Search ▸ Communication to the City Council
Part 4 of the report from Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair and Councillor Craig A. Kelley, Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a reconvened public hearing held on September 3, 2019 to continue discussions on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to create an Affordable Housing Overlay District
⚠ This document is a scan; its text was recovered by optical character recognition and may contain errors. The original PDF is authoritative.
AITACHMENT 46
Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning Proposal - Comparison Charts
The charts on the following pages compare the use and development standards of Cambridge base
zoning districts with the standards in the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO). The following
standards are summarized:
• Land Use Types
• Height, Density, and Scale
• Yard Setbacks
• Open Space
Important Notes:
• These charts are intended to provide an overview of applicable zoning standards. Refer to the
text of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance (refer to Article 4.000 - Use Regulations and Article
5.000 - Development Standards) and the text of the AHO Zoning Petition (version dated August
29, 2019) for more detailed standards.
These charts summarize applicable standards for base zoning districts. Development standards
in some areas of the city are modified by overlay zoning or are established in special zoning
districts (refer to Articles 13.000, 14.000, 15.000, 16.000, 17.000, and 20.000). AHO standards
apply in all zoning districts except Open Space (OS) districts.
The proposed AHO standards would apply only to residential developments in which all dwelling
units are subject to deed-restricted, permanent affordability standards set forth in the proposed
AHO Zoning Petition text. In some cases, ground-floor non-residential uses may be allowed
within an AHO project.
• Refer to the Zoning Map (attached) for the locations and descriptions of zoning district codes.
The following charts only include base zoning districts that are currently established within
Cambridge, and exclude some base districts that are listed within the Zoning Ordinance even
though there is no land currently zoned with that designation.
• NOTE: This version is updated to reflect amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay
Zoning Petition made in August, 2019.
Cambridge Community Development Department
August 29, 2019
Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning Petition Comparison Charts - UPDATED WITH AMENDMENTS
Land Use Types
AHO - Allowed uses (as-of-right)
District
Base Zoning - General range of allowed uses
A-1
single-family detached dwellings
single-family, two-family detached dwellings
A-2
townhouse, multifamily dwellings
single-family, two-family detached dwellings
townhouse dwellings (some by special permit)
single-family, two-family detached dwellings
C-1
townhouse, multifamily dwellings (some by special permit)
limited institutional uses
C-1A
C-2
single-family, two-family detached dwellings
townhouse, multifamily dwellings
C-2A
single-family, two-family detached dwellings
ground-floor non-residential (as allowed in district)
C-2B
townhouse, multifamily dwellings
hotels (some by special permit)
C-3
some institutional uses
C-ЗА
C-3B
0-1
most types of residential dwellings
0-2
single-family, two-family detached dwellings
hotels (except not in some districts)
townhouse, multifamily dwellings
0-2A
most institutional uses
ground-floor non-residential (as allowed in district)
offices and laboratories
0-3
0-3A
BA
BA-1
BA-2
most types of residential dwellings
BA-3
hotels (except not in some districts)
single-family, two-family detached dwellings
townhouse, multifamily dwellings
most institutional uses
BA-4
ground-floor non-residential (as allowed in district)
offices and laboratories
BB
most retail uses
BB-1
BB-2
BC
most types of residential dwellings
IA-1
most institutional, office, laboratory, and retail uses
IA-2
light industrial uses
single-family, two-family detached dwellings
lA
most types of residential dwellings (by special permit)
townhouse, multifamily dwellings
hotels (not in some districts, by special permit in others)
ground-floor non-residential (as allowed in district)
IB-1
most institutional, office, laboratory, and retail uses
light industrial uses
IB-2
some heavy industrial uses
IB
no change
open space, religious, or civic uses
Note: Charts are intended to provide a summarized overview of applicable zoning standards. Refer to the text of
the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance and Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning Petition for detailed standards.
August 29, 2019
Cambridge Community Development Department
Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning Petition Comparison Charts - UPDATED WITH AMENDMENTS
Height, Density, and Scale
AHO Standards
District Standards
Min. Lot
FAR
Max. Height
Area per
Max. FAR
Allowed Stories and Height
Limit
(residential)
Dwelling
(residential)
District
Unit
2.00*
35'
4 stories @ 45' max.
0.50
6,000 sq. ft.
A-1
2.00*
4 stories @45' max.
35'
0.50
A-2
4,500 sq. ft.
2.00*
• 4 stories @ 45' max.
35'
0.50
2,500 sq. ft.
2.00*
4 stories @ 45' max.
35'
0.60
1,800 sq. ft.
2.00*
35'
4 stories @ 45' max.
C-1
0.75
1,500 sq. ft.
N/A
45'
6 stories @ 65' max.
C-1A
1.25
1,000 sq. ft.
N/A
85'
7 stories @ 80' max.
1.75
600 sq. ft
C-2
7 stories @ 80' max.
N/A
300 sq. ft.
60'
2.50
C-2A
6 stories @ 65' max.
N/A
45'
1.75
C-2B
600 sq. ft.
7 stories @ 80' max.
N/A
120'
3.00
300 sq. ft.
C-3
7 stories @ 80' max.
N/A
120'
3.00
300 sq. ft.
С-ЗА
7 stories @ 80' max.
N/A
120'
4.00
300 sq. ft.
C-3B
4 stories @ 45' max. (50' with non-res. ground floor)
2.00*
35'
0-1
0.75
1,200 sq. ft.
7 stories @ 80' max.
N/A
85'
600 sq. ft.
0-2
2.00
7 stories @ 80' max.
70'
N/A
0-2A
600 sq. ft.
1.50
7 stories @ 80' max.
120'
N/A
0-3
300 sq. ft.
3.00
7 stories @ 80' max.
N/A
120'
300 sq. ft.
3.00
О-ЗА
45'
6 stories @ 65' max. (70' with non-res. ground floor)
N/A
BA
1.75
600 sq. ft.
2.00*
4 stories @ 45' max. (50' with non-res. ground floor)
35'
0.75
1,200 sq. ft.
BA-1
N/A
45'
6 stories @ 65' max. (70' with non-res. ground floor)
1.75
600 sq. ft.
BA-2
2.00*
4 stories @ 45' max. (50' with non-res. ground floor)
35'
0.75
1,500 sq. ft.
BA-3
N/A
35' or 44'
1.75 or 2.00
6 stories @ 65' max. (70' with non-res. ground floor)
600 sq. ft.
BA-4
7 stories @ 80' max.
N/A
80'
3.00
300 sq. ft.
BB
7 stories @ 80' max.
N/A
90'
300 sq. ft.
3.25
BB-1
6 stories @ 65' max. (70' with non-res. ground floor)
N/A
300 sq: ft.
BB-2
3.00
45'
7 stories @ 80' max.
N/A
55'
2.00
BC
500 sq. ft.
6 stories @ 65' max. (70' with non-res. ground floor)
N/A
1.50
45'
700 sq. ft.
IA-1
7 stories @ 80' max.
N/A
70'
4.00
IA-2
no min
N/A
6 stories @ 65' max. (70' with non-res, ground floor)
45'
1.50
no min
7 stories @ 80' max.
N/A
no min
70'
IB-1
3.00
4 stories @ 45' max. (50' with non-res, ground floor)
2.00*
35'
IB-2
0.75
1,200 sq. ft.
7 stories @ 80' max.
N/A
120'
no min
4.00
IB
N/A
35'
N/A
N/A
OS
0.25
* FAR limitations suggested by CDD in most recent revised Zoning Petition text.
Note: Charts are intended to provide a summarized overview of applicable zoning standards. Refer to the text of
the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance and Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning Petition for detailed standards.
August 29, 2019
Cambridge Community Development Department
Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning Petition Comparison Charts - UPDATED WITH AMENDMENTS
Yard Setbacks
AHO Standards
District Standards
Side Yard
Rear Yard
Rear Yard
Front Yard
Side Yard
Front Yard
District
Min. Setback
Min. Setback
Min. Setback
Min. Setback
Min. Setback
Min. Setback
20'
25'
25'*
7.5'
25'
15' (sum to 35)
A-1
7.5'
20'
20'*
25'
20'
A-2
10' (sum to 25)
15'*
в
25'
20'
15'
7.5
7.5' (sum to 20)
7.5' (sum to 20)
10'*
20'+ [formula]
7.5'
20'
10'+ [formula]
[formula]
10'*
7.5' [+formula]
20'+ [formula]
20'
7.5'
10'+ [formula]
C-1
[formula]
10'*
10'
[formula]
7.5'
20'
C-1A
10'%
7.5'
20'+ [formula].
10'+ [formula]
¡formulal
C-2
20'+ [formulal
7.5'
[formula]
5'%
5'+ [formula]
C-2A
C-2B
10'*
[formula]
7.5'
20'+ [formula]
10'+ [formula]
5'*
20'+ [formula]
[formula]
75'
5'+ [formula]
C-3
20' + [formula]
[formula]
7.5'
5'*
С-ЗА
5 + [formula]
10'
no min
no min
10'*
no min
C-3В
20'+ [formulal
10'*
[formula]
7.5
0-1
10'+ [formula]
formula
10'*
20'+ [formula]
0-2
7.5'
10'+ [formula]
20'+ [formulal
[formula]
10'*
7.5'
O-2A
10'+ [formula]
10'*
7.5'
20'+ [formula]
0-3
[formula]
10'+ [formula]
20'+ [formula]
[formula]
0-3А
10'+ [formula]
7.5'
10'*
20'+ [formula]
7.5
BA
C-2B/no min**
C-2B/no min**
10'/no min**
20'+ [formula]
C-1/no min**
C-1/no min**
7.5'
BA-1
10'/no min**
5'
20'*
5'
10'
BA-2
7.5'
20'+ [formulal
10'*
7.5
BA-3
10'+ [formula]
[formula]
[formula] or 10'
[formula] or 10'
10'*
7.5
BA-4
[formula] or 10'
C-3/no min**
C-3/no min**
7.5
C-3/no min**
BB
5/no min**
20' from res.
20' from res.
7.5' (or 20' fron
no min
no min
BB-1
res. district line
district line
district line
listrict line
O' from res
7.5' (or 20' from
20 from res.
no min
no min
BB-2
district line
res. district line)
district line
20'
20'
no min
BC
no min
no min
no min
10'
7.5
[formula] or 10'
no min
IA-1
[formula] or 10'
no min
7.5'
10'
no min
no min
[formula] or 10'
IA-2
[formula] or 10'
no min
no min
no min
no min
no min
lA
no min
[formula] or 10'
10'
[formula] or 10'
no min
7.5'
no min
IB-1
15'%
10'
15'
75'
[formula] or 10'
(formula] or 10'
IB-2
no min
no min
IB
no min
no min
no min
no min
25'
N/A
OS
N/A
25'
15'
* May be reduced to average of nearest four buildings, or to 10' (if less than district requirement) on a corner lot.
** Required front yard setback varies between residential and non-residential or mixed-use buildings.
Note: Charts are intended to provide a summarized overview of applicable zoning standards. Refer to the text of
the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance and Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning Petition for detailed standards.
Cambridge Community Development Department
August 29, 2019
Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning Petition Comparison Charts - UPDATED WITH AMENDMENTS
Open Space
AHO Standards
District Standards
"Private Open Space" Standards
District
Min. OS Ratio
Min. OS Ratio
"Private Open Space" Standards
Half permeable, half "usable" dimension
50%
30%
A-1
75% at ground level and permeable
Half permeable, half "usable" dimension
50%
A-2
30%
75% at ground level and permeable
40%
B
30%
Half permeable, half "usable" dimension
75% at ground level and permeable
C
30%
36%
Half permeable, half "usable" dimension
75% at ground level and permeable
30%
30%
C-1
Half permeable, half "usable" dimension.
75% at ground level and permeable
All "usable," half at ground level
75% at ground level and permeable
C-1A
15%
15%
C-2
15%
All "usable," half at ground level
75% at ground level and permeable
15%
All "usable," half at ground level
C-2A
10%
75% at ground level and permeable
10% (+)
C-2B
15%
15%
75% at ground level and permeable
All "usable," half at ground level
C-3
10%
All "usable," half at ground level
10%
75% at ground level and permeable
75% at ground level and permeable
All "usable," half at ground level
10%
С-ЗА
10%
10%
All "usable," half at ground level
75% at ground level and permeable
10%
C-3В
All "usable," half at ground level
15%
15%
75% at ground level and permeable
0-1
0-2
75% at ground level and permeable
15%
All "usable," half at ground level
15%
15%
All "usable," half at ground level
15%
75% at ground level and permeable
O-2A
0-3
10%
All "usable," half at ground level
10%
75% at ground level and permeable
All "usable," half at ground level
10%
O-3А
75% at ground level and permeable
10%
BA
15% (res)*
15%
All "usable," half at ground level
75% at ground level and permeable
BA-1
30% (res)*
All "usable," haif at ground level
75% at ground level and permeable
30%
no min
N/A
BA-2
no min
N/A
30%
All "usable," half at ground level
BA-3
30%
75% at ground level and permeable
no min
BA-4
N/A
N/A
no min
All "usable," half at ground level
75% at ground level and permeable
BB
10%
10% (res)*
15%
All "usable," half at ground level
BB-1
75% at ground level and permeable
15%
BB-2
15%
All "usable," half at ground level
75% at ground level and permeable
. 15%
BC
N/A
no min
N/A
no min
N/A
N/A
no min
no min
IA-1
N/A
no min
no min
IA-2
N/A
IA
N/A
no min
N/A
no min
N/A
IB-1
N/A
no min
no min
"Usable dimension," half at ground level
75% at ground level and permeable
IB-2
15%
15%
IB
N/A
N/A
no min
no min
OS
60%
no min
N/A
N/A
* Denotes districts where the open space requirement is established by reference to a base residential district.
Note: Under proposed AHO standards, the required Open Space Ratio could be reduced to no less than 15% to
facilitate preservation of a building on the State Register of Historic Places.
Note: Charts are intended to provide a summarized overview of applicable zoning standards. Refer to the text of
the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance and Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning Petition for detailed standards.
Cambridge Community Development Department
August 29, 2019
Zoning Districts
City of Cambridge, Massachusetts
As adopted February 13, 1961 and modified by subsequent amendments up to and
including Ordinance #1398 of October 23, 2017. Oveday Districts do
not appear on this map. The zoning lines are approximate. Please
refer to the documents on file in the City Clerk's Office
for the exact location of boundaries.
лов.
COR
presh lond
Charles River
Zoning Districts
0.25
A-1) Residence A-1
[A-2] Residence 1-2
[B Residence B
Ofâice-2A
Residence C
Residence C-1
S0.9 Special District-9
MD Mixed Use Devclopment
SD-2 Spccial District-2
| Business C
Residence C-1A
TASD Ames Street District
Business A
SDJ, Special District-3
Business
nia Special District-10(-)
Residence C-2
Business
A-1
End Special District-10(H)
SD-4 Special District 4
AOD Alewife Overly District
A -1
iness
3D-19 Special Distict-11
Industry A-2
Residence
PUDI Planned Unit Development Ovcrlay
S0-1A Special Distric-+A
(SD-S Spccial District-5
Industry
SO-12 Spccial District-12
MXR Mixed Use Residential Overlay
Business
Residence
SD-6, Special District-6
INP North Point District
Business
Residence C-3A
50-15 Special Discict-1
SD-/ Special Distact-
SD-13 Special District-14
Residence
ROD Cambridgeport Reviralizatic
This map was prepared by the Community Development Department on
Jerclopment Distr
50-15 Special District-15
SD.8 Special District-8
Office-1
December 7, 2017 and reflects the latest changes to zoning boundaries.
SD-s4 Special District-8A
[os] Open Space
Office-2
SD-1 Special District-1
BETTER
Map prepared by Brendan Monros on Deseriber 7, 2017. COD GIS C:PigitsiZeningZonlg11x17 r
Residential Building Height Limits
Under Existing Zoning
Cambridge, Massachusetts
.: 105-125
Fresh Pan
Charley
он, 50.
Zoning Districts: City of Cambnidge, Massachusetts
103 003
Noles
Maximum Existing Height Limit
- 35 - 40°
The color scale represents the highest possible building heights allowe
nder current zoning. Piease nole that a special permit may be require
45 - 50'
to build to the limit in certain areas.
55 - 78'
He milies separate one t me ed 2 can coate ars here,
80 - 500'
This man renresants a broad summar of detaled zonino mouiremen
..! Open Space Districts
›ease refer lo the Zonina Orcinance for full information on the types al
sizes or buildinas alowed. and lor the exact locatons or heront limi
bouncanes.
Map prepared by Brendan Mo
: on August 21, 2019. COD GIS C.ProjecsiZoning AffordableHousinga
ATTACHMENT 47
Compiled Council Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay 8.8.19
UPDATED SEPTEMBER 3, 2019
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.
Carlone
AMENDING language
Offered by:
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, timited 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.
1
Action: No action at Ordinance Meeting 8.8
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.
Zondervan
ADDING language
Offered by: |
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.
2
Action: Edited to include "rebuilt or, " but otherwise no action at
Ordinance Meeting 8.8
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.
Zondervan
Offered by:
ADDING language
Net Zero Ready Building. A building that is constructed so as to maximize energy efficiency, eliminate
Page 1 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
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.
3
Action: No action at Ordinance Meeting 8.8
Carlone
Offered by:
ADDING language
Permeable Parking. [Definition must be added]
4
Action: No action at Ordinance Meeting 8.8
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 incremental 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 (Article 19.30)
while enabling AHO Projects to be permitted as-of-right, subject to non-binding advisory design
consultation procedures that follow design objectives set forth within this ordinance and the
results of the design review process shall inform funding decisions by the 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.
Carlone
Offered by:
ADDING language
ACTION: Approved as amended, language inserted above
5
Devereux
Offered by:
ADDING language
ACTION: Approved as amended, language inserted above
SA
2. Applicability
Page 2 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
(a) The provisions set forth in this Section shall apply to AHO Projects, as defined in Article
2.000 of this Zoning Ordinance, in all zoning districts except Open Space Districts.
(b) An AHO Project shall meet all of the standards set forth in this Affordable Housing Overlay,
or else it shall be subject to the requirements otherwise applicable in the zoning district.
Kelley
Offered by:
ADDING language
Amendment by Kelley capping the number of units created under the AHO at 40 units per year failed on
a vote of 1 in favor, 7 in the negative, and 1 recorded as present.
5B
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 former 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.
Zondervan
Offered by:
AMENDING and ADDING language
ACTION: (i) approved as amended by affirmative vote of 8 members. Councillor Simmons recorded as
present.
(iii) Withdrawn with unanimous consent
(iv) Withdrawn with unanimous consent
Mayor McGovern wanted the staff to explore ways to prevent displacement across the board
6
Action:
(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
Page 3 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
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
(d) For owner-occupied AHO Dwelling Units:
(i) The gross household income of an AHO Eligible Household upon initial occupancy
shall be no more than one-hundred percent (100%) of AMI.
(i) At least fifty percent (50%) of AHO Dwelling Units shall be sold to by AHO Eligible
Households whose gross household income upon initial occupancy is no more than eighty
percent (80%) of AMI.
(iii) The initial sale price of an AHO Dwelling Unit shall be approved by the Community
Development Department and shall be determined to ensure that the monthly housing
payment (which shall include debt service at prevailing mortgage loan interest rates,
utilities, condominium or related fees, insurance, real estate taxes, and parking fees, if
any) shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the monthly income of:
1. A household earning ninety percent (90%) of AMI, in the case of an AHO
Dwelling Unit to be sold to an AHO Eligible Household whose income upon
initial occupancy is no more than one-hundred percent (100%) of AMI; or
2. A household earning seventy percent (70%) of AMI, in the case of an AHO
Dwelling Unit to be sold to an AHO Eligible Household whose income upon
initial occupancy is no more than eighty percent (80%) of AMI.
(e) An AHO Project meeting the standards set forth herein as approved by the Community
Development Department shall not be required to comply with the Inclusionary Housing
Requirements set forth in 11.203 of this Zoning Ordinance.
4. Use
Page 4 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
(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.
(c) 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.
Carlone
Offered by:
AMENDING language
(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.
7
Action: No action at Ordinance Meeting 8.8
Zondervan
Offered by:
AMENDING and ADDING language
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 alternative
thereto that 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 of less than ten (10)
years. The first right of refusal must be offered after a certificate of occupancy is
granted to non-residential use or within four (4) months of signing of a lease to any
tenant in the building, whichever is the lesser.
8
Action:
(a) approved to delete new language on a voice vote of 9 members.
Language is unchanged from original petition
(b) Amendment failed 1-8-0. Language is unchanged from original
petition.
(i) Hold
5. Development Standards
5.1 General Provisions
Page 5 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
(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.
ADDING language
Kelley
Offered by:
Councillor Kelley moved to amend to add a new subsection (d) An AHO project may only be built on
parcels as they existed at the time of ordination of the AHO. Motion failed 2-6-0-1.
8A
Action:
(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 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 65 feet, regardless of ground floor use.
i.
Portions of buildings that are within 35 feet of a district whose District
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.
Mallon & McGovern
Offered by:
ADDING language
Approved as amended 5-4-0.
9
Action:
Carlone
Offered by:
ADDING language
Page 6 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
(b)
amendment failed 4-5-0
Amendment carried 9-0-0
(i)
10
Action:
(d) 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.
Carlone
Offered by:
AMENDING language
Withdrawn with unanimous consent.
11
Action:
(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.
(d) Each Story Above Grade shall have a minimum height of 10 feet.
(e) No dwelling units shall be located below grade.
Mallon & McGovern
Offered by:
ADDING language
Approved on a voice vote of 9 members
12
Action:
Mallon & McGovern
Offered by:
ADDING language
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.
13
Action: Referred to Community Development by Mayor McGovern
NOTE amendment on page 22 by Councillor Zondervan was also referred
to Community Development by the Mayor.
Carlone
Offered by:
ADDING language
5.2.2 Density
(a) Floor Area Bonus Ratios [Spoken City analysis indicated that the allowable square
footage must be multiplied by 2.5 (for existing higher density districts) to 4.0 for existing
lower density districts) to make affordable housing economically viable in our existing
housing and commercial market.]
Page 7 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
(b) Bonus Density Chart [include existing FAR and proposed Bonus FAR for each affected
zoning district
14
Action: Referred to Community Development by Mayor McGovern
5.2.3 Yard Setbacks
(a) For the purpose of this Section, the applicable District Dimensional Standards shall
not include yard setback requirements based on a tormula 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 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.
Carlone
Offered by:
AMENDING language
Approved by affirmative vote of 7 members. Councillors Simmons and Toomey recorded in the negative.
15
Action:
(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.
Carlone
Offered by:
AMENDING language
Amendment failed 4-5-0
16
Action:
(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.
Carlone
Offered by:
AMENDING language
Amendment failed 4-5-0
17
Action:
(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 8 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
(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 but no closer than 7.5 feet from an existing residential structure that abuts.
Devereux
Offered by:
ADDING language
Approved as amended by affirmative vote of nine members.
17A
Action:
5.2.4 Open Space
(a) Except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive
equirement or as otherwise provided below, the minimum percentage of open spac
o lot area for an AHO Project shall be 30%. However, the minimum percentage of
open space to lot area may be reduced to no less than 15% if at least one of the
following criteria is met:
(i) An area commensurate with such reduction is used to provide off street
surface parking spaces on the lot along with necessary driveways and access
aisles.
Mallon & McGovern
Offered by:
STRIKING Language
Zondervan
Amendment approved on an affirmative vote of nine members.
18
Action:
(ii) The AHO Project includes the preservation and protection of an existing
building included on the State Register of Historic Places.
Zondervan
Offered by:
ADDING Language
Amendment failed 4-4-0-1.
19
Action:
(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 at grade level shall meet the definition of
Permeable Open Space as set forth in this Zoning Ordinance.
Zondervan
Offered by:
AMENDING Language
Approved as amended by an affirmative vote of 8 members. Councillor Simmons recorded in the
negative.
20
Action:
Page 9 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
(d) Shared above grade spaces, such as roof decks or balconies accessible to all tenants
may count towards no more than 25% of the private open space. 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.
Mallon & McGovern
Offered by:
STRIKING and ADDING Language
Approved as amended by the affirmative vote of nine members.
21
Action:
(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.
Londervan
Offered by:
STRIKING language
Approved by the affirmative vote of 9 members to strike language.
22
Action:
5.3 Standards for Existing Buildings
A building that is in existence as of the effective date of this Ordinance and does not conform to
the standards set forth above in this Affordable Housing Overlay may be altered, reconstructed,
extended, and/or enlarged for use as an AHO Project as-of-right in accordance with the standards
set forth below. Except as otherwise stated, the following standards shall apply to development
contained within the envelope of the existing building, and enlargements or additions occurring
outside the envelope of the existing building shall conform to the standards for new construction
set forth above.
(a) The modifications to a nonconforming structure allowed as-of-right or by special
permit in Article 8.000 of this Zoning Ordinance shall be allowed as-of-right for an AHO
Project.
(b) Gross floor area may be added or reconstructed within the interior of the existing
building, provided that the resulting number of Stories Above Grade is not more than the
greater of the existing number of Stories Above Grade, the maximum number of stories
permitted for new construction as set forth above, or the existing height of the building
divided by 10 feet.
