should include parking impact. When Dr. Rizkallah applied for SP to convert former North Cambridge Catholic High School into an apartment building in 2010, then Mayor Maher spearhead Zoning Ordinance amendment for Conversion of Non Residential Structures to Residential Use (Addition of a New Section 4.29; Changes to Existing Section 5.28.2) to address neighborhood's concern over density. We had many meetings in Mayor's office with CDD to review their proposed changes going over their proposed formula for Gross Floor Area. With each revision of proposed changes, CDD provided calculation of how many units will be allowed under the revised formula. Using the formula, we were able to independently calculate the impact it might have on other potential conversion sites. We finally agreed on a compromise which reduced the number of proposed units from original 35 to more reasonable 25 residential units and 2 commercial spaces. With just "focus on scale and height of buildings rather than density & floor area ratio", it will be too subjective to determine if the proposed project will fit into the "fabric of neighborhood". Furthermore, the optimistic 0.4 parking space/unit is totally unenforceable (ref -

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/02/18/cambridge-wanted-big-drop-car-ownership-that-hasn-exactly- happened/sBu3TbWIBQLi5Nlo00L6AM/story.html?camp=breakingnews:newsletter) We need measurable and enforceable means to determine how well a development to be shoehorned into existing neighborhood will fit into that area. Thank you for your attention, Respectfully your, Young Kim 17 Norris Street On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:24 AM Young Kim <[email removed]> wrote: Dear Members of Housing Committee, I understand that the proposed housing overlay will be the subject of tonight's Housing Committee meeting. However, I couldn't verify this because I could not find the agenda at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=2378. My wife and I have been long time residents of Cambridge (except for few years in the suburbs) having bought our first home back in 1978. Cambridge is an ideal city to be retired in - close to countless places to explore that are easily accessible by public transit. We intend to live out the rest of our lives in Cambridge and pass our house to our children. As such, equitable and reasonable developments that "preserve the fabric of the neighborhood" is of utmost importance to us. We first got involved in the City politics when we opposed the rent control as small property owners. We agreed with need to protect the tenants from unscrupulous large landlords who only cared about their bottom lines. But we opposed the rent control because it had to also protect the small, well meaning landlords, to be able to provide the necessary services without undue difficult process. We got involved again in 2010 when Dr. Rizkallah applied for SP to convert former North Cambridge Catholic High School into apartment building, packing it as densely as possible which PB termed worse than tenement. He also applied for SP to build a second house at 54R Cedar Street which was denied but he built the house anyway as of right by demolishing part of the original house that didn't meet the Zoning Ordinance.. As you may recall, in 2015, PB conducted a SP Process Improvement and I fought for compliance monitoring of SP decisions. I tried to convince the PB that the SP Process doesn't end with PB granting the permit; rather, it ends when the occupancy permit is finally granted. From the time the SP is granted to the issuing of the occupancy permit, there has to be inter-departmental compliance monitoring process that includes neighborhood participation. Unfortunately, even though PB understood where I was coming from, nothing was implemented. Once again, I am speaking up for the process; not the concept. Before you pass any kind of Affordable Housing Overlay I implore you to formulate an enforceable plan to monitor a 100% affordable housing project from its initial conceptual stage all the way to its obtaining occupancy permit and beyond. This plan should, at the minimum 1) require developer to conduct outreach discussions with abutters 2) mitigate parking, traffic and other infrastructure issues in enforceable way 3) include periodic City review of the project to ensure it is complying with all the requirements of "affordable housing" 4) ensure for-profit developer does not find a way around the ordinance to make windfall profits. Too many officers of so called "non-profit" organizations are earning way too high compensations compared to the clients they serve To sum it up, the 100% affordable housing project has to "preserve the fabric of the neighborhood" and the project has to be held to strict compliance monitoring. Thank you for your attention, Respectfully yours 2

