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 28, 2019 to discuss Affordable Housing Overlay District

Atachment A Opening Remarks for Housing Committee March 28, 2019, 5 pm in Sullivan Chamber Call of the Meeting: "The Housing Committee shall meet to continue discussions on the Affordable Housing Overlay District and other related matters. " Good evening, Tonight, the Housing Committee is meeting to continue our discussion on the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay District. At our last hearing on March 5, the Community Development Department walked us through a presentation to better explain what this proposed Affordable Housing Overlay District would seek to achieve, and how it would work. Tonight, this Committee had asked that the CDD present the actual Zoning Language - meaning, the language that will form the basis of what the City Council could eventually be asked to vote upon. In just a few minutes, the CDD will walk us through the Zoning Language, I would then like to hear the thoughts of any members of the Affordable Housing Trust about this proposal, we'll then open the floor to questions and comments from the Committee members, and we will follow that with Public Comment. In recognition of the fact that we'll all be trying to digest quite a bit of information tonight, and that it may be difficult for people to truly process this information, gather their thoughts, and then immediately turn around and give Public Comment, I want to alert folks to the schedule of meetings just ahead of us: • On April 9 at 5:30 pm, the Mayor has scheduled a Roundtable so that the full City Council can roll up our sleeves and do a deep dive into this proposed Overlay District • Since there is no Public Comment at Roundtables, the Housing Committee will hold another hearing on April 16 at 6 pm, and this shall be given over entirely to Public Comment • On April 25 at 6 pm, we will hold another hearing on the Affordable Housing Overlay, and it is my hope that we might be able to vote this on to the Ordinance Committee for further hearings at that time. Again, my original hope and expectation was that this Committee would have received this Zoning Language much earlier than today - but now that we DO finally have it in front of us, my co-chair and I are committed to moving this conversation forward with as much deliberation, transparency, public engagement, and expeditiousness as possible. I wish to thank everyone, particularly the members of the public, for remaining so engaged and so understanding throughout this lengthy process. I will ask my Co-Chair if she has any opening remarks, and then I shall turn the floor over to the Community Development Department. Councilor Siddiqui? The floor is yours.

Attachment B HOUSING COMMITTEE COMMITTEE MEETING ~ AGENDA ~ Sullivan Chamber 5:00 PM Thursday, March 28, 2019 I. Call of the Meeting The Housing Committee shall meet to continue discussions on the Affordable Housing Overlay District. II. Opening Remarks Opening Remarks from Councillor Simmons/Councillor Siddiqui III. Overview from CDD Overview from CDD on zoning language of proposed Affordable Housing Overlay District Questions from Committee members Comments from Members of Affordable Housing Trust and Non-profit Housing Agency Representatives Discussion 1. WORKING DRAFT-Affordable Housing Overlay IV. General Discussion V. Public Comment VI. Concluding Remarks VII. Adjournment Page 1 City of Cambridge

Attachment C City of Cambridge 100%-Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal March 2018 Frequently Asked Questions 1. Why does Cambridge need an Affordable Housing Overlay? It has become increasingly challenging for affordable housing providers to build new affordable housing in new buildings with public funding which are 100%-affordable. Cambridge residents have growing concerns about displacement and increasing rents and have consistently ranked the lack of affordable housing as an area of significant concern. For many years, the City has made creating and preserving affordable housing a priority goal. However, several factors make the goal of creating new affordable housing increasingly challenging to achieve: a. Land and construction costs continue to climb b. Cuts at the federal level have reduced funding for housing (despite increased funding at the City level) c. The current zoning requirements for areas where it is feasible to build new affordable housing. For example, in many neighborhoods, the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance does not allow existing structures to be rebuilt, and does not allow multi-family or townhouse units. 2. What is the Affordable Housing Overlay? The proposal is to create a citywide zoning overlay to enable 100%-affordable housing developments to better compete with market-rate development. For 100%-affordable projects that meet the requirements of the Affordable Housing Overlay, this would allow the following: a. As-of-right permitting b. Increased density allowance through a form-based zoning approach with more flexible dimensional standards (height, setbacks, open space) and parking c. Multi-family and townhouse developments in areas where they are not currently allowed d. Conversion of larger residential buildings to affordable multifamily housing e. A new review process which would include community input and advisory design review by the Planning Board without the requirement of discretionary approvals The Overlay will help the City's affordable housing partners pursue new opportunities to create affordable housing in all neighborhoods by allowing affordable housing developers to build larger buildings than would otherwise be allowed and streamlining the permitting process to allow 100%-affordable housing developments to move to construction more quickly to help reduce development costs and use public funding more effectively. 3. What does "as-of-right" mean? Does that mean no oversight? a. An "as-of-right" development is one which if it meets all applicable zoning requirements may proceed to obtain a building permit without the need for special permits or variances from the Planning Board or the Board of Zoning Appeal. As-of-right developments are still subject to non- zoning laws, ordinances, and regulations, such as the building code and historic protection ordinances. Community Development Department, March 2019

4. Why is as-of-right permitting proposed? a. Special permits and variances - as well as comprehensive permits for affordable housing projects - are subject to appeals which can add significant costs, take years to resolve, and tie up resources and capacity of affordable housing developers while they are pending. As a result, new affordable housing developments can take longer to complete and cost more given the longer development timeframe. 5. Why is a "form-based" zoning approach proposed for the Affordable Housing Overlay? What does this mean? How does a form-based approach impact scale, volume and density? How does it relate to FAR limits? a. A form-based approach to zoning is one that primarily regulates the type and scale of buildings allowed in an area, rather than relying on density metrics such as floor area ratio (FAR) and lot area per dwelling unit. In this case, affordable housing projects would be regulated based on the number of stories allowed, along with overall height limits, setback and open space requirements, and specific standards for overall building and site design. b. The intent of the proposal is to allow affordable housing to be built at a greater density than allowed by underlying zoning in order to make more sites feasible for the development of affordable units. The form-based approach is being proposed, in part, because of concerns raised in community discussions around the height and scale of buildings. Directly regulating the height and scale (in terms of the number of stories) of an affordable housing development helps provide a degree of clarity and predictability to the outcomes, while providing enough flexibility to make affordable housing projects feasible at a greater density. c. While this approach can be described as "form-based," adoption of a comprehensive form-based zoning code, as some other communities have considered and/or adopted. The proposed zoning would still be an overlay applicable only to one type of development, affordable housing projects. Questions about Affordable Housing 6. What is affordable housing? a. Affordable housing is deed-restricted housing for income-eligible households where residents generally pay no more than 30% of their income for rent or a mortgage. Affordable housing funded by the City ranges from housing designed for formerly homeless individuals to homeownership units for families. Most City-assisted affordable rental housing is targeted to low- and moderate-income residents earning less than 80% of area median income (AMI). Homeownership housing is typically targeted to be affordable to residents earning less than 100% AMI. See chart below: Current Eligibility Limits - Area Median Income (AMI) by Household Size (households are eligible if their income is below these amounts) Household Size 80% AMI 100% AMI $56,800 $75,500 1 Person 2 People $64,900 $86,300 $73,000 3 People $97,100 $81,100 4 People $107,800 $116,500 5 People $87,600 Community Development Department, March 2019

7. Who lives in affordable housing and how are they chosen? How do we ensure they are eligible? a. Affordable housing in the city is occupied by a wide range of residents, including individuals, families, residents who work in a range of jobs, and retirees. Depending on the type of development, residents for affordable units may be selected by an affordable housing developer or by an involved housing agency, such as the City in the case of homeownership. Residents for City-funded affordable housing are selected in accordance with the City's resident selection preference policies which include priorities for Cambridge residents and families. In some cases, the process involves a lottery for available units. In other cases, units are filled from a waiting list. In every case, screening is done to ensure that the tenant or buyer meets eligibility requirements for an affordable housing development. In addition, subsequent monitoring is done to ensure continued compliance with the requirements of the applicable affordable housing restriction(s). 8. What does an income limit mean? Would a single person earning less than $56,000 be eligible for any housing created under the Affordable Housing Overlay? a. Income limits refer to the maximum amount a household may earn in order to be eligible for an affordable unit. They do not refer to the minimum income amount. b. Income limits are derived from Area Median Income (AMI) figures established annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). c. In response to the question above, the current income limit for a single person at 80% of AMI is $56,800. As a result, a single person earning less than $56,000 would be eligible for housing created under the Affordable Housing Overlay proposal. 9. What does 100%-affordable mean? Would mixed-income be better? a. A 100%-affordable development means that all residential units will be subject to an affordability restriction to ensure that units will remain affordable. For the Affordable Housing Overlay, it is proposed that: i. at least 80% of the rental units must be set aside for households earning no more than 80% of the Area Median Income ii. up to 20% of rental units may be set aside for households earning up to 100% of Area Median Income ili. at least 50% of ownership units must be set aside for households earning no more than 80% of the Area Median Income iv. up to 50% of ownership units may be set aside for households earning up to 100% of Area Median Income. o. Residents may earn less than these limits, particularly if the development includes additional rental subsidies, or is funded through a program which requires units to be affordable to lower income households. Larger buildings may be "mixed-income" communities with ranges of units affordable to households with different incomes under 100% of AMI. 10. How is affordability maintained over the long-term? What are the mechanics? a. Long-term affordability is maintained through deed restrictions, which are legal agreements that are recorded on the deed of each property with affordable units. Affordable housing deed restrictions outline the affordability requirements for the property including ongoing compliance requirements. The City records affordable housing deed restrictions on properties assisted with funding from the City or Affordable Housing Trust, and on properties where zoning requires that there be affordable housing. Housing developed under the Affordable Housing Overlay would be Community Development Department, March 2019

subject to a zoning-based restriction which would require that the housing remain permanently affordable. 11. What % of Cambridge's housing stock is currently affordable? How has that changed? What is the goal? How will this proposal help achieve that goal? a. Approximately 14.8% of the City's existing housing stock is restricted as affordable, with 8,117 affordable units in the city. This proportion has declined slightly since the end of rent control in the mid 1990's when the ratio was over 15%. b. The Envision Cambridge planning process has developed a goal of creating 12,500 new housing units by 2030, with 25% of new units (3,175 units) to be affordable. The 3,175 affordable unit production goal would require approximately 1,000 new affordable units to be created with City funding. If the Envision goals are achieved, the proportion of affordable units would increase to approximately 16% of the overall housing stock. c. City funds for affordable housing typically produce 50-60 new affordable units each year, with identifying opportunities to add to the affordable housing stock being the most limiting factor. The more areas where it is feasible to create new affordable housing, the more likely we are to continue to maintain our current rate of affordable housing creation as new resources are identified to meet the Envision goal for new affordable units. 12. How much local subsidy is needed to produce a unit of affordable housing? How much is appropriated annually? Based on this, can we estimate how many units could be expected to be created annually? a. Most affordable housing developments rely on a range of subsidized financing sources in order to be feasible, including local funding from the City and Affordable Housing Trust. b. In Fiscal Year 2019, $13.6 million in City funding was appropriated to the Affordable Housing Trust for affordable housing preservation and creation. c. The amount of subsidy needed to produce a unit of affordable housing will depend on a range of factors including acquisition cost, construction cost, and depth of affordability. Recently, the amount of local funds has ranged from $175,000 to over $250,000 per affordable unit. d. Assuming an average local contribution of $200,000 per unit, and annual local funding appropriations of $15 million, it is estimated that roughly 75 affordable units could be produced per year. 13. If this proposal is not increasing the amount of affordable housing that could otherwise be built, why is the Overlay being proposed? a. A goal of the Overlay proposal is to enable more affordable housing to be created more quickly than would be possible without the Affordable Housing Overlay. Allowing larger buildings for affordable housing and a more predictable review process with as-of-right development options will allow affordable housing developers to assemble needed funding and begin construction more quickly. Shortening the development cycle will allow for savings as holding costs (financing, taxes, insurance, utilities) will be reduced. Small savings in development costs will reduce the need for City funds which can then be used to finance additional affordable housing. In the end, however, the amount of affordable housing created will be tied to the amount of funding available. A more predictable and efficient process to develop affordable housing will allow City funding to be used more effectively to help reach our affordable housing goals more quickly. Community Development Department, March 2019

14. What is the Affordable Housing Trust and what role would it play if any? a. The Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust was established in 1989 to preserve and expand affordable housing in Cambridge. The Affordable Housing Trust provides funding to developers of affordable housing in Cambridge. The Trust is a nine-member board, chaired by the City Manager, that meets on a monthly basis to review proposals for new affordable housing needing funding from the Trust. As a result, affordable housing developers receiving funding from the City will need to meet Trust funding priorities, such as a preference for family-sized affordable housing units. For more information on the Trust: https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/housing/housingtrust Questions regarding how the Affordable Housing Overlay would work 15. Who would be able to take advantage of this zoning overlay? a. Only projects in which all units have permanent affordability restrictions would be able to benefit from the proposed zoning. Most of the 100%-affordable projects in Cambridge are currently developed by non-profit (e.g. Homeowners Rehab, Inc. and Just-A-Start) and public (Cambridge Housing Authority) entities. However, any developer - public, non-profit, or private - building 100%-affordable housing would be able to utilize the Affordable Housing Overlay zoning. Private developers building market-rate housing (with required inclusionary housing) would not benefit from the 100%-affordable housing overlay. 16. How will design review happen? How much community engagement will there be regarding urban form? What is the proposed process? a. The intent of the proposal is to create less restrictive zoning requirements for affordable housing projects, so fewer projects would require special permits or variances. However, the proposal would require an advisory design consultation by the Planning Board which would occur after an affordable housing developer has hosted community meetings to review its proposal. Planning Board advisory review would be non-binding, but it would include public comment and multiple opportunities for review and input. 17. How would historic review apply? Would it be the same process, or something new and streamlined? a. Historic review processes are separate from the Zoning Ordinance and would not be affected by this proposal. For example, all buildings that are more than 50 years old would remain subject to the City's demolition delay ordinance. Local affordable housing developers have a long and successful track record of working with the Cambridge Historical Commission to preserve, renovate, expand and re-use historic buildings as affordable housing. 18. Would the Overlay allow the conversion of an existing house to individual units? a. Yes, the proposal would provide additional zoning flexibility for the conversion or re-use of existing structures, both residential and non-residential, to affordable housing. 19. Could a developer re-use an existing building and also build new housing on the same site, through an addition or separate structure? How would this work? a. The proposal would allow re-use of an existing structure and creating new housing in an addition or separate building. Any addition or new structure would need to conform to the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay requirements, including minimum setbacks and height limits. Community Development Department, March 2019