(c) Insulation may be added to the exterior of an existing exterior wall to improve energy
efficiency, provided that the resulting exterior plane of the wall shall either conform to
the yard setback standards for an AHO project set forth above or shall not intrude more
than eight (8) inches further into the existing yard setback.
(d) An existing building may be moved to a new location on a lot, provided that the
resulting height of the building above Grade at its new location shall be no greater than
Page 10 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
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.
Devereux
Offered by:
STRIKING language
Withdrawn with unanimous consent
22A
Action:
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.
a. 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.
Zondervan
Offered by:
AMENDING Language
(b) (a) 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 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.
23
Action: (a) approved by affirmative vote of 9 members to delete language.
(b) Referred to the Community Development to review language
(c) Stricken
(d) Stricken
Page 11 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
(e) 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.
Devereux
Offered by:
STRIKING language
Withdrawn with unanimous consent
23A
Action:
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 from a building wall on the same lot or 7.5 feet
from 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 year-
round visual screen 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 or within 7.5 feet of an
abutting residential structure without requiring a special permit, provided that screening
is provided in the form of a fence or dense plantings year-round visual screen at the
Page 12 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
property line, unless such screening is waived by mutual written agreement of the owner
of the lot and the owner of the abutting lot.
Devereux
STRIKING language
Offered by:
Approved as amended by the affirmative vote of nine members.
Action:
23B
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 enforcéable 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.
Devereux
Offered by:
STRIKING language
Page 13 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
(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.
23C
Action: No action at Ordinance Meeting 8.8.
(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.
Carlone
Offered by:
ADDING Language
Failed on a voice of seven against, one in favor, and Vice Mayor Devereux recorded as present
24
Action:
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.
NOTE: MS. FAROOQ EXPRESSED NEED FOR CDD TO REVIEW 7.1 General Provisions (a)
(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.
Carlone
Offered by:
ADDING Language
(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.
Page 14 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
25
Action: Motion to move to guidelines carried on an affirmative vote of 9
members.
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 match its street context and 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.
Carlone
Offered by:
AMENDING Language
No action at Ordinance Meeting 8.8. Motion to add "match its street context and" and also to strike "of
any combination". Motion carried on an affirmative vote of 8 members. Councillor Simmons was absent.
Motion by Councillor Carlone to withdraw failed due to lack of unanimous consent.
26
Action:
(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 250 150 feet in length, measured parallel to the street,
shall contain portions entry courtyards 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.
Carlone
Offered by:
AMENDING Language
No action at Ordinance Meeting 8.8. Motion to strike 15% and insert 20% carried on an affirmative vote
of 8 members. Councillor Simmons absent.
Amendment to strike 25% and insert "30% residential, and 70% retail/active use on the first floor" was
put on HOLD PENDING FEEDBACK FROM CDD
27
Action:
7.3 Building Façades
(a) At least 20% 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%.
Carlone
Offered by:
AMENDING Language
(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),
Page 15 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
Business A-2 (BA2), 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.
28
Action: No action at Ordinance Meeting 8.8. Motion to strike 15% and
insert 20% carried on an affirmative vote of 8 members. Councillor
Simmons absent.
Amendment to strike 25% and insert "30% residential, and 70%
retail/active use on the first floor" was put on HOLD PENDING
FEEDBACK FROM CDD.
(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 taçade 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.
Carlone
Offered by:
STRIKING Language
(e) 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. [Moved to Amendment 41
adding Section 10 Overlay Design Consultation Objectives]
29
Action: No action at Ordinance Meeting 8.8.
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.
Page 16 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
(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% 75% of the length of the facade measured parallel to
the street or on the principal street if on a corner site.
Carlone
Offered by:
AMENDING Language
Motion to delete "and/or bicycle storage" and "/bicycle storage" by Councillor Carlone carried on an
affirmative vote of 8. Councillor Simmons absent.
On the amendment to strike 50% and insert 75% and to add at the end thereof the words "or on the
principal street if on a corner lot." The amendment carried on an affirmative vote of 8. Councillor
Simmons was absent. Note: CDD will provide the minimum dimension for a two-way driveway.
30
Action:
(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;
(ii) the depth of the space designed for active non-residential uses shall be at least
35 feet on average measured from the portion of the façade that is nearest to the
front lot line in a direction perpendicular to the street, and measured to at least
one street in instances where the space abuts two or more streets; and
(iii) that portion of the ground floor façade containing active non-residential uses
shall consist of at least 50% (office/institutional) to 70% (retail transparent glass
windows on the principle street.
Carlone
Offered by:
AMENDING Language
No action at Ordinance Meeting 8.8. Councillor Carlone moved to strike his amendment of 40 feet in (ii).
The amendment carried on an affirmative vote of 9 members.
In (iti) Councillor Carlone moved to amend (office/service) to read (office/institutional). The amendment
carried on an affirmative vote of 9 members.
He further amended (iii) to add at the end the words "on the principal street." The amendment carried
on an affirmative vote of 9 members.
31
Action:
(e) Ground floors shall be designed to accommodate at least one space (50% of existing
frontage) for an active nonresidential use on sites that are located in a Business base
Page 17 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
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.
NOTE AT THE END OF THE EXISTING (e) CDD WILL ADD LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO
"PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION."
(f) 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.
Mallon & McGovern
Offered by:
SUBSTITUTING Language
No action at Ordinance Meeting 8.8. At Committee meeting 8/19, Councillor Mallon and Mayor
McGovern's amendment was renumbered (f. The amendment carried on an affirmative vote of 8
members. Councillor Toomey was recorded in the negative
32
Action:
Zondervan
Offered by:
ADDING Language
(i) Such non-residential space shall be made available at an affordable rent as
specified in Section 4.b.i.
33
Action: No action at Ordinance Meeting 8.8. Councillor Zondervan's
amendment to strike out "and" and insert "or". The amendment carried
on an affirmative vote of nine members. Section (i) above was referred to
Amendment #8.
Carlone
Offered by:
AMENDING Language
No action at Ordinance Meeting 8.8. On 8/13, Councillor Carlone's amendment to add the words "50%
of the existing frontage". The amendment carried on an affirmative vote of 8 members. Councillor
Simmons was recorded in the negative.
Councillor Carlone's amendment to add a new sentence at the end of the paragraph. Councillor Carlone
moved to amend to delete his amendment. The amendment carried on an affirmative vote of 9 members.
34
Action:
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
Page 18 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
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 a year-round
visual screen 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 with
adjacent planting.
(c) When carried above the roof, shall be setback from the façade 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.
Carlone
ADDING Language
Offered by:
No action at Ordinance Meeting 8.8. Councillor Carlone's amendment was to add the words "setback
from the façade and". The amendment carried on an affirmative vote of 8 members. Councillor
Simmons was recorded in the negative. CDD WILL PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON THE
PERCENTAGE.
Councillor Carlone's amendment to strike out "50%" and insert "75%". The amendment carried on an
affirmative vote of 8 members. Councillor Simmons was recorded in the negative.
35
Action:
(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.
Zondervan
Offered by:
ADDING Language
(b) Notwithstanding any other requirement, any building permitted through the AHO
shall be a Net Zero Ready Building.
(c) Notwithstanding the language of the Tree Protection Ordinance (TPO), any project
permitted under the AHO shall be fully compliant with the TPO.
(d) Notwithstanding any other requirements, any building permitted through the AHO
shall be limited to a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 3.0, or double the base zoning,
Page 19 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
whichever is less, to ensure sufficient land area for green space to mitigate heat and
flooding considerations of climate change.
36
Action: (b) Regarding the first sentence in (b) was placed on HOLD
pending Article 22 amendments to be submitted to the City Council in
September which has a definition of Net Zero Ready.
On advice from the City Solicitor the second sentence in both (b) and (c)
were deleted on an affirmative vote of 8 members. Councillor Simmons
record in the negative.
(d) was referred to CDD on August 8, 2019 with #13 and #14.
Councillor Zondervan submitted a motion that was adopted by an
affirmative vote of nine members as follows:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to
instruct the staff of the Community Development Department to
provide information regarding the cost implications and the definition
for net zero ready buildings as it relates to the AHOD ordinance and
that said information to include the issues encountered by affordable
housing developers when doing renovations or reconstruction around
current utilities and to report back to the City Council with this
information so that it can be incorporated into the AHOD petition
(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.
Devereux
Offered by:
ADDING language
(d) New outdoor light fixtures installed in an AHO Project shall be fully shielded and
directed to prevent light trespass onto adjacent residential lots and the public way.
36A
Action: No action at Ordinance Meeting 8.8. Vice Mayor made a clerical
amendment to her added language to change "or" to "and." At the
conclusion the vote was to seek language similar to that contained in
Article 7.20 in place of the amendment offered by Vice Mayor Devereux
which will be provided by the City Solicitor. On an affirmative vote of 9
members the motion carried.
Page 20 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
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 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 prior to building design phase with the
community and other interested parties and gain feedback from the neighborhood. 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 that CDD may wish to notify.
Carlone
Offered by:
ADDING language
Further Devereux
amendments in brackets
Meeting on 8/13: On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendments offered by Vice Mayor Devereux
and Councillor Carlone were adopted.
Councillor Carlone submitted the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide the City Council with
information regarding whether public facilities can be used for future meetings
related to the AHOD process.
On an affirmative vote of 9 members the motion was adopted.
37
Action:
(a) (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 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), times), location(s),
attendance, materials presented, and comments received at such meeting(s) shall be documented
and provided to CDD.
(b) (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 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.
Page 21 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
(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.
Carlone
Offered by:
ADDING language
Advisory Design Consultation Procedure to add a new 2 on an affirmative vote of 9 members the
amendment was adopted. Note #2 and #3 were renumbered as #3 and #4.Adopted at meeting 8/13.
38
Action:
(2) (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.
(3) (4) 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.
(5) 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.
Carlone
Offered by:
ADDING language
Advisory Design Consultation Procedure to add a new #4 (renumbered #5). On an affirmative vote of 9
members the amendment was adopted. 8/13
Advisory Design Consultation Procedure to add at the end of #8 (renumbered #9) a new sentence as
follows: Chosen points of view to be decided in concert with CDD urban design staff. On an affirmative
vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.
39
Action:
(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. Chosen points of view to be decided in concert with CDD urban
design staff.
(9) Existing conditions photographs from various vantage points on the public sidewalk,
including photos of the site and of the surrounding urban context.
Page 22 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
(10) Proposed conditions perspective renderings from a variety of vantage points on the
public sidewalk, including locations adjacent to the site as well as longer views if
proposed buildings will be visible from a distance.
(11) A dimensional form, in a format provided by CDD, along with any supplemental
materials, summarizing the general characteristics of the project and demonstrating
compliance with applicable zoning requirements.
(12) A brief project narrative describing the project and the design approach, and
indicating how the project has been designed in relation to the citywide urban design
objectives set forth in Section 19.30 of the Zoning Ordinance, any design guidelines that
have been established for the area, and design guidelines established for AHO Projects in
Cambridge.
(13) Viewshed analysis and shadow studies that show the impact on neighboring
properties with existing solar installations.
(14) A financial pro-forma that shows the AHO developer's profit.
Devereux
Offered by:
ADDING language
No action at Ordinance Meeting 8.8. Adopted 8/13. #13 amended by Vice Mayor Devereux to add at the
beginning the words "View shed analysis and". On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment
was adopted.
#14 Vice Mayor Devereux moved to amend by striking out the words "does not exceed the maximum
allowed under Chapter 40B of state law. " On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was
adopted. On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendments as amended were adopted.
39A
Action:
(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 or oral comments during the meeting from City staff, abutters, and
from the general public.
Devereux
Offered by:
ADDING language
Vice Mayor Devereux on advice from the City Solicitor amended her amendment to strike out
the words "and oral" and add after the word "meeting" the words "or oral comments during
the meeting". On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.
The words "as a general business matter" were stricken on suggestion by Ms. Farooq.
City Solicitor Glowa will provide the legal language of abutters and refer to where it is
codified either in zoning or Chapter 40A.
On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment as amended was adopted.
39B
Action:
(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.
Page 23 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
(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 or the Cambridge Affordable Housing
Trust.
Carlone
Offered by:
ADDING language
Councillor Mallon moved to amend the amendment by striking out the words "principal
funder."
On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.
The amendment as amended was adopted on an affirmative vote of 9 members.
40
Action:
(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.
Carlone
Offered by:
ADDING language
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
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
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
Page 24 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
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.
(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
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.
(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.
Action: No action at 8/8 or 8/13.
41
Page 25 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
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 sixty-day thirty day review period,
including a public meeting, to receive public comments on draft regulations before final
promulgation.
Devereux
Offered by:
AMENDING Language
On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.
41A
Action:
(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.
Mallon & McGovern
Offered by:
ADDING Language
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 Projects
Action: # 42 to add a new section 11 entitled Review of the Affordable
Housing Overlay
# 43 to add a new section 13 entitled Five Year Affordable Housing Overlay
Progress
Report and Review
# 43A to add a new section 11 entitled Annual Review Required
WERE REFERRED TO CDD TO PROVIDE LANGUAGE TO
COMBINE THE AMENDMENTS
Page 26 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
Carlone
Offered by:
ADDING language
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 5th
year of the Ordinance. Upon receipt, the Ordinance Committee will hold public hearings to discuss the
report's findings and recommendations.
43
Action: # 42 to add a new section 11 entitled Review of the Affordable
Housing Overlay
# 43 to add a new section 13 entitled Five Year Affordable Housing
Overlay Progress
Report and Review
# 43A to add a new section 11 entitled Annual Review Required
WERE REFERRED TO CDD TO PROVIDE LANGUAGE TO
COMBINE THE AMENDMENTS
Devereux
Offered by:
ADDING language
11 Annual Review Required
The Community Development Department shall prepare an annual progress report to present in public
meetings of both the City Council's ordinance Committee and the Planning Board that evaluates the
effectiveness of the Affordable Housing Overlay in balancing the goals of the Ordinance to increase
affordable units throughout the City while meeting environmental and mobility goals and measures the
success of neighborhood consultation and engagement with the design review process. This report will
include site-specific outcomes. It shall be completed and presented annually, starting 18 months after
ordination.
12 Sunset Provision
The AHO shall sunset once the citywide target goal of 1,000 new affordable units is reached.
43A
Action: # 42 to add a new section 11 entitled Review of the Affordable
Housing Overlay
# 43 to add a new section 13 entitled Five Year Affordable Housing
Overlay Progress
Report and Review
# 43A to add a new section 11 entitled Annual Review Required
WERE REFERRED TO CDD TO PROVIDE LANGUAGE TO
COMBINE THE AMENDMENTS
Page 27 of 27
Prepared by Mayor's Office UPDATE 9/3/2019
ATTACHMENT 48 - SEPTEMBER 3, 2019
HOLDS
1-4, 7, 8(i) see amendment # 33, 23C, 30% res/70% retail on hold pending CDD feedback, 36(b) first
sentence re: article 2 net zero ready definition, 41, 42-43A and the sunset clause.
#39b pending legal language from solicitor re: abutters
36(a) city solicitor to provide language on public way re: article 7.20
REFERRED TO CDD
13,14, 23(b), 30 CDD will provide dimension for 2 way driveway, 32(e) CDD will add language, 35 CDD
will provide feedback on % and 36(d) referred with #13 and 14.
ATTACHMENT
4
9
August 29, 2019
strikethrough format.
the floor or roof next above.
without any structural support.
ADD NEW DEFINITIONS TO ARTICLE 2.000:
Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning Petition
by the provisions of Section 11.207.3 of this Zoning Ordinance.
and restrictions set forth in Section 11.207 of this Zoning Ordinance.
not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 11.207.3 of this Zoning Ordinance.
Ground Story or Ground Floor. The lowest Story Above Grade within a building:
Story Below Grade. Any Story that is lower than the Ground Story of a building:
permanently affordable to households earning up to 100% of area median income.
Story Above Grade. AsStory whose highest point is more than 4 feet above the Grade.
Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO). A set of modified development standards set forth in Section
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Dwelling Unit. A dwelling unit within an AHO Project for which
modification of an existing building or buildings resulting in single-family, two-family, townhouse, or
relaxation of certain other zoning limitations for residential developments in which all units are made
Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Project. The construction of a new building or buildings and/or the
occupancy is restricted to an AHO Eligible Household and whose rent or initial sale price is established
multifamily dwellings within which each dwelling unit is an AHO Dwelling Unit subject to the standards
11.207.3 of this Zoning Ordinance intended to allow increases in density, limited increases in height, and
building or along any existing wall facing a public street, which ground elevation is maintained naturally
Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Eligible Household. A household whose gross household income does
Grade. The mean finished ground elevation of a lot measured either around the entire perimeter of the
Story. That portion of a building included between the upper surface of a floor and the upper surface of
Page 1 of 25
boxes below.
Comments on changes are in callout
11.207.3
11.207.2
August 29, 2019
strikethrough format.
housing citywide.
CREATE NEW SECTION:
Applicability
11.207.1 Purpose and Intent
11.207 AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
zoning district, including any requirements tor special permits.
this Zoning Ordinance, in all zoning districts except Open Space Districts.
Standards for Eligibility, Rent, and Initial Sale Price for AHO Dwelling Units
certain other zoning limitations for residential developments in which all units are made
Ordinance and the results of the design review process shall be provided to the Cambridge
existing buildings in order to create AHO Projects that are more compatible with established
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
neighborhood character; to promote the city's urban design objectives in Section 19.30 of this
(b) An AHO Project shall be permitted as-of-right if it meets all of the standards set forth in this
"AHO Projects," as defined in Article 2.000 of this Zoning Ordinance); to incentivize the reuse of
Section is to allow incremental increases in density, limited increases in height, and relaxation of
permanently affordable to households earning up to 100% of area median income (referred to as
goals of achieving greater socioeconomic diversity and a more equitable distribution of affordable
Zoning Ordinance while enabling AHO Projects to be permitted as-of-right, subject to non-binding
applicable in the zoning district. Any development not meeting all of the standards set forth in
(a) The provisions set forth in this Section shall apply to AHO Projects, as defined in Article 2.000 of
advisory design consultation procedures that follow all design objectives set forth within this Zoning
Affordable Housing Overlay, or else it shall be subject to- in place of the requirements otherwise
Affordable Housing Trust; and to apply such standards throughout the City, to promote city planning
this Affordable Housing Overlay shall be subject to the requirements otherwise applicable in the
The purpose of this Section is to promote the public good by supporting the development of housing
Page 2 of 25
boxes below.
August 8, 2019.
Planning Board.
made following review with the
As voted by Ordinance Committee
This and other clarifying edits were
Comments on changes are in callout
August 29, 2019
strikethrough format.
percent (80%) of AMI.
set forth in this Section.
(b) For all AHO Dwelling Units:
(c) For rental AHO Dwelling Units:
Development Department CDD).
by the Community Development DepartmentCDD.
no more than one-hundred percent (100%) of AMI.
continued eligibility and rent, in accordance with policies, standards, and procedures
eviction in Cambridge in the last twelve (12) months, in accordance with standards and
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
(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
procedures related to selection, asset limits, and marketing established by the Community
given to Cambridge residents, and former Cambridge residents who experienced a no-fault
which has been approved by the Community Development DepartmentCDD, to determine
verified annually, or on such other basis required by an applicable housing subsidy program
household income of the AHO Eligible Household occupying the AHO Dwelling Unit or other
(i) The gross household income of an AHO Eligible Household upon initial occupancy shall be
by the Community Development Department CDD guaranteeing the permanent availability of
Community Development DepartmentCDD, shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the gross
(a) All dwelling units in an AHO Project shall comply with the standards for AHO Dwelling Units as
(iv) After initial occupancy, the gross household income of an AHO Eligible Household shall be
similar standard pursuant to an applicable housing subsidy program which has been approved
(ii) AHO Dwelling Units shall be created and conveyed subject to recorded covenants approved
(i) AHO Dwelling Units shall be rented or sold only to AHO Eligible Households, with preference
(iii) Rent, including utilities and any other fees routinely charged to tenants and approved by the
Page 3 of 25
boxes below.
August 8, 2019.
As voted by Ordinance Committee
Comments on changes are in callout
2.
August 29, 2019
strikethrough format.
percent (80%) of AMI.
than eighty percent (80%) of AMI.
(d) For owner-occupied AHO Dwelling Units:
than one-hundred percent (100%) of AMI; or
no more than one-hundred percent (100%) of AMI.
exceed thirty percent (30%) of the monthly income of:
(ii) At least fifty percent (50%) of AHO Dwelling Units shall be sold to by AHO Eligible
program which has been approved by the Community Development DepartmentCDD.
(ili) The initial sale price of an AHO Dwelling Unit shall be approved by the Community
(v) An AHO Eligible Household may continue to rent an AHO Dwelling Unit after initial
(vi) Notwithstanding the requirements set forth in (i) through (v) above, an owner may
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
than one year after that Eligible Household's gross household income has been verified to
Households whose gross household income upon initial occupancy is no more than eighty
voluntarily choose to charge a lower rent than as provided herein for AHO Dwelling Units.
condominium or related fees, insurance, real estate taxes, and parking fees, if any) shall not
Development Department-CDD and shall be determined to ensure that the monthly housing
to be sold to an AHO Eligible Household whose income upon initial occupancy is no more
to be sold to an AHO Eligible Household whose income upon initial occupancy is no more
payment (which shall include debt service at prevailing mortgage loan interest rates, utilities,
(i) The gross household income of an AHO Eligible Household upon initial occupancy shall be
1. A household earning ninety percent (90%) of AMI, in the case of an AHO Dwelling Unit
exceed such percentage, unless otherwise restricted pursuant to an applicable housing subsidy
occupancy even if the AHO Eligible Household's gross household income exceeds the eligibility
A household earning seventy percent (70%) of AMI, in the case of an AHO Dwelling Unit
limits set forth above, but may not exceed one hundred twenty percent (120%) of AMI for more
Page 4 of 25
boxes below.
Comments on changes are in callout
11.207.4
11.207.5
Use
August 29, 2019
strikethrough tormat.
shall not apply.
Housing Overlay, and
11.207.5.1 General Provisions
Development Standards
Requirements set forth in 11.203 of this Zoning Ordinance.
non-discretionary requirements or limitations that would otherwise apply.
(e) An AHO Project meeting the standards set forth herein as approved by the Community
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
the development standards of the base zoning district as they may be modified by the
Section 4.33, Office Uses listed in Section 4.34 Paragraphs a. through e., and Retail and
Consumer Service uses listed in Section 4.35 that provide services to the general public.
a lot, that are whether such standards are permitted as-of-right or allowable by special
multifamily dwellings as-of-right. Townhouse and Multifamily Special Permit procedures
Development Department CDD shall not be required to comply with the Inclusionary Housing
to a lot, which for the purpose of this Section shall be limited to Institutional Uses listed in
District Development Standards for any type of use are less restrictive than the standards
(a) In all zoning districts, an AHO Project may contain single-family, two-family, townhouse, or
permitted as-of-right in the base zoning district or the overlay districts) that are applicable
(b) An AHO Project may contain active non-residential uses on the ground floor as they may be
Overlay) that are applicable to a lot, but not the standards set forth within this Affordable
(a) For the purposes of this Section, the phrase "District Development Standards" shall refer to
(b) For an AHO Project, the following development standards shall apply as of right in place of
permit. A District Dimensional Standard that is allowable by special permit shall include any
(a)(b) District Dimensional Standards shall include the most permissive standards allowable on
development standards of all overlay districts (with the exception of this Affordable Housing
the more restrictive District Development Standards, except as otherwise stated. Where the
boxes below.
Planning Board.
revised for clarity.
Clarifying change suggested by
this paragraph was found to be
The other parts of this Section are
After review by the Planning Board
Comments on changes are in callout
relation to the following provisions.
redundant and possibly confusing in
August 29, 2019
strikethrough format.
11.207.5.2.1
AHO Project:
District Development Standards.
except as otherwise stated in this Section.
11.207.5.2 Dimensional Standards for AHO Projects
number of Stories Above Grade shall not exceed six (6) stories.
above, except where the AHO Project abuts a non-residential use.
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
limited below. For AHO Projects containing active non-residential uses on the
Portions of an AHO Project that are within thirty-five (35) feet of a district
feet, as measured from existing Grade. For AHO Projects containing active non-
four (4) Stories Above Grade and shall have a maximum height of forty-five (45)
set forth below shall apply in place of any building height limitations set forth in the
whose District Dimensional Standards allow a maximum residential building
set forth below, such less restrictive development standards shall apply as of right to an
ground floor, the maximum height may be increased to seventy (70) feet but the
to other limitations that may be set forth in Article 5.000 or other Sections of this Zoning
height of sixty-five (65) feet, as measured from existing Grade, except as further
Ordinance, including limitations on Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and lot area per dwelling unit,
(a) Where the District Dimensional Standards allow set forth a maximum residential
(50) feet but the number of Stories Above Grade shall not exceed four (4) stories.
shall contain no more than six (6) Stories Above Grade and shall have a maximum
(c) An AHO Project that conforms to the following development standards shall not be subject
residential uses on the ground floor, the maximum height may be increased to fifty
building height of forty (40) feet or less, an AHO Project shall contain no more than
(b) Where the District Dimensional Standards set forth a maximum residential building
height of more than forty (40) feet but not more than fifty (50) feet, an AHO Project
Building Height and Stories Above Grade. For an AHO Project, the standards
height of forty (40) feet or less shall be limited by the provisions of Paragraph (a)
Page 6 of 25
boxes below.
further below.
different height districts.
improvements for clarity. See
accompanying map illustrating
the "Design Standards" section
therefore 70 feet is suggested in
included at the ground floor, and
spaces, as voted by the Ordinance
Committee, have been included in
would be limited to 6 stories or 65
set of districts where AHO Projects
building if non-residential uses are.
by Ordinance Committee August 8,
The new Paragraph (b) establishes a
2019, with formatting and language
feet. As discussed, 65 feet may be a
those cases, but could be amended.