Young Kim 17 Norris Street

Atachment IT Crane, Paula Matthew Robare <[email removed]> From: Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 12:30 PM To: City Council Cc: Clerk Affordable Housing Overlay comment letter Subject: Below please find my comment letter for the meeting tonight regarding Envision Cambridge's affordable housing overlay. Thank you, Matthew M. Robare To the members of the Cambridge City Council, As a resident and voter in this city, I wholeheartedly support the overlay. I live on Poplar Road, off Lexington Avenue in Huron Village. We are within a thirty minute walk of three Red Line stations, major grocery stores, a movie theater and other amenities and the neighborhood is well served by several bus routes going to Harvard Square. On top of that we have parks, fairly safe bike lanes and paths and at least one excellent public school. The Department of Conservation and Recreation recently broke ground on an extension of the Watertown Greenway which will come right through the neighborhood, which is very exciting. With these amenities, the neighborhood is ideal for renters of diverse income levels, but this has not happened. Instead, antiquated zoning laws, wholly inadequate to the needs of today's Cambridge, with its growing population, dynamic economy and growing gap between the wealthy and impoverished, means that the stock of mostly one-to-three family homes developed so long ago Cambridge voting Republican was a possibility is unchanged except that instead of housing immigrants moving into the middle class they now house the upper middle class in million-dollar condos. I urge you to pass this overlay. Enable the developers of affordable housing to do their jobs and house today's immigrants, today's working classes and today's downtrodden. Do not make Cambridge into Cupertino, California, where the mayor recently joked about building a wall around the city and making San Jose pay for it. As a city, as a community, as a commonwealth, we have a moral duty to enable to building of needed housing - and no responsibility whatsoever to protect the value of someone's house. Thank you, Matthew M. Robare 8. Poplar Rd, #2 Cambridge, MA 02138 1

Attachment It Crane, Paula From: , Lopez, Donna Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 1:10 PM To: Crane, Paula Subiect: FW: Oppose City Wide Zoning Proposal From: babette meyer <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 11:51 AM To: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Oppose City Wide Zoning Proposal I strongly oppose this zoning proposal. It removes power from the citizen Planning Board and other citizen review practices an gives then to an unelected City Manager and his/her staff. Babette Meyer ::

Attachment КК Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 3:13 PM Crane, Paula To: Subject: FW: In Support of Affordable Housing Overlay From: Gina Casey <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 2:36 PM To: Clerk < clerk@cambridgema.gov>; City Council «CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Subject: In Support of Affordable Housing Overlay Hello, I am a resident of Cambridge writing to express my support for the Affordable Housing Overlay. I have been living in the Cambridgeport neighborhood for the past six years, and I intend to stay in this neighborhood for the foreseeable future. Cambridge is an amazing city with a lot to otter, and we have a duty to ensure our neighborhoods offer housing options which are accessible and desirable to people of various backgrounds and income levels. I believe more affordable housing is absolutely necessary to create a diverse, inviting, thriving, sustainable, and inclusive Cambridge. Thank you, Regina Casey

