Part 1 of the 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 August 1, 2019 to discus a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to create an Affordable Housing Overlay District

ATTACHMENT 1, 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 April 24, 2019 Page 1 of 14

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. fa)(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: (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 eighty percent (80%) of AHO Dwelling Units shall be occupied by AHO Eligible •Households whose gross household income upon initial occupancy is no more than eighty percent (80%) of AMI. (ili) Rent, including utilities and any other fees routinely charged to tenants and approved by the Community Development Department, shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the gross household income of the AHO Eligible Household occupying the AHO Dwelling Unit or other similar standard pursuant to an applicable housing subsidy program which has been approved by the Community Development Department. (iv) After initial occupancy, the gross household income of an AHO Eligible Household shall be verified 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. Page 2 of 14 April 24, 2019

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. (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 April 24, 2019 Page 3 of 14

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 StateStories Above Grade (a) Onlots wWhere 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. (1) Portions of buildings that are within 35 feet of a district whose District 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. fb 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. 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. April 24, 2019 Page 4 of 14

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: An area commensurate with such reduction is used to provide off-street surface (i) parking spaces on the lot along with necessary driveways and access aisles. (ii) The AHO project Project includes the preservation and protection of an existing building included on the State Register of Historic Places. (b) 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. fa)(c) At least half of the required open space shall meet the definition of Permeable Open Space as set forth in this Zoning Ordinance. fella 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. No more than half of the required percentage of e Open space may be located at higher levels more than 10 feet above Grade, such as balconies, and decks, and reefsbut 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. feat The required epen space shall be considered Private Open Space but shat n9t be-subject to the dimensienat and ether imitatiens set forth in Section 5.22 of this Zening 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 för : 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. Page 7 of 14 April 24, 2019

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 basement or first story without requiring a special permit, provided that such parking spaces are screened from buildings on abutting lots by a fence or dense plantings. (d) Notwithstanding Paragraph 6.44.1(b), on-grade open parking spaces and driveways may be located within 5 feet of a side or rear property line without requiring a special permit, provided that screening is provided in the form of a fence or dense plantings at the property line, unless such screening is waived by mutual written agreement of the owner of the lot and the owner of the abutting lot. 6.4 Modifications to Bicycle Parking Standards (a) Notwithstanding Section 6.104, long-term or short-term bicycle parking spaces may be located anywhere on the lot for an AHO Project or on an adjacent lot in common ownership or under common control. (b) Notwithstanding Section 6.107.5, up to 20 long-term bicycle parking spaces may be designed to meet the requirements for Short-Term Bicycle Parking Spaces, so long as they are covered from above to be protected from precipitation. (c) The requirement for short-term bicycle parking shall be waived where only four of fewer short-term bicycle parking spaces would otherwise be required. (d) The number of required bicycle parking spaces shall be reduced by half, up to a maximum reduction of 28 spaces, where a standard-size (19-dock) Public Bicycle Sharing Station is provided on the lot or by the developer of the AHO Project on a site within 500 feet of the 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: Page 8 of 14 April 24, 2019

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 1200-300,250 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 transparent clear glass windows. For buildings located in a Business A (BA), Page 9 of 14 April 24, 2019

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 facades 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 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: the height of the lowest story above Grade for that portion of the building (1) containing active non-residential uses shall be at least 15 feet; the depth of the space designed for active non-residential uses shall be at least 35 (ii) 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 (ili) 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 certity 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 informațion 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. Ihe Planning Board shall communicate its findings in a written report provided to the developer and to CDD within 20 days of the design consultation. PARALA (f) The Hanning Beard shatt findings in a written report provided to the developer and to CDĐ wit 0*478-04 #tation,The developer may then make revisions to Page 13 of 14 April 24, 2019

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. _to-The Planning Board shall review and discuss the revised documents at a second design ()(g) 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. (s)(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. Page 14 of 14 April 24, 2019

AITACHMENT 2 8.2.a CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Dennis Carlone City Councilor Please share with my colleagues and the general public my comments and questions, and zoning recommendations for the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay submitted on April 25, 2019. Note that my zoning recommendations are in red type and comments/questions in italic red type. These are all notes and not meant to be misconstrued as formal amendments at this time. and questions, and zoning) My goals are to raise issues not specifically highlighted previously, such as actual densities, modify setbacks and transitions, give greater certainty on the design and massing of new structures within existing contexts, and site location preferences. It is my hope that such a detailed analysis will generate a more focused and meaningful discussion at the August 1st Ordinance hearing on the petition. Dennis Carlone Cambridge City Council. overlay final (COF 2019 #44 : General public my comments Attachment: CITY HALL, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139 TEL: [phone removed] FAX: [phone removed] | TTY/TDD: [phone removed] | EMAIL: dcarlone@cambridgema.gov Packet Pg. 1713

8.2.a Affordable Housing Overlay - AS REFERRED BY HOUSING COMMITTEE ON APRIL 25, 2019 DC Edits [Note: Recommended additions to zoning text are in red type; comments are in italic red type] 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 [2.5 to 4 times - must calculate each district impact - state the economic analysis and goal], limited increases in height [not true: petition's 45' to 70' is an increase of 56%], and relaxation of certain other zoning limitations [setbacks, unit per square foot of site, transitions - what else?] 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. Permeable Parking. (Definition must be added] 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 Attachment: overlay final (COF 2019 #44 : General public my comments and questions, and zoning) 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 (Article 19.30), [19.46 Areas of Special Planning Concern, 19.51 Applicability, are there any others of note?] while enabling AHO Projects to be permitted as- Page 1 of 17 Carlone Edits 07.25: AHO As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019 Packet Pg. 1714

8.2.a of-right, subject to non-binding advisory design consultation procedures and the results of design review process shall inform funding decisions by the principal public funder, the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust; 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 and related support services citywide. 2. Applicability (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: (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 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. Attachment: overlay final (COF 2019 #44 : General public my comments and questions, and zoning) (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. Page 2 of 17 Carlone Edits 07.25: AHO As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019 Packet Pg. 1715

8.2.a (v) An AHO Eligible Household may continue to rent an AHO Dwelling Unit after initial occupancy even if the AHO Eligible Household's gross household income exceeds the eligibility limits set forth above, but may not exceed one hundred twenty percent (120%) of AMI for more than one year after that Eligible Household's gross household income has been verified to exceed such percentage, unless otherwise restricted pursuant to an applicable housing subsidy program which has been approved by the Community Development Department. (vi) Notwithstanding the requirements set forth in (i) through (v) above, an owner may voluntarily choose to charge a lower rent than as provided herein for AHO Dwelling Units. (d) For owner-occupied AHO Dwelling Units: (i) The gross household income of an AHO Eligible Household upon initial occupancy shall be no more than one hundred percent (100%) of AMI. (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. Attachment: overlay final (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. All such ground floor uses shall that provide services to the general public. 5. Development Standards Carlone Edits 07.25: AHO As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019 Page 3 of 17 Packet Pg. 1716

8.2.a 5.1 General Provisions (a) For the purposes of this Section, the phrase "District Development Standards" shall refer to the development standards of the base zoning district as they may be modified by the development standards of all overlay districts that are applicable to a lot, but not the standards set forth within this Affordable Housing Overlay, and shall include standards that are permitted as-of- right or allowable by special permit. (b) For an AHO Project, the following development standards shall apply as-of-right in place of the more restrictive District Development Standards, except as otherwise stated. Where the District Development Standards for any type of use are less restrictive than the standards set forth below, such less restrictive development standards shall apply as-of-right to an AHO Project. (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 and questions, and zoning) as otherwise stated in this Section. 5.2 Dimensional Standards for AHO Projects 5.2.1 Building Height and Stories Above Grade (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 47 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 up to 45 feet, an AHO Project shall contain no more than five stories Above Grade and shall have a maximum height of 55 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 60 feet but the number of Stories Above Grade shall not exceed five stories. Portions of buildings that are within 35 feet of a district whose District (i) Dimensional Standards allow a maximum building height of 35 feet or less shall be reduced to a maximum of four Stories Above Grade and a maximum height of 47 feet, as measured from existing Grade, except where the building abuts a non-residential use. Attachment: overlay final (COF 2019 #44 : General public my comments (c) Where the District Dimensional Standards allow a maximum building height of 50 feet or more than __ 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 Page 4 of 17 Carlone Edits 07.25: AHO As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019 Packet Pg. 1717

8.2.a 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. (d) Each Story Above Grade shall have a minimum height of 10 feet. 5.2.2 Density (a) [Floor Area Ratios - City analysis currently indicates that the allowable square footage must be multiplied by 2.5 (existing higher density districts) to 4.0 (existing lower density districts) to make affordable housing economically viable in our existing housing and commercial market. As in all petitions, staff must provide their economic and urban design analysis for Council and Planning Board to fully understand the district-by-district issues and recommendations. Yard Setbacks 5.2.3 (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. fay An AHO Project shall use the average front yard setback of existing, adjacent buildings (two on each side but not including corner lots) above two (2) stories high or as called out in zoning, whichever is less. Corner lots 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 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 but the sum of the new project setback and the existing adjacent property setback add up to a minimum of 20 feet. However, if the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive requirement that dimension will be the required setback. (d) An AHO Project shall have a minimum rear yard setback of 20 feet but the sum of the new project setback and the existing adjacent residential property setback add up to a minimum of 40 feet except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive requirement. [Comment on crossed-out words: This is housing, no minimum rear yard setback?] Attachment: overlay final (COF 2019 #44 : General public my comments and questions, and zoning) (e) Projecting eaves, chimneys, bay windows, balconies, open fire escapes and like projections which do not project more than 3.5 feet from the principal exterior wall plane, and unenclosed steps, unroofed porches and the like which do not project more than ten (10) feet beyond the line of the foundation wall and which are not over four (4) feet above Grade, may extend beyond the minimum yard setback. Page 5 of 17 Carlone Edits 07.25: AHO As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019 Packet Pg. 1718

8.2.a (f) Bicycle parking spaces, whether short-term or long-term, and appurtenant structures such as coverings, sheds, or storage lockers [of what maximum size] may be located within a required yard setback. 5.2.4 Open Space (a) Except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive requirement or as otherwise provided below, the minimum percentage of open space to lot area for an AHO Project shall be 30%. However, the minimum percentage of open space to lot area may be reduced to no less than 15% if at least one of the following criteria is met: An area commensurate with such reduction is used to provide off-street surface (i) parking spaces on the lot along with necessary driveways and access aisles. The AHO Project includes the preservation and protection of an existing building (ii) included on the State Register of Historic Places. [Share related information] (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. (15' × 15' is meaningful, should be included if at all possible, at least in the 20 foot rear yard setback] (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. 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 Attachment: overlay final (COF 2019 #44 : General public my comments and questions, and zoning) 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. Page 6 of 17 Carlone Edits 07.25: AHO As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019 Packet Pg. 1719

8.2.a (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 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 (COF 2019 #44 : General public my comments and questions, and zoning) (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 Attachment: overlay final 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. Page 7 of 17 Carlone Edits 07.25: AHO As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019 Packet Pg. 1720

8.2.a (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. (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 [A significant health concern for some, that's why it is in zoning-currently allowed by Special Permit - Will speak with Inspectional Services] 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 (COF 2019 #44 : General public my comments and questions, and zoning) abutting lots by a fence or dense plantings. final (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 overlay 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 Attachment: (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. Page 8 of 17 Carlone Edits 07.25: AHO As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019 Packet Pg. 1721

8.2.a (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. 6.5.1 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 (COF 2019 #44 : General public my comments and questions, and zoning) 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 Site Selection Due to the above regulations, each site will offer different opportunities and constraints for the affordable housing developer as well as impacts on the abutting neighbors. The priority of site Attachment: overlay final selection shall be organized by the degree that the selected location enhances affordable housing renters' mobility, social intéraction; and retail/services access, as well as generates a greater number of units. Therefore, Priority 1 locations are in or immediately adjacent to city squares and smaller neighborhood retail/service districts (BA, BA-1, BA-2). Priority 2 sites are those that the city already controls or owns (empty lots, parking lots, storage areas, etc.). The next three priorities are Page 9 of 17 Carlone Edits 07.25: AHO As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019 Packet Pg. 1722

8.2.a in lower density neighborhoods: Priority 3 is on major streets and avenues, especially those with mass transit access; Priority 4 are corner locations (traditional locations for most apartment buildings in residential neighborhoods); and Priority 5 are residential properties that are not on corners. 8 Building and Site Design Standards for New Development 8.1 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 subjeci to the following standards [not exterior character?], provided that such alterations do not create a condition that is in greater nonconformance with such standards than the existing condition. (c) Character of street - Since each potential AHO site and its surrounding context is different from street to street; an analysis of both the common and diverse characteristics of each site's street architectural and urban qualities is required prior to the design phase. If a particular street has a diverse collection of building types, and setbacks, heights, density, etc. vary significantly, a new AHO building will more easily fit in. However, if the street has fairly consistent, architectural and urban design characteristics, a new AHO project shall incorporate as many of those qualities as possible into its design. 8.2 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 match its street context and consist of any combination of landscaped area, hard-landscaped 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 Attachment: overlay final (COF 2019 #44 : General public my comments and questions, and zoning) accessible by way of access routes that are separated from motor vehicle access drives. (c) A building footprint exceeding 250 150 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 30 feet in width measured parallel to the front lot line. [Depending on type of street? - corridor vs. residential] Page 10 of 17 Carlone Edits 07.25: AHO As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019 Packet Pg. 1723

8.2.a 8.3 Building Facades (a) At least 15% 20% 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% 30% residential, and 70% retail/active use on the first floor. (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, 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 facade, for window openings above the ground floor facing a public street or public open space, the developer is encouraged to include architecturat elements that provide depth and/or surface relief such as recessed of projecting window surfaces, sills, sun shades, or shutters. [Must be made stronger from a zoning and design point-of-view. See Overlay Design Consultation Objectives, on page 9) 8.4 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 and/or bicycle storage 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/bicycle storage over at least 50% 75% of the length of the facade measured parallel to the street or on the principal street if on a corner site. Attachment: overlay final (COF 2019 #44 : General public my comments and questions, and zoning) (c) The facade 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-residențial uses, the following additional standards shall apply: Page 11 of 17 Carlone Edits 07.25: AHO As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019 Packet Pg. 1724

8.2.a the height of the lowest story above Grade for that portion of the building (i) containing active non-residential uses shall be at least 15 feet; the depth of the space designed for active non-residential uses shall be at least 35 (ii) 40 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 consist of at least 50% (office/service) to 70% (retail) transparent glass windows. (e) Ground floors shall be designed to accommodate at least one space (50% of existing frontage) 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. Each proposed project's non-residential frontage length and its context shall be separately evaluated. 8.5 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 and maintained shrubs or trees equal or greater in height at the time of installation than the equipment or facilities to be screened [Does this approach ever work? - long-term maintenance), 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 with adjacent planting. Attachment: overlay final (COF 2019 #44 : General public my comments and questions, and zoning) (c) When carried above the roof, shall be setback from the facade and 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% 75% opaque, uniformly distributed across the screening surface. Page 12 of 17 Carlone Edits 07.25: AHO As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019 Packet Pg. 1725

8.2.a (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 handles trash and other waste, shall be contained within the building or screened as required in this Section until properly disposed of. 8.6 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. 9 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) One preliminary planning meeting shall be scheduled at a time and location that is convenient to residents in proximity to the project site. The purpose of this meeting is to share the development team's site and street context analysis with the community and other interested parties, and gain feedback from the neighborhood. This process will increase the likelihood that the planned project will be architectural compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, a goal of this zoning ordinance. (b) 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 [must define abutting property owner - within public view of site?] 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 Attachment: overlay final (COF 2019 #44 : General public my comments and questions, and zoning) 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. (c) 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 Page 13 of 17 Carlone Edits 07.25: AHO As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019 Packet Pg. 1726

8.2.a 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) A context analysis discussed with CDD staff including existing front yard setbacks, architectural character, unique features that shall or shall not influence the AHO design. (3) 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. (4) A design statement on how proposed project attempts to reinforce existing street/context qualities and mitigates the planned project's greater massing, height, density, etc. (5) 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 possible building roof deck) and major anticipated changes in site features. (6) Floor plans of all proposed new buildings and existing buildings to remain on the lot. (7) 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. (8) 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. (9) Plans of parking and bicycle parking facilities, as required by Section 6.50 of this Zoning Ordinance. (10)Materials palettes cataloguing and depicting with photographs the proposed façade and (COF 2019 #44 : General public my comments and questions, and zoning) landscape materials. Chosen points of view to be decided in concert with CDD urban design staff. (11)Existing conditions photographs from various vantage points on the public sidewalk, including photos of the site and of the surrounding urban context. (12)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. Attachment: overlay final (13)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. (14) 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 Page 14 of 17 Carlone Edits 07.25: AHO As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019 Packet Pg. 1727

8.2.a 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. (d) 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, abutters, and from the general public. (e) 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. (f) 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 [strengthen criteria where needed]. 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. (g) 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. (h) 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 or the principal funder, Cambridge's Affordable Housing Trust. (i) The Final Report from the Planning Board shall be provided to the Superintendent of Buildings to certify compliance with the procedures set forth herein. 10 Overlay Design Consultation Objectives Given the need to increase density and height, and reduce setbacks, all design efforts should lessen the impact of greater massing as described below. The urban design and architectural objectives in this part 10 and elsewhere in this Section 11.207 are intended to provide guidance to affordable housing developers, the Planning Board, the Affordable Housing Trust, and the general public as to the city's Attachment: overlay final (COF 2019 #44 : General public my comments and questions, and zoning) policies with regard to the form and character desirable for new affordable housing developments in the city. The Affordable Housing Trust shall apply these design objectives when making project-funding decisions. It is understood that application of these principles can vary with the context of specific building proposals in ways that, nevertheless, fully respect the policies' intent. It is intended that proponents of projects, and city staff, the Planning Board and the general public should be open to Page 15 of 17 Carlone Edits 07.25: AHO As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019 Packet Pg. 1728

