a report from Councilor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair and Councilor Sumbul Siddiqui Co-Chair of the Housing Committee for a public hearing held on March 20, 2019 to discuss the Affordable Housing Overlay District

Attachment A councillor Simmons Opening Remarks for Housing Committee March 20, 2019, 5 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 AGAIN meeting to continue our discussion on the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay District. As my Co-Chair and I stated at our last hearing, we want to give tonight's hearing over COMPLETELY to Public Comment, so members of the community can come have their say and have it be made part of the record. As with the hearing on March 5 and the upcoming hearing on March 28, tonight's hearing is being televised to ensure that as many people as possible can participate in this conversation. I will note that the video of the March 5 Housing Committee hearing, which includes the CDD's presentation on the Affordable Housing Overlay District, is available for viewing on the City's website. I am going to keep my opening remarks very brief, because I want to allow as much time for Public Comment as possible. If we reach the end of this hearing and there is still some time left over, I may add some closing thoughts, but I really do want the focus tonight to be on hearing FROM you, as opposed to speaking TO you. The one thing that I will say, at the top of the hearing, is that there continues to be a high volume of emails coming in to the Council about this proposed Overlay, both in favor of it and against it. And as I have said in previous hearings, it is CRITICAL that we all reach a shared understanding of what this proposed Overlay is, what it aims to achieve, and how it would work. My hope is that the Public Comments we hear tonight will give this Committee a better sense of whether we are, in fact, reaching that shared understanding. This is so incredibly important because it is only when we ARE working with the same set of facts and the same understanding of this proposed legislation that we can truly have an honest, open, and productive discussion about how to best move forward. It is my hope and expectation that tonight's hearing moves us a little closer toward that end. I will ask my Co-Chair if she has any opening remarks, and then we will open the floor to Public Comment. Councilor Siddiqui, the floor is yours.

Hi, I'm Bob Woodbury. I live at 133 River, at the corner of Kinnaird Street. I'm here to read al statement in support of the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning. Like many residents, my wife and I are concerned about the loss of housing that, in the past, permitted more people with modest incomes to live in Cambridge. In our Riverside neighborhood, within a block or two of our home, we've seen two-family and multi-family homes replaced by new, expensive single-family houses. We're happy to have these new neighbors, but we miss the diversity that was here when we moved in. In fact, we live in a triple decker that used to be apartments for students and families - before it was gut-rehabbed and converted to individual condos. So we're part of the problem. Over the last few years, Mary and I have taken an interest in Cambridge non-profit organizations that build and maintain pockets of affordability amidst our city's relentless gentrification. Cambridge is lucky to have Homeowners Rehab and the Cambridge Housing Authority and the Just-A-Start Corporation. We donate to Just-A-Start to support their building efforts and the many services they provide. Because we want to see the work of these non-profits flourish, and want to see the number of affordable homes increase, we support the 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay. If this new zoning means that non-profits can build more apartments and condos in Cambridge, we would welcome - for example - a new, affordable four-story apartment building in our three-story neighborhood. We support positive, constructive action by the Housing Committee and the Ordinance Committee, by the Planning Board, and ultimately by the City Council to pass this zoning and make it easier for non-profit organizations to buy land and develop, build, and maintain new affordable housing in Cambridge. Thank you. :

C Date: March 20, 2019 Broda To: The Cambridge City Housing Committee CC: The Honorable City Councilors Were Fellater, From: Dena Feldstein, 661 Green Street, Cambridge 02139 The City's proposal for 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Good afternoon. My name is Dena Feldstein. I live at 661 Green Street, and have resided there since 1983. I am speaking about the City's proposal for 100% Affordable Housing Zoning. Let me start by saying I do not object to increasing affordable housing. And I am not opposed to having affordable housing in my back yard. However, this proposal is complicated and has major drawbacks: 1) The proposal removes significant zoning protections for residents, and it disproportionately impacts residents who live near the overlay district. We lose leverage over size and shape and yards of new big buildings, while we bear the major costs and drawbacks. The plan must give abutters and nearby residents a voice in setbacks and height, and retain some of the current zoning protections. 2) The proposal doesn't consider the long-term effect and costs on the increased demand for schools, transportation, and parking. 3) The proposal took 3 years to develop. The City needs to publicize this widely and get more feedback over many months - not in just a few weeks. Let me give you a zoning example: If a neighbor wants to move or change even a window in her house, the Zoning Board must alert all affected neighbors, send details, and have hearings so all the affected neighbors can comment and approve or disapprove. Let's have the City do something like this for their proposal. 4) On a personal note, my house is on a residential street that abuts the Mass Ave corridor. We already have an affordable housing building nearby and some large buildings in back of us. With existing zoning, a developer could build a good-size building facing my back yard, with a 20' rear setback of green space, that could house a number of families. But with the proposed zoning, developers could build a larger and taller building right up to my property line, overshadowing my house and other residences. This would decrease the livability, enjoyment, and value of my property, with no recompense or recourse for me Thank you, and please address the problems in this proposal before acting on it.

Page 1 of 1 March 19, 2019 Stephen H. Kaiser 191 Hamilton St. Cambridge Mass. 02139 To : Paula Crane, Deputy City Clerk From : Stephen H. Kaiser Submission of Public Comment for March 20 Housing Meeting Please find attached a file copy in PDF form of my "Analysis of Affordability Housing" dated March 18, 2019. The submission is 17 pages long and does not contain a technical appendix of spreadsheets that would add about ten pages to the total. I believe that the attached file without the technical appendix will be most suitable for public distribution at the March 20 meeting of the Housing Committee. I will be submitting full copies of the report with technical appendix to the City Manager, City Council, Planning Board and Community Development. Sincerely, sett tain Stephen H. Kaiser, PhD

FINAL DRAFT Page 1 of 17 March 18, 2019 Stephen H. Kaiser 191 Hamilton St. Cambridge Mass. 02139 ANALYSIS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING Comparison of Housing Preservation and New Housing Construction On March 12, 2019 I submitted to city officials and residents an initial draft study of 100% Affordable Housing initiatives to deal with escalating housing costs in Cambridge. The evaluation included both an investigation of subsidies to preserve existing affordable housing, and a zoning overlay proposal for construction of new housing units. The goal was to compare the results of two Affordable Housing alternatives for program costs and necessary subsidies to achieve a workable 100% Affordable Housing program. This revised report has the following objectives : * Emphasize how housing policies should be composed of actions for both housing preservation and construction. * Expand the number of sample locations from one to three. * Simplifying the presentation by comparing unit housing costs only. * Updating housing data and assumptions THE ROLE OF HOUSING PRESERVATION Affordable housing today consists of about 15 percent of all housing units in Cambridge, with wide variations among individual neighborhoods. North Cambridge is highest with 1,862 units with Cambridgeport second at 1,296 units. West Cambridge is the lowest with 53 units and Agassiz is next with 111 units. East Cambridge is about average with 932 units, while Riverside has 669 units. The city of Cambridge contains 54,713 housing units, of which 8,117 are affordable units.' 1 CDD Affordable Housing Overlay Leaflet Data as of June 30, 2018.

FINAL DRAFT Page 2 of 17 March 18, 2019 Any overall housing program for Cambridge must have a balanced approach to preservation and housing construction. The two concepts are complementary and collaborative. Progress in affordable housing from one year to the next is a combination of many existing units surviving with stable affordability plus new affordable units. An effective and complete housing program requires both. This joint concept is recognized in the Envision summary report, with support for a strategy to "Expand resources for affordable housing production and preservation." Unfortunately, virtually all of the public discussion, including in City Council, has concentrated on new housing construction, with virtually nothing said about preservation. This imbalance must be corrected. Declines in affordability occur when the number of existing affordable units having been lost to rent inflation is more than the number of new housing units built. The loss of units is greater than the gain. Another form of net loss occurs when reductions in low- income and moderate-income housing units exceed the gains in middle-income units. So far, the public discussion in Cambridge has included very few references to low-income residents. Ideally, one would like to know how effective could City preservation programs be to reduce rent increases. Such calculations of effectiveness may be very difficult to make. True preservation would begin with an affordable unit and be successful when subsidies are applied to keep the unit as affordable. Newly constructed affordable units are presumed to continue to be affordable, but such assumptions require a budget for rent subsidies sufficient for years into the future to assure continued affordability. Federal Section 8 subsidies apply to qualifying units and tenants, and are closest to the preservationist concept described above. Subsidy programs can take many forms, including covering a certain percentage of the rent, or direct shortfall in ability to pay. Alternately an existing unit could be supported by the city paying part of the rent increase, with the tenants paying the existing rent plus a part of that increase. For the calculations in this analysis, the assumption has been made for the case of the city supporting preserved units by paying for 2/3 of any rent increase and the tenant providing the balance or 1/3 of the rent increase. With this arrangement, city funds would go directly to the landlord, and there would be an agreed-upon limit not to grow rents each

FINAL DRAFT Page 3 of 17 March 18, 2019 year in excess of 1% above inflation.? If a landlord sought to increase rents beyond this limit, such owners would be subject to a progressively stiffening sustainability tax, with the receipts going into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. THE ROLE OF NEW HOUSING CONSTRUCTION Similarly, new housing construction should be linked to housing preservation. The Overlay zoning proposed for 100% Affordable Housing is set up to add new housing units, while the primary function of preservation is to maintain a stable base of affordable housing upon which new construction can build and increase. A 100 % Affordable Housing construction program is most likely to be composed of subsidies provided by various levels of government, using income from taxation to provide the subsidies. Currently no new City taxes have been identified as being directed towards this program, although city officials hope to combine local, state and federal funds as they become available. The financial presumption for construction is that the developer would borrow money to build the units and would pay off the mortgage and interest with rent payments from tenants plus any subsidy from government sources. Today the criteria for subsidies appear quite ill-defined. At the March 14 Cambridgeport meeting CDD officials did not mention the word subsidy. The issue of funding is the greatest uncertainty in the entire Overlay zoning proposal, and limits the degree to which any detailed planning can be done. As of March 18 no Envision final report was been available for the public to read, and also no draft zoning for the Overlay proposal. Uncertainty over funding could be a contributing factor in the lack of substantive details on planning analysis and zoning concepts. In the absence of certainty, virtually no information is released. For the purposes of this analysis, Overlay support will take the form of a subsidy from government sources paid to the developer/landlord. Not even vague estimates of subsidy levels have been released to the public. However, the sample analysis that follows below will assume a subsidy that will cover half the rent. This subsidy could be calculated based on the difference between the unsubsidized rent and how much the tenant could be expected to pay based on income status. The rent calculations that follow should be considered as a first-cut trial estimate. 2 Recent national data suggests a nationwide inflation rate of about 2 percent per year, with inflation less in the mid- west, but higher on the East and West coasts at about 3 percent.

FINAL DRAFT March 18, 2019 Page 4 of 17 THE ROLE OF RENT CONTROL The issue of rent control as an option has been introduced by recent actions in the state of Oregon, whereby relatively high rent increases (more than seven percent plus inflation) were declared to be illegal across the entire state. Thus the message from Oregon is that ten percent annual increases in rent should be considered prohibitive anywhere in the state. It is a banning of a worst-case condition. In Massachusetts, a state-wide referendum in 1994 caused rent control to be banned in all communities. The rent control program in Cambridge was phased out. Any new consideration of rent control for Cambridge would be opposed by forces declaring that such action would be contrary to law. The limits on rent increases identified in the preservation plan above are those below which no sustainability tax would be applied. Landlords would technically be free to charge higher rents, but a progressively higher Sustainability Tax would be the penalty they would pay for exceeding the limit of 1 percent plus inflation. OTHER ALTERNATIVES for NEW HOUSING By July 2018 the preliminary Envision recommendations for Housing supported "a city-wide affordable housing overlay or other regulatory mechanism." 3 The Executive Summary for Envision under Housing proposed "affordable housing production" using "regulatory and zoning initiatives." These two references offer the only indication that the Envision process considered regulatory alternatives to any other policy except zoning. The City Council should attempt to determine what some of these regulatory options were and introduce them into the discussions of the Housing Committee. The application of Overlay up-zoning to all residential areas in the city has generated considerable discussion and is the primary source of discomfort for residents over the possibility of radical physical changes in the neighborhood. A valid question would be : can the Overlay concept be applied to other than residential areas, such as parking lots near Central Square, vacant industrial parcels, or large non-residential areas such as the Alewife Quadrangle ?? 3 "Envision Cambridge," Executive Summary, no date, circulated March 14, 2019 in Cambridgeport. page 19

FINAL DRAFT Page 5 of 17 March 18, 2019 NEW HOUSING ON UNDERUTILIZED PARKING LOTS The area around Central Square contains numerous examples of the opposite of infill housing. Parking lots were created in the past by demolishing buildings and creating small and medium-sized lots during the 1950s and 1960s, by the direct intention of city planners. These plans were based on the mistaken idea that drivers from the suburbs would drive into Cambridge on the new expressways likely to be built ..... park their cars in Central Square .... and do their shopping here. All that is left of this misbegotten concept is a legacy of numerous parking lots whose original evolution should be reversed in the form of new in fill housing. The new housing on Essex Street is a good example of a site where housing was demolished for a parking lot and now the parking lot is being replaced by housing. Planning and zoning should be devised to effect this change, without threatening surrounding residential areas. Reductions in the need for parking should be coordinated between shared-vehicle use (such as Zip-cars), ride-sharing and improved MBTA service on buses and trains. Data indicates that each Zip Car space can remove up to five conventional parking spaces. THREE LOCATIONS FOR STUDY Three local sites will be compared in a sampling of the effects of subsidy options on actual urban conditions in Cambridge. The first is a small sub-division that includes 185 to 195 Hamilton Street in Cambridgeport.* The second is a recently advertised single family house at 38 Lakeview Avenue in West Cambridge. The third is at 6 Saint Gerard Terrace in North Cambridge.S The Hamilton Street site contains three buildings on 10,000 square feet of a 100 ft-by- 100 ft lot. Two of the houses are of 1873 vintage and have slate roofs. The third house is a three-decker built in 1901. There are three condos, three rented apartments (rents of $1,250, $1,500 and $2,300) and two apartments for landlords. Under the Overlay plan, the three buildings at 185-195 would be demolished, and a large single building built to the setback lines. A maximum of 30 affordable housing units would be possible. However, eight existing units would be demolished for a net benefit of only 22 units. Construction costs would be $16 million and the necessary rent (including any subsidy) to pay off the mortgage and operations costs would be $4,100 a month. 4 100 feet by 100 feet, three buildings, three rental units, two landlord units, three condos. Includes my house. 38 Lakeview site is 100 x 153 feet. 6 St. Gerard is 5,800 sq. ft. and includes the home of Councillor Kelley.

FINAL DRAFT March 18, 2019 Page 6 of 17 If the city subsidy paid half of the rents, the tenants would pay $2,050 a month and city would pay the same as a subsidy. This process would continue until the mortgage was paid off after 30 years. The second site at 38 Lakeview Avenue near Fresh Pond has recently been renovated and placed on the market for $6.8 million. The Assessors office records show the lot in its prior state as two units and with an assessed value of $3.2 million. The site is 15,300 square feet on a 100 ft by 153 ft lot. The house was previously owner- occupied. Under the Overlay plan, the existing building could be retained and a second new building constructed on the remainder of the site. A second alternative is to demolish the existing 1870-vintage house and build a large apartment structure on the remainder of the lot, using a full basement and a height of 45 feet for five stories. A large single building built to the setback lines would allow up to 51 affordable housing units on the site. The net housing benefit would be 50 units. Total construction cost would be $26 million and the necessary rent (including any subsidy) to pay off the mortgage and operations costs would be $3,100 a month. If the city subsidy paid half of the rents, the tenants would pay $1,550 a month and city would pay the same as a subsidy. The third parcel happens to be Councillor Craig Kelly's house in North Cambridge. Located at 6 Saint Gerard Terrace, it is a two family structure of vintage 1898 on a 5,800 s.f. lot. Under the Overlay plan, the existing structure would be demolished and a new apartment building constructed with a basement and five stories. Up to 14 new units could be built on the site. The net housing benefit would be 12 units at a construction cost of $8 million. The required rent (including any subsidy) to pay off the mortgage and operations costs would be $3,700 a month.

FINAL DRAFT March 18, 2019 Page 7 of 17 CALCULATING UNIT COSTS AND RENTS All evaluations of housing costs will be done on the basis of a simple unit-to-unit comparisons. This simplification will make cost calculations far easier to understand. Because mortgages are likely to extend to 30 years, a consideration must be given at the end to estimate total project costs over such a long time period. [This paragraph can be skipped by the non-technical reader] For the economist or technician, all cost figures shall be presented assuming an adjusted zero-inflation outlook. Primary affected variables will be mortgage interest rates and allowed annual rent increases. Inflation is assumed to be three percent and bank interest rates above inflation are two percent. Construction cost per average affordable unit is $525,000. The mortgage will be paid off in thirty years, with incidental costs such as taxes, insurance, repairs, and water/sewer all reflecting historical experience at 189-191 Hamilton Street. COMPARISON OF THE THREE EXAMPLES The Overlay zoning proposal has the key feature of removing the restraint on Floor Area Ratios or FARS. Thus there is no limit other than building height on the amount of floor area that can be squeezed into a site. The larger the property, the larger the building can be built. With no FAR restraints, the larger sites such as Lakeview Avenue have room for 50 units under the proposed zoning. The per-unit costs are lowest for high prices properties such as 38 Lakeview, and the lower costs mean that City subsidies effectively provide a greater chance for developers to reap profits on their developments. The common belief is that neighborhoods like Brattle Street are exempt from the obligations for Affordable Housing. Brattle Street may be protected by being in a Historic District, but West Cambridge outside any formal historic district will be vulnerable wherever lot sizes are larger than average. Indeed West Cambridge becomes the primary area of Cambridge likely to be affected by Affordable Housing construction if the new zoning is adopted. TOTAL RENT TO SUSTAIN DEVELOPMENT The Tables also contain calculations of the unadjusted rent levels which will be needed to support the annual project cost. The unadjusted rent is composed of the allowed

FINAL DRAFT Page 8 of 17 March 18, 2019 rent subsidy and the rent paid by the tenant. These three rent components have been estimated for the sample locations in Cambridge as follows under the Overlay option : Tenant Rent Total Unadjusted Rent Rent Subsidy 185-195 Hamilton Street $2,060 per mo. $2,060 per mo. $4,120 per month 38 Lakeview Avenue $3,100 per month $1,550 per mo. $1,550 per mo. 6 Saint Gerard Terrace $1,900 per mo. $3,800 per month $1,900 per mo. The higher costs and rents for Hamilton Street appear to be due to the large number of existing units on the site, which reduced the benefits of building new units. The opposite effect occurs on Lakeview Avenue where a single large house is located on a very large lot. The potential for up to fifty new units on Lakeview Avenue drives unit costs and rents down. The irony of the situation should be obvious, since Cambridgeport has higher densities and greater numbers of affordable units, while Lakeview Avenue and Brattle Street have lower current densities, higher resident incomes, and larger parcels of land. The three parcels of land used as examples are about 5,000 sf of land in North Cambridge, 10,000 s.f. of land in Cambridgeport, and 15,000 s.f. of land in West Cambridge. The desirability of any site for new housing under Overlay zoning is dependent on many factors, including size of the parcel, number of existing units on the site, historic nature of existing structures, and total assessed value of the site. DEFINING AFFORDABLE HOUSING Currently there are three levels of household income that are the focus on concern in discussions of affordable housing. First is the original "low-income" housing priority traditionally identified with public housing "projects" as they were known decades ago. Such housing is aimed at protecting people who are living close to poverty levels and are in most need of assistance. Such families were the primary focus of the Great Society anti- poverty programs of the 1960s. Since the end of Rent Control, the focus has been jointly on low-income and moderate income families. The definitions are provided in Federal law and are based on the people

FINAL DRAFT Page 9 of 17 March 18, 2019 who are at or below area income levels, and these are calculated every year and are adjusted upwards as inflation produces higher costs and higher incomes. Within the past decade, the public emphasis has been on middle income assistance, and it was a constant concern during the Obama Administration. References to "low-income" dropped out of official pronouncements. ENVISION PLANNING AND DEFINITIONS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING Among "Affordable Housing" recommendations in the Executive Summary (page 19) is to encourage "affordable housing production for low-, moderate and middle-income households..." A consistent definition has never been part of Section 2.0 (Definitions) of the Zoning Ordinance. Over the years the definition of an Affordable unit in zoning has changed, but information from CDD fails to explain how or why. Section 11.201 of the February 25, 2002 edition of the CZO says that an "Affordable Unit" is linked to assistance for "low and moderate income households" accordingly. The rent must not exceed 30% of the renting household's income. The ordinance contains no definition of low or moderate income. Today's version of 11.201 has the "goal of preserving diversity by mitigating the impacts of commercial and residential development on the availability and cost of housing and especially housing affordable to low and moderate income households; by increasing the production of affordable housing to meet anticipated housing and employment needs throughout the city" Reference is made to low and moderate incomes, but the 30% of income for housing has been dropped. The modern functional definitions have been changed drastically: "(i) The gross household income of an Eligible Household upon initial occupancy shall be at least fifty percent (50%) and no more than eighty percent (80%) of AMI."

FINAL DRAFT Page 10 of 17 March 18, 2019 The new guiding concept is Area Median Income or AMI as defined by HUD. In Cambridge, any household earning less than 50% of the AMI is generally EXCLUDED from the program, as well as those earning more than 80% of AMI. The definition says nothing about "low income" or "moderate income." The concept of the 30% maximum income for housing is inserted here: "Rent, including utilities and any other fees routinely charged to tenants and approved by the Community Development Department, shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the gross household income of the Eligible Household occupying the Affordable Dwelling Unit..." These changes in definition could be justified if they were explained and in some clear way related to low and moderate incomes. This has not been done. Envision's goal is stated to include middle income families as eligible for affordable housing. However, while higher income people are being added to the program, households earning less than 30% of AMI are been excluded. Available Envision documents offer no definitions of low, moderate and middle income levels and how they are determined. From the tables, it appears that the upper limit for moderate incomes is 80% of AMI. Meanwhile in the city of Boston, low income is defined in three separate categories, consistent with HUD practice : "Low-Income" .... less than 80% AMI .... less than 50% of AMI "Very Low Income" ... less than 30% of AMI. "Extremely Low Income" (https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/affordable-housing-boston.pdj) "Low income" in Boston appears to be defined the same way as "moderate income" in Cambridge. And the 30,850 "extremely low income" households have been recognized by the city of Boston, but such families go unrecognized in Cambridge. (The entire city of Cambridge has a total of 41,000 households). Shifting definitions of affordable housing in Cambridge may help explain why there is no completed version of the Envision report and no draft zoning distributed to the public. It is time for Cambridge to explain the change in definitions and to seek consistency with Boston's and HUD's definitions of affordability.

FINAL DRAFT Page 11 of 17 March 18, 2019 HOW LARGE AN AFFORDABLE PROGRAM IS PROPOSED ? The goal of Cambridge planners is fairly modest. It is to add 600 to 650 units of 100% Affordable Housing by the year 2030. This goal adds an average of 50 housing units a year. That is 1/8 of one percent of the total amount of housing in Cambridge today. Meanwhile, a new budget item for Cambridge has been suggested for $20 million in the first year. For 50 units a year, such a fund would suggest an average unit cost of $400,000. WHAT FUTURE HOUSING POLICY SHOULD CAMBRIDGE ADOPT ?? The ending of rent control in 1995 left the City with no housing plan or policy, and over the next twenty five years the only novel housing policy of significance was inclusionary affordable housing built by private developers with an incentive for added density and high end market housing. In this way the expanded number of luxury apartments served to subsidize lower rent, money-losing affordable apartments. Past efforts have allowed incentives for market rate housing to include affordable units, but ultimately the process is unstable. Politicians are under constant pressure to increase the percentage of affordable units, while developers were pushing the other way for greater allowed density and heights. These tensions peaked with the Mass and Main project at Latayette Square, when new zoning allowed 195-foot buildings with a Floor-Area- Ratio of 5.5 and more affordable units. Politicians and developers may find a more attractive option by increasing allowed density while also abandoning FARs in zoning - a long-time goal of the development community. An unfamiliar trend in modern zoning identified as "form-based" has been introduced to Cambridge by the Envision process as a direct challenge to the controls and restraints of FARs in zoning. "Form-based" zoning remains an unclear concept. Developers have also favored as-of-right zoning, and often admitted they did not like special permits, usually granted by Planning Boards, but subject to conditions. Developers generally would like to have fewer public hearings, no discretionary reviews by Planning Boards, and as-of-right zoning that cannot be appealed to the courts. The as-of-right nature of the Envision proposals reflects these preferences of developers.

FINAL DRAFT Page 12 of 17 March 18, 2019 Preservation of neighborhoods appears not to be a priority for developers, architects, and construction unions, with the result that many government officials are reluctant to adopt preservationist goals. SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR HOUSING SUBSIDIES The designation of 100-percent affordable avoids negotiations over the numbers of affordable units, but it introduces new stresses on governments to finds sources of funds for housing subsidies. Some rumors have been circulated that subsidies for the new housing could pay half of the rent, in effect a 50% subsidy. The source of these funds is a mystery, and city planners admit a serious funding problem exists. If City officials have a goal of building their way out of the housing crisis, they do not have a funding plan. They could provide $20 million a year while the economy is strong, but for decades thereafter the future is uncertain. The further risk of the Overlay plan is a political one, of leaving many citizens with a sense of instability and threat, of foreboding uncertainties about the future if zoning protections are removed in many residential areas. Usually zoning changes are relatively modest and unspectacular. They are incremental and the city can adjust to them in time. The new form-based Overlay zoning applied to residential areas is too much, too soon. Absence of hard information on the plan and associated zoning becomes an undue stimulant to fear about neighborhood stability and continuity. The warning signs can be seen in the Floor Area Ratios for the three sample sites in Cambridge. In Cambridgeport FAR would increase from 0.96 to 3.2 - more than a tripling. For Lakeview Avenue the FAR rises from 0.24 to 3.5, an increase of almost 14 times. In North Cambridge the FAR goes from 0.35 to 2.6 - an eight-fold growth. These changes are dramatic and even revolutionary. They are not minor and insignificant. Particularly lacking in Envision planning has been any sense of options, of giving people a choice over what their future should be. Citizens should have in their hands a thorough and clear housing report that looked at many different possible responses to the housing crisis. There should have been a full discussion over what is or is not working in other cities around the country. The idea of one unpublished plan and one foggy zoning

FINAL DRAFT Page 13 of 17 March 18, 2019 concept being sufficient information to adopt a radically different form of zoning is neither fair nor reassuring as a fundamental public process in a democracy. OVERLAY ZONING AS A MODERN-DAY VERSION OF URBAN RENEWAL In Boston, the infamous urban renewal clearance of the West End stands as a monument of bad and insensitive planning. Sterile towers replaced a dense and lively but vulnerable community called the old West End. In 1958 the buildings were cleared of people and social life, even cars parked on the street. By 1959 the buildings were demolished, leaving a barren wasteland. A lesson was clear about the dangers and abuses of urban renewal, and the insensitivities of government actions. In 1961 President John Kennedy issued a presidential statement urging all cities to make progress with their urban renewal programs. Boston continued with Government Center. Cambridge began with plans for Cambridgeport. When combined with landtakings for the Inner Belt highway, urban renewal takings would have resulted in 4,500 housing units being lost, in a neighborhood today that has a total of 6,500 units. By 1962 the urban renewal plan for Donnelly Field was defeated by the Cambridge City Council when a CCA- endorsed Councillor joined her non-CCA colleagues in voting no. Her reasons were that the program was destructive and inhumane. The plan would have bulldozed 100 homes. From 1962 on, the concept of urban renewal plans for residential areas in Cambridge was effectively dead. It took another decade to get rid of the Inner Belt highway plan. The 4,500 housing units in Cambridgeport were saved. If the average unit is worth $450,000 today, those homes destined for destruction fifty years ago are now worth $2 billion. With the Envision Overlay plan as presented for many residential areas, the transformation of the land would be similar to the West End, with dense high rise replacing traditional and accepted neighborhoods. Old residents who may have long ago been able to pay off mortgages would be replaced by new owners burdened with debt. The finances of the West End were that the new ownership wasdependent on high rents to pay off massive debt, and the result was not conducive to serving low-income residents. The Envision plan has one key difference with the West End - the new plan is designed for affordable rents for tenants. But with no workable financial plan, planners seeking the modern equivalent of affluent tenants to pay off mortgages have resorted to the only option they see. They use governments subsidies that - when combined with the rents

FINAL DRAFT Page 14 of 17 March 18, 2019 that low income tenants can afford - will generate sufficient cash flow to pay off the debt. Envision plans provide no evidence of a practical plan to provide for the necessary subsidies that will make an affordable project into a money earner. A financial plan is essential, and it must extend over the term of the mortgage, which is likely to be 30 years. Indeed, today's Envision plan and Overlay Zoning lacks any credible financial plan. In truth, real urban renewal in the 1950s has many advantages over highway building and over the Envision plan. Planners were required to produce a "Workable Plan" and vote to accept it and to follow it. Such plans were required to be consistent with other government plans in the area, and Federal funding would stop if plans were in conflict - as occurred in Cambridge in 1959. Urban Renewal laws required that eligible communities have Citizens Advisory Committees or a CAC, and should have Neighborhood Associations in each community. The then-City Manager's response was to appoint to the CAC only Presidents and Vice Presidents of local businesses and universities. The Neighborhood Association acted as advocacy groups for urban renewal and - in Cambridgeport - for the Inner Belt. A good idea went sour at the local level. For "real" urban renewal, cities are required to have an approved plan and hold public meetings on the plan. For the current overlay proposal, we do not have an approved plan. No official are proposing to hold hearings on the Envision plan and no one is planning to actually approve the plan. Because there is no legal requirement for a plan like Envision to be approved, no City agency is considering formal motions to approve it. The plan is somehow intended to be accepted by osmosis. In other words, the current process is worse than urban renewal because it has none of the protections of traditional urban renewal. We also have a Housing Committee of the Council discussing details of zoning. The responsibility within the Council for zoning action is the Ordinance Committee, not the Housing Committee. Could the results of Overlay zoning be similar to urban renewal in terms of demolishing older buildings and replacing them with newer, taller and more dense buildings? The removal of FAR limits makes such a result a likely possibility.