Atachment LL March 5, 2019 Cambridge City Council Housing Committee Re: 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal Dear Councilors: I am writing today in support of the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay being considered by the Council's Housing Committee. As a Cambridge resident and an ardent believer in the City's historically progressive approach to affordable housing, equity, and social justice, I believe it is my obligation to stand up in favor of a measure that will deepen our commitment to supporting families of limited means and to be a place that is welcoming to all people. Beyond that, it is the duty of all of us who care about our neighbors, who recognize that safe, affordable housing should be a basic right for everyone, to work towards undoing the deep injustices brought about by a system that places profits above human rights, that discriminated (and in many cases, continues to discriminate) against people of color and families of limited means, and that uses fear and misinformation to maintain a status quo that only benefits those with power and means at their disposal. I have heard and read the arguments from both sides, spoken with my neighbors, and read the proposed language of the Overlay, and the direction we must go is clear. The arguments of the opponents of this measure ring false, again and again; the same fear-mongering, bigoted NIMBY tropes ", "neighborhood safety", and thinly veiled code - "loss of neighborhood character", "loss of green space" "negative effects on property values" - are trotted out here as they are across the country. I believe we as a community are better than that. I, and thousands of other Cantabrigians, choose to live and raise families here precisely because we are one of the most progressive and tolerant communities in the country. But we have, essentially, become victims of our own success. Our quality of life, our institutions, and our physical beauty are attracting a level of wealth that is unprecedented in the City's history. The resulting displacement of our most vulnerable citizens and the homogenization of our neighborhoods runs completely counter to our goals. It threatens to turn Cambridge into an economically segregated community, consisting of those who are fortunate enough to live in the previous little affordable housing we offer, and those with the capacity to afford the extremely high cost of market rate housing. Ultimately, the questions we must ask ourselves are these: Do we want to truly be a welcoming place, or do we want to pay lip service? Do we put our preferences, our luxuries, our "rose bushes" ahead of the basic human needs of those less fortunate? Do we want an amorphous and unforgiving "market" to determine the fate of our city? Or do we, as a concerned citizenry and members of a forward-thinking government, want to live up to our lofty goals, and work towards tackling, head on, a status quo that benefits a small number of wealthy people and corporations?

The answers for me, thousands of my fellow Cantabrigians are clear and resounding, and hopefully you will agree. I therefore respectfully ask you to vote in favor of the 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay. Sincerely, Christopher W. Scoville 28 Chatham Street #2 Member, A Better Cambridge Chair, Boston Preservation Alliance Board of Directors Member, Homeowners' Rehab, Inc. Board of Directors

Attachment mm Crane, Paula Lopez, Donna From: Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 4:28 PM To: Crane, Paula FW: Support the Affordable Housing Overlay- It can really work! Subject: From: Abra Berkowitz.<[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 4:05 PM To: City Council <City Council@CambridgeMA.GOV>; Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Support the Affordable Housing Overlay- It can really work! Dear Housing Committee Members, I am writing you to express my support for the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay. The key figure here is 100%. While other overlays exist throughout our State that incentivize denser residential and mixed-use development near transit via 40R (Smart Growth Zoning Overlay District Act), they do not require that 100% of the units be affordable to trigger the incentives packages. Natick, Beverly, North Reading, Northampton, and Haverhill are all local examples of Smart Growth Overlays which promote housing production in specific areas through flat payments, density bonuses and an additional $3,000 to the municipalities per housing unit generated through the program. These overlays only require that 10%-20% of all units be affordable, however. In Cambridge, we are proposing a true Affordable Housing Overlay that has the potential to provide hundreds of new homes to individuals and families who have languished for decades on affordable housing waiting lists, their lives in limbo as they await secure housing they can afford. Some folks have argued that the Affordable Housing Overlay is a waste of our time. Indeed, in Palo Alto, even the Director of Palo Alto Housing commented that, "Doing the overlay zone is a step in the right direction - it's better than doing nothing, though it won't necessarily yield (the city's goal of) 300 units per year." Similarly, in North Reading, an Affordable Housing Overlay passed in 2008 that targeted specific streets with town-owned properties had, as of 2018, not generated any new affordable units. These results are discouraging, until one glances closely at the nuances among existing Overlays and at the local dynamics that have inhibited their utilization. 1