20. What are the proposed front yard setback requirements? Could the minimum front setback be reduced to match the setbacks of existing adjacent buildings? a. Under the proposal, the minimum front yard setback for an affordable housing project would be 10 feet, unless the normal district requirement is already less than 10 feet. The required setback could be further reduced to the average of the front setbacks for buildings on either site. 21. What will the green building requirements be? a. Any housing built under the Affordable Housing Overlay would need to comply with the City's existing Green Building Standards (Section 22.20 of the Zoning Ordinance). There is a pending proposal to update those requirements in the near future to require a minimum LEED Gold standard, or to use the Enterprise Green Communities or PassiveHouse rating system as an alternative. 22. How will recommendations from the Climate Resilience Zoning Task Force interact with the new . Affordable Housing Overlay? Will recommendations from the Task Force be incorporated into the zoning? a. The overall intent of the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay is to retain the standards for sustainable and resilient development that would apply to all projects. However, because the Climate Resilience Zoning Task Force is not expected to deliver recommendations until the end of this year, the exact impacts will not be known until specific recommendations are considered for adoption. 23. What are the provisions for street level retail space in the Affordable Housing Overlay? a. Neighborhood retail provides an important amenity to residents and creating new housing benefits small retailers by growing their customer base. Affordable housing developments built in active corridors already often incorporate street level retail. As proposed, the Overlay provisions would include a requirement to design ground floor space to accommodate retail space. in new buildings developed in certain locations and on certain properties that previously had active ground floor retail. 24. Can the Affordable Housing Overlay eliminate the need for curb cut approvals by the City Council? a. Curb cuts will continue to require approval by the City Council because that process is separate from zoning. 25. Is it true that developers would tear down any existing building in order to maximize density on the lot? a. While each site will be different, affordable housing developers in Cambridge have a long and successful track record of preserving and re-using existing structures for affordable housing. The Cambridge Historical Commission will continue to administer City ordinances relating to building preservation, including the demolition delay ordinance. At the same time, one of the purposes of the Affordable Housing Overlay is to allow more density for affordable housing in order to make development feasible. As a result, while there may be cases where it makes more sense from a design and development perspective to replace existing structures with new construction, continuing to thoughtfully re-use historic buildings as affordable housing will continue to be the preferred approach. Community Development Department, March 2019

26. Why not limit the Affordable Housing Overlay to the corridors and areas of the city where there is already more density? a. One goal for the Affordable Housing Overlay is to create opportunities to add affordable housing to areas of the city that do not now offer many affordable housing options. Expanding affordable housing to these areas of the City would help promote socio-economic diversity and create new housing opportunities in areas where many residents cannot now afford. 27. Can we require that housing developed under the overlay include a middle-income component? Can we expand eligibility up to 120% AMI? a. The greatest demand for affordable housing is among households earning less than 100% AMI, with most demand from households less than 80% AMI. In addition, most funding for affordable housing is limited to serving households earning less than 80% AMI. The Overlay proposal provides an option of making a portion of units available to families earning up to 100% AMI. 28. Can we require that housing developed under the Affordable Housing Overlay includes a homeownership component? a. The City has created hundreds of affordable homeownership units and will continue to encourage creation of new affordable homes for eligible homebuyers. However, the intention of the Overlay is to increase flexibility for housing developers to create affordable housing. Given that there are now very few sources of subsidy funding for affordable homeownership development, a homeownership requirement could be challenging to finance. 29. Is it true that the majority of the units created will be small units, such as studios and one bedrooms, in order to make development feasible? a. No, it is expected that the majority of new housing produced would include a large number of family-sized units as the creation of housing opportunities for families is a top priority of both the City, the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust and most affordable housing funders. However, it is also likely that some new housing will exclusively consist of smaller units such as in cases where an existing single-family home is converted to small units. 30. Will the Overlay provisions require that housing developed under the Affordable Housing Overlay includes family-sized requirement? a. As proposed, the Overlay does not include a requirement for family-sized units. One of the goals of the Affordable Housing Overlay is to make the development of affordable housing more flexible so that affordable housing developers are able to take advantage of a greater number of opportunities. Any added requirements could make the Affordable Housing Overlay less effective in achieving this goal. However, it is anticipated that affordable housing developed under the Affordable Housing Overlay will need funding from the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust. The Trust has prioritized the creation of family-sized units and typically makes the incorporation of a large number of family-sized units a condition of its funding. As a result, it is expected most new housing would include family-sized units to address this priority. Community Development Department, March 2019

Other Questions 31. Can the City prepare case studies of potential projects? a. Yes. Staff from the Community Development Department are working to develop graphical illustrations of how the Affordable Housing Overlay requirements might be employed on various sizes and types of sites. 32. How does this proposal relate to the Envision Cambridge population projections? Will the Affordable Housing Overlay result in an increase in population? a. The recently completed Envision Cambridge comprehensive plan included projections for increases in population and development between now and 2030. The plan also included housing production goals to create 12,500 new housing units, including 3,175 new affordable housing units. If adopted, the Affordable Housing Overlay would not impact the population projections put forth in the Envision Cambridge plan, but it would offer a better chance of reaching the affordable housing production goals of Envision by 2030. Without the Affordable Housing Overlay, affordable housing production will continue but would proceed more slowly, making it more challenging to reach this goal. 33. Should this be called an overlay if it applies to the whole city? a. "Overlay" refers to zoning that modifies the requirements of the underlying base zoning districts) and any other overlay districts. Usually the term "overlay zoning districts" refers to districts only in defined sections of the city. The proposed zoning changes are being referred to as a "citywide affordable housing overlay" because it would modify the base zoning requirements in all districts, and it is also the term that has been used most frequently to discuss the concept in the past. 34. Will any housing developers actually take advantage of the Affordable Housing Overlay? It does not appear that it would provide profits to the developer, or even be financially feasible. a. The Affordable Housing Overlay is not intended to make affordable housing development profitable for market-rate developers. 100%-affordable housing developments are typically undertaken by non-profit or private developers who are not driven by profit motives. Significant amounts of public subsidy are needed to make affordable housing feasible. The Affordable Housing Overlay would not replace the need for this subsidy but will help increase feasibility by streamlining the development process and making more sites feasible for housing with the amount of subsidy available for new affordable housing. Community Development Department, March 2019

Attachment D WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY Affordable Housing Overlay - WORKING DRAFT ADD NEW DEFINITIONS TO ARTICLE 2.000: Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO). A set of modified development standards set forth in Section 11.207.3 of this Zoning Ordinance intended to allow increases in density, limited increases in height, and relaxation of certain other zoning limitations for residential developments in which all units are made permanently affordable to households earning up to 100% of area median income. Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Dwelling Unit. A dwelling unit within an AHO Project for which occupancy is restricted to an AHO Eligible Household and whose rent or initial sale price is established by the provisions of Section 11.207.3 of this Zoning Ordinance. Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Eligible Household. A household whose gross household income does not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 11.207.3 of this Zoning Ordinance. Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Project. The construction of a new building or buildings and/or the modification of an existing building or buildings resulting in single-family, two-family, townhouse, or multifamily dwellings within which each dwelling unit is an AHO Dwelling Unit subject to the standards and restrictions set forth in Section 11.207 of this Zoning Ordinance. Grade. The mean finished grade of a lot measured either around the entire perimeter of the building or along any existing wall facing a public street, which grade is maintained naturally without any structural support. Story. That portion of a building included between the upper surface of a floor and the upper surface of the floor or roof next above. Story Above Grade. A story whose highest point is more than 4 feet above the Grade. CREATE NEW SECTION: 11.207 AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY 1. Purpose and Intent The purpose of this Section is to promote the public good by supporting the development of housing that is affordable to households earning up to 100% of area median income. The intent of this Section is to allow increases in density, limited increases in height, and relaxation of certain other zoning limitations for residential developments in which all units are made permanently affordable to households earning up to 100% of area median income (referred to as "AHO Projects," as defined in Article 2.000 of this Zoning Ordinance); to incentivize the reuse of existing buildings in order to create AHO Projects that are more compatible with established neighborhood character; to promote the city's urban design objectives while enabling AHO Projects to be permitted as-of-right, subject to non-binding advisory design consultation procedures; and to apply such standards throughout the City, to promote city planning goals of achieving greater socioeconomic diversity and a more equitable distribution of affordable housing citywide. 2. Applicability Page 1 of 13

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY The provisions set forth in this Section shall apply to the creation, enlargement, or alteration of AHO Projects, as defined in Article 2.000 of this Zoning Ordinance, in all zoning districts. 3. Standards for Eligibility, Rent, and Initial Sale Price for AHO Dwelling Units (a) All dwelling units in an AHO Project shall comply with the standards for AHO Dwelling Units as set forth in this Section. (b) For all AHO Dwelling Units: (i) AHO Dwelling Units shall be rented or sold only to AHO Eligible Households, with preference given to Cambridge residents, in accordance with standards and procedures related to selection, asset limits, and marketing established by the Community Development Department. (ii) AHO Dwelling Units shall be created and conveyed subject to recorded covenants approved by the Community Development Department guaranteeing the permanent availability of the AHO Dwelling Units for AHO Eligible Households. (c) For rental AHO Dwelling Units: (1) The gross household income of an AHO Eligible Household upon initial occupancy shall be no more than one-hundred percent (100%) of AMI. (ii) At least eighty percent (80%) of AHO Dwelling Units shall be occupied by AHO Eligible Households whose gross household income upon initial occupancy is no more than eighty percent (80%) of AMI. (ili) 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 AHO Eligible Household occupying the AHO Dwelling Unit or other similar standard pursuant to an applicable housing subsidy program which has been approved by the Community Development Department. (iv) After initial occupancy, the gross household income of an AHO Eligible Household shall be verified periodically to determine continued eligibility and rent, in accordance with policies, standards, and procedures established by the Community Development Department. (v) An AHO Eligible Household may continue to rent an AHO Dwelling Unit after initial occupancy even if the AHO Eligible Household's gross household income exceeds the eligibility limits set forth above, but may not exceed one hundred twenty percent (120%) of AMI for more than one year after that Eligible Household's gross household income has been verified to exceed such percentage, unless otherwise restricted pursuant to an applicable housing subsidy program which has been approved by the Community Development Department. (vi) Notwithstanding the requirements set forth in (i) through (v) above, an owner may voluntarily choose to charge a lower rent than as provided herein for AHO Dwelling Units. (d) For owner-occupied AHO Dwelling Units: (i) The gross household income of an AHO Eligible Household upon initial occupancy shall be no more than one-hundred percent (100%) of AMI. Page 2 of 13

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (ii) At least fifty percent (50%) of AHO Dwelling Units shall be sold to by AHO Eligible Households whose gross household income upon initial occupancy is no more than eighty percent (80%) of AMI. (iii) The initial sale price of an AHO Dwelling Unit shall be approved by the Community Development Department and shall be determined to ensure that the monthly housing payment (which shall include debt service at prevailing mortgage loan interest rates, utilities, condominium or related fees, insurance, real estate taxes, and parking fees, if any) shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the monthly income of: 1. A household earning ninety percent (90%) of AMI, in the case of an AHO Dwelling Unit to be sold to an AHO Eligible Household whose income upon initial occupancy is no more than one-hundred percent (100%) of AMI; or 2. A household earning seventy percent (70%) of AMI, in the case of an AHO Dwelling Unit to be sold to an AHO Eligible Household whose income upon initial occupancy is no more than eighty percent (80%) of AMI. (e) An AHO Project meeting the standards set forth herein as approved by the Community Development Department shall not be required to comply with the Inclusionary Housing Requirements set forth in 11.203 of this Zoning Ordinance. Use 4. (a) In all zoning districts, an AHO Project may contain single-family, two-family, townhouse, or multifamily dwellings as-of-right. Townhouse and Multifamily Special Permit procedures shall not apply. (b) An AHO Project may contain active non-residential uses on the ground floor as they may be permitted as-of-right in the base zoning district or the overlay districts) that are applicable to a lot, which for the purpose of this Section shall be limited to Institutional Uses listed in Section 4.33, Office Uses listed in Section 4.34, and Retail and Consumer Service uses listed in Section 4.35 that provide services to the general public. 5. Development Standards 5.1 General Provisions (a) For the purposes of this Section, the phrase "District Development Standards" shall refer to the development standards of the base zoning district as they may be modified by the development standards of all overlay districts that are applicable to a lot, but not the standards set forth within this Affordable Housing Overlay, and shall include standards that are permitted as-of-right or allowable by special permit. (b) For an AHO Project, the following development standards shall apply as-of-right in place of the more restrictive District Development Standards, except as otherwise stated. Where the District Development Standards for any type of use are less restrictive than the standards set forth below, such less restrictive development standards shall apply as-of-right to an AHO Project. Page 3 of 13

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (c) An AHO Project that conforms to the following development standards shall not be subject to other limitations that may be set forth in Article 5.000 or other Sections of this Zoning Ordinance, including limitations on Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and lot area per dwelling unit, except as otherwise stated in this Section. 5.2 Dimensional Standards for AHO Projects 5.2.1 Height and Scale (a) On lots where the District Dimensional Standards allow a maximum building height of 40 feet or less, an AHO Project shall contain no more than four Stories Above Grade and shall have a maximum height of 45 feet, as measured from existing Grade. For AHO Projects containing active non-residential uses on the ground floor, the maximum height may be increased to 50 feet but the number of Stories Above Grade shall not exceed four stories.* (b) On lots where the District Dimensional Standards allow a maximum building height of more than 40 feet, an AHO Project shall contain no more than seven Stories Above Grade and shall have a maximum height of 80 feet, as measured from existing Grade. (c) An AHO Project exceeding 80 feet in height shall be subject to all District Dimensional Standards. Yard Setbacks 5.2.2 (a) For the purpose of this Section, the applicable District Dimensional Standards shall not include yard setback requirements based on a formula calculation as provided in Section 5.24.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, but shall include non-derived minimum yard setback requirements set forth in Article 5.000 or other Sections of this Zoning Ordinance. (b) An AHO Project shall have a minimum front yard setback of 10 feet, except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive requirement. However, the front yard setback may be reduced to the average of the front yard setbacks of the pre-existing buildings on the lots adjacent thereto the on either side, if such average is less than the front yard setback otherwise required. (c) An AHO Project shall have a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 feet, except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive requirement. (d) An AHO Project shall have a minimum rear yard setback of 20 feet, except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive requirement. (e) Projecting eaves, chimneys, bay windows, balconies, open fire escapes and like projections which do not project more than 3.5 feet from the principal exterior wall plane, and unenclosed steps, unroofed porches and the like which do not project more than ten (10) feet beyond the line of the foundation wall and which are not over four (4) feet above Grade, may extend beyond the minimum yard setback. Page 4 of 13

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (f) Bicycle parking spaces, whether short-term or long-term, and appurtenant structures such as coverings, sheds, or storage lockers may be located within a required yard setback. 5.2.3 Open Space (a) Except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive requirement or as otherwise provided below, the minimum percentage of open space to lot area for an AHO Project shall be 30%. However, the minimum percentage of open space to lot area may be reduced to no less than 15% if at least one of the following criteria is met: An area commensurate with such reduction is used to provide off-street surface (i) parking spaces on the lot along with necessary driveways and access aisles. (ii) The AHO project includes the preservation and protection of an existing building included on the State Register of Historic Places. (b) At least half of the required open space shall meet the definition of Permeable Open Space. (c) No more than half of the required percentage of open space may be located at levels more than 10 feet above Grade, such as balconies, decks, and roofs. (d) The required open space shall be considered Private Open Space but shall not be subject to the dimensional and other limitations set forth in Section 5.22 of this Zoning Ordinance. (e) For the purpose of this Affordable Housing Overlay, area used for covered or uncovered bicycle parking spaces that are not contained within a building shall be considered Private Open Space. 5.3. Standards for Existing Buildings A building that is in existence as of the effective date of this Ordinance and does not conform to the standards set forth above in this Affordable Housing Overlay may be altered, reconstructed, extended, and/or enlarged for use as an AHO Project as-of-right in accordance with the standards set forth below. Except as otherwise stated, the following standards shall apply to development contained within the envelope of the existing building, and enlargements or additions occurring outside the envelope of the existing building shall conform to the standards for new construction set forth above. (a) The modifications to a nonconforming structure allowed as-of-right or by special permit in Article 8.000 of this Zoning Ordinance shall be allowed as-of-right for an AHO Project. (b) Gross floor area may be added or reconstructed within the interior of the existing building, provided that the resulting number of Stories Above Grade is not more than the greater of the existing number of Stories Above Grade, the maximum number of stories permitted for new construction as set forth above, or the existing height of the building divided by 10 feet. Page 5 of 13