FINAL DRAFT Page 15 of 17 March 18, 2019 THE ABSENCE OF A COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION TO THE HOUSING CRISIS The idea that the Envision process could be so narrowed down to just one action priority - Overlay zoning - is a disappointment for the comprehensive planning process and for identifying coordinated initiatives by the City. Overlay zoning should not have been the single focus for action. Instead the scope of action should have been concentrated on priority locations such as parking lots and empty sites that require no demolition of houses or businesses. Housing preservation should have been the top priority. Housing plans should have been coordinating with a city-generated transit plan that would reduce reliance on cars and parking and would make space for housing. A comprehensive housing plan should concentrate on the effectiveness and efficiency of programs to build new housing and to protect existing housing. An ideal housing program would have an action plan for both, but the Envision plan shows little inclination to combine preserving and building. At Alewife, past planning has been notably inadequate for years, and the Envision process was to have an early focus on resolving issues at Alewife. The Alewife result from Envision is a housing and planning failure. The challenge is not to abandon all versions of overlay zoning, but to create a true plan whereby location-by-location throughout the city would identify housing locations that made sense and would actually repair the urban fabric broken up in the past by parking lots. In terms of stability and preservation, the question before us is how effective would a $20 million a year program be applied to achieve affordability through construction, and how effective a similar program would be in preserving existing affordable units. The two approaches are related because it makes little sense to spend money to build new affordable units - if existing affordable units are being lost to gentrification and ineffective preservation. Similarly, housing preservation is not a sole solution to the crisis, because there is no increase in low-rent housing to address the current crisis and replace affordable units already lost. Unfortunately, Envision planning continues its current emphasis solely on new construction and not on preservation. This narrow perspective in the Envision plan is regrettable because the Community Development Department already has an established Housing Section and it is already focused on both new construction and preservation of housing. The organization structure is already there. Regrettably, the Envision process did not produce a plan that utilized the full capabilities of CDD.

FINAL DRAFT Page 16 of 17 March 18, 2019 COMPARING THE OVERLAY OPTION WITH THE PRESERVATION OPTION In the assessment that follows, key Overlay assumptions are that the buildings are financed by a 30-year mortgage at 5% interest, with inflation at 3%. Basement units would be included, with heat pump units on the roof. Where applicable, a preservation strategy assumes that the City pays 2/3 of any rent increase, while the tenant pays the other 1/3. There are many more rent subsidy plans possible, so this 2/3 and 1/3 split is intended to be illustrative. Landlords may exceed the 5% increase but must pay a very stiff "sustainability tax" for any time they exceed the limit, with the revenues going into the city's Affordable Housing fund. By comparison, Oregon has imposed a rigid 7% limit on annual rent increases (plus 3% inflation), as part of statewide rent controls. This limit is before inflation, and there are no exceptions. Violations will be subject to legal enforcement. The preservation subsidy option for 185-195 Hamilton Street with the City paying for 2/3 of the rent increases and tenants paying 1/3 of such increase results in rents ranging from $1500 at the beginning and $2,020 at the end of the 30 year period (not including inflation). Total rents would rise by 1/3, while the tenant-paid rent would rise from $1500 to $1,674. Historically this unit between 1965 and today had rents rising from $100 in 1965 and growing to $1500 - 15 times higher (but including inflation). In this example, a clearly affordable unit at $1,500 rents would be protected by an investment by the city starting at zero and rising to $348 a month after 30 years. Total subsidies paid by the City would be $61,600 per unit over thirty years, while the City subsidy for construction of new affordable housing would be $673,000 per unit - eleven times as much. Indeed, an Affordable Housing program can result in units of new housing, but at a very high cost that is very inefficient compared to subsidies for preservation. This preservation concept succeeds in directly helping the tenant. Subsidy money does not go to paying off a mortgage with associated interest costs. CONCLUSIONS Included among the numerous evident defects in the overlay concept as applied to 185-195 Hamilton are : the high cost associated with land acquisition .... building demolition and waste disposal .... displacement of existing residents .... the high cost of new construction .... mortgage and interest costs and a new building of incompatible scale with

FINAL DRAFT March 18, 2019 Page 17 of 17 its surroundings with unduly high FAR. This problem could be ameliorated to some degree if new housing could be constructed on already cleared land, such as parking lots, thus avoiding all demolition problems. Clearly there are certain locations within the city where an overlay concept may make sense. However, there should be explicit prohibitions for an up-zoning overlay to apply to residential neighborhoods. One way to achieve this goal of stability is to retain existing FAR limits and protections in residential areas. Preservation is a far more efficient method to assure that Cambridge holds onto its existing affordable housing while construction programs can add to the total, at a slow pace. Good planning, especially financial planning is essential for the overall housing program to be effective. Thus a key feature for the protection of neighborhoods is to retain the limits on FARs in residential areas, and to protect them against any violation, including variances. The role of subsidies would be to protect existing affordable units while also bringing into the program those existing units that are close to being affordable. Existing open lots and especially parking lots should be considered for new housing construction. Proper transportation planning would also assure MBTA transit service is significantly improved to handle all of the development proposed to occur along the Red Line. Such zoning and planning protection would provide essential stability and sustainability assurances that all healthy neighborhoods need. Sincerely, sett tain Stephen H. Kaiser, PhD NOTE: This analysis is incomplete because it is primarily based on information from a CDD PowerPoint presentation and the Envision Executive Summary. There is no technical documentation of the zoning specifics and no economic analysis of sites such as the three Cambridge sites discussed above. In particular, city officials have provided no draft text of a zoning petition that would give precise description to the way any new zoning rules would be applied, including all of the exemptions, "notwithstandings," and other terminology that can greatly influence the applied meaning of zoning. Thus this analysis is labeled "draft" and will be further refined as more information is available from city planners and zoning experts.

Statement regarding the Overlay Zoning Proposal March 20, 2019 I have just a few points, but they all speak to having a thoughtful and unhurried process around this proposal: First, I support and have the utmost respect for Just-a-Start and the CHA, but the overlay zoning proposal is also clearly hoping to attract commercial developers who, generally speaking, are generally motivated by profit more than enlightened citizenship, however attractive they make their public proposals. Insofar as subsidies allow a wider range of opportunity to developers and property owners without increasing their risk or decreasing their profits, the city should be very careful to protect its investment from abuse, and support and fund mechanisms for doing so. Second: Once residential abutters give up rights now provided by zoning, it would be likely impossible to recover protections once less restrictive as-of-right zoning is in place. It seems to me that relaxing zoning to allow 80-foot, 7 story buildings in areas currently zoned for 45 foot maximum heights is a substantial taking from residential abutters. Also, as such an abutter, our personal experience is that unzoned/non-contractual agreements with developers and commercial property owners weaken over time - commitments to monitor noise, to respond to noise complaints, to turn off interior lights at night, are forgotten or lost as staff turns over or building management changes. As such, I strongly urge that any proposed overlay order not include exemptions from current or future noise and lighting ordinances, and that any regulations developed in these areas be restricted from creating carve-outs based on the overlay zoning. Third: It is not clear to me from the presentation whether a developer who declines to accept the recommendations of the planning board's review would still be granted a permit if the as-of-right zoning parameters were followed. Finally, I'm not an economic expert, but I do know that subsidies do create inefficiencies in markets, so you have to be careful to weigh the effects of the subsidies over their term. For instance, if the overlay program were to be wildly successful, it's not hard to see that increase in production of low-income housing stock would decrease new supply of market-rate stock, which would in turn exacerbate the rise in market rate, which would in turn require increased subsidies to maintain market parity for low-income housing suppliers. It would be wise to have a thorough, publicly available, economic study of the subsidy program before implementing it. I urge patience and openness in this process, and thank you for your time. Ed Brody 661 Green Street

march 20 Esteemed City Council: I am asking the Corneil to tote against the 100%a Affordable Overlay as written because there are too many questions and details that need to be explained. We need to study haw height and density all impet the eity, and I want to maintain the plenning boord process that includes public input and the ability to chellenge bad projects, and I want tenant protection. Went t woodied Wendy Cm woodfield 395 Broadway 02139

To the Chair, Denise Simmons, members of the Housing Committee, and concerned residents, I live in public housing. I know something of what it means for a person to need affordable housing, and I am aware of the need for it. We need more and should get it without destroying what exists and forcing out residents in order to build new affordable housing. The overlay will hurt Cambridge in many ways. I'll focus on trees and light. The day before the moratorium on cutting trees I saw more than one yard where a tree was being cut down. The City's tree canopy has declined steadily for years as one person after another says "We will cut down only a few trees." A few times a thousand trees is a lot to lose. The overlay as proposed destroys mature trees by reducing open space, by not requiring trees to replace those cut to build, and by setting the side property set back only 5' from the line. The shift to greater density will diminish the tree canopy if ways to moderate are not provided. We don't know how many trees will die to implement this overlay, We do know that we need an informed estimate before we decide on this proposal. Another canopy that is already affecting Cambridge is the increasing height of buildings. As taller structures increase in number natural light diminishes, a danger to human health. In a shadowed city, more artificial light is needed, affecting people's sleep patterns, thus health. And the wildlife of the City also is affected, not only from the known loss of habitat, but also the loss of nighttime darkness. Before deciding on the overlay we must have reliable estimates and time to examine them. Again, I support affordable housing, and want more here. The goal of this proposal is good, but its ways to reach this goal need significant review so they fit Cambridge. Increasing affordable housing should not and need not damage our environment. Ellin barot(SAROT) 201L 2019

Cambridge Housing Committee Public Comment - 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Hello. My name is Anthony Thomas and I reside at 348 Franklin Street and I am here to speak in support of the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay. Over the past 8 years that I've lived here in Cambridge, I've seen businesses flock to our community at unimaginable pace. Property values are rising because of lack of supply, and it's becoming increasingly more difficult for people to have the opportunity to live here in Cambridge. It's also becoming more difficult for the people who HAVE lived here in Cambridge to stay here in Cambridge. I get that I'm a part of the problem. I have a fairly well paying job and can afford to rent my 2 bedroom apartment that my roommate and I share. I get that more business and higher property values mean that the City has more tax revenue to spend on running the city. But the City of Cambridge (and us residents) should be doing everything we can to support affordable housing. The people who are being displaced from Cambridge are the people who have made it such an amazing community, full of art, music, and culture. Cambridge isn't just a suburb of Boston. There are 6 MBTA rapid transit stations here in Cambridge and there are 5 key bus routes. Cambridge's connectivity is arguably second only to Boston in it's transit connections. Cambridge's connectivity requires us to take bold moves to support more affordable housing. Committees like this get asked to make hard decisions all the time. This is not one of those times. This is easy, so let's get it done.

Stephen ERdman Tanaya Srini March 20, 2019 Dear Members of the Cambridge City Council, On behalf of the undersigned members of the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, we are writing to express our full support for the proposed 100% affordable zoning overlay. As members of the Cambridge community and as city planners who strive in our work to create equitable and just communities through policy and design, we believe that the proposed overlay is both an effective means of creating more affordable housing and a moral imperative to realize a more diverse and inclusive community. We outline our reasons for supporting this proposal in greater detail below: 1) We are in a housing crisis: It is not an understatement to call the lack of adequate and affordable housing in Cambridge a crisis. Cambridge rental costs are among the highest in the nation; it is the 3rd most expensive rental market for 1-bedroom housing units and the 6th most expensive for 2-bedroom units.' These market conditions lead to the displacement of longtime residents who cannot afford rent and must compete for housing with students, many of whom also struggle to afford housing. This crisis requires innovative and comprehensive solutions to create more affordable housing. The proposed affordable housing overlay is a step toward crafting such a solution. 2) Cambridge wants this: As planners, we believe that those who are most affected by municipal problems are best positioned to identify problems and offer solutions. The 100% affordable zoning overlay is a product of two years of community participation and civic engagement, through which the Envision Housing Working Group, comprised of Cambridge residents and open to input from other community members, deemed the scarcity of affordable housing a key municipal priority and proposed the zoning overlay as a solution. Approving the 100% affordable housing overlay is a validation of the demands of Cambridge residents and an affirmation that the city is responsive to their needs. 3) This is an effective way of creating more affordable housing: Relaxing zoning restrictions to allow for greater density when affordable housing is proposed is one of the best mechanisms for creating city-wide residential inclusion. If we truly want to encourage more affordable housing in the city, we need to create as-of-right mechanisms for affordable development to occur, which will reduce red tape and development costs and enable mission-driven affordable developers to better compete with resource-rich market-rate developers. The 100% overlay provides incentives for developers to meet these goals. 4) This is a question of Cambridge's identity: Our city is often considered one of the most progressive in the country. Whether we actually want people to be able to afford to live here boils down to our willingness to welcome inclusion and equity in our backyards. As members of the Cambridge community, we strongly support the 100% affordable zoning overlay as a tangible effort to realize the progressive values that define Cambridge's identity. While we acknowledge the concerns about making amendments to the zoning law, we believe that the city council should vote for the overlay as a means to begin a conversation about how to increase ^ https://www.abodo.com/blog/february-2018-national-apartment-report/

residential affordability while also balancing other priorities such as protecting small businesses and green space. We trust that the city will undergo a thorough public process to enact these amendments in a thoughtful way that considers potential outcomes and externalities. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We look forward to furthering conversation on this important issue in the future. Sincerely, The Undersigned Cambridge Residents Vanessa Toro Barragan Joyce Feng Adham Kalila (77% of signatories) Carrie Watkins Yanisa Techagumthorn Luisa Apolaya Torres Joshua Morrison Marisa Prasse Banti Geneti Delia Wendel Jay Dev Mary Hannah Smith Stephen Erdman Sarabrent Mccoy Non-Cambridge Residents Rushil Palavajjhala Kevin Lujan Lee Yael Nidam (23% of signatories) Mario Goetz Drew Morrison Samra Lakew Sara Li Anne Calef Diego Castillo Peredo Abigail Bliss Haley Meisenholder Daniela Cocco Beltrame John Thomas Fay Jr. Priyanka deSouza Silvia Danielak Darien Alexander Williams Tanaya Srini Jenny Chen Hannah Hunt Moeller Angela Wong Alexander Boccon-Gibod Meital Hoffman Jessica Quezada Medina Zack Avre David Robinson Bernard Maxwell Arnell Madison Hill Dylan Halpern Julia Field Elizabeth Haney Anna Waldman-Brown Carolyn Yang Natalia Vidigal Coachman Maia Woluchem Agustín Cepeda Charlotte Ong Zoe McAlear Alex Bob Kenyatta McLean Alexander Acuña Kiyah Willis Neha Bazaj Stephanie Peña Kendrick Manymules Adriana Jacobsen Saritha Ramakrishna Emmett McKinney Miriam Wahid Mercedes Bidart Peter Damrosch Zainab Taymuree Bella Purdy Gary Tran Carl Hedman Amy Meyer Marian Swain Marissa Reilly Daniela Chong Lugon

Crane, Paula From: Aaron Kemp <[email removed]> Tuesday, March 19, 2019 11:15 PM Sent: To: City Council Crane, Paula; Devereux, Jan CC: Subject: Resident Feedback on Proposed Affordable Housing Overlay Plan Dear members of the Cambridge City Council, As a long-term resident of Cambridge, I'd like to advocate against the proposed "Affordable Housing Overlay Plan" and recommend alternative solutions that would improve access to live and work in Cambridge without negatively impacting established neighborhoods. Challenges in the Proposed Plan: 1) The proposed plan will displace existing, market-priced "middle income" housing with below-market-priced "affordable" units. The relaxed zoning laws would give a strong competitive advantage to developers looking to tear down or convert existing one and two family properties into the now financially-lucrative multi unit buildings. As developers outbid middle income families, this will drive up the sale price of existing middle income housing. Long term, as these smaller properties are gradually replaced with larger affordable units, the supply of middle income housing would decrease and their price would increase further. Most Cantabridgians do not qualify for affordable housing, so the primary beneficiaries of the proposed plan would be the real estate developers and those who do not currently live or work in Cambridge. The more effective the plan becomes at creating "affordable" units, the more lucrative it becomes for developers and the more expensive "regular" units will become for everyone else. 2) Cambridge's restrictive zoning laws are in place to preserve the qualities that keep our city beautiful. The proposed plan will alter zoning in a way that decreases light, openness, green space, trees, and historic architecture. The overlay will allow developers to violate the fabric of existing neighborhoods with no avenue for current residents to protect them. If the proposed plan is successful, we'll see a significant portion of Cambridge's single family and multifamily houses displaced by unattractive, cheaply-built affordable housing blocks. That said, I do not oppose dense new developments where they are contextually appropriate and do not disrupt the character of the area, for example in the North Point development and along Mass. Ave in Central Square. 3) There will always be more people looking for affordable housing near Boston than we can possibly accommodate with a limited number of lower-priced units in Cambridge. When a limited resource is offered below market price, the demand for that resource increases, rather than decreases. In this case, some affordable units would be provided to some lucky people, but because the supply will always be lower than the demand, the demand for units priced below market will not decrease. Therefore, the proposed plan will not reduce the backlog of people looking for an affordable solution in any meaningful way, it will simply replace market forces with an arbitrary selection process. Even if this plan were to replace a significant percentage of Cambridge's regular housing units with affordable ones, demand for housing will still outpace supply in the future. Furthermore, only a tiny fraction of Cambridge residents will benefit from affordable housing through the lottery system, thus this amounts to little more than "tokenism", while driving up housing costs for the vast majority of residents with modest incomes who wish to benefit from affordable housing but are not selected. Proposed Alternatives:

1) Increase access to jobs in Cambridge by investing in better public transportation infrastructure and subsidizing public transportation costs for low income commuters who work in Cambridge and live in the less expensive surrounding communities. Invest in bike lanes, bike shares, carpools and corporate shuttle programs to provide free transportation to those who do not have access to public transportation. 2) Subsidize childcare and eldercare costs for Cambridge residents to increase our ability to afford rents and mortgages in Cambridge. Subsidize construction costs or provide loans for current residents to rehabilitate existing buildings or create low income housing units in their basements under the recently changed zoning law that eases the ability to create basement apartments. 3) Provide housing subsidies for low income residents of Cambridge to preserve the diversity of our community and prevent current low income renters from being displaced by rising costs. Since these subsidies would not be limited by number of units, they would provide assistance without altering the supply and demand curve like new "affordable" units. Pay for this subsidy by taxing out-of-state and international real estate speculators who have contributed to recent hikes in sale prices and raised rents for Cambridge residents. I appreciate your consideration, Sincerely, Aaron Kemp 245 Mt Auburn St

Crane, Paula From: Derek Kopon < [email removed]> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 5:12 PM To: City Council Cc: Crane, Paula Subject: Affordable housing overlay comments Council/Ms. Crane, Please find below my public statement from the Housing Committee yesterday evening for submission to the public record. best regards, Derek Kopon Good evening. My name is Derek Kopon, I live in a two family condo on Wright St. and have been a Cambridge resident for 8 years. I would be supportive of efforts by the city to provide rent relief to long-time cambridge residents, families, and elderly people who are being priced out of their communities by rapidly rising housing costs. I would also be supportive of housing subsidies for people who work in Cambridge and contribute to our community, such as nurses, firefighters, school teachers, etc. However, I am opposed to the city using my tax dollars to subsidize middle income housing for people who do not work in Cambridge, and I am deeply concerned by the potential impact of the affordable housing overlay on our community. The purpose of zoning laws is to make our city attractive, functional, and livable for its residents and our families. It is logically inconsistent to have two sets of zoning laws for affordable versus "market" housing. If it is undesirable to build 4 or 5 story buildings in the middle of a row of century-old single and multi-family homes or to build developments over green space with relaxed setback requirements, then it is equally detrimental to our community whether the housing is affordable or "market" priced. If development is being hampered by outdated or inconsistently applied zoning laws, then these laws should be revised and should apply to everyone equally. Having one consistently applied set of zoning laws for both market and affordable housing would produce the exact same total number of units to meet the housing demand in Cambridge that would be produced by the proposed overlay. It's clear that the reason for this proposal is to manipulate the housing market and to allow developers to purchase land and homes at well below the market rate through uncompetitive bidding processes. It is particularly concerning that many of the affordable housing developers who would benefit from this policy have historically given large amounts of money to fund the campaigns of city council members. I searched the city records for the contributions of just one developer, Sean Hope, and found more than $4,300 in contributions spread over multiple city council candidates. I do not know the total amount of campaign contributions from all developers to all city council candidates. But given this one data point, it is likely in the tens and more likely the hundreds of thousands of dollars. I believe in this particular case, Mr. Hope lives in Cambridge. However, many developers who contribute to the campaigns of city council members live outside of Cambridge. If the overlay policy and the transfer tax are passed, presumably the residential home owners of cambridge, who paid the market rate for their homes and raise their families in cambridge, will have yet more money taken from their pockets and redistributed to fund political connected developers, many of whom live outside of Cambridge, an increasing number of city bureaucrats, city council campaign coffers, and apparently middle income affordable housing for people who make a perfectly respectable living and are likely to work outside of Cambridge. In addition to voicing my opposition to these policies, I hope that in the future the city will restrict campaign contributions from people who have business pending before the city, particularly from developers and their lawyers. 1

Crane, Paula From: Carol O'Hare <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 9:04 AM To: City Council Cc: Crane, Paula; Farooq, Iram; Roberts, Jeffrey; Cotter, Chris; 'Heather Hoffman' Housing Committee: 100% Affordable Housing Overlay, So Far - 3/20/19, 2nd Hearing Subject: Dear Councillors Simmons and Siddiqui, Chairs, and Housing Committee Members: I clearly recall Mass & Main's 2-year rezoning efforts tor their single high-rise residential building in Central Sq.: information, outreach, community meetings, open houses, presentations, graphic depictions, models, etc. As I've written to CDD personnel, by comparison CDD's efforts to fully inform the public about rezoning the entire city for possible 100% affordable housing projects are seriously wanting. Yes, I know the actual zoning language has yet to be written, but there's been too much history and marketing of the 100% affordable housing concept and too little explanation and description of potential projects in various scenarios and their impacts. Here are just a few examples of what's missing: • What is the practical effect of eliminating FAR as a control on affordable housing projects? Why are there no comparisons for "FAR-cap" v. "no-FAR-cap" on small and large projects? Is FAR being removed because it's hard to explain or understand? • Why doesn't CDD's Presentation include a graphic example of a 7-story/up to 80' green-zone building next to or near yellow-zone residences? It does include a 4-story (45') yellow-zoning affordable housing building next to lower yellow-zoned buildings. See p. 19. Note: My map colors refer to the "Height and Scale - Current Zoning" map, p. 16 of CDD's 3/5/19 Presentation. http://tinyurl.com/y566bhco And, what's worse, CDD's only example of a larger/7-story building is the photo of the singular, classy 1812 Mass Ave. building (1st floor retail - Paper Source, et al.) with no nearby low-rise residential buildings for ready comparison. See https://tinyurl.com/y4jrnq68 • IN a similar vein, why hasn't CDD presented simple models of likely 100% affordable housing projects in various contexts? • Why hasn't CDD addressed (i) public transportation at all, (i) the likelihood that any affordable housing projects could actually be located in areas that now have none and iiii) where affordable housing projects are likely to be located? • Why should the Planning Board be effectively neutered when that body has valuable expertise in this area? Apologies, really, if that's considered a politically incorrect description. It seems like the public and the Board could have only nominal potential impact in the review and approval process for such projects. Colors, materials, landscaping on the minimal land that remains... a bush or two? And, how about essential problems and concerns such as the following that were barely, if at all, touched upon: • How does the proposed 5-foot side yard setback suffice for fire-safety and for light and air for both the 100% affordable housing and any adjacent housing, especially given the more than doubling of allowed heights in some of the new 100% affordable housing buildings? The fact the Cambridge Fire Dept. personnel say 5' suffices and that they can work in such narrow side yards, as Jeff Roberts told me, does not mean that 5' is advisable for new construction. But, that begs the question: Would CFD recommend such limited access for new residential buildings? Will the public hear from them?

• And, what about reduced light and air for building residents and their side-yard neighbors? • And, doesn't the proposed reduction of open-space by half, from 30% to 15%, result in tree loss and reduced light for both residents and neighbors, which is especially problematic in the 7-story building scenario. I'm also concerned that this significant citywide rezoning is being fast-tracked, which will result in high-summer public hearings, when people aren't around or aren't paying attention or both. Bottom Line: More info. Less marketing Thanks for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Carol O'Hare 172 Magazine St. (yellow zone near green & purple zones) P.S. Paula Crane, Deputy City Clerk: Please file this with the Official Record. Virus-free. www.avg.com .2

Crane, Paula Allan Sadun <[email removed]> From: Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 6:48 PM To: Crane, Paula Subject: My comments from tonight's meeting Hello, my name is Allan Sadun, I live at 17 Pleasant Place. I've lived in this city for just under six years. The first four years, 1 was a student, and I lived in a five-story building with a lot of open space. I loved it. Now I live in a three-story duplex without much open space. I also love it. Cambridge is a great place to live, pretty much no matter what kind of a building you live in, because it has wonderful people and wonderful resources. What I don't love is the uncertainty. I don't know how much my rent is going to go up next year, or whether I'm going to have to move. I don't know how many of my friends are going to have to move. And what I don't love is that so many wonderful people are being pushed out, and are not able to take advantage of our wonderful resources. I want everyone to have a stable, humane place to live in the neighborhood that they choose. Affordable housing provides that stability, and we should have it everywhere. In my opinion, this overlay doesn't go far enough, and the height limits should be raised so that even more affordable housing can be built. We should be giving the gift of stability to as many people, to as many places, as possible. We should absolutely be funding this overlay as much as possible, by passing the $20 million dollar a year budget increase. And we should follow this overlay up by continuing with the Envision planning process and with the Tenant Displacement Task Force. But also we should all support the overlay. Thank you.

Charles Jessup Franklin 162 Hampshire St. The free market has failed us. Increasing housing prices are driving out our residents, the soul of our city. We need more affordable housing now. I agree that zoning can be used as a tool g to accomplish this goal, one of many. The city has over 50 regular and special zones before counting overlays. It's maddeningly complicated. We need a 100% affordable housing overlay, but not the one the CDD has proposed. Its very simplistic two zone approach hasn't sufficiently taken into account equity. I fear the CDD proposal will effectively deny low income families the ability to enjoy the same kind of environment that those around them have. No one should have to look out the window and see a beautiful tree across the street and long for one to shade themselves. No child should have to watch the neighbor children play in their yard without one of their own. This is not just my opinion. A friend of mine who benefits from the city's inclusionary housing program once told me, "poor people like trees too," yet we exclude them from the benefit of tree protections and suitable green space requirements. the cities policies effectively I want families of all incomes to be able to live in Cambridge without denying them the typesof homes they deserve. This is why I have created my own affordable overlay. After examining our 50+ existing zones, I carefully and thoughtfully combined them into eight affordable zones that span the entire city, each one reflecting the original zoning while allowing bonuses for 100% affordable housing. I don't intend for my proposal to be the final product, but I do want it to start a conversation that leads to a thoughtful and effective solution. Thank you

Good evening Councillors - RE: Testimony in support of the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay City Council Housing Committee Meeting, March 20, 2019 [Rev. & resubmitted 03 20 19] My name is Lawrence Bluestone and I'm a long-time Mid-Cambridge resident. I'm here to speak in full support of both the city-wide "100% Affordable Housing Overlay" framework, and the necessary allocation of increased city funding to support such housing. Specifically, however, I'd like to comment on where I think our city now stands in regard to closing the gap between our growing housing demand and providing the additional affordable housing we so critically need to address that demand. I believe we've clearly reached a critical inflection point in our city's deliberations where we must finally decide if we really support our rhetoric for more affordable housing with actual deeds. So, here's what I know about our current critical housing needs: • Our city's companies are growing. Our universities are growing. Our transit services are appealing. And, our city is increasingly more vibrant, dynamic and attractive. As a result, more people than ever want to live here, work here, and seek housing in our community. • However, our overall housing supply, but particularly our affordable housing supply, has not kept pace with this growing demand, in spite of our city's many admirable efforts, including our recent revisions to our Inclusionary Housing zoning ordinance. • As a result, housing prices and rents have rapidly increased. The consequence has been that many of our neighbors and family members can no longer afford to live here and are being forced to relocate. • Our non-profit 100% affordable housing developers cannot compete with private developers for new housing sites because of high land prices, current zoning restrictions in some neighborhoods, and the sometimes onerous extended review processes and legal challenges. • And, though I'm sure everyone in this room supports more affordable housing, in theory, some of our neighborhoods continue to resist such housing, in fact, when actual developments are proposed near them - based on fears of increased scale, potentially increased traffic, change of character, and 'the other'. o Finally, as a student of cities, I know that all cities, by definition, change and constantly renew themselves 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 these decades. And so, if we are to continue 1

to thrive and remain inclusive, we cannot freeze our city in amber, as some would like, but instead welcome the changes necessary to support our urgent housing needs. So, as the Council's Housing Committee now deliberates on how to craft and perfect the Overlay's draft provisions, I urge you to embrace, as fact, that increasing our city's affordable housing supply is now one of our city's two highest priorities - along with environmental resiliency - and consequently embrace the changes necessary to achieve this priority, even if some cherished neighborhood characteristics must adapt a bit and be modestly reconsidered. With good Form Based Design Guidelines, as proposed, the new will blend well with the old. My own attractive neighborhood character, and my very own street, are defined by an interesting mix of single family homes, duplexes, triple deckers, carriage houses, and five-story apartment buildings - all living compatibly side-by-side. Many other neighborhoods contain many, even a majority of non-conforming residences that do not meet current zoning rules. Nevertheless, those non-conforming residences are embraced as a part of those same neighborhoods, and in fact have become a blended part of their historic fabric. Going forward, I'm sure that small changes to the scale and mix of housing types in these neighborhoods to accommodate additional affordable housing can be equally accommodated. So, if the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay passes, I will embrace the change, welcome new neighbors, recognize what our city's highest priorities are, and won't complain. • 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 as the highest priority. • If some backyards are cast in shadow for an hour or two more per day, I won't complain because we all need more affordable housing as the highest priority. • If some yard setbacks are a little closer to my own residence, I won't complain because we all need more affordable housing as the highest priority. After all is said and done, all of our neighborhoods should welcome change when it's in support of a more vibrant, inclusive, and affordable city. We must all look forward, and not always turn behind us to look to the past. Cities change. So must we. We'll all be better for it. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence Bluestone, 18 Centre Street 2

My name is Alex Bob, and I live at 16 Eustis Street in Agassiz. I am a graduate student studying city planning at MIT. I am writing to express my strong support for the affordable housing zoning overlay. The proposal is about making a more equitable city amidst rising inequality and allowing a more economically diverse population access the resources Cambridge offers. It is also about healing from the history of legally sanctioned racial and class discrimination that even progressive Cambridge is guilty of perpetuating. I took a look at the University of Richmond's Mapping Inequality project, which shows the homeowners Loan Corporation "security maps" or redlining maps from the 1930s. Unsurprisingly, the redlining map for Cambridge matches up pretty clearly with the map of the distribution of affordable housing units by block group that the City posted on their website - areas that were deemed 'safe' on the redlining maps are the places where few if any affordable housing exists in the city, while the redlined neighborhoods hold the vast majority of affordable housing units. The affordable housing overlay could help to mend these historic disparities by allowing access to neighborhoods that have persisted as exclusionary enclaves. I also wanted to touch on the effects of this policy on older adult, longtime Cambridge homeowner, many of whom have been vocally opposed to this proposal. I have been talking with many older adult homeowners in Cambridge, Somerville, and Boston for research 1 am conducting for graduate school and have learned a lot about how the resources and amenities provided by the three cities help to allow older adults to successfully age in place. But one of the great fears among the people I have talked to has been what will happen when they can no longer take care of their house and need to move someplace else. Most of these people recognize that the way prices have risen and the lack of more affordable units being produced, they will be forced to move out of the communities they know and love. In addition to assisting other lower income population groups, the affordable housing overlay proposal could help to create new affordable units in resource rich neighborhoods that could accommodate these older adult homeowners who need to downsize but want to stay in the communities that allow them access to resources, amenities, and communities they know and love.