8.2.a creative variations from the detailed provisions presented in this Section as long as the core values expressed are being served. A project need not meet all the objectives of this section. (a) Character of street - Since each potential AHO site and its surrounding context is different from street to street; an analysis of both the common and diverse characteristics of each site's street architectural and urban qualities is required prior to the design phase. If a particular street has a diverse collection of building types, setbacks, etc., a new AHO building will more easily fit in. However, if the street has fairly consistent, architectural and urban design characteristics, a new AHO project shall incorporate as many of those qualities as possible into its design. (b) New buildings and additions shall be well-studied, handsome structures that feel comfortable and inviting to the general public. Although each style of architecture has unique characteristics, successful community architecture incorporates a relatively similar scale of building elements: size, rhythm and depth of windows; materials; roof articulation such as dormers; projecting bay windows; subtly expressed structural bays; entry points, signage; etc. (c) All buildings should be of a tripartite architectural configuration consisting of base, middle and expressive top. As buildings increase in height (above 3-4 stories depending on location), they should be shaped to be increasingly slender and broken down in scale toward the top. Top floor elements shall include a coordinated design of sloped roofs, gables, dormers, and/or setback balcony. (d) Materials shall be warm, inviting, and supportive of surrounding existing buildings (generally over 2 stories in height) and the overall neighborhood context. In addition, highlights and subtle embellishments are needed to create a desirable community of buildings. Stringcourses, lintels, sills and trim will soften, refine and enliven facades through their contrasting articulation and cast shadows, Other potential key locations for articulation are at the building base, entries, corners, top floor and silhouette. (e) Projects must relate to human dimensions and provide a sense of intimacy in all aspects of design from building concept development to construction details. Of particular importance are the treatment of the ground plane and other parts of the projects, which can be seen and experienced directly by the public. (f) Building scale and wall treatment, including the provision of windows, should be sensitive to existing residential neighbors. [Article 19] (g) An AHO Project's active ground floor non-residential uses shall meet a need desired by the surrounding neighborhood and in particular affordable apartment renters. (h) Special planning and architectural attention is required for new development adjacent to or Attachment: overlay final (COF 2019 #44 : General public my comments and questions, and zoning) added to historically significant buildings. Every effort should be undertaken to harmonize with historic structures. Mitigate height by incorporating sloped roofs/upper floor setback in the newer building. (i) Given AHO's resulting reduction in open space per resident a communal space (roof deck, covered entry porch, lobby meeting room, etc.) is needed. Carlone Edits 07.25: AHO As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019 Page 16 of 17 Packet Pg. 1729

8.2.a (i) Parking/bicycle storage facades along a public way shall be treated residentially similar to balance of the building. •(k) Trash that is handled to avoid impacts (noise, odor, and visual quality) on neighbors, e.g. the use of trash compactors or containment of all trash storage and handling within a building is encouraged, [Article 19] 11 Implementation of Affordable Housing Overlay [Very Important. Where is this?] (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. (To be reviewed as part of zoning.) 12: 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. 13 Five Year Affordable Housing Overlay Progress Report and Review The Community Development Department will prepare a progress report to the City Council, which evaluates the effectiveness of the Affordable Housing Overlay in increasing affordable housing throughout the city and evaluates with neighborhood consultation all built and approved projects. This report will include site-specific outcomes to meet City goals. It shall be completed by the end of the 5'* year of the Ordinance. Upon receipt, the Ordinance Committee will hold public hearings to discuss the report's findings and recommendations. (COF 2019 #44 : General public my comments and questions, and zoning) Attachment: overlay final Page 17 of 17 Carlone Edits 07.25: AHO As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019 Packet Pg. 1730

ATTACHMENT 3 8.3.a CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Alanna Mallon City Comicillor TO: Paul Crane, Deputy City Clerk FROM: Councillor Alanna Mallon & Mayor Marc C. McGovern DATE: July 25", 2019 SUBJECT: Submission - Mallon/McGovern Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay Please place the attached communication, "Mallon/McGovern Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay" on the City Council Agenda as "Communications and Reports from Other City Officials" for the July 29th meeting. Thank you, tutter Councillor Alanna Mallon Attachment: Cover Letter Memo AHO Amendments_ (COF 2019 #45 : Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay) CITY HALL, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139 (617)3401080 BAX (617)349 4287 TTY/TDD; (617) 3194242 EMAN: amallon@cambridgema.gov 8.50 211,00 1n Packet Pg. 1731

8.3.a CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Alanna Mallon Ciry Concillor Summary of Mallon/McGovern Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay The Affordable Housing Overlay is one of the tools available to us as policymakers to reform our exclusionary Zoning Ordinance, allow our affordable housing partners to compete on an even playing field with large market-rate developers, and increase the stock of affordable housing in all neighborhoods throughout the City. Though the proposal achieves these goals as written, there are some changes necessary to ensure that it is implemented in a way which is the right fit for our community. A short explanation of each proposed amendment can be found below: Include "Progressive Transitional Zones" In districts which currently allow buildings ranging from 40-80 feet as of right, CDD is proposing that affordable projects can be built up to 80 feet as of right. Looking at our zoning map, these districts are typically BA or BA-2 districts, which directly abut residential neighborhoods. Examples of these areas are Inman Square, Kirkland St, and a section of Mass Ave in Porter Square, where surrounding buildings are no more than 2-3 stories now. The Overlay needs a (COF 2019 #45 : Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay) transitional zone between neighborhoods and more built-up commercial districts, and 60 feet as of right in both BA and BA-2 zones will integrate much better with existing buildings than 80 feet. Prohibiting Dwelling Units Below Grade Basement apartments should be disallowed from the Overlay proposal. All units should be above grade to offer the best quality of life for all tenants. FAR Limitations in Residential Districts Memo AHO Amendments_ FAR bumps and density increases are essential for the financial feasibility of many affordable projects however, density within residential districts should have a limit of 3.0. The density cap of 3.0 will be limited to districts where base zoning allows 40 feet or less so that larger projects can be built in the dense, commercial districts which allow building heights over 40 feet. Eliminate the Open-Space Reduction for Parking Just days ago, a study was released indicated that 30% of all parking spaces on housing developments were unused. Open space should not be sacrificed for parking and should not be Attachment: Cover Letter a reason to seek a reduction in open space by half of the required percentage. As Cambridge CITY HALL CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139 (617)349-1280 BAX (617)349-1287 TTY/TDD: (617) 319:4242 EMAIL: amallon@cambridgema.gov 850011.00 in. Packet Pg. 1732

8.3.a CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Alanna Mallon City Concillor moves further toward reducing single-car trips, and car ownership is on the decline, we should be prioritizing public transit, micro-mobility, and cycling over car parking accommodations. Allow Roof Decks to Count Towards Open Space Roof decks and gardens are quality spaces where residents can congregate outdoors in urban environments. Although private porches at grade level and private balconies at any level should not count towards open space, community spaces like roof decks and balconies accessible to all residents, should. Eliminate the Requirement for Keeping Existing Ground-Floor Retail in Business Districts This requirement is found nowhere else in the Zoning Ordinance, and with the decline in retail and move toward experience-based businesses and other models, this could turn into an overly-burdensome requirement for affordable developers that might make a project infeasible. Furthermore, it might have the opposite, undesirable affect of additional vacant storefront if suitable tenants are not found. Many of our affordable developers offer tenant (COF 2019 #45 : Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay) services, such as HRI's homebuyers' program or Just a Start's job connector that could also be valuable in these "retail" spaces, Tenants and other participants in these programs would be able to access them on-site, and the spaces would still be active uses open to anyone in the community requiring these services. Our affordable housing partners should have the option to utilize these ground floor spaces, and we should think beyond "traditional retail" as what constitutes an "active use." 5 Year Review of the Affordable Housing Overlay Affordable projects take years to develop because of the complicated financing involved. The Affordable Housing Trust and CDD should be presenting updates and progress reports to the Council every 5 years to review the effectiveness of this Ordinance. Less than 5 years is too tight a time frame for many of our affordable housing partners and won't present a realistic picture of our progress; more than 5 years is too long without making adjustments that may be needed. Attachment: Cover Letter Memo AHO Amendments_ CTTY HALL, CAMBRIDGE. MASSACHUSETTS 02139 (617)349-1380 TAX TTY/TDD: TTY/TDD: (017) EMAI EMAIL amullon@cambridgena goo 8.50 x 11:00 in Packet Pg. 1733

8.3.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 1.207.3 of this Zoning Ordinance intended to allow increases in density, limited increases in height, an elaxation of certain other zoning limitations for residential developments in which all units are mad 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. (COF 2019 #45 : Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay) 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 Attachment: Cover Letter Memo AHO Amendments_ housing citywide. 2. Applicability Packet Pg. 1734

8.3.a (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: (i) The gross household income of an AHO Eligible Household upon initial occupancy shall be no more than one-hundred percent (100%) of AMI. (COF 2019 #45 : Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay) (ii) At least eighty percent (80%) of AHO Dwelling Units shall be occupied by AHO Eligible Households whose gross household income upon initial occupancy is no more than eighty percent (80%) of AMI. (ili) Rent, including utilities and any other fees routinely charged to tenants and approved by the Community Development Department, shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the gross household income of the AHO Eligible Household occupying the AHO Dwelling Unit or other similar standard pursuant to an applicable housing subsidy program which has been approved by the Community Development Department. (iv) After initial occupancy, the gross household income of an AHO Eligible Household shall be verified 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 Attachment: Cover Letter Memo AHO Amendments_ 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 Packet Pg. 1735

8.3.a pursuant to an applicable housing subsidy program which has been approved by the Community Development Department. (vi) Notwithstanding the requirements set forth in (i) through (v) above, an owner may voluntarily choose to charge a lower rent than as provided herein for AHO Dwelling Units. (d) For owner-occupied AHO Dwelling Units: (i) The gross household income of an AHO Eligible Household upon initial occupancy shall be no more than one-hundred percent (100%) of AMI. (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 (COF 2019 #45 : Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay) 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. Attachment: Cover Letter Memo AHO Amendments_ 5. Development Standards Packet Pg. 1736

8.3.a 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 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 Stories Above Grade (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 (COF 2019 #45 : Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay) 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) BA and BA-2 Zones are to be regarded as "progressive transitional zones". An AHO Project in these zones shall contain no more than six Stories Above Grade and shall have a maximum height of 60 feet, regardless of ground floor use. fb} (c). 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. (i) Portions of buildings that are within 35 feet of a district whose District 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. Attachment: Cover Letter Memo AHO Amendments_ (c) Each Story Above Grade shall have a minimum height of 10 feet. (d) No dwelling units shall be located below grade. Packet Pg. 1737

5.2.2 FAR Limitations in Residential Districts (a) Where the District Dimensional Standards allow a maximum building height of 40 feet or less, an AHO Project shall have an FAR limit of 3.0. Overlay) 5.2.23 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. (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 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. (COF 2019 #45 : Amendments to the Affordable Housing (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. (t) 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. 5.2-34 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: ) At-area commensurate with such reduction is used to provide off street Attachment: Cover Letter Memo AHO Amendments_ surface parking spaces on the lot along with necessary driveways and access aisles: Packet Pg. 1738

8.3.a (ii) The AHO Project includes the preservation and protection of an existing building 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 shalt not count toward meeting the required Private Open Space for the purpese of this Affordable Housing Overlay. (i) Shared above grade spaces, such as roof decks or balconies accessible to all tenants may count towards the percentage of required private open space. (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 Memo AHO Amendments_ (COF 2019 #45 : Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay) 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 Attachment: Cover Letter energy etticiency, 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. Packet Pg. 1739

8.3.a (d) An existing building may be moved to a new location on a lot, provided that the resulting height of the building above Grade at its new location shall be no greater than the height above Grade at its existing location, or the maximum building height permitted for an AHO Project as set forth above, whichever is greater, and also provided that the resulting yard setbacks shall not increase any nonconformance with the required yard setbacks set forth above for an AHO Project. (e) Where the existing amount of open space on the lot does not conform to the standards for an AHO Project set forth above, the existing amount of open space shall be the required amount. However, permitted alterations to the structure or lot including but not limited to moving the building footprint, installing exterior insulation, installing bicycle parking, or installing exterior features to improve accessibility may displace existing open space so long as such open space is reestablished elsewhere on the site to the extent possible and the total amount of open space is not decreased from the existing condition by more than 5% or 100 square feet, whichever is greater. 6. Parking and Bicycle Parking The limitations set forth in Article 6.000 of this Zoning Ordinance shall be modified as set forth below for an AHO Project. 6.1 Required Off-Street Accessory Parking (a) Off-street parking shall be required at a minimum ratio of 0.4 space per AHO Dwelling Unit, except as further modified below. (b) Off-street parking shall not be required for an AHO Project on a lot that is located, in whole or in part, within one half-mile of a public rapid transit station or within one quarter-mile of a bus stop with a scheduled peak hour frequency of at least six buses per hour during 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:30 PM on weekdays. (c) The requirement for off-street parking spaces shall be waived for AHO Dwelling Units created within existing buildings in existence as of the effective date of this Ordinance. In addition, the requirement for off-street parking spaces shall be waived for any new construction, in the form of additions or stand-alone buildings, of an AHO Project on a lot that also includes the preservation and protection of a building included on the State Register of Historic Places. (d) Where the number of off-street parking spaces required by this Affordable Housing Overlay would otherwise be four spaces or fewer, the requirement to provide off-street parking spaces shall be waived 6.2 Accessory Parking Provided Off-Site Attachment: Cover Letter Memo AHO Amendments_ (COF 2019 #45 : Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay) (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. Packet Pg. 1740

8.3.a (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 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 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 Attachment: Cover Letter Memo AHO Amendments_ (COF 2019 #45 : Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay) 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 Packet Pg. 1741

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 (COF 2019 #45 : Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay) 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 Attachment: Cover Letter Memo AHO Amendments_ nonconformance with such standards than the existing condition. 7.2 Site Design and Arrangement Packet Pg. 1742

8.3.a (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 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 (BA2), Business B (BB) or Business C (BC) zoning district, this figure shall be increased to 25%. (COF 2019 #45 : Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay) (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, 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 Attachment: Cover Letter Memo AHO Amendments_ (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 Packet Pg. 1743

8.3.a 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 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 (COF 2019 #45 : Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay) (ili) that portion of the ground floor façade containing active non-residential uses shall consist of at least 50% transparent glass windows. fel Ground fleers shall be designed to accommodate at least one space for an active nonresidentiat 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. e) Ground floors located in a business base zoning district may include retail space or space used by the developer to support activities and services related to their mission as nonprofit entities, i.e. workforce development, job connectors, etc. 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, Attachment: Cover Letter Memo AHO Amendments_ when in operation, potentially creates a noise detectable off the lot. The equipment and other facilities: Packet Pg. 1744

8.3.a (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 (COF 2019 #45 : Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay) (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. Attachment: Cover Letter Memo AHO Amendments_ (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) Packet Pg. 1745

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. (10) Proposed conditions perspective renderings from a variety of vantage points on the Attachment: Cover Letter Memo AHO Amendments_ (COF 2019 #45 : Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay) public sidewalk, including locations adjacent to the site as well as longer views if proposed buildings will be visible from a distance. Packet Pg. 1746

8.3.a (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 (a) The City Manager shall have the authority to promulgate regulations for the implementation Attachment: Cover Letter Memo AHO Amendments_ (COF 2019 #45 : Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay) 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. Packet Pg. 1747

8.3.a (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 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. 11 Review of the Affordable Housing Overlay After a period of five (5) years from the date of enactment of this Ordinance and every five years henceforth, the Affordable Housing Trust and the Community Development Department shall provide to the Council a report containing the following: (a) Number of sites and their location bid on for the purpose of Affordable Housing Projects (b) Number of sites and their location acquired for the purpose of Affordable Housing Projects (c) Number of units created at each individual site (d) Total number of residents served by Affordable Housing Proiects (COF 2019 #45 : Amendments to the Affordable Housing Attachment: Cover Letter Memo AHO Amendments_ Packet Pg. 1748

ATTACHMENTY CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor To: Paula Crane, Interim City Clerk From: Quinton Y. Zondervan, City Councillor Date: July 30, 2019 Subject: Memorandum Submission Please place the attached memorandum, "AHO Amendments from Councillor Zondervan" on the City Council agenda as "Late Communications and Reports from Other City Officials" for the July 30, 2019 meeting. Thank you, Councillor Quinton Y. Zondervan

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor MEMORANDUM To: Cambridge City Council From: Quinton Y. Zondervan, City Councillor Date: July 30, 2019 Subject: AHO Amendments from Councillor Zondervan AHO Amendments from Councillor Zondervan Introduction With nearly 20,000 individuals and families on the housing waitlist, it is frustrating to have spent most of the term and so much energy on a proposal that will lead to a few hundred additional units (at best) over the next decade, beyond what would have otherwise been built. Nobody disagrees that our zoning code could use a citywide overhaul, and the conclusion of the Envision master plan process seems to be a great time to do it. But this proposal takes a very narrow lens to that task, and for all the controversy, it seems likely that it will not meaningfully address the problem at hand. Ultimately, we will need to be much bolder in our approach if we truly want to make a difference. Nonetheless, the AHO is before us and it is our duty as a council to carefully weigh the costs and benefits and to improve it as best we can before finally making a decision. I have listened to the perspectives of hundreds of constituents on this issue, and I have taken the time to seek out voices we don't often hear from. A few themes have emerged from these conversations, which I have done my best to capture in the attached amendments for your consideration. 2