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (c) Insulation may be added to the exterior of an existing exterior wall to improve energy efficiency, provided that the resulting exterior plane of the wall shall either conform to the yard setback standards for an AHO project set forth above or shall not intrude more than eight (8) inches further into the existing yard setback. (d) An existing building may be moved to a new location on a lot, provided that the resulting height of the building above Grade at its new location shall be no greater than the height above Grade at its existing location, or the maximum building height permitted for an AHO Project as set forth above, whichever is greater, and also provided that the resulting yard setbacks shall not increase any nonconformance with the required yard setbacks set forth above for an AHO Project. (e) Where the existing amount of open space on the lot does not conform to the standards for an AHO Project set forth above, the existing amount of open space shall be the required amount. However, permitted alterations to the structure or lot including but not limited to moving the building footprint, installing exterior insulation, installing bicycle parking, or installing exterior features to improve accessibility may displace existing open space so long as such open space is reestablished elsewhere on the site to the extent possible and the total amount of open space is not decreased from the existing condition by more than 5% or 100 square feet, whichever is greater. 6. Parking and Bicycle Parking The limitations set forth in Article 6.000 of this Zoning Ordinance shall be modified as set forth below for an AHO Project. 6.1 Required Off-Street Accessory Parking (a) Off-street parking shall be required at a minimum ratio of 0.4 space per AHO Dwelling Unit, except as further modified below. (b) Off-street parking shall not be required for an AHO Project on a lot that is located, in whole or in part, within one half-mile of a public rapid transit station or within one quarter-mile of a bus stop with a scheduled peak hour frequency of at least six buses per hour during 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:30 PM on weekdays. (c) The requirement for off-street parking spaces shall be waived for AHO Dwelling Units created within existing buildings in existence as of the effective date of this Ordinance. In addition, the requirement for off-street parking spaces shall be waived for any new construction, in the form of additions or stand-alone buildings, of an AHO Project on a lot that also includes the preservation and protection of a building included on the State Register of Historic Places. (d) Where the number of off-street parking spaces required by this Affordable Housing Overlay would otherwise be four spaces or fewer, the requirement to provide off-street parking spaces shall be waived. 6.2 Accessory Parking Provided Off-Site Page 6 of 13

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (a) Off-street parking facilities may be shared by multiple AHO Projects, provided that the requirements of this Section are met by all AHO Dwelling Units served by the facility and the facility is within 1,000 feet of all AHO Projects that it serves. (b) Off-street parking facilities for an AHO Project may be located within existing parking facilities located within 1,000 feet of the AHO Project and in a district where parking is permitted as a principal use or where the facility is a pre-existing nonconforming principal use parking facility, provided that the owner of the AHO Project shall provide evidence of fee ownership, a long-term lease agreement or renewable short-term lease agreement, recorded covenant, or comparable legal instrument to guarantee, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Superintendent of Buildings, that such facilities will be available to residents of the AHO Project. 6.3 Modifications to Design and Layout Standards for Off-Street Parking (a) Notwithstanding Section 6.43.2, parking spaces may be arranged in tandem without requiring a special permit, provided that no more than two cars may be parked within any tandem parking space. (b) Notwithstanding Section 6.43.6, owners of adjacent properties may establish common driveways under mutual easements without requiring a special permit. (c) Notwithstanding Paragraph 6.44.1(a), on-grade open parking spaces may be located within 10 feet but not less than 5 feet from a büilding wall on the same lot or an adjacent lot at the basement or first story without requiring a special permit, provided that such parking spaces are screened from buildings on abutting lots by a fence or dense plantings. (d) Notwithstanding Paragraph 6.44.1(b), on-grade open parking spaces and driveways may be located within 5 feet of a side or rear property line without requiring a special permit, provided that screening is provided in the form of a fence or dense plantings at the property line, unless such screening is waived by mutual written agreement of the owner of the lot and the owner of the abutting lot. 6.4 Modifications to Bicycle Parking Standards (a) Notwithstanding Section 6.104, long-term or short-term bicycle parking spaces may be located anywhere on the lot for an AHO Project or on an adjacent lot in common ownership or under common control. (b) Notwithstanding Section 6.107.5, up to 20 long-term bicycle parking spaces may be designed to meet the requirements for Short-Term Bicycle Parking Spaces, so long as they are covered from above to be protected from precipitation. (c) The requirement for short-term bicycle parking shall be waived where only four of fewer short-term bicycle parking spaces would otherwise be required. (d) The number of required bicycle parking spaces shall be reduced by half, up to a maximum reduction of 28 spaces, where a standard-size (19-dock) Public Bicycle Sharing Station is provided on the lot or by the developer of the AHO Project on a site within 500 feet of the Page 7 of 13

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY lot, with the written approval of the City if located on a public street or other City property, or otherwise by legally enforceable mutual agreement with the owner of the land on which the station is located as approved by the Community Development Department. If additional Public Bicycle Sharing Station docks are provided, the number of required bicycle parking spaces may be further reduced at a rate of 0.5 bicycle parking space per additional Public Bicycle Sharing Station dock, up to a maximum reduction of half of the required number of spaces. (e) For AHO Dwelling Units created within an existing building, bicycle parking spaces meeting the standards of this Zoning Ordinance shall not be required but are encouraged to be provided to the extent practical given the limitations of the existing structure. Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided, as required by this Zoning Ordinance, for dwelling units in an AHO Project that are constructed fully outside the envelope of the existing structure. 6.5 Transportation Demand Management An AHO Project whose parking requirements are waived pursuant to the provisions of this Section shall provide, in writing, to the Community Development Department a Transportation Demand Management program containing the following measures, at a minimum: (a) Offering either a free annual membership in a Public Bicycle Sharing Service, at the highest available tier where applicable, or a 50% discounted MBTA combined subway and bus pass for three months or pass of equivalent value, to up to two individuals in each household upon initial occupancy of a unit. (b) Providing transit information in the form of transit maps and schedules to each household upon initial occupancy of a unit, or providing information and a real-time transit service screen in a convenient common area of the building such as an entryway or lobby. : 7 Building and Site Design Standards for New Development 7.1 General Provisions (a) The following design standards shall apply to all AHO Projects. Except where otherwise stated, the Project Review requirements set forth in Article 19.000 of this Zoning Ordinance and any design standards set forth in Section 19.50 or elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance shall not apply if the following standards are met; however, the design standards specific to the project area are encouraged to be met to the extent possible if they are not in conflict with the purpose of this Section. (b) The following design standards shall apply to new construction and to additions to existing structures. Except as otherwise provided, an existing building that is altered or moved to accommodate an AHO Project shall not be subject to the following standards, provided that such alterations do not create a condition that is in greater nonconformance with such standards than the existing condition. 7.2 Site Design and Arrangement Page 8 of 13

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (a) The area directly between the front lot line and the principal wall plane of the building nearest to the front lot line shall consist of any combination of landscaped area, hardscaped area accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists, and usable spaces such as uncovered porches, patios, or balconies. Parking and other motor vehicle uses, including service and loading facilities, shall not be located within such area, except for driveway access which shall be limited to a total of thirty (30) feet of width for any individual driveway for each one hundred (100) feet of lot frontage. (b) Pedestrian entrances to buildings shall be visible from the street, except where the building itself is not visible from the street due to its location. All pedestrian entrances shall be accessible by way of access routes that are separated from motor vehicle access drives. (c) A building footprint exceeding [200-300] feet in length, measured parallel to the street, shall contain portions that are set back by at least 40 feet in depth measured from and perpendicular to the front lot line and at least 40 feet in width measured parallel to the front lot line. 7.3 Building Façades (a) At least 15% of the area of building façades facing a public street shall consist of transparent glass windows. For buildings located in a Business A (BA), Business A-2 (BA-2), Business B (BB) or Business C (BC) zoning district, this figure shall be increased to 25%. (b) [To be discussed - minimum standards for surface relief on building façades facing a public street, such as bays, balconies, tapers, cornices, breaks in the building plane, and other architectural devices] 7.4 Ground Floors (a) The elevation at floor level of the ground floor of a building, meaning the lowest story above Grade, shall be at the mean Grade of the abutting public sidewalk, or above such mean Grade by not more than four feet. Where active non-residential uses are provided at the ground floor, the ground floor shall be accessible directly from the sidewalk without requiring use of stairs or a lift. The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply if it is determined by the City Engineer that a higher ground floor elevation is necessary for the purpose of flood protection. (b) Where structured parking is provided within the ground floor of a building, the portion of the building immediately behind the front wall plane shall consist of residential units, common areas, or other populated portions of the building in order to screen the provided parking over at least 50% of the length of the façade measured parallel to the street. (c) The façade of a ground floor facing a public street shall consist of expanses no longer than 25 feet in length, measured parallel to the street, which contain no transparent windows or pedestrian entryways. (d) If the ground floor is designed to accommodate active non-residential uses, the following additional standards shall apply: Page 9 of 13

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (i) the height of the lowest story above Grade for that portion of the building containing active non-residential uses shall be at least 15 feet; (ii) the depth of the space designed for active non-residential uses shall be at least 35 feet on average measured from the portion of the façade that is nearest to the front lot line in a direction perpendicular to the street, and measured to at least one street in instances where the space abuts two or more streets; and (iii) that portion of the ground floor façade containing active non-residential uses shall consist of at least 50% transparent glass windows. (e) Ground floors shall be designed to accommodate at least one space for an active non- residential use on sites that are located in a Business base zoning district, and where the project site and at least one of the lots abutting the project site contains or has contained a retail and consumer service use at any point within the past two years. 7.5 Mechanical Equipment, Refuse Storage, and Loading Areas All mechanical equipment, refuse storage, or loading areas serving the building or its occupants that are (1) carried above the roof, (2) located at the exterior building wall or (3) located outside the building, shall meet the requirements listed below. Mechanical equipment includes, but is not limited to, ventilation equipment including exhaust fans and ducts, air conditioning equipment, elevator bulkheads, heat exchangers, transformers and any other equipment that, when in operation, potentially creates a noise detectable off the lot. The equipment and other facilities: (a) Shall not be located within any required setback. This Paragraph (a) shall not apply to electrical equipment whose location is mandated by a recognized public utility, provided that project plans submitted for review by the City identify a preferred location for such equipment. (b) When on the ground, shall be permanently screened from view from adjacent public streets that are within 100 feet of the building, or from the view from abutting property in separate ownership at the property line.. The screening shall consist of densely planted shrubs or trees equal or greater in height at the time of installation than the equipment or facilities to be screened, or a fence of equal or greater height that is comparable in quality to the materials used on the principal facades of the building, with no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the face of the fence open. (c) When carried above the roof, shall be permanently screened from view, from the ground, from adjacent public streets and any abutting residentially used lot or lots in a residential zoning district. The screening shall be at least 50% opaque, uniformly distributed across the screening surface. (d) Shall meet all city, state and federal noise regulations, as applicable, as certified by a professional acoustical engineer if the Department of Inspectional Services deems such certification necessary. Page 10 of 13

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (e) That handle trash and other waste, shall be contained within the building or screened as required in this Section until properly disposed of. 7.6 Environmental Design Standards (a) This Section shall not waive the Green Building Requirements set forth in Section 22.20 of this Zoning Ordinance that may otherwise apply to an AHO Project. (b) Where the provisions of the Flood Plain Overlay District apply to an AHO Project, the performance standards set forth in Section 20.70 of this Zoning Ordinance shall apply; however, a special permit shall not be required. (C) An AHO Project shall be subject to other applicable laws, regulations, codes, and ordinances pertaining to environmental standards. (d) New outdoor light fixtures installed in an AHO Project shall be fully shielded and directed to prevent light trespass onto adjacent residential lots. 8 Advisory Design Consultation Procedure Prior to application for a building permit, the developer of an AHO Project shall comply with the following procedure, which is intended to provide an opportunity for non-binding community and staff input into the design of the project. (a) At least one community meeting shall be scheduled at a time and location that is convenient to residents in proximity to the project site. The Community Development Department (CDD) shall be notified of the time and location of such meeting, and shall give notification to each abutting property owner and to any individual or organization who each year files with CDD a written request for such notification, or to any other individual or organization CDD may wish tọ notify. The purpose of the community meeting(s) shall be to present preliminary project designs, answer questions from neighboring residents and other interested members of the public, and receive feedback on the design. The date(s), time(s), location(s), attendance, materials presented, and comments received at such meeting(s) shall be documented and provided to CDD (b) Following one or more such community meeting(s), the developer shall prepare the following materials for review by the Planning Board. CDD shall review to certify that the submitted written and graphic materials provide the required information in sufficient detail. All drawings shall be drawn to scale, shall include a graphic scale and north arrow for orientation, and shall provide labeled distances and dimensions for significant building and site features. (1) A context map indicating the location of the project and surrounding land uses, including transportation facilities. (2) An existing conditions site plan depicting the boundaries of the lot, the locations of buildings, open space features, parking areas, trees, and other major site features on the lot and abutting lots, and the conditions of abutting streets. Page 11 of 13

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (3) A proposed conditions site plan depicting the same information above as modified to depict the proposed conditions, including new buildings (identifying building entrances and uses on the ground floor) and major anticipated changes in site features. (4) Floor plans of all proposed new buildings and existing buildings to remain on the lot. (5) Elevations and cross-section drawings of all proposed new buildings and existing buildings to remain on the lot, depicting the distances to lot lines and the heights of surrounding buildings, and labeling the proposed materials on each façade elevation. (6) A landscape plan depicting and labeling all hardscape, permeable, and vegetated areas proposed for the site along with other structures or appurtenances on the site. (7) Plans of parking and bicycle parking facilities, as required by Section 6.50 of this Zoning Ordinance. (8) Materials palettes cataloguing and depicting with photographs the proposed façade and landscape materials. (9) Existing conditions photographs from various vantage points on the public sidewalk, including photos of the site and of the surrounding urban context. (10)Proposed conditions perspective renderings from a variety of vantage points on the public sidewalk, including locations adjacent to the site as well as longer views if proposed buildings will be visible from a distance. (11)A dimensional form, in a format provided by CDD, along with any supplemental materials, summarizing the general characteristics of the project and demonstrating compliance with applicable zoning requirements. (12)A brief project narrative describing the project and the design approach, and indicating how the project has been designed in relation to the citywide urban design objectives set forth in Section 19.30 of the Zoning Ordinance, any design guidelines that have been established for the area, and design guidelines established for AHO Projects in Cambridge. (c) Within 65 days of receipt of a complete set of materials by CDD, the Planning Board shall schedule a design consultation as a general business matter at a public meeting. The materials shall be made available to the public in advance, and the Planning Board may receive written comments prior to the meeting from City staff and from the general public. (d) At the scheduled design consultation, the Planning Board shall hear a presentation of the proposal from the developer and comments from the public. The Board may ask questions or seek additional information from the developer or from City staff. (e) The Planning Board shall evaluate the proposal for general compliance with the requirements of this Section, for consistency with City development guidelines prepared for the proposal area and for AHO Projects in general, for appropriateness in terms of other planned or programmed public or private development activities in the vicinity, and for consistency with the Citywide Urban Design Objectives set forth in Section 19.30. The Board may also suggest specific project adjustments and alterations to further the purposes of this Ordinance. Page 12 of 13

