a report from Councillor Dennis J. Carlone Co-Chair and Councillor Craig A. Kelley, Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on July 2, 2019 to discuss a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to create a city-wide Affordable Housing Overlay District (AHOD)

ATTACHMENT A Affordable Housing Overlay - AS REFERRED BY HOUSING COMMITTEE ON APRIL 25, 2019 ADD NEW DEFINITIONS TO ARTICLE 2.000: Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO). A set of modified development standards set forth in Section 11.207.3 of this Zoning Ordinance intended to allow increases in density, limited increases in height, and relaxation of certain other zoning limitations for residential developments in which all units are made permanently affordable to households earning up to 100% of area median income. Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Dwelling Unit. A dwelling unit within an AHO Project for which occupancy is restricted to an AHO Eligible Household and whose rent or initial sale price is established by the provisions of Section 11.207.3 of this Zoning Ordinance. Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Eligible Household. A household whose gross household income does not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 11.207.3 of this Zoning Ordinance. Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Project. The construction of a new building or buildings and/or the modification of an existing building or buildings resulting in single-family, two-family, townhouse, or multifamily dwellings within which each dwelling unit is an AHO Dwelling Unit subject to the standards and restrictions set forth in Section 11.207 of this Zoning Ordinance. Grade. The mean finished ground elevation of a lot measured either around the entire perimeter of the building or along any existing wall facing a public street, which ground elevation is maintained naturally without any structural support. Story. That portion of a building included between the upper surface of a floor and the upper surface of the floor or roof next above. Story Above Grade. A story whose highest point is more than 4 feet above the Grade. CREATE NEW SECTION: 11.207 AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY 1. Purpose and Intent The purpose of this Section is to promote the public good by supporting the development of housing that is affordable to households earning up to 100% of area median income. The intent of this Section is to allow increases in density, limited increases in height, and relaxation of certain other zoning limitations for residential developments in which all units are made permanently affordable to households earning up to 100% of area median income (referred to as "AHO Projects," as defined in Article 2.000 of this Zoning Ordinance); to incentivize the reuse of existing buildings in order to create AHO Projects that are more compatible with established neighborhood character; to promote the city's urban design objectives while enabling AHO Projects to be permitted as-of-right, subject to non-binding advisory design consultation procedures; and to apply such standards throughout the City, to promote city planning goals of achieving greater socioeconomic diversity and a more equitable distribution of affordable housing citywide. 2. Applicability Page 1 of 14 As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019

(a) The provisions set forth in this Section shall apply to AHO Projects, as defined in Article 2.000 of this Zoning Ordinance, in all zoning districts except Open Space Districts. (b) An AHO Project shall meet all of the standards set forth in this Affordable Housing Overlay, or else it shall be subject to the requirements otherwise applicable in the zoning district. 3. Standards for Eligibility, Rent, and Initial Sale Price for AHO Dwelling Units (a) All dwelling units in an AHO Project shall comply with the standards for AHO Dwelling Units as set forth in this Section. (b) For all AHO Dwelling Units: (i) AHO Dwelling Units shall be rented or sold only to AHO Eligible Households, with preference given to Cambridge residents, in accordance with standards and procedures related to selection, asset limits, and marketing established by the Community Development Department. (ii) AHO Dwelling Units shall be created and conveyed subject to recorded covenants approved by the Community Development Department guaranteeing the permanent availability of the AHO Dwelling Units for AHO Eligible Households. (c) For rental AHO Dwelling Units: The gross household income of an AHO Eligible Household upon initial occupancy shall be no more than one-hundred percent (100%) of AMI. (ii) At least eighty percent (80%) of AHO Dwelling Units shall be occupied by AHO Eligible Households whose gross household income upon initial occupancy is no more than eighty percent (80%) of AMI. (iii) Rent, including utilities and any other fees routinely charged to tenants and approved by the Community Development Department, shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the gross household income of the AHO Eligible Household occupying the AHO Dwelling Unit or other similar standard pursuant to an applicable housing subsidy program which has been approved by the Community Development Department. (iv) After initial occupancy, the gross household income of an AHO Eligible Household shall be verified annually, or on such other basis required by an applicable housing subsidy program which has been approved by the Community Development Department, to determine continued eligibility and rent, in accordance with policies, standards, and procedures established by the Community Development Department. (v) An AHO Eligible Household may continue to rent an AHO Dwelling Unit after initial occupancy even if the AHO Eligible Household's gross household income exceeds the eligibility limits set forth above, but may not exceed one hundred twenty percent (120%) of AMI for more than one year after that Eligible Household's gross household income has been verified to exceed such percentage, unless otherwise restricted pursuant to an applicable housing subsidy program which has been approved by the Community Development Department. Page 2 of 14 As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019

(vi) Notwithstanding the requirements set forth in (i) through (v) above, an owner may voluntarily choose to charge a lower rent than as provided herein for AHO Dwelling Units. (d) For owner-occupied AHO Dwelling Units: (i) The gross household income of an AHO Eligible Household upon initial occupancy shall be no more than one-hundred percent (100%) of AMI. (ii) At least fifty percent (50%) of AHO Dwelling Units shall be sold to by AHO Eligible Households whose gross household income upon initial occupancy is no more than eighty percent (80%) of AMI. (iii) The initial sale price of an AHO Dwelling Unit shall be approved by the Community Development Department and shall be determined to ensure that the monthly housing payment (which shall include debt service at prevailing mortgage loan interest rates, utilities, condominium or related fees, insurance, real estate taxes, and parking fees, if any) shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the monthly income of: 1. A household earning ninety percent (90%) of AMI, in the case of an AHO Dwelling Unit to be sold to an AHO Eligible Household whose income upon initial occupancy is no more than one-hundred percent (100%) of AMI; or 2. A household earning seventy percent (70%) of AMI, in the case of an AHO Dwelling Unit to be sold to an AHO Eligible Household whose income upon initial occupancy is no more than eighty percent (80%) of AMI. (e) An AHO Project meeting the standards set forth herein as approved by the Community Development Department shall not be required to comply with the Inclusionary Housing Requirements set forth in 11.203 of this Zoning Ordinance. 4. Use (a) In all zoning districts, an AHO Project may contain single-family, two-family, townhouse, or multifamily dwellings as-of-right. Townhouse and Multifamily Special Permit procedures shall not apply. (b) An AHO Project may contain active non-residential uses on the ground floor as they may be permitted as-of-right in the base zoning district or the overlay districts) that are applicable to a lot, which for the purpose of this Section shall be limited to Institutional Uses listed in Section 4.33, Office Uses listed in Section 4.34, and Retail and Consumer Service uses listed in Section 4.35 that provide services to the general public. 5. Development Standards 5.1 General Provisions (a) For the purposes of this Section, the phrase "District Development Standards" shall refer to the development standards of the base zoning district as they may be modified by the development standards of all overlay districts that are applicable to a lot, but not the Page 3 of 14 As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019

standards set forth within this Affordable Housing Overlay, and shall include standards that are permitted as-of-right or allowable by special permit. (b) For an AHO Project, the following development standards shall apply as-of-right in place of the more restrictive District Development Standards, except as otherwise stated. Where the District Development Standards for any type of use are less restrictive than the standards set forth below, such less restrictive development standards shall apply as-of-right to an AHO Project. (c) An AHO Project that conforms to the following development standards shall not be subject to other limitations that may be set forth in Article 5.000 or other Sections of this Zoning Ordinance, including limitations on Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and lot area per dwelling unit, except as otherwise stated in this Section. 5.2 Dimensional Standards for AHO Projects Building Height and Stories Above Grade 5.2.1 (a) Where the District Dimensional Standards allow a maximum building height of 40 feet or less, an AHO Project shall contain no more than four Stories Above Grade and shall have a maximum height of 45 feet, as measured from existing Grade. For AHO Projects containing active non-residential uses on the ground floor, the maximum height may be increased to 50 feet but the number of Stories Above Grade shall not exceed four stories. (b) Where the District Dimensional Standards allow a maximum building height of.more than 40 feet, an AHO Project shall contain no more than seven Stories Above Grade : and shall have a maximum height of 80 feet, as measured from existing Grade, except as further limited below. Portions of buildings that are within 35 feet of a district whose District (i) Dimensional Standards allow a maximum building height of 40 feet or less shall be reduced to a maximum of five Stories Above Grade and a maximum height of 60 feet, as measured from existing Grade, except where the building abuts a non-residential use. (c) Each Story Above Grade shall have a minimum height of 10 feet. Yard Setbacks 5.2.2 (a) For the purpose of this Section, the applicable District Dimensional Standards shall not include yard setback requirements based on a formula calculation as provided in Section 5.24.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, but shall include non-derived minimum yard setback requirements set forth in Article 5.000 or other Sections of this Zoning Ordinance. (b) An AHO Project shall have a minimum front yard setback of 10 feet, except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive requirement. However, the front yard setback may be reduced to the average of the front yard Page 4 of 14 As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019

setbacks of the pre-existing buildings on the lots adjacent thereto on either side, if such average is less than the front yard setback otherwise required. (c) An AHO Project shall have a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 feet, except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive requirement. (d) An AHO Project shall have a minimum rear yard setback of 20 feet, except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive requirement. (e) Projecting eaves, chimneys, bay windows, balconies, open fire escapes and like • projections which do not project more than 3.5 feet from the principal exterior wall plane, and unenclosed steps, unroofed porches and the like which do not project more than ten (10) feet beyond the line of the foundation wall and which are not over four (4) feet above Grade, may extend beyond the minimum yard setback. (f) Bicycle parking spaces, whether short-term or long-term, and appurtenant structures such as coverings, sheds, or storage lockers may be located within a required yard setback. Open Space 5.2.3 (a) Except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive requirement or as otherwise provided below, the minimum percentage of open space to lot area for an AHO Project shall be 30%. However, the minimum percentage of open space to lot area may be reduced to no less than 15% if at least one of the following criteria is met: An area commensurate with such reduction is used to provide off-street surface (i) parking spaces on the lot along with necessary driveways and access aisles. The AHO Project includes the preservation and protection of an existing building (ii) included on the State Register of Historic Places. (b) The required open space shall be considered Private Open Space but shall be subject to the limitations set forth below and shall not be subject to the dimensional and other limitations set forth in Section 5.22 of this Zoning Ordinance. Private Open Space shall exclude parking and driveways for automobiles. (c) At least half of the required open space shall meet the definition of Permeable Open Space as set forth in this Zoning Ordinance. (d) All of the required open space shall be located at Grade or on porches and decks that are no higher than the floor elevation of the lowest Story Above Grade. Open space may be located at higher levels, such as balconies and decks, but shall not count toward meeting the required Private Open Space for the purpose of this Affordable Housing Overlay. (e) For the purpose of this Affordable Housing Overlay, area used for covered or uncovered bicycle parking spaces that are not contained within a building shall be considered Private Open Space, but shall not be considered Permeable Open Space. Page 5 of 14 As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019

5.3 Standards for Existing Buildings A building that is in existence as of the effective date of this Ordinance and does not conform to the standards set forth above in this Affordable Housing Overlay may be altered, reconstructed, extended, and/or enlarged for use as an AHO Project as-of-right in accordance with the standards set forth below. Except as otherwise stated, the following standards shall apply to development contained within the envelope of the existing building, and enlargements or additions occurring outside the envelope of the existing building shall conform to the standards for new construction set forth above. (a) The modifications to a nonconforming structure allowed as-of-right or by special permit in Article 8.000 of this Zoning Ordinance shall be allowed as-of-right for an AHO Project. (b) Gross floor area may be added or reconstructed within the interior of the existing building, provided that the resulting number of Stories Above Grade is not more than the greater of the existing number of Stories Above Grade, the maximum number of stories permitted for new construction as set forth above, or the existing height of the building divided by 10 feet. (c) Insulation may be added to the exterior of an existing exterior wall to improve energy efficiency, provided that the resulting exterior plane of the wall shall either conform to the yard setback standards for an AHO project set forth above or shall not intrude more than eight (8) inches further into the existing yard setback. (d) An existing building may be moved to a new location on a lot, provided that the resulting height of the building above Grade at its new location shall be no greater than the height above Grade at its existing location, or the maximum building height permitted for an AHQ. : Project as set forth above, whichever is greater, and also provided that the resulting yard: setbacks shall not increase any nonconformance with the required yard setbacks set forth above for an AHO Project. (e) Where the existing amount of open space on the lot does not conform to the standards for an AHO Project set forth above, the existing amount of open space shall be the required amount. However, permitted alterations to the structure or lot including but not limited to moving the building footprint, installing exterior insulation, installing bicycle parking, or installing exterior features to improve accessibility may displace existing open space so long as such open space is reestablished elsewhere on the site to the extent possible and the total amount of open space is not decreased from the existing condition by more than 5% or 100 square feet, whichever is greater. 6. Parking and Bicycle Parking The limitations set forth in Article 6.000 of this Zoning Ordinance shall be modified as set forth below for an AHO Project. 6.1 Required Off-Street Accessory Parking (a) Off-street parking shall be required at a minimum ratio of 0.4 space per AHO Dwelling Unit, except as further modified below. Page 6 of 14 As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019

(b) Off-street parking shall not be required for an AHO Project on a lot that is located, in whole or in part, within one half-mile of a public rapid transit station or within one quarter-mile of a bus stop with a scheduled peak hour frequency of at least six buses per hour during 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:30 PM on weekdays. (c) The requirement for off-street parking spaces shall be waived for AHO Dwelling Units created within existing buildings in existence as of the effective date of this Ordinance. In addition, the requirement for off-street parking spaces shall be waived for any new construction, in the form of additions or stand-alone buildings, of an AHO Project on a lot that also includes the preservation and protection of a building included on the State Register of Historic Places. (d) Where the number of off-street parking spaces required by this Affordable Housing Overlay would otherwise be four spaces or fewer, the requirement to provide off-street parking spaces shall be waived. 6.2 Accessory Parking Provided Off-Site (a) Off-street parking facilities may be shared by multiple AHO Projects, provided that the requirements of this Section are met by all AHO Dwelling Units served by the facility and the facility is within 1,000 feet of all AHO Projects that it serves. (b) Off-street parking facilities for an AHO Project may be located within existing parking facilities located within 1,000 feet of the AHO Project and in a district where parking is permitted as a principal use or where the facility is a pre-existing nonconforming principal use parking facility, provided that the owner of the AHO Project shall provide evidence of fee ownership, a long-term lease agreement or renewable short-term lease agreement, ^ recorded covenant, or comparable legal instrument to guarantee, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Superintendent of Buildings, thạt such facilities will be available to residents of the AHO Project. 6.3 Modifications to Design and Layout Standards for Off-Street Parking (a) Notwithstanding Section 6.43.2, parking spaces may be arranged in tandem without requiring a special permit, provided that no more than two cars may be parked within any tandem parking space. (b) Notwithstanding Section 6.43.6, owners of adjacent properties may establish common driveways under mutual easements without requiring a special permit. (c) Notwithstanding Paragraph 6.44.1(a), on-grade open parking spaces may be located within 10 feet but not less than 5 feet from a building wall on the same lot or an adjacent lot at the basement or first story without requiring a special permit, provided that such parking spaces are screened from buildings on abutting lots by a fence or dense plantings. (d) Notwithstanding Paragraph 6.44.1(b), on-grade open parking spaces and driveways may be located within 5 feet of a side or rear property line without requiring a special permit, provided that screening is provided in the form of a fence or dense plantings at the property Page 7 of 14 As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019

line, unless such screening is waived by mutual written agreement of the owner of the lot and the owner of the abutting lot. 6.4 Modifications to Bicycle Parking Standards (a) Notwithstanding Section 6.104, long-term or short-term bicycle parking spaces may be located anywhere on the lot for an AHO Project or on an adjacent lot in common ownership or under common control. (b) Notwithstanding Section 6.107.5, up to 20 long-term bicycle parking spaces may be designed to meet the requirements for Short-Term Bicycle Parking Spaces, so long as they are covered from above to be protected from precipitation. (c) The requirement for short-term bicycle parking shall be waived where only four of fewer short-term bicycle parking spaces would otherwise be required. (d) The number of required bicycle parking spaces shall be reduced by half, up to a maximum reduction of 28 spaces, where a standard-size (19-dock) Public Bicycle Sharing Station is provided on the lot or by the developer of the AHO Project on a site within 500 feet of the lot, with the written approval of the City if located on a public street or other City property, or otherwise by legally enforceable mutual agreement with the owner of the land on which the station is located as approved by the Community Development Department. If additional Public Bicycle Sharing Station docks are provided, the number of required bicycle parking spaces may be further reduced at a rate of 0.5 bicycle parking space per additional Public Bicycle Sharing Station dock, up to a maximum reduction of half of the required number of spaces. (e) For AHO Dwelling Units created within an existing building, bicycle parking spaces meeting the standards of this Zoning Ordinance shall not be required but are encouraged to be provided to the extent practical given the limitations of the existing structure. Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided, as required by this Zoning Ordinance, for dwelling units in an AHO Project that are constructed fully outside the envelope of the existing structure. 6.5 Transportation Demand Management An AHO Project whose parking requirements are waived pursuant to the provisions of this Section shall provide, in writing, to the Community Development Department a Transportation Demand Management program containing the following measures, at a minimum: (a) Offering either a free annual membership in a Public Bicycle Sharing Service, at the highest available tier where applicable, or a 50% discounted MBTA combined subway and bus pass for three months or pass of equivalent value, to up to two individuals in each household upon initial occupancy of a unit. (b) Providing transit information in the form of transit maps and schedules to each household upon initial occupancy of a unit, or providing information and a real-time transit service screen in a convenient common area of the building such as an entryway or lobby. 7 Building and Site Design Standards for New Development Page 8 of 14 As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019

7.1 General Provisions (a) The following design standards shall apply to all AHO Projects. Except where otherwise stated, the Project Review requirements set forth in Article 19.000 of this Zoning Ordinance and any design standards set forth in Section 19.50 or elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance shall not apply if the following standards are met; however, the design standards specific to the project area are encouraged to be met to the extent possible if they are not in conflict with the purpose of this Section. (b) The following design standards shall apply to new construction and to additions to existing structures. Except as otherwise provided, an existing building that is altered or moved to accommodate an AHO Project shall not be subject to the following standards, provided that such alterations do not create a condition that is in greater nonconformance with such standards than the existing condition. 7.2 Site Design and Arrangement The area directly between the front lot line and the principal wall plane of the building (a) nearest to the front lot line shall consist of any combination of landscaped area, hardscaped area accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists, and usable spaces such as uncovered porches, patios, or balconies. Parking and other motor vehicle uses, including service and loading facilities, shall not be located within such area, except for driveway access which shall be limited to a total of thirty (30) feet of width for any individual driveway for each one hundred (100) feet of lot frontage. (b) Pedestrian entrances to buildings shall be visible from the street, except where the building : itself is not visible from the street due to its location. All pedestrian entrances shall be accessible by way of access routes that are separated from motor vehicle access drives. (c) A building footprint exceeding 250 feet in length, measured parallel to the street, shall contain portions that are set back by at least 40 feet in depth measured from and perpendicular to the front lot line and at least 40 feet in width measured parallel to the front lot line. 7.3 Building Façades (a) At least 15% of the area of building façades facing a public street or public open space shall consist of clear glass windows. For buildings located in a Business A (BA), Business A-2 (BA- 2), Business B (BB) or Business C (BC) zoning district, this figure shall be increased to 25%. (b) Building façades shall incorporate architectural elements that project or recess by at least two feet from the adjacent section of the façade. Such projecting or recessed elements shall occur on an average interval of 40 linear horizontal feet or less for portions of the façade directly facing a public street, and on an average interval of 80 linear horizontal feet or less for other portions of the façade. Such projecting or recessed elements shall not be required on the lowest Story Above Grade or on the highest Story Above Grade, and shall not be required on the highest two Stories Above Grade of a building containing at least six Stories Above Grade. The intent is to incorporate elements such as bays, balconies, cornices, Page 9 of 14 As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019

shading devices, or similar architectural elements that promote visual interest and residential character, and to allow variation at the ground floor and on upper floors where a different architectural treatment may be preferable. (c) To provide additional visual interest to the façade, for window openings above the ground floor facing a public street or public open space, the developer is encouraged to include architectural elements that provide depth and/or surface relief such as recessed or projecting window surfaces, sills, sun shades, or shutters. 7.4 Ground Floors (a) The elevation at floor level of the ground floor of a building, meaning the lowest story above Grade, shall be at the mean Grade of the abutting public sidewalk, or above such mean Grade by not more than four feet. Where active non-residential uses are provided at the ground floor, the ground floor shall be accessible directly from the sidewalk without requiring use of stairs or a lift. The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply if it is determined by the City Engineer that a higher ground floor elevation is necessary for the purpose of flood protection. (b) Where structured parking is provided within the ground floor of a building, the portion of the building immediately behind the front wall plane shall consist of residential units, common areas, or other populated portions of the building in order to screen the provided parking over at least 50% of the length of the façade measured parallel to the street. (c) The façade of a ground floor facing a public street shall consist of expanses no longer than 25 feet in length, measured parallel to the street, which contain no transparent windows or pedestrian entryways. (d) If the ground floor is designed to accommodate active non-residential uses, the following additional standards shall apply: the height of the lowest story above Grade for that portion of the building containing active non-residential uses shall be at least 15 feet; (il) the depth of the space designed for active non-residential uses shall be at least 35 feet on average measured from the portion of the façade that is nearest to the front lot line in a direction perpendicular to the street, and measured to at least one street in instances where the space abuts two or more streets; and that portion of the ground floor façade containing active non-residential uses shall (il) consist of at least 50% transparent glass windows. (e) Ground floors shall be designed to accommodate at least one space for an active non- residential use on sites that are located in a Business base zoning district, and where the project site and at least one of the lots abutting the project site contains or has contained a retail and consumer service use at any point within the past two years. 7.5 Mechanical Equipment, Refuse Storage, and Loading Areas Page 10 of 14 As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019

All mechanical equipment, refuse storage, or loading areas serving the building or its occupants that are (1) carried above the roof, (2) located at the exterior building wall or (3) located outside the building, shall meet the requirements listed below. Mechanical equipment includes, but is not limited to, ventilation equipment including exhaust fans and ducts, air conditioning equipment, elevator bulkheads, heat exchangers, transformers and any other equipment that, when in operation, potentially creates a noise detectable off the lot. The equipment and other facilities: (a) Shall not be located within any required setback. This Paragraph (a) shall not apply to electrical equipment whose location is mandated by a recognized public utility, provided that project plans submitted for review by the City identify a preferred location for such equipment. (b) When on the ground, shall be permanently screened from view from adjacent public streets that are within 100 feet of the building, or from the view from abutting property in separate ownership at the property line. The screening shall consist of densely planted shrubs or trees equal or greater in height at the time of installation than the equipment or facilities to be screened, or a fence of equal or greater height that is comparable in quality to the materials used on the principal facades of the building, with no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the face of the fence open. (c) When carried above the roof, shall be permanently screened from view, from the ground, from adjacent public streets and any abutting residentially used lot or lots in a residential zoning district. The screening shall be at least 50% opaque, uniformly distributed across the screening surface. (d) Shall meet all city, state and federal noise regulations, as applicable, as certified by a professional acoustical engineer if the Department of Inspectional Services deems such certification necessary. (e) That handle trash and other waste, shall be contained within the building or screened as required in this Section until properly disposed of. 7.6 Environmental Design Standards (a) This Section shall not waive the Green Building Requirements set forth in Section 22.20 of this Zoning Ordinance that may otherwise apply to an AHO Project. (b) Where the provisions of the Flood Plain Overlay District apply to an AHO Project, the performance standards set forth in Section 20.70 of this Zoning Ordinance shall apply; however, a special permit shall not be required. (c) An AHO Project shall be subject to other applicable laws, regulations, codes, and ordinances pertaining to environmental standards. (d) New outdoor light fixtures installed in an AHO Project shall be fully shielded and directed to prevent light trespass onto adjacent residential lots: 8 Advisory Design Consultation Procedure As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019 Page 11 of 14

Prior to application for a building permit, the developer of an AHO Project shall comply with the following procedure, which is intended to provide an opportunity for non-binding community and staff input into the design of the project. (a) At least one community meeting shall be scheduled at a time and location that is convenient to residents in proximity to the project site. The Community Development Department (CDD) shall be notified of the time and location of such meeting, and shall give notification to each abutting property owner and to any individual or organization who each year files with CDD a written request for such notification, or to any other individual or organization CDD may wish to notify. The purpose of the community meeting(s) shall be to present preliminary project designs, answer questions from neighboring residents and other interested members of the public, and receive feedback on the design. The date(s), time(s), location(s), attendance, materials presented, and comments received at such meeting(s) shall be documented and provided to CDD. (b) Following one or more such community meeting(s), the developer shall prepare the following materials for review by the Planning Board. CDD shall review to certify that the submitted written and graphic materials provide the required information in sufficient detail. All drawings shall be drawn to scale, shall include a graphic scale and north arrow for orientation, and shall provide labeled distances and dimensions for significant building and site features. (1) A context map indicating the location of the project and surrounding land uses, including transportation facilities. (2) An existing conditions site plan depicting the boundaries of the lot, the locations of buildings, open space features, parking areas, trees, and other major site features on the lot : and abutting lots, and the conditions of abutting streets: (3) A proposed conditions site plan depicting the same information above as modified to depict the proposed conditions, including new buildings (identifying building entrances and uses on • the ground floor) and major anticipated changes in site features. (4) Floor plans of all proposed new buildings and existing buildings to remain on the lot. (5) Elevations and cross-section drawings of all proposed new buildings and existing buildings to remain on the lot, depicting the distances to lot lines and the heights of surrounding buildings, and labeling the proposed materials on each façade elevation. (6) A landscape plan depicting and labeling all hardscape, permeable, and vegetated areas proposed for the site along with other structures or appurtenances on the site. (7) Plans of parking and bicycle parking facilities, as required by Section 6.50 of this Zoning Ordinance. (8) Materials palettes cataloguing and depicting with photographs the proposed façade and landscape materials. (9) Existing conditions photographs from various vantage points on the public sidewalk, including photos of the site and of the surrounding urban context. Page 12 of 14 As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019

• (10)Proposed conditions perspective renderings from a variety of vantage points on the public sidewalk, including locations adjacent to the site as well as longer views if proposed buildings will be visible from a distance. (11)A dimensional form, in a format provided by CDD, along with any supplemental materials, summarizing the general characteristics of the project and demonstrating compliance with applicable zoning requirements. (12)A brief project narrative describing the project and the design approach, and indicating how the project has been designed in relation to the citywide urban design objectives set forth in Section 19.30 of the Zoning Ordinance, any design guidelines that have been established for the area, and design guidelines established for AHO Projects in Cambridge. (c) Within 65 days of receipt of a complete set of materials by CDD, the Planning Board shall schedule a design consultation as a general business matter at a public meeting. The materials shall be made available to the public in advance, and the Planning Board may receive written comments prior to the meeting from City staff and from the general public. (d) At the scheduled design consultation, the Planning Board shall hear a presentation of the proposal from the developer and comments from the public. The Board may ask questions or seek additional information from the developer or from City staff.. (e) The Planning Board shall evaluate the proposal for general compliance with the requirements of this Section, for consistency with City development guidelines prepared for the proposal area and for AHO Projects in general, for appropriateness in terms of other planned or programmed public or private development activities in the vicinity, and for consistency with the Citywide . : Urban Design Objectives set forth in Section 19.30. The Board may also suggest specific project adjustments and alterations to further the purposes of this Ordinance. The Board shall communicate its findings in a written report provided to the developer and to CDD within 20 days of the design consultation. (f) The developer may then make revisions to the design, in consultation with CDD staff, and shall submit a revised set of documents along with a narrative summary of the Planning Board's comments and changes made in response to those comments. (g) The Planning Board shall review and discuss the revised documents at a second design consultation meeting, which shall proceed in accordance with Paragraphs (c) and (d) above. Following the second design consultation, the Planning Board may submit a revised report and either the revised report or if there are no revisions the initial report shall become the final report (the "Final Report"). Any additional design consultations to review further revisions may occur only at the discretion and on the request of the developer. (h) The Final Report from the Planning Board shall be provided to the Superintendent of Buildings to certify compliance with the procedures set forth herein. 9 Implementation of Affordable Housing Overlay Page 13 of 14 As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019

(a) The City Manager shall have the authority to promulgate regulations for the implementation of the provisions of this Section 11.207. There shall be a thirty-day review period, including a public meeting, to receive public comments on draft regulations before final promulgation. (b) The Community Development Department may develop standards and procedures appropriate to and consistent with the provisions of this Sections 11.207 and the above regulations. 10 Enforcement of Affordable Housing Overlay The Community Development Department shall certify in writing to the Superintendent of Buildings that all applicable provisions of this Section have been met before issuance of any building permit for any AHO Project, and shall further certify in writing to the Superintendent of Buildings that all documents have been filed and all actions taken necessary to fulfill the requirements of this Section before the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any such project. Page 14 of 14 As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019

ATTACWMENTB WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY Affordable Housing Overlay - WORKING DRAFT ADD NEW DEFINITIONS TO ARTICLE 2.000: Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO). A set of modified development standards set forth in Section 11.207.3 of this Zoning Ordinance intended to allow increases in density, limited increases in height, and relaxation of certain other zoning limitations for residential developments in which all units are made permanently affordable to households earning up to 100% of area median income. Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Dwelling Unit. A dwelling unit within an AHO Project for which occupancy is restricted to an AHO Eligible Household and whose rent or initial sale price is established by the provisions of Section 11.207.3 of this Zoning Ordinance. Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Eligible Household. A household whose gross household income does not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 11.207.3 of this Zoning Ordinance. Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Project. The construction of a new building or buildings and/or the modification of an existing building or buildings resulting in single-family, two-family, townhouse, or multifamily dwellings within which each dwelling unit is an AHO Dwelling Unit subject to the standards and restrictions set forth in Section 11.207 of this Zoning Ordinance. Grade. The mean finished grade ground elevation of a lot measured either around the entire perimeter of the building or along any existing wall facing a public street, which grade ground elevation is maintained naturally without any structural support. Story. That portion of a building included between the upper surface of a floor and the upper surface of the floor or roof next above. Story Above Grade. A story whose highest point is more than 4 feet above the Grade. CREATE NEW SECTION: 11.207 AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY 1. Purpose and Intent The purpose of this Section is to promote the public good by supporting the development of housing that is affordable to households earning up to 100% of area median income. The intent of this Section is to allow increases in density, limited increases in height, and relaxation of certain other zoning limitations for residential developments in which all units are made permanently affordable to households earning up to 100% of area median income (referred to as "AHO Projects," as defined in Article 2.000 of this Zoning Ordinance); to incentivize the reuse of existing buildings in order to create AHO Projects that are more compatible with established neighborhood character; to promote the city's urban design objectives while enabling AHO Projects to be permitted as-of-right, subject to non-binding advisory design consultation procedures; and to apply such standards throughout the City, to promote city planning goals of achieving greater socioeconomic diversity and a more equitable distribution of affordable housing citywide. 2. Applicability _Page 1 of 14 April 24, 2019

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (a) The provisions set forth in this Section shall apply to the creation, enlargement, or alteration of AHO Projects, as defined in Article 2.000 of this Zoning Ordinance, in all zoning districts except Open Space Districts. {a)D) An AHO Project shall meet all of the standards set forth in this Affordable Housing Overlay, or else it shall be subject to the requirements otherwise applicable in the zoning district. 3. Standards for Eligibility, Rent, and Initial Sale Price for AHO Dwelling Units (a) All dwelling units in an AHO Project shall comply with the standards for AHO Dwelling Units as sết forth in this Section. (b) For all AHO Dwelling Units: (i) AHO Dwelling Units shall be rented or sold only to AHO Eligible Households, with preference given to Cambridge residents, in accordance with standards and procedures related to selection, asset limits, and marketing established by the Community Development Department. (ii) AHO Dwelling Units shall be created and conveyed subject to recorded covenants approved by the Community Development Department guaranteeing the permanent availability of the AHO Dwelling Units for AHO Eligible Households. (c) For rental AHO Dwelling Units: (i) The gross household income of an AHO Eligible Household upon initial occupancy shall be no more than one-hundred percent (100%) of AMI. (i) At least eighty percent (80%) of AHO Dwelling Units shall be occupied by AHO Eligible Households whose gross household income upon initial occupancy is no more than eighty percent (80%) of AMI. (iii) Rent, including utilities and any other fees routinely charged to tenants and approved by the Community Development Department, shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the gross household income of the AHO Eligible Household occupying the AHO Dwelling Unit or other similar standard pursuant to an applicable housing subsidy program which has been approved by the Community Development Department. (iv) After initial occupancy, the gross household income of an AHO Eligible Household shall be verified annually, or on such other basis required by an applicable housing subsidy program which has been approved by the Community Development Department, periodically-to determine continued eligibility and rent, in accordance with policies, standards, and procedures established by the Community Development Department. (v) An AHO Eligible Household may continue to rent an AHO Dwelling Unit after initial occupancy even if the AHO Eligible Household's gross household income exceeds the eligibility limits set forth above, but may not exceed one hundred twenty percent (120%) of AMI for more than one year after that Eligible Household's gross household income has been verified to exceed such percentage, unless otherwise restricted pursuant to an applicable housing subsidy program which has been approved by the Community Development Department. April 24, 2019 Page 2 of 14

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (vi) Notwithstanding the requirements set forth in (i) through (v) above, an owner may voluntarily choose to charge a lower rent than as provided herein for AHO Dwelling Units. (d) For owner-occupied AHO Dwelling Units: (i) The gross household income of an AHO Eligible Household upon initial occupancy shall be no more than one-hundred percent (100%) of AMI. (i) At least fifty percent (50%) of AHO Dwelling Units shall be sold to by AHO Eligible Households whose gross household income upon initial occupancy is no more than eighty percent (80%) of AMI. (iii) The initial sale price of an AHO Dwelling Unit shall be approved by the Community Development Department and shall be determined to ensure that the monthly housing payment (which shall include debt service at prevailing mortgage loan interest rates, utilities, condominium or related fees, insurance, real estate taxes, and parking fees, if any) shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the monthly income of: 1. A household earning ninety percent (90%) of AMI, in the case of an AHO Dwelling Unit to be sold to an AHO Eligible Household whose income upon initial occupancy is no more than one-hundred percent (100%) of AMI; or 2. A household earning seventy percent (70%) of AMI, in the case of an AHO Dwelling Unit to be sold to an AHO Eligible Household whose income upon initial occupancy is no more than eighty percent (80%) of AMI. (e) An AHO Project meeting the standards set forth herein as approved by the Community' " Development Department shall not be required to comply with the Inclusionary Housing Requirements set forth in 11.203 of this Zoning Ordinance. 4. Use (a) In all zoning districts, an AHO Project may contain single-family, two-family, townhouse, or multifamily dwellings as-of-right. Townhouse and Multifamily Special Permit procedures shall not apply. (b) An AHO Project may contain active non-residential uses on the ground floor as they may be permitted as-of-right in the base zoning district or the overlay districts) that are applicable to a lot, which for the purpose of this Section shall be limited to Institutional Uses listed in Section 4.33, Office Uses listed in Section 4.34, and Retail and Consumer Service uses listed in Section 4.35 that provide services to the general public. 5. Development Standards 5.1 General Provisions (a) For the purposes of this Section, the phrase "District Development Standards" shall refer to the development standards of the base zoning district as they may be modified by the development standards of all overlay districts that are applicable to a lot, but not the _Page 3 of 14 April 24, 2019

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY standards set forth within this Affordable Housing Overlay, and shall include standards that are permitted as-of-right or allowable by special permit. (b) For an AHO Project, the following development standards shall apply as-of-right in place of the more restrictive District Development Standards, except as otherwise stated. Where the District Development Standards for any type of use are less restrictive than the standards set forth below, such less restrictive development standards shall apply as-of-right to an AHO Project. (c) An AHO Project that conforms to the following development standards shall not be subject to other limitations that may be set forth in Article 5.000 or other Sections of this Zoning Ordinance, including limitations on Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and lot area per dwelling unit, • except as otherwise stated in this Section.. 5.2 Dimensional Standards for AHO Projects 5.2.1 Building Height and ScaleStories Above Grade (a) On lotswWhere the District Dimensional Standards allow a maximum building height of 40 feet or less, an AHO Project shall contain no more than four Stories Above Grade and shall have a maximum height of 45 feet, as measured from existing Grade. For AHO Projects containing active non-residential uses on the ground floor, the maximum height may be increased to 50 feet but the number of Stories Above Grade shall not exceed four stories. (b) On lots wWhere the District Dimensional Standards allow a maximum building. height of more than 40 feet, an AHO Project shall contain no more than seven : •Stories Above Grade and shall have a maximum height of 80 feet, as measured from existing Grade, except as further limited below. Portions of buildings that are within 35 feet of a district whose District (i) Dimensional Standards allow a maximum building height of 40 feet or less shall be reduced to a maximum of five Stories Above Grade and a maximum height of 60 feet; as measured from existing Grade, except where the building abuts a non-residential use. fo) An AHO Project exceeding 80 feet in height shall be subject to all District Dimensional Standards. (c) Each Story Above Grade shall have a minimum height of 10 feet. 5:2.2 Yard Setbacks (a) For the purpose of this Section, the applicable District Dimensional Standards shall not include yard setback requirements based on a formula calculation as provided in Section 5.24.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, but shall include non-derived minimum yard setback requirements set forth in Article 5.000 or other Sections of this Zoning Ordinance. Page 4 of 14 April 24, 2019

