a report from Councilor E. Denise Simmons, and Councilor Sumbul Siddiqui, Co-Chairs of the Housing Committee for a public hearing held on April 16, 2019 to continue discussion on the Affordable Housing Overlay District

Attachment A Opening Remarks for Housing Committee April 16, 2019, 6 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 continuing the ongoing discussions around the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay District. As my co-chair and I have said throughout this process, we want to ensure that as many members of the community as possible have a chance to weigh in, to share their thoughts, and to participate in this discussion - and that is why tonight, we are once again giving this hearing over COMPLETELY to Public Comment. Tonight's hearing comes on the heels of last week's Roundtable, which the City Council devoted to further vetting of this proposed overlay district. In the interest of giving as much time as possible to hearing from the Community, I am going to keep my opening remarks brief. But in an effort to "set the table" as we get underway tonight, I want to say THIS: so much of this discussion has focused on things like density, building set-backs, building heights, and so forth. And I don't want to be dismissive of these items, because they are legitimate topics that are worthy of discussion - but l am also urging us ALL to remember the HUMAN element. We are not just talking about an extra story here or some open space there; ultimately, we are talking about PEOPLE. We are talking about doing what we can to allow for more affordable housing to be built in the fairest possible way THROUGHOUT our city. We are talking about telling the teachers of our children that we want to make it possible for them to live here. We are talking about telling the men and women who serve on our police force and keep our streets safe that we want to make it possible for THEM to live here. We are talking about telling the people who serve us in our restaurants that we want to make it possible for THEM to live here. There are those who point out that we are never going to be able to build enough affordable housing to satisfy the demand for EVERYONE that wants to live here - and I agree. We'll never be able to house EVERYONE. But we CAN serve as an example to all the cities and towns around us by showing that we're all willing to give up a little open space, we're all willing to give up a little elbow room, we're all willing to give up a little of our backyards if it means that we can build just a FEW more affordable units and be the welcoming, compassionate, big-hearted community we SAY we are. And by giving up A LITTLE, I'd argue that we'd be gaining A LOT. I will ask my Co-Chair if she has any opening remarks, and then we will open the floor to Public Comment. Councilor Siddiqui, the floor is yours.

Atlachment B Hi everyone, my name is Liz Zhong and I live on Sacramento Street in Cambridge. I grew up in the northwest part of China, a city called Xi'an. I studied human development and psychology at Harvard Graduate School of Education understanding what protects children from the risks and trauma they experience in early life. Now I think back, what had protected me was my father's care when I experienced my parents' divorced at the age of 7. My dad cooked my lunch, helped me with math, and hand washed my clothes. Another protective factor in my life was that I had my own space where I could do whatever I wanted to make it my home. I put a chair on my bed and jump from that chair to attach stickers onto the ceiling. I also started my teaching career in that room. I taught my friends English and forced them to do assignment. With that space of my own, I felt that I still had control in my life despite the chaos and uncertainty. I became best friend with another girl Juan who was raised by her single mom in middle school. She came to my house a few times before I was invited to hers. Her house was different. She lived in a single room with her mom in a building right next to the vegetable market. It was really hard to study at her house because the market closed late at night. And we had to put on the jackets and go out to use the shared bathroom in the winter. They didn't like their housing condition, but that was all they could afford. When I think of housing, I think of her, and potentially many children whose parents work really hard but still can't provide a comfortable home for their child who experience adversity. They are the reason why I support affordable housing in Cambridge. LIz Zhon

Attachment C Tuesday, April 16, 2019 Statement for Housing Committee Meeting Hi, my name is Patrick Braga, 11 Everett Street, registered voter in Cambridge, and urban planning master's student at Harvard. I strongly support the Affordable Housing Overlay. enthusiastically! There are three technical reasons why I see the Overlay as smart land use policy: First, it allows existing buildings to be subdivided into affordable apartments by right. This is a great idea - I see no reason why single-unit houses should be the default in such an opportunity-rich city. Second, on parcels large enough, 4-story buildings, which already exist throughout Cambridge, would be allowed in most neighborhoods. In fact, I noticed that despite the Overlay being such a physical policy, I hadn't seen anyone try to visualize it, so earlier today I emailed you two pages exploring what hypothetical future buildout might look like. Simply put, the visual impact of the Overlay will be absolutely benign because parcel sizes alongside acquisition and construction costs will naturally regulate how much eventually gets built. Third, by-right approvals reduce financing gaps by reducing legal and architectural fees, and reducing interest or puchase-option payments incurred when approvals are delayed. This, in turn, can reduce individual projects' reliance on public funds, so our housing programs can have more impact on more projects. Finally, on a personal level, given my experience both as a proud immigrant to this country and as a young professional, I've lived in one-, two-, and three-unit houses; townhouse; garden apartment; six-unit building; live-work unit; studio; dormitories. I've lived by myself, with family (both renting and owning), and with unrelated individuals. I strongly believe that all of these housing types and tenure types can coexist peacefully, which is why I support policies like the Overlay. Incremental though it may be, the Overlay will enable more housing for diverse needs, thus helping Cambridge live up to its core values of inclusion and opportunity for all. Thank you. Patrick Braga [email removed]

Crane, Paula From: Braga, Patrick < [email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 8:33 AM To: City Council Cc: Clerk Why I support the Overlay Subject: Attachments: Cambridge Overlay Buildout.pdf Dear Cambridge City Council: I am a resident of the Agassiz neighborhood and a registered voter in Cambridge, and I strongly support the Affordable Housing Overlay. Despite the Overlay being such a physical policy, I haven't yet seen anyone try to visualize its impacts, so l've attached two pages exploring what future buildout might look like under the Overlay. There are three core technical reasons why I see the Overlay as smart land use policy: 1. The Overlay would allow preexisting buildings by right to be subdivided into income-restricted apartments. This is a great idea - I see no reason why single-unit houses should be the norm in such an opportunity-rich city. 2. On parcels large enough (realistically 55 to 60 ft deep), 4-story buildings would be allowed in most neighborhoods. 4- story buildings exist everywhere in Cambridge, and the number of physically eligible and financially sensible parcels is so limited that the visual impact would be benign. Indeed, acquisition and rehabilitation costs will naturally regulate the degree to which conversion or construction actually happen. 3. By-right approvals reduce total development cost (and reduce financing gaps) by reducing lawyer fees, architectural fees, interest payments, and purchase-option payments that are incurred when approvals are delayed. This, in turn, reduces individual projects' reliance on public funds, meaning our housing programs can have more impact and be used on more projects. Finally, on a personal level, I've lived in a myriad of housing types: one-, two-, and three-unit houses; townhouse; garden apartment; six-unit building; live-work unit; and dormitories. I've lived by myself, with family (both renting and owning), and with unrelated individuals. I strongly believe that all of these housing types and tenure types can coexist peacefully. The Overlay will enable more housing for diverse needs, thus helping Cambridge live up to its core values of inclusion and diversity. Thank you, Patrick Patrick Braga '20 Master in Urban Planning Real Estate and Urban Development Harvard University Graduate School of Design 1

What would be the visual impact of the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay? (in districts where current zoning allows up to 40 feet) Some streets would be unchanged, since the overlay would allow existing buildings to be subdivided into affordable units. On parcels with enough space, four-story buildings could be built with 20-foot backyards. Because new construction is so expensive and because the number of dimensionally compliant parcels is limited, new four-story buildings would occur only sparingly throughout the city. isting buildin footprin N.8.: This illustration used Cambndge city GiS data and is a sorosmition othe ban an ad una otruch cheets orth roposed Afordshe Housing Overlaw Ofcial site sun o housing footprint ould be needed to conhim parce and bu doing dimensio in any proket proposal and would be pyt of an affordable Potendal new parcel Фоточу AHO setbacks for N new construction 50 ft North side of Irving Terr., existing conditions - exteriors would remain unchanged: South side, existing conditions: South side, hypothetical buildout with contextual design: Patrick Braga Cambridge resident and voter rev. April 14, 2019 ([email removed])

Four-story buildings can be found throughout Cambridge.

Atlachment D Testimony at City of Cambridge before the Housing Committee on the Affordable Housing Overlay District on Tuesday, April 16t, 2019 at 6:00 PM My name is Rahul Gupta. I live at 199, North Harvard Street, Allston. I am an Advanced Leadership Fellow at Harvard University. I am deeply concerned about Housing as a social issue - an issue of equity, fairness, justice and diversity! I grew up in Mumbai, India where almost half the population struggles to put their foot on the housing ladder largely due to poor Government policies and unfulfilled election promises. Housing has been particulatly challenging for me in Mumbai. I lived with my parents in Government housing in the center of the city and on the retirement of my father I was flung 30 miles out of the city with a long, difficult 2 hours commute to work each way in overcrowded trains. Now that I am in Cambridge, I see many similarities with employees of Harvard and MIT having to commute long distances to work. For example, Cesar who serves coffee at Spangler at Harvard Business School is one of many such persons. This is not fair, not equitable and does not promote diversity which the City of Cambridge stands for! I support the Affordable Housing Overlay. We need to create a level playing field! Thank you.

Attachment E My name is Alena Culbertson. I live at 471 Memorial Drive and I'm with Students for Affordable Housing. I grew up in a predominately low-income neighborhood in a town in Illinois. I loved where I lived, but there was also a lot of instability. Many of my classmates' parents struggled to find affordable housing and would move frequently as housing prices changed. This led to a high turnover in schools that made it hard for my teachers to teach effectively and hurt everyone's learning. Now I work in an outreach program at MIT that teaches Cambridge students. I've seen firsthand how housing instability has had similar negative effects on these children. Across the board, uncertainty over housing affordability makes it hard for Cambridge residents to invest in their community, which hurts everyone in Cambridge. Our schools, businesses, and neighborhoods will all suffer. I support the affordable housing overlay as one step to help Cambridge residents stay in the community they love. I also support the overlay from an environmental perspective. The overlay promotes sustainability by allowing employees at places including MIT and Harvard to live near their jobs, lessening high-carbon-footprint commutes. While seeing our neighborhoods change can be scary, the overlay allows neighborhoods to change in a way that makes our community better. For these reasons, Quentin, I urge you to support the overlay.

Attachment F Crane, Paula From: Robert Master < [email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 8:03 PM To: Clerk Subject: Testimony at the April 16th city council housing meeting Good evening. My name is Robert Master. I live at 8 Brewer St. apartment 6. First I want to be clear where I am coming from. I strongly support any and all workable, fair efforts to expand affordable purchase and rental housing options. I moved to Cambridge six years ago because I value living in a community of economic, racial and ethnic diversity that enriches us all. I have one overarching concern about the overlay proposal. It is this: "As of Right" has a very real potential to be a denial of rights on an unprecedented scale, and I don't believe that any of us fully understand its implications in a deep and granular way. Thus it impossible to support the overlay proposal without an understanding that assures that there will not be a widespread denial of rights. Secondly, I believe that there are other ways — not yet fully explored— to create meaningful sustainable subsidies to promote affordable home ownership and rental. These include: 1) Allowable increases in residential and commercial property taxes given that Cambridge is blessed with property taxes that are currently substantially lower than taxes in surrounding cities and towns. 2) The imposition of a transfer tax (with legislative approval) on upscale seven figure home buys. 3) The imposition of vacancy surcharges. And there are more. All are worthy of an expeditious, thoughtful policy, economic and legal analysis. Robert Master Robert Master [email removed]

Attachment o Crane, Paula Carol O'Hare < [email removed]> From: Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 11:22 AM To: City Council Cc: Crane, Paula; DePasquale, Louie; Farooq, Iram; Roberts, Jeffrey; Cotter, Chris Subject: Housing Committee: Affordable Housing Overlay, Hearing devoted to public comment - 4/16/19 Dear Councillors Simmons and Siddiqui, Chairs, Housing Committee Members, and other City Councillors: Please don't rush this through without the information, analysis and careful discussion requested by the Council's unanimously sponsored, April 1 Policy Order 3.* I hope this includes understanding and consideration of analyses, questions, concerns and suggestions by the public, incl. Steve Kaiser, Charles Franklin and ABC (nonprofit or PAC?). Some questions... When and how will city administrators and boards limit a major cause of low-and middle-income housing shortages, namely, "discretionary" zoning approvals for corporate office, research and lab mega-projects? MITICo's at Volpe, others throughout Kendall Sq. and possibly New England Development's at CambridgeSide Galleria and Leggat McCall's court house enabled by discretionary, LDA'd garage? Those employees will continue out-spending current and former Cambridge residents for limited rental housing. What is the likelihood that the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) will actually produce (not just allow) affordable housing in less densely developed Cambridge neighborhood? If it's limited or none, please say so. What is the estimated cost for affordable 1-, 2- & 3-BR apartments that could be built by the AHO? Could more of the same-quality apartments be produced otherwise at the same cost and more quickly? If so, what are the alternatives? What, if anything, will incentivize AH developers to preserve and improve existing structures rather than scraping lots and building new? Why allow as-of-right 80'-high AH buildings with minimal, actual "open space"** and timid setbacks to abut zones permitting maximum 35'-high residential buildings? Limited sun, air, trees. Why the major leap from 3-story/35' zones (yellow) to 7-story/80' zones (green) with no transition area? Refer to CDD's Zoning Map, noting suggested correction.*** If this effort won't also help existing, middle-income households to remain in or return to the city, what, if anything, will? Finally and again: I'm concerned that this rezoning is being fast-tracked, which will result in high-summer, pre-election- season public hearings when people are away or not paying attention or both. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Carol O'Hare 172 Magazine St. 3. POR 2019 #113 : That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate departments to provide more information and analysis as it relates to the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay District. ORDER ADOPTED BY AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF NINE MEMBERS AND UNANIMOUSLY SPONSORED 1

**Examples from CDD's undated "WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY" http://tinyurl.com/y6z5x398 5.2.3 Open Space: Open Space must be at least 30%, except it may be reduced to 15% by counting space allocated to: paved parking and driveway areas, balconies, decks & roofs and/or bicycle parking areas. ***Zoning Map - See CDD's Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal Presentation, 3/28/18, p.r. http://tinyurl.com/yxj9ar91. lap available at your March 28 hearing, the yellow zones B, C, Cc: Paula Crane, Deputy City Clerk - Please file this with the Official Record. Virus-free. www.avg.com

Attachment H My name is Alicia Weng, I live at 100 Memonial Dr., adisch students for Aff dach There's a janitor at MIT, whom L've seen around a lot in the past few years. He tired in Housing Cambridge many years ago, was evicted fifteen years ago when he could no longer afford to pay lik in rent, and now lives in Dorchester but still commutes to MIT every night to work as a janitor from 11pm-7am. He is a side of MIT and of Cambridge that people often forget to think about. It's close to an hour-long commute back home for him, which is awful to make after working throughout the entire night. But losing his home in Cambridge was more than just losing the convenience of being able te live closer to where he works, it's more than being told he's not wanted or valued in a place where he works so hard, it's also losing an entire community and way of life. We care about Cambridge being a vibrant, diverse, and welcoming place to live in, but how can it be when only certain kinds of people can actually live here and contribute to the life on these streets? Can tile care are besterin oh. haracer an hisay do is in hanged layer eins. dorkelprout afferdable housing devetopersa tiny bir in a playing field that is very far from levet. The new developments are still going to be subject to very high standards. And at the end of the day, housing is a basic human right. People need shelter, they need security and stability in where they live, they need a community that they know won't just disappear on them the next week, and they need a place they can rely on to raise their kids in a healthy environment. And that is why I support the overlay.

Attachment I Vikram Srinivas 20 Armington St. Allston My wife and I moved to Cambridge together two years ago- me as a graduate student at Harvard, and my wife is way smarter than me - she has a PhD! - she had an offer as a postdoc. I spent about a month and a half looking for something which fit our budget, and couldn't find anything in Cambridge - we ended up sharing a unit in Beacon Street, on the Cambridge-Somerville line, with another friend. At the end of the year, our landlord wanted to hike the rent by $300, our friend wanted to move out, and we wanted to live by ourselves as a newly married couple! This time, we spent two months and a half looking - and we could only find a place in Allston. We're spending just under half our income in rent both last year and this year. We'd love to live in Cambridge, and I hear a lot about how the city is friendly to immigrants, and wants to attract young people and innovative people to stay here. The truth is, as things stand, we'll never be able to live here even by ourselves, let alone raise a family here - and neither will most of my friends graduating this year. Councillor Zondervan - you're an immigrant, you came to Cambridge to go to MIT, you met your wife here, and you're now a City Councillor! Help me and my wife have the same opportunities you did.

Atachment J Hi, my name is Nicholas Brown and I am a first-year at Harvard College, originally from Brookline, Massachusetts. I'm here to tell you a story about affordable housing, intergenerational connections, and groceries - but most especially, about one of my best friends, Rosalind. Rosalind is 63 years old. In 2005 she applied for affordable housing in Brookline. After 8 years on a waiting list, her application was processed and now she has been living in affordable housing in Brookline for the last six years. Over the last five years, Rosalind and I have made an unlikely friendship - through groceries. When I was a freshman at Brookline High School, I joined the SHOP club (Students Helping Older People), a club that pairs student grocery shoppers with older people in the community, many of whom, like Rosalind, have a hard time procuring groceries. Along with with two of my friends, we were paired with Rosalind, volunteering to go grocery shopping for her. Every week for four years -- snow or shine - we would get her groceries. We didn't do it for college or recognition, but because we cared about her. She was one of our best friends.