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (f) The Planning Board shall communicate its findings in a written report provided to the developer and to CDD within 20 days of the design consultation. The developer may then make revisions to the design, in consultation with CDD staff, and shall submit a revised set of documents to the Planning Board to review and discuss at a second design consultation meeting, which shall proceed in accordance with Paragraphs (c) and (d) above. Following the second design consultation, the Planning Board may revise and re-submit its report. Any additional design consultations to review further revisions may occur only at the discretion and on the request of the developer. (g) The final report from the Planning Board shall be provided to the Superintendent of Buildings to certify compliance with the procedures set forth herein. 9 Enforcement of Affordable Housing Overlay The Community Development Department shall certify in writing to the Superintendent of Buildings that all applicable provisions of this Section have been met before issuance of any building permit for any AHO Project, and shall further certify in writing to the Superintendent of Buildings that all documents have been filed and all actions taken necessary to fulfill the requirements of this Section before the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any such project. Op Page 13 of 13

CAMBRIDGE March 28, 2019 Working Draft City of Cambridge City Council Housing Committee Community Development Department 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Attachment E

March 5, 2019 Overlay - Working Draft Citywide Affordable Housing Community Development Department

4. Use Community Development Department 2. Applicability 9. Enforcement 1. Purpose and Intent 5. Development Standards 6. Parking and Bicycle Parking 7. Building and Site Design Standards 8. Advisory Design Consultation Procedure Affordable Housing Overlay - Working Draft 3. Standards for Eligibility, Rent, and Initial Sales Price March 5, 2019

March 5, 2019 households earning up to 80% of Area households earning up to up to 80% of Median Income (AMI) earning up to up to 100% of AMI earning up to up to 100% of AMI AMI • Rest may be affordable to households • At least 50% of units affordable to : • Rest may be affordable to households • At least 80% of units affordable to households at affordable amounts and Initial Sale Price 3. Standards for Eligibility, Rent, • Homeownership units: • Rental units: • Permanent affordability by covenant • All units rented or sold to income-eligible 2018 Income Limits $97,100 $75,500 $86,300 $107,800 100% AMI $64,900 $56,800 $81,100 $73,000 80% AMI Household Size The 40-unit Putnam Green was approved by a special permit by the Planning Board 2 persons 3 persons 1 person 4 persons Community Development Department

4. Use Community Development Department multifamily allowed as-of-right floor consistent with zoning district • Single-family, two-tamily, townhouse, or • Active non-residential use allowed on ground apartments was approved via a comprehensive permit March 5, 2019 The conversion of a historic building on Bigelow Street into 10 studio and 1-bedroom

March 28, 2019 building restrictive (generally) 5. Development Standards • Additional flexibility for reuse of an existing • District standards apply where they are less • Open Space • Yard Setbacks • Height and Scale Auburn Court Apartments on Brookline Street Community Development Department

• 40 to 80 feet Community Development Department If the district allows: • More than 80 feet Height and Scale 55/65-50 > 40 feet or less (~3 stories) 70/85-105' 00785/105-125 Fresh Pond > Up to 4 stories / 45 feet > Up to 7 stories / 80 feet > Up to 7 stories / 80 feet 100% Affordable Housing can be up to: (4 stories / 50 feet with active ground floor use) Charles Rite 45' - 78° 80' - 350' ... Open Space Districts (if more than 80 feet, must comply with district standards) Maximum Existing Height Limit March 5, 2019

March 5, 2019 • Preserving historic building • Providing surface parking (or reduced to average of buildings on either side) • Half required to be permeable • Flexibility in dimension/location • 20-foot rear • Reduction to 15% allowed for: • District setbacks apply if less restrictive • Minimum 30% open space • 7.5-foot sides • 10-foot front Open Space 5. Dimensional Standards (cont'd) Yard Setbacks Community Development Department

Community Development Department • Infill floor area • Exterior insulation nonconforming structure • Moving to a new location Modifications to existing buildings: modification/displacement allowed) • Retaining existing open space (some • Other changes allowed for alteration of a 5. Development Standaras (cont a) approved by a comprehensive permit The 40-unit Frost Terrace to begin construction in Porter Square this year was March 5, 2019

10 BOSTON BOSTON: COLLE Halt-Mile from Subray, Quarter-Mile from Bus Planned Green Line Station Bus Stop Along Major Route Major Bus Route (1, 6G, 71, 73, 77) MBTA Subway Station March 5, 2019 BROOKLINE 0.39 car/unit 0.58 space/unit Cambridge, Massachusetts Quarter-Mile from Bus Stops Distance Buffer from Transit SOMERVALLE Half-Mile from Subway Stations and 24 425 623 BOSTON. 1,076 WATERTOWN Units Cars Parked Parking utilization survey for affordable housing Spaces provided Properties 125 ING TON. BELMONTO • Existing buildings • Reduction for Bluebikes • Waiver for existing buildings • Projects near transit • Projects requiring ≤ 4 spaces • Additions to historic buildings Not required for: management if parking waived shared driveways, layout/location in location • Bicycle parking provided, flexibility • Transportation demand 6. Parking • Flexibility for tandem parking, • Off-site parking within 1,000 feet • Ratio of 0.4 space/unit Community Development Department

Community Development Department comprehensive permit Main and Cherry Condos: 10 affordable units approved by uses • Site design Standards • Ground floors • Surtace relief • Transparency • Building façades • Parking screened • Grade level or above • Limit on "blank walls" • Front yards, pedestrian entrances • Breaking of long building footprints 1. Building and Site Design existing retail on site and abutting site • Active uses required in Business Districts with • Additional height, depth, transparency for active March 5, 2019 11

12 March 5, 2019 Rendering of Concord Highlands Apartments - approved by comprehensive permit. apply • Flood plain performance standards • Other environmental laws/ordinances • Lighting shielded • Screening • Green Building Requirements apply • Setbacks • Noise compliance Storage, and Loading Areas • Mechanical Equipment, Refuse • Environmental Design Standards 7. Building and Site Design Standards (cont'd) Community Development Department

Community Development Department family-size units and the loss of 2 units The comprehensive permit approved for the 40-unit Temple Place was appealed, delaying the project for almost 3 years, and forcing a re-design of the building which resulted in the reduction of report Procedure second review meeting opportunity to comment • Required community meetings • Submission of plans to Planning Board with development guidelines and urban • Developer revises and submits plans for • Planning Board makes final, non-binding • Planning Board comments on compliance • Presentation at public meeting, public has design objectives, suggests improvements 8. Advisory Design Consultation March 5, 2019 13

Atachment F ". 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;

•• Offerrelaxed 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-family 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, Hive Daci Florrie Darwin Trustee utio disen Schtest Susan Schlesinger Peter Daly Trustee Trustee Elsehantid William Tibbs Gwendolen Noyes Sundon hanso Trustee Trustee Elaine Thome They-ve 73836044 Elaine Thorne Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli Trustee Trustee

TO: Cambridge City Council Housing Committee - Thursday March 28, 2019 Atlachment G FROM: Fritz Donovan, 42 Irving Street, Cambridge Cambridge has a lot of smart people. Cambridge City government has a lot of smart people. And I would bet 99% of us are in favor of affordable housing. So why are so many people at each others' throats? That's easy. The city spent three years and $3 million dollars working on a 10-year plan whose stated objectives were to enhance housing, mobility, climate & environment, urban form, economy, and community well-being. But all we ended up with is the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay proposal before you tonight. A large number of people have been told that is enough, so please come speak in favor and help us slam this through. Leave the details to us. And tell anybody who objects to the details that they are, shall we say, "insensitive to the needs of the poor." But another large number of people have looked at the details, and they are aghast at how UNBALANCED this plan is. There is, for instance, no mention whatever of mobility. The recommended drastic cutbacks in open space requirements would deal a major blow to our climate and environmental needs. How can we recover the nearly 20% of tree canopy we have lost in recent years if we drastically reduce setbacks and leave only tiny plantable open space? Urban form would be required to comply only with the just-announced vague "Form-based" rules. And the Planning Board's role would be reduced to non-binding "advisory" status. Economy would involve allocating a recommended $20 million a year in City tax revenues to help non-profit developers compete for land against market-based developers. But many economists say adding the City as a new bidder would just drive land prices even higher. And the current atmosphere of hostility has community well-being at the lowest ebb I have seen since I moved to this wonderful city 63 years ago. We can do better. Cambridge deserves better. I admire the eagerness of all the label-wearing supporters pushing affordable housing. On that goal we are all in the same boat. But they should admire those of us who are putting in the extra effort to make sure Cambridge gets this right. We can make major progress in affordable housing if we work together instead of fighting each other. The current 100% Affordable proposal is UTTERLY IMBALANCED. It needs a lot of work, but this City has the talent to do that work well if given enough time. The most optimistic projection I have heard to date is for the proposed enhancements to be finalized around Labor Day. Let's put our heads together and make sure that what emerges for a vote six months from now is a BALANCED PLAN that properly serves our deserving affordable housing neighbors without ignoring all the other quality of life goals we need to serve.

Attachment H Crane, Paula James Zall < [email removed]> From: Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 11:22 PM To: Crane, Paula; Clerk; City Council 100% Affordable Housing Overlay proposal Subject: 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 thạt 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 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. Some holders of the "not against affordable housing, BUT..." position argue against the overlay proposal because it doesn't solve traffic problems, doesn't protect trees, doesn't address rising rents for small businesses.... and on and on. Of course it doesn't do those things. It's a zoning proposal. Its goal is to tip the balance (slightly) away from luxury housing and toward affordable housing. Piling lots of non-housing-related demands on this zoning plan seems like an attempt at killing or gutting it, while trying to look like a supporter of affordable housing. The current 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 an ideal solution that tries to avoid any 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 1

Attachment I Crane, Paula From: Young Kim <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 9:18 PM 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 Follow-up: Request for Additional Info on 100% Affordable Housing Overlay for 3/28 Subject: Housing Committee Hearing Attachments: 56 Cedar Street original.jpg; 56 Cedar Street 100% Affordable Housing jpeg Dear Members of Housing Committee, Yesterday, I requested that the CDD to provide case studies on how their proposed 100% affordable housing overlay will impact various residential zoning area. To illustrate what needs to be included in such case studies, I took a picture of 56 Cedar Street in context of its neighboring houses as well as busy morning commute on Cedar Street. Lacking other tools, I used power point to turn the 3 story building into 4 stories (by judicious cut and paste) as proposed by CDD and then scanned it as a jpg picture. The original and the conceptual 4 story picture are attached. I am sure CDD has the tools to generate much better contextual pictures. I beg you to require CDD to include these kind of presentations. Respectfully yours, 'Young Kim On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 6:55 AM Young Kim <[email removed]> wrote: 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 1

AttachmentJ Charles Jessup Franklin 162 Hampshire St. At the last meeting, I expressed fears that the overlay as written will increase inequity in the city. Having reviewed the newly published wording, my views have not changed. The plan has adopted a 30% open space requirement, something I've advocated for, but then proceeds to undo it with exceptions. It can be reduced to 15% for hardscape parking, then can be further reduced by covered bicycle parking. If you can't see the sun, it's not open space. I could go on about why I don't like this plan, but instead I'm going to talk about ways to address my issues with it. My plan takes the fundamental concept of the city's plan, but takes greater care to give bonuses for affordable housing while respecting the surrounding neighborhood. • Based on existing zoning, collapses 50+ zones into 8 instead of 2. • Fixed set backs, but of decent size • End single family homes, but town houses and pitched roofs when appropriate Appropriate building heights and sizes Proper open space Reduced parking near the T • Protects existing structures Regally manh All ders shold repure cartiliation Regandess of what happans, At deve should have to get a Cortification dator getting as ady as of right pales to receive this, On their carrant buildings should be inspocted and bright up to liable standas. Signifind best violations vautified. health and sifety

Ti-Grace Atkinson, March 28, 2019 Attachment K My name is Ti-Grace Atkinson. I live at 35 Harding Street in Cambridge, MA I attended the March 8 meeting and live-streamed the meeting last week. I was mystified by both. There was new terminology like "overlay" and old terminology like "affordability" which turned out to be meaningless. What is being proposed here is micro-housing. An "overlay" is necessary because micro-units violate the minimum square footage, among other things, which has been established as necessary for humane living. As for "affordability", micro-units charge macro- prices. Since the tenants these units are designed for can't pay these inflated prices, who will? The developers will make out like bandits. So who pays? The City? The State? The federal government? We are told we have to accept this because there's not enough "affordable" housing. But we are also told that the affordable housing stock in Cambridge has remained at 15% of the total for decades. The solution offered is to take standard-sized apartments and cut them in half. Given this, we must be LOSING affordable standard-sized housing and replacing it with sub-standard micro-units. When I came to Cambridge in 1997, my apartment in a three decker cost $500 monthly. When a developer bought the house about 5 years ago, he tripled the rents and made no improvements. All tenants had 30 days to move. Cambridge is a developer's dream. The only real solution is to change things so as to turn this around.

Ti-Grace Atkinson, March 28, 2019 I am attaching a page with links to recent articles on the negative health effects of micro-housing, particularly on the elderly and the young. Apparently, micro-housing works only if no one lives there! We need more details, such as: square footage, models, visuals, and density projections with consequences of same.