Comments on changes are in callout
constrained height limit for a 6-story
Changes to height standards as voted
Note that limitations for below-grade
August 29, 2019
strikethrough format.
(b)(C)
Ordinance.
residential use.
11.207.5.2.2 Residential Density
11.207.5.2.211.207.5.2.3 Yard Setbacks
there shall be no maximum FAR for an AHO Project.
when determining the building height of an AHO Project.
(c) Each Story Above Grade shall have a minimum height of 10 feet.
feet, as measured from existing Grade, except as further limited below.
(b) There shall be no minimum lot area per dwelling unit for an AHO Project.
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive
from existing Grade, except where the building AHO Project abuts a non-
district whose District Dimensional Standards allow a maximum residential
Portions of buildings-an AHO Project that are within thirty-five (35) feet of a
setback requirements set forth in Article 5.000 or other Sections of this Zoning
(a) Where the District Dimensional Standards establish a maximum floor area ratio
building height of forty (40) feet or less shall be reduced to a maximum of five
(5) Stories Above Grade and a maximum height of sixty (60) teet, as measured.
(b) Front Yards. An AHO Project shall have a minimum front yard setback of 10 feet,
than seven (7) Stories Above Grade and shall have a maximum height of eighty (80]
(d) The Height Exceptions set forth in Section 5.23 of this Zoning Ordinance shall apply
(FAR) of less than 1.00, an AHO Project shall not exceed an FAR of 2.00. Otherwise,
Where the District Dimensional Standards allow set forth a maximum residential
(a) For the purpose of this Section, the applicable District Dimensional Standards shall
requirement. However, conform to the minimum front yard setback set forth in the
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
Page 7 of 25
boxes below.
original petition.
different zoning districts.
As requested by Ordinance
can be applied with minimal
As adopted by the Ordinance
clarification of the intent of the
ambiguity. The final sentence is a
suggested by CDD staff based on a
Comments on changes are in callout
affordable housing development in
Committee on August 8, 2019. The
Committee, this density limitation is
review of the economic feasibility of
language has been revised so that it
Change suggested by Planning Board.
August 29, 2019
strikethrough format.
yard setback.
if it is establish a-less restrictive requirement.
principal residential structure on an abutting lot.
above; otherwise, the residential front yard setback shall apply.
not derived by formula if it is establish a-less restrictive requirement.
(f) Bicycle parking spaces, whether short-term or long-term, and appurtenant
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
nearest pre-existing principal buildings on the lots adjacent thereto on either
structures such as coverings, sheds, or storage lockers may be located within a
one-half (7.5) feet, except where or may be reduced to the minimum side yard
(e) Projecting eaves, chimneys, bay windows, balconies, open fire escapes and like
District Dimensional Standards that is not derived by formula, or the front yard
the street as the AHO Project, if such average is less than the front yard setback
setback may be reduced to the average of the front yard setbacks of the four (4)
(c) Side Yards. An AHO Project shall have a minimum side yard setback of seven and
setback set forth in the District Dimensional Standards for residential uses that is
Story contains a non-residential use as set forth in Section 11.207.4 Paragraph b)
projections which do not project more than three and one-half (3.5] feet from the
principal exterior wall plane, and unenclosed steps, unroofed porches and the like
otherwise requiredor may be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet in the case of
Tront yard setback requirement shall apply to the entire AHO Project it the Ground
(d) Rear Yards. An AHO Project shall have a minimum rear yard setback of twenty (20]
ditterent requirements tor residential and non-residential uses, the non-residential
an AHO Project on a corner lot. Where the District Dimensional Standards set forth
which do not project more than ten (10) feet beyond the line of the foundation wall
required yard setback but no closer than seven and one-half (7.5) feet to an existing
and which are not over four (4) feet above Grade, may extend beyond the minimum
feet, except where-or may be reduced to the minimum rear yard setback set forth in
the District Dimensional Standards for residential uses that is not derived by formula
sidethat contain at least two Stories Above Grade and directly front the same side of
boxes below.
As voted by the Ordinance
more restrictive than current
Committee on August 8, 2019. It
comments by the Planning Board.
Comments on changes are in callout
should be noted that this standard is
standards for bicycle parking spaces.
Clarifying changes are made following
August 29, 2019
strikethrough format.
(F)(a)
11.207.5.3 Standards for Existing Buildings
11.207.5.2.311.207.5.2.4 Open Space
building included on the State Register of Historic Places.
Overlay only if it is accessible to all occupants of the building.
Open Space shall exclude parking and driveways for automobiles.
fifteen percent (15%) if at least one of the following criteria is met:
fa) Except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive
parking spaces on the lot along with necessary driveways and access aisles.
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
(c)(a) the AHO Project includes the preservation and protection of an existing
the definition of Permeable Open Space as set forth in this Zoning Ordinance.
minimum percentage of open space to lot area may be reduced to no less than
and other limitations set forth in Section 5.22 of this Zoning Ordinance. Private
All of the required open space shall be located at Grade or on porches and
space to lot area for an AHO Project shall be thirty percent (30%). However, the
located at higher levels, such as balconies and decks, but shall not count toward
except that up to twenty five percent (25% of the required Oopen space may be
(g)(e) For the purpose of this Affordable Housing Overlay, area used for covered or
ta)b) The required open space shall be considered Private Open Space but shall be
(e)(c) At least half All of the required open space that is located at grade shall meet
uncovered bicycle parking spaces that are not contained within a building shall be
decks that are no higher than the floor elevation of the lowest Story Above Grade.,
considered Private Open Space, but shall not be considered Permeable Open Space.
meeting the required Private Open Space for the purpose of this Affordable Housing
subject to the limitations set torth below and shall not be subject to the dimensional
Page 9 of 25
preserved.
permeable.
boxes below.
requirement. In lower-scale
anticipate the effect of that
grade-level open space to be
required open space must be
permeable, so it is difficult to
memo, CDD staff consulted with
cases where a historic building is
Cambridge Historical Commission
As discussed in the accompanying
staff and continues to recommend
residential districts, at least half of
voted by the Ordinance Committee
that no district currently requires all
Changes to open space standards as
the zoning allows additional relief in
Comments on changes are in callout
referring to the State Register where
on August 8, 2019. It should be noted
August 29, 2019
strikethrough format.
the exterior of a building.
construction set forth above::
square feet, whichever is greater.
outside the envelope of the existing building shall conform to the standards for new
accordance with the standards set forth below. Except as otherwise stated, the required
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
(C) The addition of -insulation may be added to the exterior of an existing exterior wall to
Article 8.000-of this Zoning Ordinance shall be allowed as of right for an AHO Project.
altered, reconstructed, extended, and/or enlarged for use as an AHO Project as-of-right in
#Floor aArea may be added or reconstructed within the interior of the existing building
and provided that the lot shall either conform to the open space standards set forth in
and including any increase to the number of dwelling units within the existing building,
in Article 8.000 of this Zoning Ordinancethe following standards shall apply to development
dimensional characteristics of the building and site shall be those existing at the time of the
Section 11.207.5.2 or shall not decrease the existing open space by more than 5% or 100
conform to the yard setback standards for an AHO project set forth in Section 11.207.5.2
above or shall not intrude more than eight (8) inches further into the existing yard setback
fa) The modifications to a nonconforming structure allowed as-of right or by special permit in
envelope that may violate or further violate FAR limitations set forth in Section 11.207.5.2,
[a) Construction occurring entirely within an existing structure, including the addition of Gross
provided that the resulting number of Stories Above Grade is not more than the greater of
improve energy efficiency, provided that the resulting exterior plane of the wall shall either
A building that is in existence as of the effective date of this Ordinance and does not conform to
contained within the envelope of the existing building, and enlargements or additions occurring
following modifications shall be permitted as-of-right, notwithstanding the limitations set forth
the existing number of Stories Above Grade, the maximum number of stories permitted for
(b) The relocation, enlargement, or addition of windows, doors, skylights, or similar openings to
new construction as set forth above, or the existing height of the building divided by 10 feet.
conversion to an AHO Project if they do not conform to the standards of Section 11.207.5.2. The
as-of-right.
boxes below.
Following comments from the
Projects, also allowing necessary
to allow existing non-conforming
buildings to be converted to AHO
Comments on changes are in callout
alterations and conforming additions
for greater clarity. The intent remains
Planning Board, this Section is revised
August 29, 2019
strikethrough format.
below for an AHO Project.
11.207.5.2 above.
above for an AHO Project.
11.207.6 Parking and Bicycle Parking
original in footprint, volume, or area.
requirements set forth in Section 11.207.5.2.
that are not further in violation of the dimensional requirements set forth in Section
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
meet accessibility standards for persons with disabilities, including but not limited to
The limitations set forth in Article 6.000 of this Zoning Ordinance shall be modified as set forth
additions, provided that the repair, reconstruction or replacement does not exceed the
moving the building footprint, installing exterior insulation, installing bicycle parking, of
(d) The installation of exterior features necessary for the existing structure to be adapted to.
as such open space is reestablished elsewhere on the site to the extent possible and the
an AHO Project set forth above, the existing amount of open space shall be the required
fe)(g) Any other alterations, additions, extensions, or enlargements to the existing building
height of the building above Grade at its new location shall be no greater than the height
fa) An existing building may be moved to a new location on a lot, provided that the resulting
building including but not limited to porches, decks, balconies, bay windows and building
Project as set forth above, whichever is greater, and also provided that the resulting yard
(e) The repair, reconstruction, or replacement of any preexisting nonconforming portions of a
setbacks shall not increase any nonconformance with the required yard setbacks set forth
above Grade at its existing location, or the maximum building height permitted for an AHO
amount. However, permitted alterations to the structure or lot including but not limited to
walkways, ramps, lifts, or elevators, which may violate or further violate of the dimensional
(t) Where the existing amount of open space on the lot does not conform to the standards for
installing exterior features to improve accessibility may displace existing open space so long
total amount of open space is not decreased from the existing condition by more than 5% or
Page 11 of 25
boxes below.
Comments on changes are in callout
August 29, 2019
strikethrough tormat.
this Paragraph.
spaces shall be waived.
Register of Historic Places.
applicable laws, codes, or regulations.
11.207.6.2 Accessory Parking Provided Off-Site
11.207.6.1 Required Off-Street Accessory Parking
to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:30 PM on weekdays.
addition, the requirement for off street parking spaces shall be waived for any new
loading by moving vans or small delivery trucks. The Cambridge Traffic, Parking, and
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
that also includes the preservation and protection of a building included on the State
(c) The requirement for off street parking spaces shall be waived for AHO Dwelling Units
parking spaces for an AHO Project except to the extent necessary to conform to other
would otherwise be four spaces or fewer, the requirement to provide off street parking
Project is designed to reasonably accommodate such activity without causing significant
fa)(b) An AHO Project shall provide or have access to either on-street or off-street facilities
Transportation Department shall certify to the Superintendent of Buildings that the AHO
that can accommodate passenger pick-up and drop-off by motor vehicles and short-term
created within existing buildings in existence as of the effective date of this Ordinance. In
have the authority to promulgate regulations for the implementation of the provisions of
construction, in the form of additions or stand-alone buildings, of an AHO Project on a lot
hazard or congestion. The Cambridge Director of Traffic, Parking, and Transportation shall
a bus stop with a scheduled peak hour trequency of at least six buses per hour during 7:00
(b) Oft street parking shall not be required for an AHO Project on a lot that is located, in whole
{a). Off-street parking shall be required at a minimum ratio of 0.4 space per AHO Dwelling Unit,
or in part, within one half mile of a public rapid transit station or within one quarter-mile of
except as further modified below.There shall be no required minimum number of off-street
(d) Where the number of off street parking spaces required by this Affordable Housing Overlay
are included.
boxes below.
Changes to minimum parking
requirements as voted by the
2019. Some clarifying text changes
Comments on changes are in callout
Ordinance Committee on August 13,
August 29, 2019
strikethrough format.
tandem parking space.
residents of the AHO Project.
plantingsyear-round visual screen.
facility is within 1,000 feet of all AHO Projects that it serves.
agreement of the owner of the lot and the owner of the abutting lot.
driveways under mutual easements without requiring a special permit.
11.207.6.3 Modifications to Design and Layout Standards for Off-Street Parking
recorded covenant, or comparable legal instrument to guarantee, to the reasonable
(a) Notwithstanding Section 6.43.2, parking spaces may be arranged in tandem without
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
satisfaction of the Superintendent of Buildings, that such facilities will be available to
parking spaces are screened from buildings on abutting lots by a fence or other dense
facilities located within 1,000 feet of the AHO Project and in a district where parking is
(a) Off-street parking facilities may be shared by multiple AHO Projects, provided that the
(b) Notwithstanding Section 6.43.6, owners of adjacent properties may establish common
lot at the basement or first story without requiring a special permit, provided that such
fee ownership, a long-term lease agreement or renewable short-term lease agreement,
provided that screening is provided in the form of a fence or other dense plantings-year-
use parking facility, provided that the owner of the AHO Project shall provide evidence of
requiring a special permit, provided that no more than two cars may be parked within any
permitted as a principal use or where the facility is a pre-existing nonconforming principal
ten (10) feet but not less than five (5) feet from the Ground Story of a building wall on the
round visual screen at the property line, unless such screening is waived by mutual written
(c) Notwithstanding Paragraph 6.44.1(a), on-grade open parking spaces may be located within
(d) Notwithstanding Paragraph 6.44.1(b), on-grade open parking spaces and driveways may be
located within five (5) feet of a side or rear property line without requiring a special permit,
requirements of this Section are met by all AHO Dwelling Units served by the tacility and the
same lot or seven and one-half (7.5) feet from the Ground Story of a building on an adjacent
Page 13 of 25
boxes below.
As voted by the Ordinance
Committee on August 13, 2019.
Comments on changes are in callout
August 29, 2019
strikethrough format.
number of spaces.
or under common control.
11.207.6.5 Transportation Demand Management
11.207.6.4 Modifications to Bicycle Parking Standards
are covered from above to be protected from precipitation.
short-term bicycle parking spaces would otherwise be required.
the station is located as approved by the Community Development Department. If
(b) Notwithstanding Section 6.107.5, up to 20 long-term bicycle parking spaces may be
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
provided to the extent practical given the limitations of the existing structure. Bicycle
Public Bicycle Sharing Station dock, up to a maximum reduction of half of the required
An AHO Project whose parking requirements are waived pursuant to the provisions of this
(a) Notwithstanding Section 6.104, long-term or short-term bicycle parking spaces may be
reduction of 28 spaces, where a standard-size (19-dock) Public Bicycle Sharing Station is
an AHO Project that are constructed fully outside the envelope of the existing structure.
(c) The requirement for short-term bicycle parking shall be waived where only four of fewer
Section not providing off-street parking at a ratio of 0.4 space per dwelling unit or more shall
(d) The number of required bicycle parking spaces shall be reduced by half, up to a maximum
provided on the lot or by the developer of the AHO Project on a site within 500 feet of the
(e) For AHO Dwelling Units created within an existing building, bicycle parking spaces meeting
parking spaces may be further reduced at a rate of 0.5 bicycle parking space per additional
lot, with the written approval of the City if located on a public street or other City property,
parking spaces shall be provided, as required by this Zoning Ordinance, for dwelling units in
or otherwise by legally enforceable mutual agreement with the owner of the land on which
located anywhere on the lot for an AHO Project or on an adjacent lot in common ownership
additional Public Bicycle Sharing Station docks are provided, the number of required bicycle
Page 14 of 25
boxes below.
number of parking spaces.
of the original petition given the
change to not require a minimum
Comments on changes are in callout
This change is to maintain the intent
11.207.7
August 29, 2019
strikethrough format.
11.207.7.1 General Provisions
upon initial occupancy of a unit.
11.207.7.2 Site Design and Arrangement
standards than the existing condition.
Building and Site Design Standards for New Development
Management program containing the following measures, at a minimum:
extent possible if they are not in conflict with the purpose of this Section.
screen in a convenient common area of the building such as an entryway or lobby.
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
provide, in writing, to the Community Development Department a Transportation Demand
landscaped area, hardscaped area accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists, and usable
(a) The following design standards shall apply to all AHO Projects. Except where otherwise
(a) The area directly between the front lot line and the principal wall plane of the building
upon initial occupancy of a unit, or providing information and a real-time transit service
such alterations do not create a condition that is in greater nonconformance with such
for three months or pass of equivalent value, to up to two individuals in each household
shall not apply if be superseded by the following standards for an AHO Project-are met;
structures. Except as otherwise provided, an existing building that is altered or moved to
spaces such as uncovered porches, patios, or balconies. Parking and other motor vehicle
and any design standards set forth in Section 19.50 or elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance
(b) Providing transit information in the form of transit maps and schedules to each household
available tier where applicable, or a 50% discounted MBTA combined subway and bus pass
(a) Offering either a free annual membership in a Public Bicycle Sharing Service, at the highest
(b) The following design standards shall apply to new construction and to additions to existing
stated, the Project Review requirements set forth in Article 19.000 of this Zoning Ordinance
however, the design standards specific to the project area are encouraged to be met to the
nearest to the front lot line shall match its street context and consist of any combination of
accommodate an AHO Project shall not be subject to the following standards, provided that
Page 15 of 25
standard.
ambiguity.
boxes below.
As voted by the Ordinance
revised to remove potential
Following comments from the
Planning Board, this paragraph is
Comments on changes are in callout
Committee on August 13, 2019. Staff
question whether this a clear enough
August 29, 2019
strikethrough format.
11.207.7.3 Building Façades
be increased to 25%thirty percent (30%).
different architectural treatment may be preferable.
(30) teet in width measured parallel to the front lot line.
driveway for each one hundred (100) feet of lot frontage.
shading devices, or similar architectural elements that promote visual interest and
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
Above Grade. The intent is to incorporate elements such as bays, balconies, cornices,
itself is not visible from the street due to its location. All pedestrian entrances shall be
on the lowest Story Above Grade or on the highest Story Above Grade, and shall not.be
accessible by way of access routes that are separated from motor vehicle access drives.
floor facing a public street or public open space, the developer is encouraged to include
occur on an average interval of 40 linear horizontal feet or less for portions of the façade.
feet in depth measured from and perpendicular to the front lot line and at least 40 thirty
(a) At least 15% twenty percent (20%) of the area of building façades facing a public street or
(b) Building façades shall incorporate architectural elements that project or recess by at least
directly facing a public street, and on an average interval of 80 linear horizontal feet or less
(c) To provide additional visual interest to the façade, for window openings above the ground
(BA), Business A-2 (BA-2), Business B (BB) or Business C (BC) zoning district, this figure shall
public open space shall consist of clear glass windows. For buildings located in a Business A
to the street, shall contain portions-entry courtyards that are set back by at least forty 40)
required on the highest two Stories Above Grade of a building containing at least six Stories
for other portions of the façade. Such projecting or recessed elements shall not be required
(b) Pedestrian entrances to buildings shall be visible from the street, except where the building
residential character, and to allow variation at the ground floor and on upper floors where a
(c) A building footprint exceeding 250 one hundred fifty (150) feet in length, measured parallel
two feet from the adjacent section of the façade. Such projecting or recessed elements shall
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
Page 16 of 25
boxes below.
As voted by the Ordinance
As voted by the Ordinance
As voted by the Ordinance
Committee on August 13, 2019.
Committee on August 13, 2019.
relative to the dimensions of the
is meant by "entry courtyards." The
new standard could be constraining
Committee on August 13, 2019. This
Comments on changes are in callout
given the reduction in building length
original intent of this standard was to
setbacks. It may also be unclear what
create breaks in massing on large lots
comparable to Cambridge block sizes.
(i)
(i)
August 29, 2019
strikethrough format.
the following additional standards shall apply:.
transparent windows or pedestrian entryways.
11.207.7.4 Ground FloorsStories and Stories Below Grade
projecting window surfaces, sins, sun shades, or shutters.
Story elevation is necessary for the purpose of flood protection.
architectural elements that provide depth and/or surface relief such as recessed of
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
such mean Grade by not more than four feet. Where aActive non-residential uses are
measured parallel to the street and excluding portions of the facade used for driveway
the sidewalk without requiring use of stairs or a lift. The requirements of this paragraph
units, common areas, or other populated portions of the building in order to screen the
the depth of the space designed for active non-residential uses shall be at least
thirty-five (35) feet on average measured from the portion of the façade that is
shall not apply if it is determined by the City Engineer that a higher ground floor Ground
building containing active non-residential uses shall be at least fifteen (15 feet;
the height of the lowest story above Grade Ground Story for that portion of the
provided parking over at least 50%seventy-five percent (75% of the length of the façade
Grade, Ground Story shall be at the mean Grade of the abutting public sidewalk, or above
(d) If the ground floor Ground Story is designed to accommodate active non-residential uses,
portion of the building immediately behind the front wall plane shall consist of residential
to at least one street in instances where the space abuts two or more streets; and
(a) The elevation at floor level of the ground floor of a building, meaning the lowest story above
provided at the ground floor, the ground floor Ground Story shall be accessible directly from
nearest to the front lot line in a direction perpendicular to the street, and measured
(c) The façade of a ground floor Ground Story facing a public street shall consist of expanses no
(b) Where structured parking is provided within the ground floor Ground Story of a building, the
access. On a corner lot, the requirements of this Paragraph shall only apply along one street.
longer than twenty-five (25) feet in length, measured parallel to the street, which contain no
Page 17 of 25
boxes below.
As voted by the Ordinance
Clarifying revisions by CDD staff.
Committee on August 13, 2019.
Comments on changes are in callout
(i1l)
August 29, 2019
facilities:
strikethrough format.
application for a building permit for an AHO Project.
storage, parking, bicycle parking, or mechanical equipment.
11.207.7.5 Mechanical Equipment, Refuse Storage, and Loading Areas
the site,- for an active non-residential use, which may include retail or consumer
(e)(f) Private living spaces within dwelling units, including bedrooms, kitchens, and
a retail and-or consumer service use at any point within the past two years prior to
not limited to, ventilation equipment including exhaust fans and ducts, air conditioning
that portion of the ground floor Ground Story façade containing active non-
residential uses shall consist of at least fifty percent (50% transparent glass
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown.in
(a) Shall not be located within any required setback. This Paragraph (a) shall not apply to
AHO Project, on sites that are located in a Business base zoning district, and where the
(e) Ground floors-Stories shall be designed to accommodate at least one space, with a total
electrical equipment whose location is mandated by a recognized public utility, provided
bathrooms, may only be contained within Stories Above Grade. Stories Below Grade may
percent (70%) transparent glass windows, along one street in the case of a corner
the building, shall meet the requirements listed below. Mechanical equipment includes, but is
common facilities for residents of the building, such as lobbies, recreation rooms, laundry,
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
frontage equaling at least fifty percent (50%) of the frontage of any existing retail space on
All mechanical equipment, refuse storage, or loading areas serving the building or its occupants
establishments as well as social service facilities supporting the mission. of the owner of the
windows or, if the use is a retail or consumer service establishment, at least seventy
that are (1) carried above the roof, (2) located at the exterior building wall or (3) located outside
only contain portions of dwelling units providing entries, exits, or mechanical equipment, or
project site and-or at least one of the lots abutting the project site contains or has contained
Page 18 of 25
boxes below.
As voted by the Ordinance
As voted by the Ordinance
As voted by the Ordinance
discussed in a prior section).
Committee on August 13, 2019.
Committee on August 13, 2019.
Committee on August 8, 2019, with
Comments on changes are in callout
text clarifications (this provision was
August 29, 2019
strikethrough format.
equipment.
certification necessary.
11.207:7.6 Environmental Design Standards
however, a special permit shall not be required.
required in this Section until properly disposed of.
this Zoning Ordinance that may otherwise apply to an AHO Project.
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
(d) Shall meet all city, state and federal noise regulations, as applicable, as certified by a
(b) Where the provisions of the Flood Plain Overlay District apply to an AHO Project, the
the equipment or facilities to be screened, or a fence of equal or greater height that is
performance standards set forth in Section 20.70 of this Zoning Ordinance shall apply;
that project plans submitted for review by the City identify a preferred location for such
ownership at the property line. The screening shall consist of densely planted shrubs of
professional acoustical engineer if the Department of Inspectional Services deems such
more than twenty-five (25) percent of the face of the fence open with adjacent planting.
trees a dense year-round screen equal or greater in height at the time of installation than
(e) That handle trash and other waste, shall be contained within the building or screened as
equal to at least the height of the equipment and permanently screened from view, from
residential zoning district. The screening shall be at least 50%seventy-five percent (75%
the ground, from adjacent public streets and any abutting residentially used lot or lots in a
(a) This Section shall not waive the Green Building Requirements set forth in Section 22.20 of
comparable in quality to the materials used on the principal facades of the building, with no
(b) When on the ground, shall be permanently screened from view from adjacent public streets
(c) When carried above the roof, shall be set back from the principal wall plane by a dimension
that are within 100 feet of the building, or from the view from abutting property in separate
opaque, and uniformly distributed across the screening surface, or opaque to the maximum
extent permissible if other applicable laws, codes, or regulations mandate greater openness.