Rosalind has taught me the importance of relationships with people unlike yourself. She taught me, personally, about the struggle many Americans go through to stretch their budget each week, even with the help of affordable housing. I also learned from her about the joys of growing older and the complications that come with it. - things that certainly aren't taught in school at Brookline Knowing people unlike yourself is crucial to maintaining the social cohesion of this country. Yet without institutional mechanisms, such as affordable housing law, people from differing backgrounds will not be spatially, and thus socially connected. . Without Affordable housing, I would never have met Rosalind, a mentor and friend, who I cherish deeply. I may have graduated from a great public high school, but without having befriended Rosalind, I would not consider myself truly educated. Without affordable housing, not only would I be ignorant of the experience of people with backgrounds unlike myself, I would lack something even more important, my good friend, Rosalind.

Attechment K Crane, Paula From: Blier, Suzanne < [email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 4:01 PM To: City Council Crane, Paula; DePasquale, Louie; Farooq, Iram; Roberts, Jeffrey; Cc: ccotter@fambridgema.gov Housing Committee: Affordable Housing Overlay, Hearing devoted to public comment - Subject: 4/16/19 Dear Councillors Simmons and Siddiqui, Chairs, Housing Committee Members, and other City Councillors: I share the concerns of Carol O'Hare and many others that the city should not rush into the Affordable Housing Overlay proposal without key information in hand. First of all is a need for the requisite information requested in the April 1, 2019 Policy Order. There are also. many remaining concerns about design criteria and specific written guidelines for any project NOT based on FAR, particularly if the city proposes to short-circuit the long-standing city guidelines of Planning Board decision-making which have valued neighborhood-based improvements to design. When will the detailed written design guidelines be written? Will the public get to see this document before the Planning Board is asked to evaluate the Overlay proposal or City Council is asked to vote on it? If the Affordable Housing Overlay is not expected to produce much affordable housing beyond that currently in the works, why are we spending so much time discussing it and avoiding other strategies that would bring affordable housing to this city? Will the city present the findings of the other Envision Groups (outside of Housing) before any vote is made on the Overlay so that the Council and the Public? This would help us address conflicts between these different goals with regard to various concerns including architectural preservation, maintaining and adding green space and preserving mature trees. Since the Affordable Housing Overlay seems only to address new buildings, how will the city assure that structurally sound historic buildings are preserved in this period of radical change in Cambridge? How will the city help those tenants who are being forced out of housing to make way for conversions into condos or new structures? Without preventing these loses it becomes a never-ending cycle and the need for more and more affordable housing will grow. What is the city's explanation for the 10.8% vacancy rate other than a reflection of investment properties; how does the city plan to lower this number? What do we do about parking? We cannot simply dismiss it since there are no plans to increase public transport and currently circa 30% of Cambridge citizens drive to work. Mothers with children and others - particularly those living more than ¼ (not ½ miles) from a subway stop will want and need cars, as will individuals who in the area not included in public transportation for the hours they need to work. If we do not have at least some parking available (30%?) people will be circling the neighborhood streets to find spaces to park and this will impact negatively the environment - as well larger considerations of livability. 1

Finally, I have been analyzing the city's new demographics and housing data, comparing this information with the earlier city data on these issues. It is clear from my brief overview that what is happening in Cambridge is the direct result of market-based factors of gentrification, a process through which we are continuing to lose key segments of our population, particularly our African American residents. Sadly the CDD Overlay map and data on racial differences in our various neighborhoods overlooks this core issue and the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay does nothing to slow or stop either the ongoing city gentrification or serious demographic changes in race that accompany these changes. Cordially, Suzanne Preston Blier 5 Fuller Place

AllachmentL April 16, 2019 Housing Committee-- Marilee Meyer + 10 Dana St + [phone removed] + [email removed] I appreciate the personal and gut-wrenching personal stories we hear at these Housing Meetings. It is hard not to be empathetic and concerned at people's situations and say what can we do? Unfortunately, when we talk about the Affordable Housing Overlay in a society we have to speak in terms of concrete solutions, regulations and legislative rules that get us to that goal. While we react through an emotional lens, much of the public STILL doesn't understand what this overlay is, how it affects existing zoning practices and can it deliver. Nor has the City looked into the other viable alternatives. This overlay won't come close to dealing with issues of massive gentrification and cycle of evictions pushing out our citizens. We have only been presented with one proposal - 100% Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) creating a bilateral choice- yes or no. Where is the creative housing? How can we find existing buildings to be convert? Not every standardized generic apartment building is appropriate in every neighborhood. How do we quantify affordable housing? There are many landlords who rent to the same tenant below market-rate for decades. This is evident all over the city even as CDD has identified those areas as having "NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING". That is blatantly false. Further: Have you done a 3-D models illustrating density using the new numbers? Cherry-picking, the Form-based code ignores the national review calling for the study of each individual neighborhood and its needs. CDD, in my opinion, is being lazy and selective, dismissing vital pieces to this total concept. This plan doesn't provide any incentives to make Cambridge Housing any more affordable. Where are the POs waiting reports such as the data on evictions and displacement? City-owned land? Identified potential buildings? Mortgage supplements? Who is buying property? A possible transfer tax? Pathway to Ownership? We push a standardized shallow idea without the factual deep dive. This data could contribute to a better solution. Many older houses are not engineered to carry additional floors, so, if "not historically significant", they can be torn down and developers don't have to adopt design suggestions "as of right". We need to amend Planning Board permitting, we need to keep FAR. We need to fix the zoning we have. We need more mixed income housing which would address social and racial equity. The idea of 100% Affordable Housing automatically segregates and stigmatizes its tenants. This is a self-inflicted problem as market-rate runs rampant. This is not ready for the ordinance committee. You haven't done your homework towards equity for ALL.

AttachmentM Andea, Willer DISCUSS TREES 12 Arleryton st. My mother always carried a big red pocket book which held her 6' rule. She wás a landscape architect. I am sure she is here today. / I want to make a couple of observations. Mosirvation The first concerns our Tree Committee and the Overlay. The Tree Committee and the Overlay represent the work of two different constituencies. Cambridge Why not integrate them? My first point: we all know Brattle Street, big houses, lots of trees. We also know other parts of the city with smaller houses and not so many trees. I conclude that it you have money you get trees, if you don't have money you don't get trees. Therefore, trees are a measures of social standing in our community. So is housing. cante My second point: treesare a social good for all, they improve health, they calm the spirit, they are often beautiful, especially now, in spring bloom. Why are they given more generously to some and less to others? Why do we have to go ko a cemetery to appreciate trees and landscape design? I mean the Mi. Auburn. I watch Rick Steves travel show on Channel 2. I see many cities with people enjoying themselves, and usually, lots of trees. In conclusion, I want to suggest that the concerns of the Tree Committee be merged with the Overlay Plan. Trees should be a social good for all of us, not just some.. Houses and trees should be integrated, and any Overlay should be designed with both of them, together. In the Overlay plans I see apartment- like blocks, with greenery at the edges. We will- Need models. I remember a while back when greenery in Cambridge meant green turf between street and side walk. I don't mean that at all, I mean real trees integrated with housing, from the beginning, not as add-ons.

Atlachment N Crane, Paula Kevin Matthew Li <[email removed]> From: Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 6:48 PM To: Crane, Paula Subject: Statement in support of Cambridge Affordable Housing Overlay Hello, I presented the following at the public hearing today: Hello, My name is Kevin Matthew Li and I live at 3 Ames St, which is an MIT undergraduate dormitory near Kendall Square. I am a student at MIT's Department of Urban Studies and Planning, and I speak here today in support of the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay. I have been proud to call Cambridge my home for the past four years. I am proud to live in a thriving and diverse place in which I can walk and take transit where I need to go. However, while I have had the privilege of accessing my university's subsidized dormitory housing, I have met many others in the MIT community, who work in Cambridge, who do not have this privilege. They commute here from Burlington, from Billerica, from Nashua to access the opportunities that this incredible place provides. These people are not represented here today because they cannot afford to live here. Their commutes waste their time, stress them out, and hurt the environment, all because we cannot be bothered to allow more people to live in our community. But they contribute to the liveliness of our city, and I believe they deserve a place to live here. The proposed overlay is not a big step, but nevertheless a step in the correct direction. Councillor Zondervan, you were popular among the MIT community because of your vocal commitment to climate change. Housing policy and climate policy are intricately tied, and the most significant step we can take as Cambridge is to allow more Cambridge workers to live here. I urge you to support this proposed ordinance. Thank you.

Attachment O Crane, Paula From: Walter McDonald <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 4:59 PM To: Crane, Paula Fwd: Housing Committee: Affordable Housing Overlay 4/16/2019 Subject: -- Forwarded message -------- From: Walter McDonald <[email removed]> Date: Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:57 PM Subject: Housing Committee: Affordable Housing Overlay 4/16/2019 To: <Council@cambridgema.gov> Cc: <DePasquale@cambridgema.gov>, <ccotter@cambridgema.gov>, Paula Crane <pcrane@cambrdigema.gov>, < ifaroug@cambridgema.gov>, <jroberts@cambridgema.gov> Dear Councillors Simmons and Siddiqui, Chairs, Housing Committee Members, and other City Councillors If we really wanted to spend our time on developing affordable housing soon, today we should be talking about capturing the East Cambridge Courthouse for both moderate and affordable housing on city-owned properties. Put your support behind that opportunity. Our problem today is that we don't have the comprehensive plan from the Envision Process. I have heard that it is almost • ready. Before going much further, we need to know what other problems and issues have been identified by the Envision process besides housing, but bear on this overlay proposal. What about transit, cost and availability of affordable retail space, open space, climate change, and overall resilience. We need to know about these issues to make a reasonable decision about housing development of all kinds. We are lucky to have the work of Steve Kaiser, who has made a detailed and exhaustive survey of the numerous necessary corrections, additions, and unanswered questions raised by the proposed draft 100% affordable housing overlay. You should pay close attention to it. For one example, he points out the clear conflicts of goals in the rear setbacks required by the proposal and then taken away by exceptions, reducing the setback to paving and balconies, with no green space or space for tree planting. These matters require resolution before the plan is ready. But we are not ready to move forward on this proposal: - No alternative plans have been considered. What about Charles Franklin's proposal, requiring affordable housing to fit into different neighborhoods in eight zones? - We have no examples of similar overlay rezoning initiatives from Cambridge, Boston, or beyond, to give us confidence in the efficacy of this proposal. We have no reports of cities that have implemented form-based zoning - There has been no financial analysis comparing the cost of construction vs. the ongoing necessary rent subsidy to meet the need for low and moderate income housing. - We have no analysis of the how soon this overlay will attract proposals, once enacted, and where it is likely to produce new housing. - We have no examples of alternatives to sustain the affordable housing that is currently available. - There is no projection of long-term financing for this housing. 1

I assume that the Envision process has identified a set of planning issues and goals, all of which have an impact on one another. In order to make a reasonable decision about affordable housing, we need to consider how new zoning regulations will impact our ability to achieve other important goals. Thank you. Walt McDonald 172 Magazine Street 2

Atlechment p Crane, Paula Sasha Rickard < [email removed]> From: Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 6:46 PM To: Crane, Paula Subject: Affordable housing overlay testimony Hello, my name is Sasha Rickard, I live at 14 Lawrence St near Central Square. I'm with Students for Affordable Housing supporting the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay. I want to say, I love Cambridge. I love all the old homes and how active people are. I love the little coffee shops and bookstores. I also love being able to live near all this vibrancy without working a job that pays six figures. I may be an MIT student, but I'm not in tech. I can only afford to live in Cambridge because I live in a multi-family unit with roommates. I want to be a teacher and I would love to be able to live in Cambridge or a city like it on the salary of a public school teacher. This overlay is a small step in that direction. It doesn't all of a sudden convert all the housing stock to affordable units, and it won't mean that single story neighborhoods change overnight into 7 story apartment complexes. What it does mean is that affordable units can be built throughout the city with a higher return on tax-payer investment for those units. It means that some low income individuals and families will get to have access to the richness and diversity of Cambridge. And it is simply a sensible and frankly quite modest addition to Cambridge's existing affordable housing program. For these reasons, I support the overlay and urge the members of the council, as well as other Cambridge residents, to support it as a way to better fulfil Cambridge's commitment to helping keep and support all members of our community. Thank you.

Attachment @ Crane, Paula From: Noam Tanner <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 10:55 PM To: City Council; 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: My name is Noam Tanner. I live at 47 Sacramento street and I support the overlay. I support the overlay because it addresses important and pressing concerns that should be resolved immediately. But I am puzzled by the opposition to the overlay and wanted to raise some questions. I have seen that certain city councilors have supported the striking workers at Stop and Shop. This support is laudable. But why only support these workers when they are at standing at the picket line? Why not also support these workers as they return home? The overlay could provide affordable housing for some of these very striking workers. City councilors have shared a strong desire to support small and independent local businesses. A wonderful goal! But why not also support their employees? Take, for example, the Harvard Bookstore. Next time you go to the Harvard Bookstore, ask their employees: "Do you live in Cambridge?" The reply I received was a resounding no! In fact, the employee I spoke with mentioned that few of her coworkers can afford to live in Cambridge. The affordable housing overlay could help those very small business employees who support our thriving cultural and intellectual life. The affordable housing overlay can also help the teachers and paraprofessionals in our public schools. Like the speaker before me mentioned, many teachers desire to live close to their students and schools. Unfortunately, a large fraction have to commute a significant distance. Why not approve the overlay and help provide more affordable housing to our teachers? One of the groups facing the greatest need for compassion today is immigrants. I have no doubt that they have the support and compassion of the Cambridge City council. As a sanctuary city, Cambridge provides refuge for many immigrants facing persecution both in other countries and, unfortunately, in some parts of our own. But how will a poor immigrant be able to afford to live in Cambridge without affordable housing? The overlay will support immigrants and refugees. The overlay helps our working class, our local businesses, our teachers, and the immigrants that we are blessed to call our neighbors. These groups face immediate and pressing challenges that should be assisted ASAP. The council should not stall and should support the overlay to help them. But I will conclude with the criticism of the overlay that most perplexes me: that of "neighborhood character." The mother working in the check-out line at the supermarket, the aspiring writer in our independent bookstores, the teacher who uses her own money to buy supplies for disadvantaged students, and the refugee who escaped persecution to provide a better life for his family all show character. Real character! This is the true character that makes Cambridge unique. Supporting the overlay helps these people and, therefore, helps preserve real character in our community. Sincerely, Noam Tanner 1

47 Sacramento St .... 2

Attachment R My name is Esther Hanig, and I live at 136 Pine St. in the Port I am here to urge the Housing Committee and the Council to move speedily on the filing and passage of the Affordable Housing Overlay District. The Affordable Housing Overlay would be a major step in addressing the pressing crisis that we are facing in maintaining the very special character of diversity and equity in our city. And this is indeed a crisis - every day that we delay, we are forfeiting opportunities to build more affordable units and to expand our diversity to Cambridge neighborhoods that are currently sorely lacking economic and racial I have been so heartened over the past few years to hear so many of my neighbors and our councilors talk about how affordable housing is THE most important issue that we need to tackle as a city. I have heard those same people talk about the importance of working to maintain as much as possible of the diversity that has made our city so special. And yet, many of these same people are only raising objections rather than embracing this exciting opportunity. They talk about our trees, and yet we just passed - with great speed—a measure to protect our trees. They talk about our buildings and yet we have our Historical Commission to protect our buildings. We hear about the need for neighborhood input and design review, and yet that is included in this proposal. We are also fortunate to have affordable developers in Cambridge who have a strong track record of working closely with neighbors and producing attractive buildings that fit into the existing neighborhood. I have heard that this proposal will not produce any additional affordable housing or that it will produce so much as to totally change existing neighborhoods. Neither of those assertions ++-tis true. And while, I would not argue that this proposal is perfect, we have the entire legislative process after the proposal is filed to work together to make any necessary improvements. This is the moment to seize this unique and pressing opportunity to work to be a city where people of every color and every income level live side by side so that, as neighbors, we can all come to know each other better and share the challenges and joys that we face. I ask you to address this crisis facing our city now and for future generations NOW. I ask you, in the words of Spike Lee, to do the right thing.

Attachments Councillors, My name is Zoë Hopkins, I'm here on behalf of the Harvard Student Labor Action Movement or SLAM. SLAM seeks to engender unity and solidarity between Harvard's workers and students and to organize students in efforts centered on economic justice and labor reform. I am here to provide testimony in support of the many workers at Harvard who could draw immense benefit from the affordable housing overlay. A friend of mine who is a Harvard dining worker commutes to campus everyday from New Hampshire. She leaves her home at 5:30AM, before her children wake up for school, and arrives back at 9:30PM, after they have gone to sleep. Not only is she unable to spend time watching her kids grow up, but she is also forced to spend 10% of her budget on gas. The price she pays for gas, plus the price she pays for housing in her current residence, is still less than the amount she would be paying for housing were she to live in Cambridge. This is the lived experience of an overwhelming number of Harvard workers. Every day, they make commutes as long as 3, even 4 hours, many of them from out of state, to get to work because they cannot afford to live in Cambridge, a wealthy suburb that also houses one of the wealthiest universities in the world. By the time they arrive at work, they are tired, having woken up at the crack of dawn to benefit the Harvard community, and more broadly, the Cambridge community. These staff do more than just work at Harvard: they are also our family and the lifeblood of the Harvard community. But how can Harvard, how can Cambridge, call itself a community when so many people who have dutifully served it are denied the ability to live here because it isn't financially viable for them? →or attractive The claim that it is legitimate to oppose this overlay because it will "make neighborhoods less desirable" is not only a farce, but it is an offensive and anti-poor affront to those who work tirelessly to support this community. At the end of the day, passing this affordable overlay is a small drop in the bucket in comparison to the vast benefit that Harvard workers, and others who rely on affordable housing, would experience in its wake. For these workers and others, passing this overlay would affirm that Cambridge is more than a workplace, that it is a community and a home, and that they can rely on it to value their livelihood. Councilor Quinton, I call on you to support the affordable housing overlay in the name of common decency, and in the name of community.