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor In order for me to support an as-of-right citywide rezoning, there are three critical points I will be considering: 1. We must protect existing tenants from displacement, and we must protect our local businesses as well. 2. We must build with the climate crisis in mind, and that means anything we build should not be making global warming worse, and should protect the health and safety of its occupants from the impacts of climate change. 3. We must be assured that the resulting buildings will be of the highest quality, that they will meet the architectural and design standards that we expect, and that they will serve the needs of the occupants. This is by no means a final or exhaustive list of changes that will be required, and we are very much still at the beginning of the conversation in terms of evaluating whether or not the AHO is a good idea for Cambridge. The question does not hinge on the severity of the housing affordability crisis, which is high, but on the expected benefits of the policy proposed to address Whether or not we approve the AHO, we still have a lot more work to do in meeting the twin challenges of housing our residents affordably and protecting ourselves from climate change. That is why I am an outspoken supporter of Representative Connolly's Housing for All agenda, and that is also why I will be introducing a bolder series of reforms this fall, including a ban on fracked gas in new construction and a proposal to allow multifamily housing everywhere in our city. Summary of Zondervan Amendments 1. I was glad to receive the latest AHO design guidelines from CDD yesterday. While these are a good start, a great deal more work remains to be done before these guidelines can be considered an acceptable tradeoff for eliminating discretionary project design review. I look forward to the continuing development of these guidelines. 3

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor 2. Any tenant directly displaced by an AHO construction must be guaranteed a right to return. (Definitions, 3.b.iv) 3. For AHO units, we should give preference to those who have experienced a no-fault eviction from a market unit within city limits within the past year. (3.b.i) 4. AHO construction should not be exempt from the Tree Protection Ordinance. This is a fundamental matter of equity; everyone deserves access to the health and safety benefits of trees in close proximity to their dwelling units. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund should cover any additional costs incurred while achieving these standards, so that compliance won't limit or prevent affordable housing construction. 5. AHO buildings must be built Net Zero Ready (Definitions), which means: as energy efficient as possible, with no on-site fossil fuel combustion, and maximum on-site solar production (if technically feasible), geothermal or air-source heating & cooling, and rainwater capture. (7.6) 6. FAR (density) should be limited to ensure sufficient land area for green open space for residents to enjoy and to protect against the heat and flooding impacts of climate change. (7.6.d) 7. Protect existing retail in buildings that are rebuilt/refurbished under the AHO. (4.b.i) 8. Allow retail services in any AHO building. (4.b) 9. 20% of GFA should be set aside explicitly for homeownership purposes in projects greater than 10 units. We could put these units directly into the city's Homeownership Resale Pool, so there would be no additional administrative overhead. (3.b.ili) 10. Off-street surface parking cannot be counted as part of the 30% minimum open space requirement. (5.2.3.a.i) 4

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor 11. 100% of the required open space shall meet the city's definition of permeable. (5.2.3.c) 12. Waive the minimum lot area per dwelling unit dimensional requirement in table 5-1 to allow multiple dwelling units on a site. (4.a). 13. We should completely eliminate parking minimum requirements for AHO construction, with the only exceptions being to provide sufficient accessible parking as well as ample space for pickup and dropoff. Developers would still be allowed to build parking, but they wouldn't be required to do so. (6.l.a) Text of Zondervan Amendments 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, or a household that was living in a building that is rebuilt or refurbished under the AHO. 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. 5

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor 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. Net Zero Ready Building. A building that is constructed so as to maximize energy efficiency, eliminate onsite fossil fuel combustion, maximize onsite renewable energy generation/recovery (e.g. solar PV, geothermal or air-source heating & cooling), and maximize onsite water conservation. 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. 6

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor Applicability (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, and recent Cambridge residents who experienced a no-fault eviction in the last 12 months, 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. (iii) In any project exceeding 10 AHO Dwelling Units, at least 20% of the units in that project shall be Owner-occupied AHO Units. (iv) In any project that replaces or renovates an existing building, all the tenants/owners living in the building shall be given the option to rent/purchase a comparable AHO Dwelling Unit in the new/renovated building, at an affordable rate, regardless of income. (c) For rental AHO Dwelling Units:

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor (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 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. (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. 8

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor (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 and the minimum lot area per dwelling unit restrictions in table 5-1 shall not apply. 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 district s) 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 i) An AHO Project site that contains a previously existing non-residential use on the ground floor of a building must provide a viable site for the relocation for the use to operate during any redevelopment, renovation, construction or any alteration thereto that 9

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor would prohibit continuous operation of the existing use at the AHO Project site. A viable site will be defined as any locus where the existing use is allowable under Article 4 of this Ordinance that has similar operational costs and proximity to transit. All costs associated with relocation including loss of business will be the sole responsibility of the AHO Developer. Additionally, once the AHO Project is complete the AHO Developer is required to offer the previously existing non-residential use tenant a first right of refusal on any non-residential space on the ground floor of the AHO Project at a rental amount equal to 5% of annual gross income for the pre-existing non-residential use for a duration no less than ten (10) years. The first right of refusal must be offered after a certificate of occupancy is granted to the non-residential use or within four (4) months of signing of a lease to any tenant in the building, whichever is the lesser. 5. Development Standards 5.1 General Provisions (a) For the purposes of this Section, the phrase "District Development Standards" shall refer to the development standards of the base zoning district as they may be modified by the development standards of all overlay districts that are applicable to a lot, but not the standards set forth within this Affordable Housing Overlay, and shall include standards that are permitted as-of-right or allowable by special permit. (b) For an AHO Project, the following development standards shall apply as-of-right in place of the more restrictive District Development Standards, except as otherwise stated. Where the District Development Standards for any type of use are less restrictive than the standards set forth below, such less restrictive development standards shall apply as-of-right to an AHO Project. (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 10

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor 5.2.1 Building Height and Stories Above Grade (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. (i) Portions of buildings that are within 35 feet of a district whose District 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. 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. (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 11

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor 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. (1) Bicycle parking spaces, whether short-term or long-term, and appurtenant structures such as coverings, sheds, or storage lockers may be located within a required yard setback. 5.2.3 Open Space (a) Except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive requirement or as otherwise provided below, the minimum percentage of open space to lot area for an AHO Project shall be 30%. However, the minimum percentage of open space to lot area may be reduced to no less than 15% if at least one of the following criteria is met: #) An area commensurate with such reduetion is used to provide off street surface parking spaces on the lot along with neeessary driveways and access aisles. (ii) The AHO Project includes the preservation and protection of an existing building included on the State Register of Historic Places and the site cannot accommodate 30% open space. 12

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan • City Councillor (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 All 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. 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 13

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor 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 thạt 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 not be required at a minimum ratio of 0.4 space-per AHO Dwelling Unit, except as further modified below. As Referred by Housing Committee on April 25, 2019 Page 6 of 14 14

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor (b) Off-street parking shall not be required for an AHO Project except to ensure compliance with the ADA. In addition to providing ADA compliant parking, sufficient parking and driveway infrastructure shall be included to accommodate pick-up and drop-off activities by motor vehicle, as well as short-term parking and loading zones for moving vans and delivery trucks on a lot that is located, in whole or in part, within one half-mile of a publie rapid transit station or within one quarter mile of a bus stop with a seheduled peak hour frequency of at least six buses per hour during 7:00 to 9:00 ARA and 4:00 to 6:30 PM on weekdays. 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 15

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor (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 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 16

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor with the owner of the land on which the station is located as approved by the Community Development Department. If additional Public Bicycle Sharing Station docks are provided, the number of required bicycle parking spaces may be further reduced at a rate of 0.5 bicycle parking space per additional Public Bicycle Sharing Station dock, up to a maximum reduction of half of the required number of spaces. (e) For AHO Dwelling Units created within an existing building, bicycle parking spaces meeting the standards of this Zoning Ordinance shall not be required but are encouraged to be provided to the extent practical given the limitations of the existing structure. Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided, as required by this Zoning Ordinance, for dwelling units in an AHO Project that are constructed fully outside the envelope of the existing structure. 6.5 Transportation Demand Management An AHO Project whose parking requirements are waived pursuant to the provisions of this Section shall provide, in writing, to the Community Development Department a Transportation Demand Management program containing the following measures, at a minimum: (a) Offering either a free annual membership in a Public Bicycle Sharing Service, at the highest available tier where applicable, or a 50% discounted MBTA combined subway and bus pass for three months or pass of equivalent value, to up to two individuals in each household upon initial occupancy of a unit. (b) Providing transit information in the form of transit maps and schedules to each household upon initial occupancy of a unit, or providing information and a real-time transit service screen in a convenient common area of the building such as an entryway or lobby. 7 Building and Site Design Standards for New Development 7.1 General Provisions (a) The following design standards shall apply to all AHO Projects. Except where otherwise stated, the Project Review requirements set forth in Article 19.000 of this Zoning Ordinance and any design standards set forth in Section 19.50 or 17

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor 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 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 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 Buildings 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%. 18

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor (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, 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. 19

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor (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; (ii) the depth of the space designed for active non-residential uses shall be at least 35 feet on average measured from the portion of the façade that is nearest to the front lot line in a direction perpendicular to the street, and measured to at least one street in instances where the space abuts two or more streets; and (ili) 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 or at least one of the lots abutting the project site contains or has contained a retail and or consumer service use at any point within the past two years. (i) Such non-residential space shall be made available at an affordable rent as specified in Section 4.b.i. 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. 20

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor (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) Notwithstanding any other requirements, any building permitted through the AHO shall be a Net Zero Ready Building. To the extent that meeting this standard can be documented to be more expensive than what would otherwise be required by the prevailing standards, the developer may apply to the City of Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust (AHT) for funding to offset the full cost differential, such funding not to be unreasonably denied by the AHT. (c) Notwithstanding the language of the Tree Protection Ordinance (TPO), any project permitted under the AHO shall be fully compliant with the TPO. To the extent that meeting this standard can be documented to be more expensive than what would otherwise be required by law, the developer may apply to the City of 21

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust (AHT) for funding to offset the full cost differential, such funding not to be unreasonably denied by the AHT. (d) Notwithstanding any other requirements, any building permitted through the AHO shall be limited to a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 3, or double the base zoning, whichever is less, to ensure sufficient land area for green space to mitigate heat and flooding considerations of climate change. (be) 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. (ef) An AHO Project shall be subject to other applicable laws, regulations, codes, and ordinances pertaining to environmental standards. (dg) 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 22

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor 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. (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. 23

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor (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 24

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL Quinton Zondervan City Councillor 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 (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. 25

ATTACHMENT 5 CITY OF CAMBRIDGE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR mayor@cambridgema.gov Phone: [phone removed] Marc C. McGovern Fax: [phone removed] Mayor To: Paula M. Crane, Acting City Clerk From: Marc C. McGovern, Mayor Date: July 30, 2019 Subject: Referring Legal Opinion from City Solicitor Nancy Glowa Requesting a Legal Opinion on the Issue of the Different Requirements for Affordable Housing and Market Rate as it Pertains to the Affordable Housing Overlay Acting City Clerk Paula M. Crane: Please include the attached legal opinion from City Solicitor Nancy Glowa "Re: Response to your Letter of July 3, 2019 Requesting a Legal Opinion on the Issue of the Different Requirements for Affordable Housing and Market Rate as it Pertains to the Affordable Housing Overlay, " recently communicated to my office as a late Communication and Reports from City Officers for the Special City Council Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 30, 2019. Due to an Ordinance Committee hearing being scheduled on the Affordable Housing Overlay later this week and the high level of interest in this topic, I wanted to make the attached legal opinion publicly available as soon as possible. Very truly yours, Mr Mh

Nancy E. Glowa Assistant Ciry Solicitors Paul S. Kawai City Solicitor Keplin K. U. Allwaters Arthur J. Goldberg Sean M. McKendry Deputy City Solicitor Megan B. Bayer Brian A. Schwartz Katherine Sarmini Hoffinan Samuel A. Aylesworth First Assistant City Solicitor Public Records Access Officer Seah Levy CITY OF CAMBRIDGE Office of the City Solicitor 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 July 30, 2019 Marc C. McGovern Mayor City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 Re: Response to your Letter of July 3, 2019 Requesting a Legal Opinion on the Issue of the Different Requirements for Affordable Housing and Market Rate as it Pertains to the Affordable Housing Overlay Dear Mayor McGovern: On July 3, 2019, you requested that I provide a "legal opinion to the City Council on the issue of the different requirements for affordable housing and market rate as it pertains to the Affordable Housing Overlay." You further stated that the Ordinance Committee Members "would like an opinion on whether the zoning amendment for an Affordable Housing Overlay would withstand legal challenge as currently conceived" and whether the "uniformity clause' of M.G.L. Chapter 40A ... [and] specifically [ ] Chapter 40A, Section 4, ... would have any bearing on the proposed zoning ordinance." It is my opinion, as set forth further below, that the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay ("AHO") is likely to withstand a legal challenge as a court would likely find that it is not in conflict with the uniformity provision of the Zoning Act, G.L. c.40A, §4. However, it does not appear that a court has reviewed an affordable housing overlay ordinance such as the proposed AHO at this time, so we cannot be certain how a court would rule on such a legal challenge. The uniformity provision of the Zoning Act, found in G.L. c.40A, §4 states that "[a]ny zoning ordinance or by-law which divides cities and towns into districts shall be uniform within the district for each class or kind of structures or uses permitted." The purposes behind this provision are for there to be uniformity of zoning regulations in order to achieve predictability and equal treatment as to uses allowed in a zoning district. SCIT, Inc. v. Planning Board of Braintree, 19 Mass.App.Ct. 101 (1984). Specifically, "all land in similar circumstances should be treated alike, so that 'if anyone can go ahead with a certain development [in a district], then so can everybody else.'" Id. at 107; quoting 1 Williams, American Land Planning Law § 16.06 (1974). Further, the uniformity provision "does not contemplate, once a district is established and uses within it authorized as of right, conferral on local zoning boards of a roving and TTY/TTD [phone removed] Facsimile [phone removed] Telephone [phone removed]

2 virtually unlimited power to discriminate as to uses between landowners similarly situated." Id at 108. In accordance with G.L. c.40A, §4 and the Appeals Courts holding in SCIT, Inc. v. Planning Board of Braintree, the Supreme Judicial Court has held that a zoning district must allow at least one use as of right without the need for a special permit. Gage v. Egremont, 409 Mass. 345 (1991). The Court has struck down a zoning bylaw that made all uses in a zoning district dependent on the grant of a special permit. SCIT, Inc., supra. The concern with requiring a discretionary special permit before any use is allowed in a district is it could lead to a lack of predictability and unequal treatment, and "open[s] the door to discrimination not based upon valid differences." SCIT, Inc., 19 Mass.App.Ct. at 108; quoting Smith v. Board of Appeals of Fall River, 319 Mass. 341, 344 (1946). The same reasoning applies to overlay zoning districts. KCI Management, Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 54 Mass.App.Ct. 254, 262-263 (2002) (the principles of SCIT, Inc. are applied to uses within an overlay district). Furthermore, when evaluating whether an overlay zoning district complies with the uniformity provision, the analysis is whether the regulations within that overlay district are uniform, and not whether the regulations of the overlay district and the underlying districts) are uniform. Farrington v. City of Cambridge, 81 Mass.App.Ct. 1135 (2012). This is because an overlay district may impose more stringent requirements than the underlying zoning district, but also may impose less restrictive requirements than the underlying zoning district. Id. Under the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance Section 3.12, the City may establish overlay districts having "special regulations which shall be applicable in lieu of or in addition to the regularly applicable regulations for the base zoning district." So, a structure or use that is not allowed in an underlying zoning district may be allowed in an overlay zoning district, and this is permissible as long as the requirements that apply within each separate district are uniform within that district. Id. Here, the proposed AHO would be a citywide overlay zoning district that would create special regulations governing residential uses that are already permitted or newly permitted by the AHO in a given district and that would impose less restrictive requirements than the underlying zoning districts in as much as it would "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 household earning up to 100% of area median income (referred to as 'AHO Projects,' as defined in Article 2.000 of this Zoning Ordinance)." Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning Petition, Section 11.207(1). This overlay district would be citywide and would overlay all zoning districts except open space districts. Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning Petition, Section 11.207(2)(a). The proposed AHO defines an AHO Project as "[t]he 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 dwelling with 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." Additionally, there would be no special permit requirement for AHO Projects, and AHO Projects could contain single-family, two- family, townhouse or multifamily dwellings as of right. Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning Petition, Section 11.207, et seq.