Page 19 of 25
boxes below.
As voted by the Ordinance
As voted by the Ordinance
Committee on August 13; 2019.
clarifying changes by CDD staff.
Comments on changes are in callout
Committee on August 13, 2019, with
11.207.8
August 29, 2019
strikethrough format.
expressed are being served.
if it were not an AHO Project.
staff input into the design of the project.
Advisory Design Consultation Procedure
the City's future planning objectives for the area.
prevent light trespass onto adjacent residential lots.
are intended to inform the design of AHO Projects and to guide the Planning Board's
(c) At least one-two community meetings shall be scheduled at a time and location that is
convenient to residents in proximity to the project site. The Community Development
detailed provisions set forth in such objectives and guidelines as long. as the core values
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
(b) The City's Design Guidelines for 100% Affordable Housing Overlay, along with other design
housing units, AHO. Projects are permitted to. have a greater height, scale, and density than
form and character of AHO Projects. To promote the City's goal of creating more affordable
Prior to application for a building permit, the developer of an AHO Project shall comply with the
Department (CDD) shall be notified of the time and location of such meetings, and shall give
Ordinance, Chapter 8.66 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, an AHO Project shall comply
staff, the Planning Board, and the general public will be open to creative variations from any
consultation and report as set forth below. It is intended that designers of AHO Projects, City
following procedure, which is intended to provide an opportunity for non-binding community and
other developments permitted by the zoning for a given district. This procedure is intended to
(a) The intent of this non-binding review process is to advance the City's desired outcomes for the
with the requirements of such Ordinance to the extent that it would be required to comply
promote design outcomes that are compatible with the existing neighborhood context or with
and abutters to the abutters within three hundred feet of the property line of the lot on which
(d) New outdoor light fixtures installed in an AHO Project shall be fully shielded and directed to
notification to abutters, owners of land directly opposite on any public or private street or way.
(c) An AHO Project shall be subject to other applicable laws, regulations, codes, and ordinances
objectives and guidelines established for the part of the city in which the AHO Project is located,
pertaining to environmental standards. Notwithstanding the language of the Tree Protection
boxes below.
As voted by the Ordinance
As voted by the Ordinance
2019, CDD staff suggest these
clarifying changes by CDD staff.
clarifying changes by CDD staff.
reference is added to the Design
Guidelines, which have also been
revised to reflect past discussions.
statements of intent to inform the
Responding to the discussion of the
Comments on changes are in callout
Committee on August 13, 2019, with
design consultation process. Specific
Ordinance Committee on August 13,
Committee on August 13, 2019, with
(ii) (iii)
August 29, 2019
strikethrough format.
features.
AHO Project.
transportation facilities.
or organization CDD may wish to notify.
and abutting lots, and the conditions of abutting streets.
meeting(s) shall be documented and provided to CDD.
prior to building design, and receive feedback from community members.
#I) The purpose of the subsequent community meeting(s) shall be to present
_Following one or more such community meeting(s), the developer shall prepare the
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
following materials for review by the Planning Board. CDD shall review to certify that the
interested members of the public, and receive feedback on the design. The date(s),
(i)(i) A context analysis, discussed with CDD staff, including existing front yard setbacks,
the ground floor and possible building roof deck) and major anticipated changes in site
preliminary project designs, answer questions from neighboring residents and other
An existing conditions site plan depicting the boundaries of the lot, the locations of
and shall provide labeled distances and dimensions for significant building and site features.
architectural character, and unique features that inform and influence the design of the
and street context analysis with neighborhood residents and other interested parties
time(s), location(s), attendance, materials presented, and comments received at such
(i) A context map indicating the location of the project and surrounding land uses, including
who each year files with CDD a written request for such notification, or to any other individual
drawings shall be drawn to scale, shall include a graphic scale and north arrow for orientation,
(i) The purpose of the first community meeting shall be for the developer to share the site
the AHO Project is proposed each abutting property owner and to any individual or organization
submitted written and graphic materials provide the required information in sufficient detail. All
buildings, open space features, parking areas, trees, and other major site features on the lot
(iv) 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
Page 21 of 25
boxes below.
As voted by the Ordinance
As voted by the Ordinance
clarifying changes by CDD staff.
Committee on August 13, 2019.
Comments on changes are in callout
Committee on August 13, 2019, with
August 29, 2019
strikethrough format.
Ordinance.
landscape materials.
buildings will be visible from a distance.
compliance with applicable zoning requirements.
including photos of the site and of the surrounding urban context.
Cambridgethe Design Guidelines for the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay.
established for the area, and design guidelines established for AHO Projects in
proposed for the site along with other structures or appurtenances on the site.
(iii)(v) A design statement on how the proposed project attempts to reinforce existing
(x) xili) A dimensional form, in a format provided by CDD, along with any supplemental
buildings to remain on the lot, depicting the distances to lot lines and the heights of
materials, summarizing the general characteristics of the project and demonstrating
(v)(vii)_Elevations and cross-section drawings of all proposed new buildings and existing
forth in Section 19.30 of the Zoning Ordinance, any design guidelines that have been
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
surrounding buildings, and labeling the proposed materials on each façade elevation.
(x)(xii) Proposed conditions perspective renderings from a variety of vantage points on the
(ix)(xi)_ Existing conditions photographs from various vantage points on the public sidewalk,
(iv) vi) Floor plans of all proposed new buildings and existing buildings to remain on the lot.
how the project has been designed in relation to the citywide urban design objectives set
public sidewalk, including locations adjacent to the site as well as longer views if proposed
(Vi)Vili) A landscape plan depicting and labeling all hardscape, permeable, and vegetated areas
(xiv) A brief project narrative describing the project and the design approach, and indicating
(vii)(ix) Plans of parking and bicycle parking facilities, as required by Section 6.50 of this Zoning
(viii)(x) Materials palettes cataloguing and depicting with photographs the proposed façade and
street/context qualities and mitigates the planned project's greater massing, height, density,
Page 22 of 25
boxes below.
As voted by the Ordinance
Committee on August 13, 2019:
Comments on changes are in callout
(a)(t)
(ch)
August 29, 2019
strikethrough format.
general members of the public.
days of the design consultation.
existing Solar Energy Systems.
including developer fee and overhead.
comments and changes made in response to those comments.
or seek additional information from the developer or from City staff.
(e)(g) The Planning Board shall evaluate the proposal for general compliance with the
adjustments and alterations to further the purposes of this Ordinance. The Board shall
(xii)(xvi) An initial development budget that shows anticipated funding sources and uses
Design Objectives set forth in Section 19.30. The Board may also suggest specific project
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
Housing Overlay, for appropriateness in terms of other planned or programmed public or
private development activities in the vicinity, and tor consistency with the Citywide Urban
may receive written comments prior to the meeting from City staff, abutters, and from the
proposal area and for AHO Projects in generalthe Design Guidelines for the 100% Affordable
communicate its findings in a written report provided to the developer and to CDD within 20
At the scheduled design consultation, the Planning Board shall hear a presentation of the
(c)(e) Within 65 days of receipt of a complete set of materials by CDD, the Planning Board shall
The developer may then make revisions to the design, in consultation with CDD staff, and
schedule a design consultation as a general business matter at a public meeting and shall give
and abutters to the abutters within three hundred feet of the property line of the lot on which
proposal from the developer and oral comments from the public. The Board may ask questions
notification to abutters, owners of land directly opposite on any public or private street or way.
a written request for such notification, or to any other individual or organization CDD may wish
the AHO Project is proposed and to any individual or organization who each year files with CDD
shall submit a revised set of documents along with a narrative summary of the Planning Board's
to notify. The materials shall be made available to the public in advance, and the Planning Board
requirements of this Section, for consistency with City development guidelines prepared for the
Page 23 of 25
boxes below.
housing developments.
As voted by the Ordinance
As voted by the Ordinance
clarifying changes by CDD staff.
directly applicable to affordable
revised to use terms that are more
Committee on August 13, 2019. The
Comments on changes are in callout
Committee on August 13, 2019, with
language related to a "pro-forma" is
11.207.9
August 29, 2019
strikethrough format.
Housing Trust.
promulgation.
above regulations.
contain the following information:
11.207.11 Review of Affordable Housing Overlay
11.207.10 Enforcement of Affordable Housing Overlay
Implementation of Affordable Housing Overlay
before the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any such project.
Buildings to certify compliance with the procedures set forth herein.
(h)(i) The Final Report from the Planning Board shall be provided to the Superintendent of
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
of the provisions of this Section 11.207. There shall be a thirtysixty-day review period,
(g)(i) The Planning Board shall review and discuss the revised documents at a second design
either the revised report or if there are no revisions the initial report shall become the final
including a public meeting, to receive public comments on draft regulations before final
consultation meeting, which shall proceed in accordance with Paragraphs (c) and (d) above.
(a) Annual Report. CDD shall provide an annual status report to the City Council, beginning
occur only at the discretion and on the request of the developer or the Cambridge Affordable
for any AHO Project, and shall further certify in writing to the Superintendent of Buildings that all
that all applicable provisions of this Section have been met before issuance of any building permit
(b) The Community Development Department may develop standards, design guidelines, and
Following the second design consultation, the Planning Board may submit a revised report and
report (the "Final Report"). Any additional design consultations to review further revisions may
documents have been filed and all actions taken necessary to fulfill the requirements of this Section
The Community Development Department shall certify in writing to the Superintendent of Buildings
(a) The City Manager shall have the authority to promulgate regulations for the implementation
eighteen (18) months after ordination and continuing every year thereafter. The report shall
procedures appropriate to and consistent with the provisions of this Sections 11.207 and the
Page 24 of 25
CDD staff.
boxes below.
As voted by the Ordinance
As voted by the Ordinance
New section as voted by the
Committee on August 13, 2019.
Committee on August 13, 2019.
Comments on changes are in callout
2019, with suggested language from
Ordinance Committee on August 13,.
August 29, 2019
strikethrough format.
site-specific outcomes.
to initiate an AHO Project, and site status;
(iii) Number of residents served by AHO Projects.
housing with other City planning considerations such as urban form, neighborhood
assess the effectiveness of the Advisory Design Consultation Procedure in gathering
Council a report that assesses the effectiveness of the Affordable Housing Overlay in
Changes from Original Petition: Additions are shown in underline format. Deletions are shown in
meaningful input from community members and the Planning Board and shaping AHO
Page 25
success of the Affordable Housing Overlay in balancing the goal of increasing affordable
Projects to be consistent with the stated Design Objectives. The report shall evaluate the
(i) List of sites considered for affordable housing development under the Affordable
number of units, unit types number of bedrooms), tenure, and project status; and
Housing Overlay, to the extent known by CDD, including site location, actions taken
character, environment, and mobility. The report shall discuss citywide outcomes as well as
(a)(b) Five-Year Progress Review. Five (5) years after ordination, CDD shall provide to the City
across City neighborhoods, and serving the housing needs of residents. The report shall also
increasing the number of affordable housing units in the city, distributing affordable housing
of 25
boxes below.
Comments on changes are in callout
ATTACHMENT 50
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE
Community Development Department
IRAM FAROOQ
Assistant City Manager for
Community Development
To:
The Ordinance Committee
From:
Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
SANDRA CLARKE
Date:
August 29, 2019
Deputy Director
Chief of Administration
Supplemental Information Regarding Affordable Housing Overlay
Subject:
Zoning Petition
KHALIL MOGASSABI
Deputy Directo
Chief Planner
The Community Development Department (CDD) has put together the
following additional information along with the following revised documents
in response to questions and suggestions raised during recent discussions of
the Ordinance Committee on the Affordable Housing Overlay ("АНО")
Zoning Petition:
• Zoning Petition text revised to incorporate amendments voted
by the Ordinance Committee at its August hearings, along with
clarifying edits made by CDD staff and suggested by the
Planning Board;
• updated versions of the maps and charts, first presented in June,
summarizing the proposed AHO standards as applied across
different zoning districts; and,
• updated draft Design Guidelines for 100% Affordable Housing
Overlay projects.
The primary goal of the Affordable Housing Overlay is to enable affordable
housing to be created more quickly, predictably and efficiently. While we
support many of the objectives behind proposals made to incorporate certain
additional requirements into the AHO Petition, we note that to the extent that
these requirements add cost to, or complicate the development of, AHO
projects, and particularly if these requirements are not similarly imposed on
market-rate developments, the potential impact of the AHO may be lessened.
The following provides staff recommendations on several of these suggested
changes. We look forward to continuing this discussion with the Committee
on September 3rd.
Net Zero Ready Buildings
Affordable housing developments built in Cambridge are among the most
energy-efficient and sustainable buildings in the City. Affordable housing
344 Broadway
providers have a track record of applying principles of sustainable design,
Cambridge, MA 02139
using durable environmentally sensitive materials, and incorporating on-site
Voice: [phone removed]
-ax: 617 349-466.
ITY: 617 349-462
www.cambridgema.gov
renewable energy features where possible. New buildings are often built to meet Green
Communities or Passive House standards. Developments under the proposed AHO would be
subject to the same minimum Green Building Requirements as market-rate projects, and
moreover, past experience has shown that AHO projects are likely to exceed those
requirements.
However, to require new affordable housing to be "net zero ready buildings" would require a
definition that includes clear performance standards that could be objectively assessed and
could add complexity to efforts to create new affordable housing. Depending on how net zero
ready buildings are defined, building to these standards could be significantly more costly and
could require the purchase of costly offsets and/or significant changes in design. Requiring
АНО projects to build to net zero standards sooner than otherwise required for all development
would put affordable housing builders at a disadvantage relative to developers of market-rate
housing
As part of the phased implementation of the Net Zero Action Plan, presently developers are
asked to provide information to CDD on the energy performance of a building and potential
pathways to reducing or eliminating greenhouse gas emissions in the future. For example, if the
electric grid becomes more emissions-neutral over time, systems that use fossil fuels on-site
could be converted to electric systems, even if that is not preferable or feasible under current
conditions. Recommended changes to the Green Building Requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance would codify a requirement for a "Net Zero Narrative" with this information. If
adopted, this requirement would be applied to AHO Projects that are subject to Green Building
Requirements (generally, projects of 25,000 square feet or more).
The Net Zero Narrative would include:
(1) anticipated building envelope performance, including roof, foundation, walls and
window assemblies, and window-to-wall ratio;
(2) anticipated energy loads, baseline energy simulation tool assumptions, and
proposed energy targets, expressed in terms of site energy use intensity (EUI), source
EUI, and total greenhouse gas emissions;
(3) a description of ways in which building energy performance has been integrated
nto aspects of the project's planning, design, and engineering, including building
use(s), orientation, massing, envelope systems, building mechanical systems, on-site
and off-site renewable energy systems, and district-wide energy systems;
(4) a description of the technical framework by which the project can be transitioned
to net zero emissions in the future (acknowledging that such a transition might not be
economically feasible at first), including future net zero options for building envelope,
2
HVAC systems, domestic hot water, interior lighting, and on- and off-site renewables;
and
(5) a description of programs provided by local utility companies, government
gencies, and other organizations that provide technical assistance, rebates, grants, an
ncentives that can assist in achieving higher levels of building performance
summarizing which entities have been contacted and which programs could be utilized
in the project.
Displacement/Relocation Assistance
The AHO is designed to preserve and expand the socio-economic diversity of the city by
enabling the production of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income residents who would
otherwise be at risk of being displaced from the community due to escalating housing costs.
During discussions of the AHO Petition, questions have been raised about the potential for
permanent displacement of residents of properties which are purchased for redevelopment under
the AHO, including potential displacement of owner-occupants as well as tenants. We believe
this will be a rare circumstance given the practical challenges of redeveloping a site that is
occupied and actively used; as we have seen how affordable housing providers work with
residents when temporary, or in rare instances permanent, relocation is needed to renovate
existing housing.
As staff noted at the August 8, 2019 Ordinance Committee Meeting, many AHO projects would
trigger state and federal relocation protections as a result of the funding being used to create the
new affordable housing. The Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act
(URA) requires that relocation assistance be provided to both owners and tenants who are forced
to involuntarily vacate their properties as a result of certain federally-funded projects, including
some HUD-funded projects where property acquisition is required. In addition, a similar
requirement, Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 applies
only to lower-income residential occupants and applies to other HUD programs. Finally, the
state outlines requirements for relocation services and payments under M.G.L. Chapter 79A.
Affordable housing developments which receive certain types of federal and/or state funding
may trigger one or all of these requirements, with URA generally being the most broad and
comprehensive. Relocation may be temporary if the residents are eligible to return following
renovation or redevelopment, or permanent in cases where residents do not meet the eligibility
criteria for the affordable housing funded by these programs. Relocation assistance includes
informational notices, relocation advisory assistance, and time-limited financial relocation
assistance. While URA sets upper limits on the total amount of assistance to be provided, there
are opportunities for exceptions, so housing developers often budget for approximately $8,000-
10,000 per residential household for relocation to cover both rental assistance as well as moving
expenses and other miscellaneous expenses.
3
While we do not anticipate that affordable housing created through the AHO will involuntarily
displace a large number of households, and affordable housing providers have a track record of
working cooperatively with residents when relocation is necessary, we share the Council's
concerns about protecting the ability for low- and moderate-income families to remain in the
Cambridge. As a result, we recommend that as a matter of policy, and not through the Zoning
Ordinance, the City request that where other state or federal relocation policies do not otherwise
apply, developers provide similar relocation benefits to households earning up to 100% AMI.
Also, the City Solicitor advises that providing City or other public funds for relocation benefits
to tenants that exceed income thresholds or commercial tenants would likely not be legally
permissible.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Requirements
The AHO Petition currently includes a provision, in cases where less parking is provided than
would be otherwise required, to offer either a free annual bike sharing membership or a 50%
discounted MBTA combined subway and bus pass for three months, or pass of equivalent value,
up to two individuals in each household upon initial occupancy of a unit. The purpose of this
policy, which is routinely applied to residential projects seeking a reduction in required parking,
is to encourage early adoption of sustainable transportation habits. There was discussion of
whether to expand these benefits to require fully subsidizing the cost of MBTA passes and to
extend this benefit beyond initial occupancy. The cost of monthly MBTA LinkPass is currently
$90, so the currently proposed requirement would result in an upfront cost of up to $270/per unit
per initial new tenancy. Fully subsidizing two transit passes for a full year would cost $2,160
annually, at current MBTA rates. This added cost would have a significant impact on project
feasibility as it would increase annual operating costs by as much as 20% or more. Increased
operating costs will reduce the amount of private mortgage debt that can be supported and
increase the need for subsidy funds from the City or other sources. For example, requiring 2
transit passes for each unit would result in a need for an additional $35,000 per-unit in subsidy
funds, or $700,000 for a 20-unit development.
There was also a question as to whether the offering of transit passes might be considered as
income for households receiving this assistance. We do not believe that the provision of transit
passes for a limited period of time would constitute income under any housing assistance
program. Whether such assistance offered on an ongoing basis would be considered income is a
more difficult question that would need to be considered with the specific requirements of an
applicable housing assistance program. However, provision of an ongoing transit subsidy would
likely be considered income for households under requirements for many HUD programs.
Given these concerns, another option might be to require up to two 50% discounted MBTA
passes be provided for six months upon initial occupancy to lengthen the limited period during
which assistance is provided to encourage sustainable transportation choices.
4
Density Limits/FAR Caps
The intent of the AHO is to allow affordable housing to be built at a greater density than allowed
by underlying zoning in order to make more sites feasible. The petition describes a form-based
approach where height and scale (number of stories) are regulated without setting density or
FAR limitations. However, we recognize that concerns have been raised regarding the potential
impact of the AHO on lower density neighborhoods in the absence of density controls. As a
result, we propose that an FAR limitation of 2.00 be imposed on AHO projects in those lower
density districts (see additional language in attached text and revised zoning comparison charts).
We believe this will set a reasonable limitation without severely constraining potential outcomes
when desirable sites for affordable housing become available in those more restrictive zoning
districts.
Applicability and impact of the Tree Ordinance
We were asked to collect information on the estimated financial impact of requiring AHO
Projects to meet the requirements of the Tree Ordinance. We have been told that the cost of
replacing a 5-6" caliper tree was $3,000 in one case, and as much as $12,000 in another case.
Replacing smaller 2" caliper trees have typically cost closer to $1,000 per tree. In general,
affordable housing developers have tried to meet the spirit of the Tree Ordinance by preserving
existing trees to the extent possible and by replacing trees to the extent feasible. While making
AHO Projects subject to the full requirements of the Tree Ordinance will add some cost and
complication, we do not anticipate that it would make an AHO Project wholly infeasible on its
owil.
Historic Preservation
CDD staff consulted again with staff from the Cambridge Historical Commission regarding the
reference to the State Register of Historic Places. If the AHO zoning allows some additional
zoning relief in cases where a historic building is preserved, staff continues to recommend that
the State Register be used as a reliable resource for identifying buildings that are of historic
interest.
The State Register of Historic Places includes properties and districts with the following
designations:
• National Register of Historic Places
• National Register properties determined eligible for listing where the owner or
a majority of the owners have objected to designation
• Massachusetts Archeological/Historical Landmarks
• Local Landmarks designated by the City Council under Ch. 2.78 Art. III
• Local historic districts established under MGL Ch. 40c (not neighborhood
conservation districts, though all of Harvard Square and parts of the other
5
neighborhood conservation districts are included through listings on the
National Register)
• Preservation Restrictions accepted under MGL Ch. 184
Altogether, there are about 2,500 properties in Cambridge identified on the State Register.
It should be reiterated that other historic preservation or conservation requirements that are
outside of zoning would not be affected by the AHO zoning proposal. Proposed AHO Projects
located within a Historic District or Neighborhood Conservation District would be subject to
Cambridge Historical Commission or a Neighborhood Conservation District Commission
review, pursuant to G.L. c.40C and Chapter 2.78 of the Municipal Code. It a property that is
proposed for an AHO Project is designated as a Landmark, pursuant to Chapter 2.18 of th
Municipal Code, it would also be subject to Historical Commission review. Additionally, al
buildings in the City which are in whole or in part fifty years or older remain subject to the
City's Demolition Delay Ordinance, Chapter 2.78, Article II of the Municipal Code.
ATTACHMENT51
DESIGN GUIDELINES
FOR 100% AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OVERLAY
DRAFT
29 AUGUST 2019
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DRAFT
2
DESIGN GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
29 August 2019
Contents
INTRODUCTION
5
6
1. Purpose
7
2. Objectives and Principles
10
3. Addressing Neighborhood Context
SITE DESIGN
11
12
1. Response to Context
14
2. Open Space and Landscape Design
18
3. Circulation
19
4. Parking
20
5. Utilities and Services
21
6. Outdoor Lighting
22
7. Public Art
BUILDING DESIGN
23
24
1. Massing
28
2. Facades
36
3. Architectural Details, Materials, Color, and Finishes
38
4. Building Interiors
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
41
42
1. Sustainable Design
GLOSSARY
44
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
46
DRAFT
Intentionally blank
DESIGN GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
4
29 August 2019
DRAFT
INTRODUCTION
The affordable housing design guidelines have been prepared
to complement the provisions of the Affordable Housing Zoning
Overlay. They articulate the City's goals with regard to the form
and character desirable for affordable housing developed un-
der the AHO.
In several of the city's zoning districts, the AHO allows 100% afford-
able housing buildings to be built at a scale larger and taller than
other buildings allowed by the district's base zoning. However, it is
expected that affordable housing projects will be designed in a way
that is compatible with their existing neighborhood contexts.
The guidelines in this document provide a shared framework to
guide the discussion among the many parties that are involved with
an affordable housing development. They are meant to help afford-
able housing developers prioritize design elements in the context
of limited financial capacity as compared to market-rate residential
development. They are not meant to be applied as individual re-
quirements, but as a structured set of guiding principles and recom-
mendations to inform the design process.
The guidelines are intended to promote affordable housing devel-
opments that benefit their residents, are good neighbors, and serve
the quality of life in Cambridge.
5
INTRODUCTION
29 August 2019
DRAFT
1. PURPOSE
The Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay is a city-wide effort and its zoning
requirements apply to all land use districts: residential, office, business and
industrial. These design guidelines complement the zoning requirements
with a focus on the built form of new affordable housing development in
residential neighborhoods, and along business and commercial streets.
Residential neighborhoods and business and commercial streets vary
in architectural character, form, scale, and density; and accordingly, the
guidelines are intended to respond to and enhance the distinguishing char-
acteristics of each.
The affordable housing design guidelines are meant to:
Create context-sensitive 100% affordable housing developments that
enhance their neighborhoods and the public realm.
1.2
Create new affordable housing developments that incorporate urban
design best practices and strive for design excellence, including inte-
grating green infrastructure and green building design
1.3
Provide guidance for new construction, rehabilitation, and addition to
existing buildings.
1.4
Provide affordable housing developers, property owners, the
Planning Board, neighbors, City staff, and the Affordable Housing
Trust with a framework to guide the advisory design review pro-
cess for affordable housing development under the Affordable
Housing Overlay.