Atlachment T The Honorable City Council Paula Crane: Deputy City Clerk 16 April 2019 Why have we not seen the Envision Report? How can we be talking about implementing one part of it without having even seen the other components? We cannot do housing in a vacuum... open space, transportation (and please acknowledge for some there is a NEED for cars), schools, groceries, libraries, all infrastructure must be considered in any plan for housing. Why are we now talking about the "Affordable Housing Overlay"? What happened to the 100%? Are we surreptitiously moving toward 75% Affordable Housing Overlay, then 50% Affordable Housing Overlay, then...? I am deeply disturbed by the divisiveness, lack of respect for other opinions, misinformation, and personal attacks this proposal has generated... this is SO un- Cambridge and needs to stop. If we are trying to come up with solutions to a problem everyone agrees on, let's work together and let's look at other options, many of which would accomplish far more and be more cost effective without taking away citizens' rights. Elizabeth Gombosi 42 Irving Street

Attachment U Crane, Paula [email removed] From: Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 8:01 PM To: Crane, Paula Cc: City Council Public Comment - Tue - 16Apr19 [CCC Housing Committeel Subject: TO: Cambridge City Council Housing Committee I am Fritz Donovan - 42 Irving Street (Cambridge resident since my arrival as a student in 1955.) There has been too much disagreement on the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay we are here to discuss tonight. So let's focus on two facts that anyone who has studied it closely can agree on. First we all support affordable housing. Second this well-intended proposal is - unfortunately - a mess. The $3 million three-year Envision plan was to consider six competing objectives in separate focused subcommittees, then pull them all together by the end 2018 into a balanced plan that serves each of the six objectives acceptably without defeating any of the others. It never happened. The only relic of that entire project is Envision's Housing Subcommittee's hastily concocted "100% Affordable Housing Overlay" and even that has been going through dozens of major modifications at the same time we the public are supposed to be learning and discussing its details. The full details have still not emerged. There is no way Cambridge can satisfy more than a small percentage of the demand for affordable housing, but it needs to do at least what it reasonably can without totally forgetting its obligations to all income levels of its current residents. The proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay totally ignores - and conflicts dangerously with - the goals of all five left-behind Envision subcommittees on climate & environment, mobiity, community well-being, urban form, and economy. That makes no sense. Cambridge needs a well thought-out plan that both increases affordable housing and enhances quality of life in our wonderful city. We have the talent to put that together. The current 100% Affordable Housing Overlay plan is a dangerous disaster. We need to go back to the drawing boards and do it right. Francis E. Donovan 42 Irving Street Cambridge MA 02138 [phone removed] (cellphone)

AHachment V Crane, Paula Stephen Kaiser < [email removed]> From: Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 7:30 PM To: Farooq, Iram; City Council; DePasquale, Louie; Carlone, Dennis; Siddiqui, Sumbul; Cc: Quinton Zondervan; McGovern, Marc; Kelley, Craig; Simmons, Denise; Mallon, Alanna; Toomey, Tim; Devereux, Jan; Lopez, Donna; Crane, Paula; Cport Neighborhood Assoc Listserv; Yahoogroups; ACN LIST; Livable Cambridge Open Re: [livablecambridgeopen] Cambridge Zoning Primer Subject: Carolyn, This is very good work. The definitions of terms are a serious weak point in all the materials submitted so far in the Envision process and the draft zoning. See if you can find the terms "low income," "moderate income" and "middle-income" anywhere in either existing zoning or in the planning & zoning materials from the Envision process. I searched and could find nothing. I have it on good authority that such definitions have never been part of Cambridge zoning, in spite of the many years of the Affordable Housing program. The definitions are important because in past year the emphasis has been on low- and moderate-income, and this year the element of middle-income has been added. This is new and could absorb much of the increased budget for affordable housing. In my search for a definition of middle-income housing I found a 2014 report on Middle Income housing by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, which used a range of 80% to 135% of median income for the Boston area. Apparently, Cambridge and the MAPC are using different definitions. I also began a search for Boston's definitions, which is some ways are slightly clearer and do not stress middle-income housing. Boston recognizes low-income, very-low-income and extremely low-housing, the latter for individuals as low as 30% of median income levels. Both Boston and Cambridge seem to be leaving out the elderly and others with incomes of less than 30% of median incomes. I have seen no definitions that relate incomes specifically with rent levels. For example, one of my units rents for $1,250 a month and the other for $1,500. These rents correspond to household incomes of $50,000 and $60,000 a year. Middle incomes of $120,000 a year would pay $3,000 rents. These numbers show clearly the challenge we face in terms of getting rents at reasonable and stable levels in the city. Our definitions should make this evidence and its understanding very clear. Steve Kaiser 1

Crane, Paula From: Stephen Kaiser < [email removed]> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 1:18 PM To: Crane, Paula Subject: Written Submission for the April 16 Housing Committee Meeting Attachments: 2019-04-15 SKaiser -- Analysis on Overlay Zoning pdf To: Paula Crane, Office of the City Clerk From Stephen Kaiser Attached is my "Analysis of Overlay Zoning," for the April 16 Housing Committee meeting, in the form of a letter to the City Council and the City Manager. The document reviews the March 27 draft zoning language submitted by CDD and recommends full and prompt release of the Final Report for the Envision Cambridge plan. Thank you.

Page 1 April 15, 2019 Stephen H. Kaiser 191 Hamilton St. Cambridge Mass. 02189 To: Cambridge City Council and City Manager From : Stephen H. Kaiser Review of the Draft Concept Plan for Overlay Zoning On March 12 I submitted to the City Manager and the Council some initial thoughts on the proposed city-wide rezoning, also know as the Overlay zoning concept. This letter was expanded and updated on March 18, with the noted limitation that as discussions continued in the city, there still had been no release of the Envision Cambridge comprehensive plan, or of the language for the zoning petition that would document the new zoning proposals. Fortunately, a "draft working copy" of the zoning was released by CDD on March 27, and provided the first written details of how the zoning would work. Now any public official and any citizen can read and increase one's understanding with specifics on building heights, FARs, setbacks, and changes in density, open space and building massing. However, because the Envision plan final report still has not been released in any form, this level of increased understanding is limited by insufficient planning information. Release of the Envision report must occur now. The written draft can be closely reviewed for what it contains and what it means. Loopholes and ambiguities can be identified. The first part of my review below will be an approach from that detailed perspective. Later, many of the larger questions raised by the Overlay zoning advocates will be considered. The Envision and zoning discussion so far has been devoid of alternatives. Charles Franklin has prepared a detailed alternative, but he has been rewarded with stonewalling. Why support overlays and not a more traditional zoning approach? A further scope for review is to identify those elements that were left out of the zoning and need to be added.

Page 2 April 15, 2019 One larger issue not yet included is the trend towards rising rents for businesses, institutions and non-profits. If the public is given its right to see the contents of the Envision Plan report, we may be able to see what other problems in city planning, livability and financial challenges need to be prioritized. A vague commitment to build 50 to 100 housing units a year is not the be-all and end-all of a proper response to the housing crisis in Cambridge. Zoning cannot address financial issues, such as how to fund new housing programs. It traditionally has not addressed aesthetics and matters of architectural detail. It does not consider the existence of older buildings which have no historic protections but have been accepted into the city fabric for decades. It cannot deal with aberrations of misfit buildings, such as the East Cambridge Courthouse. We need to see the Envision Plan. I expect in the coming weeks and months to address fundamental concerns about form-based zoning and the trend towards dismantling planning and zoning in Cambridge. The removal of essential protections in zoning is one form of likely damage, combined with the reduction of the Cambridge Planning Board to advisory functions only. Someone must assess the legal problems of form-based concepts, and if the City will not do it, citizens will. I wish to thank all involved in achieving the public release of a discussion draft of the proposed Overlay Zoning for the city, dated March 27, 2019. The dialog about this draft should proceed, as we seek further additions, deletions, and consideration of alternatives. The very next step should be a release of the draft Envision Plan final report, which I understand is at least 99% complete and warrants a PDF circulation of the report as background information on the discussion of the Overlay zoning and related legal, financial, and physical implications for the city. The release of the draft Envision report should come within the coming week, to allow public review prior to the April 25 meeting of the Housing Committee. The following analysis is intended in PART I to inform the discussion on April 16 as to modifications needed in the zoning draft, presuming that a construction-based zoning overlay approach should be refined. The approach will be to take an incremental view of the individual sections, including definitions. PART II addresses the need for consideration of alternative zoning packages and comparison of the basic features. PART III notes the need to compare plans Cambridge is proposing with the programs and experiences of other cities as they seek to deal with housing difficulties. PART IV seeks to provide the necessary

April 15, 2019 Page 3 beginnings to Financial analysis, as we look into the consequences of the Overlay zoning, especially the incentives for construction and the burdens placed on the city budget. PART V offers a brief assessment of the fiscal impacts of alternatives, such as housing preservations and simple rent subsidies (as alternatives to or in parallel with new construction). PART VI offers conclusions about the workability of the Envision zoning, both in terms of physical changes to the City and of excessive scale of Citywide proposals. I begin PART I by reviewing each section of the zoning at a microscopic scale, with the intent of discovering simple flaws and loopholes that would have the effect of undermining the quality and effectiveness of zoning. PART I: CRITIQUE OF THE MARCH 27, 2019 VERSION OF THE OVERLAY ZONING Add new definitions to Article 2.000 : "100% Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO)" Replace the draft with "A set of modified development standards as set forward in Section 11.207.3 of the CZO that applies city-wide to proposed buildings with heights less than 80 feet with the intent of increasing the construction of housing affordable to households earning no more than 100% of area median income by the provision of public subsidies to reduce rents." [Note that the 3-27 draft includes controversial elements of increasing density and relaxing existing zoning restrictions, as well as requirements to make the units "permanently affordable." "100% Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Project)": "The construction of a new housing structure or structures and/or the modification of an existing building or buildings, resulting in 100% of the housing units as AHO dwelling units subject to the standards and restrictions set forth in Section 11.207." "100% Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Subsidy": "The funds -- either as initial capital or regular rent subsidy payments -- paid by public entities to reduce rents for qualified households earning no more than 100% of area median income." "Area Medium Income (AMI)" : "The mid-point of all households for income within the Boston area, as determined by the Department of Housing & Urban Development."

Page 4 April 15, 2019 "As-of-right" Development: "Development that complies with all applicable regulations in the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance and does not require discretionary action such as design review and special permits by the Planning Board or other permit granting agencies." "Extremely Low Income" : "Incomes that do not exceed 30% of the Area Median Income, as defined by HUD." "Finding of Legal Consistency": "A determination by legal counsel for the City that the zoning language and its specific application are consistent with applicable zoning, the General Laws of the Commonwealth and Article 7 of the Declaration of Rights of the Commonwealth in the state Constitution." "Grade" : [The proposed definition is confusing as to the reference height of the wall and soil elevation proposed and should be rewritten clearly.] "Story Below Grade" : [The proposed zoning fails to consider basements and their potential use as housing units. By ignoring basements, the zoning gives complete freedom to developers to work with below-grade space.] "Initial Sale Price": [The proposed zoning does not explain how the sales price is determined and what is meant by the word "initial."] "Low Income" : "Incomes that do not exceed 50% of the Area Median Income, as defined by HUD in 2019." "Middle Income": "Incomes that are more than 80% of the Area Median Income and less than 120% of AMI, as defined by HUD in 2019." "Moderate Income" : "Incomes that are more than 50% of the Area Median Income and less than 80% of AMI, as defined by HUD in 2019." "Permanently affordable": "to meet the requirements of Section 11.207 regardless of budgetary or other funding limitations."

April 15, 2019 Page 5 Modity Section 1.30 Purpose: Section 1.30 of the CZO, Purpose, should be modified to reflect any new approaches to issues of density and upzoning not already in section 1.30 and Chapter 40A. CREATE NEW SECTION 11.207 Affordable Housing Overlay 1. Purpose and Intent line 1 : replace "public good" with "common good" (see Article 7, Decl of Rights) line 3 : replace "allow increases in density" with "allow limited increases in density" line 9: delete: "subject to non-binding advisory design consultation procedures" line 10 : change "promote" to "promote and apply" 3. Standards for Eligibility, Rent, and Initial Sales Price. Section 3 B i What are the standards of "marketing" to be established by CDD? Section 3 B ii "legally" recorded covenants. Does the filing of this covenant mandate the permanent provision of subsidies? Section 3 C iii "Utilities and other fees routinely charged to tenants"- the word "routinely" needs a practical working definition. Does the "routine" mean city-wide - by which gas, heating oil or electric costs are paid by tenants and water/sewer costs are paid by landlords, including provision of the all physical facilities attached to the building itself Cheating units, light fixtures, etc.?? If it is not routine, any utility costs and fees cannot be included in the affordable unit rent. Such costs and fees if included would increase the subsidy supplied for the AHO unit and would affect the financial analysis for subsidies and city budgets.. What does "other similar standard" mean? Why is this provision included? A standard should be a standard and should be clearly delineated. Section 3 (c) v There may be problems of people living in an AHO unit whose income exceeds allowed levels - similar to the past situations when more affluent individuals were "freeloading" in rent-controlled units.

Page 6 April 15, 2019 To qualify as an affordable unit, the rent after subsidy must be at 100% AMI or less. According to Section 3 C i, a maximum of 20% of the units can be for middle-income households, and a minimum of 80% for low and moderate households. There are no provisions to assure that any low income units must be rented. Thus added to 3 C ii should be a new section 3 C ii+ indicating that "50% of the units shall be for Low Income households." The 50% for Low income should be split up as half for 0% to 25% of AMI and the other half for 25% to 50% of AMI. Under Section 3 (c) iv, the undefined periodic "verifications of tenant conditions" may best be handled by the existing Inspections or Assessment functions of the City, with this new responsibility identified in zoning. CDD clearly has less experience and expertise in establishing property values. Allowing tenants with incomes between 100% and 120% of AMI appears to be in violation of the definition of AHO as not more than 100% of AMI. Proper determination of household income in Section 3 will probably require reference to personal tax filings. There may be privacy or other civil liberties concerns. Item (v) includes an exception inherent in housing programs approved by CDD. Such exceptions should be explicitly referenced in the zoning. Section 4. Use and Project Definition One loophole can be seen when an owner takes out a large renovation mortgage for an existing property and performs relatively minor renovations/modifications. An AHO subsidy could be negotiated on the basis a subsidy for the original large mortgage. The owner could then pay off most of the mortgage with the unspent principal, thus dramatically reducing costs while retaining the negotiated subsidy. The draft zoning contains section 3 (c) v allows for an increase in tenant income, but not an allowance for a reduction in mortgage for the property owner. A new section 3 (c) v should be included to cover any subsidy subject to a sudden drop in size of the mortgage. Section 3 (d) reserves up to half of the AHO units for home ownership for those with middle-income status, leaving the remaining 50% of the units for possible exclusive use as moderate income housing, with no units for low-income. This imbalance must be corrected.

Page 7 April 15, 2019 Section 3 (d) i requires that CDD determine the "initial sale price" of an AHO unit. Initial to what? What experience or criteria does CDD have in this regard? Would the City Assessor be in a better position to make such a determination of sale price? The zoning indicates that the sale price will be approved by CDD but does not indicate who makes the final decision. Is it the City Manager? Approval means accepting someone else's recommendation. Who would make the original recommendation? Section 3 (d) iii provides no clarity or justification for indicating the mixed 90% or 100% and for 70% or 80% figures. These subsections should be deleted. In Section 4 (a) the second sentence should be deleted. Special Permit review and action by the Planning Board must continue. A non-binding advisory process translates into an "easily ignored process." The purpose and intent of Development standards 5.1 (a) is not clear, but one clarifying change would be to modify "all overlay districts" to read "all other overlay districts." In 5.10 (a) the reference to special permit appears to contradict the original overlay goal of exempting special permit review from the AHO process. Leave "special permits" in 5.1 (a) and delete the exemption of AHO from Planning Board review. Section 5.1 (b) conditions as-of-right by the language "except as otherwise stated." The specific reference should be spelled out in the zoning language. Section 5.1 (c) gives a blanket exception to Section 5.000 of the Zoning Code, notably FAR and lot area per dwelling unit. The FAR has been the traditional control over density of sites, and the new development would completely remove all limits on FAR, rather than providing a gradual relaxation. The lot area per dwelling unit has routinely been ignored on zoning reviews and special permits in recent years, so it does not represent a significant change in approvals of housing construction. At one time, such a zoning limit on lot area was considered important, and the reasons for such past concern should be identified and discussed. Floor ratios will still apply to all buildings, if not in actual AHO zoning. CDD should calculate the changes in both FAR and lot size per unit for sample sites to show the implications of making these changes in zoning. For the sample site of 185-195 Hamilton Street the allowed FAR would increase by a factor of five under maximum Overlay zoning density. For 38 Lakeview Avenue the rise in FAR between the existing site and new zoning buildout is more than a factor of 10.