3 In districts that currently allow AHO-listed residential uses (single-family, two-family, townhouse, or multifamily), where such an AHO Project is proposed to be developed, those residential uses would be additionally regulated by the AHO's special regulations. In districts where some or all of the residential uses listed in the AHO are not permitted, the AHO would now permit them in those districts for AHO projects. The AHO would not create a new use within the meaning of G.L.. c.40A, §4 or Article 4.000 Use Regulations of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance, but would create special regulations dealing with affordability, uniformly applied, to those existing residential uses. Accordingly, a court would likely find that the proposed AHO does not violate the uniformity provision of the Zoning Act, G.L. c.40A, §4. Under the proposed AHO, throughout the AHO zoning district, all AHO Projects would be allowed as of right. As set forth in SCIT, Inc., supra, "if anyone can go ahead with a certain development [in a district], then so can everybody else", and here, if anyone could go ahead with a certain AHO Project under the AHO, so could everyone else. All proposed AHO Projects would be treated equally without requiring a discretionary special permit, and there would be predictability as to what would be allowed as of right as the requirements would be set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. This would eliminate the exact situation that the uniformity provision is intended to eliminate which is an "attempt | to delegate to the board [either the Board of Zoning Appeal or the Planning Board] ... a new power to alter the characteristics of zoning districts, a power conferred ... only upon the legislative body of the city to be exercised only in the manner prescribed by G.L. c.40A ...." SCIT, Inc., 19 Mass.App.Ct. at 108; quoting Smith, 319 Mass. at 344. Additionally, while the uniformity provision of G.L. c.40A, §4 prohibits spot zoning, the proposed AHO would not constitute spot zoning. "The purpose behind the doctrine of illegal spot zoning-—which, when it applies, results in the invalidation of the offending zoning regulation—is to prevent municipalities from violating the uniformity provision of G.L. c. 40A, §4 by treating similarly situated properties differently 'without rational planning objectives'." Massachusetts Zoning Manual, MCLE, Inc. 4th ed. 2007, §3.3.4., citing National Amusements, Inc. v. Boston, 29 Mass.App.Ct. 305, 312 (1990). The particular concern addressed by the concept of illegal spot-zoning occurs when a municipality singles out one lot or a small area for different, generally less restrictive (or conversely, for reverse spot zoning, more restrictive) treatment than that applied to similar lots, with the sole purpose being to benefit (or disadvantage) the landowner of the particular lot or small area. W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. v. City Council of Cambridge, 56 Mass.App.Ct. 559, 569 (2002). The proposed AHO would not constitute illegal spot zoning because it would not single out a small area for less (or more, in the case of reverse spot zoning) restrictive treatment, but rather would allow fewer restrictions for AHO Projects citywide. Additionally, the proposed AHO would further a defensible public interest that is consistent with the City's comprehensive planning goals and objectives. Lastly, G.L. c.40A, §9 does not limit the scope of promoting affordable housing to special permits. General Laws c.40A, §9 describes the use of special permits and, among other things, expressly allows use of "special permits authorizing increases in the permissible density of population or intensity of a particular use in a proposed development; provided that the petitioner or applicant shall, as a condition for the grant of said permit, provide certain open space, housing for persons of low or moderate income, traffic or pedestrian improvements,

4 installation of solar energy systems, protection for solar access, or other amenities. Such zoning ordinances or by-laws shall state the specific improvements or amenities or locations of proposed uses for which the special permits shall be granted, and the maximum increases in density of population or intensity of use which may be authorized by such special permits." The City has a variety of zoning provisions for affordable housing, some of which apply to special permits. In this case, if for policy reasons, the City chooses to encourage affordable housing through an as-of-right approach, Section 9 does not require that it be the sole and exclusive mechanism that could be used to encourage the provision of affordable housing. It simply expressly provides for one approach through special permits. Therefore, in my opinion, the AHO if adopted would likely be found not to violate the uniformity provision of the Zoning Act, G.L. c.40A, §4. Very truly yours, XX vancy 4. Glow City Solicito!

Vice Mayor Reacheux ATACHMENT 6 1. Amend the Tree Protection Ordinance immediately so that affordable housing developments are no longer exempt from the Tree Protection Ordinance. 2. Add a sunset provision and require annual progress reports to the Planning Board and the Council. Most of the Planning Board members supported a sunset provision. A thousand units by 2030 is the goal that set this in motion; make that the target number to reach and don't move the goalpost until it is reached. Then sunset the AHO and re-evaluate. 3. Restore some control on density (FAR) so that AHO projects, especially those on large lots or on combined parcels, are not dramatically out of scale with their context. This sensitivity to context is critical on smaller side streets in low-scale residential areas. AHO FAR should be a multiple (eg up to 2x) in proportion to the base FAR, not an across- the-board maximum (3.0 is too great). 4. Require separate structures for AHO developments over a certain size to break up massing, consistent with the neighborhood context. 5. Increase the transitional buffers and step-down heights between taller AHO projects and small residential buildings. Follow Councillor Carlone's recommendations. 6. Clarify the requirements for units created below grade (especially if the first story starts at 4' above grade, a measure that many have found confusing) and do not allow below-grade units to extend under the setbacks. 7. Add protections for tenants earning up to 110% AMI who are displaced by AHO developments. 8. Set a goal for producing a percentage of units for home ownership. 9. Require minimum side and rear setbacks from existing abutting residential structures, not only from the property lines. 10. Establish priorities in AHO lotteries for current Cambridge residents to the full legal extent permitted by funders. Seek Council input over how tenanting priorities are set and how the wait lists are managed. 11. Require all AHO developers to submit pro-forma for public review and limit profit to no more than the return allowed under 40B.

12. If parking is to be reduced or even eliminated for proximity to transit, then measure the distance to transit (a subway entrance) by the walking route's distance, not as the crow flies, and be cautious in considering bus lines as reliable transit, since bus frequency and stops are not under our direct control. 13. Do not allow shared roof decks and balconies to meet the open space requirement. 14. Existing neighborhood-serving retail must be preserved in the small neighborhood business districts. Services for AHO tenants should not replace existing active use retail in residential areas. 15. The draft design guidelines, as currently written, are weak tea and will be too easy to ignore when directions are phrased as "consider" and . This is a form-based code and there still is far too "where possible" little consideration given to how these larger, denser forms will impact the existing context and abutters.

ATTACHMENT? CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL E. Denise Simmons Mayor 2008-2009 City Councillor 2016-2017 August 1, 2019 Councillor Dennis Carlone Councillor Craig Kelly Co-Chairs, Ordinance Committee Cambridge City Hall Re: Tonight's Ordinance Committee Hearing Dear Councillor Carlone and Councillor Kelley: I am writing to notify you that I unfortunately will be unable to attend this evening's Ordinance Committee hearing to discuss the proposed citywide Affordable Housing Overlay District, due to a previous out-of-state obligation. While I regret that I will be unable to participate in this evening's discussion, my position on this matter is unwavering. As I have stated many times over the course of many public hearings, I believe that the Affordable Housing Overlay District could be an important tool in the City's continuing efforts to address the affordable housing crisis that we are contending with. While we recognize that this tool would not solve this great challenge, and while we acknowledge that there absolutely must be a more concerted regional response to this crisis, the overlay would nevertheless be an important part of the legislative cocktail that Cambridge can utilize to produce more affordable units, in a more even distribution across the city. Ultimately, I strongly believe that this legislation would provide new hope to the many longtime Cambridge residents who are increasingly being squeezed out of their home community, and who wish for nothing more than the opportunity to remain a part of this city. I thank my colleagues for continuing to move this important discussion forward this evening, and I very much look forward to rejoining this process as the summer advances. Sincerely, Etown Sons City Councilor E. Denise Simmons CC: Paula Crane, Interim City Clerk CITY HALL, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139 EMAIL: dsimmons@cambridgema.gov FAX: [phone removed] [phone removed] TTY/TDD: [phone removed]

ATTACHMENTS CDD®344 CAMBRIDGE August 1, 2019 Ordinance Committee City of Cambridge Design Guidelines Affordable Housing Overlay Community Development Department

Community Development Department Massing Architectural Details, Materials, Color, and Finishes Facades Historic Buildings Open Space and Landscape Design Response to Context Circulation 1. Introduction 3. Building Design Contents: 2. Site Design 4. Sustainability August 1, 2019

August 1, 2019 Introduction Community Development Department

Community Development Department residents and be sensitive to the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhoods. The Guidelines are meant to: • Complement the Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning Petition. • Articulate goals for the form and character of Affordable Housing • Promote the development of affordable housing that will benefit • Help prioritize design elements. August 1, 2019

August 1, 2019 Purpose: building design. Housing Trust, and others. additions to existing buildings. Community Development.Department developers, the Planning Board, City staff, the Affordable excellence, and integrates green infrastructure and green • Serve as a reference for design teams, neighbors, owners, • Provide guidance for new construction, rehabilitation, and • Assist in creating affordable housing that is contextual, that incorporates urban design best practices and strives for design

Community Development Department massing, architectural language, details, and the colors and. neighborhoods. realm, the street and pedestrian network, surrounding land uses architectural and landscape character of their neighborhoods. textures of building materials. and building types, landscape design, building scale and immediate contexts and the broader character of their Addressing Neighborhood Context: • New affordable housing developments should respond to the • The design process should begin with an analysis of the existing • Considerations should include the characteristics of the public August 1, 2019

August 1, 2019 • Parking • Circulation Site Design • Response to Context Community Development Department • Open Space and Landscape Design

Community Development Department Open Space - Connecting buildings to the surrounding context. context-sensitive site design. urban patterns of streets and blocks, building setbacks, travel environment with responsive and paths, and open spaces. established patterns of character of the built development, preserve the character. to bring about the district's planned or anticipated urban in response to the surrounding August 1, 2019 Response to Context • In existing neighborhoods with • In evolving areas of the city, help • Site layout should be considered

August 1, 2019 spaces. to residents. quality of life. • Contribute to the other public open shading elements. beauty of the city's • Offer aesthetic and Open Space and • Minimize impacts on vegetation, trees, and • Offer useful amenities streets, sidewalks, and neighbor's privacy and Landscape Design environmental benefits through the inclusion of Open Space - Accommodating diverse uses. Community Development Department Front Yards - Contributing to the Public Realm.

10 Community Development Department courtyards to create transitional space between the public interiors, and to enrich the site with plantings. street and the building lobby, to provide light and air to unit Courtyards - Connecting people and connecting individual residences with the public realm. August 1, 2019 Open Space and Landscape Design • Consider incorporating landscaped forecourts and inner

August 1, 2019 elements. Open Space and Landscape Design surtaces where possible. planting or other landscape • Provide shade and permeable • Screen services from view with Screening services and equipment from view. Community Development Department Providing Shade and Permeable Surfaces.

12 Community Development Department vehicular paths. by providing pedestrian-friendly and bike-accessible site design. August 1, 2019 Circulation Prioritizing the Pedestrian Environment. • Provide separate pedestrian and • Promote non-motorized mobility

August 1, 2019 Parking general public. • Minimize the impact of residents, neighbors, and the driveways and parking areas on Shading driveways and parking areas and screening them from view. Community Development Department

Community Development Department Building Design • Historic Buildings August 1, 2019 • Facades • Architectural Details, Materials, Color, and Finishes • Massing

Element: street Exceptional perpendicular Engages axis of August 1, 2019 Massing Frames the street Repetitive Facade: relate the development to its context. Marks, promin Element: corne Exceptional Courtyards and other articulations can help compatibility. planned pattern of neighboring open spaces and buildings. • Building massing should be compatible with the existing or Community Development Department Orienting courtyards to neighbors to increase individual buildings. Separating large developments into 15

Community Development Department buildings. respond to the scale of neighboring Massing Reducing the visual scale of large developments by the use of vertical projections and/or recesses. • Consider articulating building mass to August 1, 2019

August 1, 2019 Massing them relate to the heights of their neighbors. • Consider differentiating top floors from lower floors to reduce the visual bulk of tall buildings and to help Community Development Department Reducing the bulk of top floors by using stepbacks, mansards, gable, or hipped roofs. 17

18 08 25 га 26 22 Community Development Department High Height District Low Height District adjoining districts. Transitioning between the heights and scales of adjoining neighborhoods by Massing incorporating stepbacks. August 1, 2019 • Adjust massing to relate to the prevailing heights in

August 1, 2019 Facades contexts. materials, and architectural • Street facades should offer visual components of the buildings in their • Facades should relate to the heights, interest and a sense of civic presence. Community Development Department Facades enriched with bay windows, porches, balconies, changes in plane, and combinations of materials. New buildings that respond to the heights and materials of existing neighbors. 19

20 Corner emphasis. Community Development Department Distinguishing base, middle, and top. middle, and top. distinction between base, significant corners. facades and emphasizing Facades August 1, 2019 The use of varied façade treatments on a long frontage can create an intermediate level of scale. • Consider giving variety to long • Consider emphasizing the

August 1, 2019 Facades balance desired performance and transparency and enrich the taçade. neighbor's privacy. openings should be sized and located to with building energy • Fenestration should be pedestrian-friendliness considered as means to • Mullion patterns and the arrangements of window 28% 24% Examples of window-to-wall ratios. Examples of varied mullion patterns. Community Development Department 65% 22%

22 SOCIAL WINES Community Development Department Ground floors - enhancing retail streets, and providing privacy to residential units. Top floors - Dormers, stepbacks, and roof terraces. and to relate to the scales of balconies, bay windows, pedestrians. dormers, roof gardens, and Cambridge's diverse and historic neighborhoods. terraces to add visual interest streets, offer transparency to residential units. interiors and shelter for Facades • At ground facades on retail • Provide privacy for ground floor August 1, 2019 • At top floors, consider providing

August 1, 2019 Finishes neighborhood buildings. compatible with those of Materials, Color, and Architectural Details, warm, inviting, durable, and to building's energy efficiency. • Materials and colors should be the sense of scale and contribute facade components should enrich • Patterns of fenestration and other Community Development Department enrich the sense of scale, and contribute to sustainability Details, materials, colors, and finishes relate to neighboring buildings, 23

24 Community Development Department materials, details, and careful craftsmanship. character should be maintained by the use of appropriate Historic Buildings August 1, 2019 • When renovating or adding to historic buildings, their

August 1, 2019 Solar orientation • Resilience to flooding Sustainability Community Development Department • Minimize the urban heat island effect • Renewable and low-carbon energy features

Future flood level. Community Development Department Rooftops are opportunities to reduce the urban heat island effect and move toward net zero energy. Consider passive strategies to increase resident's comfort. wellness. the City regarding anticipated effects energy efficiency, resilient to the systems. health, and performance and be efficiency and of climate change. flooding, and energy stormwater, Sustainability August 1, 2019 • Design for resilience, • Seek guidance from • Maximize energy

August 1, 2019 Sustainability energy efficiency, • Design for resilience, health, and wellness. Community Development Department Green Building requirements and flood plain performance standards. Rendering of Concord Highlands Apartments - 98 units of affordable housing - will meet 27

Thank You

ATTACHMENTI August 1, 2019 Comment for Ordinance Committee Prepared by S. Kaiser AMENDMENTS TO OVERLAY ZONING 1. SUPPORT FLOOR AREA LIMITATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Support FAR increases to allow more density ... I agree Insist that Financial Feasibility must be demonstrated ... I agree Support a Density, Cap to be set at a maximum FAR for 40 foot height limits .... I agree Delete Section 5. exempting Affordable Housing from FARS .... I agree I would support an FAR limit at 1.5 [not 3.0] for 40-foot heights .... Discussion needed Set an FAR limit in BA & BA-2 Districts with transition zones - not defined. .... I agree (Proposal : set FAR 3.0 in 80 ft. District, with stepbacks at 40 ft cornice line) 2. ALLOW DWELLING UNITS BELOW GRADE for VERY LOW RENTS 3. STRESS EXISTING BUILDING CONVERSION for AFFORDABLE HOUSING Example: Case of a three-decker on a small lot, with three large units Conversion to seven units, one large, four small. two basement units Occupied by households with less than 60% AMI Average rents $500 per month. Total annual; revenue from rents $36,000. Renovation costs would be $500,000 total or about $85,000 per unit Very low public subsidies per unit: 1/8 of new construction. No land costs First Floor and basement units would have wheelchair ramp access. Total Building FAR would be 1.5 with basement units Production of new units from $20 million budget = 250 to 300 units a year Buildings today and in the future would carry no debt. Compare: Unit cost for new housing construction $600,000, with land. Cost of land rising by $10,000 per unit every year Likely subsidy cost: $500,000 per unit: a "Budget Buster" Production of new units from $20 million budget = 40 units a year New Construction and land costs mean high inflation costs. High subsidies mean high interest costs. 4. DEVELOP A CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN to encourage and protect reduced parking requirements. Prepare the City's own Transit Master Plan, included improved service on the Red Line and high quality multi-modal service along the Grand Junction corridor Kendall and West Station in Allston. Enhance transit and shared-vehicle programs. 5. ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL FEATURES : A further option for future use of the property is to place a provision in my will that donates my three-decker to the Affordable Housing Trust, to be used exclusively for affordable housing in the years to come. sett. Kain 191 Hamelta St.

ATTACHMENT 1O F. C. Houghteling 132 Brattle 8t I support the goal of providing 100 units of subsidized/affordable housing units each year. Blowing up 100 years of zoning is not the way to do it. The AHO was only first presented to the public in April. Only this week, design guidelines were finally issued. It is notable that all of the good examples cited were built under the current guidelines. The new guidelines, such as they are, use the word "consider" over and over again. If a developer decides not to "consider" these gauzy guidelines, the City, the neighborhoods and abutters have no recourse. Mature trees and green space are history. The AHO opens a 10 lane highway to developers to tear down existing housing and build Alewife- like units on any small street. Let's go back to the drawing board in good faith. The stated goal of this proposal is achievable without tearing Cambridge apart literally and figuratively.