6
DESIGN GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
29 August 2019
DRAFT
2. OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES
The following design objectives are intended to inform the design of
Affordable Housing Overlay Projects and to guide the Planning Board's
non-binding review and report. The goal of these guidelines is to promote
new affordable housing buildings that reinforce the city's existing sense of
place by reflecting and enhancing the patterns and textures of its public
realm and built fabric, contribute to the city's streets and other public open
spaces, are sensitive and compatible with the character of existing neigh-
borhoods, and respect the privacy and quality of life of the residents of
abutting properties.
Affordable Housing Developments will:
2.1
Respond to their contexts, reinforcing and enhancing their
existing shared and unique architectural and urban design
character. Begin the design and development process with an anal-
ysis of the architectural, landscape, and urban design qualities of the
street as a component of the city's public realm. Affordable housing
developments in established and mature neighborhoods with a fairly
consistent architectural character and urban form are expected to
reflect such qualities in their design. On streets with diverse architec-
tural scales, massing, siting, and character, or where that character
is evolving, more flexibility in built form may be appropriate.
Contribute to Cambridge as a visually rich, beautiful, and safe
2.2
pedestrian environment through their architectural, site, and
landscape design. Design front yards to reinforce the street as civic
space that connects individual buildings as members of a commu-
nity. Arrange site features such as driveways, vehicular and bicycle
parking areas, service areas, and mechanical and electrical systems
to minimally impact the public realm and neighbors.
7
INTRODUCTION
29 August 2019
DRAFT
2.3
Provide a sense of comfort by making new buildings and addi-
tions inviting and compatible with their neighbors. Regardless
of style, contribute to a sense of a rich architectural community by
the arrangement, rhythm, and scale of architectural elements includ-
ing structural bays, the location and depth of windows, projecting
bay windows, entrances, roof shapes, dormers, and the detailed
assemblage of materials. Configure building massing and facades,
including the location of windows, with sensitivity to the privacy of
existing residential neighbors and their need for light and air.
2.4
Use construction materials that are compatible in scale, tex-
ture, and color with those of the surrounding context.
2.5
Incorporate architectural details and subtle embellishments
to relate to human dimensions and scale. Incorporate elements
such as string courses, lintels, sills, and trim to create a sense of
scale and compatibility with neighboring buildings.
2.6
Organize building facades into base, middle, and top. Reflect
the varied scales of the urban environment - those of the pedes-
trian, the dwelling unit, the building as a whole, and its street - in
massing and facade design. Contribute detail and interest to the
pedestrian streetscape at the ground floor level, frame the street as
a coherent public space by the design of middle floors, and provide
elements such as sloped roofs, gables, dormers, and setbacks on
top floors to engage the sky and create visually engaging rooflines.
DESIGN GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
8
29 August 2019
DRAFT
2.7
Incorporate common spaces to foster a sense of community.
Depending on the size of the development, these may include sheltered
entry porches, lobbies, meeting rooms, courtyards, and roof decks.
Harmonize new buildings and additions in appearance and scale
2.8
with historically significant buildings. Incorporate architectural em-
bellishments such as sloped roofs or upper floor stepbacks to mitigate
bulk and height.
2.9 Contribute to Cambridge as an energy efficient and resilient com-
munity. Design developments with the causes and effects of climate
change in mind, including greenhouse gas emissions, flooding, and
extreme heat.
9
INTRODUCTION
29 August 2019
DRAFT
3. ADDRESSING NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
Respond to the urban, architectural, and landscape character of the neighbor-
hoods surrounding new affordable housing projects.
The design of new affordable housing developments will begin with an analysis
of the existing immediate contexts and the broader character of their neighbor-
hoods, taking into consideration parameters including:
The characteristics of the public realm
• The street and pedestrian network
• The surrounding land uses and building types
• Landscape design
• Building siting
• Building scale and massing
• Architectural language
• Architectural details
• The colors and textures of building materials
• Other aspects of form that contribute to neighborhood character
For projects sited in evolving areas, the analysis will demonstrate an under-
standing of the City's goals for the district's urban form.
DESIGN GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
10
29 August 2019
DRAFT
SITE DESIGN
Thoughtful building placement, orientation, setbacks, green
open space, landscaping, circulation, pedestrian access,
and parking layout are critical elements to creating a desir-
able setting for housing projects, to creating a good fit with
existing nearby buildings, and to contributing to the City's
public realm.
1. Response to Context
2. Open Space and Landscape Design
3. Circulation
4. Parking
5. Utilities and Services
6. Outdoor Lighting
7. Public Art
11
SITE DESIGN
29 August 2019
DRAFT
1. RESPONSE TO CONTEXT
1.6
Place buildings and design their landscapes to
OBJECTIVE
minimize impacts on nearby existing buildings,
Design project site layouts to harmonize with
to respect the privacy of neighbors, and to
the neighborhood context, including the sur-
maintain their access to natural light and air.
rounding urban patterns of streets and blocks,
1.7
building setbacks, travel paths, and open
In siting new buildings, consider public views
spaces. In existing neighborhoods with estab-
to adjacent landmark buildings, public open
lished patterns of development, responsive and
spaces, public art areas, or other features of
context-sensitive site design will help preserve
significant visual interest.
the character of the built environment. In
1.8
In existing well-developed areas, where urban
evolving areas of the city, design new develop-
patterns are relatively uniform and stable,
ments to help achieve the city's goals for urban
match the prevailing pattern of front yard
character.
setbacks, building orientations, and the location
of entrances as much as possible. Variation
GUIDELINES
may be desirable, however, at certain locations,
such as the corners of blocks.
1.1 Locate and orient new buildings so that their
front yard setbacks relate to those of neigh-
1.9
In areas where the patterns of development
boring and adjacent buildings to the maximum
are stable but more diverse, complement the
extent possible.
existing diversity of front yard depths and
building orientations while meeting other city-
1.2 Locate open space in relation to adjacent yards,
wide objectives articulated in these guidelines.
residential units, and public spaces that would
benefit from natural light and views.
1.10 In evolving areas of the city, locate new build-
ings and site elements to support the planned
1.3 Where site dimensions allow, consider creating
patterns of development.
entry courtyards, internal courtyards, and
semi-enclosed courtyards open to the block
1.11 In commercial districts, site new buildings to
interior.
maintain the continuity of existing retail frontage
while allowing for comfortable sidewalk width
1.4
Locate pedestrian and bicycle paths, vehicular
and creating opportunities for activation such as
routes; parking areas; and utility/service areas
outdoor seating.
in response to neighboring buildings.
1.12 Locate and design parking, trash storage,
1.5 In large developments, consider creating
and mechanical equipment to minimize their
through-block pedestrian or vehicular
impacts on abutting residences and the public.
connections.
12
DESIGN GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
29 August 2019
DRAFT
OPEN SPACE - CONNECTING BUILDINGS TO THE SURROUNDING CONTEXT
13
SITE DESIGN
29 August 2019
DRAFT
2. OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN
GUIDELINES
OBJECTIVE
Design open space to enhance the lives of
2.1 Provide a range of types of open spaces as ap-
residents and the broader community by offering
propriate to the site, context, and building form:
aesthetic and environmental benefits through
yards, entry courtyards, interior courtyards,
the inclusion of vegetation, trees, elements to
porches, loggias, balconies, roof terraces, and
provide shade. Offer useful amenities to resi-
upper-level decks.
dents, provide opportunities to minimize the im-
pact of the new development neighbors' privacy
2.2 Provide opportunities for enjoyment of nature,
and quality of life, and contribute to the beauty
such as gathering places and play spaces for
of the city's streets, sidewalks, and open space.
residents.
Provide seating to foster social connection.
2.3
Consider locations at building entrances,
courtyards, and along paths connecting differ-
ent areas of the site.
OPEN SPACES - ACCOMMODATING DIVERSE USES
14
DESIGN GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
29 August 2019
DRAFT
planting, etc.—as a series of layers parallel
2.4 Consider summer shading and winter so-
lar access.
to the sidewalk that frame civic space and
delineate thresholds of privacy as one moves
2.5
Design open spaces to contribute positively to
from the sidewalk to the building entrance.
the public realm, maximizing vegetation—par-
2.7
Where possible in dense residential neighbor-
ticularly canopy trees—to shade and enrich
hoods and on corridors, provide landscaped
streets and other public open spaces.
forecourts and inner courtyards to create
2.6
In dense residential neighborhoods, design
transitional space between the public street and
front yards to frame the street and sidewalk
the building lobby, to provide light and air to unit
as civic spaces and to enhance the privacy of
interiors, and to enrich the site with plantings.
building interiors. Consider organizing front yard
2.8
Consider the location, dimension, and orien-
landscape elements—low walls, low planting or
tation of open spaces to best promote healthy
hedges, fences, trees, ground cover, foundation
trees and other vegetation.
COURTYARDS - INTEGRAL COMPONENTS OF THE URBAN PATTERN
COURTYARDS - CELEBRATING
FRONT YARDS - CONTRIBUTING TO THE
PUBLIC REALM
BUILDING ENTRANCE
15
SITE DESIGN
29 August 2019
DRAFT
2.9 Minimize the urban heat island effect by pre-
serving existing mature canopy trees wherever
possible and by planting new ones to shade
buildings, open spaces, and paved surfaces.
2.10 Follow the recommendations of the Department
of Public Works and the City's Urban Forest
Master Plan for species, planting standards,
and care.
COURTYARDS - PLACES OF CONNECTION
16
DESIGN GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
29 August 2019
DRAFT
2.11 Select species for low plantings and ground
2.13 Use landscaping to screen surface parking and
cover species that are appropriate for urban
vehicular driveways from residential units and
conditions.
open spaces on and adjoining the site.
2.14 Screen loading and trash areas, meters, me-
2.12 Minimize paved surfaces. Use permeable
surfaces wherever possible for pedestrian
chanical units, and utility equipment with plant-
ings or other appropriate landscape elements.
pathways, parking areas, and other paved
outdoor spaces.
SHADE, PERMEABLE SURFACES, AND SCREENING OF SERVICES AND UTILITIES
17
SITE DESIGN
29 August 2019
DRAFT
3. CIRCULATION
OBJECTIVE
3.5
On corner lots with non-residential street level
activities such as retail, consider locating
Promote non-motorized mobility by prioritiz-
entrances to ground floor functions at build-
ing pedestrian-friendly and bike-accessible
ing corners.
site design.
3.6 Establish pedestrian path widths and select their
GUIDELINES
materials in accord with their uses and locations
on the site.
3.1 Create direct, functional, and beautiful paths
for pedestrians and bicycles from the public
3.7 Provide bicycle access to the site and building that
is clearly legible, convenient, and reasonably di-
sidewalk to building entrances. Pedestrian
access to the building and site should be clearly
rect. Locate short-term bicycle parking for visitors
articulated and accessible to people of all levels
where it is visible and convenient to main building
of ability, and should take precedence over
entrances. Locate long-term bicycle parking for.
residents in secure and screened locations.
other mobility modes.
Create vehicular access and circulation routes
3.2
For large buildings, incorporate multiple
3.8
entrances wherever possible.
that are distinct from paths of pedestrian travel.
3.8
3.3 Locate building entrances wherever possible to
Minimize the number and widths of curb cuts
address public streets.
and driveways.
3.4 Consider elevating residential first floors above
3.10 Locate curb cuts on secondary streets
sidewalk level, consistent with accessibility
where possible.
needs and requirements.
PRIORITIZING THE PEDESTRIAN
CELEBRATING BUILDING ENTRANCES
ENVIRONMENT
18
DESIGN GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
29 August 2019
DRAFT
4. PARKING
4.3 Minimize the site area dedicated to driveways
OBJECTIVE
and parking and maximize its distance from
Minimize the impact of parking and driveways
neighboring properties.
on residents, neighbors, and the general public.
4.4 Use green walls, hedges, art work, metal
GUIDELINES
stencils, fences, louvers, sun shading elements,
or other means to visually screen parked cars.
4.1 Where possible, separate ground floor struc-
4.4
Shade parking lots with canopy trees or by
tured parking and/or bicycle storage from the
other means where possible.
street with residential units, common areas,
retail, or other populated ground floor uses.
4.5
Utilize permeable pavement where possible.
4.2
Develop the layout of parking and drive-
ways to avoid conflict with pedestrian and
bike movement.
SHADING DRIVEWAYS AND PARKING AREAS AND SCREENING THEM FROM VIEW
19
29 August 2019
SITE DESIGN
DRAFT
5. UTILITIES AND SERVICES
OBJECTIVE
5.3
Avoid locating air conditioning condensing units
on the ground. They should be located on roots
Minimize the visual, acoustical, and environ-
wherever possible.
mental impacts of essential utilities and ser-
vices on neighbors and on the public realm..
5.4 Locate roof mounted air conditioning equip-
ment, and mechanical penthouses away
GUIDELINES
from roof edges and/or provide parapets with
adequate height to screen them from adjacent
5.1 Locate utility functions such as gas, electric,
properties and public areas.
and water meters, transformers, switchgear,
and fire safety equipment where they will be
5.5
Reduce the noise impact of rooftop mechanical
least visible from the street. Where possible,
equipment with sound damping materials
conceal them within the building or in side or
and screens and proper acoustic and sound
rear yard setbacks. They should be planned
isolation methods.
for early in the design process to minimize
their impacts.
Screen trash and recycling areas with
5.6
landscaping and/or fencing and ensure that
Locate mechanical elements such as HVAC
5.2
noise and odor-generating functions are fully
units, condensing units, ventilation outlets,
enclosed.
mechanical exhausts, louvers, and similar ob-
jects to minimize their visibility from the public
SCREENING OF TRASH AND ELECTRICAL
realm and from neighboring sites and buildings.
EQUIPMENT AS AN INTEGRAL
Screen these elements with plantings, fences or
COMPONENT OF LANDSCAPE DESIGN
other materials that complement the site design
and the building's architecture.
DESIGN GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
20
29 August 2019
DRAFT
6. OUTDOOR LIGHTING
OBJECTIVE
6.3
Provide lighting that is fully shielded, downlit,
has a warm color temperature, and is at or
Provide lighting for safety and functionality while
below typical neighborhood light levels.
minimizing negative impacts on neighbors, the
public realm, and the larger environment, while
To further reduce light pollution, consider
6.4
minimizing energy use.
the provisions of Cambridge's draft Outdoor
Lighting Ordinance.
GUIDELINES
6.5
Select lighting fixtures that minimize energy
6.1 Use lighting only for safety and functional
consumption.
purposes such as providing wayfinding along
6.6
Employ timers, automatic dimming, motion
access/egress routes, allowing open spaces to
sensors or other mechanisms to avoid exces-
be usable in the evening, illuminating signage,
sive lighting, including in tuck-under parking.
or subtly accentuating key architectural ele-
ments of a building.
6.7 Consider using photovoltaic panels to pow-
er lighting.
6.2 Outdoor lighting should provide a level of safety
for residents while avoiding glare, light pollution,
and light trespass onto adjacent properties.
LIGHTING - DESIGNED AND LOCATED TO ADDRESS FUNCTIONALITY, SAFETY,
AND AESTHETICS
21
SITE DESIGN
29 August 2019
DRAFT
7. PUBLIC ART
OBJECTIVE
7.2 Where possible, integrate arts related uses
such as artists' galleries, arts displays, or
Enrich the visual environment and strengthen
artists studios on the ground level of affordable
the sense of place by incorporating art.
housing developments that are located on
business and commercial streets.
GUIDELINES
7.1 Incorporate public art as an integral component
of the development's architectural and land-
scape design.
PUBLIC ART
22
DESIGN GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
29 August 2019
DRAFT
BUILDING DESIGN
Design buildings to contribute to the neighborhood con-
text. Whether in areas of the city that are in transition or in
older established neighborhoods, affordable housing de-
velopment should strive for design excellence and be sen-
sitive to the character of the neighborhood. Compatible
building massing, form, scale, color, materials, and ar-.
chitectural details are critical in creating buildings that fit
within existing neighborhoods.
1. Massing
2. Facades
3. Architectural Details, Materials, Color, and Finishes
4. Building Interiors
23
BUILDING DESIGN
29 August 2019
DRAFT
1. MASSING
OBJECTIVE
1.2
Incorporate stepbacks to relate to the heights
of adjoining buildings and to the scale of the
Configure building massing for compatibility with
street; and to provide a transition between the
the prevailing or desired pattern of neighbor-
height of taller buildings and lower surrounding
ing buildings and open spaces. In established
buildings.
neighborhoods, relate to the existing pattern of
streets and other open spaces, and prioritize
Where a project adjoins districts with two
1.3
compatibility with existing buildings. In evolving
distinct heights, as where a site along a
areas, configure new developments to help real-
commercial corridor adjoins a lower height
ize the City's vision for urban form.
residential district, adjust massing to relate to
those heights.
GUIDELINES
1.4
Where possible, divide large developments into
1.1
separate buildings to reduce their scale.
Relate new building height, massing, scale, and
form to that of existing adjacent buildings.
RELATING TO THE SCALE OF NEIGHBORING BUILDINGS
thade Height Distuct
24
DESIGN GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
29 August 2019
DRAFT
1.5
Articulate the facades of large buildings into
1.7
In smaller scaled residential areas, articulate
the mass of large buildings to create a sense of
smaller components by means such as vertical
scale compatible with smaller scaled neighbors.
recesses or projections from the primary plane
of the street facade.
1.8
Reduce the visual bulk of taller buildings by
In high density areas, such as commercial
using stepbacks, or mansard, gambrel, hipped,
or gable roof profiles to enclose habitable
corridors, frame streets and squares with
streetwall facades.
upper stories.
BREAKING DOWN THE SCALE OF LARGE BUILDINGS
REDUCING THE BULK OF UPPER FLOORS
BUILDING DESIGN
25
29 August 2019
DRAFT
1. MASSING (CONTINUED)
1.11 Where possible, provide courtyard spaces at
1.9 Reinforce the existing or planned pattern of
building fronts or sides to reflect the character
streets and blocks and minimize impacts on
of preexisting development and to divide long
neighbors.
frontages into smaller scaled facades.
1.10 Adjust building configuration and massing to
1.12 Where appropriate, reinforce important street
maximize access to sunlight, air, and sky views
corners or termini of view corridors with special
from neighboring buildings and sites, and to
elements.
maintain privacy.
RESPONDING TO
RESPONDING TO THE CONFIGURATION OF THE
NEIGHBORING BUILDINGS
PUBLIC REALM
AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACES
Exceptiona:
Element:
26
DESIGN GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
29 August 2019
DRAFT
1. MASSING (CONTINUED)
1.13 Consider both symmetrical and asymmetrical 1.15 Where an existing neighboring residential
building is located very close to the lot line,
arrangements of building massing to best relate
consider adjusting the new building's footprint
new buildings to their existing neighbors.
to create a wider side yard than the minimum
1.14 For buildings fronting onto more than one
required
street, such as buildings on corner lots, re-
1.14 Where new buildings are constructed in the rear
spond to the relative significance of the streets
yards of existing buildings, or on large lots with
with orientation and massing strategies that
large setbacks, adjust their massing to reduce
reinforce their distinct characters. If possible,
impacts on neighboring buildings and yards
incorporate multiple building entries.
by careful siting, articulate massing, and by
reducing the visual bulk of top floors.
RESPONDING TO SIGNIFICANT CORNERS AND TO THE FORM AND SITING OF
ADJOINING BUILDINGS
27
BUILDING DESIGN
29 August 2019
DRAFT
2. FACADES
OBJECTIVES
scales and patterns of Cambridge's diverse and
historic neighborhoods.
Design building facades to enhance and enliven
the public realm. In established areas; empha-
Design street facades to offer a sense of civic
size compatibility and reinforce the sense of
presence and human scale, incorporating ar-
place. In evolving residential and commercial
chitectural details to provide visual interest as
districts of the city, contribute to the transfor-
appropriate to their role in defining public space.
mation of urban form by setting precedents for
design excellence.
GUIDELINES
Where appropriate, incorporate ground level re-
2.1
Consider Cambridge's architectural history,
tail spaces and common areas to foster a lively
heritage, culture and regional significance as
enliven the urban environment.
well as the established pattern of residential
Provide daylight to interior spaces, avoid exces-
neighborhoods and conservation districts.
sive energy use, and protect the privacy of the
2.2
Relate to architectural styles of the immediate
residents of neighboring buildings.
neighborhood context, and the street's urban
Design facades to relate to the residential
qualities.
FACADE DESIGN - RESPONDING TO CONTEXT
28
DESIGN GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
29 August 2019
DRAFT
2. FACADES (CONTINUED)
Provide architectural elements such as balco-
2.6
2.3
Relate to the scale of materials and joint
patterns prevalent in the surrounding
nies, bay windows, dormers, roof gardens, and
terraces where appropriate.
neighborhood.
Enrich and refine facades with details such as
2.7
2.4 Enrich facades with changes in plane,
projecting bay windows, balconies, and articu-
lintels, sills, and other window trim, railings,
string courses, cornices, and rake and
lated entrances, sun shades, and high quality
materials.
eave details,
2.8
Relate to the window-to-wall ratios and the
2.5
Provide shelter and shade at building
entrances.
proportion and rhythm of doors and windows
prevalent in the district,
ENRICHING FACADES WITH BAY WINDOWS, CHANGES IN PLANE AND MATERIALS
BALCONIES AND PORCHES
29
29 August 2019
BUILDING DESIGN
DRAFT
2. FACADES (CONTINUED)
2.10 Consider providing emphasis at the corners
2.9 Where buildings present long facades to the
street, give visual interest to the facade and
of blocks by the treatment of facades and by
create an intermediate sense of scale by
providing functional entries to ground floor
retail spaces.
incorporating elements such as recesses,
projections, balconies, bay windows, porticoes,
2.11 Avoid incorporating extravagant or exaggerated
columns, pilasters, piers, or expressed struc-
building elements or features such as out-of-
tural bays.
scale cornices on building parapets.
MODULATING LONG FACADES TO ENRICH THE SENSE OF SCALE
EMPHASIZING BUILDING CORNERS
30
DESIGN GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
29 August 2019
DRAFT
2. FACADES (CONTINUED)
2.15 For large buildings on business and commercial
2.12 For buildings on lots with significant side and
streets, emphasize the distinct character of the
rear setbacks, consider articulating all four
sides of the building.
ground floor facade, particularly where retail
space or community spaces are provided.
2.13 Use building massing, form, color, and mate-
2.16 Where ground floors accommodate retail
rials, and architectural details to differentiate
space, common spaces, or community spaces,
the building's base, middle and upper level
maximize views of interior spaces on public
facades; and add special design emphasis on
streets by using clear glass in windows and
the ground floor facade.
storefronts.
2.14 Enrich public streets with identifiable and
functional building entrances.
TRIPARTITE FACADE ORGANIZATION - BASE; MIDDLE, AND TOP
ARTICULATED SIDE AND REAR FACADES
OF BUILDING ON LARGE LOT
31
29 August 2019
BUILDING DESIGN
DRAFT
2. FACADES (CONTINUED)
2.19 Wherever possible, screen parking with pro-
2.17 Enhance building entrances and spaces around
them with features such as stoops, porches,
gramed spaces to enliven the street facades.
recesses, canopies, awnings, low walls,
2.20 Where parking spaces immediately behind the
arcades, landscaping, and seating areas.
ground floor street facade or facing neighboring
properties, screen the parking with architectural
2.18 On business and commercial corridors,
elements that provide depth and visual interest,
clearly differentiate ground floor facades from
including decorative lovers, green wall or other
those of upper floors. Provide ceiling heights
and facades to accommodate retail or other
decorative treatment including art work, grilles
active uses.
or louvers. Avoid using metal wire mesh screen-
ing that does not provide depth to the wall.
GROUND FLOOR FACADES - RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL
GROUND FLOOR FACADES - SCREENING PARKING AND SERVICE FUNCTIONS
32
DESIGN GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
29 August 2019
DRAFT
2. FACADES (CONTINUED)
often have intricate massing, roof lines, or
2.21 Avoid blank walls on ground floor facades.
parapet walls.
Where spaces such as utility rooms, fire control
centers, etc. require windowless walls, other
2.23 Rooftop terraces and gardens can add visual
means of creating visual interest should be
interest to the tops of buildings and provide
provided, including changes in plane, materials,
needed open space for residents.
details, and provision for planting.
2.23 Design roofs and top floors as natural exten-
2.22 Give special consideration to the design of
sions of the building massing.
top floor facades, particularly in residential
neighborhoods, where buildings in Cambridge
BUILDING TOP FLOORS - DORMERS, SETBACKS, TERRACES, AND BALCONIES
33
29 August 2019
BUILDING DESIGN
DRAFT
2. FACADES (CONTINUED)
2.24 Size and locate fenestration to balance urban
2.25 Visually enrich glazed areas with carefully
considered mullion and muntin patterns and
design goals and architectural qualities such
profiles, operable windows, window trim, and
as transparency and a pedestrian-friendly
appearance with building energy performance
sun-shading devices.
and neighbors' privacy.
WINDOW TO WALL RATIOS - BALANCING VISUAL TRANSPARENCY AND ENERGY
EFFICIENCY
20%
2296
24%
USKG
FENESTRATION - ENRICHING THE FACADE WITH MULLION PATTERNS AND THE
ARRANGEMENT OF OPENINGS
ELL
34
DESIGN GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
29 August 2019
DRAFT
2. FACADES (CONTINUED)
2.26 Use best practices in restoration and maintain-
quality and craftsmanship. If not feasible,
substitute with style-neutral high-quality
ing historic structures. Consultation with the
components and materials compatible with
Cambridge Historical Commission is recom-
the architecture and historic character of the
mended, especially for developments in Historic
building and district.
and Neighborhood Conservation Districts.