Page 8 April 15, 2019 Section 5.1 (c) at the end includes the phrase "except as otherwise stated in this section." A specific reference to those subsections of the new zoning should be explicitly identified. 5.2 Dimensional standards. Section 5.2.1 Height and Scale need to benefit from a better definition of "grade" under 2.000. Notable confusion exists in the reference to a wall facing the street. A limit should also be given to stories below grade and specifically to the use of basements. Section 5.2.2 on Yard Setbacks allows an increase in side setback from the previous 5 feet to 7.5 feet. This limitation may not be acceptable to the Fire Department, which would prefer to see no such narrow corridors for emergency vehicles written into zoning. Moreover, Section 5.2.2 (e) allows for bay windows and balconies to extend 3.5 feet from the exterior wall, thus cutting down the true building setback for passage to only four feet. As Doug Brown has pointed out, "unroofed porches and the like" - such as decks - are allowed to project ten feet beyond the foundation wall. Such a porch/deck extension would project beyond the specified 7.5 foot setback, filling in the setback distance and extending 2.5 feet into the next lot - the neighbor's yard. Such a structuring of setbacks is absurd on its face and is a fundamental flaw in the zoning that identifies the draft zoning as undeniably incompetent. Section 5.2.3 for Open Space appears to include a larger requirement for 30% open space on each lot, but the concept is riddled with loopholes. This requirement can be dropped to 15% when 15% of the site is used for paved parking and driveways. Half of the remaining land on the site by 5.2.3 (b) - (or 7.5%) - can be used for additional paving in the form of permeable open space composed of unit pavers. This definition appears to allow 7.5% as double-counting of paved areas. Under 5.2.3 (c) half of the required open space or 7.5% can be counted for roof decks. Thus the total open space counted on the site is 15% plus the double-counted 7.5% permeable and the 7.5 % on the roof. A project could have 30% open space that is composed of entirely paved surface plus a roof deck, with no room for even one tree. This lack of real open space is a tell-tale flaw in form-based zoning.

April 15, 2019 Page 9 Section 5.3 Standards for existing buildings would appear to include strip-down renovations, in combination with a vertical jacking-up of the structure to create more space for basement units. Such activity as an AHO would be as-of-right with no provision for effective design review or special permits, or for any consideration by BZA. Section 5.3 (a) appears to take non-conforming buildings and remove any special permit review. The controversial subject of parking is handled in Section 6.1 (a) by making no distinction between different land uses. The minimum required parking is 0.4 spaces per unit. There is no maximum. On-site parking exemptions near transit are clearly intended to provide tenants with a way to move about without a car. Section 6.1 (b) exempts parking requirements within a half-mile radius of a rapid transit station (Kendall, Central, Harvard, Porter and Alewife but not Lechmere, which is not rapid transit). With an average Red Line station spacing of one mile, this means that along virtually all of Mass Avenue from MIT to Porter Square, businesses could build to 50 feet with four floors of housing and no on-site parking. If overall MBTA transit operations are not improved for capacity and reliability, Cambridge parking problems could get worse. A proposed exemption from parking along bus corridors presents special challenges. The proposed rule is to exempt parking within a quarter mile of a bus stop. Thus a spacing of half a mile between bus stops will trigger the exemption. Most routes have bus stops sited more often, possibly four stops or more per mile. Thus the bus stop spacing requirement appears to be irrelevant. Section 6.1 (b) also allows an exemption when schedules promise six or more buses in the peak hour. Such spacing implies ten minute headways. Thus triggering the bus exemption can be caused by changes in bus frequency or bus routes (even temporary relocations) - which are fairly common at the MBTA. The net result is that Cambridge zoning - seemingly fixed and stable - could become variable and dependent on decisions by the MBTA. City zoning should never be dependent on the shifting decisions of the MBTA. Section 6.1 (d) should be clarified to waive the parking requirement for any AHO project with ten or fewer units. This provision could benefit infill housing in neighborhoods close to transit and with poor provisions for driveways. Sections 6.3 and 6.4 (a) and (b)

Page 10 April 15, 2019 includes reference to several non-existing sections of the draft zoning text, and contain four uses of the term "notwithstanding" - generally an undesirable format for good zoning. Delete these sections. The need for on-site or off-site parking can be reduced by an extensive shared-vehicle parking program. The need for parking spaces could be reduced by the existence of Zip-cars spaces or similar services. The draft zoning makes no reference to shared vehicles. Section 6.5 (c) should be added: "Shall participate in City-sponsored programs to increase the reliability and even-spacing of trains and buses in service." Under Section 7.2 (a) driveways would be limited to thirty feet for each 100 feet per 100 ft of frontage. Such an arrangement might allow three 10-foot driveways in residential areas. Such a frequency of driveways could mean an average spacing between driveways of about 20 feet, which is very short and not suitable for a good walking environment. CDD should analyze immediately the consequences of short sidewalk lengths between driveways in both residential and commercial areas. Section 7.2 (c) indicates a tentative reference to allowed building lengths or facades, of 200 to 300 feet. There should be a limit on the size of the building footprint, both for area and length/width in residential areas. A building length of 300 feet (a football field) is much too large. Any reference to setbacks should use traditional clear setback language. Section 7.4 (a) refers to sidewalk grade and "such mean grade" which are not consistent with the definition of "grade" in 2.000. Proper reference to any walls should be included. Any provision for access from a sidewalk must also be compatible with ADA requirements if a ramp is provided. Section 7.4 B refers to the visibility of parking provided within the ground floor of a building, such as the example on Mass Avenue at Beech Street. Another such example is on Hampshire Street. Provision needs to be made for business/retail uses of the first floor. Special treatment is needed for large buildings with residential uses on the first floor. The goal should be a solid architectural screen over the entire length of the building facade (measured parallel to the street). Parking within 15 feet of the front sidewalk should be prohibited.

April 15, 2019 Page 11 Section 7.4 (c) rigidly seeks to reduce the "wall effect" of buildings facing the street. The "ground floor" will typically be raised above street level for residential use. The criterion for an unacceptable "wall" should be different for residential and commercial areas. This section needs more work, including coordination with Section 7.4 (b). Section 7.4 (d) ii should limit the frontage of building lobbies, to avoid the first floor facade being used almost entirely for open lobby space (almost as bad as parking along the front facade of a building). For example, consider One Broadway. Lobbies should extend into the building, to maximize street frontage for non-residential uses at street level. Reference in Section 7.4 (e) to "one space" is unclear. Except for parking, "space" is not defined in the zoning. Part of Section 7.6 (b) asserts that "a special permit shall not be required." Note that Section 7.6 (c) requires that an AHO project must comply with environmental standards. The entirely of Section 8 (Advisory Design Consultation Procedure) should be deleted. The functions of independent Planning Board review should not be replaced with internal CDD review. Note that the twelve required items in the review procedure for developers does not require a TIS report or any other traffic study, as current zoning requires. A new Section 8 should be prepared to deal with the Alewife area to require comprehensive traffic studies in the area encompassed by Fresh Pond Parkway at Huron Avenue, Blanchard Road and Alewife Brook Parkway at Mass Avenue for any project adding more than 50,000 s.f. The Planning Board should schedule a public hearing on such a project, and not treat it as a general business matter on the agenda. Public comments shall not be limited to less than five minutes. ========== END OF SPECIFIC COMMENTS on MARCH 27 DRAFT ============= PART I: GENERAL CRITIQUE of the MARCH 27 DRAFT: Consideration of Alternatives There is no evidence in the draft zoning or any CDD materials on the Envision Plan for alternatives to the Overlay treatment. In my March 12 letter to the Manager and the Council I proposed that four alternatives should have been included in the planning:

April 15, 2019 Page 12 1. The Envision overlay proposals, applicable city-wide 2. Several alternate zoning proposals now in preparation by community groups, proposing different approaches to overlays or seeking zoning reform without adding overlays. The Charles Franklin plan is in this category. 3. City or state versions of the Federal Section 8 rent subsidy program. Such efforts would reflect the Affordable Housing conservation efforts of CDD. 4. Rent Control, modeled on the recent Oregon initiatives or state legislation. An alternate approach is not numerical limitation on rent levels but the imposition of a steep and progressive "Sustainability Tax" on instances of extreme and socially undesirable rent increases. These four primary housing options are designed to deal with the destabilizing rent escalation, seen in many cities around the world. Most notable is the case of San Francisco and its homeless crisis caused by business expansion, gentrification, rent increases, and general increases in affluence among the "one percent." The response of Oregon has been to ban any rent increases of about ten percent, applicable state-wide. Participant reports indicate that the Housing Working Group ramrodded through the Overlay option without regard for any alternatives. Such an approach to consideration of alternatives undermines the proper values of planning and participation in a most fundamental way, and should be considered a major defect in the Envision process. PART III: GENERAL CRITIQUE : Need to Assess the Experience of Other Cities The available information on Envision and the draft zoning gives no indication that any experience with such radical changes in zoning have been been attempted in other cities across the country. The Town of Arlington engaged in a Master Plan study produced in 2015, and is anticipating Town Meeting votes to approve implementation of higher density standards for the Town this Spring. Full histories of Cambridge's past involvement in housing planning include Federally funded projects from the 1930s and veterans housing in the later 1940s and 1950s. These experiences were not included in discussions of possible housing policies. Example of low- income subsidized housing built after 1960 includes the MIT housing program of 1969, plus additional sponsorships by Harvard at Mt. Auburn Street and Putnam Avenue, construction of Rindge Towers with Federal 221 D3 funding, and HUD's Section 8 program since 1970.

Page 13 April 15, 2019 Analysis of Boston's experience with various housing initiatives should also have been included. PART IV: GENERAL CRITIQUE : Lack of Financial Analysis Public presentations of the Overlay proposal lack any disclosure of the financial aspects of the 100% Affordable Housing subsidy program. Nor is there any description of how the administrative aspects of the program would work when adopting a unit into the AHO program and its certification, followed by matching in tenants. In the absence of the Envision final report, I am forced to guess how the subsidy is determined and how that process would work in the real world. The first obligation is to assure that the housing unit is "affordable" in the sense that it meets the requirements for matching the rent-paying capabilities for a 100% AMI situation (for families of four persons. In other words the unit must match the income capabilities of the mid-point of the middle- income category. The next step is optional. For at least 80% of the units the tenant must be at an 80% AMI capability. While the highest income level is 80% of AMI, some units could go for less. How much less? Theoretically zero, but a common very low-income cutoff occurs in practice at 50% AMI, with or without the presence of vouchers. Therefore the subsidy requirement for at least 80% of the units could mean 50 to 80% AMI. Matching affordability and subsidy would need to be made on a case-by-case basis, with numerous individual decisions to be made by CDD. Those decisions include the "initial cost" of the unit, some accounting for the cost of utilities, interest rates, and the number of years to pay off the mortgage, plus decisions about income levels of all residents, including reviewing personal information such as tax returns. A person does not need to be a die- hard libertarian to see fundamental flaws in this process. Estimations of how the finances would work are not a required element of zoning. But they are a part of the planning process for both Envision and zoning. I have attached two spreadsheets that indicate for a wide range of incomes from $10,000 a year to $200,000 to illustrate what rents would be reasonably payable for households in different income

Page 14 April 15, 2019 categories. Both tables indicate how the costs for a unit costing $525,000 to build would be paid off over 30 years, with an interest rate of 4%. The difference between construction costs and income is covered by a public subsidy, in this case provided by the City of Cambridge through its Affordable Housing Trust fund. Table A shows the minimum subsidies when there is no property acquisition and demolition. The proportion or rent payment paid by the subsidy ranged from 92% for a household income of $10,000 a year .... to a 60% subsidy for households with a $50,000 income ... to a subsidy of 20% for household with a $100,000 income ... to zero subsidy for households with an income of about $125,000. The clear irony of these numbers is that those with the least income and the greatest need for affordable housing requires the largest subsidy. Hence a bureaucracy that is seeking to maximize the production of "affordable" housing would concentrate completely on helping the middle class between $100,000 and just under $80,000 incomes. This strategy would yield the highest number of "units." Truly needy families with less than $70,000 income could get nothing. Table A would apply to properties already owned by the City or to private properties where the owner was seeking to develop them as affordable housing. The primary cost would be in constructing the housing units. Table B includes an allowance of 25 percent of construction cost to pay for property that needs to be acquired. A developer might buy up an empty lot, or assemble several smaller lots into a single large lot. If there are existing houses on the lots), assume that the demolition cost is minimal and that the count of new AHO units added is not reduced by the housing units demolished Under Table B land costs are included. The proportion of rents paid by the subsidy would range from 94% for a household income of $10,000 a year .... to a 68% subsidy for households with a $50,000 income ... to a subsidy of 37% for household with a $100,000 income ... to zero subsidy for households with an income of about $160,000. The increased subsidies are caused by the need to pay off land acquisition costs.

Page 15 April 15, 2019 HOUSEHOLD INCOMES AND RENTS with MORTGAGE PAYMENTS S. Kaiser April 9, 2019 Calculated by : S. Kaiser April 9, 2019 File :2019-03-75 HOUSEHOLD INCOMES AND RENT with MORTGAGE PAYMENTS.ods Calculated by : Cost to Total Rent Construction Household 24% of Interest MORTGAGE PAYMENTS • Subsidy Needed Years Income # Acquire Mortgage For Per Cost Income for PER YEAR Rate on Mortgage Costs Property Month Mortgage Subsidized per unit per Year Rent / Year Unsubsidized % % $30,360 $27,960 92% 0% 30 $200 4.0% $525,000 $2,400 $525,000 $10,000 $2,400 $20,000 $400 0% 4.0% 30 $4,800 84% $525,000 $525,000 $25,560 $30,360 $4,800 76% $600 $525,000 0% 4.0% $525,000 30 $7,200 $7,200 $30,360 $30,000 $23,160 30 68% $40,000 $800 $9,600 $525,000 $525,000 $30,360 $9,600 4.0% 0% $20,760 30 60% $12,000 $50,000 $1,000 0% $525,000 $12,000 $525,000 $30,360 4.0% $18,360 4.0% 0% 30 $1,200 $30,360 $525,000 $14,400 $525,000 $15,960 53% $14,400 $60,000 0% $16,800 45% $30,360 30 4.0% $525,000 $13,560 $70,000 $1,400 $16,800 $525,000 0% $525,000 30 $30,360 37% $1,600 $80,000 $19,200 $19,200 $525,000 $11,160 4.0% 30 29% 4.0% $30,360 0% $525,000 $525,000 $1,800 $21,600 $90,000 $8,760 $21,600 0% 30 $24,000 10 21% $2,000 $525,000 $100,000 4.0% $24,000 $30,360 $525,000 $6,360 $525,000 30 13% $30,360 11 0% 4.0% $525,000 $3,960 $110,000 $26,400 $2,200 $26,400 12 4.0% 5% $28,800 $120,000 $28,800 $2,400 $525,000 $525,000 $30,360 0% 30 $1,560 0% 4.0% 30 -3% $525,000 13 -$840 $31,200 $30,360 $525,000 $130,000 $31,200 $2,600 0% 14 -$3,240 30 4.0% -11% $30,360 $33,600 $33,600 $2,800 $140,000 $525,000 $525,000 $150,000 $3,000 0% $525,000 30 -19% 4.0% -$5,640 15 $36,000 $525,000 $30,360 $36,000 -$8,040 30 0% 16 4.0% -26% $30,360 $38,400 $160,000 $525,000 $525,000 $3,200 $38,400 17 30 -34% -$10,440 $40,800 $40,800 0% $30,360 4.0% $3,400 $525,000 $170,000 $525,000 $525,000 30 -42% $30,360 -$12,840 0% 18 $3,600 4.0% $43,200 $180,000 $525,000 $43,200 4.0% 0% 30 $30,360 -50% -$15,240 19 $45,600 $3,800 $525,000 $45,600 $525,000 $190,000 30 $30,360 -$17,640 $48,000 $525,000 0% 20 4.0% $4,000 -58% $525,000 $200,000 $48,000 Table A Household Income, Rents, and Size of Subsidy Required - Zero Acquisition costs S. Kaiser HOUSEHOLD INCOMES AND RENTS with MORTGAGE PAYMENTS Calculated by : April 9,2019 S. Kaiser Calculated by : April 9,2019 Total Units Interest MORTGAGE PAYMENTS Rent Years Cost to Subsidy Needed 24% of Household Construction Mortgage For Rate PER YEAR Demolished Income # Acquire Cost Per Income for _on Mortgage Costs Mortgage % $ Subsidized Month % Property Unsubsidized per Year per unit Rent / Year 94% $37,950 $2,400 $10,000 $200 25% $2,400 $35,550 $656,250 $525,000 4.0% 0% 30 87% 0% $656,250 4.0% $37,950 $4,800 $33,150 25% $400 $20,000 $4,800 30 $525,000 81% $7,200 25% $7,200 $656,250 4.0% $600 $525,000 $30,000 30 $30,750 0% $37,950 30 75% $28,350 0% $9,600 $656,250 $40,000 $37,950 $525,000 25% 4.0% $9,600 $800 $12,000 $656,250 $37,950 $50,000 30 68% 5 $525,000 $1,000 25% 4.0% $12,000 $25,950 0% 30 62% 0% $656,250 $60,000 $1,200 $525,000 $14,400 25% 4.0% $23,550 $37,950 $14,400 56% 30 25% $21,150 0% $656,250 $1,400 $37,950 $70,000 $16,800 4.0% $525,000 $16,800 $525,000 $656,250 $37,950 30 49% $18,750 0% $19,200 $80,000 $1,600 25% 4.0% $19,200 $16,350 43% 0% $525,000 25% $21,600 $656,250 30 $37,950 4.0% $90,000 $21,600 $1,800 $13,950 $37,950 37% 0% 4.0% $24,000 $525,000 $656,250 30 10 25% $2,000 $24,000 $100,000 0% 30% 25% 4.0% $11,550 $656,250 11 $26,400 $525,000 $26,400 $2,200 30 $37,950 $110,000 24% 30 0% $120,000 $37,950 $9,150 25% 4.0% $525,000 $28,800 $2,400 12 $656,250 $28,800 $656,250 0% 30 18% $6,750 $37,950 $2,600 4.0% $31,200 25% $31,200 $130,000 $525,000 13 14 30 $33,600 $4,350 25% 4.0% 11% 0% $656,250 $140,000 $2,800 $37,950 $525,000 $33,600 15 $525,000 $656,250 $37,950 $36,000 5% 30 0% $1,950 $36,000 4.0% $3,000 25% $150,000 4.0% -1% -$450 $525,000 $37,950 $38,400 $3,200 25% $656,250 16 30 0% $160,000 $38,400 0% $656,250 $37,950 -$2,850 $40,800 4.0% -8% 17 $525,000 30 25% $3,400 $170,000 $40,800 -14% 0% 30 $37,950 -$5,250 25% 4.0% $656,250 $3,600 $525,000 $43,200 $180,000 18 $43,200 $656,250 30 0% -20% 19 $45,600 $525,000 4.0% $37,950 25% $3,800 -$7,650 $45,600 $190,000 $656,250 30 4.0% $37,950 -26% -$10,050 0% 25% $525,000 $48,000 20 $200,000 $48,000 $4,000 Table B Household Income, Rents, & Size of Subsidy - Including Land Acquisition costs