ATTACHMENT I My name is Sally Lesser and I live at 115 Lexington Ave. I went to the two Planning Board meetings about the AHO, and my comments are focused on the concern that I heard from Planning Board Members, where a clear majority favored some kind of sunset clause in this ordinance. That says to me that these professionals are in doubt about the success of the overlay and would like to see either the expiration, or at least a solid review, after a period of time or number of units built. If the Planning Board has concerns about the effects of this ordinance, shouldn't we pause to listen? The overlay removes design review in cases of a 100% affordable housing development. An experiment as radical as this one is precisely when we need the permitting oversight that the Planning Board exercises now. The word which was used repeatedly by a Planning Board Member about their role in this new ordinance was "abdication". With no effective oversight by the Planning Board, and no option for citizen appeal, this upzoning overlay is unnecessarily risky - like driving on a highway with no speed limit and no police. The urgency of the need for affordable housing in Cambridge requires bold action - but bold action requires thoughtful planning and review. As it is written now, the ordinance proposes the bold idea, but it removes the guardraits that might make i truly work. aplas with out the ovensight suecessfut: Helieve at's a mistake to approve this ordinance If its eurrent form, I believe it a man ta to approt tus odinance in its current form woulda

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT 12 From: Crane, Paula Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 4:00 PM To: Lopez, Donna FW: On today's ordinance committee meeting.... Subject: From: Blier, Suzanne <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 3:53 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov> Subject: On today's ordinance committee meeting.... Honorable Councillors, I write to you from the City Hall lawn to urge you to take to heart what long-time School Committee member Patty Nolan said Monday night at Council. The AHO process has been deeply flawed. Where are the alternative proposals that were evaluated and narrowed to a finite few? And what is happening now with dozens of competing amendments thrown against the wall to see what sticks is NOT the way to write a critical document like this one to up-zone the whole city - never tried any where before. We are better than this. Cordially, Suzanne Blier 5 Fuller Place Get Outlook for iOS

Crane, Paula ATTACHMENT B Blier, Suzanne < [email removed]> From: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 4:04 PM Sent: To: City Council Cc: Crane, Paula; DePasquale, Louie Subject: The AHO: where Politics meets Policy Honorable Cambridge City Councillors, Yesterday I did a close reading of the new AHO Design Guidelines document, converting it first from a PDF to word. The AHO design criteria document comprises a brief 5,811 word file (14 page single spaced) once one removes the diverse images. The small size of the document belies how truly massive these structures may become. Recall that Cambridge is the 3rd or 4th or 5th most dense city in the U.S. with. a population above 100K. Recall too that we are one of the oldest cities, founded in 1630, so that a lot of historic buildings may be bulldozed if the AHO passes (very few are on the state or national historic trust lists. Note too that some current tenants will likely be forced out of their - and onto the massive affordable housing lists to do this - if they are the lucky few to meet the AMI requirements and find a spot near the top of the waiting list. But let me turn specifically to the Design Guidelines: Design Takeaways General: Text (language) evokes lots of flexibility and wishful thinking. Basically the developers are asked to "consider" this or that, with very few specific requirements. The whole document comes in at a staggeringly low equivalent of a short term paper. Compare this to the 100 plus page documents posted by other cities for form-based design criteria guidelines in communities elsewhere. Detailed design requirements are necessary if this is to be as-of-right with what most of us now recognize to be no real checks and balances. Photos, renderings, and plans in this document show that these affordable housing developments are intended to be massive. It is hard to imagine how these would fit in to the various residential neighborhoods of West of Massachusetts Avenue where 78% of them are intended to be built as indicated in the City Manager's report to Council. The massiveness of the scale of these also makes one think that the West Cambridge push may indeed be partly a lost leader, that the bulk of these new units are intended to be built on those sites elsewhere in the city. Specific Design Criteria - Organized thematically in the Document On Green: There are lots of pretty pictures of nice new green spaces, but where in a city this dense will these green spaces be added: Affordable Housing Developers focused on the bottom line are clearly not going to care about this, nor is the city going to buy properties from citizens simply to have more green spaces. On Context: Developers are asked (2.9 to "Consider the location" but there are no requirements specifically to do so. On Traffic: The AHO PLAN will significantly add to traffic because, as noted in (3) their intent is to "Promote non- motorized mobility by prioritizing pedestrian-friendly and bike-accessible site design" and in (4) "Minimize the detrimental impact of parking aND driveways on residents, neighbors, and the general public." Good luck in Dec-Mar when snow impedes, or those who work at night, or in places outside the city, or have multiple jobs, or children, or have disabilities. On Unsightly Utilities (5) Many will be on the roof tops, adding an additional level of height intruding on the neighbors; if not on the roof, "where possible" not at the front of the building (no specific placement requirements. 1

On Outdoor Lighting (6): Please be ready for bright lighting surrounding these developments, regardless of neighborhood. They will be VERY visible "for safety and functionality" - and for better "allowing open spaces to be usable in the evening, illuminating signage, or subtly accentuating key architectural elements." And this lighting will also add to the roof scale in the encouraged use of "photovoltaic panels to power lighting." On Public Art (7) -encouraged. But nothing on selection criteria, competitions, judges - which would be important for a first class program. On Building Design (1) Massing: Be ready for change "massing should be compatible with the prevailing or desired pattern of neighboring buildings." This basically allows anything, as also in "Consider reducing the visual impact of taller buildings by using stepbacks..." These are just suggestions, nothing is required. Similarly the developers are requested to "Adjust building configuration and massing to maximize access to sunlight, air, and sky views from neighboring buildings and sites, and to maintain privacy." Yet nothing here stops them from interrupting sunlight or removing sky or other views. In another example: (1.9 )Where a neighboring residential building is located very close to the lot line, consider adjusting building's footprint..." Nothing required. (2) Facades: "Building facades should enhance and enliven the public realm." (pretty mushy). And, "2.1 Consider Cambridge's architectural history, heritage, culture and regional significance...." Again, no requirements. 2/9 "2.9 Avoid incorporating extravagant or exaggerated building elements or features..." This keeps down costs. " 2.22 "Wherever possible, screen parking with programed spaces with functions that enliven the street facades." Nothing is required. 2.26 In renovating or adding to an existing architecturally or historically significant building, or where original materials... use traditional building elements with the same architectural features, material quality and craftsmanship. If not feasible, substitute with style-neutral high-quality...." Again, not required. On Sustainable Design: "To design projects with energy efficiency, health and wellness in mind." The removal of mature trees is fine. (1.4): "While trees are preferred, where they are not feasible consider the use of shading devices such as canopies, awnings, or pergolas...." So protecting the tree canopy and addressing global warming is not a vital part of this proposal. Conclusions: ON Politics and Policy. To me the AHO plan looks like a two-part strategy: Part I is political - to attack West Cambridge as elitist (even racist) because there are relatively few affordable housing developments here, largely based on the high property costs and 1950s/1960s federal policy and funding that placed AH projects largely in areas of former factories (Rindge being a key example). This political part also seems (to me at least) to seek out specifically those Councillors who have voiced key concerns about the AHO, seeking to compel them to vote in favor or fear retribution on November 5. I prefer finding common ground and seeking ways to work together. Part Il is policy driven. This piece is more pragmatic, where to construct new AHO buildings with the most bang for the buck and least resistance from citizens. What the design guideline photos, renderings, and plans suggest to me is that they are likely to be built on lands currently being used for affordable housing where the four companies who have the support of the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust to undertake AH projects here already have properties and own the land. Trolley Square north of Porter, where CDD held its last meeting, is largely two stories, but because it is adjacent to Mass Ave could easily be rebuilt as a 7-story development extending to near the property lines. This would greatly diminish developers costs to build (or in this case rebuild much taller, bigger and denser structures, as of right). This is not to say that areas west of Massachusetts are out of the city's eyesight for massive new AH developments, but as one developer with an inside track revealed to me recently, if the AHO passes, the city is expecting a "s...storm" of lawsuits. And given 2

both the property values and the pocketbooks in question, this may be far more likely to come from residents who live west of Mass Avenue than those in other parts of the city. In some ways the deeply practical side of me thinks that this may be the best solution (the best affordable housing bang for the buck) but I am deeply opposed to economic segregation on moral ground - here or any place else. I also think it is reprehensible for the city (if this is the plan) to have not made this more clear to residents - on both sides of Mass Ave. We are better than this as a city. Few cities anywhere support this kind of divisive policy, and nor should we. Note too among the many things I have learned these past few months in helping to organize opposition to the AHO is that nearly half of Cambridge rental units are not occupied by owners. This is very telling, and one realtor suggested it may be a partial reflection of the impacts of money laundering. (Boston is number 4 in the list of Chinese housing investors). Whether true or not it also speaks to the fact that renters (nearly 68% of our population) are having to pay for an addition levels of profit accumulation when they lease apartments. The city COULD and SHOULD do something about not only this, but also the issue of Biotech, Google and university housing (MIT was allowed to drop the ball on this to devastating impacts). We also could and should do something about rent protections (even before adding new housing) since the city now is undergoing extensive city-wide gentrification - hitting especially hard places like the Port where we have lost some 17% of our African American population. It is really untenable that the Council AND the City are not willing to step up and work together with the community to address these issues. In short: as with many documents, what I see in the CDD's new Design Guidelines reveals quite a lot about how this process is intended to unfold, even (and especially) when it is way too short of specific requirements. We can and should do better. Lets have the new city plan (and Envision) be a unifier not a divider. Cordially, Suzanne Blier 5 Fuller Place

AtTACHmENT 14 speech for Ordinance Comm hearing on Aug 1 at 5-30 There are many reasons to oppose the Affordable Housing Overlay. First of all it is undemocratic. Current Cambridge residents and homeowners have purchased and improved their properties here knowing what the zoning and context of their specific neighborhood is. But now, Affordable Housing Overlay proponents want Cambridge residents to agree to a plan that is completely different and WILL create a housing crisis for those of us who already live here. Affordable housing developers wrote this Overlay plan based on their needs. This plan has nothing to do with the needs of current homeowners. A Better Cambridge uses the concept of "affordable housing" to steal the rights of, current property owners, the property protections under current zoning laws, and desires to give away those rights to work in the service of others, the affordable housing developers. In other words, the Affordable Housing Overlay makes all citizens, residents, home owners and taxpayers of Cambridge the means to others ends. Under the AHO, our citizen's rights are being redistributed away from us to the affordable housing developers. The Overlay asserts the rights of affordable housing developers to take the protections of zoning laws from us, the citizens, for themselves, the developers. In this scenario, we, the people of Cambridge become exiles in our own city, denied access to or control of our own neighborhoods, dispossessed from any control of our own neighborhoods by the affordable housing developer. The people of Cambridge are the citizens, residents, home owners, taxpayers and voters of Cambridge and the members of this council and committee would do well to remember that they were elected as a government of the people, by the people and for the people and not elected as a government of the affordable housing developer, by the affordable housing developer, and certainly not elected as a government for the affordable housing developer. ROBERT CAMACTE ai ceL, BoReS CAMBRETEE OK3S Page 1

8/1/2019 Xfinity Connect Affordable Housing Overlay Printout ATTACHMENX 15 Lisa Camacho <[email removed]> 8/1/2019 1:52 PM Affordable Housing Overlay To council@cambridgema.gov • Liza Paden <Ipaden@cambridgema.gov» Dear Ordinace Committee - Here are my comments regarding the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay for Cambridge: I write to oppose the proposed 100% Affordble Housing Overlay currently under consideration for the City of Cambridge. There are two aspects of the AHO as written that will do irreparable harm to the City and its residents. 1. The "as of right" ability for developers who build 100% affordable housing gives current residents, many who have spent their entire lives here, little or no recourse to protect the homes we live in. My husband and I have already experienced for ourselves expensive damage to our home due to a sub-par renovation of the house next door, making our vinyl siding melt. (Please refer to my comments of February 25, 2019.) Those of us who live here need the protection and assistance of our city government at least as much as affordable housing developers, but the AHO as written sets up exactly the opposite situation. No one knows my home better than my husband and I do. Without a way to challenge conditions created by development on property that abuts ours, the AHO as written is not a fair and equitable document for the current residents of Cambridge. A city-wide AHO needs to contain much more specific regulations to protect current property owners - that we be notified of proposed changes in abutting properties, that this be done very early in the process, the types of changes we can challenge or veto, the process for receiving remuneration for damage done by a new construction on an abutting property. Until such stipulations are written into an AHO, "as of right" construction is basically a free license for real estate developers to build the largest structure allowed at the cheapest possible cost. If real estate development and construction in the Greater Boston area has taught us anything over the last 15 years or so, it is that it involves huge amounts of money, often supplied by private equity firms and REITs run to maximize shareholder profit, with most of its shareholders never having been to Cambridge, nor caring what happens to the neighborhood in which their company's buildings are built. We are the ones who need to care. These are our homes and our neighborhoods. It is the City's responsibility to hold developers of any kind, not just affordable housing builders, to standards that serve all residents of Cambridge. As written, this is one of the essential elements missing from the AHO. With the Planning Board having no oversight, abutters with little recourse and an already overworked Zoning Department the City will be hard pressed to keep up with development proposals and monitoring. Oversight of the affordable housing, once built, is yet another area that the City has insufficient infrastructure for handling. Building is only the first step to providing quality affordable housing. It needs to be repaired and maintained and I assume it is the responsibility of the City to ensure that happens as properties become older and change ownership. Please do not assume I am against affordable housing. It is just the opposite. My husband and I are considering putting an affordable-housing clause on our house. I have mentioned in previous letters ways that Cambridge can advance affordable housing. (Please see my letter for the 6/3/2019 meeting). Mayor Walsh's Office recently announced a program to lower interest rates for first time home- buyers. Or how about assisting first-time home/condo buyers to come up with the down payment to purchase their home? It is actually cheaper to own your own home in Cambridge than rent an apartment if a person can scratch up the down payment! 2. The AHO as written is almost insipid in its approach to building for a sustainable and resilient Cambridge. Yes, it is true that multi-family housing allows for a smaller carbon footprint per person than duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes. However, the City's projections for the amount of housing far exceeds what the City's current carbon footprint is now. To move Cambridge toward a goal of significantly reducing its carbon as population increases, multi-family affordable housing, or any housing for that matter, now needs to be as passive as possible in its construction. (Am I correct in thinking that Zoning Ordinance Article 22.22 would not apply to structures built under the 100% AHO?) In 2014 the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) held a briefing titled Can Housing Be Affordable, Resilient, and Sustainable? The conclusion was yes. They may be more expensive to build at the outset, but I, for one, would like to see my tax money 1/2 https://connect.xfinity.com/appsuite/v=7.8.4-39.20190403.154608/print.html?print_1564682385916

8/1/2019 Xfinity Connect Affordable Housing Overlay Printout go toward funding sustainable and resilient buildings instead of the cheap stick-framed housing that has become the scourge of Cambridge. In the long run, passive housing uses about 85% less energy than conventional homes and 75% less than Energy Star homes. Require builders of 100% affordable housing to build passively and you solve three problems at once: • Cambridge reduces its carbon footprint • People with limited income are using less of their money for utilities • Landlords/building managers have lower year-on-year expenses, which frees up funds for major repairs and capital improvements. Remember, these funds cannot come from just raising the rent. Will developers balk at building passive buildings? I'm sure they will. If forced to, will they do it? My belief is yes. It is especially urgent to require passively-built construction if the new structure replaces a smaller building. Open space and the tree canopy are about all we have to combat climate change in urban areas, and it looks like we may sadly be losing lots more. Passive construction may not replace the improved quality of life that green spaces bring, but at least they can serve as an offset to carbon generation. The July 29, 2019 Guidelines for 100% Affordable Housing Overlay is admirable. However, it is also just that - guidelines - filled with language such as "Where possible", "Minimize", "Consider". The guidelines need to become requirements for building affordable housing in Cambridge. Until such time as that happens, I cannot support the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay. Sincerely, Lisa Camacho Lisa Camacho 24 Corporal Burns Road (100ResilientCitres.org) 2oo worldwiden more resilient. Taken from testing 6 Xes, enheip Eterna ect, am effort of Recently ended, the Rockefeller Foundation has committed #fadd'l Funds to Chief Resilience Officers in these Cities, "What is Uban Resilience! "Cities face a groweng range of adversities and challenges in the 215t Century From the pope a dim to change eras tige no pandemics to cyber-attacks. Resilence is what helps cities adapt and transform in the face of these challenges, helping them to prepore for both the expected and the unexpested. N1 pRC defines urban resilience as "the capacety of indeviduals, communties, Institutions, beesnesses and systems withen a cely to servere, adopt, and grow no matter what kind of chrones stresses and acute shocks they experience. 'Building unban resilunce requenes looking at a cety holistically: understanding the systema that make up the cete and tps/oned.xinly.co/apst-84392019040815008/pite pim 1954662385016 Cies and risks they?

shacks + streases it may face, a city can emprove its development trajictory and the well-bang of its citeyens."'