2.26 Where new units are proposed on an existing
2.27 In renovating or adding to an existing archi-
lot shared with a historic structure, the new
tecturally or historically significant building, or
building should, if possible, be detached from
where original materials or components need to
the historic structure and distinguish itself as
be replaced, use traditional building elements
new construction through materials, architectur-
with the same architectural features, material
al details, and form.
HISTORIC BUILDINGS - RENOVATION AND ADDITION
35
BUILDING DESIGN
29 August 2019
DRAFT
3. ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS, MATERIALS,
COLOR, AND FINISHES
GUIDELINES
OBJECTIVE
3.1 . While is it not required that materials match
Use materials that are warm, inviting, and
those of adjacent buildings, select their general
compatible with surrounding existing buildings
color and scale in response to the neighbor-
and the neighborhood context. Develop building
hood character.
facades of high-quality, durable materials and
with colors, finishes, and textures appropriate to
3.2 Use high-quality and durable construction
building contexts.
materials with a proven record of long life-cycle
and low environmental impacts.
MATERIALS, COLORS, AND DETAILS - RELATING TO NEIGHBORHOOD BUILDINGS
DESIGN GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
36
29 August 2019
DRAFT
3.5
Avoid metallic and reflective facade materials
3.3 Natural and durable materials such as brick,
concrete masonry, and stone are preferred.
and window glazing.
Other optional materials include pre-manu-
3.6
For residential units, strive for divided light or
factured panels of cementitious, concrete, or
multiple pane windows. Avoid plate glass and
composite materials.
single light windows.
3.4
Use materials with colors appropriate to the
3.7
Glass should be transparent and untinted.
immediate context and that are commonly used
in the area. Avoid the use of garish colors that
are not relevant to the architectural vocabulary
found in the neighborhood context.
MATERIALS, COLORS, AND DETAILS - RELATING TO NEIGHBORHOOD BUILDINGS
37
BUILDING DESIGN
29 August 2019
DRAFT
4. BUILDING INTERIORS
OBJECTIVE
counter space and storage in kitchens. Provide
access to laundry facilities in residential units or
Affordable housing, like all housing, should
serve the needs of its residents while contrib-
elsewhere in the development.
uting to the residential character and sense of
Utilize interior finishes and fixtures that
4.3
neighborhood within the area at large.
are high quality, durable, sustainable, and
energy-efficient.
GUIDELINES
4.4
In larger projects, provide interior common
4.1
Provide a mix of unit types and sizes that
spaces for shared amenities, services and
will support and contribute to the diversity of
facilities such as storage, recreation and
housing in the neighborhood. The inclusion of
gathering space, or in larger buildings areas
that can serve residents in the event of extreme
a significant number of units that are suitable
for families with children is preferred except
weather or power outages. Consider providing
amenities that serve the broader community.
in special cases where housing will serve
populations with different housing needs, such
4.5
Consider providing common spaces at ground
as housing for seniors.
level, visually connected to outdoor space,
4.2
Design interior living spaces to be attractive and
whether on building frontages or addressing the
comfortable. Include adequate interior living
interior of the block.
space, common storage, and access to natural
4.6.
Use operable windows for residential units and
light and air. Interior living spaces should be
common spaces to provide passive ventilation
designed to be comfortable. Size bedrooms to
and improve indoor air quality.
accommodate standard bedroom furniture and
include access to natural light. Provide ample
38
DESIGN GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
29 August 2019
DRAFT
BUILDING INTERIORS - COMFORTABLE AND PLEASANT SPACES
COMMON SPACES - CONNECTED TO THE OUTDOORS
39
29 August 2019
BUILDING DESIGN
DRAFT
Intentionally blank
DESIGN GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
40
29 August 2019
DRAFT
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
Follow the City's overall sustainable development prac-
tices in affordable housing developments. Maximize en-
ergy efficiency and performance to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and should be resilient to the anticipated
effects of climate change.
These guidelines are meant to supplement the City's
zoning requirements and other applicable policies,
including the Net Zero Action Plan and the Climate
Change Preparedness and Resilience Plan.
41
29 August 2019
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
DRAFT
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
OBJECTIVE
1.6 On roofs, exterior walls, and paved surfaces,
use materials with high solar reflectivity to
Achieve resilience measures to the maximum
minimize heat absorption and localized heat
extent possible, including energy efficiency and
island effect. As an alternative, employ vegetated
measures to promote the health and wellness of
coverings such as green roofs or green walls.
residents.
1.7 While trees are preferred, where they are not
GUIDELINES
feasible consider the use of shading devices
such as canopies, awnings, or pergolas to
1.1 Use the City's most up-to-date projections for
provide shade on exterior paved areas and/or
anticipated future flood elevations, including the
to reduce solar heat gain on building facades.
City's Floodviewer information and dashboard,
1.8
On large projects, consider providing common
Seek guidance from the City of Cambridge
spaces protected from flooding and extreme
Department of Public Works (DPW) regarding
heat, suitable as shelter during emergencies.
peak stormwater runoff and on measures to
build and protect to 2070 for the 10% flood and
1.9
, Employ renewable and low-carbon energy fea-
be able to recover from the 1% flood.
tures where feasible, such as solar photovoltaic
1.2
systems, solar heating systems, or geothermal
Avoid locating sensitive uses such as critical
heating and cooling systems.
building functions, emergency equipment, or
residential bedrooms in areas that are at risk of
1.10 Consider operational and embodied energy in
future flooding.
material selection.
1.3
In site design, orientation, and facade arrange-
1.11 Select and design building systems and equip-
ment, minimize the demand for heating and
ment within units to facilitate conversion to all
cooling by considering the effects of solar gain
renewable energy systems in the future.
on different sides of the building. Design interior
spaces for passive heating, cooling, and ven-
1.12 Use materials with no volatile organic com-
tilation. This approach is intended to conserve
pound emissions in all walls, floorings, ceilings,
energy while also improving resilience in the
furniture, acoustic and thermal insulation, and
event of power outages or other mechanical
on exterior applied products.
failures.
1.13 Integrate cool roof or green roof systems on
1.4
Incorporate passive cooling and ventilation with
building roofs where possible to contribute to
operable windows, including operable upper
strategies for stormwater management and
sashes or transoms.
green infrastructure.
1.5 Incorporate sun shading devices or shutters
1.14 Where possible, use and integrate recycled
content materials without compromising durabil-
with positive ventilation, solar screens, cano-
pies, porches, or brise-soleil to shade strongly
ity and material quality.
sunlit facades.
DESIGN GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
29 August 2019
42
DRAFT
ROOFTOPS AS OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS STORMWATER AND ENERGY
PASSIVE SYSTEMS
future food lose
43
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
29 August 2019
DRAFT
GLOSSARY
Affordable housing: Affordable housing is a reference
Circulation: The layout of permeable or impermeable
to dwelling units that are affordable to households
surfaces around the site and building including street
space, sidewalks for building entrance, exits, access to
earning an income that does not exceed the amounts
set forth in the Zoning Ordinance
parking, driveways, and aisles
Affordable housing overlay: A modified zoning map and
Context: A place or locale such as a neighborhood or a
community setting with physical qualities and charac-
zoning requirements intended to regulate the develop-
ment of 100% affordable housing referenced in Zoning
ter-defining features manifested in its built form and
Ordinance
natural environment including its buildings, landmarks,
parks, street space, and other natural features such
Architectural details: Architectural elements or compo-
as rivers and scenic settings; that is perceived to
nents of a building cladding, fenestration, or building
represent or characterize that place or a locale as
enclosure that express building style and character
distinguished or unique. A building that is contextual or
context sensitive is a building that fits well within and
Architecturally significant: A structure or building that
respectful of its context
is valued by the community in which the structure
or building is located due to physical and symbolic
Cool Roof: A cool roof is a roofing system that delivers
qualities including design, style, character, construc-
higher solar reflectance (the ability to reflect the
tion method, architectural details, its architect, or its
visible, infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths of the
time period. Architecturally significant buildings or
sun, reducing heat transfer to the building) and higher
structures may or may not be designated in a historic
thermal emittance (the ability to radiate absorbed, or
district
non-reflected solar energy) than standard designed
Bay expression: The typical module and spacing of struc-
roofing products.
tural elements or components that are repetitive on the
Corner lot: A lot with two frontages on intersecting two
building facade horizontally and vertically. For exam-
streets
ple, the vertical planar surface of the facade between
two columns or pilasters with repetitive components
Cladding: The exterior material layer of a building envelope
such as storefront windows or opaque wall expressed
which forms a veneer such as brick, stone, metal,
on the building facade is a typical bay expression
glass, concrete, wood, terracotta, or other composite
systems made of such materials
Bay window: Projection of a window or a window wall
Fenestration: The portion of the building envelope consist-
beyond the typical plane of the building facade
ing of openings within the opaque wall for windows
Blank wall: A wall with opaque cladding materials enclosing
and doors dedicated for vision glass. For the purpose
an interior space with no wall openings or glazing
of the guidelines, spandrel glass that is opaque and
materials
does not allow light is not considered part of fenestra-
Canopy: A Horizontal element that is structurally supported
tion proportions or calculation
and providing a roof-like protective surface
• GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
GLOSSARY
DRAFT
Green Roof: A green roof is a roof of a building that is
partially or completely covered with vegetation and a
growing medium, planted over a waterproofing mem-
brane. It may also include additional layers such as a
root barrier and drainage and irrigation systems.
Green Wall: A green wall is a wall partially or completely
covered with greenery that includes a growing medi-
um, such as soil, water or a substrate.
Guidelines: A set of urban design guiding principles,
recommendations, best practices or strategies intend-
ed to inform the design phase
Opaque wall: A wall that does not allow visible light to go
through including spandrel glass, spandrel metal
panel, reflective glass that does not allow for visibility
from the outside
Massing: The perceived three-dimensional aspect of the
physical qualities of building including its bulk, height,
and scale
Mechanical equipment screen wall: Is a ground level
or rooftop element or structure without a roof used
to block from public view building system elements
such as mechanical, electrical, plumbing or elevator
equipment and machinery
Reflective glass: A glass used as part of window system
or as a spandrel panel that does not allow for visibility
from the outside
Penthouse: An enclosed and unoccupied rooftop structure
used to enclose rooftop equipment including mechan-
ical, electrical, plumbing, or elevator equipment and
machinery
Vision glass: Glass that is transparent; it may be clear
glass or tinted but provides transparency from the
exterior and interior.
45
:9 August 2019
GLOSSARY
DRAFT
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
IMAGE SOURCES:
• Cambridge Arts Council
• Cambridge Community Development Department
• Cambridge Day
• Erik Thorkildsen
• Gardenista
• Glen-Gary Brick
• Google Earth Pro
• Hacin + Associates
• HMFH Architects
• OverUnder
• Semper Greenwall
Turfstone
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
GUIDELINES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
Crane, Paula
ATTACHMENT 52
Sharon Stichter <[email removed]>
From:
Sent:
Thursday, July 25, 2019 3:29 PM
To:
City Council
Crane, Paula
Cc:
Housing Overlay Zoning Proposal
Subject:
It would be so sad to see our beautiful low-rise city become a high-rise hard-urban area. Having lived here for
35+ years, I feel this current proposal would be the death knell for the city I once loved. HSNA is right to
oppose the proposal. Please don't be responsible for passing it!
S. Stichter, owner of a 2-family on Walden St.
From: Harvard Square Neighborhood Association via ActionNetwork.org
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 11:16 AM
To: [email removed]
Subject: HSNA Call for Action!
Dear Sharon,
We urgently need your attention and help!
Probably the MOST IMPORTANT meeting this summer will take place next Thursday.
(August 1, 5:30-8:00 PM at city Hall). It is critical that as many people can come to this
meeting as possible, and - please sign up, while you are there to speak. You can do that by
calling the City Clerk's office at [phone removed] or sign up online If this zoning petition is sent
forward during this meeting, it will most likely come before Council for their first vote on
Sept.9; the second Council vote will take place Sept 23, 2019.
Key issues: We all support affordable housing, done well, with equity, and available in
neighborhoods throughout the city. The Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Up-zoning
petition, however is a risky, deeply flawed, and potentially dangerous proposal. This plan will
allow 4-5 story buildings of massive scale and density, that extend to 7.5 feet from the side
1
yards or closer throughout the city, and where four-story buildings exist now; and will allow
seven story buildings as replacements if they are for housing entirely for those on city
housing subsidies. This plan also will allow massive 7 story buildings on the major corridors,
such as Massachusetts Avenue and Cambridge Street. These structures will be built "as of
right" without the ability of citizen legal appeal except on the narrowest of terms. For more
information on the AHO and its potentially damaging impacts see the three Blogs by Vice
Mayor Jan Devereux. https://jandevereux.com/tag/affordable-housing-overlay/
Information and updates can also be found on the Cambridge Citizens Coalition website:
CCCoalition.org.
The city has sent this post card shown below to every citizen as part of a larger advertising
campaign without providing any of the key details of the structures that will be allowable
throughout the city. What we are also learning is that there likely will be FAR MORE of these
subsidized housing structures being built throughout the city than officials are stating,
because for profit investors and developers also will be able to readily access investor and
city funds to build such structures and profit significantly from these investments. The city's
informational post card mailing is also the way the city is indicating that every resident has
been legally alerted to these proposed changes.
ACTIONS!
1. Sign up in the sheets inside the Sullivan Room of City Hall near the entry
2. Write (again?) to City Council with your views: CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV also
CC the City Clerk: pcrane@cambridgema.gov
3. Contact individual City Council Members: Contact information is here
4. Talk with your members and ask them to join you in contacting individual council
member and attending this meeting.
KEY MEETINGS
2
• Thursday August 1, 5:30-8:00 PM, Ordinance Meeting at City Council, City Hall. 795
Mass Ave.
• Tuesday September 3, 6:30 PM, Planning Board AHO discussion. City Hall Annex
344 Broadway
• Monday, Sept 9, 5:30 PM, 1st City Council Vote on the AHO city-wide up-zoning
plan at City Hall, 795 Mass Ave.
• Monday, Sept.23, 5:30 PM, 2nd City Council Vote on the AHO city-wide up-zoning
plan at City Hall, 795 Mass Ave.
***IT IS IMPORTANT THAT EVERYONE COME TO
THESE MEETINGS AND SPEAK! *
Other informational meetings - on the Affordable Housing Overlay:
• Monday August 5, 5:30-8:00 PM. Cambridge Public Library Main Branch.
Community Room
Saturday, Sept. 7, 10 AM-12 PM. Windsor St. Care Center Gym, 119 Windsor St.
HSNA MEMBERSHIP
Have you Renewed or Signed up Yet?Sign up for our newsletters, become a member, or
renew here. Or email checks to HSNA P.O. Box 380060, Cambridge, MA 02238 Membership
is $50.00 or pay what you can. Become a member here or Email us at
[email removed] Follow us on Facebook Join our Facebook Group
Thank you for supporting the Harvard Square Neighborhood.
SAVE THE DATE FOR THE NEXT HSNA PUBLIC MEETING
3
Lopez, Donna
ATTACHMENT 53
From:
Crane, Paula
Sent:
Friday, July 26, 2019 9:03 AM
To:
Lopez, Donna
Subject:
FW: overlay
From: Nella LaRosa-Waters <[email removed]>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 6:48 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>; Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov>
Subject: overlay
I have been following the issue of the Housing Overlay plan that has been
put out by the city for a long time. I have paid close attention to the
specifics of this plan and taken home written versions as well as new
updates. I have spoken to some City Councillors and read blogs and
emails of some as well. I have participated in my neighborhood Listserve
where this issue has dominated for quite a while now. Like the majority
of people I have communicated with one way or another, (close to 85%
of whom reject this plan), I have come to the same conclusion. There are
too many points to elaborate on here, but | agree with all the objections;
from the sloppiness of the process and final product, to the serious issues
it raises about the serious negative consequences that would follow if
this plan was to be voted in. Environmental Issues, issues of loss of input,
issues of not looking into other solutions that are more equitable and
creative that other cities are doing successfully, etc. This is not the time
to approve of such a controversial plan with so many negatives. Please
know that we have many ways and good ideas to explore and initiate so
we don't need to rush this.
Thanks you,
Nella LaRosa-Waters
54 Crescent St.
02138
ATTACHMENT 54
Lopez, Donna
Crane, Paula
From:
Sent:
Thursday, July 25, 2019 5:03 PM
To:
Lopez, Donna
FW: AHO
Subject:
----Original Message-...
From: Lynn Cetrulo <[email removed]>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 5:02 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>
Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov>
Subject: AHO
Dear Councillors
I am against the AHO plan as it stands. There are better ways to accomplish goals than the very flawed proposals cited
in detail by members of the Cambridge Planning board. How you vote on this issue will determine whether I vote for
you.
Lynn Cetrulo
Crane, Paula
ATTACEMENT 55
Eleanor Marsh <[email removed]>
From:
Sent:
Saturday, July 27, 2019 6:22 AM
To:
City Council
Clerk
Cc:
AHO
Subject:
Regarding the AHO, at your discussions/public hearings/open houses on the topic over the summer, please make sure
you clearly define what you mean by "affordable housing for low, moderate, and middle income households," ie what %
will be allotted to each of these segments and what is the income level for each segment. To me, "affordable housing"
means 100% for low income residents, which I would support.
Also, rather than overwhelm Cambridge with higher scale and density housing, how about IMPROVING THE
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, eg put in a light rail (since the Red Line keeps breaking down) to bring commuters
in quickly and efficiently from within 495?
Respectfully,
:....
Eleanor Marsh
609 Green St
Cambridge
ATTACHMENT 56
Lopez, Donna
From:
Ron Jackson <[email removed]>
Sent:
Monday, July 29, 2019 10:28 PM
To:
McGovern, Marc
Clerk
Co:
Subject:
Affordable Housing Overlay Oppostion
Dear Mr. Mayor,
I have been a Cambridge resident for 28 years (more than half of my life) I have been hearing more and more about the
Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO), and as I have been reading the supplied materials, I have a few concerns that I will
quickly outline below:
Density - One issue that is littered throughout the AHO is talk about density, and changing the rules that have been in
place for years in order to squeeze more units into less space. The other part of density according to the AHO materials
is in addition to smaller units in existing structures, it then wants to supersize said structures to include even more
smaller units, all while trying to keep the cost per unit down. So, in addition to cramming more people into smaller units,
and in bigger buildings, the following consequences also come to mind:
Parking: The other thing that the AHO materials talk about is requiring less parking per unit, and while I get it, it still
doesn't make life any easier for those in neighborhoods that will be affected by the daily strain of looking for a parking
spot after work and circling the block until they have a to park far from their home. Reminds me of the North End, or
South Boston. Just not fair for those of us who are invested and live in their neighborhood. And what are you going to do
on Street cleaning and snowstorm days?
More Large Construction Projects: While it is somewhat refreshing to have a neighbor fix their house, most neighbors
can't wait for the construction noises, construction workers cars taking up all their parking spots, and debris/dust to
leave. On top of this, according the the AHO, when it's done, your neighbor's house might be alot bigger and closer than
you would like. And with less parking for all of the new tenants. So, you might not be too thrilled when it ends.. And you
might not get your parking spot back when its over, making you feel like you just got imposed upon.
Traffic: The traffic in my North Cambridge neighborhood is worse than it's ever been, and with the proposed increased
density, it will only get worse.
Green/Open Space: This is another thing that will get imposed upon, if only as a buffer between neighbors. Something
that is important in a neighborhood, and why we cherish our already small yards and few trees and shrubs. I just think
this will make the birds and the bees angry as well. And don't forget about the bunnies. And what about the Green
Cambridge thing? I thought that was something that the city really cared about.
Maintenance/Upkeep: Who is responsible for maintaining and keeping these new structures updated and clean, and
safe? What happens if they fall into disrepair, or incur code violations. Will they be attentive, or will they be like Jared
Kushner's company, who owns thousands of apartments in Baltimore, that according to a recent article, currently have
more than 200 code violations against them for things such as mouse infestations, mold, and maggots. Apparently they
have their tenants over a barrel. They won't fix it, and the tenants can't move. Can't sue. They are stuck there.
All of these are my observations, and I just wonder if this whole Affordabe Housing Overlay is more like Overkill. I think it
is not something that any councilor should vote for, and I will not vote for any Cambridge City Councilor who votes for
the Affordable Housing Overlay in it's current state. I will also be spreading the word to my neighbors and friends.
Thanks for listening,
Ron Jackson
14 Camp St.
JULY 29, 2019
Mr. Marc McGovern
Dear Mr. Mayor,
I have been a Cambridge resident for 28 years (more than half of my life) I have been hearing more and more
about the Atfordable Housing Overlay (AHO), and as I have been reading the supplied materials, I have a few
concerns that I will quickly outline below:
Density - One issue that is littered throughout the AHO is talk about density, and changing the rules that have
been in place for years in order to squeeze more units into less space. According to the AHO materials, in
addition to creating smaller units in existing structures, it will allow Developers to supersize said structures to
include even more smaller units, all while trying to keep the cost per unit down. So, in addition to cramming
more people into smaller units, and in bigger buildings, the following consequences also come to mind:
Parking: The other thing that the AHO materials talk about is requiring less parking per unit, and while I get it,
it still doesn't make life any easier for those in neighborhoods that will be affected by the daily strain of looking
for a parking spot after work, circling the block until they have to park far from their home. Reminds me of the
North End, or South Boston. Just not fair for those of us who are invested and live in our neighborhood. And,
what are we supposed to do on Street cleaning and snowstorm days?
More Large Construction Projects: While it is somewhat refreshing to have a neighbor fix their house, most
neighbors can't wait for the construction noises, construction worker's cars taking up all their parking spots, and
debris/dust to leave. On top of this, according the AHO, when it's done, your neighbor's house might be alot
bigger and closer than you would have liked. And, with less parking for all of the new tenants. So, you might
not be too thrilled when it ends. And, you will have less street parking when it's over, making you feel like you
just got imposed upon.
Traffic: The traffic in my North Cambridge neighborhood is worse than it's ever been, and with the proposed
increased density, it will only get worse.
Green/Open Space: This is another thing that will get imposed upon, if only as a buffer between neighbors.
Something that is important in a neighborhood, and why we cherish our already small yards and few trees and
shrubs. I just think this will make the birds and the bees angry as well. And don't forget about the bunnies. And
what about the Green Cambridge thing? I thought that was something that the city really cared about. Guess not.
Maintenance/Upkeep: Who is responsible for maintaining and keeping these new structures updated and clean,
and safe? What happens if they fall into disrepair, or incur code violations. Will they be attentive, or will they
2
be like Jared Kushner's company, who owns thousands of apartments in Baltimore, that according to a
recent article, currently have more than 200 code violations against them for things such as mouse infestations,
mold, and maggots. Apparently they have their tenants over a barrel. They won't fix it, and the tenants can't
move. Can't sue. They are stuck there.
All of these are my observations, and I just wonder if this whole Affordabe Housing Overlay is more like
Overkill. I think it is not something that any councilor should vote for, and I will not vote for any Cambridge
City Councilor who votes for the Affordable Housing Overlay in it's current state. I will also be spreading the
word to my neighbors and friends.
Thanks for listening,
Ron Jackson
14 Camp St.
3
Lopez, Donna
ATTACHMENT 57
From:
Dean Traweek <[email removed]>
Sent:
Monday, July 29, 2019 2:48 PM
To:
City Council
Cc:
Clerk
Subject:
Affordable Housing Overlay
As an every election voter and a citizen who favors diversity in Cambridge, I am strongly
opposed to this proposal. I will definitely vote to express my views this fall.
I would never want to see any type of high rise buildings in low rise residential
neighborhoods. I don't care who lives, works, or shops in such buildings. They are a bad
idea. Period.
Who benefits by suspension of zoning laws? Developers who have no interest in quality
of life in Cambridge.
I have not heard anything about impact on traffic and parking. Traffic is bad now,
particularly at commuter periods, that I see daily incidents of frustrated motorists
running red lights and failing to yield, as required by law, at roundabouts (traffic circles).
Many bicyclists also flout traffic laws with impunity. I have been hit once this year
because of traffic congestion and inadequate enforcement of traffic laws. This proposal
will undoubtedly make those problems worse.
While I have supported candidates on the basis of the need for more affordable housing
in Cambridge, this proposal is not an acceptable way of meeting that goal. Your proposal
would destroy much of what makes Cambridge a great place to live.
Furthermore, I dislike the fact that the hearings and discussion were scheduled in the
summer months when many interested citizens are away. I suggest that you table this
proposal until after elections so that voters returning home in the fall could clearly
express their attitudes on the Affordable Housing Overlay.
Please vote no on this proposal or I will vote no on you at the next opportunity.
Thank you for hearing me.
Dean Traweek
12 Brattle Circle
Lopez, Donna
ATTACHMENT 58
From:
Simpson, James < [email removed]>
Sent:
Monday, July 29, 2019 10:02 AM
To:
McGovern, Marc; Devereux, Jan; Carlone, Dennis; Kelley, Craig; Mallon, Alanna; Siddiqui,
Sumbul; Simmons, Denise; Toomey, Tim; Zondervan, Quinton; Clerk
Subject:
PLEASE DO NOT VOTE FOR CAMBRIDGE REZONING
Dear Cambridge City Council,
I am unable to attend the current set of meetings regarding the re-zoning of Cambridge. I write in the strongest possible
erms of disapproval, and, not to put too fine a point on the matter, of skepticism: that such a radical redevelopment, :
vidently in the interests of developers, should produce so little extra AH, looks thoroughly unpersuasive, not to s
plain suspect.