Page 16 April 15, 2019 PART V: GENERAL CRITIQUE : Need for Financial Analysis of AH Alternatives There is a public vacuum on financial analysis done by any of the advocates of Overlay zoning : Community Development, A Better Cambridge, and a host of real estate and architectural interests who are supporting the Overlay proposal. The draft zoning is out on the table, yet there is no financial analysis available for discussion. Because the Envision process neglected to consider housing alternatives, and only the Overly Zoning was proposed by the Envision plan, it should come as no surprise that there is no financial analysis for any of the alternative ideas (never studied in the Envision process.) Nevertheless, certain comparisons are possible. For rental property, the regular costs every year for real estate taxes, depreciation, heating and electricity, water and sewer, plus repairs can amount to about 20% to 25% of the debt service on capital projects. Thus conservation of existing affordable housing through subsidies is far more productive than adding new units at great expense and incurring large mortgages that must be paid off. If there is no debt involved in the subsidy transaction, the available subsidy funds would support four to five times as many units as those that come from new construction. The economics of new construction means that we might be able to add one new AHO to the housing stock, but meanwhile could lose four or five existing affordable units. The mathematics is obvious and undeniable. Preservation of neighborhoods and affordable units is by far the best cost-benefit solution available, while new construction is the worst. Subsidizing new construction makes sense only when the existing housing base is preserved and stable, and when one is willing to expand the total housing stock in the city - at considerable cost. In other words, by going to Overlay zoning as the first step, we are taking the least efficient move as the top priority, rather than other options which spend public money more efficiently and wisely. Any housing program based on subsidies must have a plan for long-term financing and budgetary impacts. The Overlay plan and its advocates have failed to do this. The most firm commitment so far is for AHO budget increases of $7 million for one year, while

April 15, 2019 Page 17 rumors abound to spend $20 million a year for five years for affordable housing - but no commitments from the City Manager's office. It is the Manager who has the fiduciary responsibility for the budget year-in and year-out, and if the political process - including the City Council - attempts to impose an unwise cost burden on the City, it should be the manager's freedom and obligation to decline to support expenditures that are inefficient and act as budget-busters. For all the meeting held by Council committees so far on AHO zoning, I do not recall a single instance of the Manager being asked to step forward and speak to the long-range financial implications of such a housing subsidy program. Some Councillors have expressed a desire to make housing affordable for everyone. I hope they are not supporting the concept of paying rent subsidies for the very rich, who find housing to be quite affordable already. But there is a danger is having any housing unit in Cambridge being declared affordable, provided the subsidy is high enough. What is to prevent luxury unit developers from offering their expensive wares and seeking high subsidies from the taxpayer?? The Overlay zoning does not speak to this loophole. The danger of the form-based Overlay zoning is that in the future the changes will undermine the protections of zoning and leave developers free to build whatever they want. The true limit on any Affordable Housing program is the city budget and the extent to which new construction must be stopped because there are no funds to pay for rent subsidies. PART VI: GENERAL CRITIQUE : Conclusions of Workability of Overlay Zoning Back in the 1950s, "old fashioned urban renewal" had many advantages over highway building. Planners were required to produce a "Workable Plan." They would vote to accept it and to follow it. There were requirements to set up Citizen Advisory Committees and to have local Neighborhood Associations. For both the Envision plan and the Overlay zoning, there is no legal requirement to produce a "Workable Plan," .... or to hold public hearings on it, .... or to vote on approving the plan. During the Envision study, the recommendations of some Working Groups were totally ignored, most notably in the case of Alewife. We are at a stage in planning, quality assurance, and community participation in Cambridge when we are in worse shape than during the worst years of urban renewal. In 1962, the CRA hired a consultant who prepared a planning document that calculated - for

Page 18 April 15, 2019 Cambridgeport alone -- 4,500 housing units would have been demolished. Such a displacement meant finding new homes for 13,000 people. Fortunately, urban renewal clearance in residential areas was stopped in 1962 and the Inner Belt was finally killed in late 1971. This combined threat hung over the neighborhood for decades, and housing quality took a beating. Fortunately, the neighborhood survived and prospered, and to my knowledge Cambridgeport never lost a house to the Inner Belt or urban renewal bulldozers. With 6,000 housing units today, Cambridgeport homes represent an asset of $3 billion to $4 billion in capital value. No one should be talking about demolishing what has already been achieved, and now forms our neighborhoods and guarantees our status as a community. The lack of consideration for alternatives, the failure to provide open distribution of the Envision plan, and the poor quality of the draft zoning all give credence to the recommendation of the East Cambridge Planning Team to "start all over." Indeed, there have been times in the past when such new beginnings were mandated by events. When the Donnelly Field urban renewal plan was rejected by the City Council in 1962, federal funding was shut off for the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority. With no income, the Authority was preparing to completely shut down as an institution, thereby meaning a future with no Kendall Square. In response to this crisis, the City Council granted special funds to the city's Planning Department to produce a new plan for housing, with a functioning citizen advisory committee - composed primarily of religious leaders. A new Wellington-Harrington plan was formulated and approved, and when Federal housing officials saw the improvements that Cambridge had made, they restored planning funds to a rejuvenated CRA. New plans were restarted for Kendall Square, and the rest is history. The Wellington-Harrington process of conducting a new study should be the model for implementing the East Cambridge proposal to "start all over." It happened successfully in 1962, and it can happen again. Sincerely, sent tann Stephen H. Kaiser Citizen Engineer and Historian

Atachment W I actually live in somerville, near Porter o By wholeheartedly suppert the Mordable Housing Owla. Square, Just over the lie city l'ne, and i portion of my life in Cambridge. As I walN the streets of Cambriage, it makes me angry Lui ll to see streets lined with howes i know! almost certainlu never be able to afford, And lam one of the so-called blow-in gentritie making horsira 1am even a Joung and white and work in tech if privilidged person like me worries asout housing casts in Cambridge, how will the people make this city function, teachers, service workers, nurses,: and give Cambridge students, activists, et calexa, It's unique flair. manage to sumive? Lets not make parfect the enemy of good when working toward affordable Lousing solutions and lets Rave Cambrize lead He way in backling this regional and nationwide 275 Summer St Sincerely Semiter Storei Somerville MA 02144

AHachment X Cambridge City Council Housing Committee April 16, 2019 Testimony My name is Tina Alu and I live at 113 ½ Pleasant Street. I am testifying as a Cambridge resident and as the Director of Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee (CEOC.) I am here in support of the Affordable Housing Overlay. I had originally planned to use my testimony tonight to challenge some of the false information that people have been stating as facts. But then someone forwarded me a letter that had recently been sent to Cambridge homeowners to urge them to write letters to the City Council to oppose the Overlay. I guess it wasn't sent to all homeowners because I certainly didn't receive one. I wonder which homeowners were targeted. Although this letter continued to spread false information, it was the tone of the letter that made me cringe. It said things like: neithe propod - indu diffo dable Housing Overlay is passed, it will afect every "It will change forever the look and feel of our city and its remarkable neighborhoods." '...we have demonstrated our commitment as a welcoming community by already having one of the highest rates of Affordable Housing in the entire state." I don't know about you, but to me, that doesn't sound like a community that values diversity and equity and increased affordable housing so more people will be able to afford to live in Cambridge. Well, maybe it does, as long as they are not living in certain neighborhoods. Anti-density zoning contributes to racial segregation, while zoning to permit denser development allows communities to become more racially integrated. Maintaining current zoning laws disproportionately harms people of color and low-income families. You have a choice to make with your vote on the Affordable Housing Overlay. The Lity s zoning decisions can either perpetuate a segregated city or you can support an opportunity to create a community where every person, regardless of their race and income has equitable access to the opportunities and resources that the City of Cambridge offers. Which way will you vote?

Attachment Y Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 12:34 PM To: Crane, Paula Subject: Fwd: CDD Working Draft-100%AHO Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Carolyn <carolyn [email removed]> Date: April 16, 2019 at 10:52:14 AM EDT To: Cambridge City Council <council@cambridgema.gov> Cc: Donna Lopez <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: CDD Working Draft-100%AHO Reply-To: Carolyn <[email removed]> To the Honorable, the City Council, For the official record of the City Council. I strongly oppose the passage of any legislation by the City of Cambridge that takes away the rights of its citizens to appeal a building that will ruin one's neighborhood. Specifically, the CDD's proposed 100% AHO will do just that. The AS-OF-RIGHT requirement will remove our First Amendment right to free speech. It will allow the construction of ugly, flat-roofed buildings that will have no open space or definitely not enough to plant a tree, a shrub, or have a garden. No one could plant a vegetable garden either. Experts on zoning have stated publicly that the proposed AHO will not add one more affordable unit than what would be possible under current zoning. The reason for this is simply that CDD does not have to go through what happened with the affordable housing built by the YWCA--which two years to resolve. The 13 exceptions to open space/setbacks will allow buildings built to the sidewalk or much less than the 10' alleged to be a minimum in the plan. The tall buildings close to the street will leave open space in shadow most of the day. That was not thought of probably because the staff of CDD are not up on the horticultural requirements to have successful trees and living plants. What I find negligent in the Working Draft list of exceptions is the omission of the mention of handicap ramps or elevators. Again, the thinking behind is troubling. How could the city staff not remember the handicapped? Please listen to people who have analyzed the AHO and who know that the zoning would make it impossible for market rate developers to build any affordable housing and that the zoning proposed is seriously flawed. 1

Keep in mind that one of the groups promoting the AHO is actually a political entity and that their testimony should be disallowed. Carolyn Shipley 15 Laurel St.

Crane, Paula From: Carolyn <[email removed]> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 1:01 PM To: Farooq, Iram; City Council; DePasquale, Louie; Carlone, Dennis; Siddiqui, Sumbul; Quinton Zondervan; McGovern, Marc; Kelley, Craig; Simmons, Denise; Mallon, Alanna; Toomey, Tim; Devereux, Jan Lopez, Donna; Crane, Paula; Cport Neighborhood Assoc Listserv; Yahoogroups; ACN Cc: LIST; Livable Cambridge Open Subject: Cambridge Zoning Primer To the Honorable, the City Council, In my pursuit for definitions and explanations about a lot of the terminology found in the two drafts by the Housing Committee on the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay proposal, I found nothing. >>I finally found the Zoning Primer on the city's website after putting about 6 search terms in the search box. It was last updated in 2004 (Healy, Rossi, Michael Sullivan, Beth Rubenstein) and was only the 2nd edition. >> Specifically, I am searching for the city's definition of AS OF RIGHT zoning. An internet search brought up the definition given by the City of New York. I am looking for that definition because the Housing Committee's proposal does not make a point of stating it is proposing all development be AS OF RIGHT. >>I did find an off-hand mention of the term in the overlay proposal. (There is other unexplained terminology used in the document, but Ill not go there now.) >>Here's the link to the city's Zoning Primer. https://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/CDD/ZoningDevel/zoningguide/zguide.pdf The definition of As of Right is not in it. Here is the oblique reference to As of Right in the Housing Committee's Draft #2. 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...; 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; Also in Section 5, this: (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. All that draft #2 mentions about the Planning Board or community meetings is more oblique language designed to give the reader the impression that they or the PB have any power. Not so. Furthermore, the word "appeal" does not appear in either the 3/5/19 or the 3/28/19 drafts. >> Some community members are under the false impression that they have the right to appeal and make a difference. << While the word "appeal" did not appear in the 3/5/19 draft, oblique statements did: "advisory review" on p. 24, "public advisory design review at Planning Board..." on p. 23. I find section 8, of the 3/28/19 document, to be very misleading. Even the heading of section 8 contains wording that exhibits the community's lack of control over any project: 1

Advisory Design Consultation Procedure -- and the section clearly indicates that anything to do with a proposed design is purely advisory. To be charitable, we could say that it was an oversight by the person or persons inputting the wording to the electronic version. Perhaps the data input typist inadvertently dropped some pages on the floor that might have explained As of Right and made clear that the PB and the community have no power to change or stop a problem development? Yet, considering the use of the word "advisory" it does seem that the Housing Committee is stating it like it is intended, and community members are just not reading, analyzing, and digesting the import of those statements and all of Section 8. (I had asked several of the unconditional supporters of the overlay if they were concerned that they would not have the right to appeal. They are said that they most assuredly would have the right. Unfortunately, these well-educated people do not understand the meaning of the proposal or have just not read it and are simply believing what the civilian leaders of the "pro-overlay" group are telling them. It is my hope that the Housing Committee will make clear to the public at the next meeting on April 16, 2019 that the developer has the right to build a proposed design without any appeal from the PB or the community. I hope also that the Housing Committee will publish a document with all definitions of the terminology used in the document that is esoteric and known to CDD staff, but not to the layman (or laywoman). Here is the City of New York's definition of "As of Right." What does "as-of-right" development mean? As-of-right development complies with the regulations found in the Zoning Resolution and does not require any review by the Department of City Planning or any approval by the City Planning Commission and the City Council. An as-of-right development complies with all applicable zoning regulations and does not require any discretionary action by the City Planning Commission or Board of Standards and Appeals Thank you for your attention to this matter. Carolyn Shipley 15 Laurel St. Please enter into the official record of the city council. 2

Lopez, Donna From: Carolyn < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 8:48 AM To: City Council Cc: DePasquale, Louie; Lopez, Donna; Farooq, Iram Definition Please Subject: Good morning, May I respectfully request once again if the City of Cambridge has published the definition of As of Right? It appears to have created some confusion among Cambridge residents, especially with regard to the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay zoning documents. May I also request that there be a listing of the definition of the esoteric language used in the documents for the same proposed zoning? There are terms, sometimes made up of two or three words, that are not familiar to most people unless they are in the world of architects, city planners, or developers. I, like many other Cambridge residents, find it difficult to assess the impact of many clauses in the proposed overlay zoning due to the fact that some of the language and, even full sentences, are less than clear and lack definition. Thank you, Carolyn Shipley 15 Laurel St.

Atachment Z Crane, Paula From: Derek Kopon < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 9:47 AM To: Crane, Paula Cc: City Council Public comments Subject: Dear Ms. Crane, Please find below my comments from yesterday evening for the public record. sincerel Jerek Kopoi These zoning changes will have a profound and likely irreversible impact on our neighborhoods and will deeply affect all of our lives. The plan that has been delivered to the council and presented to the public lacks detail that is essential to understanding the impact of these developments on our community. In multiple meetings, Council members have rightly asked questions about design standards, clarity of language, green space, setbacks, sustainability, and net zero certification. In a community with a diversity of values, it is the role of the council to balance these values relative to an an and en ein, a ac and er a go sakes i many wores and no nonse. There should be data to answer all of these questions. These documents should contain a table with three columns: the first column should be a list of design trades; the second column should be the number of additional affordable units that we get for that trade off; and the third column should contain the percent incremental cost increase to the developer. For instance, many of us would like to know, why can't you build these buildings net zero when the Seaport district already floods and parts of Cambridge may be underwater in our lifetime? What is the cost of having more greenspace? What is the quantifiable benefit to relaxing setback requirements? Until you have data to answer all of these questions, it is irresponsible for this proposal to move forward I also note to the council that the fellow who spoke after me, Sean Hope, is a for-profit developer who earns substantial money from city- subsidized development that places him in the top income tax bracket. Mr. Hope spreads some of this money around the City Council in the form of campaign contributions. Mr. Hope, and other for-profit developers like him, stand to reap a financial windfall from this change to the zoning law. None of these facts were disclosed to the assembly by Mr. Hope during his comments. The financial conflicts of interest of many City Council members continue to undermine the legitimacy of this deliberative process. It is inappropriate that City Councilors, who write policy that affects our communities and our lives, take so much money from private interests that will financially benefit from these decisions. 1

Attachment AN My name is Karen Davis; address 15 Walker Street I support the concept of affordable housing, but have concerns about the practical application of the "as of right 100 percent affordable" overlay proposal. It is important to note that the map entitled "number of affordable units by census block" states that that most of West Cambridge, which includes my block, has zero affordable housing, which is inaccurate. I have an apartment in my house. We have had the same tenant for over 30 years. We keep the rent affordable because we value our long-standing tenant. When you have an apartment in your house, it is very different from being a property manager or owner of a large building. We have a vested interest in keeping our tenant because he practically lives with us. I don't think we are unique, but I also don't believe anyone collecting data about affordable housing knows how many small landlords are charging affordable rents in West Cambridge. Concerning the overlay, I have lived for over 30 years on Walker Street, a block that is similar to the one in the overlay graphic that shows a new, large, 100 percent affordable housing building inserted in the middle of the block. My block of Walker Street developed in the last half of the 19th century, and its streetscape today is intact to that period. It is lined with modest 2/-story, single and double houses with consistent set backs and small gardens between the sidewalk and houses. Those of us who live on the street value its historic integrity and have paid a premium for our property, compared to those on nearby streets (Chauncy, Shepard, Linnaean etc.) that have large brick apartment buildings and institutional uses mixed in with houses. To build a 100 percent affordable housing building on my block would require demolition because there is no vacant land. Could that happen? I gather that demolition would fall under the demo delay ordinance, but the Cambridge Historical Commission, would have to find that the building proposed for demolition is "preferably preserved" over the 100 percent affordable building in order to delay (not prevent) demolition. That puts the CHC in the untenable position of having to make a choice between preservation of a modest historic house and affordable housing. Is there some way that the Community Preservation Act could be used a model for building affordable housing. The CPA has successfully combined historic preservation and affordable housing in numerous individual projects. Overseen by the Cambridge Historical Commission, it could be an effective way to increase our stock of affordable housing and protect the historic character of our community. The current overlay proposal not only takes away a neighbor's right to have a say in the height, scale, set-back, and design of a 100 percent affordable building nearby or next door, but it is my understanding that the CHC would have no oversight or design review for such projects. It is not clear to me how this would play out in local historic districts and neighborhood conservation districts, which have been established for the express purpose of maintaining the integrity of the streetscape.