Precip. Flooding-Present Day -10-yE. Storm Cambridge FloodViewer v2.0 ORD TPK . wife Te Boxe D RINDGE AVE BROOK Porter, CAFE WALDEN ST Fresh Pond CHLI FRESH PON GARDEN ST HURON AVE BEACON L AT AUBURN ST Harvard T MEMORIAL DR BROADWAY GREENOUCH BLYD WESTERN AVE RIVER ST BROOKLINE 1:36,112 8/1/2019, 12:07:32 PM 0 0.45 0.9 mi 0.23 + + T 1.4 km 0.35 0.7 Esri. HERE. Garmin. (c) OpenStreetMap contributors. and the GIS user

уг. Storm Precip. Flooding-present Do Cambridge FloodViewer v2.0 RD TPK vile RINDCH AVE • Porter? Fresh Pond SAVE GARDEN ST HURON AVE Harvard T MEMORIAL ADWAY Centr VAVE GREENOUCH BLYD WES 1:36,112 8/1/2019, 12:04:01 PM 0.9 mi 0 0.23 0.45 0.7 0.35 1.4 km Esri. HERE. Garmin. (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user

o Precip. flooding 2030-10-Yr. Storm Cambridge FloodViewer v2.0 ORD TPK D RINDGE AVE BROOK IS NEWASHS Porter WIFE WALDEN ST Fresh Pond TS AVE FRESH PO HURON AVE GARDEN ST MASSAC 10 МІ ДОВІ Harvard MEMORIAL OR BROADWAY GREENOUCH BLD WESTERN AVE RIVER ST EROOKUNE ST 1:36,112 8/1/2019, 11:48:45 AM 0.9 mi 0 0.23 0.45 + 0 1.4 km 0.7 0.35 Esri. HERE. Garmin. (c) OpenStreetMap contributors. and the GIS user

Precip. Floading 2030 - 100 - yr. Storm Cambridge FloodViewer v2.0 IRD TPK D * Forter Fresh Pond SAVE GARDEN ST HARON AVEL Harvard Centr. KNAVE GREENOUCH BUD WES BROO 1:36,112 8/1/2019, 12:00:16 PM 0.9 mi 0.23 0.45 + 0.35 0.7 1.4 km Esri. HERE. Garmin. (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user

Precip. flooding 2070-10-yr. storm Cambridge FloodViewer v2.0 ORD TPK Cond SHERMAN S Porter Fresh Pond ITSAVE FRE GARDEN ST HURON AVE BEACON MASSACHUSE ST NI дUвуEа Harvard MEMORIAL OR ROADWAY GREENOUGH BL WESTERN AVE BROOK INE 1:36,112 8/1/2019, 11:44:41 AM 0.45 0.23 0.9 mi 0 0.7 0.35 1.4 km Esri. HERE. Garmin. (c) OpenStreetMap contributors. and the GIS user

Precip, flooding 20f0-100 yr. storm Cambridge FloodViewer v2.0 ORD TPK Send RINDGE AVE HS Porter Fresh Powd TSAVE GARDEN ST BEACON APON AVE MASSACHUSE Harvard T TRIAL MEMORIAL DWAY GREE NOUCH BLYD BROOK 1:36,112 8/1/2019, 11:56:05 AM 0.45 0 0.9 mi 0.23 0.35 0.7 1.4 km Esri. HERE. Garmin. (c) OpenStreetMap contributors. and the GIS user

Sea level Rise - Storm Surge Flooding-2070 - 10-yr. storm Cambridge FloodViewer v2.0 ORD TPK RINDGE AVE SHERMAN ST Porter, WALDEN ST Fresh Pond 'SAVE ONCORD AVE FRESH POI GARDEN ST HURON AVE MI AUBURN ST Harvard MEMORIAL OR BROADWAY GREENOUGH BLYD WESTERN AVE RIVER ST BROOKUNE ST 1:36,112 8/1/2019, 11:52:46 AM 0.9 mi 0.23 0 0.45 0 0.35 1.4 km 0.7 Esri. HERE. Garmin. (c) OpenStreetMap contributors. and the GIS user

ATTACHMENT 16 Lopez, Donna Crane, Paula From: Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 12:25 PM To: Lopez, Donna Subject: FW: ORDINANCE- OVERLAY From: Marilee Meyer <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 10:54 AM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>; City Manager <CityManager@CambridgeMA.GOV>; Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov> Subject: ORDINANCE- OVERLAY Dear Councillors, how many times must we speak about the details, amendments and process of this Overlay? you must be just as exhausted too. This is just a reminder to: !) re-read Councilor Devereux's three-part blog on the Overlay and its problems 2) watch the planning board's discussion about the Overlay at their meeting where they had a contentious and split decision. (Is the public going to see the memo they are writing to the Manager about their findings?) 3) PLEASE re-visit Patty Nolan's succinct inquiry into process at Tues's meeting (portal 1:11:45) where she asked proper questions about the democratic process. A- what other options were considered- B- Did you take 20 ideas and whittle them down to 12 and then pick the best 4-5 ideas to study in depth for that most significant one? C- everyone agrees to eliminate single family housing unless grandfathered or significant. D- incentivize landlords to house section 8 tenants/ lower income perhaps with tax credits- How many vouchers will the $1 million participatory budget pay for? This is like the affordable health care issue. Everyone wants health care. It is an emotional issue. But wait- does it have pre-existing conditions? lower drugs? insurance for the kids? how do they find actionable legislation to move forward with all the moving parts? If one asks questions, it doesn't mean one is against health care. This overlay is based on the same principle. How can we make housing better and more efficient without killing the golden goose that is Cambridge? Only Historic Register properties are mentioned in Councilor McGovern/ Mallon amendments. (there are only a handful of properties with the HONORARY designation). If historic houses are not in conservation or historic districts but are they considered significant? are they protected? Conversely, if they are not deemed significant individually but are very much a part of the streetscape, they (FAR. .75-1.0) can be torn down and FAR 3.0 or more will be built. (4-7 stories). Density can be up to 10 X on any given street. No conversion or renovation is appropriate for NET ZERO which is usually used with new construction- another excuse for tear-downs. Yet, tear-downs trigger carbon footprints in landfills. Can we design around great mature trees that will maintain character on sites? Build around them? there are not enough protections in any of this. 60 ft high buildings probably in the ubiquitous square building block style is still incongruous with smaller peak-roofed dormered roof lines. I have yet to see an example of a gabled or peaked roof 1

which could accommodate studios and one - bedrooms. Hell, I live on the top floor with a slanted ceiling and punched dormer. It is charming. Use architectural language from historic houses already owned by the housing trust. Unless the goal is to max out every dimension as of right. How can you make standardization and formula fit 13 districts and perhaps 27 neighborhoods? Absolutely no one likes the idea of 4 stories becoming 7 stories as of right without being able to appeal a building twice the size of the neighborhood If engineering is dubious over 6 stories, it is possible for that 4 story mid-rise to be torn down too! And please! do something about design other than the synthetic material, faux shutters, metal roof and side panels, big glass windows revealing the ultimate reality show to the sidewalk. Shallow articulation on the facade makes it look like a christmas tree shop/ department store. Please pass NEW STREET as new affordable housing. Gee, that would take care of your 40 units above the 60 already produced for your 100 expected units (which is unreasonable and misleading). You are writing LAW. YOU are affecting the ENTIRE POPULATION AND COMMUNITY AND HISTORY. This should be bigger then those vying for re-election. Should be... but several see it as a competition to win, right or wrong. Poorly considered or not. How many properties have been held up and how many have gotten their permits in a timely manner with comprehensive permitting? The new procedure is not that much shorter than 5-6 months through regular process. In many cases, the planning board did its job and the housing trust did not. I bet there is more money out there than presented. But the problem doesn't always lie with the current planning board/ BZA process. And even if the housing trust did have gobs of financing, they would still have to compete with market rate developers for the same plot. Without true numbers, how can an informed decision be made? Welcome to DC mentality... thank you. Marilee

17 AMACHMENT David Timothy Shaw 147 Mt. Auburn Street Cambridge MA 02138 [phone removed] [email removed] 1 August, 2019 Remarks on the proposed 100% affordable housing overlay district. My name is Tim Shaw, I live at 147 Mount Auburn Street. I have lived in Cambridge since 1974. During my 45 years in this city, I have certainly seen the cost of living here skyrocket. However, I oppose the current proposal for a new overlay district for 100% affordable housing. While the problem of affordability is a real one and is one of several difficult problems that afflict our city at present, this proposal is not the right answer. Granting the ability to build high and dense as-of-right, without zoning review, would do irreparable harm to our city, filling it with out-of-scale, boxy eyesores. It would have a devastating effect on the City's already stressed tree canopy. And it would do this without solving the affordable housing problem. This proposal, while trying to address a real problem, would have unintentional side effects that would be potentially catastrophic for our city. It disagrees with the City's own growth policies. It was created in close partnership with the developers it would benefit and it has the potential for loopholes with unexpected consequences with no review or other provisions to address them. I hope that the Ordinance Committee and the City will reject this deeply flawed proposal and instead go back to the drawing board and find a better way to address the problem of affordable housing that will preserve the aspects of Cambridge that everyone finds so unique and appealing. Tim Shaw 147 Mount Auburn Street

ATTACHMENT IS Ordinance Committee Meeting on the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay (8/1/2019) To the Members of the Ordinance Committee, I'm writing as a strong supporter of the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay. I believe it is an essential tool for building more affordable housing in Cambridge and preventing the displacement of low- and moderate-income families. In prior letters and through public comment, I've spoken about the need to stabilize housing for these households and build more affordable units in order to further housing equity in our city. I still think that the Overlay is a tool that would support this effort and urge the council to move the proposal forward without amendments that would limit its efficacy and without delay. Every site is different, and allowing affordable housing developers to adapt to the context of each parcel provides for better design and higher quality housing. I support a citywide Overlay that provides for flexibility within the zoning code and believe the as-of-right provision should be maintained. I also believe that design guidelines can effectively reflect our City's priorities for sustainable, healthy family housing; the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust, the Community Development Department, and other lenders and municipal stakeholders should hold developers accountable for good design and high-quality construction. Healthier buildings and lower carbon footprints are integral to the mission of local nonprofit developers, and the Overlay will support this responsible development approach. I've struggled with the idea that affordable housing should be subject to an extended public process and held to stricter standards than market rate developments. We all agree that design guidelines are important and community engagement is essential, but market-rate projects are not pushed to meet these standards. If we want to be an inclusive city - and I truly think we do - then increasing burdens for 100% affordable housing does not meet our standards for good, fair zoning policy. In our current market, affordable housing nonprofits are unable to put bids on properties that come up for sale because of the substantial acquisition costs. Market developers are more likely to pay high asking prices because they can make their investment back with higher rents and/or condo sales, but this doesn't pencil out for affordable housing. We must act now, through passing the Overlay and reducing up-front cost burdens for affordable housing projects. Preventing displacement and investing in sustainable development will take a lot of work and political will. Let's get this Overlay passed so we can hold up more ideas for advancing equity for renters, families, and lower-income residents. Please reach out if you'd like to discuss further. Respectfully, Rebecca Schofield Project Manager at Homeowner's Rehab, Inc. (HRI) , Co-Chair of A Better Cambridge (ABC)

ATTACHMENT 19 Chairmen Carlone and Kelley and Cambridge City Councilors, My name is Esther Hanig, and I live at 136 Pine St. As you already know, I am here to express my strongest support possible for passing the Affordable Housing Overlay into law in September. While many acknowledge the need for affordable housing to provide attainable homes for the thousands seeking a place to live and to try to preserve as much of the diversity and equity of our city as possible, they do not seem to recognize the urgency of this need. I urge you all, as you did when addressing the potential loss of trees in our city, to act with the same speed, dedication and commitment on behalf of these families in desperate need of housing. If the Overlay is not enacted in September, that will result in months, if not years, of delay during which time, potential homes for these families will not be built. With the picture of the faces of those families at their wits end, as they search for affordable housing in Cambridge - some of them born here, some working here at vital jobs - fixed firmly in your minds, l urge you to dedicate yourselves to finding workable compromises on the outstanding issues of density, open space and design and bring this proposal to a successful vote in September. I also want to say that I am bewildered by the sense of calamity that is being generated by the opponents of the Overlay. Unfortunately, this will not result in the vast number of new units many are predicting, nor will it result in the terrifying density many are describing. And, as to design, I call upon you to look at the many attractive affordable projects across Cambridge and to remember the responsiveness that our affordable housing builders have shown to neighbors. As I know that you all share my deep concern for the needs of affordable housing and for the very special nature of diversity and equity for which our city is known, I trust that I will be writing you with deep gratitude for your work to pass the Affordable Housing Overlay in September.

AMTACHMENT 20 Lopez, Donna Crane, Paula From: Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 9:03 AM To: Lopez, Donna Subject: FW: The Overlay From: Catalina Arboleda <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 8:16 PM Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Fwd: The Overlay I failed to copy you appropriately on the letter I just sent regarding the Overlay. Here it is below. Best, Catalina Arboleda 950 Mass. Ave. Unit 413 Cambridge, MA 02139 Begin forwarded message: From: Catalina Arboleda <[email removed]> Subject: The Overlay Date: July 25, 2019 at 8:13:21 PM EDT To: CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV, mmcgovern@cambridgema.gov, Jan Devereux <deverex@cambridgema.gov>, dcarlone@cambridgema.gov, ckelley@cambridgema.gov, Alanna Mallon <amallon@cambridgema.gov>, ssiddiqui@cambridgema.gov, ttoomey@cambridgema.gov, Quinton Zondervan <gzondervan@cambridgema.gov>, citymanager@cambridgema.gov, cddat344@cambridgema.gov, Lpaden@cambridge.gov All, I am writing again to say how opposed I am to the specifics of this overlay. As proposed, the AHO gives "by-right" privileges to the developers to build up our city, without input from the Zoning Board or the citizens of Cambridge. It appears to me to be a proposal to make the city denser and less environmentally-friendly, significantly risking our air quality, green spaces and mature trees. Has there been an environmental study of what this Overlay would do to the city? I suspect not. I shudder to think how the electric grid of the city will respond to the increased population density in the city, not to mention the congestion on the streets and roadways. And given the reality of our Global Warming, I have not heard a word about requiring the developers of the affordable housing apartments to make them carbon neutral or anything of that sort. In addition, it doesn't seem to significantly increase the number of affordable housing units in the city. There are other more ingenious ways of providing affordable housing (e.g. dividing existing housing into several units, such as those that already exist in some parts of Cambridge), without incurring the risks that your proposal has. The first the general public heard about this proposal, was the beginning of this week, when your postcard arrived in people's mailboxes. The postcard failed to explain the AHO adequately. The AHO vote is only a few weeks away. Given the tendency of many of the Cambridge residents to take their

summer vacations in August, you are not giving your citizens adequate time to learn about or give you feedback on this proposal. 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 21 Alexandra Markiewiez, 6 Laurel Street Good evening councilors. I strongly support the Affordable Housing Overlay and urge you to move forward on this important measure as soon as possible. As a resident, I have been surprised by the amount of controversy this simple proposal has caused. If we are to truly make headway on the affordability crisis we face, to prevent the amount of displacement we continue to see, and build a stronger city that makes sure people have a place to call home - we are going to have to do some serious soul searching as a community about what it takes to be that kind of City. The Affordable Housing Overlay is just the first step - it simply will make it slightly more feasible to make more affordable housing in our city. All it is asking is that we, as a community, allow buildings that are slightly bigger than current zoning allows (but, I will note, are in line with what currently exists) and asks us to give over a small amount of control over design. That is all. I hate to break it to you, but we are going to have to do a lot more to make this place truly more equitable and affordable. We are going to need to make space for people - for people to stay here, for people to come back here, and for new people to move here (we are not that bad, I promise). So I want to ask everyone single person in this room whether they are prepared to make space for people - to give up whatever they perceive they need to give up - so that we can live up to our values. Councilors, 1 urge you to pass this overlay soon. I support amendments that make everyone happy, but do not, under any circumstances, reduce the effectiveness of this Overlay. We need to get this done now so we can figure out what to do next as soon as possible.

ATTACHMENT 22 City Council Ordinance Committee Up-Zoning Amendments, August 1, 2019 Carol Weinhaus I am here today to speak against the amendments to the City's proposed zoning overlay. The amendments are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. This whole process fails to let people who live and work in the City understand what this zoning does. The City is using affordable housing as a cover for its plans to double the density of the City. Here are some failures of the zoning and amendments: First, the only legal notification of the zoning is this postcard sent out citywide. I get more information in city mailers on water rates and property taxes. . Most people don't know that this This postcard uses the phrase "allowed as of right" phrase means that you will have no legal rights to dispute buildings allowed by this zoning. And that, once passed, this zoning can't be changed for two years. Second, the zoning is unreadable. It uses Orwellian language. I was at a Planning Board meeting where the some board members and the Community Development Department openly discussed how to use the term "sunset" without having the zoning actually having real pend date. I suggest that people go to the Cambridge Citizen's Coalition website for images and who qualifies. Fifth, there is no way people can keep up with the changes. City is holding critical meetings this summer, when many people are out of town. The meeting dates keep changing. More meetings are added. The text of the zoning keeps changing. You're rushing this through before the November election. In summary, you're hiding from people what you're actually doing. Developers have more rights than citizens. These amendments don't help. We all want affordable housing, but this plan is very risky, deeply flawed, and opens the floodgates to large-scale developments citywide.