I will make it my business to vote against, and encourage voting against, any councilor who votes in favor of these
deeply questionable proposals.
Please do not destroy one of the few wholly livable environments in the Boston area. Please do not turn West
Cambridge into the ghastly wasteland that is East Cambridge.
Yours faithfully,
James Simpson
243-7 Concord Ave
Cambridge MA 02138
James Simpson
Department of English
Harvard University
:
12 Quincy St
Cambridge MA 02138
USA
Office: 617-4952983
Cell: [phone removed]
Crane, Paula
ATTACHMENT 59
[email removed]
From:
Sent:
Monday, July 29, 2019 9:25 AM
City Council
To:
Cc:
Crane, Paula
Opposition to AHO
Subject:
Dear City Council members and City Clerk:
In relation to the Special City Council's meeting on Tuesday, July 30, we are writing again to oppose
the current AHO plan, even with the multiple amendments, which do not address all of the most
serious fatal flaws in the plan and indicate that the plan needs more time than a vote in September to
fix the affordable housing problem.
Sincerely,
Tom and Sue Owen
950 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
Crane, Paula
AMTACHMENT 60
From:
William Skocpol <[email removed]>
Sent:
Monday, July 29, 2019 2:05 PM
To:
City Council; Clerk
Cc:
William J. Skocpol
A Very Strong Reason to Oppose the All-City Zoning Overlay
Subject:
Dear Council Members,
This is my official statement regarding the All-City Zoning Overlay.
I believe in affordable housing in all areas of the city. I believe in proximity within neighborhoods of all classes of people.
But Cambridge will become unlivable if you adopt this ordinance because it will be successfully broadened by powerful
monied interests.
I am certain that some group of developers will sue the city demanding that the same zoning overlay be adopted for all
developers of all types of housing, and probably office, commercial, and laboratory space as well. After all, you are
privileging one group of citizens so that they can acquire land and advance projects more quickly in competition with all
others. You want to restrict it to 100% affordable, but the lawyers will say, Why not 50%? Why not 20%? Why not all
housing? "More housing will be good for all the people who will be residents of Cambridge" Indeed, offices mean jobs,
labs mean jobs, chain stores can pay higher rents to Cambridge landlords. Why should any builder be discriminated
against?? This is a cogent argument, and you will be unable to defend the priority for 100% affordable housing.
Controlled development of any and all of these things can indeed be good for Cambridge. But "as of right" abandonment
of all Zoning Regulations will destroy this city. Think about this BEFORE YOU VOTE.
Bill Skocpol
66 Huron Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
ATTACHMENT 61
Crane, Paula
Richard Tremaglio <[email removed]>
From:
Monday, July 29, 2019 10:37 AM
Sent:
City Council; Crane, Paula; City Manager; CDDat34‹
To:
Subject:
It is essential that a comprehensive plan and a thoughtful design review process be included
in the new zoning overlay. The current proposal IS NOT SENSITIVE to the unique urban fabric
of Cambridge.
Richard Tremaglio
36 Tierney St.
Cambridge
Crane, Paula
ATTACHMENT 62
From:
Jacqueline Landau <jc|[email removed]>
Sent:
Monday, July 29, 2019 1:11 AM
To:
City Council
Crane, Paula
Cc:
Subject:
Overlay proposal
I strongly agree with everything Jan Devereux has said on her website about the overlay proposal. I don't
think there would have been so much acrimony if the public had been told about this and asked to weigh in
earlier in the process. Most people | talk to don't know a thing about it. Postcards were just sent to everyone;
with no indication of what this issue is really about. Also, it is almost August when many people are on
vacation. Cambridge is supposed to be a very democratic city, yet none of this has been done
democratically. Time is needed to let the public weigh in (after the issue has been well-publicized), and
changes in the proposal need to be made. One problem cannot be corrected by creating many more. We
must have some experts in the city on how best to create affordable housing. I have heard that one expert did
make some recommendations but they were ignored. Please do not rush this through, since it may have a
significant impact on the entire city, and one size does not fit all.
Jacqueline Landau, Ph.D. 950 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 214 Cambridge, MA 02139 [phone removed]
Lopez, Donna
ATTACHmENT 63
From:
Carolyn < [email removed]>
Sent:
Tuesday, July 30, 2019 4:08 PM
To:
City Council
Cc:
Clerk
'Subject:
100% AHO Upzoning
I am writing to tell you that there is much that is wrong with the proposed zoning.
First of all, it takes away every resident's right to appeal a project they find has serious
problems.
It does not give the Planning Board any role. The Planning board will have NO
DISCRETIONARY power.
It will contribute greatly to the loss of our tree canopy.
Why? Because there are 13 exceptions to the open space requirement which allow a
building to be built to within a few feet of the property line.
Any extent trees on a site will be injured or killed by the construction equipment. That's
a fact, and if any of you have visited a construction site, you will have seen how piles of
lumber are dumped on gardens, how large equipment cuts the roots of trees and knocks
trees over.
If you vote for the AHO, you will be guilty of politics as usual, or I should say, politics as
it is practiced in our nation's capital theses days.
The supporters of the AHO are members or associates of a POLITICAL ACTION
COMMITTEE (PAC). Most of the supporters are associated with that PAC. The person
heading up that PAC also has a very important position with one of the non-profits
clamoring for this upzoning. You know who that is. By voting for this overlay, you
will draw the suspicion of fair minded voters who will assume that you will benefit
somehow from giving favor to a PAC.
If you don't give any credence to the words of a well-known expert, Bob Simha, if you
think you know more than he does, you are deceiving yourself and the residents of
Cambridge.
GET RID OF THE AS-OF-RIGHT CLAUSE
GET RID OF THE 13 EXCEPTIONS TO OPEN SPACE.
IF YOU REALLY WANT TO MAINTAIN AND INCREASE THE TREE CANOPY IN
CAMBRIDGE, YOU WILL VOTE AGAINST THIS OUTRAGEOUS AHO UP ZONING.
I will campaign vigorously against any councillor voting yes on this horrible proposed
zoning.
Respectfully yours,
Carolyn Shipley
15 Laurel St.
1
Crane, Paula
ATTACHMENT 64
From:
George Mouradian <[email removed]>
Sent:
Tuesday, July 30, 2019 6:57 PM
To:
City Council
Crane, Paula; DePasquale, Louie
Cc:
Subject:
New AHO in Cambridge
Honorable Cambridge City Council Members and Cambridge City Manager,
I recently moved back to Cambridge where my family has lived for several generations.
I was surprised to learn of the current AHO proposal for a city-wide overlay that removes protections of trees and
weakens planning board and residents ability to influence developments. I write to you as a Cambridge resident who
supports affordable housing, but I find that the AHO is deeply flawed and likely to be unfixable.
I strongly oppose the AHO.
George Mouradian
32 Bowdoin St
Cambridge, MA 02138
[email removed]
Lopez, Donna
AMTACHMENT 65
From:
Sharon Black <[email removed]>
Sent:
Wednesday, July 31, 2019 4:11 PM
City Council
To:
Cc:
Clerk
Subject:
AHO zoning proposal
Dear Council members,
As a citizen of Cambridge, I ask that you oppose the AHO zoning proposal in the September vote. I will vote accordingly
for/against council members in the next election.
My primary concerns are promoting 7-story buildings in existing residential areas; removal of any more greenspace in
residential areas + the removal of mature trees anywhere in Cambridge; additional traffic congestion & reduced parking
capacity; loss of citizens' right to appeal. From a sustainability perspective, I am very opposed to encouraging the
demolition of any existing structures — it is much smarter & more responsible to use existing structures + renovation.
Many thanks for your consideration,
Sharon Black
49 Maple Avenue
Cambridge 02139
ATTACHMENT 66
Lopez, Donna
Dominick Jones <[email removed]>
From:
Wednesday, July 31, 2019 4:11 PM
Sent:
Dominick Jones; McGovern, Marc; Devereux, Jan; Carlone, Dennis; Kelley, Craig; Mallon,
To:
Alanna; Siddiqui, Sumbul; Simmons, Denise; Toomey, Tim; Zondervan, Quinton; Clerk;
Suzanne; Derek Kopon; Jean Krulic; Fred Meyer, Realtor; Robert Winters; cambridge-
[email removed]; Jane gottschalk; Serena Fix; Amy Perimutter;
Barbara Baker; Bill Bean; Tom Meek; Ruth Ryals; Steve Weissburg
AHO for profit
Subject:
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
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
ATTACHMENT 67
Lopez, Donna
Kate Canfield <[email removed]>
From:
Wednesday, July 31, 2019 8:23 AM
Sent:
City Council
To:
Clerk
Cc:
Affordable Housing Overlay
Subject:
Dear All,
I am writing to express deep concerns over the AHO proposal. It seems half-baked with no research into the possible
long-term consequences. Considering that the proposal affects every single neighborhood in Cambridge, the famous
Cambridge charm and livablility are in serious jepardy. Those of us who call Cambridge home are passionate about our
city, what it stands for and how it works, while there are certainly serious issues that need addressing. But, the solutions
should be thoughtful and incremental so as not to damage the good, and great, things that have already be done here.
The potential damage that this laissez-faire proposal could cause to Cambridge makes it impossible for me to support
any candidate that would put our city at risk.
Sincerely,
Kate Canfield
Kate Canfield | 6 Newell Street | Cambridge, MA 02140
h: [phone removed] | c: [phone removed] | o: [phone removed]
[email removed] | www.canfielddesign.com
1
ATTACHMENT 68
Crane, Paula
Mimi Truslow <[email removed]>
From:
Wednesday, July 31, 2019 12:17 PM
Sent:
City Council
To:
Crane, Paula
Co:
Negative re 100% Affordable Housing Overlay
Subject:
31 July 2019
To the Cambridge City Council:
We are writing once again to express our very strong opposition to the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay for
the city.
This proposal is a blunt instrument which would irreparably damage our city. We certainly agree that it is of very great
importance that the city provide for our less fortunate citizens, but that does not mean that we should do so by
irreparably destroying the unique nature of neighborhoods within the city. The proposal is far, far too broad and brutal,
and unnecessarily so.
Moreover, there is no existing precedent for such wholesale deference to developers, giving their interests preference
over the interests of Cambridge's unique neighborhoods.
In short, we as Cambridge residents and tax payers are expressing our very strong opposition to this proposal.
Sincerely,
William and Miriam Truslow
4 Hawthorn Street
Cambridge 02138
Crane, Paula
ATACHMENT 69
From:
[email removed]
Sent:
Wednesday, July 31, 2019 4:56 PM
To:
City Council
Clerk
Cc:
Subject:
Zoning overlay proposal
Dear Councilpersons,
Our little neighborhood has already suffered from what we call "infill"-building something
in every possible space, regardless of trees, open space, size, setbacks, pleasant and useful
neighborhood businesses. One can hardly breathe without intruding on one's neighbor, or
being intruded upon.
If we'd wanted to live in the big city we would have been in Boston. How will YOUR OWN
neighborhoods be impacted, and how do you feel about that? Thinking the suburbs look
better??
We have your names. We most assuredly WILL NOT VOTE FOR any of you who vote in favor
of this proposed zoning overlay.
Sincerely yours,
John and Hilary Hopkins
30 Winslow St.
Cambridge 02138
Crane, Paula
ATTACHMENT 70
Lucy H. Patton < [email removed]>
From:
Sent:
Wednesday, July 31, 2019 10:30 PM
To:
City Council
Cc:
Clerk
Subject:
My opposition to the Affordable Housing Overlay as currently written
Dear Councillors:
I have read and listened to countless opinions and read many documents. After deliberation, I'm writing to say that the
AHO as currently written is not a good idea. We need planning oversight and decision power on all development in the
city. I'm sure we can find a way to enable more affordable housing without cutting out the review function of the
Planning Board. I urge you to let this version of the overlay expire and go back and get it right.
Thank you.
Lucy Patton
333 Walden St.
Northwest Cambridge
02138
ATTACHMENT I
Excerpts from letters written by Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli to the Housing Committee and
the City Council, in strong support of the Affordable Housing Overlay:
"Wealthy San Francisco residents actually started a GoFundMe to kill a homeless shelter in their
neighborhood."
The good news is that we have not reached the point in Cambridge's zoning fights that neighbors are organizing
GoFundMe efforts to kill affordable housing projects for people who have experienced homelessness or are at
risk of becoming homeless.
such
(Not since the early discussions of the redevelopment of Vail Court have I heard "poor people's housing"
as S.R.O.s described as L.U.L.U., a locally unwanted land use like a waste facility).
(Have we ever directly asked Cambridge residents if increased density is worth the trade-off for more high
quality deeply affordable housing? Does density count as one of the urban design objectives of the city?)
I strongly encourage the committee to discuss their views on the racial-income gap in the Cambridge housing
market. Can the overlay be used as an effective a tool for increasing the socioeconomic diversity of the city? Do
councillors believe that we need to take action to address this part of Cambridge's history? How would the city
council propose to measure racial equity and housing discrimination?
-CAPZ letter to city council, 2 April, 2019
The 100% affordable housing overlay is a zoning tool in the city's comprehensive housing policy that can
address the racially segregated patterns of housing that exist in Cambridge. Economist Raj Chetty, the leader of
the Equality of Opportunity Project, describes cities like Cambridge as 'atlases of inequality, that is,
opportunity areas where rich and poor people live together but don't mix.
The fact is that there is an overwhelming demand for low- and moderate-income affordable rental housing, and
a growing interest in middle-income homeownership, not a demand for middle-income rental. This is based on
information from every housing assistance wait list from CHA and other nonprofit housing like JAS and HRI to
inclusionary housing.
Should zoning play a role in ending economic or social exploitation? Or does displacement have to be physical?
As you know, when it comes to the 70/30 residency preference for state-funded affordable projects, the state has
serious concerns about the violation of fair housing law, and advises communities to avoid implementing
geographically targeted displacement preferences. CDD has pointed out that adding such a preference on top of
or in place of residency would depend on the hierarchy of preferences. This issue has not yet been discussed in
the context of other tenant selection inclusionary preferences reviewed by the Trust. Can zoning be a remedy for
some of these ills?
--CAPZ letter to the Housing Committee, 26 March, 2019
I am a longtime housing advocate who has been a member of the board of the Cambridge Affordable Housing
Trust since 2014. One of the recommendations that the Trust has made regarding the 100% Affordable Housing
Zoning Overlay is that it would apply city-wide so that we can create new affordable homes; 'affordable'
meaning we will serve households at different income levels low, moderate, and middle- income in all areas of
the city. "High resource areas" defined by such characteristics as better neighborhoods with better schooling
opportunities, that have historically excluded lower-income renter households and people of color ("those
people") for reasons that have to do with our notion of local control will be accessible to both families who are
subsidized and unsubsidized, who want to move to/stay in Cambridge. As a community, we do not view
proposed zoning and community development decisions through an affordable gap lens or racial equity
lens/outcome. It's worth asking, whose views, benefits, and burdens, do we prioritize?
The racial disparity between Cambridge's black and white homeownership rates is 36.0%, compared to 68.4%.
(McCargo and Strochak, "Mapping the black homeownership gap," 26 February, 2019) The density/height
framework under the proposed "as-of-right" permitting process is described by opponents of the overlay as
giving developers "much larger and tall buildings" (towers like the one that I live in) without any meaningful
design review from neighbors. If we do not make these zoning changes, however, local abutters will continue to
have veto power over all affordable housing projects in the city.
Is local control over-rated? Miriam Axel-Lute raises this important issue, "What things do we allow a group of
people at the local level to decide for themselves, and what things should a higher level of government override
in the name of values, like human rights, civil rights, fairness, or equity?" (Miriam Axel-Lute, "Is Local Control
Good or Bad?" 19 February, 2019, Shelterforce) Tenants at Jefferson Park Apartments (aka JP State) were
informed by the Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeal that they were "self-interested" (of course they wanted
new apartments) and so their views on the CHA's proposed site design for the revitalization of JP weren't
considered as important as those of neighbors who objected to the "canyonization" of Rindge Ave which would
have been the result of fronting four-story buildings on Rindge Ave. Whose interests are more parochial? I
could make the argument that local knowledge of the demand for affordable three-bedroom apartments and
accessible units focuses on unmet community needs.
--CAPZ letter to City Council, 18 March, 2019
A few years ago, I told a story about a woman "brandishing" a zucchini at a zoning appeal hearing, and saying
that the developer would have do a shadow study in order to win a special permit, that every developer or
abutter would have to prove that that his/her buildings didn't kill zucchini to obtain a special permit - in other
words, have an 'avocado moment'. I wondered, was there a first avocado? It doesn't just happen here, or in
Seattle, San Francisco, you don't have to be a tax-paying, property owning, abutter to have veto power over the
affordable housing projects being proposed in this city. That's what local democracy or control has turned into.
Planning theorists have suggested that it is possible to get out of this mindset of reaching beyond property lines
to deal with Cambridge's housing problems, including the affordability shortage, the lack of appropriately-sized
(family-sized) housing, and involuntary displacement (i.e., fair housing issues). Everybody seems to be afraid of
losing their authority or of losing a lawsuit. Where are the boundaries of a Back Yard defined in terms of
community self-determinism? Is it about marginality or the perception of being powerless over neighborhood
change? Who decides who gets to live here and the quality of place that we grow up in? We come back to
zoning.
Last week, the Urban Institute reported on the disparity between the white homeownership rate in the Boston-
Cambridge- Newton, MA metropolitan statistical area, 68.4%, and the black home homeownership rate,
36.0%, which represents a significant difference in family financial stability among Black families. (McCargo
and Strochak, "Mapping the black homeownership gap," 26 February, 2019) It is important to point out that no
city or county in the US has closed the homeownership gap or the wealth gap. According to the 2017 Envision
Cambridge Today report, Cambridge's rate of homeownership was more than twice that of black and Latinx
residents during the period of 2010 - 2014 based on American Community Survey five-year estimates. (page
60-61)
Does it matter? Nationally, Minneapolis has taken possibly the most radical policy action as to producing
permanent affordable housing by eliminating single-family zoning a "classification that has long perpetuated
segregation." ('Minneapolis, Tackling Housing Crisis and Inequity, Votes to End Single-Family Zoning," Sarah
Mervosh, New York Times, 13 December, 2018.) Minneapolis black voters, compared to other sub-groups are
more likely to speak in support of development even after accounting for homeownership. And there are other
factors involved. "As people are increasingly living in urban centers really close to each other, it starts to be the
case that so much of the value of your property is bound up in things that are happening outside of your parcel,"
said a law professor who has written about what she calls the 'unbounded' nature of our homes. (page 17)
Planners are collecting evidence from local zoning meetings as to who is the 'M' in NIMBY. The two biggest
disparities are race and ethnicity. Does it matter if the people who are the expected users of these new resources
actually show up for the hearing to demonstrate their support? "At some point you have to say, now we've talk
about justice and equity. Action? The right course of action justifies means and ends because of necessity. What
it means not to do something. How can you not do it? How can you not do it?"
Wendell Joseph, a neighborhood planner who works for the CDD, said at a recent forum on "Who participates
in local qovernment? Evidence from Meeting Minutes" that participation is a function of privilege. Mr. Joseph
observed that very few people have time/privilege. "Power is on the other side of no."
-CAPZ letter to City Council, and testimony 3-5-19
ATTACAMENT 12
Lopez, Donna
annie hoffman < [email removed]
From:
Thursday, August 1, 2019 8:39 AM
Sent:
City Council
To:
Clerk
Cc:
No on AHO zoning proposal
Subject:
I am a homeowner on Hampshire St
I vote NO on the AHO zoning proposal
Annie Hoffman
AITACHMENT 73
Lopez, Donna
Crane, Paula
From:
Sent:
Thursday, August 1, 2019 9:14 AM
To:
Lopez, Donna
Subject:
FW: VOTE NO on AHO as it now stands
From: Lenore G. Martin <[email removed]>
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 8:50 AM
To: City Council < CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>
Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov>
Subject: VOTE NO on AHO as it now stands
Dear City Counciloors,
I am writing to register my serious concern with the Affordable Housing Overlay as it now stands. I understand
the need for affordable housing in our city, as I expect much of Cambridge does. But, the AHO is a very
extreme way of addressing the issue. Its sweeping plan to simply do away with design review by the planning
board of zoning regulations seems to set us back to the days when we did not have a planning board and
therefore does away with serious impactful neighborhood input. Not to provide the possibility of appeal is
running roughshod over Cambridge citizens, their needs and concerns. The ends do not justify the means!
We can and must be more thoughtful in approaching this issue. Our city deserves more care.
Lenore G. Martin, Ph.D.
ATTACHMENT 14
July 30, 2019
Cambridge City Council Ordinance Committee
City Hall
795 Massachusetts Ave
Cambridge, MA 0213$
CAMBRIDGE, MASS,
OFFICE OF THE CITY CL
CHU
Re: 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning Proposal
2019 AUG - I AM IO: 41
SETT
Dear City Council Ordinance Committee,
I did attend an information session on the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning
Proposal. Even before considering this proposal, I have already been concerned about
the development in Cambridge. I have lived here in my home on Winslow Street for 30
years. Before that I rented across the street for another at least 4 years. Just on this
little dead end street developers have and are continuing to jam in/fill every little space
with town house(s) and/or condos. The property across the street from me now, where
I used to live, is going from one building to three buildings. The construction will be
unending and the parking impossible (even after they are done) just to name a few.
I am also extremely concerned about the Affordable Housing Proposal under
consideration. I am worried that with this Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning in place
you will build this housing tall, blocking out light, and spread out, and ugly like a sore
thumb, that you will destroy the quality of the neighborhood.
I am hoping to attend another session on the proposal to learn more. Unfortunately the
post card with the information sessions, etc. arrived after the July 24 session, the
session closest to me. I am 76 years old with health challenges and it is very tough to get
out to these meetings. This is one of the main reasons I am writing you.
Whatever is done should not destroy the quality of our neighborhoods!
Thank you for your consideration.
Helen Abbaham
Helen Abraham
34 Winslow Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
cc: Planning Board, City Hall Annex, 21d floor, 344 Broadway, Cambridge, MA
cc: City Council, City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA
Lopez, Donna
ATTACHMENT 15
From:
jhannon <[email removed]>
Sent:
Thursday, August 1, 2019 11:36 AM
To:
City Council
Clerk
Co:
Subject:
Support the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay
1 August 2019
Dear Honorable City Councillors,
Please give your support to the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay and continue to move it forward. The
AHO is a tool so affordable housing developers can compete with for-profit developers. The Guidelines
the CDD released yesterday give additional substance to the petition and answers many concerns people
have raised.
I fully support the AHO, and urge you to do the same. Help keep Cambridge diverse.
Thank you,
Jean Hannon
7 Woodrow Wilson Court, #45
Cambridge
--
j. hannon
16
ATTACHMENT
Lopez, Donna
From:
Chris < [email removed]>
Thursday, August 1, 2019 12:15 PM
Sent:
City Council; City Council; Clerk
To:
Please reject the Overlay Zoning Proposal
Subject:
Hello All,
I'm writing to you to ask for your rejection of the proposal for Overlay Zoning in Cambridge.
I've lived and rented in Cambridge for the past nine years, but eight of them were sacrificing and saving to buy
a home here and we were finally able to do so last year. We saw it as the dedication required to live in such a
tremendous and wonderful place.
We fell in love with Cambridge because of the tree-lined streets with brick sidewalk neighborhoods and all the
conveniences that come with being close to Boston; the best part is that is WASN'T Boston. which the overlay
would turn this beautiful place into Boston and remove all Cambridge charm if approved,
It's a priveledge to live here not an expectation and since we paid our dues, we were finally able to make it
happen.
From everything I've read about the overlay zoning proposal, it really DOESN'T seem like a good decision for
the city of Cambridge nor for the current residents.
Cambridge is a very desirable place to live because of what it is today, and preserving the current zoning laws
and procedures with proper reviews and voting will continue to keep Cambridge desirable.
I don't think anyone wants to be connected to a decision that ended up destroying Cambridge and it's
desirability.
Please reject the Overlay Zoning Proposal!!
Sincerely,
Chris Jeffrey
29 Chauncy St. Apt 3
[phone removed]
Lopez, Donna
AtTACHMENT 17
From:
Pawel Latawiec <[email removed]>
Sent:
Thursday, August 1, 2019 1:17 PM
To:
City Council
Clerk
Cc:
Subject:
Letter in support of Affordable Housing Overlay
Hello,
I have previously testified and written in support of the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO), and urge the
council to pass it without amendments which would weaken its impact. For those of us who must pay rent,
such as myself, the AHO is but a first step to righting the wrongs of past downzonings, which have only served
to entrench power in the hands of current landowners. Cambridge must seek to normalize its zoning policies,
especially because >85% of extant parcels in Cambridge currently do not conform to its own zoning. To this
end, the AHO must be seen as the beginning of a path towards a more just, diverse, and equitable Cambridge.
Thank you,
Pawel Latawiec
2 Earhart St Unit 409
Cambridge MA
ATTACHMENT 18
August 1, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:
cities. Due to the soaring costs of housing our community has experienced a
significant loss of the diversity that we value so highly and many of our residents
have been unable to continue to reside in Cambridge. One of the most important
ways to mitigate these losses is to increase affordable housing in Cambridge.