Allachment BB 1 Crane, Paula From: Rosalie Anders < [email removed]> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 11:36 AM To: City Council; Clerk Subject: support affordable housing overlay Please support the proposed 100% affordable housing overlay. This is crucial for our maintaining an inclusive Cambridge community and it is crucial for moving forward on climate change. The region needs to concentrate housing in places like Cambridge, and sending families to the suburbs, or even the exurbs, means dramatically increasing their environmental footprint and robs all of us of open space that our region needs. There is a lot of misunderstanding of the purposes and impacts of the overlay. I hope you will not be caught up in the notion that it will harm our neighborhoods, which have been harmed in recent years by the unaffordability of our city for any but high income people. Thank you. Rosalie Anders, 154 Auburn St.

Attachment BB 2 Crane, Paula [email removed] From: Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3:05 PM To: City Council Clerk Cc: Overlay, aim for 9-0 vote Subject: Dear City Council, (I won't be attending tonight. I did attend all of another public comment meeting and several others both City and advocate sponsored.) (Both Rep. Decker and Rep. Connolly grew up in public housing and now live and represent Cambridge. The City should request their views on the Overlay at some point in the process. Rep. Connolly is presently petitioning to have the Sullivan Courthouse property made into Affordable Housing. Also, he has introduced a Rent Control bill on Beacon Hill. I am unaware if he has a position on the Overlay. The Overlay seems very likely to pass, his Courthouse and Rent Control ideas can't make that claim as they are very new.) Given what has passed already this term, and what has passed in recent terms, and what has been built in recent years, I believe the City Council will pass some form of the Overlay this term. So, let's use compromise to get something good. We will see more $3000 bicycles in Cambridge in the future, some will not be owned by residents. We will Cambridge rents under $3000 in the future? It would be wrong to not pass something on Affordable Housing this term. It seems too late to start a new proposal, however, shaping the present proposal to pass 9-0 is a good idea. A frequently repeated criticism is that the Overlay will not produce many housing units. If that is so, why should l or anybody fear the much repeated negative impact scenarios being promoted? The impact (positive or negative) of the Overlay is limited by how many projects take the option. With the above in mind I urge City Council opponents of the Overlay to propose realistic changes to it rather than seek to kill it outright. Not passing something this term could make future efforts on Affordable Housing hard to get off the ground. You can't make an omelet without cracking eggs. The Affordable Care Act has many flaws but it is benefiting millions of people for many years. No, it is not Medicare For All, but Medicare For All does not exist. It is clear to me that many proponents and opponents of the Overlay proposal are misinformed about it. I have felt this way before reading the following in a constituent email from Councilor Carlone: "People for and against the overlay attribute false motives and speculation over a proposal that currently does not fully exist. Essential design standards, including form-based zoning analysis and recommendations, have not been developed and are not expected until summer." Going forward, the City should improve it communications and public outreach on Affordable Housing issues. It is clear that if the Overlay passes it should not be the end of the City's efforts because the issue and concern are not going away. 1

-Patrick Barton 130 Appleton St W9 P1

Attachment BB 3 Crane, Paula From: Karen Biemann < [email removed]> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 7:23 PM To: City Council; Clerk 100% affordable housing overlay Subject: Hello, 1 am a Cambridge resident who opposes the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay. While I am in favor of affordable housing, it appears that Cambridge already has one of the highest rates of affordable housing in MA and is now the third densest city in MA population-wise. I feel we are overbuilt and the recently added housing units have increased traffic, air pollution, and reduced our tree canopy significantly. The tree canopy decrease is the most upsetting to me. With climate change upon us, we need all the shade and oxygen we can find. How did this happen and why did it take a decade to notice? Is it true that we may lose another 80 trees behind Trader Joes at Alewife? Very disappointing. I am happy to see that a moratorium has now been placed on the removal of larger trees from private property. Thank you. I also do not trust developers to have Cambridge's best interests at heart. With profit as their goal, I predict that what starts out as affordable units will someday rent for very high prices. Who will ensure that this won't happen? What cities are the models for how this should work? Please to not change the zoning laws to allow the 100% Affordable Housing Overly to proceed. Regards, Karen Biemann 12 Traill Street

Attachment BB 4 Testimony in Support of the Proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay [AHO] City Council Housing Committee Meeting, April 16, 2019 By Lawrence Bluestone As a long-time Mid-Cambridge resident, I'd like to reiterate my strongest support for the passage of both the city-wide "100% Affordable Housing Overlay" draft ordinance as prepared by the CDD, and the necessary allocation of increased city funding to support such housing. As the Council's Housing Committee now seeks to incrementally modify and refine the ordinance, it must be extremely careful to not undermine the ordinance's underlying key principles and core financial feasibility in the process. Our affordable housing crisis only continues to grow. The AHO is currently our best opportunity at this critical time to address this crisis as many of our fellow friends, families and residents continue to be forced out of our city by ever-increasing high rents and prices. There is no longer time for delay and postponement. Every day of delay costs real people their homes. So, I strongly urge the Councillors, as they continue to deliberate to refine the Ordinance's text, to not unduly become too prescriptive or overly restrictive in their comments at this stage. Instead, I urge you to soon move the draft AHO to the Ordinance Committee where the text can then be further refined and design guidelines reviewed. As the Council discusses refinements to the draft AHO, a number of suggested changes have been proposed. However, key principles of the existing draft AHO must be maintained: They are: 1) an as-of-right zoning process to avoid deal-breaking protracted delays caused by legal challenges of just a few, 2) city-wide coverage to redress past unfair red lining and discriminatory zoning, 3) a public citizen and Board review process that continues to allow advisory input as is now the case, and 4) allowing sufficient new building heights and lot coverage to insure the financial viability of difficult-to-finance affordable housing. Without retaining all of these principles, the AHO will become toothless and ineffective. Unfortunately however, some of the changes suggested by the Council threaten some of these principles and therefore the viability and purpose of the entire ordinance. I urge the Council to not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. At the moment, the ordinance is threatened by "death by a thousand cuts". The three main credible concerns raised about the new ordinance are: 1) the allowance of greater heights and sizes as they fit into existing neighborhoods, 2) maintaining citizen advisory input, and 3) having some assurance about what the new housing may physically and visually look like. 1

The draft ordinance addresses these three issues in a well thought out manner: 1) The ordinance recognizes that taller heights and larger sizes will sometimes be necessary to make affordable housing financially viable and allow non-profit affordable housing developers to successfully compete with market rate housing developers for various sites. This is a core principle that must be maintained. The Ordinance does propose new heights. But, they are reasonable and only modestly taller than surrounding neighborhood scales. Some further work is required, particularly on transition heights at the boundaries between adjoining zoning districts of differing heights. However, this can be addressed in design guidelines that are now being prepared by CDD. 2) The Ordinance continues to provide for a robust review and approval process by both the public and boards that remains advisory in nature just as the current review process is. However, the AHO necessarily eliminates the Special Permit requirement and makes the process as-of-right. This is absolutely necessary to avoid long protracted legal challenges allowed by the Special Permit process that almost inevitably result in the death of projects for non-profit housing developers who cannot afford the financial burdens of these protracted delays. Additionally, CDD has assured the Council that proposed housing developments will still be required to meet the standards of other applicable Overlays (e.g. Flood Plain Overlay) when applicable, but with the need for a Special Permit removed. Historic district review standards will also continue to be required, when applicable. 3) Perhaps most importantly, people want a sense of what new developments will actually look like. Under our current zoning standards and rules of maximum heights, setbacks, open space requirements, and Floor Area Ratios (FAR), only a rough sense of massing can be foreseen. In fact, these rules really give little sense of what a project may actually look like, and they provide reviewing boards little legal basis for subjective and discretionary design comment. Under the new Ordinance, pre- prepared visual design standards (a limited version of Form Based Design codes) will give review boards and the public a much better sense of what they can expect tó actually see. Perhaps the most important guideline that the CDD should address is the issue of scale transitions between adjoining zoning districts. So, we must give the CDD the chance to prepare these design guidelines which can then be reviewed by the Ordinance Committee this summer after the Housing Committee soon passes the AHO on to it. * An important cautionary warning must be noted as these design standards are prepared by CDD and its consultants. They must not be overly prescriptive because in fact, many if not most of our neighborhoods are not homogeneous in design, scale, height, setbacks or building materials. [See attached photo examples.] 2

In fact, most of our neighborhoods are visually diverse. And often, the majority of residences in these neighborhoods are already non-conforming in regard to the design standards listed above. Overly prescriptive guidelines cannot begin to address these many non-conformities and differences. Only an advisory design review process, as allowed by the AHO, can address these many nuances and outright incongruities. So, I urge the Housing Committee to make improvements to the AHO as they see fit, but maintain the core principles underlying it. We must support affordable housing without delay. Families' futures depend upon it. I urge you to soon forward the AHO on to the Ordinance Committee where they can continue the deliberative process and review the design guidelines now being prepared by the CDD. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence Bluestone, 18 Centre St. Examples of Existing Neighborhood Adjacency Scale, Design and Material Incongruities Lin tea

Atachment BB5 CBPA Rev. Dr. Marilyn Weekes, Treasurer Rev. Henry Johnson, Vice-President Bishop Brian Greene, Chaplain Rev. Brenda Brown, General Secretary Rev. Lorraine Thornhill, President April 25, 2019 Distinguished Members of the Cambridge City Council and Concerned Citizens: AFFORDABLE HOUSING in CAMBRIDGE is near and dear to the heart of our diverse constituents, and their families, friends, and colleagues who live or serve throughout the City of CAMBRIDGE and beyond, from young adults to senior citizens. Therefore, it is CRITICAL and must be a PRIORITY that city zoning ordinances be enhanced and updated to be aligned with the stated will of the City to expand opportunities for Affordable Housing. Greater flexibility in the zoning system is necessary for more timely and efficient action on behalf of the citizens of the City of CAMBRIDGE. WHY AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOW ACROSS THE CITY? "HOUSING IN CAMBRIDGE IS GETTING LESS AFFORDABLE." According to the OVERLAY HOUSING PETITION "A family must earn over $125,000 per year to afford to rent a 3-bedroom home at market rate." The median household income in 2017 reached only $83,122. Affordable housing across the City of CAMBRIDGE is important for improving and sustaining the economic vitality of CAMBRIDGE both now and for the future of this City to attract the everyday kinds of folk that help make this great CITY run daily, such as the teachers, firefighters, social workers, and others. According to the Overlay report, no more than 20% of teachers who work in CAMBRIDGE live in CAMBRIDGE. This statistic alone demonstrates the high costs associated with living in this city. Affordable housing is essential for the holistic well-being of the diverse families at-large who live throughout the City. It is also crucial for the vibrant young adult population served by this cosmopolitan city. The median age in Cambridge in 2017 was 30! If we envision these young adults choosing to lay stake in the ground and socially invest in CAMBRIDGE in whatever neighborhood they so choose, then together we will see the urgency to no longer delay a viable Affordable Housing zoning plan for CAMBRIDGE. Dealing with this problem now is also critical in addressing many of the failures of discriminatory housing plans and practices in the past, as well as ensuring a more balanced and equitable housing landscape for Cambridge's future. Affordable housing must not be relegated to certain geographic pockets but should be distributed throughout the entire City of Cambridge. This is a matter of fairness and justice in housing. We urge you all to put into practice the progressive ideals of equality and social justice.

Issues have been raised by some opposing the Overlay. However, there is nothing in the arguments that we cannot address in collaboration with the appropriate city authorities, developers, homeowners, and neighborhood interest groups. Economically speaking, time is of the essence for moral, social and economic justice. We say, THE TIME IS NOW! Respectfully Submitted, CAMBRIDGE BLACK PASTORS ALLIANCE Rev. Lorraine A. Thornhill, President Rev. Ellis I. Washington, CBPA Affordable Housing Representative Rev. Henry O. Johnson Jr., Vice President Rev. Brenda A. Brown, Secretary Rev. Dr. Marilyn E. Weekes, Treasurer Bishop Brian C. Greene, CBPA Chaplain Bishop Dr. Nerissa Wyzzard Bishop Lawrence A. Ward Rev. Dr. Lynda M. Jordan Rev. Adam Lawrence Dyer Rev. Jeremy D. Battle Rev. Kevin D. Coakley Rev. Jaron S. Green Rev. Warren F. Collins Rev. Clayton Ward Jr. The Rev. Leslie K. Sterling

Allachment BB 6 Crane, Paula From: Lynn Cetrulo < [email removed]> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 11:12 AM To: City Council Clerk Cc: Subject: Affordable housing overlay I am a resident of Cambridge..46 Grozier Road. 1am OPPOSED to the affordable housing overlay. Affordable housing is worthy and Cambridge has a decent track record. This plan is shoddy and full of problems created that would dwarf the problem you are attempting to solve. Lynn Cetrulo 1

Allachment BB 7 Crane, Paula Elizabeth Coxe < [email removed]> From: Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 11:00 AM To: City Council Clerk Cc: Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: I am opposed to the Affordable Housing Overlay for all the reasons stated below. Cambridge is not weak compared to other cities in its percent of Affordable Housing. Cambridge has a problem of housing being affordable for all economic levels, not just the poor. Our housing issues are many, and will not be solved by this aggressive approach which threatens to destroy our neighborhoods while not addressing our housing issues in a comprehensive way. • The Overlay will add little if any more affordable housing than that currently in play and the city has surpassed state goals on affordable housing construction. • The Overlay encourages the destruction of both green spaces and our rich legacy of historic architecture. • The Overlay will dramatically increase heights and scale of affordable housing projects throughout the city (sometimes 2 to 3 times that of neighbor's homes), particularly in more expensive areas of the city where land values are higher. The Overlay will remove the ability of neighbors to appeal because it will be "as of right." I he. Overlay will remove the ability of neighbors to erectively critique design because it shifts the fina decision-making on design from the city's citizen-based Planning Board to city staff Elizabeth Coxe

Attachment BBS Crane, Paula Kathleen Desmond < [email removed]> From: Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 4:14 PM To: Crane, Paula Subject: Affordable Housing Overlay Opposition Dear Housing Committee Members, I am opposed to the Affordable Housing Overlay. I support the ECPT letter of March 19, 2019. Sincerely, Kathy Desmond 146 Third Street Cambridge, MA 02141

Attachment BB 9 Crane, Paula From: Kelly Dolan < [email removed]> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 12:34 PM To: City Manager; City Council; Crane, Paula; Devereux, Jan; Carlone, Dennis; Kelley, Craig; Siddiqui, Sumbul; Quinton Zondervan Subject: Still More Questions on the Affordable Housing Overlay We are very concerned about the rapid trajectory the City Council is taking regarding this Affordable Housing Zoning proposal. This should not be formally introduced as legislation until the corresponding impacts and consequences have been effectively vetted. 1. What will be the impact on real estate prices when more money is added to the market? 2. What is the mechanism in the Overlay that prevents existing homes from being demolished? 3. Where are the mechanisms to actually lower affordable housing building costs? 4. Are there other more cost-effective methods to spend $20m of taxpayer funds on affordable housing vs the Overlay proposal that forecasts less than 100 units? 5. What are the tax ramifications of growing the City of Cambridge's affordable housing rate? 6. What are the potential impacts, consequences, and cost benefits for removing planning board and neighborhood input? 7. What are the financial liabilities for the City once these affordable housing units are actually built? Facilities, program maintenance, staffing, insurance etc 8. What happens to the affordable housing building and its rent AFTER the mortgage is all paid off? Are the limits on payable rents still in effect or do they disappear? 9. What is the rationale for giving nonbinding rights to developers over the existing residents of Cambridge? 10. Where is the industry input from experts on housing policies and zoning laws addressing the Country's rapidly changing urban environments?