ATTACHMENT 23 August 1, 2019 RE: Support for AHO / Affordable Housing Overlay Ordinance Committee Meeting on August 1, 2019 Dear City Councillors - I wish to again express my strongest support for the swift passage of the AHO. I appreciate the thoughtfulness and careful deliberations you have all invested in drafting and amending this ordinance. But the time has finally arrived to act, and act quickly to pass this much needed Overlay. Every day that you equivocate or delay, many of our existing residents, city workers, and families are losing their homes due to rising housing costs and rents. These are the people, not me, you will have to explain your equivocations to. We are in a time of housing crisis, and any delay is devastating to those residents, families and friends. We all know that the AHO is not the perfect solution, nor will it solve all our affordable housing needs. But, it is a critical first step to address the city's most pressing and urgent need. In the end, it all comes down to our priorities. Yes, shadows and flower gardens are important considerations to many, but losing a home is devastating and of much greater significance. What kind of city do we want to live in? Regarding our environment, the construction of more housing here in Cambridge is the best and most effective improvement we can make. Yes, trees are important. Lets plant more of them. But each and every single additional work-related car commuter trip into Cambridge - made by either a past resident or future worker who cannot afford to live here - will emit far more carbon into the air, by a multiple factor, than a newly planted tree can absorb. When put into the context of this bigger picture, new housing is the most effective environment contribution we can all make to healing our city, region and planet. So, as you finalize your thoughts, any amendments you are considering must maintain these key principles. Otherwise the AHO will be rendered ineffective: The AHO, when completed, must still maintain financial feasibility for affordable housing developers. The Overlay must apply city-wide to begin to correct the historical wrong of redlining and discriminatory zoning which still determines our city's current housing patterns. Every neighborhood must contribute its fair share. None can take a pass. And finally, the AHO must be drafted to look forward to address our city's current and future housing need, and stop paying overly undue reverence of the past. Cities grow. Cities change. We too must be willing to change too. Once again, I urge you to swiftly pass the AHO. Please vote to do the right thing. Sincerely, Lawrence Bluestone, 18 Centre Street

ATTACHMENT 24 Lopez, Donna From: Virginia Coleman < [email removed]> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 12:39 PM To: City Council; Clerk Subject: Proposed overlay I write to express my strong opposition to the proposed zoning overlay, which essentially would turn over the future of the City of Cambridge to private developers so long as what they were building could be categorized as affordable housing. We would all like Cambridge to be a place where people of all economic circumstances can live. However, that is just one goal which the City should recognize and encourage; it is not THE goal for which virtually everything else that we value about our City should be sacrificed. What about our ever shrinking tree canopy? What about traffic and congestion? What about our historic areas? Shall we just pave everything over? Worst of all, as noted at the outset, is the premise that this may all be put in the hands of private developers, who would have a free hand. The notion that developers would operate for the public good is sheer lunacy. Their purpose is to make money. There is nothing at all wrong with this per se, so long as there is a regulatory environment that requires that non-financial values that contribute to quality of life and sustainability of the planet be taken into account. Take that away and we will be left with a city that no one who can afford not to will want to live in. Virginia Coleman 2 Berkeley Place, Cambridge

ATTACHMENT 25 118-120 Aberdeen Ave. Zack Goldberg I'm strongly opposed to this Overlay. I'm concerned because it seems that some members of City Council Cheluding the Mayon, are misrepresenting the Overlay and its potential negative repercussions. They are not recognizing the potential for development money flooding into Cambridge and development spiraling out of control. You say that won't happen? Just look at Alewife - by the time City Council recognized too much was happening too quickly - they were powerless to stop it. Some have There are no safeguards or limits in place with this Proposal. The Mayor has cited a review in 5 years, but from a practical standpoint that's useless. Let's not pretend otherwise. It seems that both the Mayor and certain members of City Council are trying to rush this through to a September vote, at a time when people are away and not paying attention. I have personally spoken with upwards of 40 residents about the Overlay, and a grand total of 2 of them were even aware of it. When I mention a few of the Overlay's designs, like minimal setbacks, high densities, and the inability for abutters to appeal - they're horrified. Most don't believe something like that could be possible. If you ram this through in September, and these developments start occurring on streets that don't have those building heights, high densities, and minimal setbacks, and more old growth trees are cut down in the name of even further development, I would prepare yourselves for a firestorm. massive backlash. There a host of other issues with this Overlay, including: • it doesn't help the teachers, librarians, and civil servants who want to live closer to their work • there is already considerable affordable housing in Cambridge - the percentage of affordable housing now is effectively higher than it was under rent control, and every new development will have 20% of its units designated as affordable - that ensures that these affordable units will continue to grow • Cambridge is already exceedingly dense - it's now denser than Boston • And finally, these units are projected to cost upwards of $500k per unit. That is simply a gross misuse of public funds. In conclusion, affordable housing is a worthy goal, but other goals that help make Cambridge special (like quality of life) shouldn't be thrown out wholesale. I hope reasonable minds prevail and this Proposal is given the required time and analysis it clearly needs.

ATTACHMENT 26 Cambridge Nonprotit Coalition August 1, 2019 Members of the Cambridge City Council- I come tonight to again testify in support of the Affordable Housing Overlay on behalf of the Cambridge Nonprofit Coalition, and communicate the support of more than 30 nonprofit leaders serving Cambridge who have signed this letter. The concerns that were raised at the multiple Housing Committee hearings and the previous Ordinance Committee meeting should be put forward in specific amendments so that they can be reviewed, discussed and voted upon within the very limited time that this process allows. We are concerned that without specific deadlines for amendment submission by City Councilors, the process can expire without any action taken on the Overlay, thus delaying an important intervention for barriers limiting the development of affordable housing. Not moving forward on the Overlay negatively impacts Cambridge's ability to address its affordable housing crisis. To those who say we have done enough, we remind them that since the elimination of rent control in 1995, the city's affordable housing has decreased from 15.45% to 14.7% between 1997 and 2016. Home prices of single-family housing rose 84%, two-family home prices by 77% and condominium prices by 44%. Rents rose by 65% for one-bedroom apartments, 70% for two bedroom apartments, and 90% for three family households. Without the Overlay, non-profit developers will continue to be priced out of the market, as will the thousands of low and moderate-income tenants on waiting lists for an affordable rent. The Overlay is a reasonable solution that the city has the authority to implement, without having to wait for other home rule petitions to pass at the State House. The Overlay proposes low-density development, community input for design review and citywide access for affordable housing. The Overlay is an important addition to the city's affordable housing toolbox. It is not intended to solve Cambridge's housing crisis but does address the current major zoning barrier that negatively impacts the ability to build affordable housing in Cambridge. On behalf of Cambridge Nonprofit Coalition, I urge you to move forward on the Overlay so that it can be approved this year. Sincerely, Elena Sokolow-Kaufman Managing Director, Cambridge Nonprofit Coalition

CNC Member Organizations Maria LaPage, Agassiz Baldwin Community Rouwenna Altemose, All in Energy Gina Scaramella, Boston Area Rape Crisis Center Elissa Spelman, Breakthrough Greater Boston Sharon Zimmerman, Cambridge Camping Association Darrin Korte, Cambridge Community Center Tina Alu, Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee Bob Gittens, Cambridge Family and Children's Service Jennifer Fries, Cambridge School Volunteers Jane Hirschi, CitySprouts David Gibbs, Community Action Agency of Somerville Eryn Johnson, Community Art Center Gail Packer, Community Dispute Settlement Center Michael Delia, East End House Ben Clark, Enroot (formerly Cambridge Community Services) Jessica Taubner, FlI- Greater Boston Laurent Adamowicz, Eradicate Childhood Obesity Foundation (EChO) Sasha Purpura, Food for Free Shiela Moore, Hildebrand Family Self-Help Center Peter Daly, Homeowner's Rehab Michael Dawson, Innovators for Purpose Carl Nagy-Koechlin, Just-A-Start Corporation Selvin Chambers, Margaret Fuller Neighborhood House Paulo Pinto, Massachusetts Alliance of Portuguese Speakers Martha Sandler, On the Rise Sarah Gyorog, Transition House Kathryn Fenneman, Tutoring Plus of Cambridge Bruce Bird, Vinfen Jessye Kass, The Women's Center Joan Squeri, The Union Partnership for a Whole Community Eva Martin Blythe, YWCA Cambridge (CNC Member Abstentions: CCTV, The Loop Lab, Charles River Conservancy, Cambridge Local First, Cambridge Volunteer Clearinghouse)

AITACHMENT 27 Cambridge City Council Ordinance Committee August 1, 2019 Testimony My name is Tina Alu and I live at 113 ½ Pleasant Street. I am testifying as a Cambridge resident and as the Director of Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee (CEOC.) Once again, I am here in support of the Affordable Housing Overlay. There have been more opportunities for providing information and obtaining community input on the Overlay than any issue that I have witnessed in my 32 years in Cambridge. And yet still people are saying that they we need to slow the process down and take more time before we move forward. We don't have time to wait. In a recent survey of CEOC participants, 89% of respondents indicated that increasing affordable housing and preventing homelessness were the most important issues that the City needed to address. These results mirror those of many other surveys and needs assessments conducted in the City. Many of our participants and their friends and family members have been displaced from Cambridge due to increasing housing costs and the lack of affordable options. Other moderate and middle-income families struggle to stay as the costs continue to rise. Homeownership is out of reach for most renters, including many long-term Cambridge residents. Passing the Overlay can stem displacement and provide more families with an opportunity to stay or move back to the city. It you want to keep from losing more of our tamilies and maintain the equity and diversity that we celebrate in Cambridge, Time's Up! The City Council needs to take action and move this ordinance forward and refrain from adding amendments that will negatively impact the overlay's ability to produce more affordable housing that is so critical for our City. Thank you.

ATTACHMENT 25 My name is Elaine DeRosa and I live at 4 Pleasant Place and I support affordable housing no ifs, ands, or buts! I am here to speak in support of the Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay. The Overlay will create the opportunity for the development of much needed affordable housing throughout Cambridge, to address Cambridge's declared affordable housing crisis. The Overlay will not create skyscrapers in neighborhoods, destroy historical buildings, kill the tree canopy, eliminate open space, destroy neighborhood character, increase traffic or parking or support for-profit developers. The Overlay will provide affordable housing forsome thousands of Cambridge residents waiting for a place to live in their community. We therefore need to continue to move this process within its legal timeline so that we can have the Overlay in place for the upcoming year. Without the implementation of the Overlay, we lose precious time in this extremely hot Cambridge housing market and therefore we lose the opportunity to build affordable homes for those who are waiting. Any amendments that seek to limit the ability to build affordable housing laid out in the Overlay zoning should be rejected. Also the as of right clause is critical to changing what is now a privileged process of a limited number of property owners deciding for the rest of us. I also recommend that a sunset clause not be included given that it can take years to put together the funding for affordable housing developments. I think that a review process after several years of development would serve the purpose of evaluating our successes and what we can improve. Where a sunset clause would a bitarily at end the overay.

ATTACHMENT 29 Lopez, Donna From: Carolyn Fuller < [email removed]> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 8:17 PM To: Clerk; City Council Chairman Carlone and Councilors, Subject: Chairman Carlone and Councilors, My name is Carolyn Fuller - 12 Douglass St, a home owner, a 50 year resident of Cambridge, 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 restrictions for 100% affordable housing so affordable housing will have some chance to compete with market rate development. 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

ATTACHMENT 30 Crane, Paula From: Cathleen Higgins <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 1:37 AM To: City Council; Clerk Comments on the Affordable Housing Overlay for Ordinance Committee 8-1-19 Subject: CommentsAHO8-1-19.docx Attachments: To the Members of the Ordinance Committee, Please accept (attached) my written comments in strong support of the Affordable Housing Overlay, in memory of my friend and tireless advocate for affordable housing, Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli. Thank you. Cathleen Higgins

My name is Cathleen Higgins, I live at 345 Norfolk St. Most everything for and against the Affordable Housing Overlay has been said so it comes down to relaying what is fundamental and true-—and if there is anything new. I suggest looking at history and context and in that vein, will examine two examples of community opposition to the creation of housing. First example, I would like to quote from a review of a book that came out in 1962, called "But Not Next Door" by Harry and David Rosen. It's about what happened in Deerfield, Ill, an all-white suburb of Chicago when a developer tried to build the first integrated housing there in 1959. He proposed to build 51 homes of which 10- 12 would go to black families. It's chilling how similar the arguments in opposition to the AHO are to the ones used by those citizens who rose up to fight his proposal. From the review ''One minister analyzed the strategy of the fight against the development as one "to conceal real motives under socially acceptable masks of reasonable argument." What were the arguments? First, that the builders came in stealthily and treacherouslv to impose integration on a helpless community ("guinea pigs") not actuallv opposed to the principle of integration; [emphasis added] and, second, that the builders would profit from the development but in so doing would force home values down and thereby bring economic loss to the citizens...'" They also sought out "legal" ways to kill the project: in the recent past, voters had twice defeated bond issues to expand parks. Now saying housing shouldn't be built on the site because it should be a park, the bond carried by a 2-1 margin. My 2nª example is from 1973. This is a quote from a sign created by abutters in opposition to the building of Inman Square Apartments, here in Cambridge, where my friend and housing expert Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli (CAPZ) lived. It says: " STOP HIGH RISES / PRESERVE INMAN SQUARE. Support Rezoning of Inman Square -to limit height of buildings, -to provide more open space, -to control density of population, -to prevent, indirectly a raise in rents and in increase in traffic." It then lists an upcoming hearing on rezoning before the Planning Board. (Emphasis on the attempt to use zoning to prevent creation of affordable housing.) Thankfully this did not prevail. (different times...) Inman Square is comprised of 90 affordable studio and one bedroom apartments, in addition to family townhouse units. This is a beautiful, diverse community and I am happy to have met many wonderful, interesting people who live there, that I am privileged to know. Inman Square is made richer by their presence. Who are you in the opposition, who recoil at living in or near a "tower' ', to say that slightly taller and denser buildings of 4 or 5 stories-(not even close to the 13 stories of Inman Square Apts, regrettably)-are unwelcome, undesirable. You are insulting the folks who live at the Manning, Rindge, Roosevelt Towers by denigrating their homes. I think this fight for the AHO hearkens back to these examples and others across the state and country—and it's about the privileged fighting to maintain their status quo. I would ask the City Councilors in opposition to the AHO, instead of listing 1-20 their reasons for their opposition, to really look at the history of zoning and why it was implemented and what racial and economic injustices it continues to preserve. It privileges the voices of the advantaged who have the time and resources to attend these forums, to pay experts to analyze issues. (To quote from CAPZ's testimony): Miriam Axel-Lute raises this important issue, "What things do we allow a group of people at the local level to decide for themselves, and what things should a higher level of government override in the name of values, like human rights, civil rights, fairness, or equity?" (Miriam Axel-Lute, "Is Local Control I am not ashamed to say the name and invoke the memory of Good or Bad?" 19 February, 2019, Shelterforce) Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli, who has been gone but 3 months. If she were here, she would respectfully ask you to do the right thing and move forward this tool to assist non-profit developers house a few more people in Cambridge. I know some of you have the full testimony that CAPZ sent to the Housing Committee and/or the City Council, but I have taken the liberty to provide some excerpts from her remarks, for your reading enjoyment (see below). Thank you.

ATTACHMENT 31 Lopez, Donna From: Crane, Paula Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 8:30 AM To: Lopez, Donna Subject: AHO Consideration FW: Ordinance Committee: Importance: High From: Carol O'Hare <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 4:57 PM o: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV: Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov? Subject: Ordinance Committee: AHO Consideration Importance: High Dear Councillors Carlone and Kelley, Chairs, and Ordinance Committee Members: It's no revelation that summer's (esp. August) is a bad time for drafting, revising and later fine-tuning and laws. Amend, add, omit, confirm consistencies, remove inconsistencies, clarify ambiguities, confirm legality, etc. It seems abundantly clear from all the amendments suggested by various councillors and others, including loads of neighborhood organization listserv and other discussion. Besides that, many essential questions and major concerns remain, including: • Is this citywide zoning mechanism really how to get the best, affordable housing bang-for-the-buck and in locations near public transportation? • Isn't $500K per apartment really pricey? • What about tree-protection? • Will AHO buildings be jammed in, depriving both occupants and abutters of meaningful open space, light and air? • Why render the Planning Board a mere advisory body with no clout to induce better design? • Why has CDD spent so much time and effort on marketing? • And, then: Would such an amendment violate G.L. c. 40A, the Zoning Enabling Act? I expect the usual: "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." But, the AHO amendment is not good at this point. Trying to patching it up with bits and pieces between now and the drop-dead date is a loser. So, I hope you will reconsider letting the AHO lapse and restarting when there's been a more holistic analysis and report on legitimate questions, suggestions, concerns and objections raised by people all over the city. Thank you, as always for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Carol O'Hare 172 Magazine St. Cc: Paula Crane, Interim City Clerk - Please file this with the Official Record. Virus-free. www.avg.com 1

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT 32 Crane, Paula From: Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 8:28 AM To: Lopez, Donna Subject: FW: Ordinance Committee Comments, 2019/08/01 From: Christopher Schmidt <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 11:40 PM To: Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov>; City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Subject: Ordinance Committee Comments, 2019/08/01 Members of the Council, Deputy City Clerk, My comments from the 2019/08/01 Ordinance committee meeting follow, for the record. All the best. ----- I'm Christopher Schmidt, and I live at 17 Laurel St. in Cambridge, and am a 14 year resident of Cambridgeport. To those who are "all" in favor of affordable housing, I say: show it. Show that you are willing to see the city you live in change to support affordable housing. Show that you are willing to trust the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust, the Planning Board, affordable housing developers, and your neighbors. Show that you're willing to give up on some of the levers of control. Show that you're willing to give up on some of the things you have in order to support those who don't have in our city. We have created a situation which is untenable in the city: After more than 80 years of reducing what can be built via zoning, our current zoning makes it impossible to build the housing we need in this city to respond to our citywide housing crisis: we have zoned such that we can not build the housing we need. It is simply not possible to create the housing we need under our current zoning. To those who say we should not be willing to change our current zoning, I say that we are in a crisis, and we should act like it. To think that the housing size guidelines written 20, 60, or almost 100 years ago were designed to respond to our current crisis is beyond belief. We must change the rules of the game in order to solve the problems our low-income families face. The city's zoning code can not and should not be considered as a tool to protect the minority of homeowners in this city. If we can use this as a tool to improve to achieve our goals of protecting our low-income community, we should step up to do so. We have so much more to do: tenant protections. First time Homeowner support. Rent stabilization. Finding ways to increase inclusionary units through development of our corridors. These things are all much bigger tasks, and much bigger impacts. If as a City, we decide we can't allow the building of buildings like the ones we already have throughout the city to make a small difference in building affordable housing, the idea that we can move forward to implement 1

the much more demanding solutions that are needed to solve the housing crisis that all residents of Cambridge face becomes simply unbelievable. Please, move forward on the affordable housing overlay, so that we can continue to move forward to work on more solutions to affordable housing in our fair city. I support the Affordable Housing Overlay, and I ask you to move forward with it as quickly as practical. - Chris 2