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (b) An AHO Project shall have a minimum front yard setback of 10 feet, except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive requirement. However, the front yard setback may be reduced to the average of the front yard setbacks of the pre-existing buildings on the lots adjacent thereto the-on either side, if such average is less than the front yard setback otherwise required. (c). An AHO Project shall have a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 feet, except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive requirement. (d) An AHO Project shall have a minimum rear yard setback of 20 feet, except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive requirement. (e) Projecting eaves, chimneys, bay windows, balconies, open fire escapes and like projections which do not project more than 3.5 feet from the principal exterior wall plane, and unenclosed steps, unroofed porches and the like which do not project more than ten (10) feet beyond the line of the foundation wall and which are not over four (4) feet above Grade, may extend beyond the minimum yard setback. (f) Bicycle parking spaces, whether short-term or long-term, and appurtenant structures such as coverings, sheds, or storage lockers may be located within a required yard setback. 5.2.3 Open Space (a) Except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive requirement or as otherwise provided below; the minimum percentage of open . space to lot area for an AHO Project shall be 30%. However, the minimum percentage of open space to lot area may be reduced to no less than 15% if at least one of the following criteria is met: (i) An area commensurate with such reduction is used to provide off-street surface parking spaces on the lot along with necessary driveways and access aisles. (ii) The AHO project Project includes the preservation and protection of an existing building included on the State Register of Historic Places. 10) The required open space shall be considered Private Open Space but shall not be subject to the limitations set forth below and shall not be subject to the dimensional and other limitations set forth in Section 5.22 of this Zoning Ordinance. Private Open Space shall exclude parking and driveways for automobiles. fo)(c)At least half of the required open space shall meet the definition of Permeable Open Space as set forth in this Zoning Ordinance. fe)(d) All of the required open space shall be located at Grade or on porches and decks that are no higher than the floor elevation of the lowest Story Above Grade. Ne more than half of the required percentage of Open space may be located at higher levels more than 10 feet above Grade, such as balconies, and decks, and roefsbut April 24, 2019 _Page 5 of 14

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY shall not count toward meeting the required Private Open Space for the purpose of this Affordable Housing Overlay. fd at The required open sp be subject to the dim Zoning Ordinance:' (e) For the purpose of this Affordable Housing Overlay, area used for covered or uncovered bicycle parking spaces that are not contained within a building shall be considered Private Open Space, but shall not be considered Permeable Open Space. 5.3 Standards for Existing Buildings A building that is in existence as of the effective date of this Ordinance and does not conform to the standards set forth above in this Affordable Housing Overlay may be altered, reconstructed, extended, and/or enlarged for use as an AHO Project as-of-right in accordance with the standards set forth below. Except as otherwise stated, the following standards shall apply to development contained within the envelope of the existing building, and enlargements or additions occurring outside the envelope of the existing building shall conform to the standards for new construction set forth above. (a) The modifications to a nonconforming structure allowed as-of-right or by special permit in Article 8.000 of this Zoning Ordinance shall be allowed as-of-right for an AHO Project. (b) Gross floor area may be added or reconstructed within the interior of the existing building, provided that the resulting number of Stories Above Grade is not more than the greater of. the existing number of Stories Above Grade, the maximum number of stories permitted for new construction as set forth above, or the existing height of the building divided by 10 feet. (c) Insulation may be added to the exterior of an existing exterior wall to improve energy efficiency, provided that the resulting exterior plane of the wall shall either conform to the yard setback standards for an AHO project set forth above or shall not intrude more than eight (8) inches further into the existing yard setback. (d) An existing building may be moved to a new location on a lot, provided that the resulting height of the building above Grade at its new location shall be no greater than the height above Grade at its existing location, or the maximum building height permitted for an AHO Project as set forth above, whichever is greater, and also provided that the resulting yard setbacks shall not increase any nonconformance with the required yard setbacks set forth above for an AHO Project. (e) Where the existing amount of open space on the lot does not conform to the standards for an AHO Project set forth above, the existing amount of open space shall be the required amount. However, permitted alterations to the structure or lot including but not limited to moving the building footprint, installing exterior insulation, installing bicycle parking, or installing exterior features to improve accessibility may displace existing open space so long as such open space is reestablished elsewhere on the site to the extent possible and the April 24, 2019 Page 6 of 14

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY total amount of open space is not decreased from the existing condition by more than 5% or 100 square feet, whichever is greater. 6. Parking and Bicycle Parking The limitations set forth in Article 6.000 of this Zoning Ordinance shall be modified as set forth below for an AHO Project. 6.1 Required Off-Street Accessory Parking (a) Off-street parking shall be required at a minimum ratio of 0.4 space per AHO Dwelling Unit, except as further modified below. (b) Off-street parking shall not be required for an AHO Project on a lot that is located, in whole or in part, within one half-mile of a public rapid transit station or within one quarter-mile of a bus stop with a scheduled peak hour frequency of at least six buses per hour during 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:30 PM on weekdays. (c) The requirement for off-street parking spaces shall be waived for AHO Dwelling Units created within existing buildings in existence as of the effective date of this Ordinance. In addition, the requirement for off-street parking spaces shall be waived for any new construction, in the form of additions or stand-alone buildings, of an AHO Project on a lot that also includes the preservation and protection of a building included on the State Register of Historic Places. (d) Where the number of off-street parking spaces required by this Affordable Housing Overlay would otherwise be four spaces or fewer, the requirement to provide off-street parking spaces shall be waived. 6.2 Accessory Parking Provided Off-Site (a) Off-street parking facilities may be shared by multiple AHO Projects, provided that the requirements of this Section are met by all AHO Dwelling Units served by the facility and the facility is within 1,000 feet of all AHO Projects that it serves. (b) Off-street parking facilities for an AHO Project may be located within existing parking facilities located within 1,000 feet of the AHO Project and in a district where parking is permitted as a principal use or where the facility is a pre-existing nonconforming principal use parking facility, provided that the owner of the AHO Project shall provide evidence of fee ownership, a long-term lease agreement or renewable short-term lease agreement, recorded covenant, or comparable legal instrument to guarantee, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Superintendent of Buildings, that such facilities will be available to residents of the AHO Project. 6.3 Modifications to Design and Layout Standards for Off-Street Parking (a) Notwithstanding Section 6.43.2, parking spaces may be arranged in tandem without requiring a special permit, provided that no more than two cars may be parked within any tandem parking space. April 24, 2019 Page 7 of 14

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (b) Notwithstanding Section 6.43.6, owners of adjacent properties may establish common driveways under mutual easements without requiring a special permit. (c) Notwithstanding Paragraph 6.44.1(a), on-grade open parking spaces may be located within 10 feet but not less than 5 feet from a building wall on the same lot or an adjacent lot at the başement or first story without requiring a special permit, provided that such parking spaces are screened from buildings on abutting lots by a fence or dense plantings. (d) Notwithstanding Paragraph 6.44.1(b), on-grade open parking spaces and driveways may be located within 5 feet of a side or rear property line without requiring a special permit, provided that screening is provided in the form of a fence or dense plantings at the property line, unless such screening is waived by mutual written agreement of the owner of the lot and the owner of the abutting lot. 6.4 Modifications to Bicycle Parking Standards (a) Notwithstanding Section 6.104, long-term or short-term bicycle parking spaces may be located anywhere on the lot for an AHO Project or on an adjacent lot in common ownership or under common control. (b) Notwithstanding Section 6.107.5, up to 20 long-term bicycle parking spaces may be designed to meet the requirements for Short-Term Bicycle Parking Spaces, so long as they are covered from above to be protected from precipitation. (c) The requirement for short-term bicycle parking shall be waived where only four of fewer short-term bicycle parking spaces would otherwise be required. (d) The number of required bicycle parking spaces shall be reduced by half, up to a maximum reduction of 28 spaces, where a standard-size (19-dock) Public Bicycle Sharing Station is provided on the lot or by the developer of the AHO Project on a site within 500 feet of the lot, with the written approval of the City if located on a public street or other City property, or otherwise by legally enforceable mutual agreement with the owner of the land on which the station is located as approved by the Community Development Department. If additional Public Bicycle Sharing Station docks are provided, the number of required bicycle parking spaces may be further reduced at a rate of 0.5 bicycle parking space per additional Public Bicycle Sharing Station dock, up to a maximum reduction of half of the required number of spaces. (e) For AHO Dwelling Units created within an existing building, bicycle parking spaces meeting the standards of this Zoning Ordinance shall not be required but are encouraged to be provided to the extent practical given the limitations of the existing structure. Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided, as required by this Zoning Ordinance, for dwelling units in an AHO Project that are constructed fully outside the envelope of the existing structure. 6.5 Transportation Demand Management An AHO Project whose parking requirements are waived pursuant to the provisions of this Section shall provide, in writing, to the Community Development Department a Transportation Demand Management program containing the following measures, at a minimum: April 24, 2019 Page 8 of 14

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (a) Offering either a free annual membership in a Public Bicycle Sharing Service, at the highest available tier where applicable, or a 50% discounted MBTA combined subway and bus pass for three months or pass of equivalent value, to up to two individuals in each household upon initial occupancy of a unit. (b) Providing transit information in the form of transit maps and schedules to each household upon initial occupancy of a unit, or providing information and a real-time transit service screen in a convenient common area of the building such as an entryway or lobby. 7 Building and Site Design Standards for New Development 7.1 General Provisions (a) The following design standards shall apply to all AHO Projects. Except where otherwise stated, the Project Review requirements set forth in Article 19.000 of this Zoning Ordinance and any design standards set forth in Section 19.50 or elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance shall not apply if the following standards are met; however, the design standards specific to the project area are encouraged to be met to the extent possible if they are not in conflict with the purpose of this Section. (b) The following design standards shall apply to new construction and to additions to existing structures. Except as otherwise provided, an existing building that is altered or moved to accommodate an AHO Project shall not be subject to the following standards, provided that such alterations do not create a condition that is in greater nonconformance with such standards than the existing condition. 7.2 Site Design and Arrangement (a) The area directly between the front lot line and the principal wall plane of the building nearest to the front lot line shall consist of any combination of landscaped area, hardscaped area accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists, and usable spaces such as uncovered porches, patios, or balconies. Parking and other motor vehicle uses, including service and loading facilities, shall not be located within such area, except for driveway access which shall be limited to a total of thirty (30) feet of width for any individual driveway for each one hundred (100) feet of lot frontage. (b) Pedestrian entrances to buildings shall be visible from the street, except where the building itself is not visible from the street due to its location. All pedestrian entrances shall be accessible by way of access routes that are separated from motor vehicle access drives. (c) A building footprint exceeding [200 3001250 feet in length, measured parallel to the street, shall contain portions that are set back by at least 40 feet in depth measured from and perpendicular to the front lot line and at least 40 feet in width measured parallel to the front lot line. 7.3 Building Façades (a) - At least 15% of the area of building façades facing a public street or public open space shall consist of transparent clear glass windows. For buildings located in a Business A (BA), April 24, 2019 Page 9 of 14

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY Business A-2 (BA-2), Business B (BB) or Business C (BC) zoning district, this figure shall be increased to 25%: (b) Building façades shall incorporate architectural elements that project or recess by at least two feet from the adjacent section of the facade. Such projecting or recessed elements shall occur on an average interval of 40 linear horizontal feet or less for portions of the facade directly facing a public street, and on an average interval of 80 linear horizontal feet or less for other portions of the facade. Such projecting or recessed elements shall not be required on the lowest Story Above Grade or on the highest Story Above Grade, and shall not be required on the highest two Stories Above Grade of a building containing at least six Stories Above Grade. The intent is to incorporate elements such as bays, balconies, cornices, shading devices, or similar architectural elements that promote visual interest and residential character, and to allow variation at the ground floor and on upper floors where a different architectural treatment may be preferable. (c) To provide additional visual interest to the façade, for window openings above the ground floor facing a public street or public open space, the developer is encouraged to include architectural elements that provide depth and/or surface relief such as recessed or projecting window surfaces, sills, sun shades, or shutters. 7.4 Ground Floors (a) The elevation at floor level of the ground floor of a building, meaning the lowest story above Grade, shall be at the mean Grade of the abutting public sidewalk, or above such mean Grade by not more than four feet. Where active non-residential uses are provided at the ground floor, the ground floor shall be accessible directly from the sidewalk without requiring use of stairs or a lift. The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply if it is determined by the City Engineer that a higher ground floor elevation is necessary for the purpose of flood protection. (b) Where structured parking is provided within the ground floor of a building, the portion of the building immediately behind the front wall plane shall consist of residential units, common areas, or other populated portions of the building in order to screen the provided parking over at least 50% of the length of the façade measured parallel to the street. (c) The façade of a ground floor facing a public street shall consist of expanses no longer than 25 feet in length, measured parallel to the street, which contain no transparent windows or pedestrian entryways. (d) If the ground floor is designed to accommodate active non-residential uses, the following additional standards shall apply: (i) the height of the lowest story above Grade for that portion of the building containing active non-residential uses shall be at least 15 feet; (il) the depth of the space designed for active non-residential uses shall be at least 35 feet on average measured from the portion of the façade that is nearest to the front April 24, 2019 Page 10 of 14

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY lot line in a direction perpendicular to the street, and measured to at least one. street in instances where the space abuts two or more streets; and (iii) that portion of the ground floor façade containing active non-residential uses shall consist of at least 50% transparent glass windows. (e) Ground floors shall be designed to accommodate at least one space for an active non- residential use on sites that are located in a Business base zoning district, and where the project site and at least one of the lots abutting the project site contains or has contained a retail and consumer service use at any point within the past two years. 7.5 Mechanical Equipment, Refuse Storage, and Loading Areas All mechanical equipment, refuse storage, or loading areas serving the building or its occupants that are (1) carried above the roof, (2) located at the exterior building wall or (3) located outside the building, shall meet the requirements listed below. Mechanical equipment includes, but is not limited to, ventilation equipment including exhaust fans and ducts, air conditioning equipment, elevator bulkheads, heat exchangers, transformers and any other equipment that, when in operation, potentially creates a noise detectable off the lot. The equipment and other facilities: (a) Shall not be located within any required setback. This Paragraph (a) shall not apply to •electrical equipment whose location is mandated by a recognized public utility, provided that project plans submitted for review by the City identify a preferred location for such equipment. (b) When on the ground, shall be permanently screened from view from adjacent public streets that are within 100 feet of the building, or from the view from abutting property in separate ownership at the property line. The screening shall consist of densely planted shrubs or trees equal or greater in height at the time of installation than the equipment or facilities to be screened, or a fence of equal or greater height that is comparable in quality to the materials used on the principal facades of the building, with no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the face of the fence open. (c) When carried above the roof, shall be permanently screened from view, from the ground, from adjacent public streets and any abutting residentially used lot or lots in a residential zoning district. The screening shall be at least 50% opaque, uniformly distributed across the screening surface. (d) Shall meet all city, state and federal noise regulations, as applicable, as certified by a professional acoustical engineer if the Department of Inspectional Services deems such certification necessary. (e) That handle trash and other waste, shall be contained within the building or screened as required in this Section until properly disposed of. 7.6 Environmental Design Standards _Page 11 of 14 April 24, 2019

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (a) This Section shall not waive the Green Building Requirements set forth in Section 22.20 of this Zoning Ordinance that may otherwise apply to an AHO Project. (b) Where the provisions of the Flood Plain Overlay District apply to an AHO Project, the performance standards set forth in Section 20.70 of this Zoning Ordinance shall apply; however, a special permit shall not be required. (c) An AHO Project shall be subject to other applicable laws, regulations, codes, and ordinances pertaining to environmental standards. (d) New outdoor light fixtures installed in an AHO Project shall be fully shielded and directed to prevent light trespass onto adjacent residential lots. 8 Advisory Design Consultation Procedure Prior to application for a building permit, the developer of an AHO Project shall comply with the following procedure, which is intended to provide an opportunity for non-binding community and staff input into the design of the project. (a) At least one community meeting shall be scheduled at a time and location that is convenient to residents in proximity to the project site. The Community Development Department (CDD) shall be notified of the time and location of such meeting, and shall give notification to each abutting property owner and to any individual or organization who each year files with CDD a written request for such notification, or to any other individual or organization CDD may wish to notify. The purpose of the community meeting(s) shall be to present preliminary project designs, answer questions from neighboring residents and other interested members of the public, and receive feedback on the design. The date(s), time(s), location(s), attendance, materials presented, and comments received at such meeting(s) shall be documented and provided to CDD. (b) Following one or more such community meeting(s), the developer shall prepare the following materials for review by the Planning Board. CDD shall review to certify that the submitted written and graphic materials provide the required information in sufficient detail. All drawings shall be drawn to scale, shall include a graphic scale and north arrow for orientation, and shall provide labeled distances and dimensions for significant building and site features. (1) A context map indicating the location of the project and surrounding land uses, including transportation facilities. (2) An existing conditions site plan depicting the boundaries of the lot, the locations of buildings, open space features, parking areas, trees, and other major site features on the lot and abutting lots, and the conditions of abutting streets. (3) A proposed conditions site plan depicting the same information above as modified to depict the proposed conditions, including new buildings (identifying building entrances and uses on the ground floor) and major anticipated changes in site features. (4) Floor plans of all proposed new buildings and existing buildings to remain on the lot. April 24, 2019 Page 12 of 14

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (5) Elevations and cross-section drawings of all proposed new buildings and existing buildings to remain on the lot, depicting the distances to lot lines and the heights of surrounding buildings, and labeling the proposed materials on each façade elevation. (6) A landscape plan depicting and labeling all hardscape, permeable, and vegetated areas proposed for the site along with other structures or appurtenances on the site. (7) Plans of parking and bicycle parking facilities, as required by Section 6.50 of this Zoning Ordinance. (8) Materials palettes cataloguing and depicting with photographs the proposed façade and landscape materials. (9) Existing conditions photographs from various vantage points on the public sidewalk, including photos of the site and of the surrounding urban context. (10)Proposed conditions perspective renderings from a variety of vantage points on the public sidewalk, including locations adjacent to the site as well as longer views if proposed buildings will be visible from a distance. . (11)A dimensional form, in a format provided by CDD, along with any supplemental materials, summarizing the general characteristics of the project and demonstrating compliance with applicable zoning requirements. (12)A brief project narrative describing the project and the design approach, and indicating how the project has been designed in relation to the citywide urban design objectives set forth in Section 19.30 of the Zoning Ordinance, any design guidelines that have been established for the area, and design guidelines established for AHO Projects in Cambridge. (c) Within 65 days of receipt of a complete set of materials by CDD, the Planning Board shall schedule a design consultation as a general business matter at a public meeting. The materials shall be made available to the public in advance, and the Planning Board may receive written comments prior to the meeting from City staff and from the general public. (d) At the scheduled design consultation, the Planning Board shall hear a presentation of the proposal from the developer and comments from the public. The Board may ask questions or seek additional information from the developer or from City staff. (e) The Planning Board shall evaluate the proposal for general compliance with the requirements of this Section, for consistency with City development guidelines prepared for the proposal area and for AHO Projects in general, for appropriateness in terms of other planned or programmed public or private development activities in the vicinity, and for consistency with the Citywide Urban Design Objectives set forth in Section 19.30. The Board may also suggest specific project adjustments and alterations to further the purposes of this Ordinance. The Planning Board shall communicate its findings in a written report provided to the developer and to CDD within 20 days of the design consultation. If The Planning Board shall com s in a written report provided to the devetoper tion-The developer may then make revisions to and to CDD within 20 days of the April 24, 2019 Page 13 of 14

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY the design, in consultation with CDD staff, and shall submit a revised set of documents along with a narrative summary of to the Planning Board's comments and changes made in response to those comments. #(g)to-The Planning Board shall review and discuss the revised documents at a second design consultation meeting, which shall proceed in accordance with Paragraphs (c) and (d) above. Following the second design consultation, the Planning Board may submit a revised and re- submit its report and either the revised report or if there are no revisions the initial report shall become the final report (the "Final Report"). Any additional design consultations to review further revisions may occur only at the discretion and on the request of the developer. (g)(h) The fEinal Report from the Planning Board shall be provided to the Superintendent of Buildings to certify compliance with the procedures set forth herein. 9 Implementation of Affordable Housing Overlay (a) The City Manager shall have the authority to promulgate regulations for the implementation of the provisions of this Section 11.207. There shall be a thirty-day review period, including a public meeting, to receive public comments on draft regulations before final promulgation. (b) The Community Development Department may develop standards and procedures appropriate to and consistent with the provisions of this Sections 11.207 and the above regulations. 910 Enforcement of Affordable Housing Overlay The Community Development Department shall certify in writing to the Superintendent of Buildings that all applicable provisions of this Section have been met before issuance of any building permit for any AHO Project, and shall further certify in writing to the Superintendent of Buildings that all documents have been filed and all actions taken necessary to fulfill the requirements of this Section before the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any such project. April 24, 2019 _Page 14 of 14

ATTACHMENTE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE Community Development Department To: Planning Board From: Jeff Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development IRAM FAROOQ Chris Cotter, Director of Housing Assistant City Manager for Community Development Date: June 20, 2019 SANDRA CLARKE Re: Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning Petition Deputy Director Chief of Administration Overview KHALIL MOGASSABI This zoning petition was developed by CDD staff working with the City Council's Housing Deputy Director Chief of Planning Committee over a series of meetings taking place in March and April, 2019. The concept of an affordable housing overlay has been a topic of discussion over the past several years, both by the Housing Committee and by the Housing Working Group of the Envision Cambridge planning process. The intent of the proposal is to establish an alternative set of zoning standards that will enable "100%-affordable housing projects," meaning residential projects in which all of the units are subject to permanent affordability restrictions, to be built throughout the city at a higher scale and density compared to what is allowed by right under current zoning requirements and through a more predictable permitting process as zoning relief will not be necessary. If adopted, this zoning proposal is expected to work in concert with the City's other affordable housing efforts, including the funding of affordable housing development and preservation through the Affordable Housing Trust, other City programs that provide financial assistance to qualifying households, and the Inclusionary Housing Requirements that require affordable units in larger market-rate developments. Information Provided This memo provides some of the background information on the petition and reviews the intent of the standards that are proposed, including affordability standards, land use, height and scale, yard setbacks, open space, parking standards, design standards, and design consultation process. This memo is supplemented by two additional resources provided for reference: • Zoning maps and charts summarizing current zoning standards in different districts in comparison with the proposed AHO standards. • Site model illustrations meant to depict the potential outcomes of the proposed AHO standards on prototypical sites with different conditions and assumptions. 344 Broadway An "FAQ" document created during discussions at the Housing Committee is also Cambridge, MA 02139 Voice: [phone removed] included for reference: Fax: [phone removed] TTY: [phone removed] www.cambridgema.gov

Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board Rationale for Affordable Housing Overlay Background Creating and expanding the City's supply of affordable housing has long been a top priority for the City and its residents. Residents have consistently ranked the need for more affordable housing as the community's most concerning issue in the City's biannual resident surveys. Worries about housing costs and the threat of displacement have become growing concerns for many households in Cambridge. The City Council has made creating and preserving affordable housing a priority goal over multiple terms, and the City continues to increase the substantial funding dedicated to producing and preserving affordable housing. Among many ideas of how to address the City's affordable housing crisis, the concept of creating a citywide affordable housing zoning overlay was first raised several years ago during affordable housing discussions with the City Council's Housing Committee. In 2015, the City Council set a goal of creating 1,000 new affordable units by the end of 2020. Responding to this goal, City staff noted that several new strategies would need to be considered, in combination with maintaining and expanding current programs and commitments, to achieve that goal. Among the new ideas discussed were: • Creating a new set of zoning standards or an overlay for affordable housing development which would allow additional development density, reduced parking and other relaxed dimensional standards to affordable housing developers to enable them to be more competitive for available sites across the city; Creating a streamlined process for the permitting of new affordable housing developments through zoning. The idea of creating zoning to give an advantage to affordable housing projects was further explored and recommended as a priority action in the Envision Cambridge planning process. Envision Cambridge sets a goal of creating 3,175 affordable housing units by 2030, of which an estimated 1,000 units would be created with City funding in 100%-affordable housing developments. Envision Cambridge recommends the following strategies for near-term consideration: Offer density bonuses and relief from other dimensional regulations for fully affordable housing developments through a citywide affordable housing overlay or other regulatory mechanism; • Modify the development approval process for fully affordable housing projects to require design review instead of a discretionary approval. Creating 100% affordable housing developments in Cambridge is very challenging and becomes more difficult each year. Rising land costs and competition from market-rate housing developers and investors make it difficult for affordable housing developers to secure buildings and sites where creating affordable housing is feasible. Affordable housing providers cannot compete with market purchasers who can afford to pay much higher prices for land and then recoup their investment through market rents and market sales prices. In evaluating more than 40 opportunities over the past three years to create new affordable housing through acquisition of existing multi-family housing, conversion of existing structures to housing, or building new housing, affordable housing providers were successful in acquiring only 4 properties. Page 2 of 16 June 20, 2019

Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board Intent The primary goal of the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) is to enable more affordable housing to be brought on-line more quickly. The AHO would allow larger buildings with more affordable units than would be allowed under the current zoning, which will improve the competitiveness of affordable housing projects against market-rate projects when sites become available. Equally important, by enabling affordable housing to be created as-of-right, affordable housing providers will be able to purchase sites which they otherwise might be reluctant to consider due to the need to seek zoning relief, and would be able to move developments into construction more quickly and make new affordable housing available in the community sooner. A secondary benefit is that the AHO would allow housing to be created in cost effective ways by reducing or eliminating certain development costs. By streamlining the permitting process and reducing the risk of an unpredictable permitting and appeal process, the AHO would allow affordable housing providers to optimize their capacity by enabling them to use their limited resources more efficiently and predictably. Affordable housing providers now must devote significant staff capacity and resources to guide a single project through a multi-year review and permitting process. Under the AHO, cost savings could be realized through reduced carrying costs and soft costs due to shortened development schedules, and affordable housing providers could lock in construction pricing more quickly and avoid escalating costs that can be a significant area of uncertainty in the current market. These cost savings would allow City affordable housing funding to go further to create more affordable units. The AHO is citywide in scope, with the goal of enabling affordable housing development in areas of Cambridge where there are fewer affordable housing options for residents and where the current zoning is too restrictive to make affordable housing feasible. For reference, a map showing where deed- restricted affordable housing is located in the city is provided. Competitiveness of Affordable Housing Projects This proposal draws from many past discussions of the CDD Housing Division, the City Council's Housing Committee, and the Envision Cambridge Housing Working Group. One of the tasks undertaken through Envision Cambridge was to study the scale of development that would enable affordable housing projects, with assumptions for the level of City subsidy needed per unit, to be competitive for sites in the current market. In general, it was found that a density of at least four times what is currently allowed in the most restrictive zoning districts and at least 2.5 times what is currently allowed in higher- density zoning districts would be needed to be competitive given current land costs. Page 3 of 16 June 20, 2019

Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board Explanation of Zoning Proposal Introduction The core concept of the AHO proposal addresses three key topics: • Establishing a set of development standards, as an alternative to the underlying base zoning, that would apply only to housing projects in which all units are subject to permanent, deed- recorded affordability restrictions. • Allowing affordable housing projects to be built at a density and scale that would make them feasible throughout the city, including in the most restrictive zoning districts, while establishing clear dimensional limitations and design standards. Providing an "as-of-right" permitting process for affordable housing projects that meet the required standards, as an alternative to the Chapter 40B "comprehensive permit" process. In current zoning, the development standards for affordable housing are the same as for any other type of housing. The one exception is that an Inclusionary Housing Project - in which at least 20% of residential space is permanently affordable - is allowed a 30% increase in density, but there is no change in the allowed height, dimensional limitations, required parking, or other standards. Inclusionary housing is required for all projects with 10 units or more. As described earlier, even greater density increases would be needed to enable projects that are entirely subject to permanent affordability restrictions to be competitive in acquiring sites. Besides density limitations, there are many zoning requirements that impact the development of housing. As discussed in more detail in the sections below, most residential projects of a significant scale : require special permits for development above a certain threshold and sometimes require relief from : other zoning standards, such as setbacks or parking. Nearly all recent affordable housing projects in Cambridge have needed some form of special permit or variance relief. Affordable housing projects have the option of seeking a comprehensive permit under Chapter 40B of Massachusetts General Laws. Through this process, projects can apply to the Board of Zoning Appeal (BZA) for zoning relief that would ordinarily require a special permit or variance, as well as relief from other local requirements. The procedures are similar to a special permit and it can take several months to reach a decision. Like a special permit, a comprehensive permit can be appealed in court by certain owners of abutting property, which can take additional months or years to resolve. The comprehensive permit process has been successfully used to create many affordable housing projects in Cambridge, but some important limitations have been identified: • Affordable housing projects cannot receive their funding commitments from non-City sources until all zoning approvals are in place. Competition for funding for affordable housing from state sources is very challenging, and often requires several years of waiting given that requests across the state well exceed the available funding, and access to state funds is generally only offered once each year. Waiting through a lengthy and uncertain approval process to begin the process to seek needed financing adds risk and uncertainty as costs can change significantly while projects are delayed. Page 4 of 16 June 20, 2019

Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board • Though affordable housing projects can seek a broad range of zoning relief, the comprehensive permit process does not provide clear and specific development standards. Therefore, it is difficult for affordable housing developers and for others to have a clear indication of what scale of affordable housing development would be acceptable on a given site, adding to the inherent unpredictability of the process. Without knowing what amount of affordable housing development might be allowable on a site, housing providers are often hesitant to take significant risk in assuming how many units might be approved. This puts affordable housing providers at a disadvantage when competing for developable sites in an aggressive real estate market, as affordable housing providers cannot compete with market-rate developers when considering similarly sized developments. The overall approach of the AHO is to move from a system in which affordable housing projects have broad latitude to seek relief through the comprehensive permit process, but where the amount of permitted development and the length and outcome of the approval process are unpredictable at the outset, to a system where there are clearly established development standards that are expected to enable at least some affordable housing projects to be feasibly developed as-of-right throughout the city. This is not entirely an "either-or" approach, since affordable housing projects will still be able to use the comprehensive permit process if needed. Other Requirements This proposed AHO would only amend the Zoning Ordinance, and would not affect other codes, ordinances, or regulations. In particular, ordinances pertaining to historic preservation or conservation would not be affected. References It is helpful to refer to the Zoning Map and Comparison Charts in the Appendix of this report when reviewing the proposed AHO standards. Affordability Standards in Proposed AHO The AHO proposal defines an "AHO Project" - a project in which all dwelling units are subject to permanent affordability restrictions - and establishes specific standards for the ongoing affordability of the units including income eligibility levels, rents and sales prices, marketing, and selection, among other standards. Eligibility would be limited to Eligible Households who meet the following income criteria upon occupancy: • Rental Units • All units to serve households earning less than 100% Area Median Income (AMI) • At least 80% of units to serve households earning less than 80% AMI • Homeownership Units • All units to serve households earning less than 100% AMI • At least 50% of units to serve households earning less than 80% AMI For context, the following table summarizes current income thresholds based on AMI: Page 5 of 16 June 20, 2019

Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board 100% AMI 80% AMI Minimum Income Household Size $79,350 1 person $62,450 Not regulated by AHO; $71,400 2 persons $90,650 set by affordable housing funding $102,000 $80,300 3 persons program $89,200 $113,300 4 persons The affordability standards would be enforced through an affordable housing covenant, recorded as a restriction on the property. The procedures for enforcement would be similar to those that have been applied under the inclusionary housing requirements. Land Use Regulations in Proposed AHO The AHO land use regulations are primarily intended to allow multifamily affordable housing throughout the city. A secondary intent is to allow ground-floor non-residential uses within an affordable housing project, consistent with the uses allowed in the underlying district. Current Zoning The Zoning Ordinance lists four use types in the general category of "family housing" - single-family and two-family detached dwellings, townhouses, and multifamily housing. Family housing consists of dwelling units with self-contained eating, sleeping, and living spaces intended for household occupancy. The AHO would not apply to other residential uses, like "group housing" such as dormitories, lodging houses, or elderly congregate housing, or "transient accommodations" such as hotels and motels. Currently, multifamily housing is allowed in all districts of the city except the following (refer to the Zoning Map in the appendix for details): • Residence A-1 and A-2 only allow single-family dwellings, though the conversion of an existing single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling is allowed if the exterior is not changed. • Residence B allows single-family, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, though townhouse projects with at least 6 units require a special permit from the Planning Board. Approximately 24% of land in the city is in one of the above districts that prohibits multifamily housing. In other districts, multifamily housing is not always allowed as-of-right. In lower-scale multifamily districts (Residence C, C-1, C-1A), a multifamily project of 12 units or more requires a special permit from the Planning Board (the same requirement applies to townhouse developments). In some industrial districts (Industry A, B-1, B-2, and B), all residential development requires a special permit from the Planning Board. Approximately 23% of land in the city is in one of the above districts where multifamily housing would at least sometimes require a special permit to approve the use (housing in other districts may also require special permits for other reasons, as discussed below). Page 6 of 16 June 20, 2019

Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board Proposed AHO Zoning Affordable housing projects usually take the form of multifamily housing because it is the most economical type to build in an urban environment like Cambridge. The AHO would allow multifamily AHO projects as an as-of-right use in all zoning districts (except Open Space districts, where the AHO would not apply). An AHO Project could also include townhouses or detached dwellings. While the AHO is primarily intended to apply to affordable housing units, non-residential uses are allowed at the ground floor of an AHO Project to the extent that they are otherwise allowed in the district. This exception is made to promote the overall planning goal and the desire in the community for ground-floor activation. In some cases (discussed further below), such non-residential use would be required at the ground floor for an AHO Project. Height, Density, and Scale Standards in Proposed AHO The AHO standards are intended to allow affordable housing at a density that will make them competitive in site acquisition with market-rate housing developers, while also establishing clear and predictable limitations on the height and scale of development. Current Zoning The Zoning Ordinance currently regulates the overall scale of housing development through a combination of standards. Density limitations, including floor area ratio (FAR) and lot area per dwelling unit (effectively, the "unit density"), determine the amount of floor area and number of dwelling units that can be built on a given lot in a given district. Height limits, along with other dimensional controls (discussed below), define a physical "building envelope" in which the floor area and units can be built., The range of density and height limitations for different base zoning districts are shown in the appendix. A 30% increase in density, but not in height, is allowed for inclusionary housing projects. Different types and scales of development 'result from the intéraction of these controls. For example, a 6,000 square-foot lot has the same 35-foot height limit in Residence A-1 and Residence C-1 districts. Due to the difference in density controls, the A-1 lot would only be allowed to have one dwelling unit and 3,000 square feet of gross floor area, while the C-1 lot would be allowed to have four dwelling units and 4,500 square feet of total gross floor area, or 1,125 square feet of gross floor area for each allowed unit. Although height and density are generally regulated on an as-of-right basis, there are some thresholds in project scale that trigger special permit review for larger-scale residential projects (in addition to the aforementioned townhouse and multifamily special permit requirements in residential districts): • Planned Unit Development (PUD) districts and Alewife Overlay Districts (AODs), along with some other special districts and overlay districts, have more restrictive height and density controls that apply as-of-right while allowing greater height and density by special permit. Projects must demonstrate compliance with criteria that are particular to the planning for that district in order to receive approval for higher-scale development. • Project Review Special Permit requirements in Section 19.20 require Planning Board review and approval of residential projects exceeding 50,000 square feet in most parts of the city and 20,000 square feet in the BA, BA-1, and BA-2 zoning districts. Projects are reviewed against Page 7 of 16 June 20, 2019

Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board citywide urban design objectives and traffic impact indicators, and requirements for mitigation are incorporated into special permit conditions. Proposed AHO Standards The background analysis for this proposal showed that significant increases in density would be needed for affordable housing projects to be competitive in acquiring sites on the market. Although there is variability from one site to another, the analysis concluded that an FAR of about 2.0 is needed to be viable in more restrictive residential districts, and as much as 2.5 times the currently allowed density would be needed in higher-density districts. These outcomes could not be achieved simply by increasing FAR and unit density (as with the inclusionary housing requirements), but require increased height and greater flexibility in other dimensional limitations. Using these density measures as targets, the AHO proposal takes a different approach by setting a limit on the number of stories above grade, along with overall height limits in feet, instead of directly regulating density. Two sets of height and scale standards are proposed for AHO Projects, depending on the characteristics of the underlying zoning, as summarized in the chart below (refer to the accompanying map and detailed charts): АНО Projects can be up to: If the district allows: 40 feet or less 4 stories above grade, 45 feet max. / 50 feet with active ground floor More than 40 feet 7 stories above grade, 80 feet max., reduced to 5 stories and 60 feet max. within 35 feet of an abutting district allowing 40 feet or less The first set of districts mainly includes 35-foot lower-scale residential and mixed-use districts (one "special district" has a height limit of 40 feet). The proposed four-story limit would be one floor taller than the three-story character that prevails in most of these areas. The second set of districts includes a range of different larger-scale residential and mixed-use districts. Even in districts that allow heights taller than 80 feet, the AHO standards would only apply to projects up to seven stories. The principle is that in these districts, optimizing the scale of mid-rise construction is a way to make affordable housing projects competitive with other market-rate development that might otherwise be allowed. Each story would have a height (floor-to-floor) of at least 10 feet. The overall height limit is determined assuming 10 feet per story plus an additional 5 feet for residential projects (to accommodate some elevation of the ground floor and/or slightly taller floor-to-floor heights on some floors), or an additional 10 feet for projects that might include an active space (to enable taller floor-to-floor heights at the ground level). These standards are typical for contemporary residential or mixed-use projects. There are a few main reasons for choosing this approach: • Height is a community concern. Discussions with community members revealed the importance of being clear about how project scale is communicated through zoning. Density metrics like FAR and lot area per dwelling unit, are more difficult to interpret in a meaningful way than height and scale. Establishing a "building envelope" by limiting how tall buildings can be and defining Page 8 of 16 June 20, 2019

Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board the horizontal footprint through setbacks and other dimensional controls is more understandable, and the outcome is similar to regulating FAR. • Standards need to be prioritized. An AHO Project needs to meet all development standards, so every additional regulation or limitation reduces the range of potential projects that can conform. The AHO is already very limiting by requiring permanent affordability restrictions for every unit in a project, and the number of viable projects will be further limited by the amount 'of subsidy available to support their development. This is not a reason to not have any standards, but if the goal is to make more affordable housing projects viable, it is important to be thoughtful about choosing and prioritizing standards that will achieve the appropriate balance between control and flexibility. • The purpose is to enable the creation of affordable units. There is nothing intrinsically special about FAR and lot area per dwelling unit, they are abstract measures of the "amount" of development on a lot. There could be limitations on density in addition to height and stories, but the direct result would be to limit the number and/or size of affordable units that could be created. If the AHO is intended to result in more affordable units, then it is rational for the development controls to focus on specific areas of concern such as height, bulk, and other development characteristics rather than limiting the number of affordable units. This proposal attempts to balance the additional density needed to make affordable housing projects viable with the interest in setting standards that are compatible with the context of the area, even while the scale of development is greater than what is allowed under current zoning. Yard Setback Standards in Proposed AHO The AHO proposal intends to reduce the complexity in current yard or setback requirements, establish clear and consistent standards across lower-scale residential districts, and not be more restrictive than current standards in higher-scale residential and mixed-use districts. Current Zoning The required front, side, and rear yard setbacks - the distance between a lot line and the façade of a building - can be very complicated in ways that have significant impacts on residential development. The following are some types of standards that in many cases result in the need for variance or special permit relief: • "Formula" setbacks: In many districts, required setbacks are based not on fixed distances but on a calculation using the height of the building and the length of the building parallel to a lot line. For example, a required side yard setback of "(H+L) ÷ 5" means the height of the building (e.g., 45 feet) plus the length along that side (e.g., 50 feet) all divided by 5 (in this example, 19 feet). The calculations are further complicated by provisos in Section 5.24.4, which allow variations for circumstances such as buildings with multi-plane facades. These requirements are difficult to understand and often do not establish a clear building envelope. Different setbacks for different uses: In some mixed-use districts, residential development follows one set of setback rúles (usually those of a referenced residential base district) while non-residential development follows different rules, or does not have any requirement at all. Page 9 of 16 June 20, 2019

Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board This can result in incongruous development patterns within a district, especially for mixed-use buildings (such as housing with ground-floor retail) where separate sections of the building are subject to different standards. • Unique district requirements: Some districts have complex, detailed provisions that do not apply elsewhere. One prominent example is the Residence C-2B district, where the setback requirements apply to portions of the building that are above and below grade. A result of this provision is that because residential development requires parking, and parking is usually provided below grade, it can be difficult to provide parking without violating the below-grade setback requirements. This provision does not apply in other residential districts, but it affects Business A (BA) districts where residential development must follow the C-2B standards. Proposed AHO Standards The AHO proposal takes a more simplified approach by establishing "baseline" setback requirements of 10 feet in the front yard, 7.5 feet on each side yard, and 20 feet in the rear yard, comparable to the minimum requirements in Residence C-1 districts if the "formula" calculations are disregarded. There are two exceptions where these baseline setbacks can be modified: • If the underlying zoning establishes a less restrictive numerical setback standard (not counting the "formula" requirements), the less restrictive standard applies. The intent is to allow buildings to match the prevailing setbacks in areas such as mixed-use corridors, where buildings . might have a reduced front yard or might be built to the lot line. • Where the average front yard setbacks of the two buildings adjacent to a lot are less than what is otherwise required, then an AHO project's front yard may be reduced to the average of the. two adjacent buildings. This concept is applied in the current zoning for the Residence A-1, A-2, and B districts. The intent is to allow front yards to match the surrounding context. Open Space Standards in Proposed AHO The AHO proposal intends to reduce the complexity in current open space requirements while establishing consistent standards that are generally comparable to the current requirements in multifamily residential districts and maintain requirements for permeability. Current Zoning Open space includes areas that are open to the sky and usable by pedestrians, and excludes parking and driveways for vehicles. Structures are generally prohibited, but open space can contain trees, plantings, arbors, fences, flagpoles, sculpture, fountains, recreational and drying apparatus, bicycle parking, and Requirements for open space usually set a minimum ratio of open space area to the total area of a lot (expressed as a percentage of lot area. The requirements get somewhat more complicated in the types of open space that must be provided • Private Open Space: Residential developments are generally required to include private open space, for use by the occupants of the building. A complication with private open space is that it must have a minimum dimension of 15 feet by 15 feet, which is a significant constraint for many Page 10 of 16 June 20, 2019

Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board sites. In Residence A-1, A-2, B, C, and C-1 districts, only half of the required open space must meet the minimum 15'x15' dimension. Non-residential development is not required to provide private open space, but in special districts and unique cases like Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) other kinds of open space might be required. • Green Area and Permeable Open Space: Green area is a subset of open space consisting of living trees, grass, ground cover, bushes, shrubs, and/or similar vegetation, water and other natural features. Permeable open space includes green area but can also include permeable surface materials such as rocks, pebbles, wood chips, or unit pavers. Green area and permeable area each allow some amount of paved pedestrian walkways. In Residence A-1, A-2, B, C, and C- 1 districts, at least half of the required open space on the lot must be permeable. There are no generalizable requirements for green area open space, but in some districts certain yards are required to be green area. • At-Grade Open Space vs. Above-Grade Balconies and Decks: Current zoning requires at least half of required private open space to be at ground level or within 10 feet of the lowest residential floor, with open space at other levels such as balconies, decks, and roofs allowed to count for no more than 25% of the required private open space. Proposed AHO Standards For an AHO Project, the required open space would be 30% of a lot, except where the underlying zoning establishes a lower requirement. This is commensurate with the required open space ratio in the Residence C-1 district, and less than the requirement in the Residence A-1, A-2, B, and C districts. Some flexibility is provided by allowing the ratio to be reduced to no less than 15% for two purposes: to : accommodate surface parking if it is provided, or to accommodate the preservation of a designated i historic structure. This intent of this flexibility is to acknowledge that parking and historic preservation can have impacts on how lot area is used, which could be in tension with open space requirements. These provisions could be reevaluated depending on a closer evaluation of priorities. Parking and historic preservation are topics that are discussed further in this memo. The proposed AHO also attempts to simplify and clarify some the complexity in the current zoning by setting the following standards in place of the varied standards that might apply in current zoning, depending on the project and the district: • All of the required open space must be at the ground level or the level of the lowest story above grade. • At least half of the required open space must be permeable. • Bicycle parking may be counted as open space (as it is in current zoning), but not as permeable open space. • The 15'x15' dimensional standards would not apply. In some cases, these standards are more restrictive than current zoning, but they are meant to provide consistency while not greatly impacting project feasibility. Page 11 of 16 June 20, 2019

Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board Parking Standards in Proposed AHO The proposed AHO parking requirements are intended to create more flexibility than the current zoning by reducing the minimum parking requirements from the current citywide standard of one space per unit and by providing additional options to satisfy parking requirements off-site. Current Zoning Article 6.000 of the Zoning Ordinance contains many standards for parking. Residential development is typically required to provide one off-street parking space per dwelling unit. Spaces usually need to be provided on-site, with some flexibility for off-site arrangements. Zoning also requires long-term, secure bicycle parking for residential projects at a rate of one space per unit, with a slight increase for larger projects. In general, loading bays are not required for residential projects. Although there are many detailed standards for parking and bicycle parking, including standards for layout and access, many standards can be modified by special permit. Residential projects often seek and receive special permits for parking reductions, off-site parking, modifications to layout standards, or other types of relief. Proposed AHO Standards The overall intent is to provide flexibility in areas where affordable housing projects often need to seek special permits for relief from parking requirements. Greater flexibility does not necessarily mean that parking would not be provided, but that the amount of parking and the manner in which it is provided would be determined in larger part by the anticipated needs of that particular project and the particular constraints of the site. The following two principles provide the rationale for the AHO parking requirements: • Not requiring more parking than necessary. A review of affordable housing developments finds that parking utilization tends to average approximately 0.4 space per dwelling unit, which is proposed as the baseline standard for AHO Projects. There are existing affordable housing developments with excess parking, and in some cases that could be shared with new AHO Projects. Minimum parking is also waived in proximity to transit, where reduced parking demand would be expected. The required amount of bicycle parking does not change, except that there is more flexibility in where and how it can be provided and an opportunity for some reduction in exchange for providing bicycle-sharing facilities (i.e., Bluebikes). • Acknowledging that parking can affect other project goals. Providing parking involves many tradeoffs. The direct cost of parking can make the affordable housing less feasible, especially when it must be provided in structures or below grade. Parking also uses significant space on a site, which can cause tension with other design objectives, such as open space. The need for driveways and access aisles can impact other uses on the lot as well as neighboring lots, and curb cuts can reduce the availability of on-street parking. The flexibility provided in parking and bicycle parking standards is meant to provide more options so that the needs of the project can be met in ways that will be the most minimally impactful. Because the impacts can be more substantial in the case of smaller sites, the parking requirements are waived for projects requiring up to four spaces, so that the site would not need to be disrupted by driveways and Page 12 of 16 June 20, 2019

Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board curb cuts to provide a small number of parking spaces. Parking would also not be required for units within existing buildings or for an AHO Project that preserves a designated historic building, which might also be negatively impacted if curb cuts, driveways, and parking spaces were added. Design Standards in Proposed AHO The AHO proposal aims to consolidate and streamline many of the design-based standards that are applicable to residential development in different areas of the city, and to introduce some new standards that address issues that often arise for residential projects during urban design review by the Planning Board. The proposed standards are expected to be the subject of continued review and discussion, particularly as urban design guidelines are developed to inform the development of affordable housing projects. Current Zoning The Zoning Ordinance contains many standards related to project design that are more refined than the use, scale, and dimensional limitations discussed earlier. Some standards are applicable citywide, such as the Building and Site Plan Requirements in Section 19.50 that apply to projects of 25,000 square feet or more. Others are applicable in specific areas, including the Central Square, Harvard Square, Massachusetts Avenue, Prospect Street, and Parkway Overlay Districts, and other special zoning districts. There are also design standards related to environmental performance, including the Green Building Requirements in Section 22.20 and the Flood Plain Overlay District standards in Section 20.70. Many of these standards (with the notable exception of environmental performance standards) can be modified or waived by special permit from the Planning Board, and often the projects that are subject to these requirements trigger some other threshold requiring Planning Board review. Therefore, even though these existing design standards can be applied administratively in some cases, they often receive attention through a special permit review process that accounts for the particular characteristics of a site. Proposed AHO Standards The proposed AHO design standards are modeled on standards applied elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance, but for simplicity they are consolidated into one list and tailored to apply to affordable housing projects in particular. The issue - and the challenge - for design standards under the AHO concept is to be specific enough to ensure acceptable outcomes without relying on special permit review, but also to be flexible enough to allow for a variety of outcomes that are appropriate to the project and the site. As discussed earlier, more extensive and restrictive standards will inevitably result in more projects that are infeasible or require some form of relief. The environmental performance standards that currently apply to other residential projects are not modified in the proposed AHO and would continue to apply. Moreover, the City is in the process of considering additional standards, including increased minimum standards for Green Building Requirements that are recommended in the Net Zero Action Plan and expected to be introduced as a zoning petition later this year, and a Climate Resilience Zoning Task Force that is working to recommend zoning changes to mitigate increasing flooding and heat impacts by the end of this year. Nothing is Page 13 of 16 June 20, 2019

Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board certain until these changes are adopted, but it is the current expectation that they would apply to affordable housing projects along with other types of development. The following summarizes the intent in each subsection of design standards, aside from the environmental performance standards: • Site Design and Arrangement: These standards are based on Section 19.50 and other district standards where the intent is to promote a pedestrian-friendly character along the street. They would require appropriate functions along a site's street frontage, ensure that access and egress is primarily pedestrian-oriented, and avoid large unbroken stretches of building. • Building Façades: These standards are based on typical guidelines and expectations for buildings with a residential character, promoting an appropriate minimum façade area of clear windows on public spaces, articulation to avoid long flat (plane) façades (with variation at the roof and ground levels), and architectural elements that provide depth around windows. Ground Floors: These standards are based on Section 19.50 and other district standards where the intent is to have a positive relationship between the functions at the ground floor of the building and the streetscape. They are intended to avoid "sunken" ground floors, structured parking along the ground floor frontage, or unbroken stretches of ground floor frontage without windows and doors. They also require an active ground-floor use if the site formerly included retail and if there is also retail on an abutting site, to maintain continuity. • Mechanical Equipment, Refuse Storage, and Loading Areas: These standards are essentially the same as in Section 19.50. Preservation of Existing Buildings in Proposed AHO One of the key issues voiced in the community is how the AHO might impact the preservation of existing buildings. There are various ways that the AHO, both in concept and in provisions included throughout the proposal, is intended to facilitate and encourage the preservation of existing buildings where they can be feasibly integrated into an affordable housing development. The proposed AHO would only regulate zoning requirements, and AHO Projects would be required to comply with other historic preservation and conservation requirements. Among other requirements, all proposed AHO Projects that would require a demolition permit to conduct the demolition of buildings that are at least fifty years old would need to apply to the Historical Commission for review pursuant to the City's Demolition Delay Ordinance, Chapter 2.78, Article Il of the Municipal Code. The Zoning Ordinance regulates what new buildings can be built and how existing buildings can be modified. Zoning does not regulate whether buildings can be demolished, but can create incentives by making the preservation of buildings less cumbersome. Current Zoning The first Cambridge Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1924, when the city was already developed in large part. Pre-1924 development was varied and the Zoning Ordinance has been amended many times since then. The result is that many buildings - including most residential buildings built in the 19th and 20th centuries - do not meet some current standards in the Zoning Ordinance, making them non- conforming buildings. Page 14 of 16 June 20, 2019

Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board The Zoning Ordinance does contain provisions that allow for legally non-conforming buildings to be maintained for their existing use. However, altering or reusing an existing building can often require zoning relief. The following are some typical zoning issues that might arise when an existing structure is being repurposed for a new residential use: • If a project increases the number of dwelling units or amount of floor area, even within the existing structure, it could require a variance. Non-residential structures can be converted to residential use by special permit, but with requirements and limitations. Even where dwelling units can be added without a variance, it may be difficult to add parking spaces, resulting in negative impacts to the building or the site or requiring a special permit for relief. • Making additions or alterations to a non-conforming structure could require a special permit or variance, depending on the circumstances. • Because of the complexity and variation in setback and open space requirements, making a change to a residential use can affect the requirements in unexpected ways whether or not physical changes are being made to the building, sometimes triggering new non-conforming conditions that would require relief. Proposed AHO Zoning The following aspects of the AHO proposal intends to remove some of the typical zoning barriers when repurposing existing buildings: • By allowing existing buildings to be used, and by not directly limiting density, it would be more feasible for a large existing building to be converted to affordable housing units without needing a variance. In addition, existing buildings would be exempt from minimum parking requirements, so the need for parking spaces and/or curb cuts would not be an impediment. • Simplifying the setback and open space requirements, particularly by eliminating formula setback calculations, means that alterations and additions are easier to make without causing changes to the formulas that often result in new non-conformities. • Conforming additions and alterations to a non-conforming structure would be allowed as-of- right, without needing a special permit. Existing buildings could also be moved on the lot if they do not exacerbate any existing non-conformities. • Flexibility is provided for typical improvements that are usually necessary or desirable for an affordable housing project but can otherwise require zoning relief, such as adding to a building's insulation to improve energy performance or making accessibility improvements for people with disabilities. With all zoning, it is ultimately the choice of the property owner whether to use an existing building or construct new. Affordable housing projects very often include the preservation of existing buildings, sometimes because reusing a building is a cost-effective way to provide housing, or sometimes because there is a historic interest in preserving and adding to an existing building instead of demolishing and building new. The intent of the AHO is to make these types of projects more feasible without needing zoning relief through the comprehensive permit process. Page 15 of 16 June 20, 2019

Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning Petition - Memo to Planning Board Design Consultation Process in Proposed AHO The AHO proposes a non-binding review process, conducted by the Planning Board, as an opportunity to provide public input into the design of a project but without requiring special permit approval. Current Zoning Article 19.000 of the zoning ordinance contains several different project review processes applicable in different cases, some conducted by staff, some conducted through a non-binding review by the public or by an appointed advisory committee (or in some cases the Planning Board), and in the largest cases through a special permit approval process. Projects that require non-binding review are often subject to other prescriptive design standards that are administratively applied, so the review process is helpful to provide site-specific input. Affordable housing projects seeking comprehensive permits are reviewed by the Planning Board, which provides a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeal (BZA). As part of their review, it is typical for the Planning Board to consider the urban design objectives and guidelines that normally inform a special permit review and to recommend ways in which the design could be improved. Those comments are incorporated into a report that is sent to the BZA, and in the interim, CDD staff works with the developer to review improvements made in response to the Board's comments. Proposed AHO Zoning The proposed AHO consultation process is modeled on the current non-binding "Large Project Review" design consultation in Section 19.40, but with a few key differences: • The process would be conducted by the Planning Board. Public comment would be taken. * • There would be required community engagement meetings prior to Planning Board review, similar to the engagement currently described in the Planning Board Rules for special permit • A developer would have to meet at least twice with the Planning Board, first to make an initial proposal and receive comments and suggestions, and then to present any changes made in response to the initial comments. In practice, the process is expected to be similar to how the Planning Board currently reviews affordable housing projects, with the notable exception that the comments are made directly to the developer and to staff instead of to the BZA. Design Guidelines CDD has recently engaged with urban design consultants to develop a set of design guidelines specific to affordable housing projects that might be built under the proposed AHO. The purpose of these guidelines would be to inform affordable housing developers in designing projects that respond to the City's objectives, as well as informing CDD staff and the Planning Board in the process of reviewing and providing feedback on the designs. The process of creating the guidelines is still at an early stage, but it is expected that material will be presented and discussed at future meetings in the hearing process. Page 16 of 16 June 20, 2019

ATTACWMENTD City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal Consolidated List of Frequently Asked Questions (as of April 24, 2019) Page List of FAQS .4 INTRODUCTION 4 1. Why does Cambridge need an Affordable Housing Overlay? ... 4 2. What is the Affordable Housing Overlay? ............... 4 QUESTIONS REGARDING HOW THE OVERLAY WOULD WORK.. 4 3. What does "as-of-right" mean? Why is this part of the proposal? 4. Why does the plan propose a shift from a FAR to Form-Based Design approach? What does a Form- ..5 Based Approach mean? How does a form-based approach impact scale, volume and density? 5. How will design review happen? Would this proposal mean that abutters have no say in the 5 process?... 6 6. Who would be able to take advantage of this zoning overlay? 7. What would prevent for-profit developers from coming in, tearing down a building, building a newer, larger building under what would now be allowed under the Affardable Hausing Overlay, and' 6 then converting to market-rate luxury housing? 8. Does the Overlay create two sets of rules, one for non-profit developers and one for for-profit 6 developers? Can we limit eligibility of the zoning overlay to non-profit developers only? ... 6 QUESTIONS REGARDING PROPOSED OVERLAY DESIGN PROVISIONS . 9. What are the proposed front yard setback requirements? Could the minimum front setback be 6 reduced to match the setbacks of existing adjacent buildings? ..7 10. What height restrictions are being proposed? Will transitions between districts be required? 7 11. How would the Overlay impact open space in the community? 7 12. What are the provisions for street level retail space in the Affordable Housing Overlay? 7 QUESTIONS REGARDING IMPACT ON EXISTING STRUCTURES AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION 7 13. How would the Overlay interact with historic requirements? ..7 14. The Overlay references the State Historic Register. What does this mean? 8 15. Would the Overlay allow the conversion of an existing house to individual units?.. 16. Could a developer re-use an existing building and also build new housing on the same site, through .8 an addition or separate structure? How would this work?

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ . 8 17. Can buildings be torn down?.. 8 18. Will building be torn down? , 8 QUESTIONS REGARDING SUSTAINABILITY AND GREEN DESIGN. ..8 19. What will the green building requirements be? 20. How will recommendations from the Climate Resilience Zoning Task Force interact with the new Affordable Housing Overlay? Will recommendations from the Task Force be incorporated into the ...9 zoning?. 21. Could affordable housing developed under the overlay be required to comply with the City's new Net Zero requirements in advance of when these new requirements are scheduled to take effect for all ..9 residential development? .9 QUESTIONS ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING .9 22. What is affordable housing?.... 23. Who lives in affordable housing and how are they chosen? How do we ensure they are eligible? Is 9 this how the process would work for housing developed under the Overlay? 24. What does an income limit mean? Would a single person earning less than $56,000 be eligible for any housing created under the Affordable Housing Overlay? .. ...10 ...10 25. What does 100%-affordable mean? Would mixed-income be better?... ..10 26. How is affordability maintained over the long-term? What are the mechanics? .. 27. What % of Cambridge's housing stock is currently affordable? How has that changed? What is the ..11 goa? How will this proposal help achieve that goal 28. How much local subsidy is needed to produce a unit of affordable housing? How much is appropriated annually? Based on this, can we estimate how many units could be expected to be ..11 created annually? .... ...11 29. What is the Affordable Housing Trust and what role would it play if any? ...11 QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE - WHAT CAN WE EXPECT?. 30. Can the City prepare case studies of potential projects? Can staff produce models or provide ...12 photos of how the Overlay might work?….. 31. I am concerned that this will destroy neighborhoods. What would prevent people from tearing 12 down their homes and building much larger structures? 32. How does this proposal relate to the Envision Cambridge population projections? Will the ..12 Affordable Housing Overlay result in an increase in population?. ...12 33. How many affordable units per year would be expected with this Overlay? ..12 34. Can we identify parcels or site types where the Overlay will be applied? 35. Is it.true that developers would tear down any existing building in order to maximize density on the lot?... .13 36. Is it true that the majority of the units created will be small units, such as studios and ..13 one bedrooms, in order to make development feasible? Page 2 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ ..13 OTHER QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE OVERLAY 37. If this proposal is not increasing the amount of affordable housing that could otherwise be built, .13 why is the Overlay being proposed? .... 38. Will any housing developers actually take advantage of the Affordable Housing Overlay? It does .. 13 not appear that it would provide profits to the developer, or even be financially feasible. 39. Why not limit the Affordable Housing Overlay to the corridors and areas of the city where there is ......14 already more density? ..... 40. Can we require that housing developed under the overlay include a middle-income component? ..14 Can we expand eligibility up to 120% AMI? 41. Can we require that housing developed under the Affordable Housing Overlay includes a ..14 homeownership component?.. 42. Will the Overlay provisions require that housing developed under the Affordable Housing Overlay ..14 includes family-sized requirement? ..14 43. 'Can the Overlay eliminate the need for curb cut approvals by the City Council? ...14 44. Should this be called an overlay if it applies to the whole city? Page 3 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ INTRODUCTION 1. Why does Cambridge need an Affordable Housing Overlay? It has become increasingly challenging for affordable housing providers to build new affordable housing in new buildings with public funding which are 100%-affordable. Cambridge residents have growing concerns about displacement and increasing rents and have consistently ranked the lack of affordable housing as an area of significant concern. For many years, the City has made creating and preserving affordable housing a priority goal. However, several factors make the goal of creating new affordable housing increasingly challenging to achieve: a. Land and construction costs continue to climb b. Cuts at the federal level have reduced funding for housing (despite increased funding at the City level) c. The current zoning requirements for areas where it is feasible to build new affordable housing. For example, in many neighborhoods, zoning does not allow multifamily housing and imposes requirements such as density limits, dimensional constraints, and parking requirements that are especially burdensome for affordable housing projects. 2. What is the Affordable Housing Overlay? The proposal is to create a citywide zoning overlay to enable 100%-affordable housing developments to better compete with market-rate development. For 100%-affordable projects that meet the requirements of the Affordable Housing Overlay, this would allow the following: a. Increased density allowance through a form-based zoning approach that sets limits on the allowed height and number of stories in a building and provides clear dimensional standards (setbacks, open space) and other requirements rather than limiting the number of housing units' allowed by imposing floor area ratios and a lot area per dwelling unit ratio b. Multi-family and townhouse developments in areas where they are not currently allowed c. Conversion of larger residential buildings to affordable multifamily housing d. Development under the AHO provisions is as-of-right and does not require discretionary zoning relief (i.e., a special permit or variance), but there would be an advisory consultation process to gather community input and receive non-binding design review by the Planning Board The Overlay will help the City's affordable housing partners pursue new opportunities to create affordable housing in all neighborhoods by allowing affordable housing developers to build larger buildings than would otherwise be allowed and streamlining the permitting process to allow 100%-affordable housing developments to move to construction more quickly to help reduce development costs and use public funding more effectively. QUESTIONS REGARDING HOW THE OVERLAY WOULD WORK 3. What does "as-of-right" mean? Why is this part of the proposal? a. Fundamentally, the Zoning Ordinance regulates what types of development are allowed and what types are not, based on characteristics such as the use and dimensions of a building or site. A Page 4 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ development that meets all zoning requirements is considered "as-of-right" and may proceed to obtain a building permit. For a variety of reasons, many projects in Cambridge are not "as-of- right" because they do not meet all zoning requirements and they require special permits or variances from the Planning Board or the Board of Zoning Appeal. b. Affordable housing projects tend to be infeasible in many parts of the city under current zoning and therefore, need special permits and/or variances to be developed. State law (Chapter 40B) allows a streamlined comprehensive permit process for affordable housing projects seeking special permits and variances, but even though the process is streamlined, applicants still must go through a permitting process before the Board of Zoning Appeal. Comprehensive permits (like special permits and variances) are also subject to appeals that can add significant costs, take years to resolve, and tie up resources and capacity of affordable housing developers while they are pending. The time, cost, and uncertainty of the process makes it more challenging for affordable housing projects to secure outside funding commitments and adds to the challenge of competing with market-rate developers to acquire usable sites. The goal of the Affordable Housing Overlay is to set out clear and predictable requirements for affordable housing projects throughout the city. These requirements would be more permissive than current zoning but would still set specific limitations based on project scale and other development characteristics. Projects would be approved and could proceed in a predictable way if they meet the requirements. 4. Why does the plan propose a shift from a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to Form-Based Design approach? What does a Form-Based Approach mean? How does a form-based approach impact scale, volume and density? a. A form-based approach to zoning is one that primarily regulates the type and scale of buildings allowed in an area, rather than relying on density metrics such as FAR and lot area per dwelling • unit. In this case, affordable housing projects would be regulated based on the number of stories allowed, along with overall height limits, setback and open space requirements, and other standards for building and site design. b. The intent of the proposal is to allow affordable housing to be built at a greater density than allowed by underlying zoning in order to make more sites feasible for the development of affordable units. The form-based approach is being proposed, in part, because of concerns raised in community discussions around the height and scale of buildings. Directly regulating the height and scale (in terms of the number of stories) of an affordable housing development helps provide a degree of clarity and predictability to the outcomes, while providing enough flexibility to make affordable housing projects feasible at a greater density. c. While the approach proposed can be described as "form-based," the adoption of a comprehensive form-based zoning code, as seen in some other communities, is not being proposed. The proposed zoning would still be an overlay that modifies the underlying zoning requirements and is applicable only to one type of development, affordable housing projects. 5. How will design review happen? Would this proposal mean that abutters have no say in the process? a. The intent of the proposal is to create less restrictive zoning requirements for affordable housing • projects so fewer projects would require special permits or variances, which are subject to appeal. By making certain affordable housing development allowable "as-of-right" the Overlay would enable projects to obtain building permits based on an established set of requirements without needing special approval processes that are subject to appeal, the Overlay includes multiple Page 5 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ opportunities for public input including at initial meetings with the affordable housing developer and throughout the Planning Board advisory review process. While the Planning Board recommendations would be non-binding, all housing developed under the Overlay would need to meet certain threshold design criteria in order to be eligible. There will also be multiple opportunities for public input in the threshold design requirements as they are developed. 6. Who would be able to take advantage of this zoning overlay? a. Only projects in which all units have permanent affordability restrictions would be able to benefit from the proposed zoning. Most of the 100%-affordable projects in Cambridge are currently developed by non-profit (e.g. Homeowners Rehab, Inc. and Just-A-Start) and public (Cambridge Housing Authority) entities. However, any developer - public, non-profit, or private - building 100%-affordable housing would be able to utilize the Affordable Housing Overlay zoning. Private developers building market-rate housing (with required inclusionary housing) would not benefit from the 100%-affordable housing overlay. 7. What would prevent for-profit developers from coming in, tearing down a building, building a new, larger building under the Affordable Housing Overlay zoning requirements, and then converting the building to market-rate luxury housing? a. Only projects in which all units have permanent affordability restrictions would be able to benefit from the Overlay. The City would monitor compliance with these restrictions and would have enforcement authority if the restrictions were violated. As a result, it would not be possible for an owner to rent or sell units created under the Affordable Housing Overlay at prices which were not affordable, as approved by the City. 8. Does the Overlay create two sets of rules, one for non-profit developers and one for for-profit developers? Can we limit eligibility of the zoning overlay to non-profit developers only? a. Zoning does not and cannot distinguish between types of developers. b. The Overlay is available to any developer of an eligible AHO Project. c. The Overlay offers a tradeoff of less restrictive zoning in exchange for 100% permanent affordability. The tradeoff is voluntary and available to any type of property owner. However, it is unlikely to be attractive to most property owners because permanently affordable units do not generate property value. While private developers can access subsidy funding to create affordable housing, very few do given the complexity of affordable housing financing, long-term affordability restrictions required by funders, and the limited returns when compared to developing market-rate housing. QUESTIONS REGARDING PROPOSED OVERLAY DESIGN PROVISIONS 9. What are the proposed front yard setback requirements? Could the minimum front yard setback be reduced to match the setbacks of existing adjacent buildings? a.. Under the proposal, the minimum front yard setback for an affordable housing project would be 10 feet, unless the underlying district requirement is already less than 10 feet. The required setback could be further reduced to be the average of the front yard setbacks for buildings on either side of the site. Page 6 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ 10. What height restrictions are being proposed? Will transitions between districts be required? a. Under the proposal, where existing district standards allow a maximum building height of 40 feet or less, an AHO Project would be allowed to go up to four stories and a maximum of 45 feet. An AHO which contains active non-residential uses on the ground floor would be allowed to go up to 50 feet, while not exceeding four stories. b. Under the proposal, where existing district standards allow a maximum building height of more than 40 feet, an AHO Project would be allowed to go up to seven stories and a maximum of 80 feet. c. To transition from districts that allow taller heights to districts that only allow lower heights, the proposal includes a suggested "step-down" to five stories (60 feet) for portions of buildings that are within 35 feet of the lower-height districts, except in cases where the building abuts a non- residential use. 11. How would the Overlay impact open space in the community? a. Areas within an Open Space District will not be impacted by the Overlay. • b. Housing created under the affordable housing overlay will need to comply with the requirements for private open space set forth in the Overlay, which would be 30% of the lot area except in districts where the current zoning already requires less open space or under specific instances where the requirement may be reduced to no less than 15% open space, if certain criteria are satisfied. 12. What are the provisions for street level retail space in the Affordable Housing Overlay? a. Neighborhood retail provides an important amenity to residents and creating new housing benefits small retailers by growing their customer base. Affordable housing developments built in active corridors already often incorporate street level retail. As proposed, the Overlay provisions would include a requirement to design ground floor space to accommodate retail space in new buildings developed in certain locations and on certain properties that previously had active ground floor retail. QUESTIONS REGARDING IMPACT ON EXISTING STRUCTURES AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION 13. How would the Overlay interact with historic requirements? a. Historic review processes are separate from the Zoning Ordinance and would not be affected by this proposal. For example, all buildings that are more than 50 years old would remain subject to the City's demolition delay ordinance. Local affordable housing developers have a long and successful track record of working with the Cambridge Historical Commission to preserve, renovate, expand and re-use historic buildings as affordable housing. 14. The Overlay references the State Historic Register. What does this mean? a. The State Register of Historic Places is a listing of buildings, structures, and sites that have received local, state or federal designation for their historical (or archeological) significance; the listing is published annually by the Massachusetts Historical Commission. Buildings identified in Page 7 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ the National Register of Historic Places are automatically included in the State Register. Certain requirements in the Overlay change if the AHO Project includes the preservation and protection of an existing building on the State Register of Historic Places. 15. Would the Overlay allow the conversion of an existing house to individual units? a. Yes, the proposal would provide additional zoning flexibility for the conversion or re-use of existing structures, both residential and non-residential, to affordable housing. 16. Could a developer re-use an existing building and also build new housing on the same site, through an addition or separate structure? How would this work? a. The proposal would allow re-use of an existing structure and creating new housing in an addition or separate building on the same site. Any addition or new structure would need to conform to the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay requirements, including minimum setbacks and height limits. 17. Can buildings be torn down? a. Zoning in general does not control whether or not a building can be torn down, instead it regulates what type of development is allowed to be built. Many existing buildings do not conform to current zoning requirements, and reusing a non-conforming building often requires special permits or variances. The Affordable Housing Overlay intends to make it easier for existing buildings to be repurposed for affordable housing by, for example, allowing interior alterations that would increase the floor area or number of units within an existing structure, allowing exterior improvements or additions without requiring a special permit or variance, and reducing parking requirements in cases where existing structures are retained. 18. Will building be torn down? a. While each site will be different, affordable housing developers in Cambridge have a long and : successful track record of preserving and re-using existing structures for affordable housing. The Cambridge Historical Commission will continue to administer City ordinances relating to building preservation, including the demolition delay ordinance. b. At the same time, one of the purposes of the Affordable Housing Overlay is to allow more density for affordable housing in order to make development feasible. As a result, there may be cases where it makes more sense from a design and development perspective to replace existing structures with new construction. QUESTIONS REGARDING SUSTAINABILITY AND GREEN DESIGN 19. What will the green building requirements be? a. Any housing built under the Affordable Housing Overlay would need to comply with the City's existing Green Building Standards (Section 22.20 of the Zoning Ordinance). There is a pending proposal to update those requirements in the near future to require a minimum LEED Gold standard, or to use the Enterprise Green Communities or PassiveHouse rating system as an alternative. Page 8 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ 20. How will recommendations from the Climate Resilience Zoning Task Force interact with the new Affordable Housing Overlay? Will recommendations from the Task Force be incorporated into the zoning? a. The overall intent of the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay is to retain the standards for sustainable and resilient development that would apply to all projects. However, because the Climate Resilience Zoning Task Force is not expected to deliver recommendations until the end of this year, the exact impacts will not be known until specific recommendations are considered for adoption. 21. Could affordable housing developed under the overlay be required to comply with the City's new Net Zero requirements in advance of when these new requirements are scheduled to take effect for all residential development? • a. Affordable housing developers in Cambridge, with the support of the Affordable Housing Trust, have a long and distinguished track record of producing highly sustainable housing and have been on the forefront of this issue. However, putting onerous requirements on affordable housing that would not be applicable to market-rate development could counteract some of the intended benefits of the Affordable Housing Overlay by making it more difficult and costly to create affordable housing. QUESTIONS ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING 22. What is affordable housing? a. Affordable housing is deed-restricted housing for income-eligible households where residents generally pay no more than 30% of their income for rent or a mortgage. Affordable housing funded by the City ranges from housing designed for formerly homeless individuals to homeownership units for families. Most City-assisted affordable rental housing is targeted to low- and moderate-income residents earning less than 80% of area median income (AMI). Homeownership housing is typically targeted to be affordable to residents earning less than 100% AMI. AMI figures are published on an annual basis by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). See current AMI chart below: Current Eligibility Limits - Area Median Income (AMI) by Household Size (households are eligible if their income is below these amounts) Household Size 80% AMI 100% AMI $75,500 $56,800 1 Person 2 People $86,300 $64,900 3 People $73,000 $97,100 4 People $107,800 $81,100 5 People $87,600 $116,500 (current as of 4/1/18) 23. Who lives in affordable housing and how are they chosen? How do we ensure they are eligible? Is this how the process would work for housing developed under the Overlay? a. Affordable housing in the city is occupied by a wide range of residents, including individuals, families, residents who work in a range of jobs, and retirees. Depending on the type of development, residents for affordable units may be selected by an affordable housing developer or by an involved housing agency, such as the City in the case of homeownership. Residents for Page 9 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ City-funded affordable housing are selected in accordance with the City's resident selection preference policies which include priorities for Cambridge residents and families. In some cases, the process involves a lottery for available units. In other cases, units are filled from a waiting list. In every case, screening is done to ensure that the tenant or buyer meets eligibility requirements for an affordable housing development. In addition, subsequent monitoring is done to ensure continued compliance with the requirements of the applicable affordable housing restriction(s). b. Affordable housing developed under the proposed overlay would be marketed in the same manner as City-funded affordable housing is currently marketed, including screening for eligibility and use of the City's resident selection preference policies. 24. What does an income limit mean? Would a single person earning less than $56,000 be eligible for any housing created under the Affordable Housing Overlay? a. Income limits refer to the maximum amount a household may earn in order to be eligible for an affordable unit. They do not refer to the minimum income amount. b. Income limits are derived from Area Median Income (AMI) figures established annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). c. In response to the question above, the current income limit for a single person at 80% of AMI is $56,800. As a result, a single person earning less than $56,000 would be eligible for housing created under the Affordable Housing Overlay proposal. 25. What does 100%-affordable mean? Would mixed-income be better? a. A 100%-affordable development means that all residential units will be subject to an affordability restriction to ensure that units will remain affordable. For the Affordable Housing Overlay, it is proposed that: i. at least 80% of the rental units must be set aside for households earning no more than 80% of the Area Median Income ii. up to 20% of rental units may be set aside for households earning up to 100% of Area Median Income ili. at least 50% of ownership units must be set aside for households earning no more than 80% of the Area Median Income iv. up to 50% of ownership units may be set aside for households earning up to 100% of Area Median Income. b. Residents may earn less than these limits, particularly if the development includes additional rental subsidies, or is funded through a program which requires units to be affordable to lower income households. Larger buildings may be "mixed-income" communities with ranges of units affordable to households with different incomes under 100% of AMI. 26. How is affordability maintained over the long-term? What are the mechanics? a. Long-term affordability is maintained through deed restrictions, which are legal agreements that are recorded on the deed of each property with affordable units. Affordable housing deed restrictions outline the affordability requirements for the property including ongoing compliance requirements. The City records affordable housing deed restrictions on properties assisted with funding from the City or Affordable Housing Trust, and on properties where zoning requires that there be affordable housing. Housing developed under the Affordable Housing Overlay would be subject to a zoning-based restriction which would require that the housing remain permanently Page 10 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ 27. What % of Cambridge's housing stock is currently affordable? How has that changed? What is the goal? How will this proposal help achieve that goal? a. Approximately 14.8% of the City's existing housing stock is restricted as affordable, with 8,117 affordable units in the city. This proportion has declined slightly since the end of rent control in the mid 1990's when the ratio was over 15%. b. The Envision Cambridge planning process has developed a goal of creating 12,500 new housing units by 2030, with 25% of new units (3,175 units) to be affordable. The 3,175 affordable unit production goal would require approximately 1,000 new affordable units to be created with City funding. If the Envision goals are achieved, the proportion of affordable units would increase to approximately 16% of the overall housing stock. City funds for affordable housing typically produce 50-60 new affordable units each year, with identifying opportunities to add to the affordable housing stock being the most limiting factor. The more areas where it is feasible to create new affordable housing, the more likely we are to continue to maintain our current rate of affordable housing creation as new resources are identified to meet the Envision goal for new affordable units. 28. How much local subsidy is needed to produce a unit of affordable housing? How much is appropriated annually? Based on this, can we estimate how many units could be expected to be created annually? a. Most affordable housing developments rely on a range of subsidized financing sources in order to be feasible, including local funding from the City and Affordable Housing Trust. b. In Fiscal Year 2019, $13.6 million in City funding was appropriated to the Affordable Housing Trust for affordable housing preservation and creation. c. The amount of subsidy needed to produce a unit of affordable housing will depend on a range of factors including acquisition cost, construction cost, and depth of affordability. Recently, the : • amount of local funds has ranged from $175,000 to over $250,000 per affordable unit. d. Assuming an average local contribution of $200,000 per unit, and annual local funding appropriations of $15 million, it is estimated that roughly 75 affordable units could be produced per year. 29. What is the Affordable Housing Trust and what role would it play if any? a. The Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust was established in 1989 to preserve and expand affordable housing in Cambridge. The Affordable Housing Trust provides funding to developers of affordable housing in Cambridge. The Trust is a nine-member board, chaired by the City Manager, that meets on a monthly basis to review proposals for new affordable housing needing funding from the Trust. As a result, affordable housing developers receiving funding from the City will need to meet Trust funding priorities, such as a preference for family-sized affordable housing units. For more information on the Trust: https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/housing/housingtrust QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE - WHAT CAN WE EXPECT? Page 11 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ 30. Can the City prepare case studies of potential projects? Can staff produce models or provide photos of how the Overlay might work? a. Yes. Staff from the Community Development Department are working to develop graphical illustrations of how the Affordable Housing Overlay requirements might be employed on various sizes and types of sites. 31. I am concerned that this will destroy neighborhoods. What would prevent people from tearing down their homes and building much larger structures? • As noted above, the City's demolition delay ordinance, which is separate from zoning, will not be affected by the proposed overlay and would remain in effect. • Property owners would only be able to access the benefits of the Overlay if they were proposing an eligible AHO projects. In order for a project to be eligible, it would need to meet all of the requirements of the of the Overlay, including the requirement that 100% of housing created under the overlay would need to be permanently affordable. 32. How does this proposal relate to the Envision Cambridge population projections? Will the Affordable Housing Overlay result in an increase in population? a. The recently completed Envision Cambridge comprehensive plan included projections for increases in population and development between now and 2030. The plan also included housing production goals to create 12,500 new housing units, including 3,175 new affordable housing units. If adopted, the Affordable Housing Overlay would not impact the population projections put forth in the Envision Cambridge plan, but it would offer a better chance of reaching the affordable housing production goals of Envision by 2030. Without the Affordable Housing Overlay, affordable housing production will continue but would proceed more slowly, making it more challenging to reach this goal. 33. How many affordable units per year would be expected with this Overlay? a. The vast majority, if not all, of affordable housing requires subsidy funding in order to be feasible. As a result, the number of units created under the Affordable Housing Overlay will be limited by the amount of subsidy funding available, particularly City funding. Based on the anticipated City funding in coming years and housing creation goals, it is anticipated that 60-100 units of affordable housing could be created annually. This would be a slight increase c. Funding has not been the most limiting factor to production in recent years, as access to sites where affordable housing could be built feasibly has been the most critical challenge. 34. Can we identify parcels or types of sites where the Overlay will be applied? a. It is not possible to identify specific parcels or sites where affordable housing providers would be expected to use the Overlay zoning as opportunities will depend on sites that become available, such as when owners decide to sell. b. However, it is possible to plan for the size and scale of new housing that is being encouraged through the Overlay. For instance, the proposal describes requirements that vary between lower density residential neighborhoods and the city's main corridors where larger buildings would be allowed. Page 12 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ 35. Is it true that developers would tear down any existing building in order to maximize density on the lot? a. While each site will be different, affordable housing developers in Cambridge have a long and successful track record of preserving and re-using existing structures for affordable housing. The Cambridge Historical Commission will continue to administer City ordinances relating to building preservation, including the demolition delay ordinance. At the same time, one of the purposes of the Affordable Housing Overlay is to allow more density for affordable housing in order to make development feasible. As a result, while there may be cases where it makes more sense from a design and development perspective to replace existing structures with new construction, the preferred approach will continue to be thoughtfully re-using historic buildings as affordable housing. 36. Is it true that the majority of the units created will be small units, such as studios and one-bedroom units, in order to make development feasible? a. No, it is expected that the majority of new housing produced would include a large number of family-sized units as the creation of housing opportunities for families is a top priority of both the City, the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust and most affordable housing funders. However, it is also likely that some new housing will exclusively consist of smaller units such as in cases where an existing single-family home is converted to small units. OTHER QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE OVERLAY 37. If this proposal is not increasing the amount of affordable housing that could otherwise be built, why is the Overlay being proposed? a. A goal of the Overlay proposal is to enable more affordable housing to be created more quickly than would be possible without the Affordable Housing Overlay. Allowing larger buildings for affordable housing and a more predictable review process with as-of-right development options will allow affordable housing developers to assemble needed funding and begin construction more quickly. Shortening the development cycle will allow for savings as holding costs (financing, taxes, insurance, utilities) will be reduced. Small savings in development costs will reduce the need for City funds which can then be used to finance additional affordable housing. In the end, however, the amount of affordable housing created will be tied to the amount of funding available. A more predictable and efficient process to develop affordable housing will allow City funding to be used more effectively to help reach our affordable housing goals more quickly. 38. Will any housing developers actually take advantage of the Affordable Housing Overlay? It does not appear that it would provide profits to the developer, or even be financially feasible. a. The Affordable Housing Overlay is not intended to make affordable housing development profitable for market-rate developers and is not a market-driven strategy. 100%-affordable housing developments are typically undertaken by non-profit or private developers whose goal is to create affordable housing, not profits, as might be seen in market-rate development. Significant amounts of public subsidy are needed to make affordable housing feasible. The Affordable Housing Overlay would not replace the need for this subsidy but will help increase Page 13 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ feasibility by streamlining the development process and making more sites feasible for housing with the amount of subsidy available for new affordable housing. 39. Why not limit the Affordable Housing Overlay to the corridors and areas of the city where there is already more density? a. One goal for the Affordable Housing Overlay is to create opportunities to add affordable housing to areas of the city that do not now offer many affordable housing options. Expanding affordable housing to these areas of the City would help promote socio-economic diversity and create new housing opportunities in areas where many residents cannot now afford. 40. Can we require that housing developed under the overlay include a middle-income component? Can we expand eligibility up to 120% AMI? a. The greatest demand for affordable housing is among households earning less than 100% AMI, with most demand from households less than 80% AMI. In addition, most funding for affordable housing is limited to serving households earning less than 80% AMI. The Overlay proposal provides an option of making a portion of units available to families earning up to 100% AMI. 41. Can we require that housing developed under the Affordable Housing Overlay includes a homeownership component? . a. The City has created hundreds of affordable homeownership units and will continue to encourage creation of new affordable homes for eligible homebuyers. However, the intention of the Overlay is to increase flexibility for housing developers to create affordable housing. Given that there are now very few sources of subsidy funding for affordable homeownership development, a homeownership requirement could be challenging to finance. 42. Will the Overlay provisions require that housing developed under the Affordable Housing Overlay includes family-sized requirement? a. As proposed, the Overlay does not include a requirement for family-sized units. One of the goals of the Affordable Housing Overlay is to make the development of affordable housing more flexible so that affordable housing developers are able to take advantage of a greater number of opportunities. Any added requirements could make the Affordable Housing Overlay less effective in achieving this goal. However, it is anticipated that affordable housing developed under the Affordable Housing Overlay will need funding from the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust. The Trust has prioritized the creation of family-sized units and typically makes the incorporation of a large number of family-sized units a condition of its funding. As a result, it is expected most new housing would include family-sized units to address this priority. 43. Can the Overlay eliminate the need for curb cut approvals by the City Council? a. Curb cuts will continue to require approval by the City Council because that process is separate from zoning. 44. Should this be called an overlay if it applies to the whole city? a. "Overlay zoning," as it is being used in this context, refers to zoning that modifies the requirements of the underlying zoning districts). Usually the term "overlay zoning districts" refers to districts only in defined sections of the city. The proposed zoning changes are being referred to as a "citywide affordable housing overlay" because it would modify the base zoning requirements Page 14 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ in all districts, and it is also the term that has been used most frequently to discuss the concept in the past. Page 15 of 15 April 24, 2019