11. What is the justification of putting an overlay across the entire city when the stated goal is to get affordable housing in neighborhoods that are currently under indexed? Hoping to get more answers and clarity in the coming months from the City Council. Sincerely Kelly Dolan and Family Upland Road

Allachment BB 10 OFFICE OF April 16, 2019 2019 APR 16 PM 12:42 THE CITY CLERK To The Honorable, the City Council Housing Committee; CAMBRIDGE. MASSACHUSETTS I am writing to emphasize the importance of adoption of the Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning Amendment(AHO). The AHO requires the City Council and the citizens of Cambridge to make a moral decision. The AHO is not just an amendment that would change the rules to allow construction of a few more units of residential housing. This is an amendment that would give poor families an increased possibility of living in all parts of the city, which they cannot realistically do now because nonprofit housing developers cannot afford to build low and moderate income housing in Cambridge's wealthier neighborhoods. Perhaps the saddest argument that I have seen by a neighborhood association opposed to the AHO is that "the city has surpassed state goals on affordable housing..." It is reminiscent of the argument that United States cannot take any more refugees because the country is already full. Cambridge is better than that! Please vote in favor of the Affordable Housing Overlay amendment. Sincerely Margaret Aren Margaret Drury 1 Dudley Court Cambridge MA 0214 [email removed]

Attachment BB/1 Crane, Paula Kana Eiref <[email removed]> From: Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 6:25 AM To: City Council; Clerk Objection to the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: Hello Cambridge city council, I am one of the homeowners in Cambridge, I am writing this email to let you know that I strongly oppose to the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay. Cambridge already have one of the highest rates of Affordable housing in the entire state. It is already over-dense, over populated comparing with Newton, Lexington..etc. Please use our tax dollar wisely on something that improves our life quality, not decreasing it. Best regards, Kana Eiref

Attachment BB 12 Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 12:32 PM Crane, Paula To: Fwd: AHO plan Subject: Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: [email removed] Date: April 16, 2019 at 10:59:18 AM EDT To: council@cambridgema.gov Cc: <DLopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: AHO plan FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE CITY COUNCIL Dear Sirs, We are writing to express our concern about "As-of-Right" primarily because we would not be able to appeal proposed construction on our street. In addition, the 13 exceptions in the Working Draft could wipe out most, if not all of the open space that is supposed to be included in the setbacks. Like many others, we want housing for low income earners, but this plan won't add one more affordable unit than is possible now under current zoning. However, it will make it impossible to get the developer to change anything. Best, Joan and Michael Frutkoff Pleasant Street 1

Atlachment BB 13 Crane, Paula Lopez, Donna From: Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 11:19 PM To: Crane, Paula Fwd: affordable housing overlay Subject: Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Roberta Gordon <[email removed]> Date: April 15, 2019 at 3:49:50 PM EDT To: Citycouncil@cambridgema.gov Subject: affordable housing overlay Dear city council and clerk, My opposition to the 100% affordable housing overlay is total and categorical. Everything in this proposal will throw over longstanding governance of Cambridge and Procedural restrictions on changing the housing stock. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and will kill housing values in Cambridge for all eternity. in other words, this proposal is just stupid. i have been a resident of Cambridge since about 1964. my house in Cambridge represents a lifetime of work and savings which you are just going to throw away. please do not do that. Yours truly, Roberta Gordon 5 Channing st.

Attachment BB14 Crane, Paula From: Ryan Grams < [email removed]> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 12:53 PM To: City Council Clerk Cc: Subject: I support the Affordable housing overlay Members of the city council, I am writing to you too express my support for the proposed 100% affordable housing overlay. Although 1 am unable to make it to speak at the hearing last night because I was at home with my 3 year old and 1 year old. Our family has been privileged enough to afford the purchase of a home in Cambridge. We value the ability to walk and bike and ride the T did most of our daily activities. We love our access to the river and parks and all that living in Cambridgeport offers. The people we meet everyday in our community are the heart and soul of what makes this an amazing place to live. We all come from different backgrounds and have different supports that lead us to our current lives. The fact that so many of our neighbors won't be able to stay in Cambridge as their families grow is a sad state for our city. Our strength is in diversity and inclusion. We need to build more housing. This overlay will not fix our housing problems but it is a step in the right direction. Thank you for your attention, -Ryan Grams 48 Magazine St Apt 2 Cambridge, MA 02139 617-372-736

Atlechment BB15 Crane, Paula From: Young Kim <[email removed]> Sent: Friday, April 5, 2019 9:05 AM To: Siddiqui, Sumbul; Simmons, Denise; Devereux, Jan; Mallon, Alanna; Toomey, Tim Cc: McGovern, Marc; DePasquale, Louie; Kelley, Craig; Zondervan, Quinton; Carlone, Dennis; Crane, Paula; Lopez, Donna; Farooq, Iram; Roberts, Jeffrey 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: Dear Housing Committee, Cambridge should be thinking more outside the box to find creative ways to take advantage of large parcels of properties for affordable housing use rather than city-wide 100% affordable overlay zoning amendment to shoehorn in 100% affordable housing in a residential area as of right with only community advisory input at best. Here are two recent examples, which I am sure you are well aware of 1) The Mabardy's property on Mooney Street which was purchased by local developer Cabot, Cabot & Forbes ("CCF") along with 13 Mooney Street (the USPS mail distribution facility) and 127 Smith Place (mainly used for commercial storage). Together, the properties total approximately 12 acres - here is an article regarding the sale: https://bostonrealestatetimes.com/stubblebine-sells-11-9-acres-in-the-cambridge-quad-for-79-million-to-cabot- cabot-forbes/ 2)1, 3, and 5 Frost St. and 20, 22, and 28 Roseland St written up in Boston Globe, 2/27/19 http://realestate.boston.com/buying/2019/02/27/block-of-homes-for-sale- cambridge/?s campaign=bg:hp:well:realestate I urge you to find ways to incentivize purchasers of such large parcels to include more affordable housing. Thank you for your attention and have a great weekend, Respectfully your, Young Kim 17 Norris Street

Crane, Paula From: Young Kim <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 10:27 AM To: Farooq, Iram Cc: Roberts, Jeffrey; DePasquale, Louie; McGovern, Marc; Siddiqui, Sumbul; Simmons, Denise; Toomey, Tim; Mallon, Alanna; Devereux, Jan; Carlone, Dennis; Kelley, Craig; Zondervan, Quinton; Lopez, Donna; Crane, Paula Affordable Housing Overlay - WORKING DRAFT Subject: Attachments: 56 Cedar Street 100% Affordable Housingjpeg; 56 Cedar Street original.jpg Dear Assistant City Manager, When I delivered my comments at the Housing Committee meeting on 3/28/2019 I had not had the time to review the Affordable Housing Overlay - WORKING DRAFT that was posted to the Open Meeting Portal for the meeting. Upon reviewing it, it is still unclear how a for-profit developer will be prevented from taking advantage of this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. I would greatly appreciate your clarification on this point. The CDD presentation on 3/28 indicated the 40-unit Frost Terrace is to begin construction this year. Is the developer a non-profit developer? If not, could you explain to me how they were able to propose a 100% affordable housing development? The Affordable Housing Overlay - WORKING DRAFT creates tremendous amount of record keeping and monitoring for CDD in Section 11.207 3, Standards for Eligibility, Rent, and Initial Sale Price for AHO Dwelling Units. Are these affordable housing requirements the same as those governing currently existing affordable housing units? The requirement for affordable housing should be consistent and should be in one document. As you may be very well aware, I have been bringing up Cambridge's inability to enforce Zoning Ordinance and SP/BZA decisions. For example, City can't inspect a dwelling unit for its compliance to its intended use without the owner's permission. And why would an owner give permission if he knows he is in violation? All the procedures for compliance monitoring must be put in place and approved by the City Solicitor before finalizing the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay zoning amendment. The CDD presentation at 3/28 Housing Committee hearing had impressive renderings of 100% affordable housing projects. But unfortunately, they totally lacked context - how they will fit in the surrounding residential neighborhood as shown in the example I sent to you in my email of 3/27 and attached herein again for your reference. Homeowners of Cambridge have fought hard to maintain "the fabric of neighborhood". The neighbors of 40 Norris Street fought hard to include community outreach in the Zoning amendment for converting non-residential building to residential use. Similar community outreach must be included in the 100% Affordable Housing amendment in order for an affordable housing development to fit harmoniously into the neighborhood. Also, the 100% Affordable Housing amendment must spell out a formula for allowable FAR in order to measure the density of a proposed development. This will be true, enforceable measure of the impact of such development on the neighborhood. "Off-street parking shall be required at a minimum ratio of 0.4 space per AHO Dwelling Unit" will not address the on- street parking impact as car ownership can't be mandated nor enforced., As Boston Globe reported (https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/02/18/cambridge-wanted-big-drop-car-ownership-that-hasn-exactly- happened/sBu3TbWIBQLi5Nlo00L6AM/story.html), (t)he city (of Cambridge) appears all but certain to fall short of its 2020 goal of reducing the ratio of cars owned by Cambridge residents by 15 percent from 1990 levels. The target, set in 2014, was to lower ownership to about 0.8 cars per household, but with about a year left on the clock, Cambridge is less than halfway there."

By the way, Section 11.207 3(c)(i) mentions AMI without first defining the acronym. Could you define the acronym? Thank you for your attention and looking forward to hearing from you, Respectfully yours, Young Kim 17 Norris Street.

Crane, Paula Young Kim < [email removed]> From: Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 10:57 PM Siddiqui, Sumbul; Simmons, Denise; Devereux, Jan; Mallon, Alanna; Toomey, Tim To: Cc: McGovern, Marc; DePasquale, Louie; Kelley, Craig; Zondervan, Quinton; Carlone, Dennis; Crane, Paula; Lopez, Donna; Farooq, Iram; Roberts, Jeffrey; Mike Johnston Affordable Housing Overlay Hearing 4/16/2019 Subject: Attachments: 56 Cedar Street 100% Affordable Housing.jpeg; 56 Cedar Street original jpg Dear Housing Committee, I am submitting my comments on the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay zoning amendment in writing as I will be out of town and will not be able to attend the Housing Committee hearing on 4/16/2019. I do understand and agree the need for affordable housing in Cambridge but I am opposed to CDD's proposed Zoning Amendment to achieve them without adequate consideration for the needs of the abutters of potential affordable housing developments. The proposed amendment will deny Cantabrigians their "pursuit of happiness" without "due process" We celebrated Patriots Day yesterday. The Declaration of Independence proclaimed that people "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent". Furthermore, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a due process clause. I am sure many Cantabrigians bought their family homes, as we did almost 40 years ago, in their chosen neighborhood because they saw the special characteristics in that neighborhood; characteristics that they felt happy for to raise their family. And they purchased their homes with the expectation that the Zoning Ordinance would keep the character of their neighborhoods; and they will be protected from any non-conforming development through the "due process" of Special Permit/Variance hearings.. The proposed form-based 100% Affordable Housing Overlay will take away this "due process" by allowing 100% Affordable Housing "as-of-right", i.e. "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." Building such a development "as-of right" without abutter's voice will increase density in that neighborhood, increase traffic and exasperate parking, to name just few consequences. Such intrusions will destroy the special character of their neighborhoods and will deny their "Unalienable Right" of "Pursuit of Happiness". I urge you to reconsider the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay zoning amendment and replace it with formula- based (so the development's impact can be measured) one that allows community involvement in the development process. I have other concerns with the proposed Zoning Amendment that I had directly asked CDD (see emails below) but to this date I had not received any response. I would like to request them to be included in the records for 4/16/2019 public comments. Thank you for your consideration, Respectfully yours, Young Kim 1

17 Norris Street - Forwarded message ------- From: Young Kim <[email removed]> Date: Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:33 PM Subject: wd: Affordable Housing Overlay - WORKING DRAFT To: Farooq, Iram <ifarooq@cambridgema.gov> Cc: Roberts, Jeffrey <jroberts@cambridgema.gov>, Mike Johnston <[email removed]> Dear Assistant City Manager, I sent you the email below last week while you were out of the office. I would greatly appreciate hearing back from you so that I can make an informed comment at the next Housing Committee hearing that would allow public comment. While waiting for your return I had forwarded the email to Mr. Johnston and he gave me a good overview of the affordable housing development process. In a reply to his response I told him that I completely agree with him in that 'it is unfortunate that the overlay has caused such a stir and has pitted neighbor against neighbor." I pointed out that I don't think anyone disputes the need for affordable housing in Cambridge. I believe that the opponents fear for-profit developers will spring high-rises in their neighborhood by taking advantage of this zoning amendment because they do not fully understand (and I will be first to admit to this) the affordable housing development process. On the other hand, I believe the proponents do not fully understand (nor have they experienced) the disruption of a neighborhood an "as of right" taller and more denser housing development will What we desperately need is a calm discussion to fully understand both side of this very complex issue. Thank you for your attention and looking forward to hearing from you, Respectfully yours, Young Kim -- Forwarded message-. From: Young Kim <[email removed]> Date: Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:27 AM Subject: Affordable Housing Overlay - WORKING DRAFT To: Farooq, Iram < ifarooq@cambridgema.gov> Cc: Roberts, Jeffrey <jroberts@cambridgema.gov>, DePasquale, Louie <|depasquale@cambridgema.gov>, McGovern, Marc <mmcgovern@cambridgema.gov>, Siddiqui, Sumbul < ssiddiqui@cambridgema.gov>, Simmons, Denise <dsimmons@cambridgema.gov>, <ttoomey@cambridgema.gov>, Mallon, Alanna <amallon@cambridgema.gov>, Devereux, Jan <jdevereux@cambridgema.gov>, Carlone, Dennis <dcarlone@cambridgema.gov>, Kelley, Craig <ckelley@cambridgema.gov>, Zondervan, Quinton <gzondervan@cambridgema.gov>, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov>, <pcrane@cambridgema.gov> Dear Assistant City Manager, When I delivered my comments at the Housing Committee meeting on 3/28/2019 I had not had the time to review the Affordable Housing Overlay - WORKING DRAFT that was posted to the Open Meeting Portal for the meeting. Upon reviewing it, it is still unclear how a for-profit developer will be prevented from taking advantage of this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. I would greatly appreciate your clarification on this point. The CDD presentation on 3/28 indicated the 40-unit Frost Terrace is to begin construction this year. Is the developer a non-profit developer? If not, could you explain to me how they were able to propose a 100% affordable housing development? The Affordable Housing Overlay - WORKING DRAFT creates tremendous amount of record keeping and monitoring for CDD in Section 11.207 3, Standards for Eligibility, Rent, and Initial Sale Price for AHO Dwelling Units. Are these affordable housing requirements the same as those governing currently existing affordable housing units? The requirement for affordable housing should be consistent and should be in one document. 2

As you may be very well aware, I have been bringing up Cambridge's inability to enforce Zoning Ordinance and SP/BZA decisions. For example, City can't inspect a dwelling unit for its compliance to its intended use without the owner's permission. And why would an owner give permission if he knows he is in violation? All the procedures for compliance monitoring must be put in place and approved by the City Solicitor before finalizing the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay zoning amendment. The CDD presentation at 3/28 Housing Committee hearing had impressive renderings of 100% affordable housing projects. But unfortunately, they totally lacked context - how they will fit in the surrounding residential neighborhood as shown in the example I sent to you in my email of 3/27 and attached herein again for your reference. Homeowners of Cambridge have fought hard to maintain "the fabric of neighborhood". The neighbors of 40 Norris Street fought hard to include community outreach in the Zoning amendment for converting non-residential building to residential use. Similar community outreach must be included in the 100% Affordable Housing amendment in order for an affordable housing development to fit harmoniously into the neighborhood. Also, the 100% Affordable Housing amendment must spell out a formula for allowable FAR in order to measure the density of a proposed development. This will be true, enforceable measure of the impact of such development on the neighborhood. "Off-street parking shall be required at a minimum ratio of 0.4 space per AHO Dwelling Unit" will not address the on- street parking impact as car ownership can't be mandated nor enforced., As Boston Globe reported (https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/02/18/cambridge-wanted-big-drop-car-ownership-that-hasn-exactly- happened/sBu3TbWIBQLi5Nlo00L6AM/story.html), (t)he city (of Cambridge) appears all but certain to fall short of its 2020 goal of reducing the ratio of cars owned by Cambridge residents by 15 percent from 1990 levels. The target, set in 2014, was to lower ownership to about 0.8 cars per household, but with about a year left on the clock, Cambridge is less than halfway there." By the way, Section 11.207 3(c)(i) mentions AMI without first defining the acronym. Could you define the acronym? Thank you for your attention and looking forward to hearing from you, Respectfully yours, Young Kim 17 Norris Street.

Attachment BB16 Crane, Paula From: Dong-Woo Kim < [email removed]> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 8:12 PM City Council; Clerk To: Dong-Woo Kim Cc: Opposing the affordable housing overlay Subject: Dear Cambridge City Council, This is to intend to let you know that I oppose the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Cambridge is already too crowded with traffic gridlock and air pollution Sincerely, dw Dr, Dong-Woo Kim (HEAD, CXC) Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian Office: [phone removed] | Cell: [phone removed] 60 Garden Street | MS 6 | Cambridge, MA 02138 cfa.harvard.edu | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Newsletter

Attachment BB 17 Crane, Paula From: Susan Labandibar < [email removed]> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 9:02 AM To: City Council Clerk CC: Subject: Thoughts on the overlay from a full-time volunteer activist fighting for progressive values Dear City Council, I am not a NIMBY. I am a small business-owner who worked hard for 25 years to build a beautiful business - rated by B-Corp as one of the "best for the world" and who -- two years ago -- transitioned out of day-to-day management to volunteer full time for Swing Left. I spend my days organizing volunteers to unseat Trump and reclaim our democratic institutions. I am not a NIMBY - I have lived in every kind of poor and dangerous neighborhood, from housing projects to SROs to sharing a house with 14 people in Fields Corner. I am not a NIMBY - but I am a property owner who doesn't understand the allegations of activists who say that affordable housing projects are held up by one person who sues -- as though that one person's rights didn't matter. There is something radical about this zoning overlay. Whereas, in the past, zoning regulations were used to create a balance between the rights of individual property owners and the rights of their neighbors, this is something entirely different. It's a top-down ideologically-driven directive that introduces new and abstract stakeholders into neighborhood zoning. Don't change our zoning protections to allow developers to build "as of right."