In North Reading, the Overlay did not apply citywide. It specifically targeted areas with public properties. Why had nothing been built? According to the Town of North Reading's Housing Production Plan, "The Town has not yet issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the development of the parcels it owns" (2018). Contradictions also existed regarding the percentage of affordable housing needed to trigger the zoning. The lack of output was the result of a lethargic redevelopment office and a flaw in the policy itself. Our Overlay should not run into either problem; we have the political will and ability to get our Overlay right, and affordable housing developers committed to building more units in our City wherever they can. Palo Alto City Council passed the Affordable Housing Combining District Overlay last April. Though it has been less than a year since its passage, a project is already in the pipeline: Wilton Court, a 100% affordable, 59-unit building that will have over a third of the units reserved for folks with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The project is a success story in an Overlay which, after intense debate, now has inherent challenges. The definition of affordability, for example, "Allow[s] the new zone to apply to anyone who makes below 120 percent AMI, [which] would put those projects who target the lowest-income levels at a disadvantage," according to a City Councilor. Moreover, the zoning applies only to commercial areas. The restriction to commercial areas means that affordable housing competes with office space. Nonetheless, less than a year of passage, a project of 59 units is in the works. Imagine the outcome if the Overlay applied to all residential areas in the City? The North Reading Overlay and Palo Alto's are not practice stories of why an Affordable Housing Overlay cannot work. They are the opposite. They are learning opportunities for our Housing Committee and City Council as we work to engineer an Overlay that will generate more housing for folks who truly need it. On this point I must emphasize that we need to maintain the current income restrictions CDD has proposed. The majority of housing built through the Overlay must be limited to 80% or below of the AMI, if not lower. While middle class folks in Cambridge are being displaced or paying upwards of 50% of their incomes towards rent, they have more options than our region's low income folks. Spending decades on waiting lists, doubled up on cousins' couches or floating from place to place-often in areas that are not even transit accessible-low income folks are the families and individuals we must make a priority to serve through the Affordable Housing Overlay. 2

Finally, I will send over a cautionary note as more and more residents issue criticisms of the "as-of-right" component to projects built through the Overlay. For the Overlay to work, we need to engineer as many cost-saving measures as possible into the zoning to make the acquisition and development of land by nonprofit housing developers financially feasible. The fewer incentives we include, and the fewer cost-saving measures we provide, the less likely an affordable housing development will be able to compete with a market-rate development. I hope that you will maintain the proposed zoning's citywide application, focus it on low and very low income folks, and engineer as many incentives as you can into the Overlay so that it really works. Many thanks, Abra Berkowitz 632 Massachusetts Avenue #404 Cambridge, MA 02139 Sent from Outlook 3

Attachment AN Crane, Paula From: pwellons < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 4:39 PM To: Crane, Paula Subject: Fw: For the March Housing Committee Hearings (please distribute)_ Thank you, Paula. I thought "council@cambridgema.gov" was right. From now on should I send messages for any committee to you? Phil ----Forwarded Message. From: pwellons Sent: Mar 5, 2019 3:32 PM To: council@cambridgema.gov Subject: For the March Housing Committee Hearings (please distribute)_ Anticipating the City Council Housing Committee Meeting Tuesday, March 5, 2019 and later in March Dear City Councilors: Cambridge has more than one moral high ground. On top of Envision Cambridge's problematic roll-out and its one-note tune, some of its most outspoken supporters claim the moral high ground and suggest that residents who support values in addition to increasing affordable housing are bad. These people challenge the rest of us to look in the eye of someone who needs housing and can't afford it in Cambridge and tell them we'd rather save a few trees instead We should ask such a person to look their own grandchildren in the eye in 30 years and say yes, I actively helped destroy the tree canopy in Cambridge. Yes, I know it happened across the USA and beyond, and didn't have to. Yes, we should have acted and yes, your and succeeding generations are paying the terrible price. But we did make Cambridge denser. This zero-sum approach is foolishness and its sanctimony out of place. We live in a complex city. Affordability is a serious problem here and across the country, with some big causes far beyond our reach but with others we can perhaps mitigate. Cambridge has serious problems in addition to housing. Envision Cambridge was to

address them and we are still waiting. We need affordability policies that take into account the real, complicated problems of our city, not a single-issue approach that has failed elsewhere. With respect, Philip Wellons 651 Green St. Cambridge, MA 02139