ATTACHMENTE- City of Cambridge Executive Department LOUIS A. DePASQUALE LISA C. PETERSON Deputy City Manager City Manager June 21, 2019 To the Honorable, the City Council: I am writing in response to Policy Order No. 3 of 4/1/19, which requests information and analysis on the potential implications of adopting an Affordable Housing Overlay ("AHO") that would make it easier to develop 100% affordable housing projects citywide. Staff from the Community Development Department, Assessing Department and Law Department have assisted in preparing these answers to the questions posed in the Policy Order. I will address each question as follows: 1. Provide an analysis of potential 100% affordable housing projects where affordable housing developers were outbid on properties that were on the market for sale and provide an analysis of how the AHO might have given affordable housing developers a better chance of success, as well as any other expected per- unit cost reductions from the overlay approach. The proposed AHO is designed to help affordable housing providers create affordable housing more quickly, more predictably, and in areas of Cambridge where there are fewer affordable housing options for residents. By increasing the amount of housing which can be built on a site, affordable housing providers will be better positioned to compete with market-rate buyers for sites. Equally important, by allowing this housing to be created as-of-right, affordable housing providers will be able to purchase sites which they otherwise might be reluctant to consider due to underlying zoning which allows fewer units than needed to make affordable housing feasible. The primary goal of the AHO is for more affordable housing to be brought on-line more quickly. A secondary benefit is that the AHO would allow housing to be created more cost effectively by reducing or eliminating certain development costs. These cost savings would allow the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust (the "Trust") funding to go further to create more units than otherwise could be built. The following provides examples of the types of ways the AHO is expected to impact costs: Readiness to Proceed, Access to Favorable Funding, and Risk Reduction There are significant advantages to allowing affordable housing providers to advance projects more quickly, so they are positioned to take advantage of opportunities which require quick action such as special funding opportunities and other time-limited benefits which are only available to projects that are fully permitted and ready to begin construction. For instance, special financing programs offered by lenders can drastically reduce borrowing costs and subsidy needs. These opportunities are unpredictable and limited to projects that are ready for

construction. Maximizing the amount of private funding in affordable housing developments to better leverage the Trust's and other public funding will result in more housing built with limited public funding. Likewise, reducing development timelines will reduce risk and uncertainty affordable housing providers face as they budget for projects that may take several years to get into construction. Construction costs are one of the most significant cost factors, and cost increases in a busy construction market can have a huge impact. A shortened development schedule will allow affordable housing providers to hold better construction pricing rather than face costly escalators as pricing increases dramatically every year. Annual increases in labor and material costs have been consistently 3-5% over the past few years, and uncertainty about the impact of other changes in the economy, including recently introduced tariffs, is also a factor driving up construction costs. In the case of the affordable housing development currently under construction on Concord Avenue, the construction cost is $27,238,121; if it had been delayed a year with a 5% annual increase in construction costs, that same project would have had a funding gap of $1,361,906. For projects which suffer multi-year delays, this risk is compounded. Specific Cost Reductions Owning and maintaining a site while seeking permits and financing can become expensive, and shortening that period will reduce costs. The AHO is expected to reduce "carrying costs" by shortening the period between site purchase and construction start. Carrying costs include property taxes, insurance, snow removal, fencing, security, pest control, and the cost of predevelopment and/or acquisition period financing. CDD estimates that the annual cost of holding a site for an affordable rental housing development while the affordable housing provider secures permitting and assembles financing ranges from $65,000 to $80,000. The Trust frequently provides acquisition financing at no cost which allows a project to avoid incurring significant borrowing costs annually. If the Trust were not to provide funding for all acquisition costs, annual carrying costs could easily exceed $200,000 with loan interest, depending on the price of the site and the terms of the financing. Affordable housing providers often must hold a site for at least a few years while permitting approvals are sought and financing is secured. In cases where approved permits are appealed, the carrying period may be much longer and the cost of defending the permit can add hundreds of thousands in additional costs. The AHO would significantly reduce the risk of incurring added costs by streamlining the permitting process so that affordable housing developments could get underway sooner and avoid costly appeals. Furthermore, there are a number of specific costs which would likely be reduced for projects developed under the AHO. For instance, it is estimated that the AHO would reduce legal and design costs, and eliminate other costs related to comprehensive permit applications which could potentially result in significant additional cost reductions. Affordable Housing Provider Capacity The AHO would help affordable housing providers optimize their capacity by allowing them to use their limited staffing and organizational resources to complete new affordable housing more quickly. Affordable housing providers now must devote significant staff capacity 2

and resources to guide a single project through a multi-year review and permitting process. Housing providers often do not have the staffing or financial resources or capacity to take on the risks of several projects while navigating the path to construction. Under the AHO, housing providers would be able to move developments into construction more quickly. Construction start is the milestone at which housing providers can access funding for a project from non-Trust sources, and when they can recoup the substantial resources they have invested to take a development project from concept into construction. The more quickly and effectively affordable housing providers can move projects into and through the development process, the more housing they will be able to create. Recent Examples Affordable housing providers are continually searching in the market for opportunities to create new affordable housing. Only one in ten opportunities considered typically result in a successful purchase. In some cases, offers made by housing providers are rejected for being too low. In other cases, potential sites are determined to be not worth pursuing due to higher than feasible asking prices and/or anticipated permitting challenges which make opportunities too risky to pursue. The AHO is intended to increase the number of sites where new affordable housing development would be feasible by unlocking potential sites which currently would be too expensive or risky to pursue. For instance, the Assessing Department looked at 2018 market sales under both the City's current Zoning Ordinance and the proposed AHO to determine which 2018 market sales would have been potentially competitive for affordable housing projects if the AHO had been in place. The Assessing Department considered parcels to be potentially competitive if they met the following three criteria: • market sales price was $200,000 or less per developable unit; • the sale property had a lot size at or above the minimum lot size for necessary development in its zoning district; and • 6 or more units could be built on the site. Based upon these three criteria, the analysis indicated that 45 of the 227 sales that were potentially competitive sales, or 20%, could have had an acquisition price below $200,000 per unit, which is considered to be the maximum acquisition price to make a competitive offer as a 100%-affordable housing development. The actual acquisition price per unit that has been paid for recent affordable housing projects in the City has ranged from $102,000 to $168,000 per unit. Under this analysis of potentially competitive sales the median acquisition price per unit was $134,100 per unit under the AHO, compared to $575,000 per unit with the existing zoning applied. 3

The table below demonstrates the neighborhood distribution of 2018 market sales in each of the Assessing Department's residential assessing districts. The numbered columns contain the following corresponding information: 1. Assessing District and Description column notes the Assessing Department's residential assessing districts; 2. 2018 Market Sales column notes the number of market sales within each district in 3. Potentially Competitive Sales under AHO column indicates the number of sales that meet the three criteria listed above and could be considered as possible affordable housing sites; and 4. The Percent Potentially Competitive column is the calculation of the percent of 2018 market sales that were potentially competitive under the AHO by residential assessing district. Table 1 - Sales Analysis by Neighborhood 4. Percent 2. 2018 3. Potentially 1. Assessing District and Description Market Competitive Sales Potentially Sales Under AHO Competitive 30 3% R01 - East Cambridge 3 14 21% RO2 - Wellington-Harrington/The Port 1 24 4% RO3 - Mid-Cambridge 7 14% RO4 - Trowbridge Hill Area 2 100% R05 - Professor's Row 22% R06 - Washington St/Avon Hill 24% 37 RO7 - North Cambridge 4 33% 12 R08 - Concord Ave/Fenno St 5 80% ROS - Coolidge Hill 57% 4 R10 - Brattle Street Area 7 N/A 0% R11 - Mt Auburn St 18 3 17% R12 - Riverside 15 20% R13 - Cambridge Port 12 25% R14 - Huron Village 1 100% R15 - Grove St 10% 10 R16 - Agassiz 3 17 18% R17 - Porter Square 227 45 20% Grand Total

The above analysis indicates that if the AHO had been in place in 2018, a competitive offer for 100%-affordable housing development could have been made on about 20% more potential sites where new affordable housing could have been feasible. This percentage would likely be reduced when considering site specific constraints, such as very large sites, commercial properties with leases in place and other considerations that may make potential sites infeasible. This analysis does not represent a full site review of the sale properties and does not consider site shape, historic preservation or other factors which would be part of a full development site review. The table below shows an analysis of possible unit counts by neighborhood under different scenarios. The numbered columns contain the following corresponding information: 1. Assessing District and Description column notes the Assessing Department's residential assessing districts; 2. Potentially Competitive Sales under AHO column indicates the number of sales that meet the three criteria listed above and could be considered as possible affordable housing sites; 3. Median Existing Residential Units column shows the number of approximate existing residential units on the site at the time of the sale in 2018 (sales with commercial use are excluded); 4. Median Number of Units Per Site Under Current Zoning column gives an indication of the estimated number of potential units that could be built under the current zoning; 5. Median Units Under Current Zoning Multiplied by Sites column is the result of . multiplying the potentially competitive sales under AHO (Column 2) by the median: number of units per site under current zoning (Column 4) to give an estimation of the total number of potential units that could be created under the current zoning; 6. Median Number of Units Per Site Under AHO column indicates the median number of estimated units that could be built on the 2018 sales parcels that were potentially competitive under the proposed AHO zoning; and 7. Median Units Under AHO Multiplied by Sites column is the result of multiplying the potentially competitive sales under AHO (Column 2) by the median number of • units per site under AHO (Column 6) to give an estimation of the total number of potential units that could be created by the AHO overlay. 5

Table 2 - Median Unit Analysis by Zoning 5. Median 6. Median 4. Median 1. Assessing District and 2. Potentially 3. Median 7. Median Units Units Number of Existing Number Description Competitive Units Per of Units Under Sales Under Residential Under Units Current AHO AHO Site Under Per Site Under Zoning Multiplied Current AHO by Sites Zoning Multiplied by Sites 1 0 21 38 21 38 R01 - East Cambridge 90 3 6 21 30 7 RO2 - Wellington- Harrington/The Port 34 34 1 R03 - Mid-Cambridge WiN 20 20 1 R04 - Trowbridge Hill Area 66 33 R05 - Professor's Row 2 64 32 HH RO6 - Washington St/Avon ∞^Mm Hill 27 126 9 R07 - North Cambridge 12 44 R08 - Concord Ave Fenno w: w St 4 72 R09 - Coolidge Hill 31 N H R10 - Brattle Street Area 4 WIN ,144 N/A R11 - Mt Auburn St N/A N/A N/A 3 R12 - Riverside 10 3 13 R13 - Cambridge Port 3 13 R14 - Huron Village 31 1 31 R15 - Grove St 1 14 14 R16 - Agassiz 3 R17 - Porter Square 36 12 Grand Total 45 N/A 887 N/A N/A This total is estimated to be 887 potential units, as compared with 174 units under current zoning, if each of the properties noted as potentially competitive sites under the AHO were able to create the median number of units per site. It should be noted that without doing a full analysis on each sale it is impossible to give an exact number of units which could potentially be developed with the numerous intricacies of site conditions and zoning requirements. Therefore, the chart above takes a high-level view by simply reviewing the square foot land area divided by the maximum number of units allowable under the proposed AHO. In many cases, this would not be attainable when site conditions and zoning requirements such as setbacks, parking and other design requirements are considered, so it should be considered a highest density scenario. 6

However, the capacity of affordable housing providers and access to funding from state sources would limit the number of new developments undertaken each year. Access to state funding is extremely competitive and CDD would expect that no more than 1-2 developments might be funded by the state each year. The Trust typically expects developers to leverage Trust funds with other public and private funds to maximize the amount of new housing created. This analysis shows that the AHO would increase the number of opportunities where new affordable housing could be feasible. Due to logistic constraints, a pragmatic estimate of the impact of the AHO is that it could assist in the creation of approximately 100 affordable units each year. This would represent a significant change from current zoning and recent experience of affordable housing providers looking for opportunities in the market. More specifically, the following are a few examples of sites which were assessed by affordable housing providers for affordable housing development which did not go forward: • 6,000 s.f. parcel in a main corridor with an older one-story commercial building: The City learned that the owner of this property was looking to sell this site for redevelopment with the stipulation that the ground floor be retained and redeveloped as non-residential space to be used by the current owner. The City asked a local housing provider to assess its feasibility for affordable housing. The affordable housing provider envisioned a need to create four stories of housing over the ground floor space for the project to be feasible, but determined that the amount of zoning relief, which would include significant reductions in the required parking, and the need to recreate the ground floor space, made the site too risky and complicated to pursue. Had the AHO been in place, as proposed, the affordable housing provider could have been more confident in pursuing the site as they could have been able to add additional stories over the ground floor space to support the acquisition costs (including the costs to rebuild the ground level space) and benefit from reductions in parking and other requirements. This site has not yet sold but is under contract with a market-rate developer. • Existing 6-unit multifamily building on a 12,000 s.f. lot in a residential neighborhood: this property was offered for sale with an asking price of $4.25 million, or more than $700,000 per unit. The City and a local affordable housing provider looked at the feasibility of purchasing the site for affordable housing. To be feasible, the plan would have required reconfiguring the existing building and adding new units by adding to the existing building. The property is adjacent to two larger buildings and contains a large paved parking area. The affordable housing provider envisioned a 21-unit development which would involve preserving and rehabbing the existing building and building a new four-story residential building on the existing rear parking lot. The plan would have allowed for nine parking spaces. In the end, the affordable housing provider declined to pursue the site as it was deemed too risky given the level of zoning relief required. The site sold for more than the asking price. Had the AHO been in place, the envisioned project could have been feasible with acquisition costs at the selling price. • Episcopal Divinity School ("EDS") Residential Campus: this site contains six existing historic buildings on a large property and was offered without an asking price. The City 7

worked with an affordable housing provider to assess the site's feasibility for affordable housing. CDD estimated that approximately 40 affordable units would have been needed to support the acquisition assuming that existing buildings were preserved and/or relocated. A smaller development would have been feasible but would have required some demolition of existing buildings. However, in examining the extent of zoning relief that would have been needed and the concerns expressed by the public when the idea of exploring the site for affordable housing was endorsed by the City Council, the affordable - housing provider deemed the project too risky given the likely challenges to permitting and uncertain development period risk associated with this project. The EDS ended up entering into a long-term lease agreement with an option to purchase with undisclosed terms. Had the AHO been in place, a feasible development could have been allowed as- of-right. • 15,000 s.f. commercial/industrial site near Inman Square: this site was put on the market with an asking price of $5 million. An affordable housing provider envisioned a plan to create 27 affordable units on two adjacent parcels. However, zoning limited the development potential to 9 units, which would mean an acquisition cost of more than $500,000 per unit, making the site infeasible for affordable housing. The non-profit housing provider thought that it could reasonably obtain zoning relief to build 16 units, and made an offer of $3.2 million for the site, or $200,000 per unit, while also attempting to inegotiate with the seller an option to increase the price if they were successful in obtaining approval for more than 16 units. However, the owner opted to sell one of the parcels to a more conventional buyer on more simple terms. Had the AHO been in place, the non-profit could have developed its 27-unit affordable at an acquisition cost of $185,000 per unit at the asking price. • 12,000 s.f. parcel in a main corridor with an older one-story commercial building: this site was offered without an asking price. An affordable housing provider made several offers but was unable to secure the site. Under current zoning, up to 27 units could be created on the site, while the housing provider expected to need more than 40 units to make a feasible project. While the site sold in a non-arm's length transaction, the affordable housing provider was told the offer to beat was in the range of $7.1 million, or $263,000 per allowable unit — more than would be feasible for affordable housing. Had the AHO been in place, the affordable housing provider could have bid in the range of the prevailing offer knowing that there could have been a feasible development to support the purchase price. The sites which affordable housing providers have been able to secure have been either purchased for a reasonable price, and/or presented opportunities that outweighed the substantial risk of permits not being obtained. In the past 5 years, sites for 3 new developments have been acquired on the open market, Concord Highlands, Frost Terrace, and 2072 Massachusetts Avenue. The development process for affordable housing providers is lengthy, complicated, resource-intensive, and involves a certain amount of risk. As a result, affordable housing providers prefer to purchase sites which can be developed without a need for zoning relief, as protracted permitting processes can deplete their resources. Expanding the number of 8

opportunities where affordable housing development is feasible will allow them to better use capacity and resources to produce more housing more efficiently. What are the implications of the proposed AHO on the City's housing stock, 2. including demolition of existing homes and potential displacement of existing tenants, and what is the net number of affordable units and types of projects that will be created under the AHO per year? Implications on Housing Stock With the significant increase in funding for the Affordable Housing Trust, which will receive more than $20 million annually beginning in FY2020, we now estimate that the Trust could fund the creation of 100 units of affordable housing each year. Trust funding is used to create new affordable housing through acquisition of multi-family buildings, condominium unit acquisition, and new housing development. The number of units created will be impacted by access to other public and private funding sources, financing terms, tax credit equity yields and project costs, and reduced if funds are needed to recapitalize or preserve existing affordable , housing. New housing development will continue to be a strategy CDD and the Trust will pursue with or without the AHO. The Trust has used it funding to create an average of approximately 60 new affordable units per year over the past three years. With the commitment of the additional $20 million funding per year to the Trust and if the AHO is enacted, it would be easier for the City to reach its target goal of creating 100 affordable housing units per year with funding from the Trust. Developing new housing with the benefit of the AHO would allow for new housing to be created more quickly and cost effectively as described above. There are an estimated 54,713 housing units in the city. There are 8,117 regulated affordable units in the city. Increasing this total by 100 units each year would represent a 1.2% annual increase in the stock of deed-restricted affordable housing units. The type of units created under the AHO will depend on particular opportunities that are available and pursued under the AHO. However, given the City's strong priority to create units for families, we would expect a significant number of new units to be two- and three-bedroom units. Building Demolition It is also difficult to predict whether or how many existing buildings might be demolished as part of AHO redevelopment projects. The AHO proposal contains incentives for preserving historic structures, including reductions in required parking and flexibility in the reuse of existing non-conforming buildings. Affordable housing developers have completed many successful projects in partnership with the Cambridge Historical Commission to preserve, adapt, and reuse existing historic buildings as affordable housing. This approach would continue where feasible. Where demolition of existing buildings might be preferable, affordable housing providers will be

required to follow the City's Demolition Delay Ordinance and other applicable preservation requirements as noted below. Resident Displacement Displacement of residents is not anticipated. to be a concern for sites that are developed under the AHO. Affordable housing providers build housing to help residents who are at-risk of being displaced in the market stay in the city. When residents do need to move to accommodate building rehab or construction, affordable housing providers provide ample notice, assistance with relocation (often to other units in their portfolio), and the right for eligible residents to return when construction is completed. Provide information on the urban design guidelines and form-based zoning 3. requirements for the proposed AHO, including potential building massing and heights that would be allowed, examples of representative building and site designs, and what the scale of potential building in relation to surrounding structures would be, by zoning district. CDD has been working to create digital 3D models illustrating the proposed development standards on prototypical sites, showing the potential scale and massing of buildings in relation to typical Cambridge contexts. This work will be presented as part of the upcoming public hearings on the zoning petition at the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee. Materials for the upcoming public hearings are posted on the web on the following site: https://www.cambridgemz.gov/CDD/zoninganddevelopment/Zoning/Amendments. CDD is also engaged in the development of design guidelines that would supplement the proposed standards in the AHO zoning, which will continue to be discussed and refined through the work of the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee. 4. Provide information on what changes the AHO would allow in designated historic and neighborhood conservation districts. The proposed AHO would be a citywide zoning overlay which would allow the construction of 100% affordable AHO Projects and would set the zoning requirements for these projects. However, the AHO only regulates zoning requirements, and AHO Projects would be required to comply with all other applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations. Therefore, proposed AHO Projects located within a Historic District or Neighborhood Conservation District, would be subject to Cambridge Historical Commission or a Neighborhood Conservation District Commission review, pursuant to G.L. c.40C and Chapter 2.78 of the Municipal Code. If a property that is proposed for an AHO Project is designated as a Landmark, pursuant to Chapter 2.78 of the Municipal Code, it would also be subject to Historical Commission review. Additionally, all buildings in the City which are in whole or in part fifty years or more old remain subject to the City's Demolition Delay Ordinance, Chapter 2.78, Article II of the Municipal Code. Therefore, all proposed AHO Projects that would require a demolition permit to conduct the demolition of buildings that are at least fifty years old would 10

need to apply to the Historical Commission for review. In all of these instances, the fact that the proposed project is an AHO Project does not alter a developer's obligation to comply with laws relating to the Historical Commission's or a Neighborhood Conservation District Commission's review. 5. Provide information on the environmental implications of the proposal, including green space, open space, tree canopy, stormwater management, urban heat island considerations, flooding, and the potential for building to net zero standards. The AHO does not propose to change any of the current environmental performance standards in the Zoning Ordinance that would apply to residential projects, and as noted above, other codes and regulations would not be changed. Some current environmental performance standards include green building requirements, stormwater management standards, and flood protection standards. The Climate Resilience Zoning Task Force, which was formed to investigate zoning standards that could help mitigate flooding and heat impacts from climate change, will meet through the end of this year and is expected to produce recommendations that would apply to all types of development, including affordable housing. With regard to open space, there is a proposed change in the standards for the most restrictive residential zoning districts, where the minimum percentage of open space on a lot could be reduced from 36-50% (depending on the district) to a minimum of 30%. The minimum percentage of open space could be further reduced to no less than 15% if the reduction is to facilitate the provision of on-site parking or the preservation of a historic building on the site. These tradeoffs could be evaluated further depending on the priorities of the Council. Provide information on the implications of the proposed AHO on small businesses, including risk of retail/commercial tenant displacement and opportunities to prevent such displacement. The proposed AHO would allow non-residential uses on the ground floor that are permitted in the base zoning district, so in business districts ground-floor retail could be included in an AHO Project. Moreover, AHO Projects would be required to include such ground-floor uses in business districts if there was a former retail use on the site and if there is retail on an adjacent site, in order to ensure continuity where there is a pattern of storefronts. Current zoning only requires ground-floor storefronts in a limited set of zoning districts. Although zoning can encourage, and in some cases require, space to be made for storefronts at the ground floor, it cannot ensure that a particular retail tenant, or even any tenant at all, would find the space viable for a business. Traditional brick-and-mortar stores are facing many challenges in a changing retail market. The City's 2017 Retail Strategy recommends greater flexibility in regulations so that businesses can experiment, and new retailers can thrive with innovative formats. Affordable housing providers have some experience in creating active ground floor retail space. In these cases, the biggest challenge has been to identify retailers to occupy the completed space. In cases where new retail space was created on a site that had a former retail 11

use, affordable housing providers could work with commercial tenants to explore how these businesses might return to new space. Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale City Manager 12

ATTACHMENTF. CDD@344 CAMBRIDGE July 2, 2019 Ordinance Committee City of Cambridge Zoning Petition Affordable Housing Overlay Community Development Department construction and historic preservation Columbia Court Apartments: 100% affordable development which involved a combination of new

Background Community Development Department July 2, 2019

July 2, 2019 housing developers Action / Strategy new attordable units by 2020 Identify new City funding for affordable housing predictable as-of-right permitting for affordable housing Adopt recommended changes to Incentive Zoning Ordinance Adopt recommended changes to Inclusionary Housing provisions Maintain the commitment of 80% of CPA funds to affordable housing Affordable Housing Goals & Strategies • Actions & strategies identified by CDD in 2015 to advance this goal include: Community Development Department Creating streamlined process for the permitting of new affordable housing developments to allow Creating a new zoning standards or an overlay for affordable housing development which would allow additional development density, reduced parking and other relaxed dimensional standards to affordable • January 2015 - City Council policy order regarding feasibility of the City committing to creating 1,000 Status Ongoing Adopted 2017 Adopted 2015; Current discussion Current discussion reevaluation underway increased in FY2018 & FY2019 New City funds in FY2017 budget;

comprehensive permit Lincoln Way Apartments: 70-unit 100% affordable development approved by a Community Development Department from city, state and federal funders, often through competitions for scarce funding continued affordability of new housing created development is financially feasible operating criteria of all funders July 2, 2019 • Put in place long-term deed restrictions to ensure • Assemble subsidy funding needed to build new housing • Meet affordability, design, construction, management and • Capstone Communities / Hope Real Estate • Compete in the market for buildings and sites • Cambridge Housing Authority • Just A Start Corporation • Homeowner's Rehab, Inc. • Identify properties where affordable housing Trust new affordable housing: Development? What is Affordable Housing • Typically funded by the City's Affordable Housing • Affordable housing providers currently developing • Affordable housing developers must:

1096 1 - 15 16 - 50 0 units July 2, 2019 51 - 100 201 - 318 101 - 200 Number of Affordable Units -- Neighborhood Boundaries No residential units in block Challenges to building affordable housing: • High land costs and competition from market-rate developers Community Development Department • More difficult to build affordable housing in some areas of the city given zoning limitations Affordable Housing in the City Memori Di • Appeal of discretionary approvals can add significant cost, long delays, and significant risk to affordable housing developers. Charles River

Purchased Properties Offers Made Sites for New Development Community Development Department Existing Multi- family Housing 14 13 15 Providers Analyzed by New Opportunities Affordable Housing Affordable housing providers outbid in the market even when offers assumed developing substantially more units than allowed by zoning that can be built July 2, 2019 FY2019 to date Affordable Housing Development - recent challenges FY2017 FY2018 FY2016 • City funds used for property purchases; CDD tracks properties analyzed by affordable housing providers • Purchase prices that can be supported by affordable housing providers cannot be supported by the amount of housing • Often strong market interest makes a competitive offer infeasible;

July 2, 2019 Trolley Square: new construction of 40 affordable units in mixed-use development Goals of Affordable Housing Overlay units; Community Development Department of all incomes; can build needed housing more quickly; and citywide by expanding the viability of affordable • Make it easier to permit 100% affordable housing housing in areas where there are fewer affordable • Foster equitable distribution of affordable housing purchasing sites to create new affordable housing; developments so that affordable housing developers accomplish more City with affordable housing funds. • Create opportunities in all neighborhoods for residents • Help affordable housing providers have more success in • Help reduce costs of building new affordable housing to

Zoning Petition Community Development Department July 2, 2019

Our Current Zoning EEEEEEEE LE Ш!!! BEDDEDERE Community Development Department bumme to done a a tal STUNG TONS SPOR mca! Drmnet-100D This map was prepared by the Community Development Department on

10 Community Development Department don't conform to current comprehensive permit are typical (40B) parking) standards (e.g. setbacks, have the option to seek a processes and variances July 2, 2019 • Special permit review • Affordable housing projects • Many existing buildings Our Current Zoning

July 2, 2019 which resulted in the reduction of family-size units and the loss of 2 units Temple Place: the comprehensive permit for this 40-unit affordable development was appealed, delaying the project for almost 3 years, and forcing a re-design of the building Community Development Department process in the past with market housing Overall Approach Attordable Housing Overlay the comprehensive permit (40B) process. • More predictable review and permitting • Less restrictive standards to enable 100%- 11 create clear and predictable requirements for affordable housing projects to be competitive affordable housing projects as an alternative to housing in areas where it has not been created The intent of an Affordable Housing Overlay is to • Standards applied citywide to enable affordable

Community Development Department July 2, 2019 1. Purpose and Intent 6. Parking and Bicycle Parking 4. Use 8. Advisory Design Consultation Procedure 3. Standards for Eligibility, Rent, and Initial Sales Price 7. Building and Site Design Standards 10. Enforcement 2. Applicability 5. Development Standards 9. Implementation Affordable Housing Overlay - Petition Sections

1 person 2 persons 4 persons 3 persons the Planning Board July 2, 2019 Household Size $71,400 $80,300 $62,400 $89,200 80% AMI 2019 Income Limits $90,650 $79,350 $102,000 $113,300 100% AMI Putnam Green Apartments: 40-unit affordable development approved by a special permit by Community Development Department AMI • Rental units: • Homeownership units: and Initial Sale Price Median Income (AMI) households at affordable amounts • Permanent affordability by covenant earning up to up to 100% of AMI earning up to up to 100% of AMI • At least 50% of units affordable to • At least 80% of units affordable to • All units rented or sold to income-eligible • Rest may be affordable to households 3. Standards for Eligibility, Rent, households earning up to 80% of Area • Rest may be affordable to households 13 households earning up to up to 80% of

14 The conversion of a historic building on Bigelow Street into 10 studio and 1-bedroom affordable apartments was approved via a comprehensive permit Community Development Department multifamily allowed as-of-right floor consistent with zoning district July 2, 2019 • Active non-residential use allowed on ground • Single-family, two-family, townhouse, or 4. Use

July 2, 2019 Auburn Court Apartments mixed-income development on Brookline Street Community Development Department building • Open Space • Yard Setbacks • Height and Scale restrictive (generally) 5. Development Standards • Additional flexibility for reuse of an existing • District standards apply where they are less

16 80' - 350' 45' - 78° 35' Open Space Districts Charles Maximum Existing Height Limit Cs 120) 120° 30-550/01 500 Height and Scale Development Standards Community Development Department > 7 stories and 80 feet max. > 7 stories and 80 feet max. > 4 stories and 45 feet max. / 50 feet with active ground floor 100% Affordable Housing can be up to: 0-2л 85/105-125* > More than 80 feet > 40 feet or less > 40 to 80 feet If the district allows: 70/85-105 July 2,2019

July 2, 2019 > 40 feet or less If the district allows: 100% Affordable Housing can be up to: Community Development Department Height and Scale - Attordable Housing Overlay > 4 stories and 45 feet max. / 50 feet with active ground floor