LINKS FOR DANGERS CONCERNING MICRO-UNITS This is the initial article investigating micro-apartments that I am aware of. From "The New Yorker" https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/are-micro-apartments-a-good-solution-to-the- affordable-housing-crisis Here's a follow-up article in "The Atlantic" https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/12/the-health-risks-of-small- apartments/282150/ More: An earlier study on micro-housing (updated in 2018) and the elderly: https://psychcentral.com/news/2011/04/14/confined-living-tied-to-cognitive-decline-in- elderly/25323.html BBC summary from 2017: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170605-the-psychology-behind-your- cihttps://psychcentral.com/news/2011/04/14/confined-living-tied-to-cognitive-decline-in- elderly/25323.htmltys-design More: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2527776/Size-DOES-matter-micro-apartments- linked-psychological-problems-DOMESTIC-VIOLENCE-SUBSTANCE-ABUSE-experts-warn.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/realestate/micro-apartments-tiny-homes- prefabricated-in-brooklyn.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microapartment http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/micro-apartments-more-trouble-they%E2%80%99re- worth or try this link: http://www.remappingdebate.org/sites/default/files/Micro-apartments- %20more%20trouble%20than%20they%E2%80%99re%20worth%3F.pdf https://www.archilovers.com/stories/6712/will-tiny-housing-cause-big-problems.html

Attachment L OVERLAY ZONING COMMENT 3-27-19 Looking at Alewife or Mass & Main's 19 stories, many people wonder how they got passed. Imagine half that building- or even its base in a vintage neighborhood. That is what is implied in the new "Form-based" Code introduced only March 5th. The Overlay can be traced to the confusing Envision plan, a final report we have yet to see. We are reviewing minutiae of a fundamentally flawed process by city planners. Not all neighborhoods are economically feasible or have public transportation, prerequisites for housing. CDD wants to impose a theoretical urban form on an old city with historical pre- conditions without Community or Planning Board approval- "as of right". There are no infrastructure or financial studies and trees get in the way. Notable professionals have expressed concerns beyond rubber-stamped buildings and have called for a more balanced plan. Technically- the Form-based Code is to be implemented neighborhood by neighborhood - tailoring requirements to fit specific places. Not here. We need to keep FAR, Planning Board protection, AND look for amendments and compromise- NOT developer entitlements. Diverse Affordable Housing requires creativity. We have Policy Orders addressing - city-owned parking lots, section 8, Intergenerational housing, and analysis of displacement and eviction data. Where are the reports?. How many units are projected and for whom? Without tenant protections, we are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. $20 MM over 5 years is not enough and this blanket zoning needs re-thinking. Marilee Meyer + 10 Dana St+ #404 + 02138 + [phone removed] + [email removed] 249

Crane, Paula From: Marilee Meyer <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 3:38 PM Crane, Paula; City Council; Peterson, Lisa; City Manager To: LETTER FOR MARCH 28TH Subject: CC OVERLAY ZONING COMMENT 3.docx Attachments: Dear All, Please find a copy of my comments tonight, short as they may be. I assume we have only 2 minutes which is hardly any time to address the concrete issues and questions embedded in this presumably new zoning language that presumably both council and residents get to see at the same time and was presumably Saying one is for affordable housing generically is easier than explaining some of the hesitancy in the plan as written. Are you for or against affordable health Care? are you for or against the Mexican wall? have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no? you are not tor this plan, you must be against affordable housing and therefore, racist or elitis Several people who spoke against it last week actually got intimidated and harassed which was most unfortunate. I hope those specific perpetrators check themselves tonight. It is more complicated than we just "need housing" and any plan needs to take into account protection for every resident. thank you for your service. Marilee Meyer 10 Dana St [email removed]

Attachment M My name is Natalie Ribeiro, I am the Housing Advocacy Director at CEOC at 11 Inman Street. 123 I am submitting A petitions in support of the affordable housing zoning overlay signed by Cambridge residents and Cambridge employees. The zoning petition will allow for 100% affordable housing. People who fall below median income would live there. Paricipants from CEOC who have attended these meetings with me are Seniors on fixed incomes, administrative assistants, health care workers, school teachers, humans service workers, food industry, retail, security, and non-profit employees - just to name a few. Please stop thinking that people who fall below median income all need to live by the red-line - this is just not true. Affordable units are already found in Cambridge, far from the Red line and they are filled and waitlisted too (CHA's Corcoran Park is a great example). People who fall below median income get

around just like everyone else, and there wont be a food dessert either. I respect concern over the size and style of proposed buildings, but there will be time for community input. I think there are already wonderful and numerous examples of affordable housing that totally blend in with the surroundings. CHA's Garfield Street is a good one or 15 Inman Street next to CEOC. We urge you to support the overlay.

We, the undersigned Cambridge residents support the establishment of a Cambridge Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay to address Cambridge's affordable housing crisis. NAME ADDRESS 23 NEWTOWNERT APTATU JAMILA B PARVEEN cambridge MA- 02139 MD, JAHED HOSSAIN 220 wastran Ave# 1 Cambriage MA- 02139 220 wastran Ave# 1 MD WASEF HOSSAIN cambridge MA -02139 z20 wastnan Ave#t! MAMTAZ BuglIm camboidge MA -02139 220 wastran Ave # 1 MASt ShUley cambridge MA - 02139 ZeresAcob Buri 23 New TODA COUrt Ma 02139 15 case t Cambridge MA 0239 Perss Chandler Cambros MA 02140 Toshi Sakar- 50 Trawbridge st. #12 Manuel Aubar Cambrida, MA 02138 Laila Atoname 402 Rindge AVE Apt 16M Cambridge MA

We, the undersigned Cambridge residents support the establishment of a Cambridge Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay to address Cambridge's affordable housing crisis. NAME ADDRESS 151 Pemberton 5F Sylvio Hyppolito Cambridge, MA 02140 Yveline DoMond Cambridge Ma 0ai40 Eduine Andre 1000 JACKSON placo #O. Femande Andre Cambridge Ma 02140 " Montague 'stpeet Alex Andeé _ambrage MA 02139 64 kichdale Ave *d Olivia Cordero Cambridge MA 02140

We, the undersigned Cambridge residents support the establishment of a Cambridge Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay to address Cambridge's affordable housing crisis. NAME ADDRESS S6 RICK P7, CAMDRIP, MA 02146 TamiNat I Hardo I, 720. 1680 Frick son Place #32 S'S MARMiN SULTANA cambridge, MA, 02140 s putnam gardens cambridge ma 02130 melissia cor 0214) Yv. Camb MA Panne 02139. 5 Linwers Court 02137 Bithsarl la 4 Colinbe Tr Marie 6 Duper # 198 Askal@Hailu/GNaitouneCT.Cout cunfans HU 411 Park/+7 St 706 300 Wishow Kenant citt KENSAING woodrow wilson. 5.5

We, the undersigned Cambridge residents support the establishment of a Cambridge Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay to address Cambridge's affordable housing crisis. NAME ADDRESS 14 Rosevent tomer 706E Syedas Bagus. Cambridge 02141 808 Memonal Dr. 504 IBRAHIM MOHAMED 808 Menoval or 504 Sofia Hibaishi IBRAHIM 364, RidDlAVE - ARTHIGE - JARINA SUSHANTO combaudae 087-76 Kell Rau su ATTE Emilia Clifton 6corcovan lane 6 cambig 84 Wendell St Lacey ody Yodit 47 Pilgsam Sti Cambrise 217 Auburn St #BI Cambridges VictoriaStewart 149 Windsor St Apf #2 gamb 402, Rindge Ave. # 13D ca, 74) NASIR KADAM. Cambridge ma 02146.

We, the undersigned Cambridge residents support the establishment of a Cambridge Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay to address Cambridge's affordable housing crisis. NAME ADDRESS Dorothy Merceda 9u Jackson Cirl Camb 02140 al Newtaone caut go Shannon Ryan Cambrdge 4A. 02137 solande françois 223 Nocfolk Street Cambridge 11402139 IBRAHIM 364, RiNDGE AVE CAM-MA-02/40 # 16E JARINA Veniesa Williams 23 clinton Street, lombridge mt 02139 MUMTAZBANU KADAM. FAHIMA JAHAN 1es. Harrage MA. 02129 125, Harvard SAX 201 siragul 1s am cambridge. MA.02139 NAJIM PUMI MA - 02/41 12 Prince st cambridge MA-02139 Val Chrisphante

We, the undersigned Cambridge residents support the establishment of a Cambridge Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay to address Cambridge's affordable housing crisis. NAME ADDRESS 8 ferment st #9 Cau Janot Ducette §fairmint st #9 out Ray S Doucette § feir mont st #9 carb Rue H. Dou cette meloney mason It washington st Ho michelle mason i01 Harvardst # 7 dual G8 linicmwand cumbridge AKi Fisher At Magenery St. Chantitie 1221 Comb. IT Carb bachund chengde Stain Terrace Messinh coleman-Arroyo 199 Auburnst, BETH WALSH-BOLSTAD Cambridge, 02139 Ginette Prérre 12 Newtowne court SAMen the clemod 12 Newtowne court

We, the undersigned Cambridge residents support the establishment of a Cambridge Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay to address Cambridge's affordable housing crisis. NAME ADDRESS I Corcoran LA Maria y. Jean espon 11 Col-colan LN. Stanley Ducrepain 87 Jackson circle Donast Dumeran PAuLEaded /putnam Carden's 1pf#t98 'putnamn Carden' Aptit 98 Сумас воля . 85 Berkshire Sh 143 One Selissin BarKshira Se. Nt. 3 88 Jonathan Menare 'Seshia Sareets: 352 Everetee Way Cambilge MN

We, the undersigned Cambridge residents support the establishment of a Cambridge Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay to address Cambridge's affordable housing crisis. NAME ADDReSS 02140 Miheret Borobor 1 cameron Ave #203 Cambridge, MA 02140 Genet Pinka 7 Cameron Are 203 Calibridge, MA 82139. Bekan & Arena 4 Putnana garden # 40 02139- 211 Aubern St Cambridye 4B1 Ashenir Germu. Yemisran Kibre t 4 Putnam Gender #4102139. Gustavo Galleço 46 Gore stank 0ayy

We, the undersigned Cambridge residents support the establishment of a Cambridge Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay to address Cambridge's affordable housing crisis. NAME ADDRESS ANDReA FIsher 122 Montowery Street 2, CRACEFORD ST* 3 RUSSEll T, WASHINGTON Edwin Ramos 165 westernave

We, the undersigned Cambridge residents support the establishment of a Cambridge Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay to address Cambridge's affordable housing crisis. NAME ADDRESS Ronald Casinin 259 Harvard street i LiFtonPlace 112 Mara@Piste Cash, 1409140 Bornnir 1. Peteo 397 ket ram Are Rebika Kahssur 4 Columbite Apt #3 Apt 8 22 lopez tue Altónso Escobarsi mbridge 11 4 Yelena OstrorskaYa 808 Memeral De#S/Y Suzan Moustaf 10 Bishop Allu, #S 7 tempest. Suite 302 Janira Quintanilla Dudith Pauits 411 Franklin #101z And yours Wai FUN wai FUN 4 clinein st

We, the undersigned Cambridge residents support the establishment of a Cambridge Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay to address Cambridge's affordable housing crisis. NAME ADDRESS iMedfad st {worky Dime faster Smerrila Ma 10 haure l ST #5. Ada Navarro Cant MAt 04139 165 it ten Ave 412 cambridge, ma, carso Pete i 0 Brui Maura Parjo Canbrize: MA 02141 12 BoARdhan St AN303 Lusette Paul. 33 dentorone et mPlI37 Ginette Telusma 10 netoune Cout 1/180 Jasim Samuels 362 Xindge Are 1787 I Temple st Cambie Ms Jammie Pridgeon Delmire, Amado 15 Lambort STOR Presia Brussere 65 montgoy sTo2140

We, the undersigned Cambridge residents support the establishment of a Cambridge Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay to address Cambridge's affordable housing crisis. ADDRESS NAME willin A theresaf Michael suernood 1 Putnam Gardens Apt 12 Cambroge, Ar Samantka Fitzlatrick 287 Harvard st # Cambridse 02139 Latuja Winfall R Cameron Ave Cam 02140 Rose surd, 245 Gardent St 1p/16 Candl 20 unversity Rode Cambrige (work) Kamesh Giri AFtab Kadawala 402 Rindge Ave, # 1911 cambridse, mA. Orho Arub madani 402 RindseAve. A 6M canbriase MA.02140 Salind Kadd wall, 402, - Rindge Are # SE camboidse, MA. 02140 402 RINDLE AVE FIGD MUNiRA KADAWALA CAMBRIDGE, MA- 1066 Cambridge St. Apt. # 401 Lucinda Beloile Cambride MA 02139 3661 Rindge MA 021410 JUM

Attachment 312812019 ast leaving began we a predict that already come true dast leaving that this proposal will help make comb. the leander it shed h on the equity issue of affordable housing. Let's for even contemplatina lus proposal. the the towing leade to shit be Now, let me Make a second prediction sa criticis complain about lack of open space, meaning lack of back yonds - that that puts bids wto get to live here at a clinduty, well, i spew up is NYC w is back and And hire of he fiends had a bady and. All i no None of us deprived bie other kido had back youds - lucky to live ust in the suburbs city lie NY. So I predict that the kids wakes get to live in these eleuse, city like wits event gang to fal deprived. They're quis to del lucy i access guitar fatten sters - seat schats, a free museum, cool opportunties I graffi lle plato sheats for their yeou books. Hike you sosorry Eugguia Schrao hand-written. 259 Waskington St.

Community Development Department family-size units and the loss of 2 units The comprehensive permit approved for the 40-unit Temple Place was appealed, delaying the project for almost 3 years, and forcing a re-design of the building which resulted in the reduction of report Procedure second review meeting opportunity to comment • Required community meetings • Submission of plans to Planning Board with development guidelines and urban • Developer revises and submits plans for • Planning Board makes final, non-binding • Planning Board comments on compliance design objectives, suggests improvements • Presentation at public meeting, public has 8. Advisory Design Consultation March 5, 2019 13

Attachment O Crane, Paula Stephen Kaiser < [email removed]> From: Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 10:17 AM Clerk To: COMMENT TO HOUSING COMMITTEE Subject: 2019-03-27 SKaiser Comment to Housing Committee on ZONING.pdf Attachments: To " Paula Crane From : Stephen Kaiser Attached is my comment for the March 28 Housing Committee meeting SK

Page 1 of 1 March 27, 2019 Stephen H. Kaiser 191 Hamilton St. Cambridge Mass. 02139 Through : Paula Crane, Deputy City Clerk To: the City Council HOUSING COMMITTEE. on Envision Planning and Zoning status New thoughts not already mentioned .... 1. With the Roundtable planned for Tuesday April 9, we do need some more information but not everything all at once. Please release the CDD Envision report next week. That will give us more information on the zoning but not all the details and complications that are usually part of actual zoning language. 2. Request an opinion from the Fire Department on the specification of five-foot side setbacks as part of zoning. Normally I would expect that -- if density is proposed to be increased -- fire emergency access should be improved, and not made more restrictive. 3. Special attention should be give to locating new housing in vacant retail space, thus avoiding displacement of existing housing. Stephen Kaiser 191 Hamilton Street Citizen Engineer & Historian Sincerely, sent tann Stephen H. Kaiser, PhD

Apre so-pull orman aly rects Attachment P 25 hasis committe Good evening. My name is Michael Prusak. I live at 8 Austin Park. I am a 16 year Cambridge resident. I want to add my voice to the citizens who are speaking out against the proposal to throw out existing zoning restrictions. Zoning restrictions are put in place specifically to control unrestricted growth and excessive density, and to preserve livability for everyone. As we have all come to learn, Cambridge is already the 4th densest city in the US. We are rated #1 for the worst traffic. Our subway system is old, historically, underfunded and notoriously overburdened. Cambridge is already spending millions of dollars ta trying to keep up and manage the quickly increasing levels of pedestrians, bicycles and cars on our already crowaea + buses, tp-ds nemit streets. I am speaking I am not speaking out against affordable housing. This is petifieally about trying to retro fit thousands of square feet of new living space with no restrictions on height, and density into a city that already js bursting at the seams. the yth denish the Us

The city's population is going to grow that's a fact but the city (both the powers that be and the community)must come up with other ways to accommodate housing that does not create a development free for all, that does not destroy the livability of this city and bury everyone who th lives here under the dark shadows of 80 t6356 ft beras buildings with no neighborhood checks and balances. I strongly urge the city council to vote against this 2onwg proposal. Please go back to the drawing board, take the time to devise an appropriate plan to address our affordable housing needs, in a way that doesn't austral te inper completely exclude theimpin of people already living here and in a way that doesn't d Estroy the functioning and livability of our city. growto Set up meeting if Zoning Boond Plannen, Bord Misbir Committe