Crane, Paula From: Alex Bob <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 7:53 PM To: City Council Clerk Cc: Subject: Support for affordable housing overlay Dear Cambridge City Councilors, My name is Alex Bob, and I live at 16 Eustis Street in Agassiz. I am a graduate student studying city planning at MIT. I am writing to express my strong support for the affordable housing zoning overlay. The proposal is about making a more equitable city amidst rising inequality and allowing a more economically diverse population access the resources Cambridge offers. It is also about healing from the history of legally sanctioned racial and class discrimination that even progressive Cambridge is guilty of perpetuating. I took a look at the University of Richmond's Mapping Inequality project, which shows the homeowners Loan Corporation "security maps" or redlining maps from the 1930s. Unsurprisingly, the redlining map for Cambridge matches up pretty clearly with the map of the distribution of affordable housing units by block group that the City posted on their website - areas that were deemed 'safe' on the redlining maps are the places where few if any affordable housing exists in the city, while the redlined neighborhoods hold the vast majority of affordable housing units. I have attached the redlining map from Mapping Inequality Project to this email. The affordable housing overlay could help to mend these historic disparities by allowing access to neighborhoods that have persisted as exclusionary enclaves. I also wanted to touch on the effects of this policy on older adult, longtime Cambridge homeowner, many of whom have been vocally opposed to this proposal. I have been talking with many older adult homeowners in Cambridge, Somerville, and Boston for research 1 am conducting for graduate school and have learned a lot about how the resources and amenities provided by the three cities help to allow older adults to successfully age in place. But one of the great fears among the people I have talked to has been what will happen when they can no longer take care of their house and need to move someplace else. Most of these people recognize that the way prices have risen and the lack of more affordable units being produced, they will be forced to move out of the communities they know an love. In addition to assisting other lower income population groups, the affordable housing overlay proposal could help to create new affordable units in resource rich neighborhoods that could accommodate these older adult homeowners who need to downsize but want to stay in the communities that allow them access to resources, amenities, and communities they know and love. I urge you to support this proposal. Thank you, Alex Cambridge_holc-scan.jpgl Alex Bob Master of City Planning Candidate, 2019 Department of Urban Studies and Planning Massachusetts Institute of Technology [email removed] | [phone removed] 1

Q - does not go far enough - if Cambridge claims to be an equitable, welcoming community - addressing concens about the hight a diagn of bldgs 471 MEMORIAL DRIVE ALEX BOCCON-GIBOD Fisst of all, I cant to thank the CDD In developing such a nuanced and Jam holistic proposed and Whate Ber its speak in the housing committee for o Eti consideration of public comment: The main , criticism I hane of is that it does not go the overlay it must be a part an enough@ of Cambridge Claims to multstep be an equitable, welcoming communit san to a vote against the overlay is a vote against affordability. these values, want to adress some of the concerns about the height a design of blogs. Franges to

he idea that me can maintain the current urban form of Cambridge in perpetuity in delusional and regressine, Cities state blowed I sange roadopt will changed adapt one time whether the like it or not. I see the overlay as a may to direct this charge equitably. He supant to That being said, plopoped spring perrind preyone of the ply to B stories hanges for are where oldes that i the las dense areas off th i storas will be quoned. orate intere belfags, stones are allowed that is the frost senst prea If the jity, bldg ip to a about 7 attorpets. Fran

We, the undersigned members of the Haitian Action Group have lived in Cambridge a long time and came to Cambridge because of the opportunity that its diversity and welcoming spirit offered. We are concerned that Cambridge's future as an economically and racially diverse city is in jeopardy without the establishment of a Cambridge Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay to address Cambridge's affordable housing crisis. NAME ADDRESS Marie f Reve 6 columbia terracets A Unusessity Road t 106 Micha Seroit I Unisersity Food th ic Oddle Sensit Yolande Terrassant 150 Enie-Street Ach 905 6 boleftor-Pau 1687 Mane Pastunne 6o Conlice t 23 Marie Antoinette Tr. Baphste Damertie Etienna 5 Cloften 9. H511 150 Kore Street APtIt805 Andie Milfort 150 Ere Sore Ht805 Rox Andiè Milert D/in A l. 10130 Monque Athis 364 Realge Air Mense Bante

David Timothy Shaw 147 Mt. Auburn Street Cambridge MA 02138 [phone removed] [email removed] 20 March, 2019 Remarks on the proposed 100% affordable housing overlay district. My name is Tim Shaw, I live at 147 Mount Auburn Street. I have lived in Cambridge since 1974. I am a Cambridge homeowner, a Cambridge taxpayer, and a Cambridge voter. During the 45 years I have lived in Cambridge, I have certainly seen the cost of living here skyrocket. However, I oppose the current proposal for a new overlay district for 100% affordable housing. While the problem of affordability is a real one and is one of several seemingly intractable problems that afflict our city at present, this proposal seeks to solve it by bludgeoning it with a blunt instrument • Granting the ability to build high and dense as-of-right across Cambridge would do irreparable harm to the city I have known and loved over the course of five decades. And it would do it without solving the affordable housing problem. This proposal, while well-intentioned and trying to address a real problem, would have unintentional side effects that would be catastrophic for our city. I hope that the city will reject this proposal and instead go back to the drawing board and find a better way to address affordable housing that will preserve the aspects of Cambridge we all love.

To: City Council Housing Committee and City Clerk March 20, 2019 We are being asked tonight to comment on a plan that is largely unformed (at least as far as what has been made public) and zoning that has not yet been written. I'm confused by the timing of all this and how this evening can be considered to fulfill the requirement of public process. Units: how do you define a unit?, why use that term at all?, what would incentivize developers to produce family size units rather than studios or one bedrooms?, can the city mandate the size of the units to ensure there are enough family units? How can you possibly preserve the unique quality of our neighborhoods without zoning that protects them? Our varied neighborhoods are what makes Cambridge such a wonderful place to live... let's not lose that. Stripping the surroundings of a historic house and putting a large project right next to it is not historic preservation. And the setbacks proposed are far too small to protect neighboring properties. We already have too many examples of historic houses that have lost their context. Why should the quality of life be different for people who live in affordable housing? They certainly deserve large healthy trees, open space, transportation and parking, grocery stores, schools, libraries as much as any of us. This overlay plan does not provide for any of that. If we truly believe in welcoming all citizens of Cambridge, then we need to consider a far more nuanced approach than this overlay. Let's really try to get this right. I fear the highest price, if this goes forward, will be paid by people whom you want to protect. Residents of these projects will not have adequate quality of life and those middle-class folks who have lived here for generations or were fortunate enough to buy at a reasonable time, but have little except their property can easily lose the value of that one resource. The idea that the city can take away anyone's right to appeal a bad project is anathema to me. Lord knows there have been many projects proposed that were not built only because of citizen objection. Reducing boards and citizens to non- binding review is taking away their rights... too high a price to pay. Would this not amount to Taxation without Representation? Elizabeth Gombosi 42 Irving Street

City of Cambridge Housing Committee Hearing March 20, 2019 Testimony of Christopher Mackin - (2:00 Minutes) My name is Chris Mackin. I reside on JFK Street in Harvard Square and I operate a consulting business on Story Street. I am a business person and someone who believes in and often marvels at the achievements of developers and development. The overall goals and objectives of Overlay should be We need to plan and we need to increase applauded. affordable housing. However, the specifics of how we are proceeding should be criticized because of core assumptions the present plan makes about how to govern. The plan before you partakes in a practice that has crept into our political lives at local, state and Federal levels over the past couple of decades. That practice is the exaggerated "outsourcing" of complex and controversial public problems to the private sector. Rather than wading in to engage in the hard work of, for instance, direct funding of affordable housing on City land, it has been the choice of City government to push back from the table and defer to the smart and deep pocketed private sector players who do this for a living. 1

This deference to private sector initiative comes with a convenient, self-reinforcing rationale. We are told that we don't have the money to act otherwise. The City of Cambridge has made its low tax rates a point of legend and of principle. They should be neither. Taxes should be fair and they should be sufficient to allow us to move from the role of spectator to that of actor in solving our most pressing problems. well-off less economically cities charge Surrounding homeowners close to twice - or in the case of Watertown.- more than twice what we charge. The supposed virtue of low taxes obscures a vice. The vice is excessive outsourcing of public responsibilities to private developers. The claim that these developers are solely non-profit is not supportable. It is within our power to pull back the curtain on this deliberate low tax governing strategy that justifies government inaction. There are means to protect small property owners and low- income citizens from the brunt of tax increases that should be applied immediately to our wealthier residents and to international corporations such as Google and Biogen, building towers in our midst. We should make use of a range of more surgically conceived ideas about increasing affordable housing 2

instead of simply turning over the keys for this responsibility to the private sector. 3

OVERLAY COMMENT- HOUSING OPEN COMMITTEE- MARCH 20TH 2-min Affordable Housing yes, but this OVERLAY -as written- is un-balanced and will have unintended consequences. This city-wide up-zoning is a one-size-fits-all that shoe-horns all 27 districts into a quick fix. We need creative alternatives including family units, subsidies, co-ops, tenant protection, — But HOW. Three Weeks of Globe Real Estate transactions listed 13 vintage multi-family buildings- losing not only 84 bedrooms... but the integration and diversity we want-- How do we address this? This Overlay has the dramatic effect worse than Alewife and smacks of Urban Renewal. It's Executive summaries lack accurate information, and consideration of the individual neighborhoods. Older houses can be demolished and replaced by cheep and ugly buildings "as of right" ', reducing green space and trees. Stream- lining and eliminating FAR reduces the Planning Board's protective teeth in design review- leaving it to CDD staff and developers. They are against this. Residents will have no recourse for protest. And now the untested "form-based" plan is newly introduced. What is that? Exchanging UP-ZONING and stressed infrastructure for Affordable Housing can be a disaster. The goal posts keep moving during this one month- rush job-and developer- funded groups seem tone-deaf to other concerns. Asking responsible questions is not "elitist" or "racist" '. It is democracy. WE NEED A WORKABLE PLAN THAT PROTECTS EVERYONE. Marilee Boyd Meyer + 10 Dana Street + #404 + [email removed] + [phone removed] 235 words

Crane, Paula Alexandra Markiewicz < [email removed]> From: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 11:19 PM Sent: To: Crane, Paula Subject: Comments on 3.20 at Housing Committee Dear Paula, I am emailing you the comments | provided tonight. Thank you for compiling them! We are facing a housing crisis in this region and in Cambridge this brings to light issues of equity, fairness, and priorities. We don't have enough housing for all the people who would benefit from the resources our city provides - jobs, access to high frequency transit, healthcare, and others. As the housing prices skyrocket, we need to provide more income- restricted homes to ensure a more equitable and just city. Market-rate developers can take the risks associated with building in such a high-cost area. But, developers of affordable buildings are facing insurmountable barriers to matching this pace of development. They are not looking for revenues, they just want to provide more homes. As a result, we are losing low, moderate, and middle income families and denying many the opportunities we have here. The Overlay is a concrete step to address this crisis and becoming a more inclusive city. It would allow developers to build one or two more more stories, completely in line with the type of buildings in our neighborhoods and the buildings that make sense for this transit-rich, job-rich city. I see a lot of signs around the city saving all are welcome here. The Overlay can help tun this rhetoric into reality. I urge you to support it. Best, Alexandra

To the Honorable Mayor and City Council, Clerk, and Community Development Department 20 March, 2019 Others have spent much time and resources demonstrating that the overlay will not significantly alter the current status of affordable housing in Cambridge, deplete the tree canopy, add stress to on-street parking, increase traffic, etc.. One of the false assertions of UN-VISION Cambridge was that there was city-wide support for " the proposed re-zoning overlay. In West Cambridge, residents had never been informed of the process and everyone contacted (@200) said they are opposed to it, and signed individual petitions that were emailed to the City last Fall. There is overwhelming opposition to the proposed overlay, with some questioning whether it would in fact be legal. The opportunity afforded by raising to five levels would be a primary threat to the small shops on Concord Ave., Huron Ave., and elsewhere (Inman square, Central Square, ...). These are people who know their clients by first name and who are the basic fabric of our neighborhoods. We have already allowed the destruction of all too many neighborhoods in our city, and we are privileged to still have a few. Let's preserve them, not obliterate them for the sake of $$$! European cities are incentivizing the return of small neighborhood businesses; why would we want to destroy them? The next threat would be to the middle-class, those fortunate enough to own a one-, two-, or even three-family building that they are sometimes barely able to retain, given the high costs of maintenance. Again, the chance for a developer to add value to a property by multiplying the height and footprint on a parcel will lead to a depletion of the middle-class. Several of you are also well familiar with my personal battle of now twelve years to add one partial level greenhouse to shed the snow from my roof. It has been consistently refused by CDD on the grounds that it would give me a disproportionate opportunity to add value to my house. There is hardly a more vivid illustration of the contradiction of terms in this proposed overlay. Favor developers, but squash the homeowner! Two essential ecological points worth reflecting upon: 1. Open air is essential to the reduction of heat-island effects and more importantly to the circulation of insects, seeds, i.e. the biodiversity of our immediate environment. Replace two or three level buildings with five story blocks and you will impede all this circulation, leading to the suffocation of what little will remain of the trees and plants. 2. construction of one single five story building on a 6000sq ft footprint generates approximately 2M COe tons', which is 100 times what our city operations generated ' Guardian 2010: one two-level/two-bedroom house=80CO2e tons; estimate one five level building at ten times thee footprint => factor 25 = 2M CO2e tons https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/oct/14/carbon-footprint-house

in 20162, which was 30% less than in 2008 - and the Carbon cost of construction is not expected to go down due to raw materials needed, transformation, and transportation, not to mention the hauling and recycling of the old building being demolished. The proposed re-zoning overlay will harm both quality of life of the residents and the environment. Nicolai Cauchy, 387 Huron (Cantabridgian since 1985) 2 Cambridge municipal operations for 2016 = 20,000COe tons

Crane, Paula From: James Zall <[email removed]> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2019 11:35 PM To: Crane, Paula Subject: comments on the "100% affordable zoning overlay" proposal Dear Councillors, Our current zoning rules, our legal system and our methods of financing housing strongly favor high- cost over low-cost housing. This is clearly demonstrated by the changes we see in our neighborhoods and by the fact that, even with millions of dollars in development subsidies, the supply of affordable housing is inadequate in the face of a housing waiting list that has grown to 19,000 households. There can be a legitimate difference of opinion about whether the "up-scaling" of our housing stock is good or bad for the city and its residents, but it cannot be disputed that producing more affordable housing---which nearly all of the present Councillors cited as a high priority in the last election campaign---cannot be accomplished without overcoming the systemic bias against affordable development. And yet, the zoning overlay proposal has faced a torrent of objections from people who insist that they're "not against affordable housing as long as we don't change".... the height of buildings, the density of population, the volume of vehicle traffic, the number of trees, the availability of parking, the "character of the city" '.... and on and on. There's no way to reduce the housing shortage without changes to our current policies and practices. The overlay proposal will not, by itself, solve our affordable housing shortage, but it's a step in the right direction. It's a modest start and not, as opponents often claim, an "extreme proposal" that will "devastate" the city and its neighborhoods. If we delay this action, or insist on a solution that also tries to solve traffic problems, to maintain our tree canopy, and to avoid any inconvenience or unwanted change for anyone, we will eventually face an even bigger housing problem which will be more difficult and costly to fix. Thank you, James Zall 203 Pemberton Street North Cambridge

A NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY PROPOSAL Rendering of 38 Lakeview Avenue in West Cambridge showing potential 55,000 square foot Affordable Housing development allowed by right under proposed Overlay rules. INTRODUCTION Since 2010, Cambridge has lost 13% of its 2- and 3-family rental units, over 700 units across the City. These Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing, or NOAH, Units, are the lifeblood of Cambridge's un-subsidized middle-income residents. Indeed, we have more of these NOAH units than exist in the Housing Authority's entire 2130-unit inventory of public housing, but they are fast becoming extinct in all neighborhoods, particularly in West Cambridge. On my street alone, we have seen 3 properties sold to out-of-town investors who promptly renovated and tripled the rents, plus 2 others converted to luxury condos by local flippers. That's 13 units of moderately priced, family-sized housing in older buildings gone forever, along with the friends and neighbors who were displaced as a result. My neighborhood is being rapidly shredded by the market, and, unable to compete, my middle-class friends and neighbors are the ones quickly losing hope. What does this have to do with the Affordable Housing Overlay, an effort to increase the supply of low- and moderate-income housing across the City? Well first, it illustrates that relying on the free market to fix our housing affordability crisis may be a misplaced hope. As any true capitalist can explain, an unregulated market doesn't exist to fix problems but, instead, to maximize profits. Sometimes those are the same goals, but when the goals conflict, money usually wins. Second, if we are worried about the damage that rapid development can unleash on a neighborhood, just wait and see what happens when we increase the permitted density, and the resulting profit margins, by a factor of 5-10x. I have done the basic zoning math for numerous

properties, and in every case, the Overlay represents at least a 4-fold increase in building size over what is currently permitted. In some cases, the multiple is more than 13 times more than the size of the current house, with, for example, a 55,000 square foot, 51-unit building replacing a 4000 square foot, two-family home BY RIGHT. In short, though I am not opposed to the concept of an Affordable Housing Overlay, the way in which this particular overlay is constructed will place a bull's eye on every older 2- and 3-family home in the City, particularly homes that sit on larger lots or are located on corners. Do we really think that allowing 4-5 times the density on these lots, even if for affordable projects, will somehow lower land costs, slow the process of destruction and displacement, or finally help renters settle down and buy a home here? In 1996, the City Council down-zoned the Resident B zoning district, the largest district in the City, to artificially reduce density and discourage backyard development. This had the side effect of rendering more than half of all homes in the district non-conforming and forcing homeowners to get costly and time-consuming Board approvals for even simple home changes. At the time, the reason given was to protect neighborhoods from development pressures. To now claim that those same FAR restrictions must be removed in the name of increased development, and then give those same rights back to developers rather than to the homeowners from whom they were taken, seems politically motivated in the extreme. Instead of a 5-10x increase in density as proposed, why not simply return permitted FARs to their prior levels, or better, raise them incrementally over current levels. An increase of FAR to just 0.6 would unlikely over 1 million square feet of potential new development. Reducing the minimum lot size in Resident A zones to 5000 square feet would allow 2 units where currently 1 is allowed, or 4 units if 2-families were also permitted. We need incremental improvements, not the wholesale tearing down of our current neighborhoods as we know them. WHAT DO I LIKE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL? Namely, two things: eliminating parking requirements is good public policy, and well supported by both sides. Including middle-income units in all 100% affordable projects (up to 1/3 of all units) begins to address the clear gap in our current housing strategy. I am even ok with a height increase to 4 stories, provided Board oversight is retained. I might even support an increase in FAR for affordable projects of up to 2x over current rules, provided board oversight is preserved. But the idea that a developer next door can build 5-10x more by-right, and I can't even add a bathroom without a variance, is excessive in the extreme. WHAT DON'T I LIKE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL? The list is quite long, so let me focus on only the most important issues: • It does not protect existing middle-income residents from displacement. • High Cambridge land costs would make any new affordable housing created under the new plan highly dependent on City subsidies for its affordability. • The primary issue with the current proposal is the total elimination of Floor Area Ratio as a controller of density. I've run the numbers, and depending on a parcel's size, shape, and

location, this results in density increases of between 4 and 7 times what is currently permitted, or as much as 10-15 times what is currently built. My own two-family could be 5.35 times larger than current rules allow, even though I can't currently add any space without expensive BZA approval. See the table below for examples. GROSS FLOOR AREA (GFA) ALLOWED BY CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING WHOLE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT 5000 SITE-ALEWIFE 10,000 SF LOT QUAD SFLOT IVID- MID- 10,000 SF LOT 5000 SF LOT (500 x 500, or 5.7 SCENARIO BLOCK) BLOCK (CORNER) (CORNER) ACRES) 0-1/IB-2 ZONING (ALEWIFE AOD- RES B RES B DISTRICT RES B RES B 1,2,3,OR 4) PERMITTED GFA UNDER 187,500 (UP TO CURRENT 500,000 WITH ZONING SPECIAL PERMIT) 4,250 4,250 2,500 2,500 ORIGINAL 100% AFFORDABLE 10,000 PROPOSAL 500,000 BY RIGHT 20,000 10,000 20,000 11,900 28,900 (BUT 15% OPEN (BUT 15 % OPEN 1,620,000 SPACE (WITH OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT LATEST 100% REQUIREMENT SPACE LOCATED REDUCES THAT TO REDUCES THAT TO AFFORDABLE IN INTERIOR COURTYARD) 10,200) PROPOSAL 25,200 11,200 27,200) GFA MULTIPLE OVER CURRENT 4.08X 5.93X 6.4X ZONING 4.48X 8.64X • In addition, relying on setbacks and height limits rather than FAR will result in buildings that are not only much larger, but also much boxier. Without FAR limits, new buildings will tend to expand to fit the box defined by the setbacks and height limits. With FAR, buildings are more likely to include peaked roofs and other contextually appropriate features. • Alternately, I would be ok removing FAR limits if the current 40% residential open space requirement were preserved to ensure that we have enough permeable area to handle future heat and flooding projections. But removing all open space requirements on affordable projects, whose residents also need to be protected from climate threats and who also deserve access to recreational open space like their wealthier neighbors, is short-sighted in my view. The capacity of the just completed Huron Village Sewer Separation project was calculated using current open space conditions, and homeowners are expected to manage stormwater onsite. Cutting minimum open space requirements by more than half means much more stormwater overflowing into the City's system during storm events.

• We see no evidence that any of the suggested environmental standards will be included. In fact, increasing density and height, while also reducing setbacks and open space, will make many of Envision's environmental goals difficult if not impossible to achieve. WHAT CAN BE CHANGED TO IMPROVE THE OVERLAY? If we are forced to work with the existing proposal, I would suggest the following changes: • Eliminate single-family zoning by allowing 2-families by right in Res A districts • Allow 3-families by right in Res B districts • Reduce minimum lot size in Res A districts from 8000 to 5000 square feet. This will allow lots to be subdivided more easily. • Increase maximum FAR in Res B district to 0.6. Preserve open space and strengthen open space requirements for all residential projects, regardless of zoning district. As the co-chair of the recently appointed Climate Resilience Zoning Task Force, I believe that 40% open space is essential for recreational purposes, but, more critically, to provide enough green space to control heat and flooding. Implement strong climate resilience standards • In all residential districts, limit FAR for 100% Affordable projects to 2 times the existing FAR limits. (Alternately, FAR could be dropped if open space percentage is preserved at 40%). • When allowing four stories in residential zones, require that roofs include peaks, dormers, or other features that help deemphasize their increased height and bulk. • Create clear design requirements for infill projects • Require ground-floor retail or other public amenities in all non-residential districts • Require family-sized units Require publicly available pro forma for all Overlay projects Preserve Board oversight WHAT ARE SOME OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSAL? We need to explore many other good ideas in addition to zoning liberalization. Here are a few: • Create a strong Tenant Protection Ordinance • Further encourage and incent ADUs • Encourage and incent the formation of Community Land Trusts (CLTs); provide CLTs with the same FAR bonus as 100% affordable projects. CLTs are proven to temper increasing land costs, and a recent study by John Emmeus Davis and Rick Jacobus for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy calculated that they can be more than 16 times less expensive over 30 years than comparable homeowner loan programs. • Develop a program to compensate owners who create or preserve individual affordable units in existing properties (similar to Somerville's program) • Add additional housing units to City-owned land and to existing Affordable Housing sites. Rindge Towers alone has roughly 500,000 square feet of unused GFA under current zoning. The Cambridge Housing Authority controls over 2 million square feet of land, including at least 4 developments of 300,000 square feet or more. One of those, Corcoran Park, is a low- density development that is due for redevelopment. To date, CHA's redevelopment efforts on other sites have created little or no new housing, even while many of these projects are far less dense than allowed under current rules.

• Require MIT and Harvard to build much more housing. Together, Harvard and MIT own over 20 million square feet of land in Cambridge. Dedicating just 5% more of this land to building housing would amount to millions of square feet of new space, and thousands of new units of housing. • Issue a housing bond, as has been done in numerous other cities over the past five years. CONCLUSION Cambridge has more than 3000 rental units in owner-occupied 2- and 3-family homes like mine. A significant percentage of those units are in West Cambridge. My block in Huron Village is already 20% denser than Mayor McGovern's block in Central Square. Anyone who thinks we are living in a "gated community" simply doesn't know the facts. Of course, we are all very willing to keep an open mind and engage in a collaborative conversation, but you also have to recognize that when one's neighborhood is repeatedly described as "elitist" and even "racist," it's extremely difficult to accept that others are similarly open. Instead, many residents of West Cambridge are left feeling angry, attacked, defensive, and excluded from the City's rapidly evolving (but as of yet still undisclosed) plans. In the end, I don't worry about "Stranger Danger" or declining property values. What I worry about is an Overlay that over-incents the market to fix a problem that the market to date has proven unable or unwilling to solve. 10x seems like an excessive development incentive to me, and one that is likely to paint a target on every naturally occurring affordable unit in this city. Keep in mind that not every affordable unit in this city is a rent-protected unit. And if the solution to our so-called housing crisis is to overly incent developers to begin buying and tearing down those older, existing homes, well, I don't see that as much of a solution at all. Instead, I see that as tantamount to instigating a parcel-by-parcel street fight that is likely to tear apart the very neighborhoods that Envision claims to preserve and protect. I wish everyone could live in a great neighborhood, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or income level. But while that won't happen unless we incrementally add more housing in such neighborhoods, we definitely won't get there if we over-incent redevelopment and, in the process, destroy the very things that make those neighborhoods great. It's illustrative to remember that the City of Cambridge seal includes a tree that has been cut down and an historic building that has been demolished. When considering this Overlay proposal, let's not contribute further to such an unfortunate outcome. I urge you to vote against any Overlay that includes no protections for existing housing, for existing middle-income residents, for open space, or for quality urban design. Thank you. Sincerely, Doug Brown 35 Standish Street Officer, Fresh Pond Residents Alliance

A NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY PROPOSAL 288 Rendering of 38 Lakeview Avenue in West Cambridge showing potential 55,000 square foot Affordable Housing development allowed by right under proposed Overlay rules. INTRODUCTION Since 2010, Cambridge has lost 13% of its 2- and 3-family rental units, over 700 units across the City. These Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing, or NOAH, Units, are the lifeblood of Cambridge's un-subsidized middle-income residents. Indeed, we have more of these NOAH units than exist in the Housing Authority's entire 2130-unit inventory of public housing, but they are fast becoming extinct in all neighborhoods, particularly in West Cambridge. On my street alone, we have seen 3 properties sold to out-of-town investors who promptly renovated and tripled the rents, plus 2 others converted to luxury condos by local flippers. That's 13 units of moderately priced, family-sized housing in older buildings gone forever, along with the friends and neighbors who were displaced as a result. My neighborhood is being rapidly shredded by the market, and, unable to compete, my middle-class friends and neighbors are the ones quickly losing hope. What does this have to do with the Affordable Housing Overlay, an effort to increase the supply of low- and moderate-income housing across the City? Well first, it illustrates that relying on the free market to fix our housing affordability crisis may be a misplaced hope. As any true capitalist can explain, an unregulated market doesn't exist to fix problems but, instead, to maximize profits. Sometimes those are the same goals, but when the goals conflict, money usually wins. Second, if we are worried about the damage that rapid development can unleash on a neighborhood, just wait and see what happens when we increase the permitted density, and the resulting profit margins, by a factor of 5-10x. I have done the basic zoning math for numerous

properties, and in every case, the Overlay represents at least a 4-fold increase in building size over what is currently permitted. In some cases, the multiple is more than 13 times more than the size of the current house, with, for example, a 55,000 square foot, 51-unit building replacing a 4000 square foot, two-family home BY RIGHT. In short, though I am not opposed to the concept of an Affordable Housing Overlay, the way in which this particular overlay is constructed will place a bull's eye on every older 2- and 3-tamily home in the City, particularly homes that sit on larger lots or are located on corners. Do we really think that allowing 4-5 times the density on these lots, even if for affordable projects, will somehow lower land costs, slow the process of destruction and displacement, or finally help renters settle down and buy a home here? In 1996, the City Council down-zoned the Resident B zoning district, the largest district in the City, to artificially reduce density and discourage backyard development. This had the side effect of rendering more than half of all homes in the district non-conforming and forcing homeowners to get costly and time-consuming Board approvals for even simple home changes. At the time, the reason given was to protect neighborhoods from development pressures. To now claim that those same FAR restrictions must be removed in the name of increased development, and then give those same rights back to developers rather than to the homeowners from whom they were taken, seems politically motivated in the extreme. Instead of a 5-10x increase in density as proposed, why not simply return permitted FARs to their prior levels, or better, raise them incrementally over current levels. An increase of FAR to just 0.6 would unlikely over 1 million square feet of potential new development. Reducing the minimum lot size in Resident A zones to 5000 square feet would allow 2 units where currently 1 is allowed, or 4 units if 2-families were also permitted. We need incremental improvements, not the wholesale tearing down of our current neighborhoods as we know them. WHAT DO I LIKE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL? Namely, two things: eliminating parking requirements is good public policy, and well supported by both sides. Including middle-income units in all 100% affordable projects (up to 1/3 of all units) begins to address the clear gap in our current housing strategy. I am even ok with a height increase to 4 stories, provided Board oversight is retained. I might even support an increase in FAR for affordable projects of up to 2x over current rules, provided board oversight is preserved. But the idea that a developer next door can build 5-10x more by-right, and I can't even add a bathroom without a variance, is excessive in the extreme. WHAT DON'T I LIKE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL? The list is quite long, so let me focus on only the most important issues: • It does not protect existing middle-income residents from displacement. • High Cambridge land costs would make any new affordable housing created under the new plan highly dependent on City subsidies for its affordability. • The primary issue with the current proposal is the total elimination of Floor Area Ratio as a controller of density. I've run the numbers, and depending on a parcel's size, shape, and

location, this results in density increases of between 4 and 7 times what is currently permitted, or as much as 10-15 times what is currently built. My own two-family could be 5.35 times larger than current rules allow, even though I can't currently add any space without expensive BZA approval. See the table below for examples. GROSS FLOOR AREA (GA) ALLOWED BY CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING WHOLE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT SITE-ALEWIFE 10,000 5000 SF LOT SF LOT QUAD 5000 SF LOT MID- 10,000 SF LOT (500' × 500', or 5.7 (MID- BLOCK) BLOCK) (CORNER) SCENARIO (CORNER) ACRES) 0-1/IB-2 (ALEWIFE AOD- ZONING RES B RES B RES B RES B DISTRICT 1,2,3,0R 4) PERMITTED GFA UNDER 187,500 (UP TO 500,000 WITH CURRENT ZONING SPECIAL PERMIT) 2,500 4,250 2,500 4,250 ORIGINAL 100% AFFORDABLE PROPOSAL 500,000 BY RIGHT 20,000 10,000 20,000 10,000 11,900 28,900 (BUT 15% OPEN (BUT 15% OPEN 1,620,000 SPACE (WITH OPEN SPACE SPACE LOCATED REQUIREMENT LATEST 100% REQUIREMENT REDUCES THAT TO REDUCES THAT TO AFFORDABLE IN INTERIOR COURTYARD) 10,200) PROPOSAL 25,200 27,200) 11,200 GFA MULTIPLE OVER CURRENT 5.93X 4.08X 6.4X ZONING 8.64X 4.48X • In addition, relying on setbacks and height limits rather than FAR will result in buildings that are not only much larger, but also much boxier. Without FAR limits, new buildings will tend to expand to fit the box defined by the setbacks and height limits. With FAR, buildings are more likely to include peaked roofs and other contextually appropriate features. • Alternately, I would be ok removing FAR limits if the current 40% residential open space requirement were preserved to ensure that we have enough permeable area to handle future heat and flooding projections. But removing all open space requirements on affordable projects, whose residents also need to be protected from climate threats and who also deserve access to recreational open space like their wealthier neighbors, is short-sighted in my view. The capacity of the just completed Huron Village Sewer Separation project was calculated using current open space conditions, and homeowners are expected to manage stormwater onsite. Cutting minimum open space requirements by more than half means much more stormwater overflowing into the City's system during storm events.