Community Development Department > 7 stories and 80 feet max. 100% Affordable Housing can be up to: July 2, 2019 Height and Scale - Affordable Housing Overlay If the district allows: • More than 40 feet

3-2B 45' July 2, 2019 residential enth St abutting district line lower-height districts Transition Buffers Otis St Development Standards 35/45' Cambridge St • Creates a "sky plane" - closer to the • Not required where abutting site is non- • From 7 stories to 5 stories within 35' of an Sciarappa St oS building, the top stories become less visible • Step-down where taller height districts abut Community Development Department DISTRICT LOW HEIGHT 17015-3 35' .5-510BL 2-STORY .4-STORT I STORY. ELEV.. GROUND

20 zoning definition) decks • Parking/driveways NOT open space (current • Doesn't include upper-story balconies or • Providing surface parking • Preserving historic building • Half required to be permeable (or reduced to average of buildings on either side) Development Standards Open Space Setbacks and Open Space • District setbacks apply if less restrictive • Minimum 30% open space (or district, if less) • 20-foot rear Yard Setbacks • 10-foot front • 7.5-foot sides • Reduction to 15% allowed for: Community Development Department 50' 50' PUBLIC STREET 100' ~15% ~15% 7.5' N 100' ЗАск SET- TARD REAR 20' PUBLIC STREET July 2, 2019 100'

July 2, 2019 in location 6. Parking • Not required for: • Existing buildings • Ratio of 0.4 space/unit • Transportation demand • Projects near transit • Reduction for Bluebikes • Flexibility for tandem parking, management if parking waived • Waiver for existing buildings • Projects requiring ≤ 4 spaces shared driveways, layout/location • Off-site parking within 1,000 feet. • Additions to historic buildings • Bicycle parking provided, flexibility BELMONT ARLINGTON Units WATERTOWN Properties Cars Parked Community Development Department Spaces provided 24 425 623 HARVARD BOSTON. 1,076 S-O MEIR VALL LE Quarter-Mile from Bus Stops Distance Buffer from Transit Half-Mile from Subway Stations and Parking utilization survey for affordable housing BROOKLINE 0.39 car/unit 0.58 space/unit NiA subway station Bus Stop Along Nayor Roun Planned Green Lane Station Distance Buffer from Transit Major Bas Roate (1, 66, 71, 73, 77) BOSTON all wale trom subwar, Quarter-Nile trom bus BOSTON

22 Bigelow Street: 11 affordable units approved by comprehensive permit currently under construction Frost Terrace: 40 affordable units approved by comprehensive permit, Community Development Department Existing setbacks and open space Allow additions and alterations as- allowed to be maintained, with flexibility for minor alterations greater density inside the existing building is reused Parking waived when existing of-right within form-based envelope Form-based approach would allow provide flexibility: limitations Affordable Housing Overlay can July 2, 2019 Conversion of non-residential existing buildings? Meeting parking requirements can • Options to develop while preserving significant buildings Additions and exterior alterations to Adding to the interior could require require special permit or variance require significant site alterations Current zoning complicates reuse in a non-conforming building could building creates setback, open space variance for added density (FAR, Additional flexibility means: various ways: dwelling units) How does this zoning help preserve • Economics can make reuse preferable where feasible issues even if structure not changed

July 2, 2019 comprehensive permit Main and Cherry Condos: 10 affordable units approved by Community Development Department uses • Site design • Setbacks Standards • Screening • Ground floors • Surface relief • Transparency • Building façades • Parking screened • Noise compliance • Grade level or above • Limit on "blank walls" Mechanicals, Refuse, Loading •. Front yards, pedestrian entrances • Breaking of long building footprints 7. Building and Site Design existing retail on site and abutting site • Active uses required in Business Districts with 23 • Additional height, depth, transparency for active

24 Community Development Department floor spaces to maintain feet massing longer than 250 July 2, 2019 storefront continuity Building and Site Design • Non-residential ground • "Courtyard" breaks for

July 2, 2019 Façades for distinct approaches avoid unbroken, flat facades • Projecting/recessing elements to Auburn Court mixed-income development on Brookline Street Building and Site Design • Flexibility at lower and upper floors Community Development Department

26 STREET OR PUBLIC OPEN SPACE FACADESFACING A PUBLIC GOLID OR OPAQUE CLEARGLAGA 15% MIN. REQD. 25% MIN. REQD. @ BA, BA-2, BB &BC ZONING DISTRICT promote transparency relief, shadow • Architectural elements with depth, • Minimum window amount to Building and Site Design Façades Community Development Department July 2, 2019

July 2, 2019 Auburn Court mixed-income apartments on Brookline Street Community Development Department Bellevue, WA Façades for a variety of approaches • Minimum standards to address typical concerns, allow flexibility Building and Site Design

Rendering of Concord Highlands Apartments, a 98-unit affordable development approved by comprehensive permit and currently under construction Community Development Department laws/ordinances apply July 2, 2019 • Green Building Requirements apply • Other environmental • Flood plain performance standards • Lighting shielded Standards Environmental Performance

July 2, 2019 reduction of family-size units and the loss of 2 units Temple Place: the comprehensive permit for this 40-unit affordable development was appealed, delaying the project for almost 3 years, and forcing a re-design of the building which resulted in the Community Development Department report Procedure second review meeting opportunity to comment • Required community meetings • Submission of plans to Planning Board with development guidelines and urban • Developer revises and submits plans for • Planning Board makes final, non-binding 29 • Planning Board comments on compliance design objectives, suggests improvements • Presentation at public meeting, public has 8. Advisory Design Consultation

Community Development Department Green building, resilience, noise and lighting control, 0.4 space/unit; waivers for existing buildings, sites All units subject to long-term affordability Districts allowing > 40 feet: up to 7 stories space with permeability standards, flexibility in open Ground floors, facades, massing, screening of restrictions, occupied by income-eligible Non-conforming buildings can be adapted for reuse space arrangement Non-binding process involving neighborhood, staff, Districts allowing ≤ 40 feet: up to 4 stories Planning Board, Affordable Housing Trust Fixed setbacks rather than formula; minimum open near transit, small sites; off-site parking allowed households, rent or initial sale price is affordable to parking and mechanicals trees and vegetation July 2, 2019 Building and Site Environmental Dimensional Height and Scale Existing Buildings Eligibility: "100%- Summary of Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning Proposal Design Standards Design Consultation Standards Standards Projects" Affordable Housing Parking

Thank You

ATTACHMENT G CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Alanna Mallon Cib Chancilor Dear Colleagues, I apologize for not being able to attend the Ordinance Committee hearing on the Affordable Housing Overlay as I have a memorial service to attend. In my absence, please find the following memo regarding Affordable Housing Trust criteria for funding approval, and the need to update the criteria based on the Affordable Housing Overlay proposal. Until now, the Affordable Housing has been built by a handful of mostly non-profit developers, but residents have expressed concerns that the Affordable Housing Overlay zoning will bring new developers into the Affordable Housing space which had not previously built Affordable Housing here in Cambridge under current zoning. This is a reasonable concern, and we should seek to address this concern by creating levers/criteria within the Affordable Housing Trust funding approval process to ensure only quality projects, by reputable builders, who commit to maintaining their buildings, are funded and can move forward. A similar lever exists on the state level, although via a different mechanism. In order to access Low Income Housing Tax Credits, or LIHTC, through the state, applicants must meet state determined criteria through a Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP). The QAP sets forth this criteria so that applicants can only access LIHTC only if the builder has met the minimum requirements that are set through a narrow criteria with competitive scoring. This ensures that the state is only giving a resource, in the form of tax credits, to qualified applicants. A non-exhaustive list of the scope of the QAP scoring criteria, with the corresponding points, is as follows; Official local support (2 points), comprehensive neighborhood revitalization effort (6 points), MB/BE (6 points), non-profit sponsor (5 points), 15% disability or special populations (8 points), inclusion of market rate (6 points), location in area of opportunity (14 points). As well as some others including; commit to affordability term of 50+ years, at least 15% designated for ELI, and points for environmentally friendly design/enhanced accessibility (26 points) and Transit Oriented Design (TOD) (6 points). As you can see there are various ways to score a project and the state allocates funding accordingly. Affordable Housing projects that have been built, and will be built in Cambridge using LIHTC already have this lever in place which offers some protection and assurance that quality, on time, TOD and environmentally friendly housing is built. To access funding at the City level, an applicant must apply to the Affordable Housing Trust whose Board determines which projects are funded through city funds, and uses predetermined metrics that guide the funding allocation decisions. However, these metrics have not been updated since 2000, and the only Affordable Housing builders who have applied for City funding in recent years have been known non-profit Affordable Housing entities, Just A Start, Homeowners Rehab Inc., Cambridge Housing Authority. More recently, the two projects built/ planned by for-profit housing organization Sean Hope/Jason Korb at Port Landing and Frost LT BALCOME MNSAAC HUSETTS02139 1617)3-8-0280 TAX 4607) 309-1287 TTY/DD (617)309 1202 EMAN amallongs mbodponapon 5-1L0

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Alana Nallon City Charidor With the proposed zoning update, there is a possibility that there will be more entities that will enter the Affordable Housing building space, and we need to ensure that the criteria by which we evaluate applicants for funding is updated by the Affordable Housing Trust. The Trust currently approves projects based on criteria regarding the type of units built, the affordability, the design of the project, as well as a very narrow review of the builder itself. As a body, we should be asking the Affordable Housing Trust to update their criteria to answer the question: what new metrics or set of criteria will they use to evaluate new Affordable Housing Developers? What criteria can we impose to ensure maintenance of the proposed buildings will provide safety for residents as well as property upkeep? Etc. In closing, in order to create an additional layer of assurances for residents that the proposed zoning change will not result in Affordable Housing that is shoddily built and poorly maintained we request that the Affordable Housing Trust review and update their evaluation criteria to better evaluate interested developers requesting funding under this proposed zoning. tanter Alanna Mallon Cambridge City Councillor CITY BALSAMINE MASA BUSETTS 02130 61730 FAX 607319108 TTY/D 613)009 1212 EMAN: amallongembradyna.goo

AtTACHmENT H Cambridge Nonprofit Coalition July 2, 2019 Members of the Cambridge City Council, This letter is written on behalf of the Cambridge Nonprofit Coalition (CNC) to express our 32 support for the 100% affordable housing overlay. Our statement represents the voices of many nonprofit leaders serving the Cambridge residents most deeply impacted by the affordable housing crisis. Although there are clear differences of opinion on this proposal, there are values we all share in Cambridge. We want to live in a community that takes care of its residents, and that celebrates diversity in all forms. We believe that diversity is a key driver for making Cambridge such a vibrant place to live and work. We love Cambridge deeply, or we wouldn't be fighting for its future. The current lack of available affordable housing options, however, is in sharp contrast with the values we express. The Cambridge Community Needs Assessment (2017) details some alarming statistics that are affirmed by previous citizen surveys and assessments. 1. In 2014 a market rate one-bedroom apartment was out of reach for over half of : Cambridge households. This gap only widens for larger units. 2. In 2013 the waitlist for housing vouchers and public housing was over 9,000 households long, demand outstripping supply by roughly 300% 3. Furthermore, because income and housing affordability are closely linked, and the median income by race is inequitable, access to housing is inequitable by race as well. CNC supports the 100% affordable housing overlay because it will add a tool to create additional units affordable housing. At its core, we believe this is an issue of equity. If the Cambridge community is serious about maintaining our rich diversity, we must be willing to change our systems in ways that allow all residents access to safe, affordable, and appropriate housing. The opponents of this proposal will say that they believe in affordable housing but not this proposal, and that the City of Cambridge and the Council should wait until another alternative is identified. We strongly disagree, as we know that waiting is a privilege that the clients our members work with simply do not have. We need to do something now to create more affordable units and use every tool at our disposal to do so.

ATTACHMENTI-1 Lopez, Donna From: Blier, Suzanne < [email removed]> Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2019 9:20 AM To: City Council; Lopez, Donna; Paden, Liza; Glowa, Nancy Subject: A legal Memorandum on the Affordable Housing Overlay Attachments: Legal Memorandum Re 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning Proposal.docx Dear Honorable City Council, City Manager, Members of the Planning Board, and City Solicitor, I am submitting to you the attached legal memorandum on the Affordable Housing Overlay. This is from Boston-based attorney who specializes in Property and Zoning Law (with a history of working both for developers and for others). We requested that this person look at the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay and offer insight on it. The result is what I am providing you with now. Cordially, Suzanne Preston Blier 5 Fuller Place

MEMORANDUM Re: Proposed 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay (the "Proposed Ordinance") Although the underlying objective of the Proposed Ordinance is laudable, it is so flawed that it should not pass as currently conceived. Those flaws are both in its legal underpinning as well as the specifics of its provisions. The Proposed Ordinance Exceeds Municipal Authority under the Zoning Enabling Act. Section 4 of MGL Chapter 40A (the state zoning enabling act) says "[a]ny zoning ordinance ... which divides cities ... into districts shall be uniform within the district for each class or kind of structures or uses permitted." (emphasis added). The only way that 100% affordable housing could be allowed in districts where no other form of multifamily or townhouse use is allowed, or to be denser and taller than any allowed residential use, is to suggest that it be characterized as a different use than the existing listed residential uses: single family, two family, townhouse, elderly congregate, and multifamily. Affordable housing is not such a different use. The only thing that differentiates it from other residential uses is the income of its occupants. But the characteristics of the use - e.g. density of occupancy, waste generation, resource consumption, shadows and light obstruction, traffic and parking generation - are identical to other forms of residential use. There is case law that says that zoning can't differentiate between condominium housing and rental housing because the nature of ownership is not a subject that can be regulated by zoning. It is more likely than not that a court would hold that trying to make zoning distinctions based on the income of occupants is similarly outside the purview of zoning. The existence of MGL Chapter 40B, which provides for the issuance of comprehensive permits to override zoning and other permit processes in order to facilitate affordable housing, is further evidence that Chapter 40A is not the tool for that objective. Section 20 of Chapter 40B sets out the definition of what zoning requirements can be imposed on proposed affordable housing. That definition, "consistent with local needs," contains this language "requirements and regulations shall be considered consistent with local needs if they are reasonable in view of the regional need for low and moderate income housing considered with the number of low income persons in the city or town affected and the need to protect the health or safety of the occupants of the proposed housing or of the residents of the city or town, to promote better site and building design in relation to the surroundings, or to preserve open spaces, and if such requirements and regulations are applied as equally as possible to both subsidized and unsubsidized housing." (emphasis added). This language, taken together with Section 4 of MGL Chapter 40A, provides a strong argument that the Proposed Ordinance violates the uniformity requirement. Finally, Section 9 of Chapter 40A, dealing with Special Permits, authorizes municipalities to enact regulations which allow for density increases, or transfer of development rights, in

furtherance of creating low and moderate income housing. One could argue that the identification of low and moderate income housing in this section as a something that zoning may specifically address undercuts the argument that it is not a separate use. However, the alternate argument, that it is a community interest - words used in this section - for which the appropriate tool is a special permit, is equally available. The Provisions of the Proposed Ordinance are Ill Conceived. Without derogating from the basic premise that the Proposed Ordinance is beyond the zoning authority granted to of the City of Cambridge by Chapter 40A, the following will highlight some of the most egregious zoning flaws in the Proposed Ordinance. Absence of Density Regulation: Neither of the principal zoning tools of the underlying ordinance which address density - FAR and lot area per unit - are applicable under the Proposed Ordinance. Only building massing is addressed. So if a proposed building can meet the setback and height limits, the number of dwelling units is irrelevant and unregulated. Thus, depending on lot shape, a lot of significant area in a Res A-1 or Res A-2 single family district, on which underlying zoning allows only one unit and an FAR or 0.5, could wind up with 15 units and an FAR of approximately 1.5. Insufficient Off-Street Parking Required: The Proposed Ordinance lowers the required off- street parking requirement from one space per unit to 0.4 space per unit and requires no off-street parking at all in any of the following situations: (i) location within ½ mile walk to a redline station or within ¼ mile walk to a bus stop with 10 minutes headway service during the morning and evening peak hours, and (ii) for a building with ten or fewer units. No other provision in the underlying zoning ordinance contains such a complete as-of-right waiver of required parking. There are provisions which enable parking reductions by special permit after study - see section 6.35.1(6), and one provision allow a reduction to 60% of the otherwise required parking for an Affordable Housing Project, but nothing as draconian as the Proposed Ordinance. Lack of Protective Provisions: The underlying zoning ordinance is replete with provisions protecting adjacent residences from the effect of larger scale development, and with a bias for the preservation of existing older buildings. For example, townhouse developments of over 6 units in certain residential districts require a special permit, and more lenient dimensional provisions cannot be availed of for a development which replaces a building found "Preferably Preserved Significant Building" by the Historical Commission. Other provisions require a step-down of taller buildings adjacent to older historic buildings. The stated purposes of the Massachusetts Avenue Overly District include "to ensure that changes along the Avenue are compatible with the scale and character of the abutting neighborhoods, (d) to encourage the retention of existing buildings of historic value and uses which serve the abutting neighborhoods, and to (e) discourage new development inappropriate in both scale and design. In contrast, while a single provision of the Proposed Ordinance addresses height adjacent to certain residential districts with more restrictive height limits, there is no regulation of scale within those districts, nor any disincentive to demolish worthy older buildings.

The Advisory Design Consultation Process set out in Section 8 of the Proposed Ordinance, which supplants all of the review processes in Article 19 of the zoning ordinance, is toothless. A developer can ignore the outcome of that process. The Community Development Department argues that because the City will in most instances be a funding source for development cost or rental subsidy, we should trust the City to impose these needed reviews through that funding mechanism, rather than through zoning. There are two problems with that assurance. First, not every project will use the City as a funding source. Second, there is often a correlation between good design and development cost. The City is inevitably going to be conflicted when faced with the need to fund additional subsidy as the cost of better design. Example: To illustrate these flaws, take the example of a property now on the market in an A-1 zoning district which is not within an historic district and is within ¼ mile of a bus stop with the requisite level of service. This single family home is on a lot which has dimensions of approximately 94' × 110 feet, and contains 10,340 square feet. The A-1 district requires a 25' front yard, a 25' rear yard, aggregate side yard of 35', and limits height to 35'. Subtracting the yard requirements from the lot dimensions, a developable footprint remains of 59° × 60°, or 3,540 square feet. The Proposed Ordinance would allow a four story building, resulting in 14,160 square feet of development. At an average of approximately 950 square feet per unit, this results in a 15 unit project with no parking.

ATTACHMENT I-2 Subject FW: Major flaws in the AHO - please keep it in committee to correct the problems, or better - redo it from the start From Lopez, Donna To: [email removed] <[email removed]> Date Mon, Jul 8 2019 at 9:18 AM From: Crane, Paula Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:58 AM To: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@ cambridgema.gov> Subject: FW: Major flaws in the AHO - please keep it in committee to correct the problems, or better - redo it from the start From: Blier, Suzanne <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 6:10 PM To: City Council <City Council@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane@ cambridgema.gov>; DePasquale, Louie <|depasquale@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Major flaws in the AHO - please keep it in committee to correct the problems, or better - redo it from the start Honorable Cambridge City Council Members and Cambridge City Manager,

Earlier I forwarded to you the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association's strong opposition to the proposed city-wide Overlay that would upzone the whole city. I write to you now as a Cambridge resident who has been following these issues closely and has begun to work with other neighborhood leaders on these and other issues. Like many of us here, while I strongly support affordable housing, and efforts to do more to address the roots of the problem (increased gentrification, the lack of viable safeguards for renters, and unprecedented institutional, biotech and other growth, this Overlay is deeply flawed, will likely bring an array of lawsuits, and will be highly destructive of both the environment here and the core fabric of the city. Cordially, Suzanne Preston Blier 5 Fuller Place Suzanne Preston Blier, Allen Whitehill Clowes Professor of Fine Arts and of African and African American Studies Harvard University 485 Broadway, Cambridge Ma. 02138. [phone removed] Member, Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University Board, National Committee for the History of Art Chair, International Advisory Committee, WorldMap 43rd President, College Art Association (2016-18, founded 1911) Picasso's Demoiselles The Untold Abu cr Origins

of a Modern N Art and Risk in Ancient Yoruba The image b * the Black Masterpicce in African and Asian Art Recent books: Picasso's Demoiselles: The Untold Origins of a Modern Masterpiece (June 2019 Duke University Press); Art and Risk in Ancient Yoruba: Ife History, Power and Identity c. 1300 (Cambridge University Press. Winner, 2016 Prose Prize in Art History and Criticism; Winner, 2016 Choice Outstanding Academic Title); The Image of the Black in African and Asian Art, with Henry Louis Gates Jr. and David Bindman (Harvard University Press. 2017); Art of Jazz: Form/Performance/Notes with David Bindman and Vera Grant (Harvard University Press 2017.Top 10 Art Books of 2017 Crave magazine); Les asen: mémoires de fer forge dans l'art vodoun du Dahomey. (2018. Geneva: Ides et Calende; Forthcoming: 1325: How Africa Made the Modern World (2021 Yale University Press).

ATTACHMENT J. Subject FW: Opposition to AHO From Lopez, Donna To: [email removed] <[email removed]> Date Mon, Jul 8 2019 at 9:18 AM From: Crane, Paula Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:56 AM To: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@ cambridgema.gov> Subject: FW: Opposition to AHO From: john gilmore <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 7:49 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane @cambridgema.gov>; DePasquale, Louie <|depasquale@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Opposition to AHO Honorable Cambridge City Council Members and Cambridge City Manager, The longer I study it, the more puzzled I am as to why the City is considering this deeply flawed proposal. We are one of the densest cities in the US. We have added almost 10,000 housing units in the last 10 years and millions of sq. feet of office

space. Much more is in the works. Consider the Alewife Fresh Pond area. We have lost more than 20% of our tree canopy which is very important for our health. See https://www.fastcompany.com/40474204/cities-should-think-about-trees-as- public-health-infrastructure We have added almost 1000 affordable units in the last several years and already compare very favorably to our surrounding communities. This isn't to say we shouldn't do more through existing programs and direct subsidies and through work with the universities and businesses. But against this background, why go where no other city or town in America has gone with an ordinance that is likely to have ruinous consequences for the city in terms of the environment, traffic, and the degradation of the historical fabric of our city. And the only real beneficiaries may be the developers. My wife and I live on Reservoir St. in a house we were lucky enough to buy 40 years ago. It happens to have a deep lot - 18,500 sq feet. Under the AHO it could be bought, torn down (its not in an conservation district as is true of all of Reservoir Hill.) and replaced with 20 to 25 apartments in a 4 story building. The 20 mature trees on the lot would be cut down and traffic would heavily increase on a an already busy street. The development, higher and much larger than its neighbors, would stick out like the proverbial sore thumb and change the character of this entire street which has both single family houses and three story condominiums and apartments.. If you think this scenario is an exaggeration consider the real life one in City Manager De Pasquale's letter to the Council. He says that if only the AHO had been in effect a 3 story 6 unit apartment building on a 12,000 sq. ft. parcel could have been "rehabbed" (and presumably the middle income tenants kicked out) by a developer who would have connected it to a new 4 story building over the existing parking lot. The end result would have been 21 units, more than tripling the density and no doubt eliminating some mature trees (he doesn't address the subject in this or in his other examples.). (The valuation of his example and our parcel are quite similar)

Cambridge should be an environmental leader and not at the back of of the bus. This is the most important issue of our time. Thank you for considering this letter. We urge the Council to vote against this Ordinance. John and Elizabeth Gilmore

Subject Fwd: Chairman Carlone, Mayor McGovern, Councilors, From Lopez, Donna To: Donna Lopez - home <[email removed]> Date Wed, Jul 3 2019 at 9:00 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Carolyn Fuller <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 7:42:20 PM To: Clerk; City Council Subject: Chairman Carlone, Mayor McGovern, Councilors, Chairman Carlone, Mayor McGovern, Councilors, My name is Carolyn Fuller - 12 Douglass St, a proud 40 year resident of The Port, a very proud member of A Better Cambridge, and a strong proponent for a richly diverse population throughout our entire city. I am here this evening in support of the Affordable Housing Overlay in hopes zoning is no longer allowed to be the tool used to bifurcate our fair city into the haves and the have nots. It is easy to say Cambridge supports welcoming new immigrant arrivals, supports greater diversity, supports the production of more affordable housing, etc. But those sentiments fly out the window with the first whiff of sacrifice. We all want to control what happens in our backyards but the reality is that any one person's personal concerns often conflict with wider community goals. Restrictive zoning is currently hampering our ability to reach our stated affordable housing goals. It is time to loosen these zoning restrictions and give any developer who is willing to build 100% affordable housing an opportunity to do the job. You each say you support affordable housing. Please walk the talk and give this overlay plan a chance, a plan that has been carefully crafted to meet our community's stated goals. Carolyn Sent from my phone

ATTACHMENTL Tuesday, July 2, 2019 Good evening, I'm Patrick Braga, 11 Everett St., urban planner at Harvard and registered voter in Cambridge, and I support the overlay. At last week's Planning Board hearing, one person said, "We are mostly homeowners here," and sadly, he was right - even though the City Budget says that only 33% of Cantabrigians own their housing. That's an issue in a 67% renter city. Our public hearings amplify homeowner positions to the detriment of experiences of housing hardship. One even complained about for-profit affordable developers, but homeownership is investment too. Some owners are just as concerned about their equity appreciation as commercial investors. In fact, some speakers explicitly feared that the Overlay would reduce their property value. The difference is that unlike a commercial investor, many homeowners put their equity in a single, non-liquid, nondiversified asset. But if that's your investment strategy, change is a risk you have to be willing to take, especially in a city with explosive growth and progressive politics. Ironically, many opponents decry by-right zoning, but it already exists in Cambridge. The easiest way is on a single-unit detached house, which I refuse to call "singie-family homes" because such an emotional moniker masks the realities of unrelated adults or immigrant families having to double up of a house to make ends meet. So while as-of-right approvals thus exist for people making above the median income, I want us to expand that right to housing for Cantabrigians earning below the median. One person said the overlay would "[pervert] the market to meet a social end," but that's exactly what our exclusionary zoning already does. Plus, 100% affordable projects wouldn't mean segregation. The economic story of a household earning 80% AMI is quite different from one earning 50%. Why can't we be brave enough to reengineer, reinvent, and redevelop our 400-year ald city to make it a more inclusive and ever more perfect community? Some opponents call the overlay undemocratic, but you know what's not democratic? Keeping up regulatory barriers that make it harder for more people to enjoy the blessings of an opportunity-rich city like Cambridge. Thank you. [email removed]

will email-but with one ATTACHMENT M change Public Comment on Proposed Affordable Housing Overlay District and Additional Funding-Ordinance Committee hearing July 2, 2019 My name is Larry Field and live in Porter Square. I'm in favor of the proposed affordable housing overlay proposal. For the last eight years, l've been a close observer of subsidy and tax credit awards for affordable housing in Massachusetts. During that time, I've been employed within the Housing and Economic Development secretariat (2011-14) and the Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance (2015 to present). Attached to this comment is what I submitted at a Housing Committee hearing on one factual point: the challenge of obtaining federal and state funding for affordable housing in Cambridge. This comment will focus on three fears about this proposal: that development will greatly exceed expectations, that it is intertwined with a housing growth agenda that is climate-unfriendly, and that it will produce ugly, out- of-scale buildings. Fear that affordable housing development will greatly exceed expectations The City's Community Development Department has said that the AHO proposal is designed to maintain our current production levels (50-60 units/year) and, hopefully, : increase that production to 100 units/year. This reflects its hope that 1-2 affordable housing projects will receive state awards each year in the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD)'s highly competitive rental round. In addition, this reflects the possibility that the City will agree to fund additional 100% affordable projects.1 Despite this seemingly realistic assessment, there is fear of uncontrolled affordable housing development fueled by global investors and for-profit developers. This is fantasy. The basic flaw is simple: without substantial public subsidy, NO affordable housing development is profitable. The reason we need affordable housing is that there is a mismatch between development costs and what people of limited means can pay in 1 As you have heard, the City is presently contributing about $200,000/unit to make our projects competitive. So, state awards totaling 60 units mean $12 million in city resources. With development costs at $500,000 (or more), it is rather unlikely the City could fund more than 40 additional units. 2 Tax credits are awarded by DHCD, so this is a form of subsidy.

involve existing structures and/or impervious surfaces and existing infrastructure. Parking requirements will be cut. And since smart growth also includes an equity component, 100% affordable housing is a great outcome. It is hard to think of a better smart growth strategy than permitting 1,000 units of scatter-site affordable housing in Cambridge.S But the argument exposes what underlies much of the opposition to the AHO proposal: the belief that Cambridge would be better off if our job and housing growth drastically slowed. That view would be appealing if our growth had been fueled by tax breaks. But our growth is driven by forces that are promoting walkability and climate resilience —Greater Boston is becoming a walkable urban, rather than car-centric suburban area. Millennial workers and downsizing seniors want to live in walkable, transit- connected, diverse places like Cambridge. Employers are following them and have been sold on the value of innovative, collaborative places like Kendall Square. Office, retail and multi-family tenants are willing to pay substantial rent premiums to be here. For the first time in decades, growth is disproportionally occurring in the places we want.® While we need to have the larger conversation about Cambridge's future growth, the AHO proposal makes sense even if we decide to lower our job and housing targets. Fear of ugly, out-of-scale buildings There is obviously fear that the AHO proposal will lead to ugly buildings that don't fit the scale of surrounding development. This is an understandable fear, as every zoning and permitting regime has led to both good and bad design. This is exactly 5 Opponents have argued that the AHO proposal will have a negative climate effect, e.g., by decreasing our tree canopy and open space. Urban trees are important for sequestering carbon and mitigating the urban "heat island" effect. But the loss of tree canopy coverage and open space would be quite small— and balanced by locating affordable housing where tenants can walk or take public transit to work. 6 Try this for "counter-factual" history: vacant lots in Kendall Square, but Cambridge residents driving to Burlington for their jobs at the world's bio-tech hub on Third Avenue. Or, even now, would the environment and our city really be better off if there were huge job clusters in Watertown (no subway) or the Route 16 corridor (limited walkability to Orange Line stations)? The traffic patterns might vary according to each scenario, but we and the Greater Boston region would be more car-dependent and even more commuters would travel by car through Cambridge to their jobs.

Public Comment on Proposed Affordable Housing Overlay District and Additional Funding-Housing Committee hearing March 20, 2019 My name is Larry Field and live in Porter Square. I'm in favor of the proposed affordable housing overlay district and $20 million/year in additional funding. This comment focuses on a factual point: the challenge of obtaining federal and state funding for affordable housing in Cambridge. For the last eight years, l've been a close observer of subsidy and tax credit awards for affordable housing in Massachusetts. During that time, I've been employed within the Housing and Economic Development secretariat (2011-14) and the Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance (2015 to present). 100% affordable housing developments are only built if there is sufficient public subsidy (grants) and state allocation of federal and state tax credits. The total development cost in Cambridge for a new unit in such a development is now $500,000 to $550,000. In comparison, it could cost $300,000 for a new unit in a "Gateway City" like Pittsfield or New Bedford, or $350,000 in Lowell. In many cases, the projects also need operating subsidy because tenants are unable to contribute enough from their limited incomes. As you've heard from the City's able Community Development staff, the city must contribute at least $200,000 for each such unit. That number will only go up, unless the cost of developing an affordable unit in Cambridge stabilizes by increasing the allowable density and/or decreasing the time and cost to permit a 100% affordable project. Since February 2011, the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) has announced (on average) $80 million in subsidy and tax credit awards. Approximately 25 projects win awards each year. They are a combination of "new" units and "preserved" units (rehabilitation of older affordable units, mainly units that would become market rate without injection of new public money). DHCD has funded about 6,000 new units during that time. Three of those awards were in Cambridge: Port Landing (20 units), Concord Highlands (60 affordable and 38 "workforce" units), and Frost Terrace (40 units). A fourth, Squirrelwood, involved 23 new units and 65 preserved units. In other words, in eight years, the

Number 3—There is a practical limit to the number of affordable units the city can promote through the affordable housing overlay and an additional $20 million/year. As noted earlier, DHCD awards around $80 million/year in subsidy and tax credits for new and preserved units. Between the many strong affordable housing developers and the need to make awards to meet all the top priorities and in every part of the state, there is a ceiling to how many awards can go to Cambridge projects. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Larry Field Mount Vernon Street

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT N From: Elizabeth Gilmore < [email removed]> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 11:08 AM To: Lopez, Donna Please Think Smarter Subject: Dear City Council Members, I am sure that this debate about your proposed Zoning Overlay is as wearing on all of you as it has been on the thousands of us who support increasing the amount of Affordable Housing but insist on finding a way to do it wisely, economically, with environmental and community sensitivity. What makes Cambridge such a special place to live is the people and the places, the diversity and the neighborhoods, and especially the fact that our density (except at rush hour) is livable. What your plan proposes is that more and more of Cambridge become developments like those that already abound along Concord Avenue, behind Fresh Pond Circle and Alewife, and along New Street by Fresh Pond Shopping Center. What are you doing to ensure that all THOSE developments are in line with inclusion, diversity and appropriate density? So far, what we see is lots of single units for business professionals and inadequate goals set by the City and the developers with regard to Affordable Housing. As City Councilors you have the great responsibility of thinking and voting on behalf of all the citizens and making policies whose merits or disasters will stand long into the future. Be visionary! Use your common sense and at the very least pause about the destructive direction being considered. Given a little more time and input from wise heads - and not just input from developers who are using Affordable Housing "morality" for their own benefit - you will find other more practical and successful ways of solving this dilemma. Steer the ship - don't BE steered by economic incentives that benefit you personally. The Envision consultants are doing what consultants do, namely coming up with ideas that are low-hanging fruit. Build higher. That is not a big idea. And have you done any studies on how this impacts our urban infrastructure including energy supplies, DPW and municipal services, public schools, or traffic? The disappearing tree canopy aside, proposals being considered for climate change preparedness have not been finalized. I like to believe you have thinking abilities complex enough to understand that radically increasing development makes our problems even worse. Creating more Affordable Housing is just one of our city's challenges, one among the many that you have responsibility for while in office. I have been a resident of Cambridge for 45 years and have invested in the City as a taxpayer and a community volunteer. 1 am so frustrated and disappointed to find that the officials I have voted into office, funded with the resources that I as a homeowner have paid in, are acting so irresponsible and lazy. You can do better. Let's slow down and find solutions that create more Affordable Housing intelligently developed, or re-developed, and that provides homes for community members such as teachers, firefighters, restaurant workers and all the others who make our community so vital. Let's NOT build 4 to 7 story buildings that shame those living in them and poison the communities into which they have been shoved by developers and our current City Council, if you continue to be a part of the problem.. Sincerely, Elizabeth Gilmore 47 Reservoir Street 1

ATTACHMENT O [phone removed] Brad Bellows 87 Howard Street Cambridge MA 02139 2 July 2019 Cambridge City Council Ordinance Committee 875 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge MA 02139 c/o Paul Crane, Deputy City Clerk re: Affordable Housing Overlay Dear Councillors, As you consider major changes to the zoning regulations that have shaped growth in Cambridge for the past 50 years, I encourage you to consider the following points: First, beware the unintended consequences of ostensibly virtuous acts. History is littered with well-meaning policies that not only failed to accomplish their goals, but made things worse. Cambridge is highly desirable in large part because of the very environmental protections the Affordable Housing Overlay would undermine. The housing crisis we now face is being fueled by regional policy failures, specifically our broken regional transportation system, and any really effective solution must be regional. Cambridge, acting alone, will never be able to build our way out of this structural crisis. Until our transportation system is fixed, demand for housing within the core MBTA network will be essentially infinite. This is not to say that our supply of affordable housing should not be increased - it should - but we should not sacrifice other important values in the mistaken belief that this will solve the problem. Even though Cambridge is one of the very few Commonwealth cities to actually meet our Chapter 40B obligations, we do need to continue and expand our efforts - but building income-segregated housing is no way to do this. All the research suggests mixed-income housing provides far more social benefit, and is certainly more congruent with our values. It seems truly perverse that income segregation would be embraced as a cornerstone of our effort to increase income diversity. Urgent though the housing crisis is, it needs to be addressed with a scalpel not a sledgehammer. I urge you to resist the siren song of an easy fix, and pursue more nuanced solutions that protect what generations have worked hard to create while fostering social integration, not segregation. Brad Belems Brad Bellows

ATTACHMENT P Dear Esteemed Cambridge City Council Members, I am very pleased that the Affordable Housing Overlay proposal has moved forward to the Ordinance Committee, and I am here tonight to express my strongest support for passage of the proposal. Clearly, as a strong advocate for affordable housing, I am supporting this measure because it will increase the affordable housing stock by making it more fiscally feasible to build affordable housing in Cambridge. We are all aware of the need for affordable housing that is particularly great in our city because of our very high housing costs and heavy demand. Additional affordable housing will provide very badly needed housing for those struggling to make ends meet for their families, including for people who were raised here and for those who work here. But, for me, the other strong reason I support more affordable housing in our city is that it will help to preserve and hopefully expand the too rapidly diminishing diversity of our city, which I strongly value. I want to speak to a couple of concerns that have been raised in previous hearings about how this proposal would impact the people who would find housing as a result of passage of the Overlay. The first is about the impact of less open space. I would respond that, first of all, we are fortunate to live in a city where there is extensive access to nearby parks. Also, those families who would get the additional units made possible by less open space will far prefer that to being forced to live far away from Cambridge, or even worse, in a shelter or motel. I have also heard concerns about these families being segregated because they will be living in 100% affordable buildings. But these buildings will not be like the housing projects such as Newtowne Court or Washington Elms. While such projects provide much needed housing, and their residents have built strong and vibrant communities, nonetheless they are to some extent separate and isolated from the rest of our neighborhood. This initiative would produce buildings like the two on my street whose tenants have become a welcome part of our neighborhood and have made my street the rich and diverse community that I so love and value. I urge you to pass the Affordable Housing Overlay proposal so that we can create more diverse and rich streets and neighborhoods like the one that I live in throughout ALL of Cambridge. Esther Hanig 136 Pine St., #2

ATTACN MENT Q Subject Fwd: Comments for Ordinance Committee, 2019/07/02 From Lopez, Donna To: Donna Lopez - home <[email removed]> Date Wed, Jul 3 2019 at 8:59 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Christopher Schmidt <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 9:32:26 PM To: Clerk; City Council Subject: Comments for Ordinance Committee, 2019/07/02 Council and Clerk, This is my public comment from the Ordinance Committee hearing today, 2019-07-02. Please feel free to include this comment in the public record as appropriate. .: SESE am in support of the Affordable Housing Overlay. In particular, I ask that the Committee moves forward with the proposed ordinance while maintaining the key components of the petition text: The density proposed, the citywide nature, and the as-of-right provisions. I trust the ordinance committee to balance these needs with other amendments to the petition. want to tell you why this matters so much to me.