Attachment @ Crane, Paula Derek Kopon < [email removed]> From: Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 9:59 PM Crane, Paula To: City Council Cc: Public comments Subject: Ms. Crane, At the Housing Committee hearing this evening I voiced my opposition to the affordable housing overlay. During their testimony, members of the housing committee incorrectly stated that developers were not going to "get rich" from these policies. As written, this policy will give windfall profits to developers and will not help the people most in need. At a porter square neighborhood association meeting on March 21st, the developers of 1791 Mass Ave., the 100% affordable housing Frost Terrace development, lamented that the fee they would receive upon completion of the project would place them in the highest income bracket for two years and they would be paying 40% income tax. They also explained that, while public funds are used for the initial capital development, they would essentially collect all the future rents from residents in the form of management fees. A portion of any left over rent would be paid to the city and state, but after their management fee, there would be little if any left over. They further said that they would likely manage the property for the rest of their careers and may pass the property and its associated revenue streams to their children. While I do not begrudge someone financial success for their hard work, I do think that it is inappropriate to use public funds and relaxed zoning laws to build capital investments for developers who will then pocket the future proceeds indefinitely. It is improper that the developers of Frost Terrace have given money to more than half of the City Council. Given the contentiousness of the overlay proposal, and the obvious financial windfall that it will provide developers, l urge the Council to stop accepting campaign donations from developers, especially developers who are receiving such a large city subsidy that "puts them in the highest tax bracket." As the proposal is currently written, people making up to 120% of median income may still live in affordable housing. People with income this high do not need a subsidy from me or my neighbors. Affordable housing should be prioritized for people making 50% of median income or less. People earning more than this should be required to work in Cambridge. It makes no sense to subsidize the housing of someone who makes 100-120% median income and works outside the city. I also agree with Councilor Zondervan's comment that all affordable housing developments should be net zero. State subsidies for solar power are quite generous and all solar systems pay for themselves within a few years. The developers of Frost Terrace did not install solar panels because, even though they would have paid for themselves in a few years, the opportunity cost of flipping houses gives a higher rate of return. The Seaport district already floods during storms and parts of Cambridge will likely begin flooding in the decades to come. It is time for the council to act. Thank you, Derek Kopon

Attachment R Crane, Paula Noam Tanner < [email removed]> From: Thursday, March 28, 2019 11:22 PM Sent: To: City Council Cc: Clerk; Crane, Paula Subject: Public Testimony Dear City Council, This is not exactly what I said at the public comment part of the meaning, but I will try and keep the spirit. I would also like to dedicate this testimony to Eddie. Eddie works as a security guard at one of the Harvard student centers and told me that he commutes at least three hours from Brockton every day. This overlay seems like it would really help people like Eddie. My name is Noam Tanner. I live at 47 Sacramento St. First, I would like to thank the Council and the Cambridge Development Department for all of them they have put into this zoning overlay. I really appreciate it! Someone earlier mentioned that the City Council may not be giving a voice to Cambridge Neighborhood Associations. Well, I would like to raise a group of other people who do not have much of a voice on this proposal: the people the want to move to Cambridge, that work in Cambridge, but cannot afford to live in Cambridge. Consider a Harvard dining hall worker that lives out in Brockton. This person may have a commute of more than two and a half hours. This is time not spent with family. If that employee desires an advanced degree and wishes to take night classes, these 2.5 hours are time not spent studying to gain better employment opportunities. These are just 2.5 hours stuck in traffic. The zoning overlay allows us to help this person by giving back this precious time. Not only does the zoning overlay help this worker, it also helps our environment. Living in Cambridge may allow this person to walk, bike, or take public transit. One of the councillors mentioned some environmental concerns and requested that the overlay permit only carbon-neutral construction in order to help fight climate change. This overlay has a tremendous impact on climate change. Saving many Cambridge workers long car rides to work may also have a strong impact on Cambridge's climate footprint. Thus, the overlay helps lower the Massachusetts carbon footprint and helps this worker. Finally, I just wanted to add that I would love to have this worker as my neighbor. All the best, Noam Tanner 47 Sacramento St Cambridge, MA 1

AttachmentS Crane, Paula From: Braga, Patrick < [email removed]> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 7:57 AM To: Crane, Paula Comments from 3/29 Housing Committee hearing Subject: Hi Paula: Below are my typed comments from last night's housing committee meeting. Thank you so much, Patrick Hi, my name is Patrick Braga, 11 Everett St. I'm studying urban planning at Harvard and I have prior professional experience project-managing a workforce-affordable housing project. I've spoken before at these committees and wanted to reiterate my very strong support for the overlay and respond to some misconceptions I heard tonight. 1. The dimensional requirements proposed are consistent with prevailing built patterns in Cambridge, and the planning board already only has an advisory role for projects that go to the Board of Zoning Appeal. 2. One of my neighbors tonight mentioned that none of his neighbors support the overlay, but as a proud resident of the Agassiz community, l've cordial, respectful, and very productive conversations with some of my neighbors, including ones with whom I disagree, and now we greet each other with a smile whenever we cross paths. 3. Height and setbacks are far more accurate predictors of urban form than FAR. 4. Microunits are completely fine; I lived in a 305-sf studio that was spacious, convenient, and well-lit a year and a half ago and loved it. It was exactly what I needed and what my middle-aged neighbor, who had been living in his studio for ten years, needed. So yes, microunits can be healthy and meet diverse needs. 5. The twenty-foot rear yard requirements will create plenty of open space, and I'd rather have more people living in Cambridge than having people living outside Cambridge driving in and putting more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as they come to our city. 6. The people would most benefit from the development that would result from this overlay are also people who are less likely to have free time to come spend the evening proclaiming their support for the overlay. I strongly support the overlay. Please move it forward. Thank you. Patrick Braga '20 Master in Urban Planning Real Estate and Urban Development Harvard University Graduate School of Design 1

Attachment Ti Crane, Paula Lawrence Bluestone <[email removed]> From: Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 12:19 PM To: City Council Clerk Cc: Support for AHO Zoning Ordinance / Housing Comm Mtg. March 28, 2019 Subject: Hello Councillors - RE: Support for the city-wide AHO zoning proposal / Council Housing Committee Meeting March 28, 2019 I've had a chance to review the first draft of the AHO zoning language, and wish to express my continued strong support for the AHO framework. I believe that the dimensional requirements, design rules, and guidelines outlined in the AHC text provide assurance that any new affordable housing development will fit well into all of Cambridge's neighborhoods. The minimum parking requirements are reasonable and allow all such requirements to be even further reduced or eliminated entirely if the housing site is proximate to transit services. The proposed public and city review process provides ample opportunity for input by all our citizens within the proposed approval framework of an as-of-right ordinance. I'm sure that the Housing Committee and Ordinance Committee will continue to improve and refine this initial language. However, I believe this first pass is an excellent start. I look forward to the Housing Committee moving the AHO on to the Ordinance Committee. Given our city's current housing crisis, the time to act is now. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence Bluestone, Mid Cambridge, 18 Centre St. Member, ABC / A Better Cambridge

Atachment T2 Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 3:23 PM Crane, Paula To: FW: AHO: Please don't reduce the rear yard setbacks! Subject: From: Dena Brody <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 3:16 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov>; 'Dena Brody' <[email removed]> Subject: AHO: Please don't reduce the rear yard setbacks! Dear Honorable City Councilors: Please, please do NOT remove the 20' rear yard setbacks for any development along Mass Ave. that abuts residential property. We live at 661 Green Street. Our property abuts buildings on Mass Ave. and we desperately want to retain the 20' setback, or both our enjoyment of and the value of our home could be devastated by the height and proximity of any new building. Under the AHO Draft, please remove the last 11 words of Section 5.2.2 (d). I spoke two weeks ago about other concerns, and I will not repeat them all here. But I will reiterate that I am not against more affordable housing, even if it is built behind our home. I just want there to remain a 20 buffer from our property to any new building. If you want to come visit me, you will understand. And if you lived here, you would feel the same. Thank you very much, Dena Feldstein Brody, 661 Green Street, Cambridge, MA 02139 The portion of the AHO Draft 1 am referring to is below: Dimensional Standards for AHO Projects 5.2.2 Yard Setbacks (d) An AHO Project shall have a minimum rear yard setback of 20 feet, except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive requirement. 1

Attachment T3 What are the possible impacts of the Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal? 1) 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. Not a good Return On Investment. 2) The City Manager has not given the impact of spending more money on income restricted housing like this. If Cambridge decides to raise taxes to spend more on City run housing programs they might be forced to raise taxes. That 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 will require a 2/3 vote to repeal. Just like entitlements, it's hard for politicians to vote to end them. 4) This proposal would essentially encourage teardowns as developers need to keep costs down and would be Not very effective for the environment required to raise the units per property to meet financial requirements. or the character of neighborhoods. 5) The proposal provides no requirements for two or three bedrooms, which are conducive for families. This is important especially for any new projects in the 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 open space should be required for everyone 7) Removing the Planning Boards and neighborhood input is dangerous and could result in very cheaply made ugly buildings. There needs to be more specifics on design and material guidelines 8) Removing Parking requirements puts more pressure on existing neighborhoods, especially those that are far from public transit. No parking should be given to any buildings in the corridor 9) The City Council has had the CDD spend too much time 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. What Neighborhood groups are NOT saying. Cambridge residents have allowed 7500 new housing units to be built since 2010, with many more in the pipeline, a higher % than anyone else in the Metro Boston area and more than MAPC recommendations. So we have not said NO to new development. We are not excluding people from our community. We have 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 City does not have a housing crisis. The City has an affordability crisis. 2

What can you do? Come to the Housing Committee's meeting on the Affordable Housing Overlay on 3/28 at 5pm and speak. Or email the City Council at CityCouncil@cambridgema.gov City Clerk at clerk@cambridgema.gov and the City Manager citymanager@cambridgema.gov Kelly Dolan

Atlachment T4 East Cambridge 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 , voted presentation entitled, "100% Affordable Housing Zoning: Background, Goals, & Proposed Framework" 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 buildings. • 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 sf 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

Attachment T5 Crane, Paula From: Betsy Eichel < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 10:30 PM To: City Council Cc: Clerk; City Manager Subject: Affordable Housing Overlay and Funds for Affordable Housing (POR 2019#110) Dear Councilmembers, I'm writing in support of two affordable housing measures before the council: (1) A Cambridge Citywide 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay (2) A commitment to fund $20 million annually in affordable housing for the next 5 years. Everyone-from elected officials to residents to landlords--knows that we are in the midst of a profound housing crisis. I believe there are feasible solutions to solve this crisis, but they require creativity and the fortitude to stand up to entrenched interests who benefit from the status quo at the expense of low-income people. More money for affordable housing is crucial, but the real challenge lies in making sure truly affordable housing is actually built in cities that are close to transit and the hubs where most people work. We need affordable housing here in Cambridge, not in a far off city that would require former residents to uproot their lives and face long commutes. Cambridge is a wonderful place to live in part because people from all over the world come here to work and study, but if nothing is done to stem the rapidly rising costs of housing, Cambridge will lose much of what makes it unique. Though I believe rent control is the gold standard of tenant protection, an affordable housing overlay would also be a game changer. If nonprofit developers were able to have a fighting chance at building larger developments--without having to account for years of legal fights--affordable housing may be built at a scale that will help more lower income Cantabrigians stay in their community. In addition, an overlay that encompasses the entire city is radical (in a good way) and would lessen the chances of segregation by income level. With an affordable housing overlay of this magnitude, the "People's Republic" would have a chance to prioritize people over profits. I believe Cambridge can take a bolder step towards creating more affordable housing without losing the character that so many love about this city. Though landlords and realtors warn of the "unintended consequences" of any pro-tenant or affordable housing measure, those consequences have already arrived for far too many Cambridge residents in the form of eviction notices or untenable rent increases. Thank you, Betsy Betsy Eichel, LMSW 1

Attachment To Crane, Paula David Hattis < [email removed]> From: Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 4:52 PM To: City Council CC: Clerk Subject: Please Support the Affordable Housing Overlay! Hello, I urge you to support the Affordable Housing Overlay. Working class and lower income residents of Cambridge will continue to be priced out of Cambridge unless we provide housing for them, and this measure seems like a great way to do that. In addition, the environmental benefits of building infill housing in a transit rich city like Cambridge are enormous: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/opinion/california-home-prices-climate.html Thank you, David Hattis (member of A Better Cambridge)

The New Hork Cines Why Housing Policy Is Climate Policy In California, where home prices are pushing people farther from their jobs, rising traffic is creating more pollution. By Scott Wiener and Daniel Kammen Senator Wiener is the chairman of the California Senate's Housing Committee. Dr. Kammen is a professor of energy at the University of California, Berkeley. March 25, 2019 Richard Vogel/Associated Press

California has long been seen as a leader on climate change. The state's history of aggressive action to reduce air pollution, accelerate the use of renewable energy and speed the transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy has inspired governments around the world to set more ambitious climate goals. But there is trouble on the horizon, and California's climate leadership is at risk. Across most of the state's economy, greenhouse gas emissions have been trending steadily down. But ballooning car traffic on city streets and freeways is negating much of that progress. In California, about 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions are from transportation, and they are increasing. In some California counties, two-thirds of emissions are from vehicles. In November, the California Air Resources Board released an update on efforts to reduce pollution from transportation. The numbers were alarming. Despite headlines about California's push for more electric vehicles, pollution from cars is still climbing. "With emissions from the transportation sector continuing to rise, California will not achieve the necessary greenhouse gas emissions reductions to meet mandates for 2030," the board warned. The solution? "Significant changes to how communities and transportation systems are planned, funded and built," the board said. Put more directly, in order to solve the climate crisis, we have to solve the housing crisis. Numerous climate researchers have a similar conclusion. In an assessment of the carbon footprint of 700 California cities, experts with the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley, including one of us (Dr. Kammen), found that, for most coastal California cities, "infill" housing - that is, housing built in urban areas, near transit, jobs and services — can reduce greenhouse gas pollution more effectively than any other option. Other research has confirmed this work, and bolstered the case for using denser housing and public transportation as weapons against climate change. You have 2 free articles remaining. SUBSCRIBE TO THE TIMES

The relationship between housing and transportation emissions is not complicated. The housing crisis in our cities and job centers — California is short 3.5 million homes, according to a report by the McKinsey Global Institute — is forcing more workers to "drive till they qualify," the term used by real estate agents for what a growing number of Californians have to do to find housing they can afford. As cities that are job centers make it hard or impossible to build housing — for example, through de facto bans on apartment buildings in areas zoned for single-family homes — people who are priced out move further away, resulting in sprawl that covers up farmland and open space, clogs freeways and increases greenhouse gas emissions. Cities With the Most 'Super-Commuters' Of the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, these are the 20 with the greatest proportion of residents working full-time who spend 90 minutes or more getting to their jobs. (Nationally, 72 percent of these super-commuters drive.) Eight of these areas are in California; the San Francisco area has seen the most growth in ultra-commuters since 2005. CHANGE IN NUMBER OF SUPER-COMMUTERS, PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTS WORKING FULL-TIME WHO ARE SUPER-COMMUTERS 2005-17 11% +65% Stockton-Lodi, Calif. 9 +80 Modesto, Calif. 8 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif. +34 New York-Newark-Jersey City +34 7 7 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, Conn. +42 San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward 5 +170 5 +65 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria 5 Baltimore-Columbia-Towson +38 +8 4 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pa.-N.J. 4 Boston-Cambridge-Newton +69 +64 4 Sacramento-Roseville Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell 3 +22 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin 3 -6 3 +32 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim 3 +114 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue 3 +7 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, Calif.