• We see no evidence that any of the suggested environmental standards will be included. In fact, increasing density and height, while also reducing setbacks and open space, will make many of Envision's environmental goals difficult if not impossible to achieve. WHAT CAN BE CHANGED TO IMPROVE THE OVERLAY? If we are forced to work with the existing proposal, I would suggest the following changes: • Eliminate single-family zoning by allowing 2-families by right in Res A districts • Allow 3-families by right in Res B districts • Reduce minimum lot size in Res A districts from 8000 to 5000 square feet. This will allow lots to be subdivided more easily. • Increase maximum FAR in Res B district to 0.6. Preserve open space and strengthen open space requirements for all residential projects, regardless of zoning district. As the co-chair of the recently appointed Climate Resilience Zoning Task Force, I believe that 40% open space is essential for recreational purposes, but, more critically, to provide enough green space to control heat and flooding. Implement strong climate resilience standards • In all residential districts, limit FAR for 100% Affordable projects to 2 times the existing FAR limits. (Alternately, FAR could be dropped if open space percentage is preserved at 40%). • When allowing four stories in residential zones, require that roofs include peaks, dörmers, or other features that help deemphasize their increased height and bulk. • Create clear design requirements for infill projects • Require ground-floor retail or other public amenities in all non-residential districts • Require family-sized units • Require publicly available pro forma for all Overlay projects • Preserve Board oversight WHAT ARE SOME OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSAL? We need to explore many other good ideas in addition to zoning liberalization. Here are a few: • Create a strong Tenant Protection Ordinance • Further encourage and incent ADUs • Encourage and incent the formation of Community Land Trusts (CLTs); provide CLTs with the same FAR bonus as 100% affordable projects. CLTs are proven to temper increasing land costs, and a recent study by John Emmeus Davis and Rick Jacobus for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy calculated that they can be more than 16 times less expensive over 30 years than comparable homeowner loan programs. • Develop a program to compensate owners who create or preserve individual affordable units in existing properties (similar to Somerville's program) • Add additional housing units to City-owned land and to existing Affordable Housing sites. Rindge Towers alone has roughly 500,000 square feet of unused GFA under current zoning. The Cambridge Housing Authority controls over 2 million square feet of land, including at least 4 developments of 300,000 square feet or more. One of those, Corcoran Park, is a low- density development that is due for redevelopment. To date, CHA's redevelopment efforts on other sites have created little or no new housing, even while many of these projects are far less dense than allowed under current rules.

• Require MIT and Harvard to build much more housing. Together, Harvard and MIT own over 20 million square feet of land in Cambridge. Dedicating just 5% more of this land to building housing would amount to millions of square feet of new space, and thousands of new units of housing. • Issue a housing bond, as has been done in numerous other cities over the past five years. CONCLUSION Cambridge has more than 3000 rental units in owner-occupied 2- and 3-family homes like mine. A significant percentage of those units are in West Cambridge. My block in Huron Village is already 20% denser than Mayor McGovern's block in Central Square. Anyone who thinks we are living in a "gated community" simply doesn't know the facts. Of course, we are all very willing to keep an open mind and engage in a collaborative conversation, but you also have to recognize that when one's neighborhood is repeatedly described as "elitist" and even "racist," it's extremely difficult to accept that others are similarly open. Instead, many residents of West Cambridge are left feeling angry, attacked, defensive, and excluded from the City's rapidly evolving (but as of yet still undisclosed) plans. In the end, I don't worry about "Stranger Danger" or declining property values. What I worry about is an Overlay that over-incents the market to fix a problem that the market to date has proven unable or unwilling to solve. 10x seems like an excessive development incentive to me, and one that is likely to paint a target on every naturally occurring affordable unit in this city. Keep in mind that not every affordable unit in this city is a rent-protected unit. And if the solution to our so-called housing crisis is to overly incent developers to begin buying and tearing down those older, existing homes, well, I don't see that as much of a solution at all. Instead, I see that as tantamount to instigating a parcel-by-parcel street fight that is likely to tear apart the very neighborhoods that Envision claims to preserve and protect. I wish everyone could live in a great neighborhood, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or income level. But while that won't happen unless we incrementally add more housing in such neighborhoods, we definitely won't get there if we over-incent redevelopment and, in the process, destroy the very things that make those neighborhoods great. It's illustrative to remember that the City of Cambridge seal includes a tree that has been cut down and an historic building that has been demolished. When considering this Overlay proposal, let's not contribute further to such an unfortunate outcome. I urge you to vote against any Overlay that includes no protections for existing housing, for existing middle-income residents, for open space, or for quality urban design. Thank you. Sincerely, Doug Brown 35 Standish Street Officer, Fresh Pond Residents Alliance

AB Crane, Paula Carolyn < [email removed]> From: Sunday, March 24, 2019 12:57 PM Sent: Lopez, Donna; Crane, Paula To: Fw: City Proposed Policy Causing Rift Between Neighbors/Neighborhood Subject: Please enter my email message in the official record of the city council. Thank you very much. Best regards, Carolyn ===== ========== Carolyn Shipley 15 Laurel Street Cambridgeport Resident since 1981 ---- Forwarded Message ---- From: Carolyn <[email removed]> To: Cambridge City Council <council@cambridgema.gov>; Louis DePasquale <|depasquale@cambridgema.gov> Cc: Quinton Zondervan <[email removed]>; Dennis Carlone <[email removed]>; Denise Simmons <dsimmons@cambridgema.gov>; Sumbul Siddiqui <ssiddiqui@cambridgema.gov>; Alanna Mallon <amallon@cambridgema.gov>; Craig Kelley <ckelley@cambridgema.gov>; Timothy Toomey <ttoomey@cambridgema.gov>; Marc McGovern <mmcgovern@cambridgema.gov>; Vice Mayor Jan Devereux <jdevereux@cambridgema.gov>; Cport Neighborhood Assoc Listserv <[email removed]>; Livable Cambridge Open < [email removed]>; ACN LIST <association-of-cambridge- [email removed]> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2019, 12:48:20 PM EDT Subject: City Proposed Policy Causing Rift Between Neighbors/Neighborhoods The proposed 100% affordable housing overlay zoning has divided Cambridge; turned neighbor against neighbor; incited name-calling and character assassination; and attacks on the First Amendment rights of some Cambridge residents. It will not result in any more affordable housing units than would be possible under current zoning. The prime motivation for this proposed zoning is to prevent from happening in the future what happened with the YWCA affordable development on Temple Street that was held up for two years because some entity appealed the plan. After speaking for the allotted two minutes at the March 20th meeting of the Housing Committee at City Hall on the proposed 100% affordable housing overlay zoning, I exited the Sullivan Chamber to put on my coat and leave. Within seconds I was approached from behind by a young woman who got about 8" from my face and who verbally attacked me for my comments before the Committee. She was soon joined by another woman with a smirk on her face. They both were wearing large stick- on labels, as were some other people that evening, identifying themselves as members of a group that not only unconditionally supports the proposed zoning, but has also created a rift between otherwise cordial Cantabridgians. >>I believe that approaching anyone who disagrees with them is the M.O. and mission of this badge-wearing group. Within less than a minute a tall, middle-aged man joined them and continued 1

the abuse on my freedom of speech. I guess I was so stunned by this unexpected and unkind attack by these 3 overlay supporters, it took me about half a minute to politely extricate myself. On leaving, for some reason, I turned and said, "Goodbye, and God bless you." I guess it was my attempt to erase the ill-will of those few minutes with those badge-wearers. From Federal Code Title 18, Chapter 13 (Civil Right), Section 241: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; Understandably, initially, I felt harmed by that unkind encounter at City Hall. The next day the feeling was worse and I came to realize that I was experiencing PTSD. I tried to focus on positive pursuits throughout the following days, but the feeling came back now and then. I can't say that the PSTD is gone yet. Anytime a friend writes with compassion and understanding for what I experienced, I cry a little. It happened earlier this morning upon reading a kind email from a friend. That label-wearing group is vociferously promoting the proposed, but somewhat vague, overlay zoning concept that ignores many community issues. >One of the members of that group has posted on his Facebook page calumnious attacks about some Cantabridgians simply because they don't share his views on the overlay. > Another member is on the board of one of the non-profits, does not live in Cambridge, and is a developer of many affordable housing projects. Is not that a conflict of interest for that person? >I don't think these uncharitable attacks will benefit the group's cause. Developers, architects, engineers, and zoning experts that I have heard from or personally spoken with have stated that the proposed overlay lacks specific zoning language or real examples of how to make development of affordable housing financially feasible. These experts also estimate that the proposed overlay zoning would not result in any more affordable units than would occur with the current city zoning regulations. May I repeat that: no more affordable units will be possible with this proposed zoning than is possible today. Most troubling to me and others is that that proposal will make any and all development As of Right, which means that no Cambridge resident or property owner would be able to challenge any proposed design and also that our right to appeal would be taken away from us. (No more #5 Temple Street situations.) The discord on both sides is regrettable although the label-wearing people seem to be producing more of it. >>I have not experienced any such uncivil confrontation in my 38 years in Cambridge. In those 38 years, I have worked with neighbors, associates, and interest groups on quality of life issues for the benefit of all Cantabridgians. I have joined with neighbors and the city on protecting our neighborhoods against crime, on improving our parks, on improving our schools, on bikes, Central Square, and other issues, and also helped form a neighborhood association as well as a group that successfully took 18- wheelers off our streets from 6 p.m. until 6 a.m. Former Mayor Denise Simmons and Councillor Toomey provided support for a city-wide group that I headed that worked on improving and expanding the DHSP Community Schools Program. >All of those involved on these issues worked cooperatively with good intentions and good will, and we all built friendly connections across the city. This proposed overlay zoning has had the effect of creating an alarming wedge between friends, neighbors, and neighborhoods: the opposite of those past years of good will and neighborliness. 2

There is a lot of confusion and misinformation about this plan. As such, perhaps the city should re-examine their explanations and procedural roll-out as being inadequate, and start again with more facts and figures to educate the public on this important issue. Otherwise, we may never be able to repair emotions, let alone find compromise. The City should explain the potential negative impacts of this proposed zoning. The City should do the right thing and work to restore goodwill across the city Respectfully yours, Carolyn Shipley 15 Laurel St., Cambridgeport

Crane, Paula From: Susan Pitman Lowenthal <[email removed]> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 12:15 PM To: Crane, Paula Subject: opposed to overlay: When I first rented in Cambridge on Grozier Road in the 70's, my loW... Dear Mayor, Vice-mayor and Cambridge Councillors: This testimony was given at the 20 Mar 2019 public hearing. Full text is below, as requested: When I first rented in Cambridge on Grozier Road in the 70's, my low income would have easily qualified me for the current affordable housing overlay zone. I GET... not owning a home or a condo, I GET barely affording rent on a very meager salary. I'm now back in Cambridge, invited to live close by my children & grandchildren on Huron Ave... living just a couple of blocks from my original rental and in a quasi-historic neighborhood ...changed little over the past 40 yrs. During the intervening years I lived in CT and learned a thing or two as an elected member of our town's Planning & Zoning Commission for over 20 years, including a stint as Chairman. Overlay zones were discussed in the context of planning...and invariably rejected because "one size never fits all"...despite what the MIT urban planning students told you earlier this evening. A word to the wise is in order...reject this "easy solution" of a townwide overlay as the cure for income disparity and provision of "affordable housing." Your planning board has not done its homework. Neither has the high-priced Envision consultants. More work is mandatory to get this right. When we in Litchfield proposed a new zoning amendment adding an "H" to the 1/2 acre and 3/4 acre town center, it was based on painstaking measurements of distances between homes, presence of accessory structures, existing setbacks etc BEFORE the zoning amendment was proposed...to ensure we understood the real impact of the zoning change on an area. You have failed to do this, as yet, neighborhood by specific neighborhood. How can you justify a universal overlay when you have no idea of the actual impact on a neighborhood. No one has bothered to evaluate the precise impact of adoption of this general overlay zone on individual properties in each & every neighborhood in Cambridge. This is nonsense. It is especially disturbing that this proposal would be adopted as an "as of right" zone change, depriving citizens of an opportunity to comment on a specific project While we all know deep down that the end should never justify the means, adoption of the overlay zone in the name of an affordable housing solution is just that ...an end justifying the means. For Cambridge Council to adopt this overlay zone repudiates your responsibility as elected officials to represent all citizens who voted you in office. You will be doing irreparable harm to your overall constituency by putting one income group over all others. Many already testified about the potential dislocation of middle income families. Furthermore, adoption of the overlay zone WITHOUT the necessary work to identify the impact of the zone on specific neighborhoods and properties could be construed as a "taking"...by the courts....once a developer identifies a property to purchase and immediate abutting property-owners see a decline in their property value on the open market. We voters expect our elected officials to methodically evaluate the impact of the zone. The stated purpose of land-use regulation is to protect the general health and safety of its citizens. Without a concurrent transportation assessment, the impact of this overlay zone on already-severely-congested Cambridge roadways is unknown; but given the increase in expected density likely to cause additional risk to public safety for all Cambridge residents. The City of Cambridge is gifted with diverse neighborhoods, each unique with its own history and unique built environment.

Please ensure you do not inadvertently destroy this city. I have seen it happen...to the city I grew up in in central Connecticut by a Mayor and Council who voted approval of a major land-use project decades ago. The negative consequences of that project are still felt; the city still has not recovered. Best regards, Susan Susan W Pitman Lowenthal MD MPH 385 Huron Ave Cambridge MA 02138 [phone removed] Sent from my iPhone 2

Christophe Scoute CC l've come here to voice my support for the 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay. I do this having spoken with my neighbors on both sides of this issue, and with those who are on the fence. What I've come to believe having had these conversations is that all of us here are well intentioned, and all of us are here because we care about our city, its character, and the quality of life we enjoy here. But what I've also come to realize is that a crisis cannot be solved by good intentions. And let me be clear when I say that we are facing a crisis. A crisis of affordability, yes, but at its foundation, a crisis of inequality and injustice. And unfortunately, a crisis that is easy for many of us in this room to overlook or, at worst, ignore. Cambridge is a beautiful, vibrant, and financially stable city, and there is no reason to expect that will change anytime soon. But we as a city have to ask ourselves, who is benefitting and profiting from that livability and prosperity? And who is essentially being asked to leave, who is being told they're not welcome here, that Cambridge is full? I have made Cambridge home for my family because I want to be part of a community that is vibrant, diverse, proudly progressive, and welcoming. Welcoming to people who don't look like me, who may not talk like me, who may have almost nothing in common with me, and welcoming to people who may not share in my good fortune and privilege but want and deserve to share what we have here. I'm tired of being part of a system of zoning and housing allocation that essentially criminalizes poverty, that places very thinly veiled limitations on the degree to which some people are welcomed and valued. So I'm asking you, and I'm asking my neighbors who are reluctant to support this measure, to consider something that's bigger than our small preferences, our vanity, our luxuries, and our minor discomforts, and bigger than our reluctance to accept new and different people into our lives. I and my fellow supporters of the Overlay are willing to sacrifice a few hours of sunlight in our living rooms so that a family can avoid displacement, willing to spend another two minutes searching for a parking spot so a family can avoid homelessness, and willing to suffer the indignity of our zinnias blooming five days late so that a family can leave substandard housing and share in our city's quality of life. And I want to also be clear that this measure is not perfect. It is not the end, it will not even come close to undoing the injustices of a system that has been carefully constructed to benefit a the wealthy and privileged. We will not solve poverty, or institutional racism, but we can refuse to be complicit in our country's history of waging war on the poor and on people of color. In under no Cambridge will always be a place where demand will exceed our housing supply. But let's not illus ons let the perfect become the enemy of the good. To those who oppose this measure or intend to blunt its impact, I hope you will reconsider your position and join us in taking a tiny step towards doing what is good for our neighbors, and in being on the right side of our City's history.

DD Peter Ciurczak 720 Massachusetts Ave. Apartment 5 Cambridge, MA 02139 March 20 Testimony Cambridge needs affordable housing, and the proposed overlay district is one big step towards delivering it. The reason Cambridge needs more affordable housing is simple: Cambridge is losing its low- and middle- income households at a prodigious rate. In just 9 years, Cambridge has lost 28 percent of households making under $50,000, and 17 percent of households making between $50 - $100,000. In contrast to the losses suffered by Cambridge's low-and middle-income households, the city has only packed on wealthier households. Households making $100 - $200,000 increased by 16 percent, while households making over $200,000 increased by a stunning 70 percent. At the end of the day, the simple question Cambridge faces is this. Will we take a stand - to support families and friends who have lived in this city for decades - or will we instead stand by and watch them be pushed out?

3/20/19 Good Evening My name is Maura Pensak and I live at 346 Concord Ave in Ward 9. I come before you this evening in support of • A citywide 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay and a City commitment of $20 million in city funds for affordable housing over the next five years. I speak this evening as both a long-time resident of Cambridge and as someone who has worked for 37 years with individuals and families who are homeless or at risk of being homeless. As a Cambridge Resident, I have watched as too many friends, neighbors and fellow residents have had to leave their homes and move to other communities because they could no longer afford to live here. As someone who works with folks trying to find and/or maintain affordable housing I am challenged daily to help folks find affordable rental units throughout Greater Boston. While the supply and demand for affordable housing is at odds throughout our region, unfortunately, here in Cambridge, finding affordable housing of any type is near impossible. It is unworkable for the middle income retired couple who have rented here their entire lives and find their building being sold and rents that have skyrocketed, it is unattainable for the young mom who was born and grew up here but knows that even with two jobs she cannot afford to raise her children in her hometown, and, it is too often hopeless even for the voucher holder that lost their home in one of the recent fires; in fact it is no surprise or secret that more than 50% of CHA voucher holders have had to use their vouchers outside of Cambridge. This is simply unacceptable. It is unacceptable to accept that the second, third or forth generation of a family has to more because there is not enough affordable housing. It is unacceptable to accept that our neighbor who fell ill and is now on a fixed income and fortunately received a voucher still has to move because even the relatively high payment standards of a CHA voucher do not enable him to rent in Cambridge. It is unacceptable to not recognize the impact the loss of : these neighbors has on what kind of city we are. We cannot afford to be a city that only a few can afford. We need to build more housing, we need to build more affordable housing. The Zoning Overlay would enable this to happen. The Zoning Overlay will help insure that our children, our elders and our families of all incomes can live, thrive and enjoy a vibrant, diverse and inclusive community.

FF 362 Green Street, Cambridge, MA 02139 | P: [phone removed] F: [phone removed] | www.cambridge- housing.org Cambridge City Council Cambridge City Hall 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 March 20, 2019 To the Honorable Members of the Cambridge City Council Housing Committee, I am writing to let you know that the Cambridge Housing Authority strongly supports an Affordable Housing Overlay. Over the years, we have looked at various opportunities in the City and can say without a doubt, it is almost impossible to compete in this market without something to level the playing field. Even with the overlay, Cambridge property values are so inflated that making the numbers work for 100% affordability will still be difficult and we believe that the overlay will produce a trickle, not a waterfall. So, why do it at all? Why, because Cambridge has proven time after time that this City is about the people and the economic and ethnic diversity of its neighborhoods. Cambridge has shown through actions and money that it is committed to affordable housing. Cambridge should be proud of its track record on creating and preserving affordable housing and should be applauded for bumping its $13 Million commitment to affordable housing to $20 Million over the next five years but without tools in the toolbox, money alone does not work. The overlay is a tool that needs serious consideration now before it is too late. But why? Why, because in Cambridge the median 2 BR rents are $2800 to $3000 per month which means a family needs to earn $100,000 per year to afford a 2 BR here in Cambridge but we have over 19,000 applications from those that don't make $100,000 per year. Of these, about 5,000 applicants claim to live or work in Cambridge. One of them could be a neighbor or the child of a neighbor, the clerk that rang up your groceries, a CHA or City employee or your child's teacher. These are people, just like us, that some of us see each and every day, we just don't know their need. Since the beginning of this year, the CHA has seen 41 walk in applicants claiming an emergency need for housing. What brings them to our door is varied but let me share a few real life examples: An elderly couple. (81 and 74) living in Cambridge. House sold in November, must vacate by the end of March as the rent is increasing from $850 to $2,200 (100% of the household's monthly income) A 43 year resident of Cambridge, landlord wants to renovate and has given her until June 30 to vacate

A 90 year old Cambridge resident given notice to vacate because landlord is planning to sell the building An elderly couple (96 and 95) living in Cambridge with adult son/caretaker, received an eviction notice A Cambridge resident whose owner has increased the rent from $400 per month to $1600 per month, which is about 116% of her monthly income A 10 year resident of Cambridge that can no longer work due to medica! issue, cannot afford rent A 6 year Cambridge resident whose landlord increased rent from $1000 to $1500 (100% of household's monthly income) A family of 4 (parents with 2 minor children) living in Cambridge with income of $38,463, paying rent of $2350 (73% of monthly income) Again these are actual Cambridge residents that would benefit from the opportunities the overlay would create and we would ask that you give it serious consideration. Please feel free to reach out to me via e-mail at [email removed] or to call my office at [phone removed] if you have any questions: Sincerely, Michael J. Johnston Executive Director

GG Good evening. My name is Nancy Alach and I live at 346 Concord Avenue in West Cambridge. I am here tonight to speak in strong support of the Affordable Housing Overlay District proposal and of an additional $20 million a year for affordable housing. I have worked and/or lived in Cambridge for all of my adult life. My first job in Cambridge was in 1974 at the Longfellow Community PreSchool. When I taught there, the school very much represented the diversity of the city, particularly in terms of race and socioeconomic status. I first came to live in Cambridge in 1983, and have lived here continuously ever since. I was a renter until 4 years ago, when my wife and I were able, due to fortunate circumstances, to purchase our condo. During my years as a renter, I lived in rent controlled apartments as well as apartments where the rent was relatively low because the buildings were owner occupied and had been in the family for many years. My wife and I raised our son here, and he attended Cambridge schools from preschool through high school. He experienced the diversity of our city in all of its facets growing up in Cambridge. As a 27 year old young man he is very clear and very articulate about the fact that the person he is today is a direct result of the city he grew up in, and all of the people here that helped to shape the person he is and is becoming. The Cambridge I first experienced, and the Cambridge our son was born into, is quickly disappearing. The affordable rents that allowed my family and me to remain in this city for 36 years, to develop roots and a sense of community, are essentially a thing of the past. Most importantly, the fact that the majority of my son's friends, the people he grew up with, studied with, played soccer with, and created community with, are not able to live in the city that raised them up to be responsible, caring, and socially active citizens is a tragedy. Our city has nothing if it no longer has it's diversity and if it is no longer a place where it's own young people are able to live, set down roots, and give back to their community.

Eugenia Schra 3/20/2019 Affordable Housing Overlay Hearing - Public Comment Let's imagine that in the next few months, the media gets excited about Cambridge. We find ourselves in the news! Our city councilors start getting annoyed that yet another reporter has called them asking for comment. Why are we getting all this attention? It's because even though we let ourselves become a city that forced out its middle-and lower-income residents — and that's our reality now. Because over 50% of our residents are at 100% or more average median income, that's an income $110,000 for a family of four or over $75,000 for a single person. Despite that, we've decided to do something to bring back its teachers, nonprofit workers, artists, firefighters and other fun neighbors who aren't all biotech executives. Instead of talking about how much we believe in affordable housing, we've taken steps to make it possible for affordable housing developers to ... develop affordable housing in Cambridge. What I'm saying is — if we pass this Affordable Housing Overlay, we finally join the small, very small ranks of leaders on affordable housing. If we don't, we're another city that talks about how progressive its values are, but thinks that keeping its zoning code intact is more sacrosanct than having people of all incomes living within its borders. Personally, I don't want to hear about Minneapolis anymore. I want the world to hear about Cambridge! The City that made some modest tweaks to its zoning code so that it could build more homes for people of modest incomes. The City that didn't allow itself to be home to only the very, very rich. The City that said it wanted a diverse population, and then opened its arms to welcome that population in. Please pass the Affordable Housing Overlay + thank you to all nine councilors for your past support of the $20m yearly increase in affordable housing funding for the next five years. With the support of our City Manager, let's make that happen now. Thank you.

Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Tuesday, March 19, 2019 10:31 PM Sent: Crane, Paula To: Fwd: Please pass the Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Eugenia Huh < [email removed]> Date: March 19, 2019 at 7:23:16 PM EDT To: council@cambridgema.gov, clerk@cambridgema.gov Cc: Ming-Tai Huh <[email removed]>, [email removed] Subject: Please pass the Affordable Housing Overlay Dear City Councilors, Cambridge should be an affordable housing leader. It should take bold steps. Other cities should be looking to us for our meaningful action on this essential equity issue. The Overlay is a well-crafted, important first step toward staunching the rapid loss of our middle-class and bringing back the income diversity that our City has lost in the last many years. Please pass it undiluted. Its height requirements are absolutely appropriate for a city. We are not living in suburb. We're living in one of the most exciting cities in the world. It's a privilege. Let's not hoard that privilege. Let's live up to it. Let's invite more people to live here, and make our city even more exciting. We can only do that if we build more homes. We can only build more homes if we go a little higher than current zoning allows - that is, about the same height that so many of our buildings are at, given that most of our City was not built under our current zoning codes. I urge you to increase the height limits to 5 stories in the residential neighborhoods and 10 along the corridors, and I urge you to reject proposals to limit the scope of the Overlay. Let's have the Overlay be City-wide. Let's welcome income diversity every where in Cambridge. Let's eliminate the rule forcing developers to add costly, polluting parking their tenants don't want. Let's be climate leaders. Thank you all for your support for increasing the city budget for affordable housing by $20 million per year for the next five years. I hope you'll also support this bold, exciting Overlay.