When I moved to Cambridge, I was a single income earner in a family of four. In order to afford to live in Cambridge, we needed to invite friends to live with us to mitigate the cost of the apartment we were in. In the end, we were 4 adults and 2 children living in a 4 bedroom house, doing our best to make it work. One of my friends used this opportunity to get a job as a veterinary assistant at a vet care facility in Cambridge. Due to sharing housing with us, we were able to help support her as she went through a local vet school to obtain her vet tech degree. Sadly, shortly after she finished her degree, our landlord passed away and our home was sold, and we had to find new housing. We could not find something affordable that would fit our extended family, and had to move into a smaller unit where we could not share. That shift left my friend without a space to live - and despite having a full time job working as a trained vet tech in Cambridge, she was unable to find any place in Cambridge that would be in her budget. Instead, she moved to Salem. Living in a studio apartment, she continued to try to work for Cambridge Vet Care, using the commuter rail from Salem to reach work every day. Unfortunately, in the end, this didn't turn out to be affordable either: with the rising cost and unpredictable failures of the commuter rail, she was eventually forced to leave the area and return to live with her family, 7 states away.

She was working full time, at a trained job, after having gotten a degree. Yet she couldn't afford to live in Cambridge. With an affordable housing waiting list for Cambridge residents that numbers in decades, there was no chance of such a home for her. I lost my friend -- a friend who had become as close to us as family - because Cambridge was not welcoming to her. When | look to ways to increase the amount of affordable housing, I do so thinking of her: Someone who went to school, studied, got a job... and eventually had to give it all up, because Cambridge as a community at the time could not make room for her. I hope that the affordable housing overlay will be one way where we can make a little more room for people like my friend. Thank you for your time. Christopher Schmidt 17 Laurel St.

ATTACHMENTR Statement to the Ordinance Committee regarding the Proposed Affordable Overlay, July 2, 2019 Annette LaMond 7 Riedesel Avenue, Cambridge 02128 I am speaking to voice my opposition to the proposed Overlay. The City is already making good progress toward affordable housing goals through inclusionary requirements for new development. The new apartment construction over the past few years has greatly increased traffic congestion on the city's streets, many of which are narrow and one-way. The environmental costs of further increases in congestion if the Overlay is adopted should not be overlooked. Rather than a divisive debate on this proposal, we should be uniting to press for transit improvements to make it easier to commute in and out of Cambridge. Cambridge is a historic city. Although there are historic districts and neighborhood conservation districts, not every neighborhood has the historic protection that it deserves. I live in a neighborhood that the CHC has dubbed Reservoir Hill. Many houses in my neighborhood are featured in the Commission's books, but we have no special protection beyond the demolition regulations on houses that are more than 50 years old. Recently, a well-travelled visitor, who had never been to Cambridge before, told me that she thought my neighborhood was one of the most beautiful that she had ever seen. But, if the proposed Overlay is adopted, it will have no protection. Finally, I want to say that, although I am fortunate to live in a beautiful neighborhood, my mother was an immigrant, who came to this country as a little girl just before the Depression. Her family was very poor, and housing insecurity was part of her childhood. I hold the stories of what my mother experienced as a girl in my heart. I want to see the City as a model of good housing, but we need a master plan - not a zoning change that has not been tested anywhere else, one that promises to do more harm than good.

ATTHCNMENTS From: Deborah Gevalt dgevalt@)comcast.net Subject: AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY Date: Jul 2, 2019 at 9:21:33 AM To: council@cambridgema.gov Cc: pcrane@cambridgema.gov From: Deborah Gevalt <[email removed]» Date: July 2, 2019 at 8:26:55 AM EDT To: Deborah Gevalt <[email removed]> Subject: AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY My name is Deborah Gevalt. I live at 55 Reservoir Street near its intersection with Huron Avenue. My house is the only two family residence in a row of condominiums which were originally two families. I have lived in my house for more than forty years and have rented the ground floor unit at very affordable rents. I have been following the 100% affordable housing issue and have become "' : more concerned about its impact on our City in the past few months. Craig Kelly's thoughtful piece including calculations on his 5000 sf lot got my attention - 10 or 12 units on a lot which now has a 1700 sf house. My lot is oniy slightly smaller at 4224 sí - so 8-10 units would be about right. I can't imagine it. I can sum up my major concerns in three phrases: loss of tree canopy- the difference in scale between a 40 yr old tree on my property and the recently : planted street tree is stark; abandonment of FAR in favor of Form-based zoning; AFO construction resulting in mass which will overwhelm existing structures and neighborhoods. Turge the City to suspend action on this Plan and put the issue to a vote by the citizens of Cambridge in the form of a binding referendum. Thank you.

ATTACHMENT T July 1, 2019 The Ordinance Committee Cambridge City Council RE: 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal To the Ordinance Committee of the Cambridge City Council: I am writing to you to support fully the proposed Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay for the entire city of Cambridge. This proposal will greatly assist in the provision of affordable housing throughout our city. It will affirm our commitment to providing housing within the economic means of a wide range of residents, including families with children, individuals and seniors. Over the past couple of months, I have attended public meetings about the proposed Zoning Overlay, discussed it with my neighbors in Cambridgeport and other parts of the city, and read materials written by both advocates and opponents of this zoning change. It seems evident that the opponents are against this for the same kinds of reasons that opponents of affordable housing have voiced for years: They worry about the loss of neighborhood identity; they worry that unattractive housing will be built; they worry that there could be "inappropriate" residents coming into neighborhoods which have become increasingly expensive and economically homogeneous over the past decades; and that property values will be negatively impacted. But they cannot point to a single affordable housing project which has had these deleterious impacts; and they cannot identify one because this has not happened in Cambridge. This proposal gives the City Council an opportunity to add another useful approach to creating affordable housing in Cambridge. With both construction costs and real estate costs rising rapidly in Cambridge, this approach will help committed affordable housing developers to compete for sites to add to the stock of affordable homes. Since projects developed pursuant to this new zoning overlay would have to be 100% affordable, this zoning change cannot be exploited by real estate developers who are simply seeking to build and make profits. I have lived in Cambridge since the early 1970s, and so have witnessed housing rents and prices increasing nonstop, now reaching levels that are beyond the means of most moderate income households and unreachable for lower income families and individuals. Like many people, I moved to Cambridge in part because its economic and social diversity were very appealing. But we are losing this dynamic aspect of our city in the face of increasing market demand. The Zoning Overlay proposal will not turn around the market, but it will make it more possible to create new affordable housing units. This is an opportunity that the City Council can seize to make good on its stated policies of diversity and inclusion. Does the City want to do that? Or does it want to let an impersonal market that values profit above people determine the shape of our neighborhoods? Does it want to see more and more parts of Cambridge become upper class enclaves? Or does it want to create new tools and approaches that can help preserve City • people shaked file big afridable unit built in cambridge.

as a diverse, creative city which is welcoming to all peoples? I urge you to do the latter and to vote to approve the propose Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to present to you. Sincerely yours, Louise Elving 36 Cottage Street Cambridge, MA 02139 Telephone: [phone removed] Email: [email removed] Member of the Board of Directors of Homeowners Rehab, Inc.

Lopez, Donna ArTACHMENT U-1 From: bob <[email removed]> Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2019 11:41 AM City Council; Lopez, Donna; FPRA; Corporal Burns @ yahoo groups To: Subject: Ordinance Committee meeting 7/2/2019 Cambridge City Council Ordinance Committee, I urge the Ordinance Committee members to consider the following regarding the Affordable Housing Overlay. The complexity of this vast proposal has been too rapidly and too poorly conveyed to residents and Cambridge homeowners - a majority of citizens have no idea what is being proposed or how their property may be impacted. In my opinion, the AHO, as currently written, is a needlessly overzealous assault on the historical and democratic system of current zoning regulations which are the only recourse a current homeowner/property owner in Cambridge can rely on to prevent totally inappropriate structures from being built on adjacent properties. Doesn't it make more sense to target the most appropriate properties and sites in the city for affordable housing first, in a more moderate manner? As currently written, the AHO targets all of the city despite the many differences in the different and diverse neighborhoods of Cambridge. Does anyone seriously think that the residents of a current A-1 or A-2 zoning district will be as seriously impacted by the AHO as the residents of a C-2 district? During the past 20 years did the Cambridge Community Development Department consider, attempt or propose to acquire the Third Street Courthouse, which, I believe would be a totally suitable location for affordable housing? It is an existing structure that with appropriate renovation including the removal of asbestos, as well as other important renovations, is appropriately suitable for affordable housing. It is in close proximity to both the Green Line and bus routes at Lechmere Station, which would go a long way to mitigating automobile ownership. Did the Community Development Department investigated any of the empty structures in the Concord Avenue area currently zoned BA or AOD before developing and promoting the overreaching proposal of the AHO? In an attempt to give my opinion some context, as we all know, lack of affordable housing is not a Cambridge-only problem. It is a Greater Boston, regional, state-wide and national problem. Cambridge has already done more than its fair share of affordable housing development in this Commonwealth. There is no other location in the United States that I know of where a radical proposal of this nature is being considered. California's SB 50 was recently defeated, and that bill required only a change from single-family to duplex/triplex/4- plex. The closest proposal I know of to the proposed AHO is Palo Alto's passage of a 100% affordable overlay on currently-zoned commercial property within ½-mile of transit hubs and ¼-mile of quality transit corridors. Also, appropriate residents of affordable housing often come with many other needs besides housing. A controlled and well-defined phase-in of affordable housing would give the City the financial opportunity to expand these other badly- needed services as well. Concerns of many current residents and home owners of Cambridge include the fact that the CDD has not effectively written a form-based zoning proposal by individual neighborhood and zone to ensure the right intended outcomes. 1

As currently written, (see Section 5.2.1 (b)(i), the AHO seems to make the economics of many corridor properties less competitive with the larger parcels in Res A and B. In changing zoning across the entire city, this proposal uses new untested mechanisms that the City has yet to effectively articulate, detail, or study. Where is the infrastructure to support a city-wide zoning change? As far as I can tell there has been no consideration to the impact on potable water, sewage systems, flood maps, storm drain requirements, wetlands protection, nor on the city's electrical power requirements or public schools. Has there been any consideration given to vehicular traffic? For example, it is already a rush hour on the Alewife Brook and Fresh Pond Parkways from 2:30 PM to 7:00 PM, Mondays to Fridays. Also, as currently written, the AHO will adversely impact climate resilience by removing tree canopy, open space and permeable space from the city for decades. Cambridge already has over 14% of its housing stock set aside as subsidized units for income-qualified residents, well above the state's mandated 10% minimum and one of the highest rates in the state. Passage of the AHO in its current form by removing the restriction for affordable housing would dramatically change zoning city-wide and the unique character and historical nature of the city for decades. As written, I believe this zoning proposal will encourage more tear-downs of existing properties, perpetuating the loss of existing middle-income housing that the City has not effectively addressed. The proposed AHO gives as of right benefits to developers while eliminating input from the Planning Board and Cambridge residents. This is a highly undemocratic maneuver and is contrary to over two hundred years of national zoning traditions. I believe that the unfortunate risk of totally unexpected and unforeseen consequences would be better managed if the AHO were restricted in a logical and appropriate way as has been done in Palo Alto. In closing, I urge the Ordinance Committee to reject the AHO as written and to comply with the Planning Board's requests for answers to its questions and concerns, and to heed the concerns of the majority of citizens of the City Robert M. Camacho 24 Corporal Burns Road Cambridge, MA 02138

AtTACamenT U-2 3 minutes for Ordinance Comm. 7-2-19 I urge the Ordinance Committee to consider the following regarding the Affordable Housing Overlay: 1. The complexity of the proposal has been too rapidly and too poorly conveyed to residents and Cambridge homeowners - a majority of citizens still have no idea what is being proposed or how their property may be impacted. 2. It is an assault on the historical and democratic system of current zoning regulations which are the only recourse a current homeowner can rely on to prevent inappropriate structures from being built on adjacent properties. As currently written, the AHO targets all of the city despite the many differences in the diverse neighborhoods of Cambridge. 3. Lack of affordable housing is not a Cambridge-only problem, but a nation-wide problem. The city has already done more than its fair share of affordable housing development. There is no other city in the America I am aware of where such a radical proposal is being considered. The closest is Palo Alto which passed a 100% affordable overlay on currently-zoned commercial property within a half-mile of transit hubs and a quarter-mile of transit corridors. There are numerous similar sites in Cambridge that can be targeted for affordable housing without putting home ownership in the entire city at risk of unintended consequences. 4. I ask where is the infrastructure to support a city-wide zoning change? There has been no consideration to the impact on potable water, sewage systems, flood maps, storm drain requirements, wetlands protection, nor on the city's electrical power requirements or public schools. Has any consideration been given to vehicular traffic? 5. AHO developments should NOT be exempted from the Tree Protection Ordinance. The AHO will adversely impact climate resilience by removing tree canopy, open and permeable space from the city for decades. 6. I believe this proposal will encourage more tear-downs of existing properties, perpetuating the loss of existing middle-income housing that the City has not effectively addressed. Page 1

3 minutes for Ordinance Comm. 7-2-19 7. As written the AHO gives "as of right" benefits to developers while eliminating input from the Planning Board and Cambridge residents. This is an undemocratic maneuver. 8. The mention of the phrase "affordable housing" has become a keyword used by petitioners to manipulate city government for exceptions to current zoning. Witness SSG increasing its offer of space for affordable housing to 20,000 sf. yet maintaining the Evolve Fitness Center at a reduced 2,500 sf. from its current 18,000 sf. It's ridiculous. Why bother? That reduces Evolve to less than 15% of its current size. And the other business would be gone. 9. If the AHO is passed as is, developers and speculators will surmise that the mere inclusion of the phrase "affordable housing" will justify any petition before the Planning Board and this committee. Robert M. Camacho 24 Corporal Burns Road Cambridge, MA 02138 Page 2

AMACHMENTV SUPPORT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONING OVERLAY Because of Cambridge's affordable housing crisis, we Cambridge residents urge the City Council to approve an Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay for Cambridge to promote the development of more affordable housing. Name Address 362 Rindge Are Ashraf Pardiwala Cambidge , mA - 02140 Andulsazak Pardiwala 362 Rindge Ave Camboidge MA 02440. 362 Rindge Are 1241 Yenenesh diriser 021.39 the Callic Apt 70( 02139 $37 FeANtlins Dorothy Collins # 4/ 4 putnam garde 02,39 Yemisnach kibret Jos-pll fluend 02141 Lyssa Coa § Marcella St # 2 Cambridge m

SUPPORT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONING OVERLAY Because of Cambridge's affordable housing crisis, we Cambridge residents urge the City Council to approve an Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay for Cambridge to promote the development of more affordable housing. Address Name 362R. Avenue tugie Ryande #SF 362 RAve # 16M Tastie Begum 362 A 21- Hiw ot Bekado 362 21L 3624L 364 2M. Ibrahim-p. Whalifa 304-45 Farida. Ghusana ss4 161 362-2C Slugri Abrachim Infid Bonte 9B,367 ABDiAZiZ 364 Balkishun 304

SUPPORT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONING OVERLAY Because of Cambridge's affordable housing crisis, we Cambridge residents urge the City Council to approve an Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay for Cambridge to promote the development of more attor dable nousing. Vame Address 15 Lincolnst #3 Donna De Vincent "den. Gando 131. harvars ST APT 302 B64 RIDGE AN: Jean I Guera 362 Mindge dE Alt 8B Marie lenatus 362 Ruidge Due 4G Bone wonght Ismail Khalife. 363 RindeAvett 31 36e Rinds Are poT 126 Shosth ecs 362 Rindge Ave#14m Elfuesh Kassa Tina LemmA 362 Ringe/Vef|7K S64Rindsett5G Havesevon (ema

SUPPORT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONING OVERLAY Because of Cambridge's affordable housing crisis, we Cambridge residents urge the City Council to approve an Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay for Cambridge to promote the development of more affordable housing. Name Address IBRAHIM 364, RiNDARE AVE KAMTHENALA #/GE 304, PiNDRE AVE - #IGE JARINA KAM PHEWALA IRFAN, I. KAMTHEWAZA 364, RiNDGEAVE HITA 364. Kindere ive Agen Birhand Tivelade. 362 Rindge Are TESFAYE GETREE 362 RINeD " ", AsmAit teKLE Testar Antarge 362. Rindg ave. Ros Begun Nur Muhammal 362 Rinde ine-16M

AtTACHmENT W Subject FW: comment for Affordable Housing Overlay Ordinance Committee hearing From Lopez, Donna To: [email removed] <[email removed]> Date Mon, Jul 8 2019 at 9:23 AM -----Original Message----- From: Crane, Paula Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:47 AM To: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: FW: comment for Affordable Housing Overlay Ordinance Committee hearing -----Original Message---- From: Sanjoy Mahajan <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 9:36 PM To: CDDat344 <cddat344@cambridgema.gov»; Peters, Melissa <mpeters@cambridgema.gov>; Farooq, Iram <ifarooq@cambridgema.gov>; City Council ‹City Council @ CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Clerk <clerk@cambridgema.gov> Subject: comment for Affordable Housing Overlay Ordinance Committee hearing Dear Cambridge City Council, The following is roughly what I said in the public comments this evening at the Ordinance Committee hearing on the Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay proposal. In the Consolidated List of Frequently Asked Questions (p. 5), the as-of- right provision is justified on the basis that otherwise permits are "subject to appeals that can add signficant costs, take years to resolve, and tie up

resources[.]" But that objection could be leveled against ensuring that defendants have legal representation or that they are given Miranda warnings or against holding full public trials. Much faster would be just to lock people away without a trial and its judicious weighing of the evidence. But democracy isn't necessarily the cheapest or quickest form of government, nor should it be. Currently, projects that don't conform to zoning require a variance, and the Board of Zoning Appeal procedure is the only place where residents have rights to affect the process. The proposed overlay would essentially grant city-wide blanket variances and remove these rights. If the public, in the current situation, has the rights of a teenager - some rights but not full adulthood -- then the proposal will reduce the public to the status of a toddler: "Would you like the red socks or the blue socks? Those are the choices." Please reject this proposal and instead find a democratic way to provide affordable housing. Sincerely, Sanjoy Mahajan 950 Massachusetts Ave Cambridge

ATTACHMENT X My name is Suzanne Shaw, I live at 46 Clarendon Ave in N. Cambridge. I support the overlay district and here is why. I live in a neighborhood of mostly single and multi-family homes. I live directly across the street from the Burns Apartments -a HUD property of 197 affordable units built in 1973,a hardense, affordable housing enhances the neighborhood. Since I bought my house more than 20 years ago, we have had the Churchill Court built at the end of our street-12 units of affordable rental housing; The GateHouse Condos-14 units of owner occupied housing directly behind us, and Trolley Square -32 units of mixed rental/owner occupied units a couple blocks down Mass Ave. Not only has this re-invigorated the aging demographic of our neighborhood, it brought kids to our park, vibrancy to our community, and bolster the racial and income diversity-all things that make Cambridge a special place to live and what drew me to this city. It also helped a number of Cambridge natives who were being priced out of the city to remain in the community they love. In all cases the nonprofit developers enhanced landscaping, adding trees and creating private and public green space. I cannot say the same for the private developers. Some people tonight have mentioned that Cambridge alone can't solve the affordable housing crisis. And while that is true, it is not the point. If a wealthy and forward thinking community like Cambridge-that is committed to both sustainability and equity--can't do its part to create greater equity in housing across the city, what hope to we have for Greater Boston, or Massachusetts, or for the rest of the country? Thank you.

ATTACWMENT Y Affordable Housing Overlay - Cambridge Residents Alliance Executive Committee thoughts, 7-1-19 A core priority of the Cambridge Residents Alliance is to increase affordable housing in Cambridge, and we seek to balance that priority with other important priorities. With the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay, Cambridge's below-market housing would increase by 1.2% per year, or 12% over 10 years. That would be a huge advance, and would help Cambridge to meet the Envision targets of 3,175 new affordable units by 2030, resulting in at least 16/5% of all housing being below-market affordable housing. We are sharing the thoughts of the Officers of the Cambridge Residents Alliance on how the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) can be improved to better reflect our priorities. Cambridge needs to take the time to get this right. Open space People in larger buildings need a gathering space outdoors. The way that open space is proposed in the AH Overlay, there is no requirement for a contiguous space. Require that for a new building with 4 or more units, provide either min. 15x15' ground floor open space or min. 15x15' roof deck for building residents. Require 30% open space (not including balconies, off-street parking, driveways); allow reduction to 15% open space only for preservation of historic building, including preservation of any parking the historic building had; do not allow reduction to 15% only for parking. Require at least 15% permeable open space. Larger open space means there is space to plant more trees. Require that zero larger trees can be removed to construct new buildings or renovate old buildings; require best protection of larger trees during construction and excavation, both onsite and for abutting lots; all building setbacks apply below ground; review after three years to see any impacts on site selection and tree protection. Density and FAR Since the Envision study found that a FAR of 2.0 is needed to be financially viable in more restrictive residential neighborhoods, and since some residents worry that the Affordable Housing Overlay will allow a much higher FAR than 2.0, Limit FAR to 3.0 in those residential areas. That is still quite a big increase. Any larger FAR would still need a special permit. Consider setting a FAR limit in the denser mixed use areas along corridors such as 4.0. The 35' transition buffer zone would still result in 80' buildings very close to 30' buildings. There should be a broader transition buffer zone- such as 50' wide with 5 floors, or 35' with 4 floors. Would be good for CDD to show models of three different options. Setbacks In addition to the proposed yard setbacks, add either rules or goals of minimum distances from existing buildings. For example, with a side yard setback of 7.5', if the abutting building is only 3' from the lot line, there would only be 10.5' between the buildings. We suggest a minimum of 20' between buildings on the sides and 30' on the back. How are the bays in the CDD presentation counted re setbacks? In CDD drawings, they seem not to count. Parking The AH Overlay proposes 0.4 parking space per dwelling unit; waived completely in proximity to transit (1/2 mile to subway, 1/4 to frequent bus); waived completely for projects requiring up to four spaces (10 units); parking waived for units within existing buildings or for an AHO project that preserves a designated historic building. The 0.4 parking space/unit is acceptable. However, many people have jobs that are not easily accessible by transit, or jobs with hours outside of the T's hours, and need to have cars to get to work. Instead of completely waiving parking if the building is near transit, there should be a minimum standard that varies by # of units, such as 0.2 spaces per unit. Require preservation of any parking the historic building

already had. For any building that does not provide 0.2 spaces/unit, require disability parking on street marked with signs; require drop-off space on street marked with signs. If the street does not allow parking, then disability parking and drop-off must be provided on site. If bike parking waived for existing building, then provide bike parking on public sidewalk. Design Consultation Process The proposed design consultation process is good. The remaining question is creating strong desigr undelines, and how to have the building fit into the neighborhood Design guidelines should address rooflines, cornice line, slope, materials, etc. There should be a maximum limit on use of glass. Preventing possible problems: -There should be a required annual report including numbers built/year, problems/successes encountered, #s of buildings demolished, what happened to displaced tenants, and a required council review every three years. -Councilor Kelly wrote: "What are the opportunities for the redevelopment of land already owned and built on by affordable housing developers but now offering new and possibly significant redevelopment opportunities. ...If removing existing buildings creates a logistically simple and financially realistic way for developers to create more affordable housing projects, ... Which] might mean... we would see a spurt of redevelopment in the Eastern part of Cambridge as existing affordable housing developments are replaced with denser ones." This would not be achieving the stated goal of the AH Overlay. The Overlay should specify we do not want to add density to existing AH developments as-of-right; those projects could still get a special or comprehensive permit. -Councilor Kelly wrote: "The advisory nature of project review is likely to result in better buildings than if such review did not exist but is unlikely to counter the financial momentum of larger developments with more units, with the result that we may see properties maxed out for building mass and also being somewhat unattractive, dwarfing nearby lots...." CResA is concerned about this. Our proposed FAR limit of 3.0 would help. We would like there to be a way to give teeth to the Planning Board design review, such that ISD does not easily give a building permit if the Planning Board is unhappy with the design. Clarify if the Planning Board has the power to reject a project based on design. we would like more clarity on now ISD gives building permits. (Our understanding is that abutters can already appeal ISD's building permit to the BZA, but only on narrow grounas, such as the building is inside of required setback. ISD's decision can be appealed to a court. BZA makes these decisions quickly in a few weeks, so it does not delay a AHO project, like the Planning Board process does, and the project can secure a mortgage once it has building permit.) -Displacement of existing residents: provide relocation expenses similar to Boston's for any displaced resident, regardless of income. Over-income tenants will not return to AH building. ==== Ideas: -The Ah Overlay needs to have a guiding document with goals. The goals could include what types of housing and criteria for where it should be built. What qualities do we want AH to have for residents? Would we rather AH be on a former car lot on Prospect St., or on a residential street off Brattle St.? -Set a goal of providing 10% of below-market housing for low-income residents and 20% of below-market housing for middle-income residents. -Set a goal for the amount of homeownership housing provided through the AHO.

- Use the definition of AMI based on Cambridge income and not the Middlesex region. This would be higher and allow more middle income residents to qualify. -What level of access should AH residents have to parks and open space? If there is low access to public parks, should an AH development provide a higher % of open space? Could city also buy some land in those areas to use for creating parks? -Could there be a preference in AHO to fund projects in areas with lower rates of afd. hsg., in order to get a more even distribution of AH across the city? -Could there be a requirement or preference to rotate among neighborhoods? This would mitigate the concern that there would be many projects in one neighborhood. -Form a citywide AHO project review commission, with representatives nominated by neighborhood groups and by the city manager for neighborhoods without groups, and include an attendance requirement, so if the person does not attend, another person replaces them. The commission would give input on which AHO projects to fund, including whether to demolish an existing house. - The Manager's memo on the AHO makes it sound like most AHO projects will be larger, with 27-40+ units. It mentions that only 1-2 projects can get state funding per year, which incents doing only larger projects with many units. But maybe AH residents need a mix of project sizes. Would it be possible to combine 2-4 smaller scattered sites into one project for funding purposes? - To address concerns about house demolitions, ask for a report on the #s of houses demolished for the last 10 years, and the reasons permission was given, so there is a baseline to compare the future to. -On the AHO zoning map, there are small parcels on Broadway and Harvard that would be zoned to have 80' buildings; these should be changed to the 40' zoning.

7/2/2019 AITACNMENTZ [livablecambridgeopen]| oppose this proposed zoning overlay...and look forward PoAd explaining why to you shortly. 4:52 PM N Fred Meyer <[email removed]> To citycouncil@cambridgema.gov Copy [email removed] The overlay proposal asks way too much from the zoning, giving huge bonuses to a few investor buyers over all others in ALL districts...which has understandably annoyed and alarmed many in every neighborhood. What will clearly work far better and faster is greatly increased city investment, paid through appropriately-higher real estate taxes, coupled with the threat of eminent domain when bidding for suitable properties. And sellers avoid a real estate commission if they sell directly to the city! My more-reasonable alternative will also avoid the lengthy legal challenges, in both state and federal courts, that this zoning overreach would inherently involve. And it's a lot fairer: since super-high biotech and tech salaries are asmajor cause of longtime-citizen displacement; let's have Kendall Square start paying a fairer share for housing, fast. Fred Meyer 83 Hammond St. Fred Meyer, Realtor & Real Estate Appraiser Proprietor for 55 years of University Real Estate, Harvard Square Ad Info (//my.xfi Past President of Cambridge, Greater Boston & MA Realtors [email removed] [phone removed] mobile [phone removed] office 1/1 https://connect.xfinity.com/appsuite/#|!&app=io.ox/mail&folder=default0/INBOX

AITACHMENT AA Lopez, Donna From: Allan Sadun <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 12:32 PM To: Clerk; City Council Subject: Supporting the Overlay, once more Dear members of the Ordinance Committee, (The following is what | plan to say tonight at public comment, I am emailing it in ahead of time.) My name is Allan Sadun, I live at 17 Pleasant Place, and I support the Affordable Housing Overlay. I urge you to move forward with it as written and reject any proposals to weaken it. The other day I was at a street fair, telling people about the Overlay. "It'll make it easier to build affordable housing," | said. "How will it do that?" someone asked me. "Well," I told her, "right now the city is zoned to make most feasible projects illegal; but in order to get money to build affordable housing a nonprofit has to first have the permission to build it. So the nonprofits building the housing have to ask for an exception from the city, but because that permit is discretionary, the neighbors can sue if they don't like the idea, just to get in the way. We want to make it legal to just build affordable housing without going through that process." Her response was: "Amazing. Love how this city works." We have a ridiculous status quo, set up in a billion ways to privilege the voices and needs of the whiners and complainers over the people who need this housing. To anyone who is not mired in all of this, it is absurd. This is a tiny tweak to our zoning code, which will apply to a tiny number of housing projects, and if we're lucky, raise the amount of affordable housing in our city from 15% to 16%. Mike Connolly supports it. The Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee supports it. Almost everyone on the street supports it. That we are stuck in such heated argument about it is a testament to the undemocratic, unrepresentative nature of our city's zoning politics. Don't weaken it, don't nitpick it, just pass it. The people of Cambridge are depending on you. Respectfully, Allan Sadun

ATTACHMENT BB Good Evening My name is Maura Pensak and I live at 346 Concord Ave in Ward 9. I am here this evening to speak in support of the proposed Citywide 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay. As I have shared in prior testimony, I come before you this evening as both a long time Cambridge resident and, as someone who has worked for more than 37 years with individuals and families who are homeless and at risk of homelessness. Throughout my career, I have always been challenged to assist people in navigating complex affordable housing systems to obtain or retain affordable units. However, rising costs to develop housing and/or to purchase owner occupied multi-family units that might result in reasonable rents as well as limited existing housing stock has resulted in a rental crisis of unsurpassed proportions. Living in Cambridge has become unviable for the middle income retired couple who have always rented here but find their building being sold, it is unattainable for the young single parent who was born and grew up here but even with two jobs cannot afford to raise her children in her hometown, and it has become near impossible for a voucher holder to find a unit even with decent subsidy payment standards. In fact, it is no surprise that more than 50% of CHA voucher holders have had to find housing outside of Cambridge. , 3'° and 4** As a Cambridge resident I find this unacceptable. I also find it unacceptable that 2nd generation Cantabridgians have to move because there is not enough affordable housing, It is unacceptable that a neighbor who fell ill and is now on a fixed income had to move outside of the city. because he could no longer afford the rent. I find these situations unacceptable because Cambridge has the knowledge, the know - how and the resources to increase affordable housing opportunities. Yet, I have continued to hear "I support Affordable Housing BUT..." but, there has been no process-to this I say -in fact, this process has been going on since at least 2015, but it will change my neighborhood, to this I say in fact, our neighborhoods are changing every day because we are losing our neighbors, but, the developers just want to make money -to this I say, in fact this proposal enables Non Profit Community Developers to create more and varied housing. We have the knowledge, the know how and the resources-we just need the will. The will to do something about a crisis, the will to ensure that our children, our elders, and our families of all incomes can live and thrive in a diverse and inclusive community, the will to recognize that we cannot afford to be a city that only a few can afford. Please, find the will and support the Overlay.

AtTACHMENT CC-1 Subject FW: Comments at City Ordinance Committee Meeting, July 2, 2019 From Lopez, Donna To: [email removed] <[email removed]> Date Mon, Jul 8 2019 at 9:24 AM From: Crane, Paula Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:46 AM To: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@ cambridgema.gov> Subject: FW: Comments at City Ordinance Committee Meeting, July 2, 2019 Comments from your meeting. From: Carol Weinhaus <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 1:57 AM To: Crane, Paula <pcrane @cambridgema.gov> Subject: Comments at City Ordinance Committee Meeting, July 2, 2019 Dear Ms. Crane, Below are my comments at the City Ordinance Committee meeting at City Hall, July 2, 2019. Regards,

Carol Weinhaus ******************* Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I am against the Affordable Housing Overlay for a number of reasons: First: The zoning legally cannot exclude for-profit developers from using the same rules. These rules include increased height limits; lack of studies on utilities infrastructure costs, traffic, and parking; lack of significant green space; and other criteria. Second: There are so many exceptions in the proposed zoning that the end result is unclear. Saying what you expect is not the same as what the zoning says legally. Third: Most importantly, this zoning removes any legal say by citizens, neighborhoods, and property owners. Fourth: It opens the entire city to massive new developments way beyond what current zoning permits. Documents from the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association and other neighborhoods city-wide spell out the problems with the proposed up-zoning in detail. The City is holding this critical meeting on July 2nd, during the Fourth of July week, when many citizens are out of town. The City has many tools other than this zoning to address housing issues. Please start again with accurate studies and real community input.

ATTACHMENT CC-2 Subject FW: Stop the proposed citywide zoning overlay From Lopez, Donna To: [email removed] <[email removed]> Date Mon, Jul 8 2019 at 9:22 AM From: Crane, Paula Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:51 AM To: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: FW: Stop the proposed citywide zoning overlay From: Carol Weinhaus <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 2:44 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>; City Manager <CityManager@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Stop the proposed citywide zoning overlay Dear City Councilors and City Manager DePasquale, I am against the Affordable Housing Overlay since it legally cannot exclude for profit developers from using the same rules. These rules new height limits, lack of studies on traffic and parking, lack of greenspace, and other criteria. Most importantly, the current zoning proposal removes any legal say by citizens and neighborhoods. It opens the entire city to massive new

developments way beyond current zoning permits. I have attached two documents from the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association and neighborhoods citywide that spell out the problems with the proposed up- zoning in detail. The City is holding a critical meeting on July 2nd, during the Fourth of July holiday week when many citizens are out of town. The City has many tools other than this zoning to address housing issues. Please stop the current city-wide zoning and start again with real community input and accurate impact studies. Sincerely, Carol Weinhaus AHO problems --fixes. 7.1.1.. PB Handout AHO textimage:...

AtTACHMENT CC-3 1 Affordable Housing Overlay: Critical Changes that are Needed We write to you as a group of neighborhood group leaders, residents and professionals from neighborhoods across the city - Agassiz, Cambridgeport, Concord-Huron, East Cambridge, Fresh Pond, Harvard Square, Mid-Cambridge, North Commons, North Cambridge, and Riverside. While not all of us support each of these points, we worked together on compiling these goals, and many of us feel that they represent critical interventions for the Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO). We all strongly support Affordable Housing (AH), however, the AHO as currently drafted (version of June , 2019) has many serious flaws, listed below, that must be fixed before the AHO goes to the Council for action. The AHO is a heavy-handed, inadequate method for achieving laudable goals. It doesn't reflect good urban planning and must be radically changed before adopted or risk problems we will regret for years as well as numerous law suits. CDD told the Planning Board this week that about 5 years ago the City set a target of 1,000 new AH units by 2020. By 2019, according to CDD, the City had added about 850 new units and is expected to add almost the rest needed to reach 1,000. Obviously, this happened without the AHO, so one might conclude the radical AHO changes are not needed. Estimates vary considerably as to how many new affordable housing units the city is anticipated to produce. 100 units? 40 new AHO units plus the 60 units already being produced without the AHO. Recently, we have heard that both these numbers greatly low-ball the number of likely new projects as investors (both for-profit and non-profit) seek to buy up properties to develop anticipating the new far more lenient AHO regulations and the possibility they will extend to other uses. Changing city-wide zoning opens the doors for precedent-setting bad design. Radical zoning changes for this purpose are a slippery slope toward eliminating zoning, a move that will greatly increase property investments of all kinds particularly in already hot markets like Cambridge. In the AHO, the City ignores and adds to the underlying causes of the AH crisis. E.g., supply is growing mainly in luxury homes. In some areas these new units replace middle-income homes, whose displaced residents are forced to leave, swelling demand for non-luxury housing that does not exist. At the same time vacancy rates for luxury: rentals are climbing dramatically. From this vantage the AHO looks not only very risky but also like a costly band aid that will little impact a serious growing problem. The Boston Foundation has published their new Area Housing Report and Cambridge does well, ranked top three in the region for housing type diversity. On affordable housing, Cambridge meets or beats our neighbors Arlington, Belmont, and Somerville. This does not mean that Cambridge can relax and stop our effort to improve, but this report gives us greater flexibility to take the time needed in approaching this issue. We include here changes to the AHO we would like to see: Those in green we see as essential. Those without highlighting we think will make the AHO far stronger. 1. Evaluation, and Termination, and Limits Sunset AHO once the 1,000 unit affordable housing goal has been met, based on a specific beginning date such as 201/ when our last 1,000 goal was reached. Require AHO reevaluation every five (5) years as Inclusionary zoning is now done. • Limit all developers to 20% profit on AHO projects as is currently the case with 40B. Il. Design and Context: ALL AHO projects must conform to state 40B design criteria. Ihttps:// www.mass.gov/ files/documents/2017/10/16/handbook-approachtoch40b-designreviewa.pdf • Add other Cambridge specific rigorous design standards so that developers do not just tack on surface "features" to make the buildings look neighborhood-lite. • Require that each project be consistent with preferred examples neighborhood design values. • Six stories should be the maximum "as-of-right" heights on corridors. Taller structures should require a special permit. Most studies agree that the maximum height for both

2 social good and financial feasibility is this height, and even then require requisite set- backs above four stories; This keeps the human scale and allows more flexibility in design and quality material use. In some neighborhoods shifting from one-two or even three-four stories to six or seven stories may be totally inappropriate. Even on corridors, where allowable heights are greater, location and context are crucial. Require bigger transitions between tall corridor buildings and older neighborhoods with 1-4 story houses. Lowering 7-story/ 80' AH building heights to 5 stories/60' for only those portions located within 35 lateral feet of abutting, low-height, residential districts does little to reduce their overpowering impact on 1-, 2- and 3-story neighbors. • Require that upper stories of tall buildings have at least a 45% angle setback from the street; The taller the building the bigger the setback. • In contexts of more than 15% elevation grade differential, require that the adjacent smaller scale street context be the determining factor on whether or not additional • Require that AHO FAR be less than a 50% increase vis-à-vis contiguous neighbors. Limit FAR increases (or equivalent form-base increases) to 3x the underlying base zoning to prevent extreme over-densification. • Require minimum 1,000 feet distance between AHO projects (often the measurement of places needing protection). • Fixed height "form-base" zoning may create two different design models of housing (100% affordable housing units and all other housing units) in Cambridge. To redress this problem, decrease the allowable heights and increase the side, front and back property line setbacks for those affordable housing developers who chose to employ "form-like" rather than FAR criteria in their projects. • Require that developers use high quality materials for AHO housing. In many cities, affordable housing complexes are easily identified through their poor design and use of inexpensive materials. • Commission design models with choices that including sloped roofs with dormers and a : means to create better massing and proportion as well as other compatible design details. IlI. Design Review Process and accountability Create an appeal process before a permit is granted; To achieve this, create a specifically designated oversight committee to hear such appeals in a timely way, a review committee that includes members of the CHC, Planning Board, BZA and associated neighborhood group (or nearest neighborhood group in cases where one does not exist. Such an appeal board could constitute a Design Review Board similar to that found in Boston and many other cities, with representative professionals and neighborhood representatives and would render decisions expeditiously based on a single criteria - context (neighborhood, environment). This would avoid the likelihood of law suits. Create a mechanism (with citizen input) to make sure the city and the developers adhere to agreements made with the planning board, CDD and neighborhood groups. • Provide a means for regular annual citizen review of both the non-profit and for-profit affordable housing projects in Cambridge. Set explicit permitting requirements and limits for affordable housing developers. In cases where developers combine properties for a bigger project or the size of a project is 50% or more taller than or larger than adjacent buildings require a model and both shadow analysis and GIS viewshed analysis. Note that the goal of stream-lining the permitting process is mis-leading. One official lamented that even when AH developers had their permits, it was funding and deed issues that slowed them down (not design- related or design-review related issues).