+44 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington 3 +43 3 Bakersfield, Calif. By The New York Times | Source: Apartment List The results are anything but equitable. By making housing shockingly expensive near jobs and transit, cities force low-income and working-class people to live far away from where they work. Our communities lose their economic diversity, while the abundant opportunities, services and neighborhood amenities of cities are walled off to all but the very wealthy. Low-density, single-family-home zoning is effectively a ban on economically diverse communities. Californians need more and better alternatives to cars for transportation, and easier access to walkable communities and affordable housing near mass transit. Of course, we also have to accelerate the electrification of our vehicles, another way to reduce pollution from cars. But, as the air resources board has found, electrification alone cannot happen fast enough to solve the problem, and we need to reduce the number of miles people drive by 25 percent. In his first major speech since taking office, Gov. Gavin Newsom placed solving the housing crisis at the top of his agenda. Under his proposed budget, cities that don't build enough housing will lose state transportation funding. And this legislative session, a bipartisan coalition of California legislators is supporting the More Homes Act, which is sponsored by one of us (Senator Wiener). The bill would override local restrictive zoning by legalizing small to midsize apartment buildings (up to five stories) near job centers and public transportation and set minimum affordability standards for some of those units. The legislation would also help existing renters keep their homes in areas that qualify for new housing. The measures are intended to stem the growth of super-commuters — workers who are priced out of areas near their jobs and forced to drive long distances to get to work. Cities across the United States face issues similar to those in California, too many of which have largely closed the doors to new residents — only to force them into similar patterns of crushing commutes and worsening pollution.

Measures like the More Homes Act offer a road map to cities and states that want to address these issues head-on. In fact, we'd argue that surging interest in urban housing and transportation issues, and the rise of the grass roots Yes in My Back Yard movement that's behind it, is perhaps the most hopeful development in the American climate movement in recent years. Unlike many of our climate policy challenges, housing and transit are largely controlled by cities and states. If we can build more momentum for more homes near transit and jobs, we can continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in California and around the country, and make sure our progress continues apace. Scott Wiener, a Democrat, represents San Francisco in the California Senate, where he is chairman of the Housing Committee. Daniel Kammen is a professor is a professor and chairman of the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley. The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email: [email removed]. Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Attachment T 7 Crane, Paula From: Ming-Tai Huh <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 11:50 AM To: City Council; Clerk Cc: Eugenia Huh Cambridge Small Businesses Need the Affordable Overlay Subject: Dear City Councilors, As a small business owner, I'm writing to urge you to pass the Affordable Housing Overlay in its strongest form. Cambridge's lack of affordable housing hurts local, independent businesses. At my Inman Square restaurant Puritan & Company, our servers, cooks and staff can't afford to live nearby. The result is long, unpleasant commutes for our employees. Long commutes make it harder to hire and harder to retain, increasing our cost of business. I want to be clear that Puritan is a fine dining restaurant where our servers make more than $25/hour and yet they still cannot live in Cambridge. Cambridge should be a home for the brilliant, creative, productive people who seek to make a career in the culinary scene - and in other independent businesses. The Affordable Housing Overlay is one meaningful step in that direction. Thank you, Ming-Tai Huh Port resident - 259 Washington Ming-Tai Huh PURITAN & COMPANY www.puritancambridge.com p. [phone removed] c. [phone removed] MA 02139 1166 CAMBRIDGE ST. | INMAN SQUARE | CAMBRIDGE,

Attachment T8 Crane, Paula Jacqueline Landau <[email removed]> From: Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 9:31 PM To: Crane, Paula; City Manager; [email removed] Subject: Affordable Housing Overlay Sent from Mail for Windows 10 I am totally against the 100% affordable housing overlay. Residents should have a say on the zoning in their neighborhoods. I live in Bay Square at 950 Massachusetts Avenue, and this would allow several parcels of land in that area to be sold to developers who could put up high rise buildings. This would totally change the character of the neighborhood, and it would soon look like Kendall Square. Also, this would totally block sunlight in several units in my building and other buildings in the area, including multi-family homes. This would decrease the value of the properties significantly. The area is already too congested, and there is no parking for anyone. Surely there are better ways to increase affordable housing in the area. I am also really disturbed that there was little publicity about the pending change. I found out by accident. This should have been posted all over the city in enough time for people to arrange to attend meetings. I found about the first meeting the day of the meeting. The second meeting was at 5:00, a time when many of us are at work.

Atlachment +9 Crane, Paula Pawel Latawiec <[email removed]> From: Sent: Thursday, March 28, 20194:17 PM To: City Council CC: Clerk Subiect: In support of the Affordable Housing Overlay Dear City Council: I am writing in strong support of the affordable housing overlay, as well as the request for $20 million in additional funding for affordable housing. Although I am submitting my comments over email today, I have appeared in person at City Hall at both prior meetings to support the overlay, though I did not get a chance to speak. I believe that my fellow supporters have made a very strong case that the proposed overlay addresses the pressing equity and diversity concerns that face the City of Cambridge today. Having listened to the testimony provided by opponents of the overlay, I remain unconvinced that their desire for a certain neighborhood aesthetic overrides our responsibility to provide someone a home, especially when there are many in the community (myself included) who prefer a more densely lived-in environment. Advocates for the affordable housing overlay have done a much better job communicating the moral imperative to press on with this overlay, so instead I wanted to add to the chorus of support by pointing out the responsibility the City Council has to its taxpaying citizens. Considering that the City of Cambridge has a budget set aside for the express purpose of supporting affordable housing construction, then it follows that the most fiscally responsible action is to ensure every city dollar spent has the most impact. In this case, that impact is directly measured by the number of families given a place to call home. As the presentations regarding the overlay point out, this proposal is a very effective means to do so, as city dollars would no longer be tied up in servicing interest to banks, fending off lawsuits, or hiring consultants and lawyers for never- ending design reviews. To not take this golden opportunity to make the affordable housing program in Cambridge more cost-effective would be to directly renege on the Council's duty to its citizens. Thank you, Pawel Latawiec 2 Earhart St Unit 409

Atachment T10 Crane, Paula Lopez, Donna From: Thursday, March 28, 2019 12:50 PM Sent: Crane, Paula To: FW: Affordable Housing Zoning Subject: From: N Macneil <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 12:44 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov>; dclark@cambridgema.gov Subject: Affordable Housing Zoning March 28, 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 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 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. 1

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 That likely would cause even more displacement of residents who are currently vulnerable to City-run housing programs they might be forced to raise taxes. 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. ) The proposal provides no language stating requirements for two- or three-bedroom units, which are conducive in order to house families. This is importar specially for any new projects in neighborhood building 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, Neruda Marsh-MacNeil 16 Laurel St. Unit A 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. 2

Alachment Til Crane, Paula From: Elysse Magnotto-Cleary <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 12:25 PM To: City Council Cc: Clerk Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: Good afternoon and thanks for taking the time to read this email, I'm reaching out to offer my support of the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay. Affordable housing is crucial to socioeconomic diversity for our city. Among other great reasons to support the overlay, the proposal would be a huge step in reducing displacement while fostering inclusivity. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding my support. Thank you for your service, Elysse Elysse Magnotto-Cleary 02138 1

Attachment Tla Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 12:50 PM Crane, Paula To: FW: Proposed Overlay Zoning 3/28/2019 Subject: From: Cindy Marsh<[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 12:45 PM To: Lopez, Donna <[email removed]; dclark@cambridgema.gov Subject: Proposed Overlay Zoning 3/28/2019 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. 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, Cindy Marsh Hugh MacNeil 16 Laurel Street Cambridge, MA 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. 2

Attachment + 13 Crane, Paula From: Ogden, Suzanne <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 11:40 AM To: City Council; Clerk; City Manager FW: Cambridge Afforable Housing Overlay Proposal Subject: Attachments: ECT Letter to Housing Committee - Affordable Overlay - 3-19-19.pdf; Fresh Pond Overlay Letter - Google Docs.pdf I am writing to support the Fresh Pond Residents Alliance's concerns with the overlay, as listed below and in the attachment. I would like to add that because this overlay proposal will potentially affect ALL residents of Cambridge, once a proposal is agreed upon by the City Council, it should be submitted for a VOTE by the entire city. A proposal with such monumental consequences for Cambridge cannot be put into action without broader representation. When Cambridge residents vote for members of the City Council, they are not knowingly giving it such sweeping power to make decisions of this import. Indeed, it seems more appropriate that members of the Urban Planning Committee would be the primary source of recommends. Further, it cannot be expected that all residents who are concerned by the overlay proposal, or are even aware of it, would show up to voice their opinions at meetings on the issue, so support or opposition or recommendations offered by those who show up at these meetings cannot be relied upon to gauge the concerns of those who have not spoken at these meetings. Finally, and even BEFORE the proposal would be submitted for a vote by city residents, the city needs to send out the proposal by mail delivered to all Cambridge households. Suzanne Ogden, 20 Berkeley St. Cambridge Fresh Pond Residents Alliance has reviewed the "100% Affordable Housing Zoning: Background, Goals, & Proposed Framework", and at this time has some concerns and unresolved questions. What is the Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal? Cambridge is proposing a change in the zoning laws of Cambridge for the entire City. The goal is to make it easier to build Affordable housing units for residents that qualify under strict City and HUD income guidelines. The zoning law would increase the height and densities of affordable housing projects across the entire City. Neighborhoods currently zoned for 2 or 3 families will be allowed to up to 5 stories or 50 feet. Neighborhoods currently zoned for more than 4 stories can go up to 7 stories or 80 ft, and more if the neighborhood is currently zoned higher. The Overlay would reduce the property set backs to 10' in front yards, 5' on each side and 20' in the backyard which would increase the number of housing units in each project. The Overlay relaxes parking requirements and approval processes from the Cambridge Planning department and from abutters. Developers can build properties "as of right". The City Council has asked the City manager for $20m more in the next budget to give to Affordable Housing developers to secure more properties in the City and create more income restricted housing. https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Projects/Housing/affordablehousingoverlay

Fresh Pond Residents Alliance has reviewed the "100% Affordable Housing Zoning: Background, Goals, & Proposed Framework", and at this time has some concerns and unresolved questions. There are two recommendations that we fully support: 1. Eliminating parking requirements is good public policy and we are glad its included. 2. 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 There are three proposals that are problematic. 1. High Cambridge land costs would make any new affordable housing created under the new plan highly dependent on City subsidies for its affordability. 2. The total elimination of Floor Area Ratio as a controller of density. Relying on setbacks and height limits rather than FAR will result in buildings that are not only much larger but also much boxier. With FAR, buildings are more likely to include peaked roofs and other contextually appropriate features. 3. We see no evidence that any important environmental standards will be included. Here are our suggestions we'd like to see included in the final proposal 1. Eliminate single-family zoning by allowing 2-families by right in Res A district 2. Allow 3-families by right in Res B districts 3. Reduce minimum lot size in Res A districts from 8000 to 5000 square feet. This will allow lots to be subdivided more easily. 4. Increase maximum FAR in Res B district to 0.6. 5. Preserve open space and strengthen open space requirements for all residential projects, regardless of zoning district. 40% open space is essential to provide enough green space to control heat and flooding. 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. 6. Implement strong climate resilience standards 7. 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%). 8. When allowing four stories in residential zones, require that roofs include peaks, dormers, or other features that help deemphasize their increased height and bulk. 9. Create clear design requirements for infill projects 10. Require ground-floor retail or other public amenities in all non-residential districts 11. Require family-sized units

Attachment T 14 Crane, Paula Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli < [email removed]> From: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 8:23 PM Sent: Denise Simmons; [email removed]; Siddiqui, Sumbul; Devereux, Jan; Mallon, Alanna; To: Toomey, Tim; McGovern, Marc; Crane, Paula Subject: Cements on 100% affordahla housing overlay for March 27, 2019 Housing Committee overlaycommentsmarch28.docx Attachments: To the Honorable Members of the Cambridge City Council Housing Committee, I wanted to send you my comments on the overlay for the March 28, 2019 Housing Committee hearing. Sincerely, Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli capz

26 March, 2019 1221 Cambridge Street, #703, Cambridge, MA 02139 To the Honorable Members of the Cambridge City Council Housing Committee, The 100% affordable housing overlay is a zoning tool in the city's comprehensive housing policy that can address the racially segregated patterns of housing that exist in Cambridge. Economist Raj Chetty, the leader of the Equality of Opportunity Project, describes cities like Cambridge as 'atlases of inequality, that is, opportunity areas where rich and poor people live together but don't mix. I was surprised to learn that there is a general social survey that is conducted every two years at the University of Chicago to identify the reasons for discrimination in the US from differing perspectives, namely, black and nonblack Americans. In 2018, 41% nonblack Americans said that the main reason blacks have worse jobs, income, and housing on average than white people (up from 30% in 2014, and 38% in 2016) was discrimination, which is far lower than the 65% of black Americans who say discrimination is the main reason for the "black-white prosperity gap." (Scott Clement and Emily Guskin, "For the first time, more Americans blame discrimination than self-motivation for white-black prosperity gap," The Fix Analysis, Washington Post, 20 March, 2019) The survey has been conducted for decades. It is significant that for the first time in four decades more nonblack adults blamed discrimination than lack of motivation among blacks for their material conditions. It wouldn't have occurred to me to blame personal behavior for the growing list of 'gaps' that Americans experience. (It not only sounds like a dog-whistle; if someone lacks self-motivation to improve their capabilities, it's likely that something has happened to them.) Place matters when it comes to looking at the outcomes for children. Nonetheless "findings suggest that neighborhood structural effects are asymmetrical, these results suggest that educational inequality is driven by the compounding privileges of the most advantaged residents." (Tanvi Misra, "Unpacking the power of privileged neighborhoods," CityLab, 18 March, 2019) Sociologist Junia Howell wants to have a better understanding as to what types of neighborhoods have an influence on who we grow up to be. The Boston Globe has covered Cambridge's debate on the overlay, and the views of opponents who characterize the zoning proposal as an extreme measure to address the need for affordable housing. (The choice of the words 'extreme' and 'need' is not well-balanced in describing the city's housing problem.) Chesto asks if the overlay is bold enough, or too bold, without explaining the dimensions of the need or the consequences of Cambridge not acting to address its affordability shortage, which doesn't take Cambridge's particular challenges into account. (Jon Chesto, "Cambridge mulls an extreme step to address need for affordable housing," Boston Globe, 22 March, 2019) What does it mean, both short-term and long-term, for the people who need this resource? The "bidding battles" for sites is acknowledged but not what happens to families while they are waiting for housing. The frame of the opponents is that it isn't fair to one- and two-family taxpaying property owners who can't benefit from the two sets of rules. The downside for abutters is that construction would be increased by four to eight times on the sites of affordable projects (a claim that isn't backed up). And worse, tear-downs would result in the loss of the middle-class from Cambridge. (It's worth noting that as of last Friday, there were 50 comments on the column, the great majority of which were negative; for those people who think that all that zoning in Cambridge needs is a tweak," the overlay seems like yet another government program that will be abused by developers who want to game the system.) The fact is that there is an overwhelming demand for low- and moderate-income affordable rental housing, and a growing interest in middle-income homeownership, not a demand for middle-income rental. This is based on information from every housing assistance wait list from CHA and other nonprofit housing like JAS and HRI to inclusionary housing. In addition to city homeownership programs, CHA has been working on developing a program for high-earning households who want to move to the private market. These households have incomes above 80% of AMI. At the same time, they are multi-wage earner, multigenerational, immigrant families that would be 1

destabilized if they left affordable housing without a safety net. The latest reportage on rent control that I saw in in the Globe suggested that things have changed since 1994, and it's a "wonderful time" to have this conversation and find consensus. It is hard to find 'consensus' if the strategy involves state legislative action which can be interpreted as violating the prohibition against rent control or the state anti-aid amendment. At the June 28, 2019 Housing Committee hearing, I anticipate that the council will delve into the details of the proposal beyond the overlay concept, specifically how form-based zoning works as opposed to using FAR. I would strongly encourage the council to consider what the metrics would be for measuring the effects of this zoning tool in terms of reducing racial and income inequality in Cambridge. What would the local metrics be? How many Cambridge residents are aware that tenants are exploited even though they live in an advantaged area where most people, including themselves, enjoy a strong positive effect of living there? Are there degrees of exploitation that exclude people from power and resources? Do they count as displaced? The author of the book Evicted, Matthew Desmond, has talked about the definitions of exploitation (i.e., renters in poor neighborhoods, poor tenants in expensive cites, black tenants vs. nonblack tenants, etc.). Should zoning play a role in ending economic or social exploitation? Or does displacement have to be physical? As you know, when it comes to the 70/30 residency preference for state-funded affordable projects, the state has serious concerns about the violation of fair housing law, and advises communities to avoid implementing geographically targeted displacement preferences. CDD has pointed out that adding such a preference on top of or in place of residency would depend on the hierarchy of preferences. This issue has not yet been discussed in the context of other tenant selection inclusionary preferences reviewed by the Trust. Can zoning be a remedy for some of these ills? Thank you for carefully considering my comments. Sincerely yours, Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli 2