Thank you, Eugenia Schraa 259 Washington Street Eugenia Schraa [phone removed] 257 Washington St. Cambridge, MA 02139 Twitter: @eugeniaschraa *www.abettercambridgeaf.org*

IT Crane, Paula Sara Mae Berman <[email removed]> From: Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 9:11 AM To: Crane, Paula Subject: affordable housing overlay Housing hearing at City Hall, March 20, 2019 about 80 speakers The so-called "affordable housing" overlay seems to me to favor developers, not the residents of the various individual neighborhoods in our city. It proposes to treat every neighborhood with the same zoning rules, laxer than those at present (allowing denser building), regardless of the present shape or needs of the particular area. I believe this overlay will deprive the different neighborhoods of their character, their small business community, even their open space and tree canopy. Cambridge is already one of the most dense city of its size in the US. Cambridge already has a practice of building for its own municipal needs on public parks (e.g., schools) for almost a century. The City Council has passed an ordinance to create permit requirements for the cutting down trees on private land, yet has not followed its own laws respecting the cutting down of old, but healthy trees on public land. It has even overlooked the cutting down of mature, healthy trees by private developers. I don't want my neighborhood, or anyone's neighborhood, to begin to look like Kendall Square or Northpoint, development which makes those areas resemble downtown Manhattan. I see the overlay as resulting in that effect. The main overlay argument is that it will provide much needed "affordable housing". That argument is in serious dispute. Also, the proposers have not defined "affordable". Let's say what a person earns is within the "affordable" definition: what happens when that person is given a raise or a higher position with increased pay? Do they have to leave their "affordable housing"? What control does the city have over such developer-landlords to maintain their property? Some of the tenants in "affordable housing" today, complain of poor maintenance. And under what conditions can their rent be raised? While I don't accuse the City Councillors of being self-serving for supporting this overlay, since this is an election year, I will be carefully looking over the campaign contributions to the council candidates to see what developers are supporting them. Sara Mae Berman 23 Fayette St. Cambridge, MA 02139 (Thank you, Paula, for so carefully collecting as much as possible of what everyone said.) 1

Cambridge City Council Housing Committee March 20, 2019 Testimony My name is Tina Alu and I live at 113 ½ Pleasant Street. I am testifying as a Cambridge resident and as the Director of 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. Over the last several months I have attended countless meetings on affordable housing, many of them focused specifically on new developments. There are always many testifying in support and many against. The reasons for the opposition have ranged from the impact that it will have on density, parking and traffic or how shade from a 3-story building would affect their ability to grow plants that need sun. But sometimes, the comments are on how locating affordable housing in their neighborhood would change the "character" of their neighborhood and questioning if residents of affordable housing would feel comfortable there. I have been doing a lot of reading lately about the history of zoning laws and their impact on income inequality and racial equity by segregating affordable housing. In town meetings, anti- density campaigners gave a number of reasons to justify their support of these laws. They talked about how residents preferred to look at open space or stately homes rather than apartment buildings, which might spoil their view. They talked about environmental concerns. Although higher density housing was often more energy efficient, anti-density homeowners used environmental regulations and concerns as a tool to block new construction And they talked about poor people and perpetuated negative stereotypes of people who lived in affordable housing. I know that's not how the residents ot Cambridge teel. I was at City Hall last night with many of you for the vigil for the victims of the New Zealand mosque shootings. I saw the concern that people had for their neighbors and how they celebrated the diversity of our City. But current zoning laws do 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 and class; they effectively exclude families with low or moderate incomes from entire neighborhoods. We have to challenge any laws that do not support our values of diversity, inclusion and equity. The overlay and increased funding would not solve the affordable housing problem but would be important steps in achieving equity. 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 tunding more ettectively, and allow for a more equitable approach to growth in Cambridge. I encourage you to support both of these initiatives.

KK We, the undersigned, support efforts to expand the availability of affordable housing in Cambridge through the use of an affordable housing overlay and an additional $20 million in City funding. These actions are needed to keep Cambridge diverse, both racially, ethnically, and economically, and to make sure low-income families and individuals can continue to call the City of Cambridge their home. Name Address sochurchlf Auz 71 437 Charlotte lous 50 CHURNIL AVE JAMAL SmETh APT 231 50 Churlill Are His Marger Zioda APT Salinilla 1 50 chanchul Ave kungl: (00)/b3) Latherine A he 50 churchillar 321

We, the undersigned, support efforts to expand the availability of affordable housing in Cambridge through the use of an affordable housing overlay and an additional $20 million in City funding. These actions are needed to keep Cambridge diverse, both racially, ethnically, and economically, and to make sure low-income families and individuals can continue to call the City of Cambridge their home. Address Name 0Z140 Steven Bacchio 50 churchill Are lt 336 andri lie Ma 50 caroll Ale #320, laudiafer Later selle bellan over Bih solenhth Asso 50 ch BRESTEOCCRAN $420 Carmell, Madhère 50 /# 323 30 1208 Jabet ранкий

We, the undersigned, support efforts to expand the availability of affordable housing in Cambridge through the use of an affordable housing overlay and an additional $20 million in City funding. These actions are needed to keep Cambridge diverse, both racially, ethnically, and economically, and to make sure low-income families and individuals can continue to call the City of Cambridge their home. Name Address 50 churchill #53002140- Beverly Call 30 Churchill Ave Jenniter Chisholm 50 Churchiel #534 Benuche C. fajors Manice Quease dOC. Ave 232 CARMELLE MASHERE 50 50/#323 50 / 52/ Alonde Autorin 318 50/ Same Busy

We, the undersigned, support efforts to expand the availability of affordable housing in Cambridge through the use of an affordable housing overlay and an additional $20 million in City funding. These actions are needed to keep Cambridge diverse, both racially, ethnically, and economically, and to make sure low-income families and individuals can continue to call the City of Cambridge their home. Address Name Catherine A. Nee 50 Churchill. Ave Cant. 30 churchill Ate 1424 Joseph Concutta. *225 50 Church, V Ave Cacherine E Koletody Eloise Witwer 30 Churchile qur $506 30 Churchill 304 Christine HARRISON 50 ceceschell 316 Allans Prelad 514 LonettA VALLANT 50chunchol 30 churchill 610 Rebecca Ramsay 50 ChurchillAre 439 Linda Andreno 50 Chachl bre # 6 34 Blem dying 30 Churchill ave racette Naurs tor 50 Churchill Aue 533 GolD Caudice

We, the undersigned, support efforts to expand the availability of affordable housing in Cambridge through the use of an affordable housing overlay and an additional $20 million in City funding. These actions are needed to keep Cambridge diverse, both racially, ethnically, and economically, and to make sure low-income families and individuals can continue to call the City of Cambridge their home. Name Address so chachillve #233 Manu Wooden

We, the undersigned, support efforts to expand the availability of affordable housing in Cambridge through the use of an affordable housing overlay and an additional $20 million in City funding. These actions are needed to keep Cambridge diverse, both racially, ethnically, and economically, and to make sure low-income families and individuals can continue to call the City of Cambridge their home. Name Address 02140 50 Churtill Ave # 430 Miquel A. Acevedo

We, the undersigned, support efforts to expand the availability of affordable housing in Cambridge through the use of an affordable housing overlay and an additional $20 million in City funding. These actions are needed to keep Cambridge diverse, both racially, ethnically, and economically, and to make sure low-income families and individuals can continue to call the City of Cambridge their home. Name Address 30 churchill Menue. 02140 Elsabeth Aun WesteR

We, the undersigned, support efforts to expand the availability of affordable housing in Cambridge through the use of an affordable housing overlay and an additional $20 million in City funding. These actions are needed to keep Cambridge diverse, both racially, ethnically, and economically, and to make sure low-income families and individuals can continue to call the City of Cambridge their home. Name Address so Chonctill #229 02140 50 Churchill Are. #629 8218 PHILIP ANDERSON 50 Churchil lue # 655 02140 Alan Forg

We, the undersigned, support efforts to expand the availability of affordable housing in Cambridge through the use of an affordable housing overlay and an additional $20 million in City funding. These actions are needed to keep Cambridge diverse, both racially, ethnically, and economically, and to make sure low-income families and individuals can continue to call the City of Cambridge their home. Name Address KAZ MaN HEW so churchillAne H315 Mai Liang Wang 50 chichill Ave 4.537 234 chochill ave! Maria Harthis 3° churchill #401

4T' We, the undersigned, support efforts to expand the availability of affordable housing in Cambridge through the use of an affordable housing overlay and an additional $20 million in City funding. These actions are needed to keep Cambridge diverse, both racially, ethnically, and economically, and to make sure low-income families and individuals can continue to call the City of Cambridge their home. Address Name Mari laude 513 B13 Building 30 Fortunee Placide 501 Bulding 30 Marie G Meméus 630 Bulding 50 Alica Vancol 50/222 Year Justin Mith 50/429 50 Chure Are APt 232

L-1 Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust March 14, 2019 To the Honorable, the City Council: The Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust enthusiastically encourages the City Council's support for zoning changes to increase the success of affordable housing developers in creating new affordable units desperately needed across our city, and particularly in areas where they are now very few affordable opportunities. The 100%-Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay as conceived and developed will greatly assist in the Trust's efforts to create new affordable housing and use City funds most effectively. As the City board charged with financing the creation and preservation affordable housing which is essential to maintaining the diversity of our community, we see full well the challenges in creating new affordable housing in Cambridge. With market housing costs now affordable to only higher income residents, many low- and moderate-income residents face persistent housing challenges and can only be assured of their continued place in our community if they can access scarce affordable housing offered by local affordable housing providers. High land costs coupled with rising construction costs make it intensely challenging for affordable housing developers to create new housing in the current market. Implementing zoning tools to help these affordable housing developers will provide significant and meaningful assistance in our efforts to create new housing for residents. Allowing new affordable housing development to be built in buildings larger than those allowed by current zoning will help affordable housing providers create financially feasible developments and unlock areas where these developers cannot currently compete in the market. Likewise, reducing the time needed to seek approvals now needed for new affordable homes, and eliminating the risks and delays associated with discretionary approvals and costly appeals, will allow affordable housing developers to create new housing more quickly, more efficiently, and more cost effectively. Lowering the cost to create new affordable housing will reduce the need for Trust funding and allow the Trust to create more affordable housing with available funding. To ensure new housing is permanently affordable for low-, moderate-, and middle-income residents in our community, all affordable housing created through this new zoning mechanism must be subject to deed restrictions. We believe that all housing should meet the following affordability requirements: • No less than 80% of units created are affordable to households earning less than 80% of Area Median Income (AMI); and, • 100% of units created are affordable to households who earn less than 100% AMI. We further recommend that the 100%-Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay: • Be available city-wide to ensure we can create new affordable homes in all areas, including those with few affordable opportunities; • Allow new affordable housing to be developed "as-of-right" if clear criteria set out in the Zoning Ordinance are met;

• Offer relaxed height and density standards, parking requirements, and more flexible dimensional criteria for new affordable housing developments; • Ensure that affordable housing developers conduct community meetings to discuss affordable housing developments to gather comments from neighborhood residents; • Ensure good building design through establishing design guidelines for affordable housing taking advantage of this approach, review by CDD staff, and a public advisory review by the Planning Board with report to the Affordable Housing Trust; • Allow for multi-family and townhouse developments in all neighborhoods; • Ensure historic structures are not adversely impacted by encouraging adaptive reuse as affordable housing; • Allow for conversion of large existing residential buildings into affordable multi-tamily housing. A new zoning approach which thoughtfully combines new development standards for 100%- affordable housing with a new permitting regime to help housing developers create new affordable units more quickly and more efficiently will help us both meet our affordable housing production goals and use City funding more effectively. We appreciate your consideration of and strongly encourage your support for the 100%-Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay. We look forward to working with you as you consider this new zoning approach, to discussing this and other measures to help address the need for affordable housing in our community, and to advancing our shared goal of creating new affordable housing throughout the city. Respectfully submitted for the Affordable Housing Trust, Have Dawni Florrie Darwin Trustee usur Schtes usan Schlesing Trustee William Tibbs Gwendolen Noyes Trustee Trustee Elaine Thome tural-An 1737-5604 Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zéoli Elaine Thorne Trustee Trustee

March 18, 2019 Re: ENVISION CITY-WIDE UP ZONING OVERLAY To City Manager Louis DePesquale & Members of of the Cambridge City Council, I will be unable to attend the upcoming hearing on March 20th regarding the city-wide upzoning overlay and am writing to you on behalf of myself and my wife, Mrs. Smita Deshpande. I am writing to you with regards to the city's plans for a 100% affordable housing overlay, about which I recently learned through some neighbors. By way of introduction, I have been a resident of Cambridge since 2002 for more than half of my life. More than a decade ago, I started a technology business in Kendall Square and have since relocated the business to outside of the city because of the unaffordability of commercial rents. Similarly, my wife and I moved from our apartment in Kendall Square in part due to the rising rents in the area. From personal experience and for other reasons, I completely understand, appreciate, and support efforts to make Cambridge more affordable. I am writing to you with regards to the city's plans for a 100% affordable housing overlay near my residence at 950 Massachusetts Avenue, about which I recently learned through some neighbors. I feel that the overlay plan, as presented, is not ready for a vote. The present zoning language is non-existent and in particular does not include multi-family dwellings. Three meetings for one-size-fits-all zoning in just one month gives resident insufficient time to understand the issues of these changes. I ask the that you stop moving forward on this proposal until move details can be finalized and understood. Sincerely, Pam Dife. Pawan Deshpande 950 Massachusetts Ave PH1 & 616, Cambridge, MA 02139

LL-3 Crane, Paula From: Yanisa Techagumthorn < [email removed]> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2019 6:31 PM To: City Council; Crane, Paula Subject: Supporting affordable housing overlay in Cambridge Hi Cambridge City Councillors, I'm emailing to give my support to the Affordable Housing Overlay. I am a resident of 216 Norfolk Street, a recent graduate of MIT's Department of Urban Studies and Planning, and a transportation planner at a consulting firm in Boston. I gave similar comments at the 3/5 Housing Committee Meeting. I support these affordable housing measures because Cambridge is in need of a greater supply of housing, overall and especially below-market price. Putting in place this overlay will allow for the chance of increasing the total number of housing units. Combined with the increase in the affordable housing fund, this measure will help the non-profit developers who want to build affordable housing to do so and compete with market priced housing developers. Additionally, as an environmentalist and a transportation professional, I believe in the power of density near public transportation. We're lucky here in Cambridge to have the red line and many bus lines, and increasing the number of people who live near these lines can help make transportation less carbon intensive and less costly. I especially want to voice my support for a reduction of parking requirements. Cambridge is incredibly diverse in many regards, and bringing these measures into reality will allow for families, students, and many others to live and stay in this great little city. These measures present a gradual, but impactful way to increase affordable housing. Thank you, Yanisa Techagumthorn 216 Norfolk Street Cambridge, MA 02142 [email removed]

UL- 4 Crane, Paula From: Nella LaRosa-Waters <[email removed]> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2019 5:29 PM Crane, Paula; City Council To: Housing Overlay Plan, Subject: I am writing as a long-time resident of Cambridge of over 43 years. My children were both born and raised here and educated in the public school system. Please do not support the Overlay Plan being pushed by Denise Simmons. This is a very destructive way to address the Affordable Housing issues in Cambridge. We don't need Developers having the amount of freedom this plan gives them and we don't need the citizens of Cambridge stripped of rights of review or of having any say in development. There are groups working on affordable housing with much better plans that are less destructive. We don't need to attract more people to become residents in our city, we need the city to take care of those residents who are being forced out, and this plan does not address this in a way that helps people out while keeping Cambridge a livable thriving community. Thank you for your attention, Nella LaRosa-Waters 54 Crescent St. Agassiz neighborhood 1

4L-5 Crane, Paula Sharon Stichter <[email removed]> From: Monday, March 18, 2019 12:06 PM Sent: To: City Council Cc: Crane, Paula Subject: Affordable Housing Overlay Dear Councillors: The current affordable housing overlay zoning plan was created with good intentions, but ultimately is a bad idea that should be voted down. I believe we can be welcoming and inclusive as a city, without going to this extreme. As now written, the plan, if approved, would likely result in the destruction of many quiet and historic neighborhoods, and much of our tree canopy and green space. The plan generally gives too much to developers and squashes the voices of neighborhood people many of whom have lived here all their lives for like us, for the last 40 years...). There must be a better way. This plan should not be approved. Sharon Stichter Walden Street To quote the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association: • The proposed Overlay will encourage the destruction of earlier Cambridge architectural forms and a sizable amount of its green spaces, further threatening our tree canopy. • In Harvard Square itself the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay will allow buildings 11 stories and higher (120-350'), transforming the historic character of the Square. • The proposed Overlay plan calls for West Cambridge and other parts of the city to be rezoned to add much larger and tall buildings if they will be used for 100% affordable housing. The Overlay will allow developers to build at these heights without the possibility for real review from neighbors. The proposed Overlay plan will be "As-of-right" meaning that neighbors will lose ability for legal recourse and also will have no viable input or control on design review. 1

LL-b March 19, 2019 10 Dana Street, Unit 10 Cambridge MA 02138 Paula Crane and Louis DePesquale, City Councilors Cambridge City Hall Cambridge MA 02139 Dear City Councilors; I am writing you to ask you to vote against this 100% Affordable Housing Overlay plan as presented because it doesn't seem to fully-address its stated goal and it contains language that is inappropriately vague for such an important planning framework. I have lived in this historic small-scale neighborhood for over 47 years. I own my residence condominium unit plus two more that I rent at what I am told is below-market rate, to tenants who contribute to the neighborhood - I am already supplying affordable housing. We have had great stability and diversity among residents in our neighborhood. The low-height commercial district that hugs Mass. Ave. in mid-Cambridge has been appropriate for the adjacent residential buildings, none of which are taller than about 5 stories. I fear the process of the Overlay District will open the area to uncontrolled and inappropriate development. The fast-paced and vague discussions about the proposal feel like a give-away to real estate special interests at the expense to the neighbors. Here are some concerns: 1. I don't believe planning studies have appropriately dealt with how extra height and density will affect abutters and close neighbors (shadows, traffic and parking, public safety, etc.) 2. In bypassing the normal Zoning Board process, with its regular public reviews, it has removed our ability to help shape proposed projects. 3. It gives power and profit to developers without considering value lost by current residents. 4. The plan presented March 5th does not adequately explain the exotic new "Form-based" zoning concept. 5. It appears to use the cloak of "affordable housing" to allow developers to do almost anything that is in their benefit. More studies are needed of actual powers granted. 6. Notification of the three announced meetings has been last-minute and the compressed schedule is insufficient for genuine consideration. Please send this city-wide Overlay concept back to the drawing board so there is more equitable planning for all of Cambridge. Sincerely, itu Wender Peter J. Wender

LL-7 Crane, Paula Bjorn Poonen < [email removed]> From: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 12:06 AM Sent: Devereux, Jan; Simmons, Denise; Siddiqui, Sumbul; Toomey, Tim; Mallon, Alanna To: Crane, Paula; Lopez, Donna Cc: Subject: Citywide Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal Dear Housing Committee (Councillors Devereux, Mallon, Siddiqui, Simmons, and Toomey): I feel that the Citywide Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal (presented in the CDD document dated March 5, 2019) does not pursue the right approach to making housing in Cambridge affordable. Although it may appear to be a cost- effective solution to the problem, I think this is only because the costs associated with it are the less tangible ones, those that arise from sacrificing zoning standards. I feel that the zoning regulations exist for a reason, to promote a cityscape appropriate for all the city's neighborhoods, with sensible design and setbacks. Relaxing these regulations would deal the same damage to the community at large whether the building is used for affordable housing or not. It is especially worrying that the proposal would reduce oversight in the approval process. I would prefer for us to promote affordable housing by direct financial assistance to people who need it instead of supporting building development through the sacrifice of zoning. Of course direct financial assistance is expensive, but at least this way we would get an honest picture of the cost to society, and could make a better informed decision of how much we can afford. Sincerely, Bjorn Poonen 303 3rd St Unit 416, Cambridge, MA 02142

LL8 Crane, Paula Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli < [email removed]> From: Monday, March 18, 2019 11:10 PM Sent: Simmons, Denise; Siddiqui, Sumbul; Devereux, Jan; Toomey, Tim; Mallon, Alanna; To: McGovern, Marc; Crane, Paula Subject: comments to Housing Committee re 100% affordable housıng overlay Attachments: To the Honorable Members of the Cambridge City Council Housing Committee, March 20, 210 share with you my comments on the 100% affordable housing overlay to be discussed at the Thank you. Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli capz :.

1221 Cambridge Street, #703 Cambridge MA 02139 18 March, 2019 To the Honorable Members of the Cambridge City Council Housing Committee, I am a longtime housing advocate who has been a member of the board of the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust since 2014. One of the recommendations that the Trust has made regarding the 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay is that it would apply city-wide so that we can create new affordable homes; 'affordable' meaning we will serve households at different income levels low, moderate, and middle- income in all areas of the city. "High resource areas" defined by such characteristics as better neighborhoods with better schooling opportunities, that have historically excluded lower-income renter households and people of color ("those people") for reasons that have to do with our notion of local control will be accessible to both families who are subsidized and unsubsidized, who want to move to/stay in Cambridge. As a community, we do not view proposed zoning and community development decisions through an attordable gap lens or racial equity lens/outcome. It's worth asking, whose views, benetits, and burdens, do we prioritize? According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, Massachusetts has a supply of 46 affordable and available homes per 100 to house extremely low-income (ELI) households (i.e., with incomes at or below 30% of AMI). Meanwhile, 73% of ELI households in MA are severely housing-cost burdened, that is, paying more than 50% of their income for their housing. (National Low Income Housing Coalition ((NLIHC) The Gap: A Shortage of Affordable Homes; the Affordable Housing Gap Analysis March 2019) The racial disparity between Cambridge's black and white homeownership rates is 36.0%, compared to 68.4%. (McCargo and Strochak, "Mapping the black homeownership gap," 26 February, 2019) The density/height framework under the proposed "as-of-right" permitting process is described by opponents of the overlay as giving developers "much larger and tall buildings" (towers like the one that I live in) without any meaningful design review from neighbors. If we do not make these zoning changes, however, local abutters will continue to have veto power over all affordable housing projects in the city. For those of us do not have the benefit/burden of having a housing assistance voucher, we do not have to go through the experience of finding an affordable and available apartment. I have seen it referred to as the "black box" of the voucher program. It is the "lengthy but unpredictable timing of voucher availability." (Erin Graves, "Rooms for Improvement: A Qualitative Metasynthesis of the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program," Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 26, No. 2, [phone removed]) After waiting for years on a waiting list to be issued a rental subsidy (CHA doesn't have any to give out now), there are considerable constraints as to when voucher participants can move. Voucher holders do not have the same freedom of choice as exists for a tenant in the private rental market, even a market with too high rents. There is a limited time frame for locating an appropriately-sized unit or you lose your 'voucher opportunity'. Applicants undergo credit inspections, these include credit checks of applicants who may not have time to correct or present their housing history in a better light. There are deposit fees (that are not always affordable) to pay. And a voucher program that is not fully funded by HUD; one out of four eligible households ever receive housing assistance (Ibid.) In other words there is a cap on assistance despite the rising need. It is worth noting that in 2015, Congress directed the National Academy of Sciences to identify possible policy interventions for reducing childhood poverty. A Roadmap to Reducing Childhood Poverty reports that increasing the availability of HCVs to 70% of eligible families who are not currently receiving housing subsidies could reduce the child poverty rate in the U.S. by an estimate of 3.0%. The social safety net programs SNAP, voucher housing assistance, and an annual childhood allowance have been shown to be the most effective programs for decreasing poverty, though they are less politically popular than work-oriented options (which may increase earnings and/or lead to eviction) such as time limits and work requirements. Thinking of reducing childhood poverty as one of the goals of voucher assistance is a way to make the housing funding system more equitable (leveraging funds) rather than just putting the HCV 1

program on the block-grant chopping block. It's true that bringing more affordable housing to the city will cost money. The Trust is strongly supportive of the City committing $20 million annually to the budget for five consecutive years as the council voted unanimously to do this term. Is local control over-rated? Miriam Axel-Lute raises this important issue, "What things do we allow a group of people at the local level to decide for themselves, and what things should a higher level of government override in the name of values, like human rights, civil rights, fairness, or equity?" (Miriam Axel-Lute, "Is Local Control Good or Bad?" 19 February, 2019, Shelterforce) Tenants at Jefferson Park Apartments (aka JP State) were informed by the Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeal that they were "self-interested" (of course they wanted new apartments) and so their views on the CHA's proposed site design for the revitalization of JP weren't considered as important as those of neighbors who objected to the "canyonization" of Rindge Ave which would have been the result of fronting four-story buildings on Rindge Ave. Whose interests are more parochial? I could make the argument that local knowledge of the demand for affordable three-bedroom apartments and accessible units focuses on unmet community needs. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely yours, Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli 2

LL-9 Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 8:31 AM Crane, Paula To: FW: Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal Subject: From: Hubert Murray <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 8:18 AM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Lopez, Donna < dlopez@cambridgema.gov>; Nancy Ryan < [email removed]> Subject: Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal Dear Councillors, I regret that I am unable to attend the hearing this Wednesday. I am writing to say that I am very much in support of the proposals, in particular the form-based approach and the reduced parking requirements. In regard to parking I realize in the short term this may cause some difficulty for those who need a vehicle for their jobs so I strongly urge some supplementary action, for example by improving public transportation; increasing short term parking spaces for vans and pickups; subsidizing the purchase of e-bikes for residents; and by increasing resident parking permit fees for second and third vehicles. Recognizing that we live in a different culture here, it should be noted that in many if not most European cities the possibility of parking outside one's own home is recognized as a piece of good luck, not a right. It is perfectly normal to find the closest parking space as much as two blocks away. If there are heavy things to deliver one is allowed to load / unload and then move on. Hubert Murray -- HUBERT MURRAY FAIA | 204 ERIE STREET CAMBRIDGE MA 02139 T| [phone removed] M | [phone removed]

LL10 1 Dudley Court Cambridge MA 02140 March 18, 2019 To the Honorable, the City Council Housing Committee: I am writing to express my support for the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay. I have been a resident of the City of Cambridge for 38 years. As is the case with many Cambridge residents, high on the list of what I love about Cambridge is its diversity. Due to the soaring costs of housing, our community has already experienced a significant loss of this diversity. Clearly, one of the most important ways to mitigate this loss is to increase affordable housing in Cambridge. I believe that one of the best ways to increase housing affordable to low and moderate income families is to adopt an affordable housing overlay amendment to the zoning ordinance. It has been troubling to see the vociferous and mostly misleading fear-based arguments against the moderate changes that such an overlay would entail. I am a member of the board of the Cambridge Neighborhood Apartment Housing Services (CNAHS), a nonprofit organization with the mission of developing and maintaining housing for low and moderate income Cambridge residents. In this capacity, I have attended many neighborhood meetings held by CNAHS and other nonprofit Cambridge developers to describe their proposals for a particular project. I have witnessed many first meetings attended by concerned neighbors who were initially very fearful of negative effects on their neighborhood, but who, after hearing the details of the plan, became satisfied that the proposed housing would not harm their property values or neighborhood fabric. In many cases, some in my own neighborhood, abutting residents who fought fearfully and ferociously to block the construction, now admit that the building actually improved the neighborhood. Similarly, the more information and understanding that Cambridge residents have of what the overlay would actually accomplish, the greater are the chances of acceptance by a community that has often expressed how much it values its diversity. Without an affordable housing overlay, nonprofit affordable housing developers will consistently be out-bid by market rate developers who can pay more and act more quickly than nonprofit developers who are hampered by their low budgets and need to assemble complicated financing. With a city-wide

affordable housing overlay, non profit developers of 100% affordable housing will be able to take advantage of building opportunities all over the city and to spread the high cost of land and other construction across more lower income units, making them more competitive against their for-profit competition. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Margaret Drury manganes Day [email removed]

LL-11 Crane, Paula Lopez, Donna From: Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 3:50 PM Crane, Paula To: FW: Support for AHO Subject: From: Jake Savage <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 3:46 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Clerk <clerk@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Support for AHO Hello city councilors, Jake Savage here, Cambridge resident for the past 8 years. I am unable to attend tomorrow night's hearing but wanted to write to express my support for the 100% Affordable Overlay proposal. This proposal would ensure that our community remains affordable and inclusive, and help to ensure that low-income members of our community do not continue to experience displacement. This is a huge step towards equity in our community, I do hope you will all vote in favor! Thank you for your time, Jake

LL-1D Crane, Paula From: Wendy Stone <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 3:46 PM To: Crane, Paula; dlopez@cmabridgema.gov Fwd: Affordable Housing Proposal Subject: -- Forwarded message ----- From: Wendy Stone <[email removed]> Date: Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:42 PM Subject: Affordable Housing Proposal To: <citycouncil@cambridgema.gov>,<dlopez@cambridge.gov> Dear Councilors, I am writing with concerns about the affordable housing petition being brought before the council. Particularly tricky is the belief that any concerns about the current proposal mean one is against affordable housing which I am not. However, the tradeoffs will make the city less livable and less desirable. With this plan, abutters lose leverage over size and shape and yards of new, bigger buildings near them. Cambridge will lose still more tree canopy. The City wants a 25% denser city, but the proposal doesn't consider the effect that would have on schools, transportation and parking, noise and light pollution. It says people with the lowest incomes will benefit, but is silent about middle income families forced out by skyrocketing rents and land prices. To get new affordable housing, officials propose to give developers incentives above those existing now, at additional expense to residents, which they admit will yield, at most, well below 100 new affordable units at the cost of $20m. $20m would get many more units with a simple subsidy to house owners who offer affordable housing, and it wouldn't put big new boxy buildings next to two- or three-story houses. I believe this initiative has ulterior motives, namely to do away with zoning protections for residents in order of developers to maximize profits. I believe Cambridge could find plenty of developers content with making a more modest profit that those some of the big multinational developers are seeking. The amount of money these developers stand to make, in contrast with the affordable housing offered, not to mentions the strain on infrastructure which will cost city residents in both dollars and quality of life, in unconscionable. I urge you not to approve this plan as it stands. Sincerely, Wendy Stone 610 Green Street 1

LL-13 Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 3:11 PM Crane, Paula To: FW: Support for the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: From: zoe weinrobe <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 3:07 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Clerk <clerk@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Support for the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Honorable City Councillors, I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay. Affordable housing is the key to maintaining economic diversity and inclusivity in the City of Cambridge. The affordable housing overlay will help build more affordable housing, counteract entrenched segregation, and level the playing field between market rate and affordable housing developers. Sincerely, Zoe Weinrobe 304 Allston St #2 Cambridge, MA 02139 [email removed] [phone removed]

LL-14 Crane, Paula Jessica Baas <[email removed]> From: Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 8:19 AM To: City Council Clerk Cc: Subject: Support for the Affordable Housing Overlay Good morning, I am a Cambridge resident and I would like to voice my support for the Affordable Housing Overlay. Cambridge rents and housing prices are skyrocketing, and this the right step to take to ensure that there is better access and economic diversity and inclusivity in Cambridge. 100% affordable projects provide our best opportunity for creating lower and middle-income homes in our city. Especially when paired with the proposed five year - 20 million dollar increase in affordable housing spending, the Affordable Housing Overlay is one concrete step in reducing displacement and encouraging the growth of the city's vitality and diversity. Please confirm receipt of my comment, and that it will be logged in the meeting minutes for tonight's City Council meeting. Thank you! Jessica Baas 20 Fainwood Circle, #2 1