3 • Require that currently owned non-profit and for-profit affordable housing properties abide by the existing regulations and design criteria - as of the date their design review was initiated. IV. Environment, Parking, and Preservation • Protect all mature trees. Since new trees take about 30 years to reach maturity and the chance of death prior to maturity is c. 26.2% (NYC data), replacing old trees with new ones is NOT a viable solution particularly as we also must address the 18% loss in tree cover in recent years. To protect mature trees and enhance new tree growth add a requirement identical to that in all C-2B Zoning Districts, that all building setback requirements apply below ground, too. See CZO, Table 5-1, Fn. (k). • The AHO draft is silent about green space. But green space is an appropriate subject for zoning. Cambridge zoning now requires maintained green space as transitions in several areas, including Bus B-1, B-2, Res C2B and others. Maintain these criteria, extend them to adjacent lots and designate specific green space minimal requirements for each neighborhood and context, of at least half the green space currently on a property or 20% of the lot area (see $5.2.3 of the draft zoning changes) whichever is greater. Remove the 20% of exclusions from the 30% Open Space requirements. Require best, most sophisticated efforts to protect existing "mature" trees to the extent feasible so they remain healthy during and after construction. Solicit guidelines from DPW's David Webster & David Lefcourt on this as well as on the definition of what "mature" designates. • Preserve the 15' × 15' open space requirement to prevent skinny side yards from counting as open spaces. • Do not count above-grade porches & decks as open space. The Roberts/Cotter 6/20/19 CDD memo identifies new open space requirements as those of C-1 Zoning Districts but AHO AHO permits much larger buildings. • Require one (1) parking space per unit if ¼ mile from subway entry to prevent more environmental harm from AHO-Linked car traffic circling the neighborhood for parking. Require solar panels and/or green roofs on all projects taller than 40 feet. : (recede train rod for paking. Require that all AHO projects address solar power issues vis-à-vis adjacent buildings as defined in Cambridge ARTICLE 22.000 (Sustainable design and Development) whether or not a special permit is required. As an example, in (6) "The structure is designed and sited to minimize shadow impacts on neighboring lots, especially shadows that would have a significant impact on the use and enjoyment of adjacent open space and shadows that might impact the operation of a Registered Solar Energy System as defined in Section 22.60 of this Zoning Ordinance" (8) "(8) Building scale and wall treatment, including the provision of windows, are sensitive to existing residential uses on adjacent lots; (9) "The creation of a Tree Protection Plan that identifies important trees on the site, encourages their protection, or provides for adequate replacement of trees lost to development on the site." • Eliminate single family housing zoning city-wide, except when returning an historic house to its original façade and configuration as a restoration. V. Equity, Economic Need, Displacement issues, and Other Impacts: Require an overview of infrastructure, city services, groceries, and other nearby amenities for each AHO project as part of the approval process. • Require (not just allow) 20% of units for middle income residents to limit displacement Increase middle-income income limits to 120% of AMI to match existing HUD definition. • Use AMI definition based on Cambridge income guidelines (not Middlesex) to enable more middle-income residents to qualify. Include the Cambridge AMI guidelines in the review. This would broaden the narrow range of Cambridge's income spectrum eligible

4 for AHO housing beyond the narrow income band below $56,000 and develop (real) ways middle income residents can stay rather than be forced out of Cambridge. • Implement a means to document displacement numbers, and include these as part of calculations presented for project review. Otherwise, this is a self-perpetuating revolving door. • Provide replacement units for displaced renters who meet lower- and middle-income criteria to protect from becoming part of our displacement problem. • Require the AHO to include options and specific goal percentages (20%?) for home ownership. If we are truly committed to equity, diversity and stable communities, then providing pathways for home ownership is necessary. Home ownership can be defined as housing co-ops, limited equity homes, and condo ownership in the AH Overlay scenario. VI.Other initiatives prior to the AHO City Council vote Retain a neutral outside experienced urban planner to identify and explain to the Council and public the impact of AHO on City goals of affordable housing on key other Envision goals. E.g., the AHO zoning draft does not set standards to protect and assure adequate green space. it may i had by netic or mere he in at ac ordinance. E.g., the practice of treating below grade floors as underground even if they are actually above ground, so that they are not subject to setback rules. Provide citizens with a list of the AH projects over the last 10 years that were stopped or greatly delayed by abutters' frivolous suits. This has been used to justify radically changing long standing design-related decision-making in the city and we are not convinced it is in fact the case. VIl. Other significant issues • A large majority of neighborhood members and leaders DO NOT want to see the Planning Board lose its traditional role in design oversight. The rationales for doing so in the AHO are not justified and with this we lose key checks and balances. • A large majority of neighborhood members and leaders DO NOT want to see FAR replaced by form-based design, particularly since FAR provides greater flexibility for addressing the diversity of building contexts and design issues in a city of this diversity and density; moreover Cambridge in this move is not following STANDARD and WIDELY ACCEPTED form-based architectural design guidelines of seeking neighborhood input (buy-in) to address specific neighborhood design features or in addressing other concerns (open spaces, amenities, transport, local stores). • A large majority of neighborhood members and leaders believe that the AHO was rushed ahead of other Envision goals including the Environment, Built Form, etc., some of which will be negatively impacted by the AHO. City-wide up-zoning should follow a new comprehensive plan, something that the Envision process has yet to complete. Section 81D of Ma. General code identifies the city Planning Board with the creation of a master plan, one that includes not only housing needs but also land capacity, services and facilities, circulation etc. The Planning Board votes to approve the city's master plan and any forthcoming changes. It follows that 81D also envisions the Planning Board to be the group that approves (not just advises) individual AHO projects as part of their purview since a city masterplan including them has yet to be undertaken or approved. The Mass Zoning Enabling Act (G.L. c. 40A General Code) requires that "districts shall be uniform within the district for each class or kind of structures or uses permitted." There are legal concerns as to whether the AHO's plan to treat affordable housing units/ developers differently from other kinds of housing units/ developers within each district is allowable. Two different Boston big firm real estate attorneys have

5 identified for us problems with the AHO from this vantage. If the AHO passes, it will open up the city to possible law suits, and worse, related court cases may succeed, enabling the whole city to have "as-of-right" projects consistent with the AHO's greatly out-sized height, scale, and density regulations. VIlI. Additional initiatives to accompany the AHO: Provide city funds to guarantee AHO projects to curtail risk so that the AHO developers can draw on state and federal funds • Use city funds (and a new tax on property sales) to purchase more city properties to use for a greatly enhanced plan to fund shared equity home ownership for lower- and middle-income residents meeting criteria. Set specific 5-year goals to increase home ownership increases in the city in order to reach 50% • Require local universities (Harvard, Lesley & MIT) to submit plans for housing their students and staff. Include data of current residential sites (Cambridge and area) as part of this plan; Address transportation needs as part of this plan. Require the same thing of Google or any Cambridge company with more than 500 employees. • According to CDD "There are some 25 million square feet of new buildings that have emerged in the development districts of the city -probably an unmatched amount of change for a city of 6.25 square miles with a population of 100,000. " The city should undertake a citywide study to address the impacts of massive recent growth on city livability and other issues. Produce a comprehensive city-wide housing plan to prevent lease-jacking and terminations, evictions, and displacement of existing Cambridge residents. Produce a comprehensive city strategy to house the homeless. Initiate a city-wide rental study for residential units. Boston Foundation's report notes that 2- bedroom rents in North Cambridge are $2, 924 and Agassiz $2,900; Cambridge Highlands $3,141; East Cambridge $3,435; Cambridgeport $3,200. It appears that areas of greatest new development (East Cambridge and Cambridge Highlands) are seeing rental prices increase NOT decrease. Initiate a city-wide residential rental vacancy study. East Cambridge rental vacancies are believed currently to be at a very high (year-round) 14%. Alewife vacancies are similarly high. Use this neighborhood specific data to regulate residential building regulations; initiate laws to decrease investment speculation where it is having negative impacts. Note that the Boston Foundation study does not include the 1,400 units planned for Volpe which brings over 3,000 new housing units planned for East Cambridge. According to the Cities 2019 Statistical Profile, there are 6,501 dwelling units in East Cambridge representing a c.50% growth in the next few years. • Address the local Cambridge root causes of the AH crisis. Initiate City controls, e.g. a city-wide strategy to address the increasing gentrification that fosters resident turnover, and the removal of minority and other populations (some 17% of African Americans in the Port), and the increasing shift in the city to a demographic of wealthy and poor. Bring more neighborhood and public involvement into decisions on residential - and commercial - development in the city. Cambridge must begin to take seriously the critical mental health and economic impacts of our gentrification problem. A number of related studies address this. • New studies, including one by Pratt Center for Community Development in NYC are finding sizable harmful social, environmental, and economic impacts up-zoning as well as the attendant risks. Cambridge must address these concerns and seek policies that not only provide direct redress but also curb the sources of this harm. • Increase city funding for more open space creation. It has been 80-10-10 for far too long, and that has allowed too much building, and no open space creation. We need more open space.

6 • Advocate strongly with the state for a much stronger regional housing policy. The 6.26.19 Globe article ("Housing deficit fuels social ills...") notes that of the 147 cities and towns in five counties - a majority of housing permits in the last five years have been issued in just 15 municipalities. Half of all multi-family housing has been built in four of them: Boston, Cambridge, Everett, and Watertown. IX Other proposals people have proposed re. Affordable Housing. • Tax those who take two-family houses and make them one-family, taking a unit off the market as well as those who take properties with 1 or more rental units and transforms them into condos. • Give the Planning board the power to reject a project based on design. Use a 3 strike rule. Reimburse individual home owner abutters for loss of house value through the AHO; tax commercial property owners for increased property value due to AHO X. Final Points Building character and consistency with local streetscapes are core criteria of the state standards. Under MGL Section 10: Adoption of Design Standards, cities may set up design guidelines: "The standards shall provide for high-density quality development consistent with the character of building types, streetscapes and other city or town features traditionally found in densely settled areas of the city or town or in the region of the city or town [emphasis mine]." In Cambridge, the CDD website presents a set of three important urban design principles for Cambridge that need "to be considered for most projects in Cambridge." including "1. the context (the history of the place, the character of the set of uses, relations to abutters) [which] is very important and every project should be conceived with attention to its contextual relationships; 2.A major concern in urban design review is how the project meets the ground-especially on major thoroughfares, there should be active uses, rather than blank walls or empty spaces, wherever possible; 3. The scale and character of the new project should be carefully conceived, whether to create a new landmark, to be more of a "background" building, to complement or to contrast with neighbors. " [emphasis added]. The AHO plan, as currently written, contradicts key criteria of our city's own design principles. We urge city Council members to think carefully about the many risks of the AHO, and the importance of getting it right.

ATTACHMENt CC-4 PROPOSED CITY-WIDE UP-ZONING (the AHO) NEW! NEW! y+ stories (on Corridors) NEW! EVERYWHERE Residential "as-of-right," weakened Controls In this Overlay Up-zoning TSCOTLES -No tenant protections "as-of-right" -No green space or tree protection -No parking No right to Appeal -weakened controls 4+ stories 2 stories Affordable Housing Overlay How did we end up here? • We lobbied for a Master Plan - we still don't have one! The AHO is not what we asked for or paid for. • Instead this became a CDD project as written by developers; CDD would not listen to any of our alternatives. • The AHO is a radical engineering of the city. It is different in every way from Somerville & other progressive cities. • The AHO was rushed ahead of all the other Envision concerns (some of which contradict key elements in the AHO). • The people of Cambridge feel very let down. At the last two AHO meetings (Senior Center & Huron) citizens opposed the Overlay 4 to 1; the remainder did not know what it entailed, were confused, or were ready for a decision. • The large majority of Cambridge neighborhood groups OPPOSE the AHO yet we all strongly SUPPORT affordable housing. • We want it done in a way we can be proud of. We want it to work! . The manager's report states that the city-wide up-zoning would add only 1.2% more affordable units than currently allowed (either 40 or 60 units); others say (based on legal opinions) that this will open up the entire city to this new radical zoning model. With present zoning special permits are given for structures that lie outside zoning restrictions. We have met key affordable housing & other development needs effectively through this means & citizens effectively advocate for design & other issues. • We all believe in the need top create more affordable housing. But this plan is far too risky. Why take this risk?! It does not address root causes (and impacts). Current gentrification impacts. Some 17% loss of African American In the Port. • We need a sure plan that will address both causes AND specific context-based plans going forward. • The AHO represents a major shift in both policy and precedent & moves us in a direction that no other city has gone. Affordable Housing Overlay General Characteristics • The AHO removes key Planning Board design oversight (review only); Limits checks & balances. • The AHO rushes the design review process.

2 • The AHO removes both citizens right to both legal appeal & meaningful input in design issues. • The AHO Design Oversight (final decisions) are transferred to CDD, the Affordable Housing Trust, and Developers. • AHO does not address the real problem (influx of new businesses & higher paid employees; gentrification & luxury housing glut); 14% vacancy in E. Cambridge units). • AHO Developers will receive differential treatment from other developers - as well as from citizens seeking changes. • Only one type of builder/owner will be allowed to own/construct. And the only type of unit allowed is not currently allowed in A-1. (Note Palo Alto's plan was to only build in places where there were no houses). • There is a major danger here that buildings that should NOT be built will be, and these will end up in court. • There is a real risk of mistake. • Allowing 3-4 (or greater) times the density allowed in some places currently envisioned is just wrong. • Low low- income earners and middle income earners are left out; one cannot take a better job and stay in this housing. • Economically segregated housing is not equity, especially when housing form &t materials are visually distinct from others. • We URGE the Planning Board (and City Council) to send this Overlay Proposal back to be rethought and then resubmitted in a format we can all proudly get behind. Disproportional AHO neighborhood impacts (Same zoning code will have radically different impacts in city neighborhoods (based on manager's report) Some 77.83% of all city properties tagged in manager's report for likely AHO projects are west of Mass Ave. (based on sales in Table II) 40.68% West Cambridge • 17.37% from North Cambridge • 15.68% from Neighborhood 9 (Avon Hill, Porter Sq etc.) 4.10%. Strawberry Hill -Grove St 77.83% is a stunning figure and many of these areas are far from public transportation hubs Competitiveness Data (Table I) - where properties most likely to be found • Strawberry Hill - 100% competitive • Professors Row (Agassiz - near Harvard Divinity School) - 100% competitive • Coolidge Hill - 80% competitive • Brattle Street area - 57% competitive (NOTE: Brattle St. itself is in an Historic District so facades cannot be changed • Concord Ave area - 33% • Huron Ave area- 25% • (other neighborhood data: Riverside - 17% competitive; Cambridgeport - 20% competitive

3 These are large properties, many with historic homes, older trees, and large green spaces. To build large AHO projects here, there will be significant citywide environment losses (green spaces, mature trees, historic residences) Questions around the Structuring Manager's Report *In the Manager's Report, West Cambridge is reported in 4 distinct areas -Brattle, Huron, Concord, Coolidge Hill. Why? *The manager's report co-joins Wellington-Harrington (W-H) AND The Port - Why? What is the actual count for each?? "MIT and Cambridge Highlands have no data in the report. Why? SITE RENDERINGS: GENERAL CONCERNS • All 4 the CDD models are on empty lots (no trees, houses): most are on corridors and 1/2 are on corners. • These are well drawn but are not representative examples • Nearly all of the units have no parking, yet they may be outside ¼ mile of the subway entry. Many people will be circling for parking so they can get to work in outside areas or at odd hours. Major environmental & livability impacts. • There is no requirement for green spaces in the AHO (instead all are simply "open" spaces - concrete or asphalt) • There is no requirement to preserve of mature trees. • In manager's report: resident displacement is not a concern. Yet many displaced cannot move back based on income. The AHO does not address displaced businesses. Many will go under or be forced to leave, leaving neighborhoods without key amenities. Site 1: Now an Empty Lot. To be 4 stories plus rooftop mechanicals. No Parking. Front 10' setback does not include covered entry. Side 7.5' setback does not include bump-out. No room for green spaces, Site 2: Now an empty lot. On a major corridor. 80 feet tall plus mechanicals. For 37 (or 34) units. No Parking Spaces. No front or side setback. 20 feet rear setback. 1 version has 16 below-ground parking spaces (1 for every 2 units). Who would get them? Possible cause of conflict. Site 3: Now an Empty Lot. Corner property. 88 units. No Parking. 4 stories plus roof mechanicals. Front bump outs likely not included In setback at front. One version has less open space. Site 4: Now Empty Lot. Corner property. Likely on a major avenue. 4 stories. 9 or 10 units. No parking. No setback on either of front sides. 7.5' setback on 2 other sides. Bump outs not included in setbacks. Dwarfs adjacent houses We URGE the City Council and Planning Board to send this Overlay Proposal back to be rethought. We can and must do better, and once we get a progressive and smart proposal with the kind of cross-neighborhood citizen impact we should expect here. We will come back and proudly and strongly support it!

ATTACHMENT DD FW: AHO: Please vote no Subject From Lopez, Donna To: [email removed] <[email removed]> Date Mon, Jul 8 2019 at 9:23 AM From: Crane, Paula Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:50 AM To: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@ cambridgema.gov> Subject: FW: AHO: Please vote no From: babette meyer <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 3:34 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov> Subject: AHO: Please vote no Dear City Council Members, First let me say that I support Affordable Housing in Cambridge. I have recently attended two open houses on the proposed Affordable Danad

housing Uveray basea on my upservans, I woula say te majory ol attendees have major concerns about the proposal as do I. Based on what I learned at those meetings along with what I have read (including the materials provided by CDD), I have serious concerns about the wisdom of passing this proposal. I won't reiterate here all the reasons I believe this is not a good idea. I am sure you are well aware of CCCoalition.org and the points made there as to why this plan is seriously flawed. I am also sure you have read the memo that was submitted on the legal issues in the proposed ordinance. I strongly urge you to vote No on this ordinance and go back to the drawing board to develop a plan that incorporates the concerns of Cambridge citizens. If this passes, I will work tiresly to bring this to a vote by Cambridge citizens. I sincerely hope it does not come to this. Babette Meyer

AMACHMENT EE Subject Fwd: Affordable Housing in Cambridge From Lopez, Donna To: Donna Lopez - home <[email removed]> Date Wed, Jul 3 2019 at 9:02 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Bob Woodbury <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 6:09:25 PM To: Carlone, Dennis; City Council Cc: Clerk; Kathleen Carney Subject: Affordable Housing in Cambridge Dear Mr. Carlone, I'm writing to support the Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning discussed at this evening's Ordinance Committee meeting. My wife and I live at 133 River, at the corner of Kinnaird Street. Like many residents, Mary and I are concerned about the loss of housing that, in the past, permitted more people with modest incomes to live in Cambridge. In our Riverside neighborhood, within a block or two of our home, we've seen older two-family and multi-family homes replaced by new, expensive single- family houses. We're happy to have these new neighbors, but we miss the economic and ethnic diversity that was here when we moved in. (Indeed, we live in a triple decker that in the 1990s housed inexpensive apartments for students and families; it was gut-rehabbed and converted to individual condos including ours Sn ves we're nart of the nrahlem )

..... Hoping to help ameliorate the housing shortage, we have taken an interest in Cambridge's non-profit organizations that build and maintain pockets of affordability amidst relentless gentrification. Cambridge is lucky to have Homeowners Rehab and the Cambridge Housing Authority and the Just-A- Start Corporation; we donate to Just-A-Start to support their building efforts and the many services they provide. Because we want to see the work of these non-profits flourish, and want to see the number of affordable homes increase, we support the 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay. If this new zoning means that non-profits can build more apartments and condos in Cambridge, we would welcome in our three-story neighborhood - for example - a new, affordable four-story multi-family building. We urge positive, constructive action by the Ordinance Committee, by the Planning Board, and ultimately by the City Council to pass this zoning and make it easier for non-profit organizations to buy land and develop, build, and maintain new affordable housing in Cambridge. Thank you, - Bob & Mary Woodbury

ATTACHMENT FE Subject Fwd: Letter in support of Affordable housing overlay From Lopez, Donna To: Donna Lopez - home <[email removed]> Date Wed, Jul 3 2019 at 9:01 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Pawel Latawiec <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 7:27:47 PM To: City Council Cc: Clerk Subject: Letter in support of Affordable housing overlay I have reproduced my letter below in anticipation of not being able to speak at the council meeting today. Letter in support of Affordable Housing Overlay Dear City Council, I am speaking in support of the affordable housing overlay and urge you to pass it without weakening its language on as-of-right development and allowed density. Today, over 80% of the properties in Cambridge are not legal by current zoning. Most properties were built before zoning existed, and most properties are already within a few hundred feet of a 40 foot tall building, like the kind this overlay proposes. To suggest, as some have, that we should be pleased with our current zoning because it has given us the Cambridge we know is utter nonsense. This overlay simply does not represent a drastic departure of built form, and in most cases re-legalizes what already exists nearby. I encourage those in the audience to check if their own home is conforming under these rules, and if not, what does that say about what - or rather who - we are excluding? Absent a wider call to loosen zoning and end apartment bans, like those

recently passed in Oregon, I urge the council to find the courage to at least end the de-facto ban on affordable housing development. Thank you, Pawel Latawiec 2 Earhart St Unit 409 Cambridge MA 02141

ATTACHMENT GG auly 2, 2019 Ordenance Commitee: me appose the AMO Zoning Prettion and support all the aneckers foram The punslet who apposed it This evening Espetially on mass achese are, We appare ane reight changeo in zoring Between Manuk street and Ellery street, as is coreet advers ely affect cres property value, and we are senior cigans, who live at Bay Square (950 mass. cue). Thank yore, See creen Momas CaRwen in all districts, and it is also the term that has been used most frequently to discuss the concept in City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ

H#-I ATTACHMENT Subject Fwd: Supporting the Overlay, once more From Lopez, Donna To: Donna Lopez - home <[email removed]> Date Wed, Jul 3 2019 at 9:03 AM Get Outlook for iOS From: Eugenia Huh <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 4:46 PM To: City Council; Clerk Cc: Allan Sadun Subject: Supporting the Overlay, once more Dear Ordinance Committee, Please support the Overlay, in its full, meaningful form. There's little that I can add to Allan's powerful words below. i simply note that this is the one and only big piece of housing legislation before the Council this term, and the only affordable housing piece. That has implications for whether or not this council ends up voting for it. Will you find a way to do something about exclusionary housing costs in Cambridge? Or won't you. Where there's a will there's a way. I'm hopeful the will is within this council, despite the long time and excessive process that has gone along with it. Thank you, Eugenia Schraa 259 Washington St On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:32 PM Allan Sadun <[email removed]>

HH2 ATTACHMENT Lopez, Donna Eleanor Marsh < [email removed]> From: Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2019 10:08 AM To: City Council Clerk Subject: Cambridge affordable housing overlay Dear Sir/Madame: I am proud to live in a city as well run as Cambridge, where there is higher than the mandated 10% level of affordable housing set aside for people who truly qualify for it. I love living in a town where there is both socio-economic and ethnic diversity and I trust the city Council will continue to foster this mix. However, I am against the affordable housing overlay because it seems to give freer reign to developers. I have lived in Cambridge since 2000, and the degree of congestion on public transportation (the Red line at rush hour) and on the streets (commuter traffic, parking) just in the past five years is starting to change the character of this city for the worse. I have watched the single family houses in my neighborhood one by one be torn down and or gutted and converted into buildings with multiple condominiums of 3 bedroom size, sometimes with additional square footage added on, reducing the yard space, with each unit being sold for well over $1.5 min. Please put the brakes on such kind of further unaffordable housing development! Thank you, Eleanor Marsh 609 Green St., Cambridge Sent from my iPhone

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT From: Abra Berkowitz <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 1:33 PM To: City Council; Lopez, Donna Subject: Support for 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Dear Honorable Mayor McGovern and City Councilors, I am writing to express my support for the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay. I have heard many criticisms of the Overlay, many of which are understandable, as the Overlay as written poses significant changes in the density of housing in our city's residential neighborhoods, particularly those zoned for A-1 and A-2. Other arguments are valid as well, such as the need to suppress the value of land through mechanisms like rent control and various taxes to put a damper on speculation and dissuade "flipping." Still others argue that the Overlay will drive up land values, contradicting the goals to make the acquisition and development of affordable housing projects cost effective. "Why are we even working with First, we are looking to buy private land. Thus, we must work within our existing, flawed system if we hope to bid on land, have our offer accepted, and build on it. Rent control, taxes, and even downzoning commercial areas can happen as the Overlay is passed, and could actually make the aquisition of land--it's value less--easier to purchase. Sure, the Overlay will add to a landowner's toolkit, and perhaps bring more parties to the negotiating table, increasing competition. As we hear from CDD, and as we have learned from the City Manager, however, affordable housing developers and the City are already examining parcels citywide to explore the possibilities of purchase and development: Affordable housing developers are already players, albeit players who lose more often than win. The analysis provided by the City Manager indicates that, with passage of the Overlay, 20% more offers by affordable housing developers could be made competitively when bidding on properties on the open market. Opponents might suggest that no, or insignificant amounts, of housing would be provided through the Overlay due to funding constraints at the municipal and state levels. Sure, we won't have thousands of new units overnight-but, if residents are opposed to losing open space and having a denser, taller abutter, isn't that okay? Finally, I would like to express my own "conditions"; I know everyone seems to have them, so here are my "I support affordable housing buts": 1) Recognize that our work is nowhere near over following the passage of the Affordable Housing Overlay. Rent control, taxes/fees, interrogating the root causes of our housing crisis, building on city-owned lots, etc. all must be considered moving forward to generate more revenue, less displacement, and more units. 2) Be careful when cutting parking. My neighbors in inclusionary housing in the Holmes Building all seem to have cars. They have children and work many jobs throughout the region. They care for their elder parents. They do not have have luxury of working one nine to five job or, for some, even working while public transit is running. Some of my neighbors have health issues that complicate cycling or the use of other more environmental modes of transit. Though parking is a significant cost, for some it is essential to getting by. 3) Eliminate the provision of middle-income units. Folks making a median salary are not in danger of homelessness. They haven't been sleeping on floors and couches or commuting to high school in Cambridge from Randolph. They haven't been waiting over a decade for a secure and adequate place to come home to. Please ensure that we serve folks who are in dire need of housing. This will put our values for diversity and equity into action. Thank you for your consideration!

Best, Abra Berkowitz 632 Massachusetts Avenue #404 Cambridge, MA 02139 Sent from Outlook

ATTACHmENT HA-H Subject FW: AHO: Please vote no From Lopez, Donna To: [email removed] <[email removed]> Date Mon, Jul 8 2019 at 9:17 AM From: Crane, Paula Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 8:25 AM To: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@ cambridgema.gov> Subject: FW: AHO: Please vote no From: Rebecca Pries <[email removed]> Sent: Sunday, July 7, 2019 1:45 PM To: City Council <City Council@ CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov> Subject: AHO: Please vote no Dear City Council Members, I support Affordable Housing in Cambridge, but not at the expense of our tree canopy, the protections needed to preserve the integrity of our neighborhoods, and the design input of the City Planning Board. Overall, I am extremely

concerned that the proposed plan encourages more building but with less oversight and minimal planning. In addition, it is expensive and not a prudent use of public funds. I have recently attended city council meetings, an open house in West Cambridge, and the presentation by the CDD to the Planning Board on the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay. I commend the CDD for their long hours and hard work, but deplore the rush to pass this deeply flawed change in zoning. Based on what I have witnessed and learned in these meetings, I can see that there is a marked split here in Cambridge between those in favor of the AHO and those opposed. I am concerned that part of the very strong push in favor of the AHO is fueled by the non-profit organizations that stand to benefit most from the adoption of this radical move to change zoning across the entire city. I was sobered to learn that such a move at such a scale has never been tested. I was also sobered to learn that it is expensive-at an estimated $500,000 per subsidized unit. Based on what I learned at those meetings along with what I have read (including the materials provided by CDD), I have serious concerns about the wisdom of passing this proposal and urge you to vote No on this ordinance. I'm sure you have been made aware of all the reasons this is not the way forward for Cambridge at this time. I call your attention to the points made by the CCCoalition.org and to the memo that was submitted on the legal issues in the proposed ordinance. audinanan Annin

ayaın, t surungy ure you tu vul u un tus urmalce anu yu wack tu ut drawing board to develop a plan that incorporates the concerns of Cambridge citizens and brings diverse viewpoints into a citywide compromise solution. Yours sincerely, Rebecca Pries : 10 Longfellow Road

Lopez, Donna AMACHMENT IT -1 From: Lenny Solomon < [email removed]> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 11:06 AM To: City Council; Lopez, Donna Subject: re The Overlay - The Wrong Way Dear Councilors, Again, I write to voice my objections to the Envision Cambridge city-wide overlay proposal. It is a shame that the city cannot come up with alternative methods to promote affordable housing for both low and middle income individuals and families that is not so divisive. If indeed this proposal resulted in a substantial amount of increased affordable housing it would change neighborhoods, neighborhoods that on one hand are cherished but on the other hand would be potentially uprooted. To take process of neighborhood groups and individual abutting neighbors out of the equation for any development project would only promote hostility and the hardening of positions. This would not be good for Cambridge or any place else. From the many articles and stories I've read, as well as the verbal testimony I've heard from the city's own staffers, it's not even clear that the overlay proposal would result in any more affordable housing. What's the point of pitting long- time residential home owners against a group of mostly younger renters, especially if the results of the effort are so unclear? I strongly object to this approach and blame it on our city officials. I believe one of the councilors said that he hoped the proposal wouldn't die of a thousand tiny cuts. I'm sorry but if a proposal is so flawed that it is open to this tactic, perhaps it should not have gotten this far. People vote for representative city councilors to take the burden of day-to-day governing off the shoulders of the constituents. This means all constituents, not just pressure groups. The overlay scheme takes all control of setbacks, building height, green space, etc. out of the realm of meaningful public dialog. I wonder if I'd have any redress if a tall building was constructed next to my house that blocked or partially blocked the solar panels I had installed last year. Does the overlay speak to that issue? The reality is that the overlay wouldn't speak to many unique questions that might come up if proper zoning and planning hearings were not in place. During one of the city meetings I attended I felt it ironic when for over an hour a bunch of young, organized college students testified as to why they felt strongly in support of the overlay. They told personal stories about their own difficulties in growing up in a poor family. While their stories were very moving, they had nothing to do with the details of the overlay matter. I felt it ironic because I felt these were the same sort of smart individuals, that go to elite institutions, who would further gentrify Cambridge in five or ten years, assuming they chose to live here at all. This is the wrong way to do business and I hope that you reject this proposal. Lenny Solomon 50 RC Kelley St PS I'm also upset at the speed such an important piece of legislation is being pushed. /''''' ==: Lenny Solomon Band

Taylor, Bernice ATTACHMENT II 2 From: Young Kim <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 5:31 AM Taylor, Bernice To: Subject: Fwd: Comment for July 3 Ordinance Committee Hearing on AHO Attachments: 56 Cedar Street original.jpg; 56 Cedar Street 100% Affordable Housing.jpeg; Letter to PB.docx Dear Ms. Taylor, I understand Ms. Crane is out of the office today. Please enter my comments to doday's Ordinance Committee hearing into City records. Thank you, Young Kim 17 Norris Street -- Forwarded message From: Young Kim <[email removed]> Date: Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 5:14 AM Subject: Comment for July 3 Ordinance Committee Hearing on AHO To: Carlone, Dennis < dcarlone@cambridgema.gov>, Kelley, Craig <ckelley@cambridgema.gov>, Devereux, Jan <jdevereux@cambridgema.gov>, Mallon, Alanna <amallon@cambridgema.gov>, McGovern, Marc <mmcgovern@cambridgema.gov>, Siddiqui, Sumbul <ssiddiqui@cambridgema.gov>, Simmons, Denise <dsimmons@cambridgema.gov>, <ttoomey@cambridgema.gov>, Zondervan, Quinton <gzondervan@cambridgema.gov> Cc: <pcrane@cambridgema.gov> Dear Members of Ordinance Committee, Unfortunately, I will be out of town and will not be able to speak at today's Ordinance Committee hearing on the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO). I am forwarding the letter I submitted to the Planning Board for their 6/25 hearing on the AHO as the same comments apply. I spoke at that hearing to beg the Planning Board to go back to the very basics of the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the Planning Board. And again, I am beseeching you to reject the proposed AHO amendment and ask the Community Development Department to draft AHO that is consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance; that gives the Planning Board the power to review/deny any proposed AHO project in consideration of quality of life issues of its abutters; and that gives abutters voice in influencing what will be built in their neighborhood subsidized by their own property tax dollars. I am attaching a photo of 56 Cedar Street which a developer built "as of right" after the Planning Board rejected special permit for relief from section 5.53(a & b) not allowing for more than one structure containing a principal residence farther than seventy-five feet from the property line. Neighbors appealed to the Planning Board and and PB ultimately rejected the application citing that in "Board's judgment this building will be out of character with the aspect of Cedar Street." I am also attaching a rendering of how this building might look under AHO to illustrate a potential unintended consequence of this proposal. Thank you for your attention and consideration, Young Kim 17 Norris Street

-- Forwarded message ------- From: Young Kim <[email removed]> Date: Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:17 AM Subject: Comment for 6/25 Planning Board Hearing To: Paden, Liza <Ipaden@cambridgema.gov> Dear Ms. Paden, Attached is my comments for the 6/25 Planning Board hearing on Affordable Housing Overlay for the Planning Board members. Thank you, Young Kim

June 19, 2019 Planning Board City of Cambridge 344 Broadway Cambridge, MA 02139 Re: Affordable Housing Overlay - Zoning Petition Dear Chairwoman Catherine Connolly and Members of Planning Board, I agree wholeheartedly with the need for affordable housing. However, the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) - As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019 that applies to entire City of Cambridge with only advisory review by the Planning Board (PB) sets many dangerous precedents. Property tax paid by Cambridge property owners will be used as one source to subsidize the AHO Dwelling Units. Yet, the "as-of-right" provision will deny the abutting property owners the right to have any voice on what will be shoehorned into their neighborhood. And the form-based approach will increase density of the neighborhood without any limits except for the height. This goes contrary to many of the Purpose of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Section 1.30, Purpose, stated as "shall's" - lessen congestion in the streets, to prevent overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to facilitate the adequate provision of open space; to conserve the value of land and buildings; to name a few. There is nothing in the proposed AHO zoning text that will prevent a for-profit developer from taking advantage of the provisions of the proposal except for the fact that any AHO project will have deed restrictions to keep that property as an affordable housing in perpetuity. During March 28 2019 Housing Committee hearing, the Community Development Department (CDD) indicated that the 40-unit Frost Terrace is to begin construction this year. So, there is already a precedence for a developer other than a non-profit organization building 100% Affordable Housing project and with AHO there is the danger of other for-profit developers competing with non-profit developers for precious subsides and build boxlike apartments "as-of-right" with only advisory review by the PB. The advisory role of the PB will leave the concerns of the abutters at the sole discretion of the developer. All the CDD's presentations at the Housing Committee's hearings showed rendering of potential AHO projects without any context of existing neighborhood. Such rendering will not give any sense of impact of the project on the existing neighborhood. Over the past several years, a second housing unit on many of the properties with deep backyards have been built reducing precious open space. The minimum percentage of open space to lot area for AHO project will be 30%. This will further erode dwindling open space. For example, In Res. B, a property with 8000 square feet lot would lose 800 square feet of open space. Over the years, the Zoning Ordinance has become a patchwork of various amendments. There are already provisions for Affordable Housing in the Zoning Ordinance in Section 11.200 of Article 11.000, Special Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, with 3 different titles: • Incentive Zoning Provisions (Zoning Ordinance Table of Contents) • Affordable Housing Requirements (Article 11.000 Table of Contents)