ATTACHMENT 33 Wad to tear batore speaking Ro#) Janet Reckman- A Newport First I would like to thank the members of this ordinance committee for your service to our city. The Cambridge city website Affordable Housing Overlay project page offers the following description: «quote> "The goal is to help affordable housing developers, using public funds, create new affordable units more quickly, more cost effectively, and in areas where there are fewer affordable housing options for residents." ‹end quote› I completely agree with that goal. I agree that there is a housing crisis. Still, I do not agree with the proposed Overlay solution as currently written. The word "crisis" often pushes people to extreme action. For/exam hyginDecessaryamary separation aner the depo pable raging evenilere. So it is precisely during a crisis that calm heads must prevail. If your house is on fire, undeniably a crisis, you don't see flames and immediately throw your baby out a second-story window. Instead, you look for an escape solution, hopefully through practiced, safe options. And ultimately, if all practiced escape routes are blocked, and you do have to go through that second story window, you make sure there is a safety net to prevent injury. This current Overlay proposal includes extreme measures by including "by right development" ", throwing current zoning and development requirements figuratively out the window, with no safety net below. In contrast, Cambridge's practiced affordable housing developments over the past 30 years, as pictured on the Affordable Housing Trust web page, have served the city well. In tact, according to the Massachusetts

state website, we rank number 11 out of 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts, providing 14.8% subsidized housing at last calculation. That's in the top 4%. This was accomplished in a number of ways, including by often waving zoning requirements for affordable housing projeets. And yes it takes longer this way, but we are building a city here, not a house of cards. Can we do better? Yes! But extreme changes to height, FAR, and density, along with environmental concerns, given no ability to negotiate on individual projects is not the solution. The very weak set of guidelines recently sent to this Ordinance Committee as an amendment, full of "suggestions" "should's" and "may consider" ", with NO teeth, using NO words such as "will", "shall", or "must", provides no comfort and is not the solution. Additionally, lack of any ordinance safety nets such as time limits or number of units developed, with no opportunity to amend or reverse the overlay in the next two years, is not the solution. Many feel that in addition to our housing crisis, we have a city development crisis. This overlay throws a wild card into the City Planning mix, and I believe would harm our city. Whether due to exhaustion, or frustration, or attempted manipulation, those officials who proclaim "It's a start! Let's adopt it and see what happens" are shirking their responsibilities. We can do better. I say NO to this AHO. Thank you Reckman

31 Comparison of AHT review criteria: 2019 AHT website vs. AHT "2019 Trust report" AHT 2019 Report text Current AHT web page text Introduction the Trust has a long-standing commitment Introduction The Trust has a long-standing. commitment to creating high-quality housing that is well directly directly to support high-quality housing that is well- integrated into the greater community and integrated into the community and that will preceding preceding criteria remain affordable for future generations. criteria that will remain affordable for future bullets: bullets: Some of the criteria the Trust uses when generations. Some of the criteria the Trust reviewing proposals for new programs, uses when reviewing proposals for new policies, and housing developments programs, palicies, and housing developments include: Bullet # in Bullet # on Current AHT web page text AHT 2019 Report text 2019 Report web page Creation and preservation of long-term Creation and preservation of long-term 1. affordability affordability High-quality sustainable design to benefit High quality and sustainable design, 2. housing residents and the surrounding including use of energy efficient materials neighborhood and community Use of energy-efficient materiais, and < See above> 3. environmentally friendly construction techniques Emphasis on the creation of family-sized 4. Creation of family-sized housing units 2. housing (units with two or more bedrooms) Use of trust funds to leverage funding Leveraging of Trust funds by other public 5. 5. commitments from other public and private and private financing sources financing sources Creation of both rental and home 3. New ownership housing that serves a range of incomes Omissions in red type Additions in green type Reckman

ATTACHMENT 34 Lopez, Donna James Zall <[email removed]> From: Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 8:54 PM To: City Council; Lopez, Donna Subject: Aug 1 Ordinance Committee Our current shortage of affordable housing has been, at a minimum, made worse by restrictions that have been embedded in our zoning laws for decades. The Overlay aims to use the tools of zoning in the opposite direction, to promote the production of lower-cost housing But we've heard many people, here and at the Planning Board hearings, argue that the only legitimate use of zoning is to keep property values high, to protect the interests of present homeowners. Some are expecting, even demanding, to be spared from unwanted change from whatever conditions existed when they first came to Cambridge. Other people have expressed similar views in anonymous -- and highly inaccurate--- letters left at residents' homes and in postings on anonymous websites. In the last city election, nearly all of the present City Councillors cited the rising cost of housing as an important issue. In addressing this issue, the Council should represent the interests of ALL Cambridge residents, not just those who already own their own homes, not just the loudest, not just the well-off and the well-financed. To that end, the Zoning Overlay proposal should be moved along toward passage by the full Council. James Zall 203 Pemberton St. North Cambridge Sent from my tablet.

ATTACHMENT 35 Nathalre Janson 38 Maple Are #2 any sol. tomisproblem must inel. Thank you for allowery me to speak in front otte commite. I'm here because I support the affordable housing overlay. The rising cost of housing in Cambridge is one of the biggest challenges facing us today, and tea One going tiring, building more affordable housing. What we have in front of us is a proposal that will streamline and improve the zoning process for affordable housing, making it less costly and risky than it is today., We need to act on this now, as the gap in affordability grows larger every day while, members of our community are having to make impossible decisions in order to stay in Cambridgelf we as a city say we support affordable housing and care about inclusivity, we need to have a zoning system that encourages the production of affordable housing. ^ norshymies It will also open up moreopportunities for alhordable housing development in the lity. w hane to remember har wren me ramabout "units, we are talkry abour homes and people real

ATTACHMENT 36 Thank you for the opportunity to speak again in favor of the Affordable Housing Ordinance. My name is Margaret Donnelly Moran. I am Director of Planning and Development for the Cambridge Housing Authority. As you know the Cambridge Housing Authority as one of three non-profit developers in Cambridge is in favor of the proposal. Tonight, we would like to urge the Committee to continue to move expeditiously forward with its adoption. The suggestions that it has been rushed or not considered against other possible options are red herrings. It is true there may be other options available, and on that point we would urge the City to continue to consider any and all options that would assist in adding affordable housing in Cambridge's very high cost market. Any additional options would be a welcome complement to the Affordable Housing overlay since more than one solution is needed to address the affordable housing crisis in Cambride. I would also advise that you consider any of the changes to ordinance carefully to determine if meet the goal of expanding aces or it deal housing all neighborhood, ine streamline and financial feasible way. Finally, time for action is now before more opportunities for affordable housing are lost. In the past month, CHA looked at a parcel near Inman Square where an as of right a developer could construct 3 units. We were further advised that as a savvy developer could probably squeeze out a 4* unit so the for land tost property owner was holding out for $2M for the parcel or $ 500,000 per unit - a cost not viable for affordable housing development. Under the overlay, we estimatest we could do 8 units cutting the land cost in half and making it viable for affordable housing development. 1 wish i could say that opportunities like the one i described are commonplace for the CHAfersible They are not. The Affordable Housing Overlay would allow for some of these opportunities to be viabte, and allow us to continue to add attractive, quality affordable housing in Cambridge. As for Manning Thank you. Apartments which was referenced early, there was no City if in the project's financing Many of the attractive design features Margaret Dunselly Moran becaus mentioned were done to meat the needs of Cumbridge Housing Authority 362 Green Street residents as they age in place and im CHA Cämbridge, MA 02139 being a long term ownen, basert e envirouentally" good meighter, and committed to sustainable; quahit design. The Affordable Housing Overlay will not change thit.

ATTACHMENT 37 #JAS 1035 Cambridge Street, #12 | Cambridge, MA 02141 | T: [phone removed] | www.justastart.org Just-A-Start Corporation The Honorable Dennis J. Carlone The Honorable Craig A. Kelley Ordinance Committee of the Cambridge City Council 795 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139 Honorable Chairmen and Members of the Committee, As the new Executive Director of Just-A-Start, I am writing to reaffirm our organization's support of the Affordable Housing Overlay. I see this as an essential tool for JAS to continue its mission of providing affordable housing in Cambridge. The law, as written, will allow us to compete for a modest number of new projects and continue to develop much needed affordable housing in Cambridge. As my predecessor--Deborah Ruhe-- has testified, JAS was unable to acquire two sites in the past two years that are instead being developed into market rate housing. If the overlay were enacted, these properties could instead be on their way to housing Cambridge families in need. Now is the time to enact the overlay before more opportunities are lost. With the proposed amendments, many of the changes are reasonable and strengthen the ordinance. I would like to comment specifically on two areas of concern: • JAS considers a five year review of the proposed zoning to be a minimum reasonable timeframe. If the ordinance were enacted, we expect the first site we acquire to be completed and occupied within that period. A shorter review period would be meaningless with the time needed for acquisition, financing, and construction, and even the 5 year horizon might invite pressure for changes to the ordinance as only the first units to be developed under it are being are being completed and integrated into their neighborhoods. • Several of the proposed amendments to the overlay include subjective design standards for the AHO developments. Our view is that including these standards in the ordinance would expose any approved projects to legal challenge. Four recent JAS projects have faced legal challenges; delaying construction for years and incurring significant legal expense. The ordinance's community meeting and Planning Board review requirements provide effective means of reviewing project design that would not expose a development to legal challenges and delays.

I'd also like to thank the Council and City staff for the effort, patience, and countless hours of hard work to develop this policy. 1 appreciate for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Vagy-Koechlir Executive Director

ATTACHmENT 38 YWCA Cambridge Supports 100% Affordable Housing Overlay August 1, 2019 Members of Council, thank you for this opportunity to voice YWCA Cambridge's support for the 100% affordable housing overlay. My name is Eva Martin Blythe and as I have indicated I am here representing the YWCA Cambridge, located at 7 Temple Street in Central Square. I was in this Chamber about this same time yesterday evening advocating for continuation of Community Preservation Act funds for affordable housing. Here we are again - me and others who also were here last night - continuing to advocate for funding for affordable housing. You may be assured that every time that the opportunity presents itself YWCA Cambridge will be front and center reminding you that there simply isn't enough affordable housing to meet the need in our community and asking you to support efforts to alleviate that pervasive problem. You also may be assured that when there is a proposal on the table, such as the 100% affordable housing overlay, that offers a reasonable solution to our ever-growing housing crisis, we will support it The overlay may not be perfect but it offers a reasonable, manageable solution to the problem. While we continue to try to micro-manage and add amendments to the proposal that will weigh it down and adversely affect its ability to help produce more affordable housing, it feels like we are fiddling while "Rome burns". And, at the same time as more and more individuals and families either leave Cambridge or never come here because they can't afford the cost of housing, we are running the risk of becoming a one dimensional community of haves, lacking economic, racial and other forms of diversity. I trust and believe that you as decision-makers don't want our city to be characterized in that way. The YWCA's mission is "the elimination of racism and the empowerment of women". In Cambridge we carry out that mission by providing safe, affordable housing for women. In fact, we consistently have "empowered" our sisters by providing safe, affordable housing since 1911. When women leave our housing they need a next step -- someplace to go where they can live comfortably and that they can afford. We all seek those attributes. Members of Council, we ask that you support the 100% affordable housing overlay in order to keep Cambridge affordable, livable and living up to its reputation as a progressive, welcoming city for those who are here and those who want to live and work here. Thank you.

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT 39 From: Derek Kopon < [email removed]> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 12:08 PM [email removed] To: Dominick Jones; McGovern, Marc; Devereux, Jan; Carlone, Dennis; Kelley, Craig; Mallon, Cc: Alanna; Siddiqui, Sumbul; Simmons, Denise; Toomey, Tim; Zondervan, Quinton; Clerk; Suzanne; Jean Krulic; Fred Meyer, Realtor; Robert Winters; cambridge-small- [email removed]; Jane gottschalk; Serena Fix; Amy Perlmutter; Barbara Baker; Bill Bean; Tom Meek; Ruth Ryals; Steve Weissburg; [email removed] Subject: Re: [cambridge-small-landlords] AHO for profit This policy is so stupid. On Aug 1, 2019, at 6:40 AM, "[email removed]" <[email removed]> wrote: This is SO scary. What can we do to stop it? Are there meetings? Petitions? Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device Original message---- From: Dominick Jones Date: Wed, Jul 31, 2019 4:11 PM To: Dominick Jones mcgovern@cambridgema.gov;jdevereux@cambridgema.gov;dcarlone@cambridgema.gov;ckelley@cambri dgema.gov;amallon@cambridgema.gov;ssiddiqui@cambridgema.gov;dsimmons@cambridgema.gov;ttoomey@ca mbridgema.gov;qzondervan@cambridgema.gov;Clerk, Cambridge City;Suzanne;Derek Kopon;Jean Krulic;Fred Meyer, Realtor;Robert Winters;[email removed];Jane gottschalk;Serena Fix;Amy Perlmutter;Barbara Baker;Bill Bean;Tom Meek;Ruth Ryals;Steve Weissburg; Subject: [cambridge-small-landlords] AHO for profit City Councillors and concerned neighbours Developers will try to pick the most advantageous zoning system if the Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay is passed. Why is this a problem? The new one is enormously profitable. It is meant to be profitable, but no one seems to realize that it is so profitable that ALL developers (including market rate developers) will try to fit into the new overlay. And what's wrong with that? We risk having Cambridge studded with random oversized tall blocks, opportunistic, not subject to an overall plan for the City. We risk turning Cambridge into a dreary Soviet style encampment. We risk killing the goose that has laid the golden eggs. Enormously profitable? Yes. The City itself has spelled out (City Manager's letter of 21 June to the City Council) that one fifth of last year's residential sales (45 out of 227 sales) could have been bought for affordable housing had the overlay been in place, because the overlay would allow an average of five times the housing density (887 units in place of 174).

Any developer would find it very attractive to have five somewhat modest guaranteed rental streams instead of one at market. I have noted how quiet developers have been to date. This is why. If the overlay be passed, don't expect much market rate housing to go up. And it is market rate housing the City needs because that will relieve the pressure on rents across the board: more places to rent means lower rents. It will also reduce the subsidies for which the city will have to tax the market. In any successful city, housing has to get denser and higher. But, it needs planning and design. Instead, the overlay renders toothless the Planning Board, our only defence against a grim city. And as-of-right is like saying you can have any colour you want provided it is black. it is tantamount to saying the democratic process is too expensive, so we'll do away with it. Urban planners provide many ways to encourage these denser ends, but they are not being discussed. Why not switch gradually over to an increased land tax element and a reduced building element? This would encourage development of undeveloped land because the act of developing would not attract additional tax as it does now. This should be coupled with gradual changes in zoning in accordance with some overall design for the inner city, overseen by a powerful Planning Board. No attention is being paid to housing pressure produced by the universities and high tech. It is high tech which drives demand for middle class service jobs, and therefore affordable housing. And lobbying for improved mass transit to relieve inner city pressure has not even been mentioned, let alone discussed. This Fall, I could not honestly vote for any Council candidate who does not realize what a dangerous one-sided shambles is currently being proposed. Dominick Jones, 6 Hurlbut Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 Dominick Jones. 6 Hurlbut Street, Cambridge Dominick Jones www.dominick-jones.com

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMEN T40 From: Crane, Paula Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 12:25 PM To: Lopez, Donna Subject: FW: Comments for August 1 meeting From: Braga, Patrick <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 11:25 AM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Comments for August 1 meeting Dear City Council: I continue to support the Affordable Housing Overlay and would like to see it moved to a formal vote quickly. Personally, I'm fine with amendments so long as the law is predictable and by right, and especially if the amendments help secure the votes we need for adopting the AHO as law. As a general rule, I strongly support mandatory periodic review of zoning laws, and would even urge you to extend the same five-year review requirement being considered for the AHO to all land use regulations in Cambridge. Thank you for your hard work on this. Kindest regards, Patrick Braga 11 Everett St. Patrick Braga '20 Master in Urban Planning Real Estate and Urban Development Harvard University Graduate School of Design

ATTACHMENT 4[phone removed] Brad Bellows 87 Howard Street Cambridge MA 02139 1 August 2019 Cambridge City Council Ordinance Committee 875 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge MA 02139 c/o Paul Crane, Deputy City Clerk re: AHO - Additional Height Overlay Dear Councillors, Economic diversity has always been central to Cambridge's identity, from our manufacturing roots right up to the present, albeit with challenges along the way. In recent years we've done more than most other cities to preserve that diversity, and we need to do more, even as the primary drivers of the current real estate bubble are largely beyond our direct control. At first glance, the appealingly named "Affordable Housing Overlay" might seem like clever, market-based way to expand the supply of affordable housing, but on closer inspection, its limitations, drawbacks and unintended consequences come into sharp relief. First, by limiting zoning relief to projects that are 100% income segregated, it betrays the very ideals it seeks to advance, and sows seeds of resentment that could prove quite counterproductive. We would be far better served by building on and expanding the inclusionary mixed-income zoning policies that have already helped us to exceed state guidelines for affordable housing while staying true to our values. Second, providing a blanket zoning exemption for one particular building type is a breach of trust for all the other citizens who have been faithfully conforming to the zoning ordinances for decades, often at considerable sacrifice, and depended on those protections. When the first 50' tall building goes into a neighborhood of homes half that size, and people wake up to discover that this can happen anywhere, with no appeal, the Council will have a revolution on its hands. Third, while AHO is pitched as "form-based", its main effect seems to be to undermine neighborhood scale and quality of life by allowing the random insertion of outsized structures wherever the market dictates. Cambridge is appealing in part because we have set guardrails for market forces to diligently safeguard our physical environment. Sacrificing one important value to achieve another is bad policy. There are places where significant density increases make sense, but not catch-as-catch-can on neighborhood streets. CDD's single-minded focus on the AHO, which would transfer to them design review responsibilities that have been well-served for decades by other civic bodies, has turned consensus into conflict and deprived the Council of the broader range of policy options you deserve. You have been given one choice only, and a dangerously flawed choice whose consequences have scarcely been considered. I appreciate the diligence with which you have approached this issue, and encourage you to request smarter and less destructive policy options to accomplish what we all agree is needed. Sincerely, Bond Bellems