LL-15 Crane, Paula Lopez, Donna From: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 2:58 PM Sent: To: Crane, Paula FW: Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: From: Kris Wiitala < [email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 2:47 PM To: Clerk <clerk@cambridgema.gov>; City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Subject: Affordable Housing Overlay Hello, 1 am a Cambridge resident writing in support is the Affordable Housing Overlay proposal. I am also an Elder Care Advisor staff person at Somerville Cambridge Elder Services and while I am not writing on behalf of the organization, I am writing to say that working there has shown me just how serious the issue of affordable housing has become in Cambridge. The waitlists for housing authority units are years long. Clients of the agency are constantly having to leave the city because of raising rents. These are long time Cambridge residents. Diversity is a strength and I hate to see Cambridge losing that. I also hate to see people who work in this city unable to afford to live here, contributing to traffic issues as people have to move out and then commute in. Please pass the overlay so that more dense affordable housing can be built to keep Cambridge diverse, reduce traffic, and help people who contribute to this city stay here. Thank you, Kris Wiitala 16 Eustis Street, Cambridge

L-16 Crane, Paula tara greco <[email removed]> From: Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 4:22 AM City Manager; Clerk; City Council To: tara greco Cc: Subject: Vote NO on Housing Overlay proposal City Councilors & City Manager, I think the City Council has had the CDD spend too much time and money on this market driven Overlay Proposal that relies on adding even more development instead of developing a comprehensive housing policy to reducing housing costs for everyone. Cambridge already has one of the highest rates of Affordable Housing in the entire State and spend a larger percentage on our budget to do so. We are interested in exploring other ways to get housing affordable for everyone. The City's existing practice of adding more luxury housing even with higher inclusionary requirements has NOT worked to bring housing costs down. In fact there is some compelling evidence it has been causing even more displacement in our historically diverse City. The cost-benefit ratio of adding taxpayer funds to bid in the open market for property. Adding more money to scarce resources drives property costs up. Second, by the CDDs own admission it will produce very little units, under 100 for $20 million. And, as already demonstrated, for profit developers will continue to reap huge benefits at the expense of the community. Not a good Return On Investment. The density allowed by this form-based zoning will be completely overwhelming in small neighborhoods and should be adjusted to better reflect corridors vs neighborhoods. More backlot space should be reserved for the addition of tree canopy and open space. Trees and open space should be required for everyone since it has demonstrated that tree canopy maintains, if not improves, the quality of life and offsets the impact of climate change. As cited in the Boston Globe, "A broad tree canopy can reduce urban temperatures by as much as 20 degrees, prevent stormwater runoff, aspirate humidity and, of course, oxygen, and sequester carbon in trunks and branches." (https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/12/21/deep-winter-trees-keep- giving/KUP91qrGceZ4MS2hTPNcmJ/story.html). The City does not have a housing crisis. The City has an affordability crisis. I strongly urge YOU, the City Councilors and City Manager, to listen to the needs and concerns of Cambridge citizens and vote DOWN this proposed overlay proposal. Concerned citizen, Tara R. Greco [phone removed] 1

4L-17 Crane, Paula From: Nancy Buck « [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 12:33 AM To: City Council; Crane, Paula Concerns about up-zoning proposal for affordable housing Subject: To the City Council, I am writing to express my concern regarding the city's plan for up-zoning in Cambridge to allow for larger and taller buildings in every neighborhood if they are designated for affordable housing. While I am a supporter of affordable housing in Cambridge,I believe there are far better ways to accomplish this goal without further damaging green spaces and the tree canopy, and replacing historic structures with box like buildings out of character with some neighborhoods. Moreover, this proposal is counter to the long, proud, and productive history of Cambridge citizen involvement in decisions that affect them and their neighborhoods. By removing power from a citizen Planning Board and other citizen review practices to the unelected City manager and his or her control (CDD), the City Council would be moving in the wrong direction. I urge you to find other housing approaches that empower rather than override the participation and interests of those affected by affordable housing developments. Sincerely, Nancy Buck 15 Lowell Street Cambridge, MA 02138

LL-18 Crane, Paula James K. Sebenius <[email removed]> From: Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 11:51 PM To: City Council; Crane, Paula Concerns about up-zoning proposal for affordable housing Subject: To the City Council, As a supporter of affordable housing in Cambridge, I am deeply concerned about the city-wide affordable projects up-zoning proposal. As I understand it, all proposed building changes will be "as of right" meaning that unlike existing policy, citizens will no longer have legal recourse for any affordable housing project. While the goal is laudable and should be vigorously pursued, this proposal is counter to the long, proud, and productive history of Cambridge citizen involvement in decisions that affect them and their neighborhoods. By removing power from a citizen Planning Board and other citizen review practices to the unelected City manager and his or her control control (CDD), the City Council would be moving in the wrong direction. I urge you to find other housing approaches that empower rather than override the participation and interests of those affected by affordable housing developments. Sincerely, James K. Sebenius 15 Lowell Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Sent from my iPad

LL-19 Crane, Paula From: Susan Lapides < [email removed]> on behalf of Susan Lapides <[email removed]> Sent: uesday, March 19, 2019 11:19 PM lerk; Simmons, Denise; McGovern, Marc; Siddiqui, Sumbul; Mallon, Alanna; Toome To: Tim; Kelley, Craig; Carlone, Dennis; Devereux, Jan; QZondeervan@cambridgema.gov OPPOSE THE RE-ZONING OVERLAY Subject: Cambridge City Councillors, I oppose the rezoning overlay. Susan 451 Huron Ave. :

1L- 20 Crane, Paula From: Rosemary Booth < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 10:58 AM To: Siddiqui, Sumbul; Simmons, Denise; Devereux, Jan; Mallon, Alanna; Toomey, Tim (home) Cc: Lopez, Donna; Crane, Paula Citywide Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal--corrected comments Subject: CORRECTION: In my email yesterday my reference to a housing analysis should have identified the area considered as "Hamilton Street," not Cambridge Street. I also stated that in order to recover development costs under an affordable housing overlay rents "would end up higher," whereas it seems more accurate to say, "could end up higher." I am sorry for this confusion, and include the corrected email below. Rosemary Booth Dear City Council Housing Committee (Co-Chairmen Sumbul Siddiqui and E. Denise Simmons, Vice Mayor Jan Devereux, Councillors Alanna Mallon and Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.): While I support the City's aim to increase its capacity to house residents of low and middle incomes, I feel that the 100% affordable housing overlay proposal as outlined in the March 5, 2019 briefing of the Community Development Department is the wrong approach, largely for reasons of equity. The proposed housing overlay is termed "citywide," and the CDD proposal states that one goal of creating "opportunities in all neighborhoods for residents of all incomes." However, it looks like the overlay would mainly impact homeowners in the eastern and western ends of the City, while areas such as Harvard Square, with many single-family use and other restrictions, would be much less affected. For example, one impact of the overlay would come from relaxing current zoning standards "as of right" for builders, including standards of density, height, setbacks, parking, and open space. This relaxation of standards would add immediate uncertainty to expectations residents in areas such as East Cambridge have about what zoning would apply to their neighborhood in the future, and this unpredictability could reduce the value of their property. The overlay proposal aims to help developers of affordable housing "have more success" with their efforts, but how is it fair if developer success is achieved by shrinking the value of existing residential property in some neighborhoods? Along with equity effects l am concerned about the complexity of measuring the costs and benefits of a zoning overlay and of clearly communicating results. For instance, one analysis I have seen of an area along Hamilton Street suggests that recovering the costs of developing affordable housing under an overlay could require rents (and subsidies) higher than rents for similar units in today's market. Among alternative approaches to reaching the important goal of increasing affordable housing capacity, I would like to see Cambridge provide eligible people with direct financial assistance for their housing needs. With best regards, Rosemary Booth 303 Third Street, Unit 505 Cambridge MA 02142

LL-21 Crane, Paula Lopez, Donna From: Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 10:31 PM To: Crane, Paula Fwd: Support for Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Sarah lams <[email removed]> Date: March 19, 2019 at 5:49:52 PM EDI To: council@cambridgema.gov Cc: clerk@cambridgema.gov Subject: Support for Affordable Housing Overlay Dear City Councillors, I am a Cambridge resident, and I'm unable to make the meeting on Wednesday at 5pm for public comment, so I am writing to let you know that I enthusiastically support the proposed 100% affordable housing overlay. I would be incredibly excited to have additional affordable housing in Cambridge, and would love to see some built in my neighborhood, the Agassiz Baldwin community. I feel lucky to be able to live and work in Cambridge and I wish that more of my coworkers were able to afford to live closer to our work here. I believe that additional affordable housing in Cambridge would be very positive for our city (and for our region). Regards, Sarah Sarah lams 64 Wendell St Cambridge, MA 02138

4-23 Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 10:30 PM Crane, Paula To: Subject: Fwd: Supporting the Affordable Housing Overlay Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Matthew Wismer <[email removed]> Date: March 19, 2019 at 7:32:59 PM EDT To: council@cambridgema.gov Cc: clerk@cambridgema.gov Subject: Supporting the Affordable Housing Overlay Hello, I am a Cambridge resident who strongly supports the Affordable Housing Overlay. There are very few policies that can simultaneously address economic justice and climate change without a huge financial expenditure. The Affordable Housing Overlay is one of those policies. Economic justice is obviously included in the overlay. Allowing people to live near their jobs in a way that doesn't financially ruin them gives people an opportunity for upward mobility, which is crucial in our current time of increasing inequality. Climate change is addressed by allowing people to live closer to jobs, in areas accessible by transit. Transportation accounts for 28% of the US's greenhouse gas emissions in 2016 (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions). Reducing the emissions of the US by allowing more people to live near transit is at least as strong an imperative as maintaining and expanding our tree canopy, another important climate change mitigation tactic that Cambridge has been prioritizing. Thank you for reading my mail, and I'm disappointed that I won't be able to make the meeting tomorrow. I hope the Housing Committee supports the overlay as strongly as I do. Matt Wismer 129 Franklin St. Apt 105 Cambridge, MA 02139 1

LL-23 Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 10:30 PM To: Crane, Paula Fwd: Letter of support for the Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Sean O'Neill" <soneil|[email removed]> Date: March 19, 2019 at 10:29:05 PM EDT To: clerk@cambridgema.gov Subject: Letter of support for the Affordable Housing Overlay Dear City Councilors, I am writing to express my support for the Affordable Housing Overlay because it will help reduce the segregating effects of our current zoning laws. Historically, some zoning laws have been used to create racially and socioeconomically isolated neighborhoods. The goal of those laws was to exclude certain households from the benefits of opportunity-rich communities like Cambridge, namely, great public schools, quality jobs, and material, political, and social wealth. These laws amounted to government sponsored discrimination of Black and economically disadvantaged households under the guise of preserving neighborhood "fabric." The current opposition to the Overlay sounds eerily familiar to the proponents of the exclusionary zoning laws of the past, and, as unintended as it may be, their desired outcome is effectively the same - a segregated Cambridge. If equity, diversity, and inclusivity are important to the City of Cambridge and its residents, then it's time to walk the walk. Without the Overlay, we are failing to uphold these ideals. Please vote YES and help smooth the path toward racial and socioeconomic inclusivity for Cambridge. Sincerely, Sean O'Neill 287 Harvard Street #54

LL-24 Crane, Paula [email removed] From: Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 8:13 PM To: City Manager; City Council; Crane, Paula Comment for Cambridge City officials at meeting on March 20, 2019 Subject: Dear City Manager DePasquale, City Council members, and Paula Crane: As homeowners in the Bay Square condominium at 950 Massachusetts Avenue, we support Marilee Meyer's request that the City Council defer action on the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone until it is modified to include zoning restrictions that already apply to the section of Massachusetts Avenue between Central Square and Harvard Square. Respectfully, Thomas C. Owen Sue A. Owen

LL-25 Crane, Paula Lopez, Donna From: Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 1:12 PM Crane, Paula To: FW: Do not handicap the overlay Subject: From: Allan Sadun <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 1:10 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>; Clerk < clerk@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Do not handicap the overlay Dear City Councilors, The affordable housing overlay framework that CDD has presented is a well-crafted one. It makes every dollar that the city spends on affordable housing go farther, increasing our options for allowing more people to live in our city without fear of displacement. Because they're aware of neighborhood concerns, CDD has made sure to consult with nonprofit developers to ask: what is the minimum incentive necessary to meet our affordable housing goals? And their proposal reflects that - it will at best increase the fraction of affordable housing in our city from 15% to 16%. I urge you to do better than the absolute minimum. In particular, I urge you to increase the city budget for affordable housing by at least $20 million per year, I urge you to increase the height limits to 5 stories in the residential neighborhoods and 10 along the corridors, and I urge you to reject proposals to limit the scope of the overlay. I have heard it suggested that the overlay should be restricted to the major transit corridors, so as to not make car ownership "effectively a requirement of tenancy". But the fact that even in the presence of provided parking, we see a 0.38 car-per-unit ownership rate, means that car ownership is already not a requirement of tenancy in this city - and given the public and private financial costs of car ownership, we should be expanding bus transit and shared car options like Zipcars, not pretending that neighborhoods in an urban core city can somehow be written off as car-dependent. Forcing affordable tenants into the corridors for the sake of keeping our neighborhoods exclusive is incompatible with our values. I have heard it suggested that the provision to switch from discretionary to advisory design review should be eliminated, so that a single neighbor with a well-funded lawyer can veto a project by delaying it for years in court until its funding runs out. To me this is absurd; this is the city's money - our tax money - that we're talking about, and I don't want anyone to be able to throw it away. My reason for calling for the height limits to increase is twofold. First, the taller a building is, the more flexibility its architects have to plant trees and create open space. But more importantly, the more units an affordable housing development can have, the more people it can house given the same land costs. (I say "the same land costs" because the land's market-rate development potential will be unchanged.) We don't want affordable housing projects to be able to compete, we want them to win. The more housing we can build for the same dollar, the better. Affordable housing is the city's #1 priority, and we should act like it. Give this overlay some teeth, and fund it. Thank you,

Allan Sadun 17 Pleasant Place

LL -76 Crane, Paula Blier, Suzanne <[email removed]> From: Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 12:38 PM To: City Council Cc: Crane, Paula Cambridge Affordable Housing Overlay. Proposal Subject: Honored Cambridge City Councillors: The Cambridge Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal (CAHOP) needs to be dramatically changed - and improved to be viable. Unfortunately, Cambridge has been making the same mistakes impacting other cities: letting the market squeeze out the working and middle class while seeking redress in low-income housing. The affordable housing proposal in its present form continues this same myopic policy and only focuses on one aspect of the problem. We are becoming a city of rich and poor with nothing in between. The current proposal, according to the CDD is NOT expected to bring any new affordable housing to the city beyond those currently planned AND because of the high costs of property and housing in the wealthier areas of the city, like West Cambridge, the plan is very unlikely to bring any new affordable housing projects there - the numbers simply do not work out. We need a plan based on equity, true affordability, diversity, and sustainability. The CAHOP plan is neither equitable nor affordable; The CAHOP plan is not environmentally or economically sound. It encourages destruction of both green spaces and our rich legacy of historic architecture. Without any discussion with residents CDD has moved the city to a dramatically different means of calculating scale (and one little used nationally). The city. has long had a very effective and efficient system based on Open Space Ratios (OSR) and Floor Area Ratios (FAR - the latter a proportional calculation based on measuring height and scale). We should not shift from this effective standard to the proposed Form-Based Codes (FBC) where less exacting criteria such as the number of stories or the distance from the property line are. Each neighborhood has different norms. The FBC calculations of the proposed plan removes large amount of green/open spaces throughout the city: In Res C where many residents live now, Open spaces would shift from 30-35% of the lot to 15% (less than half). Side yards are especially hard hit because only five feet setbacks would be permitted citywide. This is not enough space for existing or future trees to grow. Moreover, a shift from measurements of height to stories will bring massive increases in building size that some are estimating to be 3-5 times larger than currently allowed - and this while removing the ability for citizens to appeal (e.g. it takes away current citizen democratic right since all new buildings in this city-wide overlay would be "as-of-right." The city's newly proposed Form-Based Code also does NOT follow Mass State Guidelines which calls for local neighborhood participation in designating the design criteria for each area, including building types (roof shape etc.), height and scale (massing), designated green spaces, grocery stores, etc. This work takes time, indeed can take five to eight years for each neighborhood to come up with the requisite criteria. As a key part of these discussions decisions are made on where to put other amenities nearby - parks, grocery stores, schools, etc. It is for this reason that some cities with Form-Based code have shifted from as-of-right - namely because the citizens have worked together and have agreed to specific design criteria beforehand. It is highly problematic for Cambridge to change a system that has worked well to a new one (the Form-Based Code system) that is used by fewer than 1% of U.S. cities (mostly in the south and California). Equally problematic, the CAHOP plan and discussion are holding up our ability to address far smarter affordable housing and other policies. CAHOP represents bad planning and clearly has been rushed. The new plan was not even publicly posted prior to its March 5, 2019 Housing Committee and the call for public commentary. Alas, the more that people here about this plan the more concerned they become. 1

Cordially, Suzanne Preston Blier 5 Fuller Place

11-77 Crane, Paula John E <[email removed]> From: Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 7:57 AM To: Clerk; City Council Subiect: Support for 100% Afforable Housing Overlay and commitment to fund $20MM for next 5 years Dear members of the city council, As a Cambridge resident who walks, shops, bikes, takes the bus and train, and eats locally, I am writing in support of the affordable housing overlay as a key element of keeping Cambridge vibrant, just, diverse in all the various implications, fair and responsive to the pressing needs of our day - societal inequality and impending climate change. I have the pleasure of knowing and interacting with many of you, and know that in pursuits where we share common ground and where I advocate most strongly - developing all means of fair and equitable transportation options in addition to cars, and for developing Cambridge as a sustainable city, all foundational pieces of economic and environmental justice. This overlay of affordable housing is consistent with the values that we the residents of the City of Cambridge hold, and frankly just and I will highlight three key elements for my support: Sustainable cities: Dense, equitable cities with adequate affordable transportation are the path forward to sustainability and opportunity - if the suburbs and outlying cities continue to become the primary affordable housing choice, lower income workers will continue to become more and more dependent on fossil fuels and as carbon becomes more fairly priced (as soon as this year) they will bear the burden and/or rightly in many ways resist the change. Transportation and housing are key parts of addressing equitability issues, the overlay is an important part of that. Climate: A serious consideration of climate issues leads to no other conclusion than that we develop good housing and transportation options for all, dense, affordable. It is quite simply disingenuous for constituencies to use Climate Change crises and issues as a means to block sustainable development, and morally bankrupt when thinking of the legacy we are leaving for younger generations to resolve that this pressing issue is used at a times to block sustainable approaches to development. People - where have our friends and families gone?: as a lifelong area resident, this is of course not a new issue, friends and family have been leaving the city and areas throughout my adult life due to un-affordability, including the rent shock that went through the area as rent control went away. The best elements of Cambridge flourished and grew when small stores could still afford to be in Harvard square, when multi-family housing provided a route to home ownership for the lower and middle class. I have worked multiple times in Cambridge including many years at Ferranti-Dege (H Sq), in Kendall square, and Alewife, all in retail or industrial businesses that brought jobs and diversity to the city. The majority of these businesses flourished but now have left or ceased operations, due primarily to cost. I appreciate your consideration of my thoughts. In summary, please support this overlay - there is no way forwards for us as a community than to seek sustainability, to try and address economic and environmental justice, and to take care of our friends and neighbors. And future generations. Best

John John Ellersick 48 Fairfield St North Cambridge

LL-28 Crane, Paula From: Ben Simon < [email removed]> Tuesday, March 19, 2019 10:54 PM Sent: To: City Council; Clerk Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: Dear Councilor, While I recognize that I am not yet an expert on the proposed affordable housing overlay and hope to learn more about it, based on my current understanding of it now, l am writing to oppose it for a few reasons. 1. It relies on creating developer incentives rather than just directly addressing the need for housing, which would be done by creating social housing (like | suggested in my last email) along the lines of Viennese model. 2. The lack of affordable housing is merely one aspect of the way Cambridge has been changing that leads to displacement. We are also rapidly losing our affordable restaurants, affordable grocery stores, and affordable venues and other arts spaces (among many other types of businesses) which low and middle-income people need just as much as housing to thrive. As the private sector is either unwilling or unable to provide this vital infrastructure to our community, I believe it should fall on the public sector to provide it. Mixed use public buildings with housing on the upper stories, subsidized retail spaces to provide affordable restaurants, shops and groceries on the ground level, and various use community spaces in basement levels could fill in this gaping hole left by the private sector. These community spaces and government subsidized retail spaces could also provide employment and even entrepreneurial opportunity for low-income people, which is another thing the markets don't presently seem to be providing in great abundance. 3. It fails to directly address the two primary root causes of displacement which are 1. the absurd run-away real estate market prices combined with 2. a class of wealthy landlords and developers who exploit the former to the utmost with little to no regard to social cost. There is now a rent stabilization (rent control) bill in the state legislature, HD2762. Passing this would be a huge step in stabilizing the out-of-control real estate market. I ask that the council please pass a resolution supporting this bill. The way we lost rent control in the '90s is a textbook example of the corrupting influence of money in politics and the opposite of what democracy should look like. Regarding the second root cause, we need to drastically reduce the power of developers to autocratically shape our city to their financial interests at the expense of the community and give the later more power to shape it themselves. Additionally these biggest developers, landlords, businesses, etc. in Cambridge, who are the primary drivers of displacement, need to own up to their responsibility in creating this mess and pay more in taxes to fund what is now necessary to fix it--publicly funded buildings, jobs and programs; in other words, a municipal New Deal (see item 2). It is one of the greatest injustices in this city that Harvard University, the second wealthiest private non-profit in the world after only the Vatican(!) gives the city a PILOT that is less than 10% of what they would pay in property taxes, while they are simultaneously one of the leading drivers of displacement in the city. They, and others, should pay more and that revenue needs to go towards building ALL (not just housing) the infrastructure they have helped to destroy. 4. I oppose the proposal because it leaves the bottom of the AMI spectrum on their own. If we build social housing, we can cover all the way down to 0% AMI, which is especially needed because of the rampant discrimination against housing vouchers holders.

5. Lastly I am concerned that the zoning changes could end up being used as a Trojan horse for non-affordable housing development, as developers might sue to access the loosened zoning laws for their own schemes. Thank you for your time and service, Ben Simon 2

L1-29 Crane, Paula From: pwellons < [email removed]> Wednesday, March 20, 2019 10:36 AM Sent: To: City Council; Clerk Crane, Paula Co: Statement to Housing Committee meeting at 5pm March 20 today Subject: Message to Members, Housing Committee, City Council For 5-7pm meeting March 20, 2019 on Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal Honorable Committee Members, 1. What would people think of a 38 month project the City released as a proposal and then gave residents only 13 days to digest before responding pro or con? I'd ask what's the rush? At this rate, another 8-10 months is not outrageous. The issue is new to many of my neighbors. The election this year shouldn't affect timing if we get a better proposal with more affordable housing 2. What would people think of a proposal whose writers chose not to consider its impact on nearby neighborhoods and the City? I'd say understand the impact on neighborhoods, schools, the tree canopy, transit and parking, light and sound pollution, and more. Why ignore them all? Our city is complicated 3. What of a proposal whose writers said might not increase the stock of affordable housing but if it did would add less than 100 units a year, despite a $20 million annual cost to the City? I'd want to know alternatives that increase affordable housing units in Cambridge, and particularly those that give more bang for the buck. That would be a careful analysis of the costs and benefits of alternatives compared to the proposal. 4. What would people think of a proposal that despite the low benefit in new affordable housing gives up, as an incentive to developers, decades of protections residents worked for and leaves residents no rights? I'd say don't give away the farm if keeping it with alternatives works better than the proposal. Rather than take away all rights, limit the basis for frivolous law suits by reducing the incentives to sue. The goal of more affordable housing is laudable. What's revealed to us so far about this proposal says it needs much improvement and that is possible. Please do this right. Respectfully, 1

Philip Wellons 651 Green St Cambridge MA 02139

LL -30 Crane, Paula Jason Stockmann < [email removed]> From: : Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 10:35 AM City Council; Crane, Paula To: Testimony on Affordable Housing Overlay District Discussion (Wed. March 20) Subject: Dear City Council and Ms. Crane: I am submitting testimony for the public record regarding the Affordable Housing Overlay District Discussion for Wed., March 20. I applaud the city's efforts to help long-time residents deal with the rising cost of housing in Cambridge and to increase the supply of affordable housing. I also applaud the city's general efforts to relax parking requirements, which I feel will make it cheaper and easier for developers to build new housing and lower housing costs in the long term. However, I have two concerns that I would like the council to address. First concern: While I understand the need to increase our city's housing supply, I am worried that the proposed "upzoning" increases in allowable density and lot coverage in our traditional residential neighborhoods will create incentives for developers to tear down historic homes to build generic, low-quality multifamily units (particularly when the historic homes are in a poor state of repair). This will disrupt the historic character of our neighborhoods. Instead, I would encourage the city to provide special low-interest loan programs to help middle-income residents afford the high cost of renovating old, historic homes. Many residents do not qualify for traditional bank loans to renovate their house/apartment because they are already paying high mortgage costs on their primary home loan. The city could leverage is exceptionally strong bond-rating to issue municipal bonds to enable these low-interest loans. Second, the city should actively encourage residents to dig out and renovate their basements to create more usable square footage without changing neighborhood character; these basements could be rented our as small apartments. Third, rather than replace historic homes with apartment buildings, the city should encourage residents to build "granny flats" in their back yards (<700 sq ft) that can be used to house aging parents, students, etc. These single-story buildings have minimal impact on open space and light, while filling a critical gap in our housing stock. The exterior of these units can be designed to harmonize with the historic context of the accompanying house, and the city should not permit residents to remove mature trees to build the granny flats. Second concern: While the city's efforts to build "affordable" housing are well-intentioned, they are unfair in practice. Including a few affordable units in new construction amounts to "tokenism" that only benefits a tiny fraction of the eligible middle-income population. It's unfair for a few lucky residents to win the chance to buy or rent affordable units while those who lose the lottery are lett to fend for themselves with no assistance. A second reason these units are unfair is that the developer must recoup the cost of building the affordable units by raising the price of the market- rate units in the same building/complex. Developers do not subsidize the affordable units out of their profits. This makes new construction more expensive for residents buying/renting market rate units; in essence, they are subsidizing the affordable units. Rather than forcing these residents to pay the subsidy, it would be more equitable for these subsidies should be spread evenly over the entire city population (for example by sponsoring city bond-backed loans for basement renovations, as suggested above). Growing the supply of housing is a better way to address the housing crisis. The sad reality is that the city's affordable housing programs only end up benefitting a tiny fraction of those who wish to participate. For example, my girlfriend has been on the city's affordable homebuyer wait list for over 3 years (as a city resident the entire time). During this time, she has received only two invitations to view properties, one of which she

bid on unsuccessfully. This illustrates the difficulty of actually participating in the city's affordable homebuyer programs when the ratio of eligible participating residents to available units is so high. Rather than building affordable units for a token lucky few, the city should try to increase the supply of housing and drive down prices both using low-impact infill (basement units and granny flats) and, where contextually-appropriate, high-density development (e.g., North Point) coupled with transit upgrades. These policies should be combined with relaxed parking zoning requirements and streamlined permitting process to expedite new construction. Thank you for considering these suggestions, and for your continued efforts to make Cambridge a more vibrant, equitable, and sustainable city. Regards, Jason Stockmann 103 Gore St Apt 8 Cambridge, MA 0214[phone removed] 2

LL-31 Crane, Paula From: Young Kim <[email removed]> Wednesday, March 20, 2019 9:51 AM Sent: To: Carlone, Dennis; Devereux, Jan Cc: Farooq, Iram; Roberts, Jeffrey; McGovern, Marc; Siddiqui, Sumbul; Simmons, Denise; Kelley, Craig; Mallon, Alanna; Toomey, Tim; Zondervan, Quinton; Crane, Paula; Lopez, Donna Housing Overlay - Housing Committee Hearing 3/20/2019 Subject: Dear Councilors Carlone and Devereux, Councilor Devereux kindly informed us that today "from 5-7pm, the Housing Committee will meet for its second of three meetings this month to discuss a 100% Affordable Housing Overlay District. The meeting will be devoted to hearing public comment." You both have responded positively to my plea for case studies from CDD to show how their proposal would affect various neighborhoods. Yet, I can not find any new information posted, not even an agenda, on http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/calendar.aspx or cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx How is one to form an informed comments when there are no new information available since the last Housing Committee meeting on March 5? Besides the case studies, one other critical information we need is clear explanation of the non-profit 100% housing project procedure. I believe that there is great fear that for-profit developers will take advantage of the 100% affordable housing overlay to build skyscrapers all over the City as of right. I am afraid much of valuable public comment time tonight will be wasted by this fear. We need a clear explanation from the CDD/City on how this will be prevented in face of developers invariably finding ways to get around zoning issues - the compliance issue I have been constantly bringing up. Thank you for your attention, Respectfully your, Young Kim On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 8:49 AM Devereux, Jan <jdevereux@cambridgema.gov> wrote: Yes, I will be asking to see "case studies" that would flesh out what types of structures that could be built under the overlay framework. On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 9:41 AM Carlone, Dennis < dcarlone @cambridgema.gov> wrote: Dear Young Kim, I have already reached out to Community Development. We will work together, hopefully sooner rather than later. Thank you for your excellent comments. Best regards, Dennis Dennis Carlone City Councillor Cambridge City Hall 795 Massachusetts Avenue

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 617) 349-9429 (office) www.DennisCarlone.org/blog From: Young Kim <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 7:46 AM To: Carlone, Dennis Cc: Siddiqui, Sumbul; Simmons, Denise; Devereux, Jan; Mallon, Alanna; Toomey, Tim; Farooq, Iram; Roberts, Jeffrey; Crane, Paula Subject: Fwd: Housing Overlay - Housing Committee Hearing 3/5/2019 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. 2

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/sBuTbWIBQLi5N/000L6AM/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. 3