• Incentive Zoning And Inclusionary Housing (Section 11.200 heading) In view of adding Sec. 11.207, the title Affordable Housing Requirements seems most appropriate. Since Incentive Zoning, Inclusionary Housing and AHO are different means of Affordable Housing, Section 11.200 in its entirety, including the new 11.207, should be reviewed and updated to promulgate common, comprehensive zoning requirements for affordable housing and delineate any differences in the 3 types of affordable housing, such as funding source (as in 11.206 Affordable Housing Trust), in separate subsections. The Housing Division of CDD is responsible for "managing and implementing the City's efforts to meet the housing needs of low-, and moderate-, and middle-income residents". Housing Division "offers access to affordable rental and homeownership units created through City programs" and works "with the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust, non-profit housing providers, and the Cambridge Housing Authority to acquire, build and preserve affordable housing." Housing Division works with "private developers and owners to offer access to affordable units created by the City's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance." Now, the Housing Division will have the added task of working with both private and non- profit developers "to offer access to affordable units created" by the proposed AHO. Therefore, it is imperative to revise entire 11.200 to clearly define enforceable affordable housing eligibility and periodic re-verification requirements removing any redundancies across all affordable housing types. I respectfully request that the PB direct the CDD to formulate an AHO zoning amendment more in line with the stated Purpose of the Zoning Ordinance with a long-term vision of growth of our City without the "as-of-right" provision. Thank you for your consideration, Respectfully yours, Young Kim 17 Norris Street

ATTACHMENT II -3 Subject FW: housing overlay From Lopez, Donna To: [email removed] <[email removed]> Date Mon, Jul 8 2019 at 9:19 AM From: Crane, Paula Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:54 AM To: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: FW: housing overlay From: Rhonda & Paul <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 8:26 AM To: Crane, Paula <pcrane @cambridgema.gov> Subject: housing overlay Please read the letter sent to you, and to the council members, regarding the housing overlay. I oppose the ordinance. City planning should be well thought out, and should consider the needs of the residents as a whole, and this overlay falls far short. Thank you,

Rhonda Massie 211 Charles Street 02141 Sent from Mail for Windows 10

ATTACHMENT II -4 Lopez, Donna From: John Whisnant < [email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 9:46 AM To: Clerk; City Council Subject: Affordable Housing Overla' City Councillors - I oppose the Affordable Housing Overlay as it is currently written. Implementing the current AHO without a Master Plan will lead to negative unforeseen consequences. I urge you to go back to the drawing board and get this right - affordabl housing in vital to the city's future, but not in this form Regards, John Whisnant 61 Otis St East Cambridge

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT II-5 From: Zachary Goldberg <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 11:13 AM To: City Council Cc: Crane, Paula; Lopez, Donna Subject: Opposition to Affordable Housing Overlay Dear Cambridge City Council, I would like to voice my strong opposition to the Affordable Housing Overlay. While it is a complex issue, the more l learn about it, the more concerned I become. There are a host of issues and acute concerns - some of which I note below: 1. Cambridge is already exceedingly dense: 9,000 new housing units or permits added since 2010; it is the #5 most dense metropolis in the United States with populations over 100k; it is now denser than the City of Boston. 2. Cambridge already has substantial affordable housing: It vastly exceeds State minimums - its percentage is among the highest in the State; the percentage of affordable units right now is the same as it was under rent control - except now it is available only to residents truly in need (therefore the percentage is actually higher); 20% of all newly constructed units are designated as affordable, ensuring affordable units will continue to grow as the City does. 3. The AFO doesn't provide a housing solution for middle income residents in need. 4. The AFO encourages more building with less oversight - and zero planning. 5. Cambridge residents are struggling with development-related congestion: Traffic is horrendous; our tree canopy, green space, and permeable open space are all in decline; climate change risks have increased (expanding floodplain). 6. Inadequate infrastructure planning: Given the already massive development-related congestion noted above, where are the infrastructure plans to address this? The focus of the AHO is instead to remove zoning safeguards and clear the path for even more development. 7. Untested and drastic zoning scheme: Where are the long-term studies? Where is the list of potential unintended consequences? These are real issues and risks that the City (and/or Community Development Department) does not appear to be acknowledging. Furthermore, I am concerned that the City is planning to strip away my right as an abutter to appeal or criticize a design in any way. 8. Estimated cost of $500k/unit is extremely high: This is clearly an inefficient use of public funds. There are of course other concerns, and it is unfortunate that a critical period for examining this Proposal is occurring at the start of summer, when many will either be away or distracted. This is a rushed process seemingly driven by developers (affordable, or otherwise), and I hope that you, the City Council, will conclude that the complexity of this issue requires far more time to study. Thank you for your consideration. Zack Goldberg 118-120 Aberdeen Ave

Cambridge, MA 02138 2

ATTACHMENT II -6 Lopez, Donna Gvido Cebers < [email removed]> From: Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 1:25 PM City Council; Crane, Paula; Lopez, Donna To: Subject: Opposition to Affordable Housing Overlay Dear Cambridge City Council, We would like to voice our strong opposition to the Affordable Housing Overlay. While it is a complex issue, the more we learn about it, the more concerned we become. There are a host of issues and acute concerns - some of which are noted below: 1. Cambridge is already exceedingly dense: 9,000 new housing units or permits added since 2010; it is the #5 most dense metropolis in the United States with populations over 100k; it is now denser than the City of Boston. 2. Cambridge already has substantial affordable housing: It vastly exceeds State minimums - its percentage is among the highest in the State; the percentage of affordable units right now is the same as it was under rent control - except now it is available only to residents truly in need (therefore the percentage is actually higher); 20% of all newly constructed units are designated as affordable, ensuring affordable units will continue to grow as the City does. 3. The AFO doesn't provide a housing solution for middle income residents in need. 4. The AFO encourages more building with less oversight - and zero planning. 5. Cambridge residents are struggling with development-related congestion: Traffic is horrendous; our tree canopy, green space, and permeable open space are all in decline; climate change risks have increased (expanding floodplain). 6. Inadequate infrastructure planning: Given the already massive development-related congestion noted above, where are the infrastructure plans to address this? The focus of the AHO is instead to remove zoning safeguards and clear the path for even more development. 7. Untested and drastic zoning scheme: Where are the long-term studies? Where is the list of potential unintended consequences? These are real issues and risks that the City (and/or Community Development Department) does not appear to be acknowledging. Furthermore, I am concerned that the City is planning to strip away my right as an abutter to appeal or criticize a design in any way. 8. Estimated cost of $500k/unit is extremely high: This is clearly an inefficient use of public funds. There are of course other concerns, and it is unfortunate that a critical period for examining this Proposal is occurring at the start of summer, when many will either be away or distracted. This is a rushed process seemingly driven by developers (affordable, or otherwise), and we hope that you, the City Council, will conclude that the complexity of this issue requires far more time to study. Thank you for your consideration. Gvido and Aleta Cebers 100 Erie Str Cambridge 02139 1

ATTACHMENT II-7 Lopez, Donna From: Charles Teague < [email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 2:26 PM To: City Council Cc: Clerk Subject: OPPOSE Affordable Overlay Dear councillors, there are so many reasons that this overlay is NOT good for Cambridge but one of the most glaring is the concept of further reduction of Open Space and the tree canopy. These are both critical to human health and well being and the overlay inevitably reduces both. For these reasons alone, please do not vote for the overlay. Charles Teague 23 Edmunds St

Perez, Lori From: Sent: To: Cc: ATTACHMENT II -8 • Charles Hinds < [email removed]> Tuesday, July 2, 2019 3:54 PM City Council Subject: Clerk; Paden, Liza Attachments: Communication from ECT to Ordnance Committee Regarding the Affordable Overlay Dear Paula Crane, ECPT Letter to Ordinance Committee - Affordable Overlay - 7-2-18hhrev.pdf; ECPT Letter to Housing Committee - Affordable Overlay - 3-19-19.pdf Very truly yours, Attached please find a communication from the East Cambridge Planning Team to the Ordinance Committee regarding Chuck Hinds 2019. Can you please distribute to Ordinance Committee for tonight's hearing. the Affordable Housing Overlay. The letter has a 3 page attachment, a letter to Housing Committee dated March 19, President East Cambridge Planning Team Mobile: [phone removed] I Cambridge neighborhood organization serving East Cambridge since 1965. ring Team 1

ATTACHMENT II-Q Subject FW: Affordable Housing Overlay From Lopez, Donna To: [email removed] <[email removed]> Date Mon, Jul 8 2019 at 9:24 AM From: Crane, Paula Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:47 AM To: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@ cambridgema.gov> Subject: FW: Affordable Housing Overlay From: Susan Johansen <Susan.Johansen @atlastravel.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 10:10 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Affordable Housing Overlay I oppose the proposed ordinance as written. Susan L. Johansen

1ou vamoriage sireet, AOUL Cambridge, MA 02141

AMTACHMENT II-10 Subject FW: Affordable Housing Overlay Hearing at Ordinance Committee Tuesday, July 2nd From Lopez, Donna To: [email removed] <[email removed]> Date Mon, Jul 8 2019 at 9:22 AM From: Crane, Paula Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:51 AM To: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@ cambridgema.gov> Subject: FW: Affordable Housing Overlay Hearing at Ordinance Committee Tuesday, July 2nd From: Kathleen Desmond <kdesmond@ endicott.edu> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 1:23 PM To: City Council <City Council@CambridgeMA.GOV>; Crane, Paula <pcrane @ cambridgema.gov> Subject: Affordable Housing Overlay Hearing at Ordinance Committee Tuesday, July 2nd Dear Council Members, I am unable to attend the meeting this evening, but wish to go on record that I oppose the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay ordinance as written.

Best, Kathy Desmond Third Street Cambridge, MA 02141

ATTACHMENT II-17 Subject FW: AHO Overlay From Lopez, Donna To: [email removed] <[email removed]> Date Mon, Jul 8 2019 at 9:22 AM From: Crane, Paula Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:52 AM To: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: FW: AHO Overlay From: Sally Lesser <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 12:44 PM To: Devereux, Jan <jdevereux@ cambridgema.gov»; Mallon, Alanna <amallon@cambridgema.gov»; Kelley, Craig <[email removed]; council @cambrigema.gov; Carlone, Dennis <dcarlone@ cambridgema.gov>; Simmons, Denise <dsimmons@cambridgema.gov>; McGovern, Marc <mmcGovern@cambridgema.gov>; Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov>; Zondervan, Quinton <qzondervan @cambridgema.gov>; Siddiqui, Sumbul <ssiddiqui@cambridgema.gov>; Toomey, Tim <ttoomey@CambridgeMA.GOV> Subject: AHO Overlay Dear Citv Council Memhers.

к сто. We are writing in opposition to the Affordable Housing Overlay now before the City Council. We've attended several meetings pertaining to this proposed zoning change and have many questions and concerns still about the process and the legal exposure of the city. A group of citizens, led by Suzanne Blier, has prepared a lengthy document which offers many fixes to the current proposal. We agree with many of the points made in this letter, especially: 1. The removal of Planning Board oversight is wrong from a design and planning perspective. 2. The creation of two different zoning codes seems legally fraught. We have not heard a good explanation of how this double standard could be successfully defended in court. 3. We are concerned about the loss of open space and further reduction of the tree canopy. 4. It seems to us that the notion of city-wide up-zoning is a quick fix, not well thought out, and not good planning. The blanket overlay does not appear to consider where higher and denser development is appropriate, and where it is inappropriate. We do believe that a better plan is achievable, with citizen and professional input, and that we need to take the time to do this right. 5. No one knows what may result from this radical proposal. We believe that there needs to be a sunset date, to allow all stakeholders to assess the actual consequences of this change. Respectfully submitted, Sally and Stuart Lesser Lexington Ave - Sally Lesser

AACHMENT II- 12 Subject FW: Opposition to Overlay From Lopez, Donna To: [email removed] <[email removed]> Date Mon, Jul 8 2019 at 9:21 AM From: Crane, Paula Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:54 AM To: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: FW: Opposition to Overlay From: Rosemary Booth <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 8:59 AM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane @cambridgema.gov> Subject: Opposition to Overlay Dear Mayor McGovern, Vice Mayor Devereux, and Councilors Carlone, Kelley, Mallon, Siddiqui, Simmons, Toomey, and Zondervan, We write as homeowners and residents to oppose the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay as written, for reasons of inequity in expected impacts and because the overlay would dramatically override current Cambridge zoning law without public vote.

Sincerely, Rosemary Booth and Jerry O'Leary 303 Third Street, Unit 505 Cambridge MA 02142

ATTACHMENTIL-13 Subject FW: The seriously flawed 100% AHO proposal- NO TREES, UGLY BUILDINGS, NO GREEN SPACE From Lopez, Donna To: [email removed] <[email removed]> Date Mon, Jul 8 2019 at 9:19 AM From: Crane, Paula Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:55 AM To: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: FW: The seriously flawed 100% AHO proposal- NO TREES, UGLY BUILDINGS, NO GREEN SPACE From: Carolyn <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 12:32 AM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane @cambridgema.gov»; DePasquale, Louie <|depasquale@cambridgema.gov> Subject: The seriously flawed 100% AHO proposal- NO TREES, UGLY BUILDINGS, NO GREEN SPACE For the official record

To the Honorable, the City Council, This seriously flawed overlay zoning proposal will be a disaster for the city. >> You must vote "NO" on it.<< This seriously flawed overlay zoning proposal will result in ugly, massive, flat-roofed, boxes made out of fake materials that will not reflect the historic Cambridge will no longer architectual styles for which Cambridge is noted. be Cambridge. >> This overlay proposal must be defeated! This seriously flawed overlay proposal will result in architectually significant homes being torn down so that plain boxlike structures can be built using cheap materials. >> This overlay proposal must be voted down! This away rest ate proposal and alaw ange with 13 exceptions that Thus, this overlay proposal will allow anything to be built with any materials, mostly cheap, fake materials. >> The Council must vote this down! This overlay proposal will turn charming residential streets like Magazine Street and Pearl Street in Cambridgeport into clusters of ugly 8-story buildings next to beautiful Victorian houses. This overlay proposal proposes to take away our right to appeal and removes the Planning Board from any role in affecting the type of residential buildings that any developer can erect. The developer will have the freedom to build anything it decides to build, with any materials, using any colors, and with the cheapest materials available. This overlay proposal allowing 8-story buildings on transit routes will eliminate green space, lawns, garden borders around houses, trees, shrubs and perennial gardens on any 8-story building and the 8-story buildings will

cast shadows on the gardens and lawns of currently existing residential properties. >>This overlay must be thrown out! Vote NO on the overlay. This overlay will allow buildings of 45' to 50' to be built next to 1 1/2 story and 2 story houses, thus eliminating open space next to the extant houses and creating shadows on the gardens and lawns of the extant houses, thus adding to the global warming effect. This flawed overlay will allow developers to tear down existing houses thus endangering city street trees whose roots are on the property and around the house to be torn down. The roots will be cut and depending on how much of the root system is effected/damaged, the tree could die and eventually fall down--maybe on the AHO building. This flawed overlay proposal must be defeated! Carolyn Shipley 15 Laurel Street p.s. I will not vote for any councillor who votes yes on this flawed overlay proposal.

ATTACNMENTII-14 Subject FW: Affordable Housing Overlay From Lopez, Donna To: [email removed] <[email removed]> Date Mon, Jul 8 2019 at 9:19 AM ----Original Message----- From: Crane, Paula Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:55 AM To: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@ cambridgema.gov» Subject: FW: Affordable Housing Overlay ----Original Message---- From: Philip Balboni <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 10:31 PM To: City Council < CityCouncil@ CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Affordable Housing Overlay Dear Members of the City Council - I write in opposition to the proposal to create an affordable housing overlay. Cambridge is very fortunate at this moment in our history to be experiencing unprecedented economic growth, as is Boston and a good deal of the metropolitan area. The downside of this prosperity is a sharp escalation in the demand for housing in our City - and with this increased demand has come a huge increase in rental and sale prices. So there is an understandable desire to find more affordable housing options. Unfortunately, the zoning overlay will effectively deregulate key sections of the zoning regulations that have served Cambridge very well for decades and it will open a Pandora's box of problems. Cambridge is already one of the most densely populated cities in the country and we have had our own

explosion of new housing development. The AHO will inevitably be exploited by developers not just to build more housing but to do so in ways that neighborhoods are currently protected against. Many neighborhood and civic groups have presented to the Council and its Committees the numerous flaws in the overlay as currently drafted. I urge the Councilors to listen to all of the residents of Cambridge and not just to the special interests who are pushing the AHO forward. It's bad public policy and it will be destructive to the vibrant, diverse and enormously attractive community that Cambridge has become over its very long history. Please do not undermine this extraordinary and unique quality of life. With best wishes, Phil Balboni 132 Brattle Street, Cambridge

ATTACHMENT II -15 Subject FW: OPPOSE OVERLAY From Lopez, Donna To: [email removed] <[email removed]> Date Mon, Jul 8 2019 at 9:18 AM From: Crane, Paula Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:56 AM To: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: FW: OPPOSE OVERLAY From: Catalina Arboleda <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 10:30 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov> Subject: OPPOSE OVERLAY All, I am unable to attend tomorrow's meeting, but I wanted my voice to be heard.

I have written before opposing the overlay. It seems to me that it favors developers, giving them rights to ignore the zoning and planning boards and green space needs of Cambridge residents, and while it may provide a few more affordable housing units, the detriments are significant and the plan needs much further study and input from current Cambridge residents. Best, Catalina Arboleda 950 Mass. Ave. Unit 413 Cambridge, MA 02139 This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e- mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Catalina Arboleda, Ph.D. Licensed Psychologist www.arboledaphd.com [email removed] [phone removed] (cell) [phone removed] (voice)

ATTACHMENT II-16 Subject FW: Asking for your votes against the Affordable Housing Ordinance From Lopez, Donna To: [email removed] <[email removed]> Date Mon, Jul 8 2019 at 9:17 AM From: Crane, Paula Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 8:28 AM To: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@ cambridgema.gov> Subject: FW: Asking for your votes against the Affordable Housing Ordinance From: christine brown <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2019 1:33 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane @cambridgema.gov>; DePasquale, Louie <depasquale@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Asking for your votes against the Affordable Housing Ordinance Honorable Cambridge City Council Members and Cambridge City Manager, My name is Christine Brown and I have lived at 182 Appleton Street for the last 20

years-and in other parts of Cambridge for 20 years before that. I am writing to express my concern about the AOH, and to ask that you vote again this ordinance. The longer I study it, the more I do not understand why the City is considering this proposal. We are already one of the densest cities in the US and have added almost 10,000 housing units in the last 10 years. We have added almost 1000 affordable units in the last several years and compare favorably to our surrounding communities. This isn't to say we shouldn't do more through existing programs and direct subsidies and through work with the universities and businesses. This ordinance, however, isn't the answer; and it will have disastrous consequences for our neighborhoods, our traffic, and equally importantly, our environment. Thank you for considering this letter. I urge the Council to vote against this Ordinance. Sincerely, Christine A. Brown 182 Appleton Street

AMACHMENT II-17 Subject FW: For Housing Justice - Against the Affordable Housing Overlay (АНО) From Lopez, Donna To: [email removed] <[email removed]> Date Mon, Jul 8 2019 at 9:18 AM From: Crane, Paula Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:57 AM To: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: FW: For Housing Justice - Against the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) From: Christopher Mackin <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 7:17 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane @ cambridgema.gov›; DePasquale, Louie <depasquale@cambridgema.gov> Subject: For Housing Justice - Against the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Cambridge City Council Members and Cambridge City Manager, I am writing in opposition to the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO). I believe

the Overlay is flawed and that it begins where a current campaign for housing justice should end. We should not build first. We should build last. We should build only after we have grasped and taken action to reverse how we are losing our poor, working and middle classes to increasing rents and property values. We should urge our representatives in the state house to consider laws such as the proposed NY State Senate Bill S 2892A which prohibits the eviction of residential tenants or the non-renewal of residential leases without good cause. Thank you. - Chris Christopher Mackin 48 JFK Street # 2 Cambridge, MA 02138 President Ownership Associates, Inc. 17 Story Street Cambridge, MA 02138 www.ownershipassociates.com Tel.: [phone removed] Cell: [phone removed] Skype: ChrisMackin

Lopez, Donna ATTACNMENJ JJ-1 Guillemette Simmers <[email removed]> From: Friday, June 28, 2019 5:41 PM Sent: To: City Council; City Manager; Clerk Subiect: AHO Zoning Petition Dear Members of the Ordinance Committee, I am writing to express several concerns with the proposal for the AHO Zoning Petition for its potential impacts and unintended consequences that I ask the Ordinance Committee fo address. — The language of the zoning potion as currently submitted is vague, incomplete and has many inconsistencies ano conflicts. THE CDD has not effectively written a form-based zoning proposal by individual neighborhood and zone to ensure the right intended outcomes. There is not yet enough design guidance in the proposal that will encourage and foster well-designed buildings, it has few distinctions between corridors and neighborhoods or guidelines for transitions. — The potential density as currently written in the zoning proposal will increase many properties 4x to 10x and more. Already Cambridge is denser, has a higher% of affordable units, and has met its regional goals for new housing. — Moving to the untested and unfamiliar form-based zoning and away from FAR is unpredictable - even the CDD has expressed some uncertainties. — The City has continued to build affordable subsidized housing through its inclusionary zoning programs and through the Trust. Without adding any more public funding this Overlay is not predicted to build any more units, bot one slight change to remove the restriction for affordable housing would dramatically change zoning city-wide and the character and nature of our city forever. Once enacted it would be nearly impossible to rescind. — As written the zoning proposal will encourage more tear-downs of existing properties, perpetuating the loss of existing middle-income housing that the City has been negligent to address. — The proposal gives as of right benefits to developers while eliminating input from the Planning Board and Cambridge residents. - Adding more public funding to an overheated real estate market will increase price pressure on bids for new properties raising property prices even more. — Such increased development and density will impact climate resilience by removing tree canopy, open space and permeable space from the city forever. - The growth forecasts from Envision places additional pressures on transit, schools, roadways and the power grid with little or no solutions for mitigation. - The zoning change has been poorly communicated to Cambridge homeowners - the vast majority of citizens have no ides what is being proposed or how their property may be impacted. It has gravely oversold as a social panacea for housing solutions for many underserved residents in the city. i ask that you send this zoning proposal back to the City Council for more study and clarification.

Sincerely, Guillemette Simmers 8 Alpine Street Cambridge, MA 02138 ... • 2

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT J J-2 From: Kelly Dolan <[email removed]> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 11:37 AM To: City Council; Kelley, Craig; Carlone, Dennis; McGovern, Marc; Devereux, Jan; Siddiqui, Sumbul; Quinton Zondervan; Mallon, Alanna; Toomey, Tim; Simmons, Denise; City Subject: Affordable Housing Zoning Petition 7/2/2019 Dear Ordinance Committee We the undersigned have some concerns with the proposal for the Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning Petition for its potential impacts and unintended consequences that we ask the Ordinance Committee to address. This zoning change must also be considered within the context of the CDD's recently released Housing Plan developed through the Envision Planning process which forecasts tremendous growth for the city of Cambridge by 2030*. 1. The language of the zoning petition as currently submitted is vague, incomplete and has many inconsistencies and conflicts. The CDD has not effectively written a form-based zoning proposal by individual neighborhood and zone to ensure the right intended outcomes. There is not yet enough design guidance in the proposal that will encourage and foster well-designed buildings, it has few distinctions between corridors and • neighborhoods or guidelines for transitions. For example • Section 5.2.1 (b)i provides that where a 7 story AHO development abuts a lot that is zoned for 40' height, the AHO project cannot exceed 5 stories in the 35' from the abutting lot line. That would seem to make the economics of many of the corridor properties even less competitive with the larger parcels in Res A and B. • Parking is an issue - 0.4 spaces per dwelling OR LESS may work in parts of the city but may not work city-wide • There is no incentive or requirements for family sized two and three bedroom units. 2. The potential density as currently written in the zoning proposal will increase many properties 4x to 10x and more. Already Cambridge is denser, has a higher% of affordable units, and has met its regional goals for new housing. 3. Moving to the untested and unfamiliar form-based zoning and away from FAR is unpredictable - even the CDD has expressed some uncertainties. 4. The City has continued to build affordable subsidized housing through its Inclusionary zoning programs and through the Trust. Without adding any more public funding this Overlay is not predicted to build any more units, but one slight change to remove the restriction for affordable housing would dramatically change zoning city- wide and the character and nature of the city forever. Once enacted it would be nearly impossible to rescind. 5. As written the zoning proposal will encourage more tear-downs of existing properties, perpetuating the loss of existing middle-income housing that the City has been negligent to address. 1

6. The proposal gives as of right benefits to developers while eliminating input from the Planning Board and Cambridge residents. 7. Adding more public funding to an overheated real estate market will increase price pressure on bids for new properties raising property prices even more 8. Such increased development and density will impact climate resilience by removing tree canopy, open space and permeable space from the City forever. 9. The growth forecasts from Envision places additional pressures on transit, schools, roadways, and the power grid with little or no solutions for mitigation. 10. The zoning change has been poorly communicated to Cambridge homeowners - the vast majority of citizens have no idea what is being proposed or how their property may be impacted. It has been gravely oversold as a social panacea for housing solutions for many underserved residents in the city. We ask that you send this zoning proposal back to the City Council for more study and clarification. Sincerely Kelly A. Dolan Gregory V. Berndt AlA Upland Road *Page 152 Envision Cambridge http://envision.cambridgema.gov/wp- content/uploads/2019/06/201906 EnvisionCambridge-Final-Report.pdf Kelly Dolan

Lopez, Donna ITTACHMENT JJ-3 From: pwellons < [email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 20192:06 PM To: Clerk; City Council Cc: Lopez, Donna Subject: For today's Ordinance Committee meeting - please distribute Dear Members of the Ordinance Committee: Much of the AHO needs to change. One major failure is that it ignores green space. Climate change is, many say, the nost profound threat to all of us, the world. It's not enough to say more affordable housing will mean people can bike o walk to work. AHO gives no one control over where AHO users work; they can live in Cambridge and drive to work fa away. So please give serious attention to green space, a critical part of climate change, and notably the tree canopy. Ignoring trees because some committee some time later may act on environmental issues ducks our responsibility and is a bad excuse. The issue is too important and AHO now is likely to destroy too many mature trees. Many aspects of AHO reduce green space and Cambridge's tree canopy. The cutting releases each tree's stored carbon dioxide, then the young tree takes years to replace the cut mature tree's capacity. In a message a group sent you today is the following list of urgent steps to begin to remedy the damage the draft AHO zoning could do to our green space and tree canopy. They appear in Part IV on Environment. • Protect all mature trees. Since new trees take about 30 years to reach maturity and the chance of death prior to maturity is c. 26.2% (NYC data), replacing old trees with new ones is NOT a viable solution particularly as we also must address the 18% loss in tree cover in recent years. To protect mature trees and enhance new tree growth add a requirement identical to that in all C-2B Zoning Districts, that all building setback requirements apply below ground, too. See CZO, Table 5-1, Fn. (k). • The AHO draft is silent about green space. But green space is an appropriate subject for zoning. Cambridge zoning now requires maintained green space as transitions in several areas, including Bus B-1, B-2, Res C2B and others. Maintain these criteria, extend them to adjacent lots and designate specific green space minimal requirements for each neighborhood and context, of at least half the green space currently on a property or 20% of the lot area (see §5.2.3 of the draft zoning changes) whichever is greater. • Remove the 20% of exclusions from the 30% Open Space requirements. • Require best, most sophisticated efforts to protect existing "mature" trees to the extent feasible so they remain healthy during and after construction. Solicit guidelines from DPW's David Webster & David Lefcourt on this as well as on the definition of what "mature" designates. 1

Preserve the 15' x 15' open space requirement to prevent skinny side yards from counting as open spaces. • Do not count above-grade porches & decks as open space. The Roberts/Cotter 6/20/19 CDD memo identifies new open space requirements as those of C-1 Zoning Districts but AHO AHO permits much larger buildings. • Require one (1) parking space per unit if ¼ mile from subway entry to prevent more environmental harm from AHO-linked car traffic circling the neighborhood for parking. • Require solar panels and/or green roofs on all projects taller than 40 feet. Of course, the most appropriate response to AHO by the Ordinance Committee would be to open up and examine the draft's basic assumptions before recasting this proposal, with its laudable goal of increasing affordable housing. Thank you. Yours, Phil Wellons

Taylor, Bernice ATTACHMENT JJ-4 From: Caroline Bruzelius, Ph.D. «[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 9:52 AM To: Taylor, Bernice AHO implementation Subject: Dear Members of the Council: Although I am a recent arrival in Cambridge, I moved here because I love this place, because it is both a town (or a series of towns) and a city. The architecture is a unique part of our national heritage, and let me emphasize also that the gardens and trees are also unique, part of a long history of interest in plants and botany that goes back to the 18th century. The AHO zoning plan currently under consideration holds great risk for both our unique architectural and landscape heritage, and I urge you to take the time to revise the proposal in order to take these concerns into consideration. Caroline Bruzelius 24 C Bradbury Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 [phone removed]

ATTACHMENT JJ-5 Lopez, Donna From: Carol O'Hare <[email removed] > Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 12:10 PM To: City Council Cc: Lopez, Donna; Crane, Paula Subject: P.S. Ordinance Committee: AHO Hearing, 7/2/19 See added comments below. -- Forwarded message ----- From: Carol O'Hare <[email removed]> Date: Tue, Jul 2, 2019, 11:56 AM Subject: Ordinance Committee: AHO Hearing, 7/2/19 To: City Council <Council@cambridgema.gov> Cc: Lopez, Donna < dlopez@cambridgema.gov>, Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov> Dear City Councillors: As you know, I have serious concerns about the AHO, including a number of those in Suzanne Blier's email. There's one question whose answer could render the whole effort pointless: Is this type of zoning authorized by Chapter 40A, the Mass. Zoning Enabling Act? Or is it a form of spot zoning and, therefore, vulnerable to legal challenge? Added paragraph: I trust that you will consider all concerns and suggestions raised in good faith before voting on this. Sincerely, Carol O'Hare • 172 Magazine St. Cc: City Clerk - Please file this with the Official Record.

ATTACHMENT JJ-b Subject FW: Concerns re: Affordable Housing Overlay. From Lopez, Donna To: [email removed] <[email removed]> Date Mon, Jul 8 2019 at 9:29 AM From: Hamer, David <[email removed]> Sent: Saturday, July 6, 2019 12:19 PM To: City Council <City Council @CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov>; Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Concerns re: Affordable Housing Overlay. Dear Cambridge City Council, I would like to voice my concerns about the Affordable Housing Overlay. As a long term resident of Cambridge, I have several acute concerns as described below: 1. Cambridge is already exceedingly dense: 9,000 new housing units or permits added since 2010; it is the #5 most dense metropolis in the United States with populations over 100k; it is now denser than the City of Boston. 2. Cambridge already has substantial affordable housing: It vastly exceeds State minimums - its percentage is among the highest in the State; the percentage of affordable units right now is the same as it was under rent control - except now it is available only to residents truly in need (therefore the percentage is actually higher);

20% of all newly constructed units are designated as affordable, ensuring affordable units will continue to grow as the City does. 3. The AFO doesn't provide a housing solution for middle income residents in need. 4. The AFO encourages more building with less oversight and minimal planning. 5. Cambridge residents are struggling with development-related congestion: Traffic is horrendous; our tree canopy, green space, and permeable open space are all in decline; climate change risks have increased (expanding floodplain). 6. Inadequate infrastructure planning: Given the already massive development- related congestion noted above, where are the infrastructure plans to address this? The focus of the AHO is instead to remove zoning safeguards and clear the path for even more development. 7. Untested and drastic zoning scheme: Where are the long-term studies? Where is the list of potential unintended consequences? These are real issues and risks that the City (and/or Community Development Department) does not appear to be acknowledging. Furthermore, I am concerned that the City is planning to strip away my right as an abutter to appeal or criticize a design in any way. 8. Estimated cost of $500k/unit is extremely high: This is clearly an inefficient use of public funds. There are of course other concerns, and it is unfortunate that a critical period for avaminina thie Pranncal ie nearrina at tha ctart of cummar whan many will either ha

away or distracted. This is a rushed process seemingly driven by developers (affordable, or otherwise), and I hope that you, the City Council, will conclude that the complexity of this issue requires far more time to study. Yours sincerely, Davidson Hamer, MD 129 Auburn St. Cambridge, MA 02139

ATTACHMENT JJ-7 Subject FW: today's meeting From Lopez, Donna To: [email removed] <[email removed]> Date Mon, Jul 8 2019 at 9:23 AM From: Crane, Paula Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:50 AM To: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: FW: today's meeting From: Janet Littell <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 2:56 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov> Subject: today's meeting My issues: - More assistance for middle class people who want to buy. I can't buy. ___- A 1 - 1 --!--- - 1 -

- Not allowing overly large bullaings on a piece or lana, green spaces, etc. Thanks! Janet Littell 13 Ware Street Apt 7 Cambridge MA 02138 [email removed] [phone removed]

ATTACHMENT JJ-8 Subject FW: My biggest AHO concerns for tonight From Lopez, Donna To: [email removed] <[email removed]> Date Mon, Jul 8 2019 at 9:22 AM From: Crane, Paula Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:51 AM To: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: FW: My biggest AHO concerns for tonight From: Doug Brown <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 2:26 PM To: 'Quinton Zondervan' <[email removed]>; [email removed]; Kelley, Craig <ckelley@ cambridgema.gov>; [email removed]; City Council <City Council@CambridgeMA.GOV>; Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov> Cc: Paden, Liza <Ipaden@cambridgema.gov> Subject: My biggest AHO concerns for tonight Dear Councilors, Good luck with your Ordinance Committee hearing tonight on the AfAn Lanin MadN In aanna afan dinanninn

please find below my eight greatest concerns regarding the current proposal, as well as my suggestions as to how it can be improved. 1) The AHO is in direct conflict with City planning efforts. Problem: The AHO contravenes numerous City planning efforts, including the Cambridge Growth Policy document (1993, updated in 2007), which proposes the following core policies for future development: "Policy 1 Existing residential neighborhoods, or any portions of a neighborhood having an identifiable and consistent built character, should be maintained at their prevailing pattern of development and building density and scale. Policy 2 Except in evolving industrial areas, the city's existing land use structure and the area of residential and commercial neighborhoods should remain essentially as they have developed historically. Policy 3 The wide diversity of development patterns, uses, scales, and densities present within the city's many residential and commercial districts should be retained and strengthened. That diversity should be between and among the various districts, not necessarily within each individual one." Solution: preserve Board oversight to ensure that planning goals and policies are honored.

2) The AHO creates a new set of inequities as it attempts to solve existing housing inequities. Problem: The same overly complex zoning code that makes homeowners crawl to the BZA on hands and knees for a dormer is tossed out for affordable developers asking for up to 9 times more density right next door. Creating a new set of inequities is not a good way to build consensus. Solution: Incrementally increasing density across the city is preferable to allowing unchecked development without oversight. Examples of changes that would add incremental density include eliminating single-family zoning, reducing minimum lot sizes, or allowing small FAR increases, particularly in the highly restrictive Residential B zoning district. 3) The AHO has no mechanism to regularly evaluate its impact and adjust requirements as needed. Problem: The AHO is totally untested and we can't predict the loopholes it may create or the ways it will be applied that may surprise and disappoint us. Solution: The Overlay should be benchmarked, reviewed, reevaluated, and amended at least every five years, or sooner if needed. 4) The AHO allows much greater density multiples than needed. Problem: For some parcels, I have calculated permitted FAR multiples as high as 9 times greater than the current base nu run de

sunny, rupture lines larger man me exisung vulaings. Solution: / would suggest a circuit breaker rule that limits AHO projects to 3x the FAR of the underlying base zoning in order to limit extreme abuses. The AHO doesn't protect existing middle-income tenants from displacement when their homes are redeveloped. Problem: The Overlay is likely to result in middle-income family displacement as properties are sold and redeveloped. Since the Overlay requires no middle-income housing at all, existing middle-income tenants are not protected from displacement. Sadly, the switch to zip code-based rent guidelines only makes this issue worse, as it will tend to shift additional naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) units from middle-income to low- and moderate-income tenants. Solution: Tenants earning up to 120% of AMI, regardless of whether they are currently on the wait list or not, should be offered the right to return to any properties that are redeveloped under the AHO. Note that I set the bar at 120% of AMI because this is how HUD defines Middle-Income housing, but also because we need to protect all middle-income families, not just those making less than 100% of AMI. In addition, the 20% of middle-income units that the current AHO language allows should instead be required. 6) The AHO manipulates Open Space calculations to make projects look greener than they actually are. Problem: By inserting the following line item, the AHO completely eliminates existing open space dimensional ke d

requirements: "(d) The required open space shall be considered Private Open Space but shall not be subject to the dimensional and other limitations set forth in Section 5.22 of this Zoning Ordinance." What dimensional limitations are contained in section 5.22? Primarily, this one: "An area designated as private open space must have both a width and a length of at least fifteen (15) feet, except for balconies, and may not have a slope greater than ten (10) percent." So now the tiny strips of 7.5' wide setback surrounding the building are considered open space. This is clearly what CDD is showing in their new renderings, with one example showing just 20% open space being labelled instead as having 49% open space. The only way that is possible is if the basic definition of open space has changed. Solution: Preserve the minimum 15' x 15' requirement for open space at grade. 7) The AHO excessively reduces setbacks from neighboring structures. Problem: The Overlay allow reduced side setbacks as small as 7.5', even in situations where existing, adjoining buildings have no setbacks at all. Such reductions are not in keeping with long- held standards of fire safety, access to sunlight and fresh air, or good neighbor standards. Solution: Regardless of permitted lot line setbacks, under no nirnumctanno chnuld nam AHN ariante ha Innatad Aincar than 15' tn

existing buildings on abutting parcels. The AHO has no protections against profiteering. Problem: By allowing for-profit developers to access relaxed АНО rules, and by eliminating the existing financial disclosure requirements mandated under Section 40B, the Overlay does not protect against profiteering. Solution: Require all affordable housing developers to submit a pro forma for each project, as is currently required under 40B regulations. Thanks for your time and attention in this critical matter. I hope this is in some way helpful to your discussion tonight. Sincerely, -Doug Brown 35 Standish Street Cc: Liza Paden for the Planning Board <...>> AHO Concerns for Tonight's...