Susan Labandibar 8 Brewer Street Cambridge Susan Labandibar Swing Left Greater Boston Regional Organizing Coordinator Tech Networks of Boston, President [phone removed] Learn about the local Swing Left chapter Sign up for the Swing Left Greater Boston newsletter 2

Allachment BBI8 Crane, Paula From: Richard Gregory Morgan <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 1:35 PM To: Simmons, Denise; Clerk Cc: [email removed] Subject: Affordable Housing Overlay -- A Letter from Cambridge Residents Attachments: A Letter from Cambridge Residents to City Council Member re Affordable H...docx Dear Councilor Simmons: Attached please find our letter expressing concern over the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay. Ginny Popper and Greg Morgan 3 Berkeley Street Cambridge, MA 02138 [phone removed] [email removed] If you have received this in error, please delete it and let me know. This message and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged from disclosure.

Virginia S. Popper and R. Gregory Morgan 3 Berkeley St Cambridge, 02138 April 15, 2019 Marc C. McGovern Mayor City of Cambridge 15 Pleasant Street #2, Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Mayor McGovern: We are writing as residents of Cambridge to express our concerned about the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay. We oppose the Overlay as it is currently proposed. Having read the publicly available information, we are concerned that the proposal runs counter to Cambridge residents' interests and desires. We support affordable housing and applaud the City's efforts and attention to the issue, but believe that too many questions about the Overlay proposal are presently unaddressed. We urge the City Council and you individually to re-examine the proposal and address community residents' concerns before taking any definitive action. Our questions include the following: • What evidence shows that the Overlay will add significantly more affordable housing than would be the case otherwise? • What is the City Council's goal for affordable housing when the city has surpassed state goals? • Will the Overlay reduce green space or diminish the City's historic architecture? • What will protect against dramatic, out-of-scale increases in heights and mass of affordable housing projects? • What consideration will be given to the effect of out-of-scale housing on adjacent land and housing values? What rights of appeal will neighbors have in face of the "as of right" feature of the Overlay? • What voice will neighbors have in design if the Overlay moves final decision-making on design from the citizen-based Planning Board to city staff? We believe that the City Council must not approve the Overlay proposal or anything similar without public discussion and answers to these questions. To do so would violate the trust of Cambridge residents. With thanks for your attention to address these concerning questions. Very truly yours, /s/ Virginia S. Popper /s/ R. Gregory Morgan

Attachment BBI9 Crane, Paula Shereen Shermak < [email removed]> From: Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 6:13 PM To: Crane, Paula Re: Civic Unity Committee Public Hearing Subject: I will be there, thanks for thinking of me. Shereen Shermak, Executive Director Boston Women's Workforce Council Boston University | Hariri Institute for Computing 111 Cummington Mall | Room 146 Boston, MA 02215 Office: [phone removed] Cell: [phone removed] www.bostonwomensworkforcecouncil.com On Apr 8, 2019, at 4:51 PM, Crane, Paula <pcrane @cambridgema.gov> wrote: Please be advised that Councilor E. Denise Simmons, Chair of the Civic Unity Committee, has scheduled a public hearing for Wednesday, May 22, 2019 from 12:00 to 1:30 p.m. in the Sullivan Chamber, City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the Massachusetts Equal Pay Law that was enacted in 2018-what employees, supervisors, and City leadership should know, what are the best practices, and how metrics must be established to ensure compliance with this new law. You or your designee are requested to attend. Your attention in this matter is greatly appreciated. The City of Cambridge does not discriminate on the basis of disability. The City Council will provide auxiliary aids and services, written materials in alternative formats, and reasonable modifications in policies and procedures. <Mail Attachment.ics> 1

Crane, Paula Attachment BBЭ0 From: Lenny Solomon < [email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 11:29 AM To: City Council Clerk Cc: Subject: re Overlay is the Wrong Way Dear Councilors, At one of the recent council meetings | attended one of speakers stated that not be for affordable housing was like being against " mom and apple pie." This got me thinking about some of the expressions that have been used to put one segment of the public agains another during this campaien Mayor Marc McGovern remarked that it would be wrong to try and make the overlay proposal perfect only to "let it die by a thousand cuts." I think the mayor and I would agree that nothing in this world is perfect but that doesn't mean one should rally around a proposal that is significantly imperfect. It doesn't mean that the Council should pass a proposal that is likely to upset a large subset of its citizens. Should I have supported Trump's tax break because I saved about a hundred dollars on my taxes this year even though his billionaire buddies saved millions? I've attended several of the overlay meetings and from the city's own admission, if passed it will likely add little, if any more affordable housing than currently exists. Why is the city so intent on passing such a change in zoning regulations when the city has already surpassed state goals on affordable housing? At another meeting Councilor Siddiqui stated that she's been accused of "social engineering" because she supported the plan. She stated that we already employ social engineer in our institutions implying that was a good thing. In some cases it has been a good thing such as our efforts to better integrate our public schools both racially and economically. Progressive taxes is another example. Of course we as a society use social engineering in a variety of ways. that does not mean that social engineering is always to the good. Should Italy have supported Mussolini because he promised to make the trains run on time? I won't go into other examples of Trump's goals in using social engineering. Two separate issues have been melded into one in this overlay proposal, the first being to create more affordable housing and the second to better integrate low- income housing into all of Cambridge's neighborhoods. The problem is that I don't feel there is a common solution. I heard Councilor Toomey state that hes been looking forward to a proposal like this for years for reasons that were unclear to me. Does he feel that East Cambridge has taken too much of the brunt of affordable housing construction? | don't know. If the city feels it is its duty to quickly build many more affordable apartments, it should take the classical approach in locating under-utilized land to build a high rise structure such as those on Rindge Ave, We still have a bunch of warehouses parallel to Concord Ave between the rotaries and the Belmont line as well as in East Cambridge. If the city wants to better integrate affordable housing in its various neighborhoods, it should purchase individual properties and get affordable developers to renovate these into apartments without changing the footprints of these This would 1

obviously be a slow process but I think it would be much more acceptable to our neighborhoods. In conclusion, this overlay proposal to increase affordable housing, will by in large, not work. It has a good possibility of destroying the feel of many of our neighborhoods, and in certain ways a cynical response to those who really need affordable places to live. It will raise hopes that will only be dashed when we see few, if any more units being constructed. What it will do is to leave battle scars on everyone on each side of the issue which might take many years to heal. Please DO NOT VOTE to put this very flawed proposal into practice. Thank you. Respectively Submitted, Lenny Solomon RC Kelley Street /''''' 0==============::} /'''. Lenny Solomon Band https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.solomonband.com&amp;data=02%7C01%7C pcrane%40cambridgema.gov%7Cf6a18dfe2c37414df30b08d6c2804206%7Cc06a8be784794d73b35193bc9ba8295c%7C0 %7C0%7C636910253495030677&amp;sdata=9qb9KIBEfUu8nvkOY3gpZ2H3n5GC7LjcFg2meJCsOZw%3D&amp;reserved= 0 [phone removed] (cell) Lenny's albums available on https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.cdbaby.com&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cpcrane%40cambridge ma.gov%7Cf6a18dfe2c37414df30b08d6c2804206%7Cc06a8be784794d73b35193bc9ba8295c%7C0%7C0%7C636910253 495040685&amp;sdata=LekZCPGInfEJATmBTSyWrRH3QV9dkuEUftAcB4KdmRQ%3D&amp;reserved=0 2

I've lived in Cambridge for 50 years. I've recently attended several neighborhood meetings to discuss the city-wide zoning overlay proposal. At these meetings I did not hear anyone disparage low-income individuals or their housing needs. I have heard wide- spread support for affordable housing but not by this method. "Envision Cambridge" also sets a goal of adding 20,000 to 25,000 new residents in the next 20 years. Cambridge is already the 5'' most densely populated city in the country of cities having a population of over 75,000 inhabitants. Congestion, traffic, parking, and lack of green space are all problems. More people will add unknown and unanalyzed burdens on city services. The overlay plan is just the tip of the iceberg. This plan would allow a 50 foot tall building to be constructed five feet from my property line. I am absolutely against this possibility and don't care if it's an "affordable" or "luxury" structure. Also, I live near Concord Avenue and would not like it lined with 7, 5, or even 4 story buildings. Would it dramatically change my neighborhood, yes. I wouldn't have a problem if the city bought an existing house on my street and rented it out at affordable rates, as long as it was constrained to the current height limit of 35 feet and current set-back requirements. Cambridge already has the second highest percentage of affordable units in the state with Boston leading the way. It has already exceeded the state-wide goals in its percentage of affordable units and has done so without a city-wide zoning overlay. If Cambridge is truly wants to provide more low-income housing perhaps our affluent city could partner with some of the bordering cities and towns to develop more affordable units so that these towns might meet the state housing goals. Much has been said about keeping Cambridge an inviting place for new immigrants and I'm all for that. My grandparents were immigrants that came to this country with little more than a dime in their pockets. I grew up living in a city housing project in New York and have thus lived in affordable housing for the formative years of my life. However, I also care about keeping the city an inviting place for everyone who has lived, and worked, and volunteered in and for our city. Lenny Solomon Kelley Street

Attachment BB21 Crane, Paula From: Richard Tremaglio < [email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 1:18 PM To: Clerk Subject: Zoning overlay The proposed zoning overlay MUST include a thoughtful design review process undertaken by esponsible professionals who respect the unique physical qualities, and the resident concerns of the different parts of the city Richard Tremaglio 36 Tierney St. Cambridge

Attachment BB 22 Crane, Paula From: wat <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 12:43 PM To: City Council Cc: Clerk; [email removed] Subject: Proposed Affordable Housing Overlay To: The Cambridge City Council We wish to register our very strong and deeply felt opposition to the proposed Overlay for many reasons -- in particular because of the destruction of green spaces and historic Cambridge architecture that it will entail, because of the effect of the heights and scale of affordable housing projects on Cambridge's unique neighborhoods, and the absence of any right of Cambridge citizens to appeal the effect on their neighborhoods. - Mr. and Mrs. William A. Truslow 4 Hawthorn Street, Cambridge •..: :

Attachment BB23 Crane, Paula From: Sue Wentworth < [email removed]> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 2:08 PM To: City Council Clerk Cc: Affordable Housing Subject: I have grave concerns about the affordable housing overlay and do not support the proposed plan. I would like to see a plan which at least partially addresses housing costs by restricting the ability of people who do not intend to live at their property (investment buyers) from bidding for and buying property in Cambridge -- and which incentivizes current homeowners to provide housing to renters at an affordable rate. Thank you for your efforts to find creative solutions to this important issue. Regards, Sue Wentworth 19 Brown St. Cambridge, MA 02138

Attachment BB 24 Crane, Paula From: Kelly Dolan < [email removed]> Tuesday, April 16, 2019 5:00 PM Sent: To: City Manager; City Council; Kelley, Craig; Devereux, Jan; Carlone, Dennis; Crane, Paula Subject: Let the Citizens of Cambridge Vote on the Overlay Dear Cambridge City Councilors We appreciate the amount of time the City and the CDD have spent reviewing and analyzing the zoning language of this Affordable Overlay proposal but perhaps the Council should be looking at the efficacy of the plan itself first before any zoning changes to gauge and consider its unintended consequences. The first is the fact that the Overlay will raise the property values of the City to even higher levels by upzoning all of Cambridge property and by adding taxpayer dollars to the real estate bidding process for desirable properties. The second untended consequence is that the Overlay places the burden of the additional density on the neighborhoods that will get the development. The proposal assumes that the incentive for developers to build affordable housing must come for "free," where free means no additional direct cost to the City. Instead, the developer is allowed to get density incentives that allow significantly larger buildings than current zoning allows. The immediate neighbors are expected to bear all the costs for the benefit of the rest of the city. The bulk of the burden will go to the 'soft sites where all the new development is currently occurring. Because of high land costs, affordable housing projects will still not be able to be built in the deficient neighborhoods that certain City Councilors publically and incorrectly blame. Iram Farouk of the CDD alluded to this in the 4/9 Roundtable with the City Councilors While she admitted the CDD had not yet studied the exact impact of the Overlay on trees she said "open space requirements effects trees." But it's not limited just to the sight of the project. "Look at the neighborhood scale in totality because we all benefit from each other's open space and trees" "That is part of the tradeoff in this proposal. You will have to make that decision as part of this discussion. Impossible to accommodate everything given the amount of the building we are talking about." "The parking reduction is the same" Right now it is forecasted that there probably won't initially be that many projects available for this new upzoning opportunity because of funding. But the City Council is already talking about adding

funding through the cannabis and short term rentals and the possibility of a Real Estate Transfer Tax. So eventually there will be plenty of taxpayer money to give to developers. Which prompts the third and most dangerous unintended consequence of this Overlay proposal. We all heard the Board Chair of Just A Start testifying at recent public testimony that having mixed- income buildings is more advantageous to build up 'social capital" and that developers could build more projects if "market rate housing were included in the projects." So before this zoning change even gets presented we have developers advocating to build more huge projects everywhere in Cambridge. So this small zoning change does have the potential to eventually make huge and significant changes to the scale, density, and livability of our City. The Overlay proposal will be paid for by the taxes of the residents and it seeks to reallocate resources which arguably institutes a public taking. Of taxes, trees, open space, parking spaces, City services, the right to have input in what gets built in neighborhoods and the right to have the same zoning requirements for all property owners. Perhaps its time to suggest this proposal gets put on a ballot initiative in an election so that the City of Cambridge can ask its residents how to spend their tax dollars and if they are OK with the unintended consequences of this Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal. Sincerely Kelly Dolan Greg Berndt AIA N

Attachment BB25 Crane, Paula From: tara greco < [email removed]> Wednesday, April 17, 2019 10:17 AM Sent: City Council; City Manager; Clerk; Crane, Paula To: Cc: tara greco Subject: Issues with Affordable Housing Overlay Dear Cambridge City Council & City Manager: We appreciate the amount of time the City and the CDD have spent reviewing and analyzing the zoning language of this Affordable Overlay proposal but perhaps the Council should be looking at the efficacy of the plan itself first before any zoning changes to gauge and consider its unintended consequences. The first is the fact that the Overlay will raise the property values of the City to even higher levels by upzoning all of Cambridge property and by adding taxpayer dollars to the real estate bidding process for desirable properties. The second untended consequence is that the Overlay places the burden of the additional density on the neighborhoods that will get the development. The proposal assumes that the incentive for developers to build affordable housing must come for "free," where free means no additional direct cost to the City. Instead, the developer is allowed to get density incentives that allow significantly larger buildings than current zoning allows. The immediate neighbors are expected to bear all the costs for the benefit of the rest of the city. The bulk of which will go to the 'soft' sites where all the new development is currently occurring. Because of high land costs, affordable housing projects will still not be able to be built in the deficient neighborhoods that certain City Councilors publically and incorrectly blame. Iram Farouk of the CDD alluded to this herself in the 4/9 Roundtable with the City Councilors While she admitted the CDD had not yet studied the exact impact of the Overlay on trees she said "open space requirements effects trees." But it's not limited just to the sight of the project. "Look at the neighborhood scale in totality because we all benefit from each other's open space and trees" "That is part of the tradeoff in this proposal. You will have to make that decision as part of this discussion. Impossible to accommodate everything given the amount of the building we are talking about." "The parking reduction is the same" Right now it is forecasted that there probably won't initially be that many projects available for this new upzoning opportunity because of funding. But the City Council is already talking about adding funding through the cannabis and short term rentals and the possibility of a Real Estate Transfer Tax. So eventually there will be plenty of taxpayer money to give to developers. 1

Which prompts the third and most dangerous unintended consequence of this Overlay proposal. We all heard the Board Chair of Just A Start testifying at recent public testimony that having mixed-income buildings is more advantageous to build up 'social capital" and that developers could build more projects if "market rate housing were included in the projects." So before this zoning change even gets presented we have developers advocating to build more huge projects everywhere in Cambridge. So this small zoning change does have the potential to eventually make huge and significant changes to the scale, density, and livability of our City. The Overlay proposal will be paid for by the taxes of the residents and it seeks to reallocate resources which arguably institutes a public taking. Of taxes, trees, open space, parking spaces, City services, the right to have input in what gets built in neighborhoods and the right to have the same zoning requirements for all property owners. Perhaps its time to suggest this proposal gets put on a ballot initiative in the Fall 2019 election so that the City of Cambridge can ask its residents how to spend their tax dollars and if they are OK with the unintended consequences of this Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal. Sincerely, Tara R. Greco 2

Attachment BB76 Crane, Paula From: katherine Olivier < [email removed]> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 5:24 AM Clerk To: Subject: Cambridge affordable housing overlay I have been a Cambridge resident for over 40 years. There have been many changes over the years but the proposed plan would change the character of the place drastically and involve cutting down trees and adding cars to already congested streets. I realize there is a need for more affordable housing but I hope that other options will be put forward. Katherine Olivier Katherine L Olivier 23 Bigelow Street Cambridge MA 02139-230[phone removed] 1

Attachment BB77 Crane, Paula From: Oggie Pesek < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 12:43 PM To: City Council; Clerk Subject: 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Dear Cambridge City Council, I am a home owner in Cambridge, I pay my taxes, and I vote. I am writing to voice my 100% opposition to "The 100% Affordable Housing Overlay" proposed for our city. Our city will be destroyed by forcing high-rise buildings to be inserted into our residential neighborhood Our roads are terrible, our sidewalks are dangerous for the elderly, and the "war on cars" as masked by "Vision Zero" has resulted in frequent grid-lock. Allow the housing units permitted and under construction to come on-line and leave out neighborhood out of your development plans. Thank you for your service, we are all watching and will take note how each of you votes on this matter. Sincerely, Andrew Pesek 48 Highland St. 1