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

Crane, Paula From: Young Kim <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 6:55 AM To: Siddiqui, Sumbul; Simmons, Denise; Devereux, Jan; Mallon, Alanna; Toomey, Tim Cc: McGovern, Marc; DePasquale, Louie; Kelley, Craig; Zondervan, Quinton; Carlone, Dennis; Crane, Paula; Lopez, Donna Subject: Request for Additional Info on 100% Affordable Housing Overlay for 3/28 Housing Committee Hearing Dear Members of Housing Committee, Through you, I would like to request the CDD to provide case studies on how their proposed 100% affordable housing overlay will impact various residential zoning area before Thursday's Housing Committee hearing. According to CDD's FAQ, "any developer - public, non-profit, or private - building 100%-affordable housing would be able to utilize the overlay zoning" at a "significant public funding from City, State, and Federal sources". How will the City ensure that for-profit developers will not take advantage of this proposed zoning amendment to cram buildings that do not fit into the "fabric of the neighborhood" when City is having hard time enforcing SP/BZA decisions? And how will the City guarantee that for-profit developers will not find a creative way make windfall profits at the expense of precious public funding? I agree that non-profits like Just-A-Start need help from the City to able to compete with "for-profit rivals in the bidding battles" (https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2019/03/22/cambridge-mulls-extreme-step- address-need-for-affordable-housing/6PJg85uZ18BjLFSEObeoJN/story.html) but then why is the City giving the same help to the for-profit developers? That is not leveling the playing field for the non-profits. Finally, through you, I would like to beg the CDD to abandon "form-based" approach and propose a formula based approach to ensure the density of the proposed 100% affordable housing projects will fit into the neighborhood. The proposed "form-based" approach will allow taller buildings to be built as of right in a residential zones which will stick out like a sore thumb. To see the consequence such an approach, all one has to do is to go to 56 Cedar Street and imagine the newly built front house to be 4 stories high and see how well that will fit into the "fabric of the neighborhood". That building was built as of right after demolishing part of the original house in the back that did not conform to the zoning ordnance when the Planning Board rejected the special permit application to build that new house. Achieving more dense 100% affordable housing should be accomplished by granting relief from current FAR requirements that can be measured and enforced similar to the non-residential to residential conversion amendment. Thank you very much for your attention, Respectfully your, Young Kim 17 Norris Street

41-38 Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Wednesday, March 20, 2019 11:47 AM Sent: Crane, Paula To: FW: Public Comment for Housing Committee Mar. 20, 2019 Subject: From: Sheli Wortis <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 11:42 AM To: City Council < City Council@CambridgeMA.GOV>; Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Public Comment for Housing Committee Mar. 20, 2019 As a homeowner who supports affordable housing, I would like to thank the City Council for unanimously approving the Policy Order urging the federal government to fully fund the Section 8 Housing Choice Tenant-Based Voucher Program. And I applaud the Council for supporting the creation of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Tenant Displacement. I am writing to express concern that the proposed 100% Overlay is not offering nearly enough to alleviate the housing crisis in Cambridge. Any new development in the city leads to resident displacement in the neighborhoods. Land values go up and rents increase. My neighborhood in Wellington-Harrington, has seen a huge increase in commercial and residential development and an influx of high income buyers and renters. Our three-decker, which is collectively owned by its occupants, gets several calls a week from prospective buyers. There is far too much market-based development. The city must help to fund non-profit development that brings more affordable housing. At the March 5th Housing Committee meeting when the 100% Overlay was discussed, CDD reported that Cambridge currently has fewer than 15% affordable housing (AH) units (8000 units according to the city's Housing Director) and that the Overlay plan would bring us to fewer than 16% AH units - i.e, a 1% increase in AH. Councillor Carlone reported that the city budget for AH is only 2% of the city budget. While the City is considering an increase in the AH fund to bring it to $20m, that isn't nearly enough for what is needed. I would support a much greater increase. 1

While some of the following measures will require Home Rule petitions, I urge the Housing Committee and the City Council to support and advocate for them: * Real estate transfer fee and extra fees on flipped properties * Vacancy fee on property bought and left vacant by developers *Strong regulation of condo conversion *Tenants right to purchase * Just cause eviction *Right of return for residents displaced by gentrification *BRING BACK RENT CONTROL !!! Thank you. Sheli Wortis 106 Berkshire St., 02141 2

East Cambridge LL-33 Planning Team A Neighborhood Organization for the Betterment of East Cambridge March 19, 2019 Housing Committee Cambridge City Hall 795 Massachusetts Avenue, 2nd Floor Cambridge, MA 02139 RE: Affordable Housing Overlay Dear Chairpersons Sumbul Siddiqui and E. Denise Simmons; Vice Mayor Jan Devereux; Councillors, Alanna M. Mallon, and Timothy J. Toomey, Jr. On March 13, 2019, The East Cambridge Planning Team (ECT) having reviewed and discussed the presentation entitled, "100% Affordable Housing Zoning: Background, Goals, & Proposed Framework", voted unanimously to rejected the Affordable Overlay as presented. Need: We do agree there is a need to develop more affordable housing. Many of our long time neighbors have been displaced by rising rents and condo conversion. We have also lost many neighbors to developers giving them an offer they could not refuse, paying up to 100 times the price they paid for in the 1960s and 1970s. Luckily many of our seniors who rented and have been displace found new homes at one of the three senior housing developments in East Cambridge. We firmly believe no one should be displaced by development. Proposed Zoning Framework Summary: As we understand it, the Overlay would apply only to 100% affordable housing developments, encompass the entire city, and have at least the following characteristics: • Income Limits. Affordable is defined as income at the 80% and 100% of the Area Median Income. For 2018, the median income is $75,500 for one person. That would translate to incomes of $56,800 (80%) and $75,500 (100%) for one person and $81,100 (80%) and $107,800 (100%) for a family of 4. • Form-Based Zoning: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) which is used as a measure of density on all zoning in the city would be replaced by dimensional controls, meaning one could build with only the constraints of high and setbacks (from the property line) at the sides of the buildings, without regard to density. Planning Board Review: Standard Planning Board review of projects with public input and the ability to appeal decisions in court that exists in current zoning would be eliminated. • As-of-Right Zoning: Under this zoning, the ability of abutters (owners within 300') to appeal a project planned under this zoning is eliminated. • Specific Up-zoning Details: Areas that have a 40' height maximum restriction (3 stories) could have buildings to 45' or 50' (4 to 5 stores) Areas that have a height maximum of more than 40 feet (4 stories) could build to 80 feet in height (8 stories) Setbacks (from property line) are set at 0 to 10-foot in front, 5-foot at the sides, and 20-foot at the rear of the properyy • Parking reduce to 0.4 spaces per unit • Open space reduced to 15% East End House 105 Spring Street, Cambridge MA 02141 [email removed]

East Cambridge Planning Team Issues: At the March 13, 2019, ECT meeting, members present had the following concerns: • Overlay Public Process: The paced of the Overlay's public process is too fast and needs to be slowed down. More dialog is necessary with the public, not just at public hearings. It's felt that this the Community Development Department created the zoning based on input from developers (implied in the presentation) and not created by urban planning analysis or ideas from the citizens of Cambridge. Neither were there alternatives to this Overlay presented to the public. • Oversite: This proposal intentionally takes away the rights of abutters (owners within 300') to appeal a development in court. Taking away citizen rights in order to benefit housing developers is unconscionable. It also takes away the power of the Planning Board to deny a developer creating housing that may not fit or is detrimental to the fabric of a neighborhood. Equity: This proposal only serves people at the median income level or 80% of the median. It leaves out the most venerable in the city including seniors and low income residents. • Environmental: A majority of the residential area in Cambridge requires 30% or more (up to 50%) of a lot be allocated to open space. A majority of East Cambridge residential, non-PUD zoning is zoned C-1 which has a 30% open space requirement. This Overlay would reduce the requirement to 15% or half of required under C-1. This will result in more trees being razed on private property for development with no chance of replanting. The zoning allows for the front setback to be 10' or less depending on adjacent houses. Most homes in East Cambridge are built to the sidewalk, which would reduce the front setback to 0. This would likely require the removal of street trees for construction. East Cambridge has the lowest tree canopy cover in Cambridge at 13% and is falling. Neighboring Fabric: This Overlay would allow 80 foot buildings to be constructed on Cambridge Street. Existing buildings would be razed displacing local entrepreneurial business, which cannot financially survive waiting for a new building. Local business would not be able to afford the new commercial ground floor rents and be replaced by national chains, permanently altering the streetscape and character. Also 80 foot buildings would be next to 35 foot and lower buildings depressing the value of adjacent smaller properties. Safety: Current zoning uses a formula based on the geometry of a lot for setbacks. Many houses in Cambridge and in East Cambridge are built close to the lot edge. The overlay has a fixed, five foot distance from the lot line increasing the chances of fire spreading. East Cambridge has a long history multi-alarm fires where fire easily spreads from one building to the next due to the closeness of • Historic Buildings: The Overlay allows for review of a building for historical significant and can prevent the destruction of a home or building. However, the public benefit of affordable housing is considered in the determination. East Cambridge recently lost an 1860's building on Cambridge Street because of the public benefit, A CVS. Housing Generation: It is felt that this zoning may generate minimal affordable housing. In fact, it might have the effect of intensify the competition between market rate and affordable housing developers making housing less affordable. Massachusetts labor statistics for 2018 show the median income of people working (not necessarily living) in Cambridge at $150,000. A significant number of two person households could easily afford more than the current market rate and affordable housing developers will continue to lose to market rate. We see this in East Cambridge where a 2,000 sí condo on Hurley Street recent sold for $1.7 million and a 1,600 sf condo on Second Street sold for $1.77 million. New developments are pushing the price per square foot to new highs. • Flexibility: The rigidity of the "two sizes" fits all (40 feet or less and 40 feet or more) and fixed setback will most likely have unintended and detrimental effect on the surrounding properties. It's like going into a shoe store that has one style and two sizes, chances are the shoes won't fit.

East Cambridge Planning Team In conclusion, we ask the Housing Committee to abandon this Overlay proposal, restart the process, and develop new and more effective ways to create affordable housing. We can start by looking at success stories in other cities and finding new, creative funding sources. Very truly yours, Charles T. Hinds President, ECT cc: Paula Crane, Housing Committee Staff, PCrane@cambridgema.gov

LL34 Crane, Paula Mimi Truslow <[email removed]> From: Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 7:46 PM To: City Council Cc: Crane, Paula; Kelley, Craig Opposition to Up-zoning proposal Subject: Dear Cambridge City Council: Once again we strongly oppose the up-zoning proposal under current discussion. We understand the need for affordable housing across the city but see no need for projects that cause harm to neighborhoods for the sake of developers profits. This proposal is equivalent to using a hammer instead of a scalpel or a plow rather than a shovel. In particular we are very strongly against the imposition of large scale (80) buildings in residential neighborhoods. Surely there must be a plan that would achieve your goals with more sensitivity. Sincerely, William and Miriam Truslow

LL38 Lopez, Donna From: [email removed] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 10:26 AM To: City Council Cc: Lopez, Donna Subject: Zoning-overlay-setbacks-etc Dear Council and Zoners etc I don't understand why this overlay would not be required to comply with the setbacks, height and other restrictions that make Cambridge so livable. Going up 5 stories will create "tunnels", with wind and shade, and lose the open feel of residential neighbourhoods. Losing the setbacks will make us feel as cramped as downtown Boston. Perhaps some of these easements on restrictions could be in areas that are already zoned for taller structures or more urban rather than across the board. I understand new construction, but it should have to adhere to the same constraints as the rest of us. When I did a renovation it took me a year to get permission to go our 31/2 feet from the existing structure. I can't add a 4th floor onto a 3 story townhouse. I can't sneeze without getting approval. Why should developers be any different, especially as what THEY want to do changes significantly the feel of the neighbourhood Developers are already running roughshod over Cambridge, building cheap boxy structures with no overall planning. Why are we giving away or city to the Developers? What happened to the whole Envision / 5 year plan we were going to have? We were all for PLANNED Development, not haphazard development. It seems that Developers have thoroughly co-opted our city government and are ruining our neighbourhoods. Margaret Desjardins LakeView Ave

LL 36 Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Wednesday, March 20, 2019 1:16 PM Sent: To: Crane, Paula FW: 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Proposal - - Feedback Subject: From: Diana Goldfarb <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 1:15 PM To: City Council < CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Proposal -- Feedback Dear Honorable City Councilors: I am writing to encourage you to consider more problems identified with the City of Cambridge Community Development Department's proposal for 100% Affordable Housing Zoning. Increasing affordable housing is important and the city does need some increase in density. There is already affordable housing in my neighborhood. I am not opposed to affordable housing in my neighborhood, and encourage additional affordable housing particularly in neighborhoods that have not currently (or traditionally) had affordable housing. However, the 100% Affordable Housing Zoning proposal has important problems that need to be addressed, including some of the following: 1) To get new affordable housing, City officials propose to significantly ease zoning restrictions for development. Once the city has given up zoning protections, it's almost impossible for residents to ever reinstate zoning protections. 2) The proposal does not protect residents who are nearby and/or abutters to the overlay district. Quite the opposite, it puts these residents, many of whom are owners, at risk. We lose power to control the size, shape, and open spaces (front, back, and side yards) of new, bigger buildings, while we bear the major costs and drawbacks of this proposal. The plan must retain some existing zoning setbacks and give abutters and nearby residents a voice setbacks and height, and requests for variances. 3) The proposal does not consider the long-term effect and costs of increased demand for schools, transportation, and parking. 4) Affordable units will be subject to long-term affordability restrictions. What happens to the affordable housing units when these long-term restrictions expire? 5) All areas and neighborhoods in Cambridge should benefit from new affordable housing equally in the future, rather than, once again, residents and resident owners along or near Mass. Ave in North Cambridge-Porter Square corridor, the Harvard-to-Central Square corridor, and those in East Cambridge. 6) The proposal took 3 years to develop. It is complicated. Information about the development, details, and implications of the proposal has not been disseminated extensively (aggressively) or clearly enough to many

residents, particularly those in areas most affected by the changes proposed. The City needs to publicize the proposal widely and solicit more feedback over many months - not merely a few weeks. Perhaps send letters and emails to all residents, explaining in simple, accessible language what the City plans to do. For example, when any neighbor proposes to a renovation, even a small change, such as adding a window, the Zoning Board must alert all abutters, send details, and hold hearings so all the abutters can review, comment, and approve or disapprove of the proposed changes. The city should be held to the similar standards, and inform all residents at least as completely and extensively of the 100% Affordable Housing Zoning proposal. I implore you, respectfully, to address again the problems in this proposal and its impact on residents and residential owners. Thank you. Diana Goldfarb Riverside Resident and Home-owner

4-37 Crane, Paula From: John Gilmore <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 1:06 PM To: City Council Cc: Crane, Paula Subject: March 20 mtg./Opposition to up zoning overlay. I have lived in Cambridge for more than 70 years and seen much more development int he city in the last 10 years than in the previous 60 including Kendall Sq, Northpoint, and the wretchedly planned and executed Alewife developments (| urge any member of the council who has not done so to spend a morning walking around this area-If you drive there good luck getting in and out.) This has lead to large increases in traffic, the erosion of the historic character of the city (very little of which is in a historic district eg Reservoir hill), general environmental degradation including but not limited to the severe loss of our tree canopy. Cambridge is now one of the most densely populated cities in the United States.. My wife and I live on Reservoir St near Huron and Concord Ave. The traffic situation is terrible. Allowing neighborhood destroying projects on these streets through a zoning overlay would severely damage the fabric of the neighborhood and its historic and collegial character and aggravate the terrible crowding situation that now exists in the Fresh pond area. Cambridge needs to take a breather and figure out how to better manage what we have and absorb what we have just built. We have the resources and talent to make Cambridge a model for dealing with the myriad issues presented by global warming. Further development is not the answer. Lets be creative and figure out how to add more affordable units in the existing zoning envelopes. John Gilmore 47 Reservoir St

LL38 Crane, Paula andrea simpson < [email removed]> From: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 1:04 PM Sent: City Council; Clerk To: Subject: Fwd: Proposed Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Dear City Council, I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed affordable housing zoning overlay. While I support an increase in affordable housing in Cambridge, I have two main concerns about the proposed zoning overlay. My first concern is the way that revising the current zoning will impact existing neighborhoods and businesses. As a resident of the Huron Village area, I am concerned that building large tall structures will negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. Also, I am concerned about displacing existing businesses for the purpose of building new housing. Existing businesses should not be displaced. My second main concern is preserving the City's tree canopy and open space. In order to combat global warming, we must increase the tree canopy which is currently in decline. The City should make every effort to increase green space and the number of trees in communities. There must be a balance between creating housing and preserving open space and trees. The construction that I have witnessed in the West Cambridge area does not appear to do this. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Andrea Simpson 2 Hutchinson Street [phone removed] 1

LL-39 Crane, Paula From: Emily Duma <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 1:49 PM To: City Council; Clerk Subject: Support for the AHO Dear Cambridge City Council: I support the proposed affordable housing overlay. The policy as proposed successfully protects and enhances the character of Cambridge while making room for low-and moderate-income households that continue to be pushed out. As our region's businesses continue to expand, we need to increase housing supply at all income levels. I think affordable housing is key to economic diversity and inclusivity - the AHO would be a concrete step in reducing displacement and encouraging the growth of our city's vitality and diversity. As someone who is studying urban planning in Cambridge at the GSD and lives right over the border in Somerville, I would strongly encourage you to adopt this policy. Thank you, Emily Duma Masters in Urban Planning Candidate, 2020 15 Leland St Apt 3 Somerville, MA 02143 .:.

LL-40 Crane, Paula From: Charles Teague < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 2:32 PM To: City Council; Clerk Subject: OPPOSE "affordable housing" ovelay Dear councillors, The city council voted down the "Climate Safety" citizen's petition about 8 months ago based on the fear of affecting the CHA housing. Instead of implementing any of the many worthwhile proposals, now another up-zoning is proposed to crisis. The tree loss is the early indicator, rain. Tid re er higher and ider tore he cath no ree cooline come incite to tride in enter cine anyone UNTIL it takes real action on climate change, especially heat and flooding. Further, the proposal removes all the tools of the Planning Board ans BZA process that neighborhoods have used to make projects BETTER. Just look at the before and after of the "Hayes Oil" condo development on Mass Ave in North Cambridge ... it is a vast improvement over the original design. It resulted from a huge amount of work by those neighbors who did it for our neighborhood. Do NOT discard these protections. Charles Teague 23 Edmunds St M. Clerk, please enter this into the council record.

LL-41 Crane, Paula Anthony Unger <[email removed]> From: Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 2:24 PM City Council To: Crane, Paula Cc: Overlay Zone Subject: Ladies & Gentlemen: Thirty-three years ago when we decided to live in Cambridge the size of our family made it preferable that we live in a one-family dwelling, and we followed and relied on the City's zoning ordinances to find such a habitation. Although land laws are not immutable, we believe the proposed as-of- right Overlay Zone, no matter its commendable aim, that can allow larger and taller buildings, without thorough neighborhood and legal review, is unwise, undemocratic, and a betrayal of that reliance. Given the potential adverse effects of the Overlay (as presently drafted) as affecting density, canopy, and historical matters, it is no stretch to characterize it as a potential "taking", not in a strictly legal sense, but a taking of intangible property rights — — a form of eminent domain, if you will. We respectfully ask the City Council to reject the proposal in its present form. Sincerely yours, Anthony & Carol Unger District 10

LL-42. Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 2:45 PM To: Crane, Paula FW: Affordable housing - decision process Subject: From: Susan Holcombe <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 2:45 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Lopez, Donna < dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Affordable housing - decision process To the City Council, I am concerned about the process for considering and deciding on the proposal for affordable housing. The power point that I was able to see yesterday is a slick presentation but it is empty of details about implementation and whether and how the proposal can actually result in affordable housing and maintain the liveability of Cambridge. Cambridge does need affordable housing, but the process being used to get rapid approval of zoning changes and subsidies to developers risks the credibility of the City of Cambridge and of efforts to expand affordable housing. There are many reasons to be skeptical and concerned about the proposal suggested in the power point. May I emphasize one point that focuses on accountability for achieving the stated goal of increasing availability of 'affordable' housing. The proposal appears to rely heavily on effective subsidies to the private sector for constructing housing that is and remains affordable. Once benefits are transferred to private developers the City of Cambridge may lose capacity for assuring that the private developers meet promised environmental standards ("Green building requirements, ', etc). How will the City assure "the balance stormwater management, shielded site lighting, trees and vegetation" between prescriptiveness and allowance for creative variation" promised in the proposal. How will the City manage the impact of reduced parking requirements on neighbors of private developer units? How will the City assure the tree canopy and the neighbohoods which it has espoused? The private sector can be efficient, but it is unlikely to be efficient in the provision of social goods and accountability when its first priority must be its own bottom line. There are dangers in subsidizing private developers. If the private sector on its own cannot provide affordable housing, then the City of Cambridge should take responsibility, and accountability, for providing a social good. There are many other lacunae in the presentation which calls for substantial, long-term and irreversible changes, particularly in zoning. I urge the City Council to move carefully; to consider whether this plan will produce significant affordable housing that integrates well with the the character of Cambridge. Sincerely, Susan Holcombe 663 Green Street Cambridge MA 02139 1

LL-43 Crane, Paula From: Liana Woskie <|[email removed]> Wednesday, March 20, 2019 2:59 PM Sent: Clerk To: Cc: becca schofield; sumbul.siddiqui@cambridgema.gov Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: I am emailing a comment for today's City Council Housing Committee meeting: I am enthusiastic to make Cambridge more accessible and welcoming to all families. I grew up in West Cambridge and love it very much. In talking to friends and colleagues who work in affordable housing, I believe the overlay is a good way to ensure non-profit developers can make reasonable bids for properties throughout Cambridge, but particularly in the West Cambridge neighborhoods. Development may, of course, change the aesthetic of the Huron Village / Observatory Hill area. However, as someone who grew up in this area I believe this is a wonderful thing if it means more families can enjoy living, and raising their children, in the area. I support Cambridge's longstanding commitment to affordable housing and would like to express my support for the current affordable housing overlay proposal. Warm regards, Liana Rosenkrantz Woskie Current Resident: 1 Dana St. (Mid-Cambridge) Prior Resident (15+ years): 13 Saville St. (West Cambridge)

4-44 I am a Veteran (U.S. havy) and a voucher holder. The payment standard is too low to find a one bedroom apartment. rousine ambridge inclusionar has tos long of a wai tlin! and in the meantime my my voucher (90 day to locate partment) world expire. I wanted to find an apartmet in Zast Cambridge but. an priced out. The coats of rentals have I dont escalated quickly. laced int want to have lived in snother town. lig ambridge (varion parte) and this home. In the past, Cambrid home have parto of lared in but it ins the Boston never "home" to me, Cantridg my most barit big ident for, Marshe teng years Band Yougie

41-45 I have 2 kids and it has been very difficult to tind housing Victor the kids) Julian Thank you! Francois jordand francois [email removed] I am a Cambridge resident I need more assistance to help. me locate a two bedroom housing. and in the meantime it has difficulto difficult to been get the right information to go forward in finding housing..

4-46 Crane, Paula Joanne Nelson < [email removed]> From: Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 7:31 AM To: Crane, Paula Subject: Affordable Housing Dear PCrane, My family, neighbors and I are extremely opposed to affordable housing. We live in East Cambridge and we already have enough traffic, lack of parking and not to mention reducing our property values. Having low income people will also encourage more crime in the area. Why do they think they are entitled to living in the area and not pay their fair share? ! couldn't afford to live here growing up even though I had a great job at AT&T so I moved to New Hampshire. I will do everything in my neighborhood to stop this nonsense. Sincerely, Joanne Nelson Sent from my iPhone

447 Crane, Paula From: Kelly Dolan < [email removed]> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 7:26 AM To: Crane, Paula Fwd: Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning Proposal Subject: - Forwarded message -------- From: Kelly Dolan <[email removed]> Date: Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 6:42 AM Subject: Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning Proposal To: <CityCouncil@cambridgema.gov>, <citymanager@cambridgema.gov>, Jan Devereux <jdevereux@cambridgema.gov>, Quinton Zondervan <[email removed]>, DennisCarlone <dcarlone@cambridgema.gov>, Kelley, Craig <ckelley@cambridgema.gov> What are the City's goals for this Affordable Housing Proposal? We are very concerned about the goals of the Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal the City has continuously tried to propose in various Committee meetings. Here are the goals as written by the CDD presentation on page 7. The first goal says 1. Help affordable housing providers have more success in purchasing sites to create new affordable housing However, putting more money into the market will cause competitive bidding by developers and drive up real estate costs. Property owners always seek the highest possible sales price. It's our high real estate prices that are so limiting in the first place so this will make the situation worse. It might be wiser and cheaper to create a program that instead incentivizes sellers to sell directly to affordable housing developers bypassing open bidding altogether and keeping costs of purchasing properties lower. Create tax incentives, marketing and outreach programs to encourage this option for property owners. The second and third goals are actually similar 2. Foster equitable distribution of affordable housing citywide by expanding the viability of affordable housing in areas where there are fewer affordable units 3. Create opportunities in all neighborhoods for residents of all incomes If these are the goals then write the zoning ordinance to target those neighborhoods where fewer affordable housing units exist. This plan as written would change the zoning of the entire City and will result in more development into the neighborhoods where the real estate is cheaper and there is more existing affordable housing. This will continue to perpetuate the inequity. The 4th goal gets to heart of the issue. 4. Make it easier to permit 100% affordable housing developments so that affordable housing developers can build needed housing more quickly 1

Then write the Zoning Ordinance to reflect what the Planning Board and abutters both want to see in any project. To that end, distinguish requirements between neighborhood projects vs the corridors which can handle more height and density. Everyone in a neighborhood should have trees and open space so give them larger setbacks. Specify restrictions on tearing down existing buildings to avoiding destruction of neighborhood character. Specify requirements for family friendly units vs studios and one bedrooms. Specify materials and design requirements. Developers like to say zoning is a dirty word. But zoning requirements if done correctly exist for a really good reason. Cambridge is a City of varying existing conditions and uses. Trying to use one formula isn't appropriate and plays right into the argument that this plan is a developer give away. The last goal is highly debatable. 5. Help reduce costs of building new affordable housing to allow limited City funds dedicated to affordable housing to accomplish more. By-passing the Cambridge Planning Board approvals and abutter input does not avoid cost obstacles. It's the land itself that's the cost impediment. There is nothing in this zoning ordinance change that will make it cheaper for Affordable Housing developers to accomplish more unless they are required to build cheaper housing units as part of the ordinance. So it's yet another questionable goal that plays into the narrative of a developer giveaway. If we want to make housing cheaper in this City we have to stop dancing around the edges with these policies that accomplish very little except to change the very character of the City of Cambridge. We don't have a housing crisis We have an affordability crisis. Let's start developing policies to address that. Kelly Dolan Gregory Berndt AlA Upland Road - Sent from Gmail Mobile

LL48 Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 9:53 PM To: Crane, Paula Fwd: Housing Committee Meeting, 3/20/19 - Proposed Overlay Zoning Subject: Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Susan Juretschke <[email removed]> Date: March 20, 2019 at 3:51:04 PM EDT To: council@cambridgema.gov Cc: dlopez@cambridgema.gov, dclark@cambridgema.gov Subject: Housing Committee Meeting, 3/20/19 - Proposed Overlay Zoning March 20, 2019 For the Official Record of the City Council The Cambridge City Council City Hall 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 RE: Housing Committee Meeting, 3/20/19 - Proposed Overlay Zoning To the Honorable City Council: I write today to voice my concern regarding some shortcomings of the proposed city-wide overlay zoning ordinance for 100% Affordable Housing Overlay zoning.

No doubt there is a great need for more affordable housing, but I would prefer to see comprehensible housing policy that does not include some of the restrictive zoning language in the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay zoning. It is my opinion that the City Council and the CDD have spent too much time on this market-driven Overlay Proposal that relies on adding even more development rather than developing a comprehensive housing policy for reducing housing costs for everyone. what are the possible impacts of the Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal? 1) There has been no explanation of the cost-benefit ratio of adding taxpayer funds to bid in the open market for property. History shows that adding more money to scarce resources drives property costs up. Interestingly, by the CDD's own admission, that will produce very little units, e.g., less than 100 for $20 million. It doesn't seem to be a good Return On Investment. 2) The City Manager has not given thought to the impact of spending more money on income restricted housing like this. If Cambridge decides to spend more on City-run housing programs they might be forced to raise taxes. That likely would cause even more displacement of residents who are currently vulnerable to higher tax rates. Cambridge has used low tax rates to maintain a diverse community for decades 3) The use of for-profit developers in this project and the access to the entire City of Cambridge with fewer restrictions is a very slippery slope. This market-driven plan only benefits developers and relies on building more in our already dense city. If this zoning law gets passed and has a negative impact on the City's historically low tax base, it would then require a 2/3s vote to repeal. Just like entitlements, politicians are reluctant to vote to end zoning laws. 4) This proposal would essentially encourage teardowns because developers need to keep costs down and adding to existing residential properties is more costly. Therefore, it would be necessary to raise the number of units per property in order to meet financial requirements. It could result in more smaller housing units. In addition, it appears that this would not be very effective for preserving the environment or the character of neighborhoods. 2

5) The proposal provides no language stating requirements for two- or three-bedroom units, which are conducive in order to house families. This is important especially for any new projects in neighborhood buildings. 6) The density allowed by this form-based zoning will be completely overwhelming in small neighborhoods and should be adjusted to better reflect corridors vs. neighborhoods. More backlot space should be reserved for the addition of tree canopy and open space. Trees and more than 15% open space should be required for all structures. 7) Removing the Planning Board and neighborhood input is dangerous and could result in very cheaply made ugly and out-of-scale buildings. There need to be more specific on design and material guidelines, but concrete, specific language is missing. 8) Removing Parking requirements puts more pressure on existing neighborhoods, especially those that are far from public transit. Yours truly, Susan Juretschke 10 Gilmore Street, #2 Cambridge, MA 02139 cc: Donna Lopez, City Clerk, dlopez@cambridgema.gov Paula Crane, Assistant City Clerk, dclark@cambridgema.gov Please enter this letter into the permanent record of the City Council.