Attachment T15 Crane, Paula From: Jake Savage < [email removed]> Thursday, March 28, 2019 8:18 PM Sent: Crane, Paula To: Support for Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: Hi City Council, I was not able to offer commentary at tonight's hearing, so I wanted to write a quick note here, again voicing my support for the proposed AHO. I moved to Somerville in 2008 for college, and I have lived in Cambridge since I graduated in 2012. I am young and college-educated, and feel compelled to acknowledge that my demographic contributes to a significant amount of the displacement and unaffordability of housing in Cambridge. The AHO is a clear opportunity to offset that. I am also a White man, and want to take a moment to recognize the ways in which our current policies continue to reinforce segregation and exclusion of people of color in Cambridge. Racism is a murky concept in this day and age, because it does not look like the outright/explicit racism of the past; to me, racism is apparent when the largely White home-owning population of Cambridge claims to support affordable housing, but then splits hairs when it comes to the details and opposes the AHO. It's easy to say we are concerned about the amount of green space, or worried about the psychological impact of small apartments, or debate how much parking buildings should have--we can debate these points until we are blue in the face, which moves us no closer to building the diverse and inclusive community that Cambridge should be. By arguing these points, we maintain the status quo at the exclusion of low-and middle-income folks and largely people of color. In this vein, I feel compelled to use my voice to amplify the voices of community members who were not able to attend tonight's meeting. It is an immense privilege to take the time to attend these public hearings, a privilege that many low- income people and POCs unfortunately cannot afford. The people who would benefit MOST from the proposed AHO are those who are álso least likely to attend public hearings, due to a variety of personal and systemic constraints. I urge everyone on city council to consider the voices that have not been present in these conversations (and the reasons why they may have been excluded) when considering the AHO. Finally, I would like to echo what others said tonight; there is no such thing as a perfect piece of legislation, and we cannot let perfect be the enemy of good. Cambridge has the opportunity to provide much-needed affordable housing, and the AHO is a HUGE step in the right direction. Thanks, Jake Savage 16 Eustis Street 1

Attachment T16 Crane, Paula Joan Squeri <[email removed] > From: Thursday, March 28, 2019 2:26 PM Sent: City Council To: Clerk Cc: AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY Subject: Attachments: CITY COUNCIL AFFD HSING MARCH 27, 2019.docx DEAR CLERK, PLEASE INCLUDE MY LETTER (ATTACHED) IN THIS EVENINGS COUNCIL PUBLIC COMMENTS. MANY THANKS, JOAN SQUERI Joan Squeri HCC Consulting, *Healthy Communities Capital Consulting HCCconsult.net Mobile [phone removed]

MARCH 27, 2019 RE: AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY—YES!... WTH PROVISO DEAR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, I AM WRITING TO EXPRESS MY QUALIFIED SUPPORT FOR ZOING OVERLAYS WHICH PROMOTE THE PRODUCTION OF MUCH NEEDED LOW INCOME AND MIDDLE- INCOME HOUSING ACROSS CAMBRIDGE. WHILE THE NEED IS ACUTE AND IT IS CLEAR THAT WE (COLLECTIVEY) NEED TO EMPLOY A RANGE OF STRATEDGIES--INCLUDING REMOVING ZONING BARRIERS AS TO WHERE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CAN BE BUILT-CHANGING SUCH BUILDING POLCIES MUST NOT BE DONE IN A VACUUM. THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DONE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION FOR THE PREVAILING WISDOM OF SOCIALOGICAL THOUGHT AND URBAN PLANNING WHICH HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THE LAST 40 PLUS YEARS CONCERNING AFFORDABLE HOUSING: THE UNINTENDED SIDE EFFECTS OF BUILDING 100% LOW INCOME HOUSING ( IN CONCENTRATED FORMS) ARE OFTEN SOCIAL ISOLATION FROM THE 'REST' OF THE CITY, RESULTING IN A KIND OF SECOND TIER CITIZENSHIP FOR RESIDENTS OF SUCH BUILDINGS. THIS IS TRUE BOTH TERMS OF RESIDENTS SELF REPORTING THAT THEY HAVE LESS 'AGENCY' AS CITIZENS, (IE NOT BEING ENTITLED TO A VOICE IN THE AFFIARS OF THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE), AND, CONCURRENTLY, A STYGMATIZING EFFECT BY THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE ON THE RESIDENTS OF SUCH DEVELOPMENTS. THE SOCIOLOGICAL THOUGHT IN URBAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT HAS PREACHED "MIXED INCOME HOUSING" AS THE GOLD STANDARD FOR AN INDIVIDUAL'S EQUITABLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE LAST FEW DECADES. INDEED, CAMBRIDGE'S OWN PHILOSOPHY HAS BEEN TO DEVELOP PLACES SUCH AS AUBURN COURT, WHICH IS A 20 PLUS YEAR OLD TESTIMENT TO ITS ADOPTION OF THE MIXED-INCOME NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL AS THE WAY FORWARD. IN THE RUSH TO CREATE LOTS OF NEW, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN NEW PLACES, QUICKLY, (WHICH, BTW, I WHOLE HEARTEDLY SUPPORT!), PLEASE DO NOT LOOSE SIGHT OF THE VERY IMPORTANT SOCIALOGIAL REASONS THAT THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE (AND VIRTUALLY EVERY URBAN PLANNING SCHOOL IN THE USA, CANADA AND EUROPE HAS BEEN CHAMPIONING FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS: 'MIXED INCOME' HOUSING AT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION HUBS IS THE PREAVILING MODEL FOR DELIVERING GOOD QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND INCOME/ OPPORTUNITY. (OVER BUILDING 100% LOW INCOME HOUSING, WHERE EVER YOU CAN FIND THE SPACE, OR IN LESS ACCESSIBLE AND DESIRABLE SPACES.)

PAGE 2) WE NEED NOT ONLY TO OPEN UP LOTS OF NEW PLACES WHERE MIXED INCOME" TIERS" OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CAN BE BUILT IN CAMBRIDGE, AT THE SAME TIME, WE MUST ALSO REMEMBER THE INDIGNITIES AND UNFAIR OUTCOMES WHICH HISTORY SHOWS US. STIGMATIZING POOR PEOPLE BY ISOLATING THEM ONTO A BUILDING, A COMPOUND, OR A SPECIFIC SECTION OF THE CITY HAS NOT ONLY PROVED UNWISE IT IS-- AND WILL ALWAYS REMAIN-- UNJUST; NOT ONLY TO THOSE LIVING IN THE PRESENT DAY--BUT FOR THE GENERATIONS WHO FOLLOW. RESPECTFULLY YOURS, JOAN SQUERI, THE UNION PARTNERSHIP FOR A WHOLE COMMUNITY HEALTHY COMMUNITIES CAPITAL CONSULTING CAMBRIDGE NONPROFIT COALITION, STEERING COMMITTEE FOUNDRY CONSORTIUM, AND PEARL STREET RESIDENT

Attachment T17 :. Crane, Paula Marilyn Wellons < [email removed]> From: Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 3:38 PM To: Siddiqui, Sumbul; Simmons, Denise; Devereux, Jan; Mallon, Alanna; Toomey, Tim Cc: Crane, Paula Draft of Proposed Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: Dear Members of the Cambridge City Council's Housing Committee, Before you is the Development Department's just-released Draft of the "Affordable Housing Overlay" rezoning. I regret being unable to attend the meeting but send you these initial comments. Process: From this distance, CDD process to date does not speak to its good faith. Substance, with limited time to review, of one element only: The current draft would undo protections our Green Street neighborhood has won in three zoning petitions to protect low- and moderate-income housing on Mass Ave and Green St., provide publicly beneficial landscaped green setbacks, and protect local retail. 1. The Draft deletes the specific, non-formulaic 20' wide landscaped green rear-yard setbacks, above and below ground, that save and add to the best existing trees. These setbacks also apply along Cambridge Street, and elsewhere in the city, for public health and environmental benefits the Council has endorsed. Note that the Draft, at 5.2.2(d), allows structures "below grade" in setbacks. Together with 5.2.1(b), that means a building 80' tall at 892 Mass Ave. would be at least 100' high from grade at Green Street, and that the 100' high wall could be built to 892's rear lot line. Is this what the Council wants? 2. The Draft fails to address the city's inadequate regulation of noise and light pollution, problems the proposed developments would compound. This omission continues a long-standing failure. 3. Overall, the proposal allows major, for-profit developers to park their money safely in AAA bond-rated Cambridge. Among other programs, they can get HUD-guaranteed tax credits and guaranteed subsidies. Local government's endorsement of affordable housing programs (like LIHTC) is a critical criterion when the state distributes those federal tax credits--hence the pressure on you. Major investors' fear of another financial crisis may account in part for CDD's attempt to stampede the Council into providing shelter for that money asap. 4. The Draft is silent about the displacement of low- and moderate-income residents as their buildings go down and the massive new ones go up. It fails to propose zoning for temporary housing. It's clear there are specific parcels in the Mass Ave and Cambridge Street "corridors" that are in investors' sights. The developers have financing lined up, their architects poised. If there is a crisis in affordable housing, it results in part from the city's own economic development strategy of gentrification. Approving the Draft before you would accelerate the displacement underway rather than remedy it. It would belie the city's progressive rhetoric. Please do not be stampeded. Yours sincerely, Marilyn Wellons

651 Green Street Cambridge, MA 02139 temporarily out of state 2

Attachment TI8 Crane, Paula pwellons <[email removed]> From: Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 3:12 PM City Council; Clerk; Crane, Paula To: Subject: Affordable Housing meeting today Message to Members, Housing Committee, City Council For 5-7pm meeting March 28, 2019 on Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal Dear Councilors, Affordable Housing Overlay Having read the draft zoning for the AHO, I still have substantial doubts about the proposal that the draft underlines. I will withhold comments until after I hear the CDD presentation this afternoon. If you're counting, I'm still not on board and urge taking the time Councilors need to come to grips with, and resolve, the many problems. For me, environmental Respectfully yours, Phil Wellons 651 Green St, Cambridge MA 02139

Attachment T19 Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 10:37 PM Crane, Paula To: Subject: Fwd: Housing Committee Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Robert Winters <[email removed]> Date: March 27, 2019 at 9:39:41 PM EDT To: jdevereux@cambridgema.gov, amallon@cambridgema.gov, ssiddiqui@cambridgema.gov, [email removed], [email removed], Donna Lopez <dlopez@ CambridgeMA.GOV> Subject: Housing Committee Mar 27, 2019 - A few words on the "Overlay" proposal Personally, this Overlay proposal obliterates over 35 years of what changes could be expected around where I live, and I don't live in the upper crust part of town. The limiting factor has been the floor area ratio (FAR) - 1.0 for commercial and 0.75 for residential. I have always lived with the possibility that a higher building could appear next door, but that the footprint of the building would have to be smaller and additional setbacks would create a little breathing room between the buildings. That seemed like a reasonable expectation - one that I could easily live with. During the time I have owned my triple-decker I negotiated with one neighbor so that a small extension would have a roof line that allowed light to continue to get to my first floor apartment. When the neighboring building changed hands and they wanted to add air conditioning units on the roof, I negotiated to ensure that they would be located far enough from my windows so that the added sound would be acceptable. These are the kinds of negotiations that happen when buildings are at or somewhat above the allowable density. Through it all maintained very reasonable rents to all of my tenants since 1985. If this Overlay proposal is approved, a new owner could build straight up to a height taller than my building with no setback whatsoever from the property line. Furthermore, the building could cover almost the entire lot yielding a density between 3 and 4 times what is allowed today. No sunlight whatsoever would get to my building. I would have no rights whatsoever to object. Do I take this personally? Yes. If this were to happen I would likely look for another place to live after being here for over 40 years. So I'm looking now at the few potentially reasonable city councillors to step in and prevent this from happening. If adding to our already high percentage of subsidized housing units is your priority, you should really find a way to do this that doesn't involve throwing me and others under the bus. - Robert Winters

Attachment T20 Crane, Paula From: Mary Woodbury < [email removed]> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 4:29 PM Simmons, Denise To: Cc: Clerk; City Council Affordable housing in Cambridge Subject: To: E. Denise Simmons, Chair, Housing Committee cc: Cambridge City Council Dear Ms. Simmons, I won't be able to speak at tonight's public comment on the Affordable Housing Overlay, but I would like my views known by the Council. Like many residents, my husband and I worry about the loss of housing that used to allow 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-and multi-family housing replaced by new single-family houses. We're happy to have our new neighbors, but we miss the diversity that was here when we moved in. Indeed, our home is in a triple decker that in the past had apartments, affordable for students and families; in 2004-5 it was gut-rehabbed and converted to individual condos. So, we're part of the problem. Over the last few years, Bob and I have taken an interest in the Cambridge non-profit organizations that build and maintain pockets of affordability amidst our city's relentless gentrification. Cambridge is lucky to have Homeowners Rehab, Inc. and its affiliated CNAHS, and the Cambridge Housing Authority. In particular, Bob and I have donated to Just-A-Start Corporation to support their building efforts and their many services. Because we want to see these non-profits flourish, and see the number of affordable homes increase, we support the 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay. If that new zoning means that non-profits can build more apartments, condos, and homes in Cambridge, we would welcome (for example) a new, affordable four-story apartment building in our three-story neighborhood. We look forward to positive, constructive action by the Housing and Ordinance Committees, by the Planning Board, and ultimately by the City Council to pass this zoning to make it a little easier for non-profit organizations to buy land and develop, build, and maintain new affordable housing in Cambridge. Thank you, - Mary Mary Woodbury 133 River Street, Cambridge