11-49 March 19, 2019 For the Official Record of the City Council The Cambridge City Council City Hall 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 RE: Housing Committee Meeting, 3/20/19 - Proposed Overlay Zoning To the Honorable City Council: I write today to voice my concern regarding some shortcomings of the proposed city-wide overlay zoning ordinance for 100% Affordable Housing Overlay zoning. No doubt there is a great need for more affordable housing, but I would prefer to see comprehensible housing policy that does not include some of the restrictive zoning language in the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay zoning. It is my opinion that the City Council and the CDD have spent too much time on this market-driven Overlay Proposal that relies on adding even more development rather than developing a comprehensive housing policy for reducing housing costs for everyone. What are the possible impacts of the Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal? 1) There has been no explanation of the cost-benefit ratio of adding taxpayer funds to bid in the open market for property. History shows that adding more money to scarce resources drives property costs up. Interestingly, by the CDD's own admission, that will produce very little units, e.g., less than 100 for $20 million. It doesn't seem to be a good Return On Investment. 2) The City Manager has not given thought to the impact of spending more money on income restricted housing like this. If Cambridge decides to spend more on City-run housing programs they might be forced to raise taxes. That likely would cause even more displacement of residents who are currently vulnerable to higher tax rates. Cambridge has used low tax rates to maintain a diverse community for decades 3) The use of for-profit developers in this project and the access to the entire City of Cambridge with fewer restrictions is a very slippery slope. This market-driven plan only benefits developers and relies on building more in our already dense city. If this zoning law gets passed and has a negative impact on the City's historically low tax base, it would then require a 2/3s vote to repeal. Just like entitlements, politicians are reluctant to vote to end zoning laws. 4) This proposal would essentially encourage teardowns because developers need to keep costs down and adding to existing residential properties is more costly. Therefore, it would be necessary to raise the number of units per property in order to meet financial requirements. It could result in more smaller housing units. In addition, it appears that this would not be very effective for preserving the environment or the character of neighborhoods.

-2- Letter to City Council March 19, 2019 5) The proposal provides no language stating requirements for two- or three-bedroom units, which are conducive in order to house families. This is important especially for any new projects in neighborhood buildings. 6) The density allowed by this form-based zoning will be completely overwhelming in small neighborhoods and should be adjusted to better reflect corridors vs. neighborhoods. More backlot space should be reserved for the addition of tree canopy and open space. Trees and more than 15% open space should be required for all structures. 7) Removing the Planning Board and neighborhood input is dangerous and could result in very cheaply made ugly and out-of-scale buildings. There need to be more specifics on design and material guidelines, but concrete, specific language is missing. 8) Removing Parking requirements puts more pressure on existing neighborhoods, especially those that are far from public transit. Yours truly, Joan Frutoft Name Michael & Joan Frutkoff Address 74 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139 : cc: Donna Lopez., City Clerk, dlopez@cambridgema.gov Paula Crane, Assistant City Clerk, dclark@cambridgema.gov Please enter this letter into the permanent record of the City Council.

LL 50 Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 9:50 PM To: Crane, Paula Subject: Fwd: The 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Proposal from the Community Devt Dept Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: John C Klensin <klensin @ick.com> Date: March 20, 2019 at 5:05:04 PM EDT To: <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: FWD: The 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Proposal from the Community Devt Dept (sorry... sent to wrong address for you) -- Forwarded Message --. Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 16:57 -0400 From: John C Klensin <[email removed]> To: citycouncil@cambridgema.gov Cc: dlopez@cambridge.gov Subject: The 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Proposal from the Community Devt Dept Dear Honorable City Councilors: I have reviewed the March Fifth version of the twenty-five slide "Background, Goals & Proposed Framework" CDD deck that apparently summarizes the 100% Affordable Housing Zoning proposal. I am writing about several issues with that proposal, at least as reflected in that slide deck. One of the issues, last below, is procedural (but think quite important); the others more substantive. Given the rather short period of time I've had to review the deck, it is likely that there are issues not covered below. For context, I am in favor of increasing affordable housing and rebalancing the demographics of the city to restore more of the diversity I found when I first moved here over a half-century ago. I think increased density would be desirable, especially in the immediate vicinity of MBTA stations and, to the extent to which they can be identified or developed, other transportation hubs. And I have no problem with affordable housing, increased density, or both in my neighborhood. One thing ! am concerned about is that it is even necessary to make such statements: a pattern I've seen repeatedly in the city involves advocates for

affordable housing and tenant-protective policies demonizing anyone who questions the details or implications or particular proposals or the statistics or reasoning used in support of those proposals, suggesting that those who do not enthusiastically embrace their proposals are somehow evil people opposed to those desirable goals for their own bigoted or venal ends. I hope those tactics do not appear this time and, it they do, that Council can resist them: Cambridge deserves better than to allow name-calling to substitute for the nuanced analysis and reasoning these issues deserve. (1) The existing zoning ordinance, even with all of its problems and the patchworks that have developed, has been very important to maintaining the character of the city in ways that contribute to the inflated property values, high rents, and housing demand that are significant causes of the affordable housing crisis. Parts of this proposal appear to waive or significantly relax those requirements for buildings with 100% affordable housing. If only because an argument for exceptions for a development that does not meet either the existing zoning or the affordable housing requirements would have a very high likelihood of success (whether with city Boards or the courts) if that developer could show similar abutting or near-abutting buildings that already exceeded the zoning requirement, this seems the wrong way to alter the practical implications of the city's zoning code and map. That issue applies not only to size, but to setbacks, yards, and other issues of site, scale, and other impacts on abutters. If the zoning code or maps are out of date, let's fix them, not back into changes through one particular category of development, no matter how worthwhile. It may be worth reminding ourselves that once a building is legally constructed and occupied, it becomes a grandfathered use (and precedent) relative to any future zoning or other ordinance changes. (2) There is little or no evidence from the slides that this proposal is consistent with other policies promoted by the city. A well-designed, per-development, permitting process at least allows those issues to be raised; this proposal appears to eliminate those protections. Again, if our permitting and exception procedures are not working well --and I think there is significant evidence that they are not-- the Council should be working on ways to fix that, not making selective exceptions for one or two worthy goals. As a particular example, the city has been pushing residential solar installations fairly aggressively. From anecdotal observations in several neighborhoods, the efforts seem to have met with at least moderate success. If a new building goes up whose height and relationship with lot lines causes sufficient shadowing to considerably reduce the output of installed panels, that would be a considerable breach of trust by the city and the city-sponsored agencies and projects that encouraged those 2

efforts (and the goal of more affordable housing would be scant solace). Requiring that the new building be "green" does not help with that problem at all. In addition, many of those existing installations include long-term guarantees, by third parties, of production levels. If that production were significantly reduced by new buildings who impact could not be reasonably estimated (at the time of installation) from zoning codes and shading models, those parties might be inclined to litigate about a kind of harm for which a price tag would be very easy to estimate. That type of issue should not prevent any reasonable affordable housing development if the developers and the city work with existing residential owners and neighbors in good faith, but it argues for a much more finely-tuned process than allowing anyone proposing a 100% affordable housing development to ignore issues of this type and effectively produce whatever development they believe the site allow as a matter of right, constrained only by economics (see below about community engagement, reviews, and constraints). Of course, if city subsidies are involved, that is one city program undermining another. (3) Significantly increasing the population of the city, whether through affordable housing or market-rate units, has inevitable infrastructure consequences. They may be under control, but there is little evidence that the proposal has considered them carefully. Will demand for schools increase significantly and, if so, is there a plan for building more school capacity and dealing with the increased costs (of staff, transport, etc., not just buildings)? Borrowing inspiration from recent disasters in nearby cities and towns, are our water systems in all parts of the city up to dealing with a significant fire when consumption from nearby buildings increases due to increases in density? Do we have sufficient facilities in place to temporarily (but quickly) isolate or reduce pressure to residential and commercial buildings so as to make water available for fire control? Have the potential implications for fire equipment and fire fighting been evaluated against the possibility of new buildings with higher occupancy density and smaller side or front yards on narrow streets been evaluated? If those issues were to be problematic for particular buildings, where does the plan of this proposal expect to identify them and work out solutions... and are those solutions requirements or merely advice to the developers? 4) While this proposal is exclusively about "100% affordable" developments, experience in a number of municipalities (including Cambridge) suggest that such developments, especially at large scale, may not be optimal because, over time, they tend to create very homogeneous neighborhoods or micro-neighborhoods. Even if our planning is good enough to mitigate other possible effects that have been observed with the large "subsidized" housing projects of the last century, that homogeneity by itself

may not be consistent with the type of diverse and heterogeneous community that is ultimately a major cause in the reasoning to promote affordable housing. Why does this proposal not appear to allow for mixed-use developments with a relatively high proportion of affordable units at all and actually appears to put them at a [further] disadvantage? (5) While I recognize the advantages of community engagement and design reviews (see slide 23 in particular), those of us who have been in the city, and who have watched developments evolve for many years, have all seen situations in which such engagement and review processes are abused if the rules are written so that approval is known or substantially guaranteed in advance. I would like to believe that most developers engage in good faith. A few demonstrably have not and likely won't in the future, and a subset of them have been arrogant enough to come into neighborhood meetings and make it clear that they are there to present and appear to listen because that is a requirement but that the odds of their actually making changes are miniscule. We've also seen multiple situations in which developers reach agreements with neighborhoods and the city about particular building characteristics, are issued permits on that basis, and then do something else, confident that the city will not have whatever combination of authority and will would be needed to enforce those agreements. Given those experiences, creating an engagement and review process that concludes "Building permit if zoning requirements" (the drastically reduced requirements under this proposal) "are met and review process is followed" (following the review process apparently requires reading the guidelines, holding the meetings, consulting with CDD staff, and holding a public meeting or two, but not making changes those steps suggest) would seem ill-advised: the city needs to have at least some teeth left at the end of the process to enforce guidelines, input from neighbors and various Boards and Departments, or at least good sense. 6) The procedural issue is that, according to the slide deck, the City Council established a goal at the beginning of 2015 to create 1000 new affordable units by 2020. Somehow, four years have gone by and there has been little visibility of any intermediate stages prior to this rather sweeping report and proposal. Given the speed at which multi-unit residential developments seem to progress in Cambridge even after all permits are in hand the odds of meeting that "by 2000" goal are just about zero unless most of them are already completed or under construction under existing rules (I assume that is not the case, or this proposal would be unnecessary). Rushing a proposal through at this point because of that target goal or because someone is trying to catch up with the delay, especially a proposal with as much complexity, possible unanticipated side-effects, and unanswered questions as this one appears to

have, is inappropriate and may create significant long-term risks to the city. Instead, it would seem appropriate to raise questions like those implied above with CDD and get and publicize the answers, publicize the proposal effort itself (including making the proposal, not just a deck of slides, widely available and allowing adequate time for community review), be as sure as possible that all city residents are aware of it, probably hold a few public meetings in different neighborhoods and with different times and days of the week, and then move forward in a more open and transparent way with a more considered proposal and with less risk of nasty surprises or manipulation by interested parties. Thank you, John Klensin 138 Elm St North -- End Forwarded Message-.-

LL-51 Crane, Paula From: George Theodosiou < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 8:11 PM To: Crane, Paula Subject: Affording housing project As a resident in Cambridge Mass. for over 18 years and after witnessing the March 20th, 2019 Hearing: While I support the concept of affordable housing, the submitted project has insurmountable deficiencies: 1. One cannot build "structure" without the necessary infrastructure! And by infrastructure I mean the gamut of amenities to support the dramatic increase of population: transportation, roads, already marginal water, electricity sewage, internet services, affordable shopping, green spaces, etc. etc. The proposal fails to consider their necessary pre-existence. 2. Absent from the proposal is any financial analysis of the impact on the budgetary stability of the community and the particular transiency of its population; Does one ever proceed with a project without financial analysis? Regretfully, I have to oppose the present project proposals, encouraging the City Council to reconsider a constructive approach to resolution of the problem as opposed to the band-aid approach. George Theodosiou 931 Mass Ave. Cambridge; MA; 02139

LL-52 Crane, Paula From: Carolyn Fuller < [email removed]> Wednesday, March 20, 2019 7:13 PM Sent: Clerk To: Cc: City Council Carolyn Fuller - 12 Douglass St a proud 40 year resident of The Port... Subject: Carolyn Fuller - 12 Douglass St a proud 40 year resident of The Port, a very proud member of A Better Cambridge, and a poster child for "Yes in my backyard." I am here this evening in support of the Affordable Housing Overlay. It is easy to say Cambridge supports welcoming new immigrant arrivals, greater diversity, Affordable Housing, etc. But god forbid that reaching these goals might mean multi-family housing in our backyards. I walk the talk. I am welcoming 280 new neighbors to my backyard because I believe it reduces our carbon footprint to have more people living close to public transit. I am now asking you to put your fears aside and welcome a very small number of new neighbors to your backyards because you say you support Affordable Housing. Please walk the talk! Carolyn Sent from my phone :

LL-53 Crane, Paula From: Nicole Lane < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 5:31 PM To: Crane, Paula Fwd: your letter-change the subject line to read: Housing Committee Overlay Zoning Subject: Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Carolyn <carolyn [email removed]> Date: March 20, 2019 at 4:01:28 PM EDT To: Nicole Lane <[email removed]> Subject: your letter-change the subject line to read: Housing Committee Overlay Zoning Reply-To: Carolyn <[email removed]> M arch 19, 2019 For the Official Record of the City Council The Cambridge City Council City Hall 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 RE: Housing Committee Meeting, 3/20/19 - Proposed Overlay Zoning To the Honorable City Council: It is a fact that meeting the demand for affordable housing in Cambridge is very difficult and that market forces work against meeting this need. I agree, along with others, that the city should take steps to add more affordable housing in an attempt to meet this need. However, I write today to voice my concern regarding some serious shortcomings and undesirable unintended consequences of the proposed city-wide 100% affordable housing overlay zoning ordinance.

No doubt the proposed ordinance is well-intentioned, but I would prefer to see a more comprehensible housing policy that does not include some of the restrictive zoning language found in the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay zoning. It is my opinion that the City Council and the CDD have spent too much time on this market-driven Overlay Proposal that relies on adding even more development rather than developing a comprehensive housing policy for reducing housing costs for everyone. what are the possible impacts of the Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal? 1) There has been no explanation of the cost-benefit ratio of adding taxpayer funds to bid in the open market for property. History shows that adding more money to scarce resources drives property costs up. Interestingly, by the CDD's own admission, that will produce very little units, e.g., less than 100 for $20 million. It doesn't seem to be a good Return On Investment. 2) The City Manager has not given thought to the impact of spending more money on income restricted housing like this. If Cambridge decides to spend more on City-run housing programs they might be forced to raise taxes. That likely would cause even more displacement of residents who are currently vulnerable to higher tax rates. Cambridge has used low tax rates to maintain a diverse community for decades. 3) The use of for-profit developers in this project and the access to the entire City of Cambridge with fewer restrictions is a very slippery slope. This market-driven plan only benefits developers and relies on building more in our already dense city. If this zoning law gets passed and has a negative impact on the City's historically low tax base, it would then require a 2/3s vote to repeal. Just like entitlements, politicians are reluctant to vote to end zoning laws. 4) This proposal would essentially encourage teardowns because developers need to keep costs down and adding to existing residential properties is more costly. Therefore, it would be necessary to raise the number of units per property in order to meet financial requirements. It could result in mostly smaller housing units. In addition, it appears that this would not be very effective for preserving the environment, or the character of neighborhoods. 5) The proposal provides no language stating requirements for two- or three-bedroom units, which are necessary in order to house families. This is important especially for any new projects in neighborhood buildings. 6) The density allowed by this form-based zoning will be completely overwhelming in small neighborhoods and should be adjusted to better reflect corridors vs. neighborhoods. More backlot space should be reserved 2

for the addition of tree canopy and open space. Trees and more than 15% open space should be required for all structures. 7) Removing the Planning Board and neighborhood input is dangerous and could result in very cheaply made ugly and out-of-scale buildings. There need to be more specifics on design and material guidelines, but that concrete, specific language is missing. 8) Removing Parking requirements puts more pressure on existing neighborhoods, especially those that are far from public transit. The survey of used parking spaces was done during the hours of 9 to 5 when many of the residents were using their cars to get to and from work. The city has done such surveys during mid-day before for other locations in the city and the neighbors found it unfair and appealed. Yours truly, Nicole Lane Franklin Street cc: Donna Lopez, City Clerk, dlopez@cambridgema.gov Paula Crane, Assistant City Clerk, dclark@cambridgema.gov Please enter this letter into the permanent record of the City Council.

LL-5Y Crane, Paula From: PAUL KEPLIN < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 5:12 PM To: Crane, Paula I am writing to state that I support the letter which the East Cambridge Planning Team has delivered to your committee regarding the affordable housing overlay. Several people have also contacted you, most notably Bjorn Poonen and Rosemary Booth, with whom I also agree. Please take seriously the wishes of the residents and find solutions which don't cram density into already dense areas. Thank you, Rhonda Massie

LL-55 Crane, Paula From: Sergey Petrov <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 5:11 PM To: Crane, Paula; citimanager@cambridgema.gov; City Council Subject: Fwd: Affordable housing Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Sergey Petrov <[email removed]> Date: March 20, 2019 at 5:08:02 PM EDT To: pcrane@cambridgema.gov Subject: Fwd: Affordable housing Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: SERGEY PETROV <[email removed]> Date: March 20, 2019 at 2:56:22 PM EDT To: Sergey Petrov <[email removed]> Subject: Affordable housing We can not productively discuss 'Affordable housing' project because there is no project proposal or even preproposal. Available documents do not address following crucial issues: • Project goal(s). • Help Cambridge residents to find less expensive accommodations. • Increase Cambridge population • Change political stratification of the city • Help developers to increase profit Increase Cambridge population diversity. Here, another list is needed because diversity by itself is neither good nor bad. • Benefits to current Cambridge residents • Consequences: • Changes of real estate prices in presence of property with controlled rent. • Changes of the population size, density, etc New shopping and recreational facilities • School etc. • Traffic and parking 1

Changes of the crime rate • Financial analysis: • Cost subsides • Cost of additional infrastructure Share covered by the city budget • Expected taxes raise • Other funding Partially funded by the city budget, the project will be paid for by current Cambridge residents who deserve to know what this for, how much, and how they supposed to pay. All the above will help Cambridge residents to make educated judgement and approve or disapprove the project. The approval is necessary because city government paid by Cambridge residents and its existence justified only by wise usage of people's money for people's benefits. Evidently, this audience is not a representative sample of Cambridge population. Thus, this discussion is insufficient to determine if Cambridge residents support the project. 2

L1-56 Crane, Paula From: Marilyn Wellons < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 4:02 PM To: City Council Crane, Paula; Lopez, Donna Cc: Housing Committee Hearing, 5 pm Wednesday, March 20, 2019 Subject: Dear Housing Committee Members, What began three years ago as an apparently good faith effort to frame long-term planning has yielded the very dubious product now before you. Given some experience in Cambridge zoning, I believe there is a simpler way, comprehensible and with less harm to current residents, to slow displacement and to increase low- and moderate-income units, than the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay provides. The proposal before you needs serious work. Please do not be stampeded into approving it. Yours sincerely, Marilyn Wellons 651 Green Street Cambridge, MA 02139

LL-57 Crane, Paula Boris Zoubok <[email removed]> From: Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 11:13 AM To: Crane, Paula Cc: Observatory Hill Village Subject: Meeting on Up-Zoning on 3/20 at City Hall Dear Ms Paula M. Crane, Thank you for inviting me to contribute to the public hearing on this extraordinary important matter. My wife and I are retired professionals living in Cambridge for the last four years, after returning to the US following an almost ten-year sojourn in Europe. We are former new yorkers and live in Cambridge by choice. First, we lived at 11 Holly Avenue, and now we live at 221 Mount Auburn Street. Our choice is easy to understand: progressive attitudes within the community; physical beauty of our neighborhoods; cultural and learning opportunities; overall level of civility; the quality of medical care; mature public transportation networks - all this made our choice to spend the rest of our lives in Cambridge easy. Let me add that we've had a long experience of living in Manhattan and New York City suburbs raising five children. We decided not to have any property in this stage of life. So, we move about by public transport, shop locally, volunteer and take interest in the life of our immediate community. We whole-heartedly support your intention of developing affordable housing in Cambridge. Our young neighbors live with uncertainty regarding their ever-increasing rents, loosing friends who already reached the limits of what was affordable and had to leave town. Our retired aging friends, particularly the widowed ones, live with their compelling needs to sell family homes and apartments, while having to face the prospect of not being able to afford their "downsized" living arrangements. Young couples with children live with rents which consume up to three quarters of their income, if you add the cost of child care and transportation. The victims of age-old institutionalized racism, and their descendants - not to say anything about recent immigrants - can not hope to become fully integrated members of the community of Cambridge. They are relegated to far-flung districts, where they are underserved in nearly every way, and where they face daily lost time and high transportation costs. You clearly are committed to remedy these circumstances. Yours is a noble cause, indeed! Your effort deserves all the support and encouragement of our community. Please consider adding the following questions to the matters under your consideration: What will be the impact of increased urban density on our transportation network, traffic flows, parking spaces, class sizes in our schools? What will change for the residents of our city in the quality of their lives? With the projected cost of each new "affordable" unit ($500.000) in the new high risers, will we not displace more people than we'll be able to serve? That, given that older structures will be either raised or rendered less livable? What will happen to the very concept of historic preservation in our city? What will happen to our mature trees, green spaces, and open spaces? What will happen to the manner and tenor of citizens' relationship with city authorities once we loose any possibility of contesting decisions and presenting grievances? Who will select the new tenants in the proposed housing, and according to what criteria, who will guarantee to them proper maintenance arrangements, who will give them power to negotiate with the developers? Please note: We rent an apartment in a building which was originally designated as "affordable housing". After several years (?) it was apparently converted to a condominium structure and, now, a modest apartment costs around $1.500.000. Who will guarantee that this will not happen to the proposed developments? And, finally: Why, after two years of essentially internal development of this proposal, do you plan to go through the approval process in less than month? Why, in the city with the highest concentration of every kind of relevant expertise, and the most public-minded non- profit commitment, do we have a proposal which sorely lacks examination of the most obvious implications, and the 1

risks of unintended consequences, for urban environment, immediate and projected costs involved, impact on city services, etc.? Could we do better? Can we do better, still? I submit these questions with utmost respect and appreciation of your hard work. Sincerely, Boris Zoubok 2

LL-58 Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 8:12 AM To: Crane, Paula Subject: FW: Opposing the overlay plan before the council From: Judith E Smith <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 20195:08 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Lopez, Donna < dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Opposing the overlay plan before the council I had to work last night so could not go to the city council meeting, but the idea of getting rid of zoning protections and planning bd process to give for profit developers license to build housing at will does not have the guarantees we want to ensure that affordable housing is truly affordable, and that the planning process is orderly. As I travel around the cit, I see condos being built everywhere, with no provisions for affordability, not sized or priced for families. For profit developers are changing Cambridge for the worse. We need rent control, we need higher property taxes, to make the city a place that can maintain a mixed class community. Judith Smith Resident 149 Prospect St Cambridge MA since 1972: parent of three children who graduated from CPS Judith E. Smith American Studies University of Massachusetts Boston

4L-59 Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 5:45 AM To: Crane, Paula Fwd: Increase % of low income units, research parking Subject: Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Abra Berkowitz <[email removed]> Date: March 21, 2019 at 5:29:06 PM EDT To: "dlopez@cambridgema.gov" < dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Fw: Increase % of low income units, research parking Hi Donna! I forgot to co you in this email to the Housing Committee. Thanks, Abra Berkowitz 632 Massachusetts Ave. #404 Cambridge, MA 02139 Sent from Outlook From: Abra Berkowitz Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 6:31 PM To: council@cambridgema.gov Subject: Increase % of low income units, research parking Dear Housing Committee Members, I am writing you to express my enthusiastic support for the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay. I am an inclusionary tenant and an Assistant Professor at two-year colleges; without my housing, I wouldn't be providing my students with the education they deserve. That's because, as Matthew Desmond writes in Evicted, "without stable shelter, everything else falls apart." I qualify for moderate income housing. Perhaps one day soon, I will be able to graduate to a middle income unit, or simply buy something in another area. When I was renting in the Port, I felt the anxiety of not knowing when my landlord would raise the rent, and wondered if he would sell his property soon as he is retired. I had that feeling of being at a dead end, as I was dependent on the generosity of my landlord to remain close to work and in a city I love. I 1

could never compete on the open market for housing, and I'm in my thirties, so were something to happen, my only option, sharing a four-bed-one bath, would just not be cute anymore. Now that I live in an inclusionary unit I can relax. I am in a system, not dependent on the whims of an individual. I have shelter I know I can afford this year and next year, and the year after that if I so choose. I have an idea of what my rent will be next year too, which as we know is not a luxury most people have. My students can thank inclusionary zoning and the staff at CDD for having an instructor who has both the time and energy to challenge and support them. So, thank you to Chris Cotter, Rebecca Bartolick, and Donna Claudio! This is all to say that, as a moderate income tenant, my access to affordable housing is not so life-or- death as it is for many low income folks and families. Homelessness, eviction, being unable to afford food or transit due to housing costs, spending nights on the street or in a shelter, even years sleeping on a cousin's floor- these are all experiences low income folks, including many of my students, have had. My students tell these stories in their writing, and with their bleary eyes, unshowered bodies, poor grades, and scars. These are locals from our communities who have sat on housing waiting lists sometimes for a decade. This is the next generation for whom housing means survival; it means a healthy meal, a steady job (or two, or three), a T pass, and perhaps even a college education. "Without stable shelter, everything falls apart." So, I am writing you to go against my own self interest. I don't care about 1/3 of these units being set aside for middle income folks. I can move to Medford if need be. We must address the highest need, and this is primarily for low income housing. It took me about two years to secure the unit i wanted; my students are still waiting, after ten. Please reconsider the 1/3-1/3-1/3 proposal, and instead advance a model that prioritizes low income housing over those for other income brackets. I would also ask that you are very cautious in deciding whether or not to cut parking. I live at 632 Massachusetts Avenue, and we are a building that has many inclusionary tenants. If you look at our garage, it is underutilized. It's also massive, so I'm pretty sure when it was built in the early 2000s parking requirements were still pretty giant. What sticks out, however, is that considering the costs of market-rate units in my building, there are very few new or luxury vehicles. Many of the cars are older, and many of these vehicles I know to be owned by other inclusionary tenants. These folks have family outside of the city and drive to visit them, they work off-hours at their many jobs, and some drive for Uber or deliver Amazon packages. They tote their kids around the city to school and to different activities, and some go to school themselves. They visit children in other states, and visit other family, they go grocery shopping and have doctors appointments and might need to fill in at work at a different location. Before cutting parking, please remember that many lower income folks do have some needs that are unique from those of middle-income and even moderate-income folks. They might not have the luxury of a job that ends before public transit does, and they might not work within biking distance; in fact, they might have two or three different jobs that take them all over our region. These people have busy and sometimes complicated lives that can't rely on--or afford--ride-hailing services. Please consider carefully the distinct needs of lower income folks and families before abolishing parking requirements. It sounds great in theory, but must be a decision that is made carefully by folks in touch with the needs of low income tenants. Thank you for your tireless work to advocate for more affordable housing! Many thanks, Abra Berkowitz 2

632 Massachusetts Avenue #404 Cambridge, MA 02139

LL-60 We, the undersigned Cambridge residents support the establishment of a Cambridge Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay to deal with Cambridge's affordable housing crisis. The lack of affordable multi-family housing impacts us directly because we are currently under-housed and have been on waiting lists for a larger affordable apartment to accommodate our growing family for years. NAME ADDRESS 364 RINDGE AVE #IGF ABDULSALAM A. MULLAN 364 RINDUE AVE #16F AZIZAHMED A. MULLAN 364 RINDEE AVE # 13F ZAKARIA A MULLAN 302 RENATE AVE A HAL 362 RINDGE AVE # 14L GULSANBIBI. A-PARDIWALA 367 13 K AGer Taye Etsegenet Belay 362 Pindye Are 193 362 Rindge Are 56 Tirsit 362 Rinage Are 4H Sy-Da F. Baguem Yusuf Heri 362 Bindge Ane, 18J 362 Rindge Ave #185 Omar Hers;

Support the Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay

Atachment Mm Crane, Paula Korn, Charles < [email removed]> From: Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 10:45 PM To: Curt Rogers ([email removed]); [email removed]; Cc: [email removed] Public Comment - Charles Korn - 6 Austin Park - Housing Committee hearing - Subject: 3-20-2019 All: Herewith my comments from tonight's hearing. Please feel free to share this. STATEMENT TO THE HOUSING COMMITTEE, CITY OF CAMBRIDGE - 03-20-2019 My name is Charles Korn, I live at 6 Austin Park, right over there. I've lived here for about 25 years. We are raising 3 daughters here in the Cambridge Public schools. Affordable housing is a really big deal and it's something that we really have to get right. The overlay proposal as it is currently laid out has three main flaws as I see it: < 1> The density as of right will cut out any kind of design review. It will cut out planning and community involvement, which I think is very important. And I think one of the reasons why we're all here because we want to be part of the solution, not have the solution imposed on us. The city will lose control over development. Who's going to supervise this? These questions are unanswered. And I think fundamentally, it sacrifices community needs in favor of developer expediency. I don't think that's the right answer. < 2> This proposal is too blunt an instrument. There are a lot of unintended consequences. Some of the setbacks--the 5- foot setbacks, and with so many non-conforming structures, you may find 5 feet between buildings may cause fire issues and a lot of other unintended consequences. The controls are very weak in the proposal and will leave things open to abuse. I don't think the overlay proposal is particularly innovative and I think it is actually kind of disappointing if this is the only answer we have for affordable housing. < 3> We need to incorporate alternatives. As part of this community involvement process, a lot of good ideas have been proposed and they should be part of this. For example, we should streamline the comprehensive permit process. I think that's the best way to get the community involved. I think there's a big amount of support in the community for affordable housing. Two, we can add super inclusionary zoning which will help blend market rate and affordable housing. Three, perhaps the city ought to have more involvement. Four, explore partnerships such as public-private or partnerships with MIT and Harvard. Thank You [Special call out to my daughter Giselle who was watching on TV and transcribed these comments. She is an awesome product of Cambridge Public Schools!] 1

Charles Korn 6 Austin Park ived here tor L ave 3 daughters in the public schools Affordable Housing. Te is a big important deal - we have to get it right OVERLAY HAS 3 MAIN FLAWS As PRoPosed - Astrap Densily as of right will gut design review - Cuts out planning & commity involvemat - loss of control over develapment - who will supervise this? - sacrifice community needs in favor of developers needs what is a - Proposal is too blunt an instumait. - open to lots of tunintended conseguences lots af non-conforming structures uses can lead to problems - Weak Controls With opens up chances a abuse - an overlay is not innovative and disappanting if this is the auly auswer - Need to Incorporate Alternatives l - Streamline comprehensive permit process more - add super- inclusionary zoning - City developmont - Public/Prinate Partreeslips