Adoption of the Affordable Housing Overlay proposed zoning amendment is an
important step to enable creation of more affordable housing in a timeframe that
can actually have a significant effect on our housing crisis in the near future.
In addition, the amendment would assist in maintaining our diversity by ensuring
that lower income residents have opportunities to live in all of Cambridge's
neighborhoods. Right now, largely because of current zoning, our one- and two-
family districts perpetuate a defacto segregation that is neither equitable nor
defensible.
In addition to our diversity, I also value the forward-looking and innovative housing
policies that Cambridge has promulgated, including linkage zoning and inclusionary
zoning. When I was on the staff of the Community Development Housing
Department, time and again, I would observe that in the world of community
development conference trainings, Cambridge was always in the forefront.
The proposed amendment may well need additional negotiations and compromises
on its path to adoption. However, I am convinced that in the expertise of our
Community Development staff and the expertise of members of the City Council who
are well-versed in zoning, housing and development law, we have the resources to
come to a fair and satisfactory resolution. But if the need for additional changes
becomes just a way to delay adoption of an amendment that can provide
desperately needed housing for Cambridge residents, then shame on us for
contributing to the increasing housing emergency, especially for lower income
Cantabrigians.
In this regard, I want to remind the City Council that some of the zoning
amendments that are most important to our equitable and successful policies,
particularly inclusionary zoning and linkage zoning, were adopted and later
amended to improve their effectiveness. If necessary, that option is readily
available. I am therefore requesting that the Ordinance Committee consider and
approve this proposed amendment as soon as possible.
Very truly yours,
Margaret Drury
1 Dudley Ct. [email removed]
ATTACHMENT 79
Lopez, Donna
From:
Crane, Paula
Sent:
Thursday, August 1, 2019 3:14 PN
Lopez, Donna
To:
Subject:
FW: Overlay Amendment Regarding First Floor Commercial Requirements
From: Jason Alves < [email removed]>
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 2:56 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>; Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov>
Subject: Overlay Amendment Regarding First Floor Commercial Requirements
Councillors,
As you continue in your efforts to fine tune the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay, I hope you take into consideration
the following points on why you should not adopt the McGovern/Mallon amendment that would remove the
requirement to maintain first floor commercial space in a business district.
Its important the City play a role in maintaining the continuity of our commercial corridors. Its true that retail is
changing, but its important that business districts do not loose commercial spaces that can serve a number of different
needs in the community. While active retail is preferential there is nothing wrong with a commercial space being
occupied by an office use for a period of time vs having it be completely eliminated.
The density and height bonuses being offered for housing will help make up the difference of not being able to add first
floor housing. While it may be an obstacle, its something the developer will have to consider in order to contribute to
the success of commercial corridor.
This change could jeopardize affordable small business space. Its more likely that the first floor commercial spaces that
would be removed would be smaller more affordable spaces in areas such as Cambridge St and North Mass Ave. Its less
likely they would be some of the larger spaces contributing to a perceived vacancy problem in our major squares. The
smaller spaces offer an opportunity for small business owners to enter the market and should be preserved. We have
seen this loss in a few space on Cambridge St.
If a particular development ends up being a home buyers building, this could also create an opportunity for someone to
own the first floor commercial space to house their business. This would create long term stability for a small business
owner. Im not sure if there are current examples of this, most of the non-profit developed building on Cambridge St that
have commercial space is rented.
There are examples on Cambridge St where Just A Start has created first floor commercial space that has been the home
to a bike shop and now a day care. There are also examples on Cambridge St where CASCAP converted first floor (many
years ago) to housing and disrupted the continuity. Even if a daycare or montessori doesn't sound like active retail, there
is a need for this service. That need will be filled in other spaces, reducing the opportunities for other small businesses
to operate. Eventually this spaces will change and adapt to community needs as well
Finally, the difference between commercial tax and residential tax is significant. Its not unlikely the commercial corridors
could face these conversions from private owners as of right. We could use the help of city funded projects to ensure
the the success and continuity of our business districts is maintained.
Please keep the requirement for first floor commercial space if a project is built in a commercial district. Thank you for
taking this into consideration as you consider this important policy.
Jason Alves
Executive Director
East Cambridge Business Association
Office: [phone removed]
@EastCambBiz
www.EastCambridgeBA.com
Lopez, Donna
ATTACHMENT 80
From:
[email removed]
Sent:
Thursday, August 1, 2019 3:37 PM
To:
City Council; Clerk
Subject:
OPPOSE AHO zoning overlay
To all Councilors:
As a long-time Cambridge resident and homeowner, I am deeply opposed to the proposed AHO
Zoning Overlay.
It will greatly worsen conditions in my neighborhood, where homeowners are already struggling with
overbuilding and loss of green space; it will not alleviate the affordable housing crisis, and it will just
put a lot of money into the pockets of greedy developers.
Over the years I have seen many such conflicts, and I have often seen developer-friendly projects
DISGUISED as projects that will benefit the city and create more affordable housing. This is one such
proposal.
This is a TERRIBLE proposal. PLEASE VOTE IT DOWN.
Thank you for considering my views,
Harriet Feinberg
639 Green Street
Cambridge, MA 02139
[email removed]
[phone removed]
ATTACHMENT 81
Charles Hinds
207 Charles St
Cambridge, MA 02141
August 1, 2019
City of Cambridge Ordinance Committee
City Hall Annex
344 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02139
RE: Affordable Housing Overlay
Dear Committee Members,
First of all, I am still not in favor of the concept of an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO). I personally
believe that are more predictable and less precarious avenues to create more affordable housing and
increasing the housing stock in general. Having said that, I am very concerned with the oversight and
setbacks in the currently proposed AHO zoning amendment.
Yard Setbacks, Section 5.2.2:
Section 5.2.2 (c) calls for a 7.5 foot minimum side setback from the property line. In East Cambridge,
many buildings sit inches from the property line creating an issue with fire hazards. This is a very
personal issue to me. I was the victim of a 5-alarm fire on Charles St. back in 1983, where 4 six-families
were burned to the ground and many other buildings had fire damage. Three of the six-families had
barely 4' side setbacks which caused the fire to spread rapidly. The fire was so intense, fire trucks were
moved away from the buildings in fear they would catch fire. The fire was so great, it was reported on
CNN and other national news outlets. Smoke was visible from route 128. I remember seeing the Revere
Fire Department trying to hose down the back of my house. Of course I lost everything and got first and
second degree burns along with scorched lungs from breathing the hot air. I was lucky. One person in
my building was literally burned to death trying to re-enter the building to find his mother. He literally
became a human torch in front of my eyes. So setbacks do mean a lot to me.
Section 5.2.2 (e) covers projecting elements including uncovered porches. According to the language, if
an uncovered porch does not project more than 10' from the foundation, it may extend beyond the
minimum yard setback. In essence, a deck may extend to the lot line. In the case of my home, which is
32" from the lot line, I would be able to open my bedroom window and shake hands with people on a
deck on the adjacent property. I don't believe this was the intent of the ordinance, but under it, I would
have no recourse.
Enforcement of the Affordable Housing Overlay, Section 10:
Under this section the Community Development Department (CDD) is the ultimate authority to certify
all of the provision of the ordinance are satisfied. Since CDD proposed and wrote the ordinance and is a
major proponent for affordable housing, isn't that like the fox guarding the preverbal hen house?
Shouldn't an independent board like the BZA or Planning Board have that authority? When it comes
down to gray areas in design, I fear that corners will be cut in detriment to abutters and neighborhoods.
In conclusion, I implore you not to keep the AHO in committee until these and other clear problems are
resolved.
Very truly yours,
Charles Hinds
207 Charles Street
East Cambridge
Lopez, Donna
ATTACHMENT 82
From:
David Owens < [email removed]>
Sent:
Thursday, August 1, 2019 4:52 PM
To:
Clerk
Cc:
Decker, Marjorie - Rep. (HOU); Sall DiDominico
Subject:
Support for Affordable Housing Overlay Initiative
Ordinance Committee:
City Hall
2nd Floor Sullivan Chamber
795 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139
I'm writing to state my strong support for the Affordable Housing Overlay initiative that is now being developed by the
city. It is an important issue. It is the right thing to do. To live within a diverse community provides us with a richness of
experience and appreciation of others that cannot be met in the more economically isolated and segregated
communities. It also has to be done in a way that is a win-win for all of us. To ensure success we must clearly describe its
purpose and implement it wisely.
Some suggestions:
1. Provide numerous incentives where by communities may seek out affordable housing in their neighborhood. View
these incentives as long-term strategic urban improvements to the neighborhood, improvements that support
additional density and help prepare us for the post fossil fuel environment.
2. Create a culture of excellence in design and in methods of construction. Establish a track record of development that
will give the people confidence that when a project does come to their neighborhood, it will benefit them as much as
their new neighbors. It will increase the livability of their neighborhood and not just their property values. Devise
methods to ensure excellence of design and execution, by limiting the number of developers to those who pass certain
requirements. These requirements may be established by a designated commission that works closely with the
community. Only those with an established portfolio of high-quality work would be recognized and will be invited,
developer, architect and contractor, to join together to develop a design. That design process would then be overseen
by the commission and the community as recommended in the Affordable Housing Overlay initiative.
3. Reduce the amount of parking to zero as often as possible, especially for those projects within easy walking distance
of the subway. All new parking must be accessed from an existing curb cut. All subterranean parking must have an
access ramp of no greater than an 8% slope.
4. Require all that utilities surrounding the new development be brought up to a level that is expected within a denser
urban area. All overhead utilities, 1000 feet on either side of the development, would be buried. Utility companies
would be required to act in a timely manner to insure that all utility work will be completed before occupancy.
5. Provide 2 trees of over 6 inch caliber for every mature tree removed.
6. Open all areas of the city, equally, to development. Do not stigmatize any economic group by clustering them into
designated areas.
7. Work with surrounding municipalities in petitioning the state government to provide excellent public transportation.
8. Sustainability is a given.
Thank you,
David Owens
7 Cleveland Street
1
Lopez, Donna
ATTACHMENT 83
From:
Crane, Paula
Sent:
Thursday, August 1, 2019 4:55 PM
Lopez, Donna
To:
FW: AHO: Please vote no
Subject:
From: Weldon Pries <[email removed]>
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 4:51 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>
Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov>
Subject: AHO: Please vote no
Dear City Council Members,
I urge you to vote no on the proposed AHO. After consideration and attendance at meeting, I find it is a flawed proposal
in solving the need for affordable housing solutions for Cambridge.
As an architect, among other concerns, I am not in agreement with indiscriminate demolition of existing housing in all
neighborhood, for developers to build the proposed maximum massing on lots, at the expense of open space, trees,
sunlight - resulting in a less livable city, and resulting in the demolition of existing housing. I am also not in agreement
that local input from residents and professions in planning and design seem not to be included in the AHO.
Please vote NO.
Sincerely,
Weldon Pries
10 Longfellow Road
Cambridge, MA 02138
Lopez, Donna
ATTACHMENT 84
From:
Robin Bonner <[email removed]>
Sent:
Thursday, August 1, 2019 5:04 PN
City Council
To:
Clerk
Cc:
Subject:
Opposed to Current AHO Proposal
To the Cambridge Ordinance Committee,
Since I am unable to attend tonight's meeting, I am writing to express my opposition to the current version of
the Affordable Housing Overlay proposal.
I, like many, support fostering the development of affordable housing, but I don't support this current proposal.
On this issue, I have attended three meetings of the Housing Committee, two meetings of the Planning Board,
and one of the "informational open houses." I have friends and neighbors who rely on affordable housing
programs. Our family experienced rental housing displacement in 2001 when the building we lived in was sold
and the rent was tripled. And a few years ago we experienced the challenge of holding on to our home despite a
many-months job loss.
I understand that there is an urgent need for housing. I do realize that a proposal will never be perfect. And I
appreciate the intent of the proposal. But I am wary of this proposal, of the potential massing and of the
potential to further drive up housing costs. I'm wary of removing a binding review process. I'm wary of a
proposal with unclear or conflicting guidelines. I'm wary of a "pilot project" type proposal that has no
evaluation component (i.e. a chance to re-assess down the road). I do support city-wide, rather than corridor-
restricted, incentives, but site guidelines should be nuanced to account for neighborhood context. I'm surprised
that the imagined projects are always rentals. What about increased support for home-ownership programs?
And what is the city doing to safe-guard against displacements caused by market-rate developments?
It is difficult to declare opposition when I know that residents are in need of housing, but I I do not support the
current AHO proposal.
Sincerely,
Robin Bonner
15 Corporal Burns Rd.
ATTACHMENT8S
Gerald Zuriff- 120 Foster St.
Mr. Chair,
When I voted in the most recent City Council elections, I had no
idea that I was electing councilors who would be voting on this bill
2 years later. I suspect this was also true of most voters.
I request that the Council delay a final vote on this bill until after
the election so that voters can select candidates to vote for based
on their position on this bill, and the election can serve as a
referendum on the bill.
Lopez, Donna
ATTACHMENT 86
From:
Jean Krulic < [email removed]>
Sent:
Friday, August 2, 2019 12:41 PM
To:
Devereux, Jan i
Clerk
Cc:
Subject:
Objection to the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay (АНО)
Dear Council member,
Please stop the proposed AHO and consider what most of the residents who live in Cambridge value
about our city.
These are the people who elected you.
For most residents they value "Livability" - which means city streets that are not chaotic, access to
trees, natural light, and parks,
safety, density that is manageable, handsome and varied roof-lines, four story buildings, a responsive
city government and
good, intact neighborhoods for families.
The proposed AHO would threaten all of these values and would disrupt and harm our city.
I strongly oppose the AHO and ask that you do too.
IF there is a housing shortage it can be responded to in other ways.
Note: Kendall Square is an example of horrible development - how could you let developers get away
with that destructive, not livable, design!
Sincerely,
Jean G. Krulic
telephone: [phone removed]
41 Bowdoin St.
apt 43
Cambridge MA 02138
ATTACHMENT 87
Lopez, Donna
From:
Phil Miller < [email removed]>
Sent:
Sunday, August 4, 2019 3:11 PM
Clerk
To:
Subject:
AHO
Please do not support the current AHO. It is bad for Cambridge and bad for neighborhoods.
I am one very concerned citizen, worried that the current plan will do more for developers and less for those who need
affordable housing.
Do the right thing.
Phil Miller
ATTACHMENT 88
Lopez, Donna
From:
Deborah Gevalt < [email removed]>
Sent:
Sunday, August 4, 2019 3:53 PM
To:
City Council
Cc:
City Clerk
Subject:
Affordable Housing Overlay
As a 40 year resident of Cambridge who lives in West Cambridge in a typical two family with a tenant on the ground
floor (who pay a very affordable rent) I am writing in continued opposition to the 100% AHO. This proposal is deeply
flawed and in my view will result in construction with a density which is unacceptable. The likely cost per unit of
$500,000 is unconscionable.
urge that no action be taken on the proposal at this time and that it be refilled tor consideration bv a new bette
ityCouncil in Novembel
This issue is much too critical to be rushed through the process.
Thank you
Deborah Gevalt
55 Reservoir Street
Cambridge
Sent from my iPad
ATTACHMENT 84
Lopez, Donna
From:
Pat McCarthy < [email removed]>
Sent:
Sunday, August 4, 2019 4:49 PM
To:
City Council; Clerk; Mayor
Affordable Housing Overlay
Subject:
I have worked in Boston for nearly 50 years as a pediatric nurse. I have seen families in need of affordable housing, and
certainly continue to.
I am now a homeowner at 23 Chauncy St and have watched the evolution of this plan over the past year.
I ask you not to vote for the Affordable Housing Overlay. We have population density, with great diversity in Cambridge.
We have underutilized space within current buildings all over the city. I have watched the renovation of 22-26 Chauncy
St basements into affordable housing units. Solutions like this seem far more optimal than further ruining the struggling
tree canopy, increasing our issues with climate change and reconfiguring the various city neighborhoods into large, 4
story or higher structures, with minimal land and privacy between boundaries, as a solution.
I ask that you vote no on the overlay. I ask that you consider ALL options in a considered and careful manner. This
decision feels pressured and rushed, and, once passed will be very hard to pause or redirect.
Thank you for voting no on the Overlay.
Pat McCarthy
23 Chauncy St
Unit 1
Cambridge, MA 02138
90
Lopez, Donna
ATTACHMENT
From:
Pattie Maes < [email removed]>
Sent:
Sunday, August 4, 2019 9:29 PM
To:
City Council
Clerk
Cc:
Subject:
I oppose the Affordable Housing Overlay
Dear Council members,
I am writing to oppose the AHO. I have read both "pro" and "con"
accounts of this proposal and believe it is the wrong proposal for addressing the low-cost housing problem. Cambridge
already has too much traffic, too big of a parking problem, too few green spaces, etc. This proposal would only be a
bandaid on the the big low-cost housing problem, while making the city ugly, noisy and increasing traffic.
Sincerely,
Pattie Maes
Cambridge resident
ATTACHMENT 91
Lopez, Donna
From:
Crane, Paula
Sent:
Monday, August 5, 2019 10:41 AN
To:
Lopez, Donna
Subject:
FW: Affordable Housing Overlay
From: JULIE VARGAS < [email removed]>
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2019 10:18 AM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>
Cc: Crane, Paula < pcrane@cambridgema.gov>
Subject: Affordable Housing Overlay
Dear Counselors,
I oppose the Affordable Housing Overlay proposal. I feel so strongly that I will not vote for anyone who casts a vote
for the AHO.
The proposal as it was presented on August 1 at the Council meeting that | attended...
had "guidelines" rather than "requirements" for building standards.
did not set any limit to the number of units that could be built per year (30-40 additional was projected, not a
limit).
gave no information about how increased density would impact the amount of traffic, noise, parking
availability, need for (and costs of) additional services like sanitation, fire, and police.
allowed a building to be built that would be substantially taller than any other houses in a neighborhood
gave no limit on how long the overlay could continue or any assessment of the project's actions or its results.
Please oppose the passage of the AHO. It benefits developers, not the people who would live with its results.
I am a long-term resident of Cambridge, having lived at the address below from 1949 to 1060 and again with my
husband from 2005 to the present. Our daughter and son-on-law will inherit the house.
Sincerely,
JULIE S. VARGAS
11 Old Dee Rd.
Cambridge, MA 02138
1
Crane, Paula
ATTACHMENT 92
From:
Rolf Erikson < [email removed]>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 7, 2019 8:22 AM
To:
City Council
Crane, Paula
Cc:
Subject:
Affordable Housing Overlay
Dear City Councilors,
I wish to express my opposition to the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO). While I am very much in favor of
providing affordable housing for Cambridge, this developer-led proposal is not the solution to a very complex issue.
I believe that there is a great deal of misinformation circulating, about what this proposal means for our city. As written,
it is deeply flawed. The city has failed to do due diligence on much of this proposal, and to explore alternatives. It has
become very contentious, and the CDD is now pitting neighborhoods against neighborhoods. This is unacceptable.
To members of the City Council who are standing for reelection: I will not cast my vote for any candidate who votes to
implement the AHO, which, if adopted, will irrevocably and negatively alter the character of Cambridge.
Respectfully,
Rolf Erikson
10 Avon Street, Cambridge, MA
Lopez, Donna
ATTACHMENT 43
From:
Kelly Dolan < [email removed]>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 7, 2019 9:55 AM
To:
City Manager; City Council; Lopez, Donna; Clerk
Subject:
Please withdraw the Affordable Housing Overlay Until It is Ready
Dear City Councilors-
I agree with the Fresh Pond Residents Alliance that the Affordable Housing Overlay needs to be withdrawn until it is
written effectively.
It is not the Cambridge Ordinance Committee's job to write zoning code for the City of Cambridge. If the CDD has not
effectively written this change which will impact the zoning regulations for our entire municipality they should withdraw
the petition until they can do so.
Withdraw affordable housing overlay petition for a rewrite to be
simply voted by City Councill
Last week the City Council's Ordinance Committee met to discuss the affordable housing
overlay petition submitted by the city's Community Development Department. This was the
second hearing since it was submitted as a proposed amendment to the city's zoning laws.
The meeting lasted for four hours, including two hours of public comment. The chairman,
councillor Dennis Carlone, had asked the department to include more clear guidance for
developers in the zoning language, for councillors to submit their list of amendments and
recommendations and for a letter from the city solicitor on legal concerns.
The CDD gave a presentation outlining its new design guidelines, which as the council
learned are just that: suggested recommendations, not requirements.
Meanwhile the list of amendments from councillors was vast; the letter from the solicitor
was absent; an important opinion from the Planning Board isn't due until Sept. 3; and the
answers from the CDD were vague.
The only thing that was clear from the discussion at the Ordinance Committee meeting is
that the overlay as submitted is not yei complete. Under the state's zoning change
procedure, it requires two more City Council meetings and a two-thirds affirmative vote
from the council before the petition expires Sept. 30. That means the Ordinance Committee
has only until Sept. 9 to send it back to the council.
Councillors made it clear there are still inadequate mandatory guidelines that would justify
giving developers the "as of right" clause removing Planning Board and neighborhood input
on design.
There are not enough details on the density implications by each diverse zoning district; few
guidelines for transition zones; and no differences between neighborhoods and corridors.
This flies in the face of the normal purpose and execution of city planning and zoning. And
since this zoning proposal has never been implemented anywhere, there is not nearly
enough information on any unintended consequences.
The city has invested more than $3 million in the Envision planning process, and residents
have invested thousands of hours in good faith participation in its development over the
past three years. So far this is the only housing proposal being acted upon. Further, there is
still confusion and vague promises for protection of trees and green open and permeable
space. The city's own studies have shown that these are necessary for truly livable and
equitable housing, especially given the impacts of climate change.
The Ordinance Committee should not be asked to actually write this zoning regulation, but
under this very confusing and convoluted process that is exactly what the CDD is forcing the
committee to do if it wants to meet the Sept. 30 deadline.
This is why the CDD should withdraw this proposal until it is properly written and ready for
full consideration by the City Council.
Meanwhile, the ordinance meeting followed a six-hour meeting of the City Council on July
30, which included three hours of public testimony. It appears the CDD has many more
outstanding issues that it has failed to address, which are starting to converge right before
an important election season.
The outstanding issues include:
Effective cannabis zoning to generate a revenue stream, fill some empty retail spaces and
enable business and job opportunities for affected communities;
Analysis of the impact of raising the inclusionary zoning requirement to 20 percent, which
produces the bulk of our affordable housing - more than 100 units per year at no upfront
costs to the city;
FAllowing an electrical substation near the Kennedy-Longfellow elementary school, raising
the question of whether the energy needs of this rapidly growing city have been accurately
forecast;
GAddressing a Kendall Square zoning petition attempting to remove residential land for
more lab space;
•Disposition of parking spaces in the city-owned First Street Garage that would allow
development of East Cambridge's former Edward J. Sullivan Courthouse to proceed;
•Release of the long overdue Alewife Envision Report, which led off a citywide master
planning study, before the site is completely permitted and built out;
•policies expected from the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Displacement Task Force or the Envision
housing report to protect existing residents from continued displacement;
7A universal pre-K education proposal to the School Committee;
2
Recommendations and action items to support the transportation emergency declared
recently by Kendall Square business leaders;
GA plan for providing Inman Square businesses some solutions for parking issues during a
two-year renovation project.
Yes, affordable housing is a top priority for our city. Even as we debate this zoning change
we are adding more affordable housing. City developer of affordable housing Just-A-Start
presented a plan recently for two seven-story buildings on Rindge Avenue, and our
inclusionary zoning requirement continues to add units as the city adds housing.
So why are we halting the progress of our entire city by asking our city councillors, most of
whom have very little training in urban planning, to write the rules for a zoning amendment
covering the entire city for the Cambridge Housing Trust that may or may not result in 40
more affordable housing units?
It's time for city councillors to ask the CDD to withdraw the affordable housing overlay
petition until it's written more effectively and they can simply vote to accept or deny it, like
any other zoning petition submitted to the city for consideration. Let's move on to
addressing the growing list of important issues facing our city.
Alison Field-Juma, Mike Nakagawa, Alice Heller and Doug Brown of The Fresh Pond
Residents Alliance
The Fresh Pond Residents Alliance is a neighborhood organization and citizen advocacy
group focused on issues of urban planning and sustainable development in the Fresh
Pond/Alewife area of Cambridge.
Sincerely
Kelly Dolan
Upland Road
Kelly Dolan
Lopez, Donna
ATTACHMENT 94
From:
Fritz Donovan < [email removed]>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 7, 2019 5:05 PM
To:
City Council
Cc:
Clerk
Subject:
[City Council] Your upcoming vote on the 100% Affordable Zoning Overlay
Dear Councilors -
You were elected two years ago to serve the best interests of all residents of Cambridge. That vow
will be sorely tested tomorrow and in the next few days leading up to November 5 as you take action
regarding the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay.
In all the 64 years since | arrived in Cambridge as a 17-year-old freshman, I have never seen such a
hastily-concocted, constantly-changing patchwork as this radical proposed ordinance, nor such a
feverish, heavily city-funded public relations campaign to sell it.
It is tempting to guess where it came from and why some members of Cambridge government are
trying to push it through despite its many gaping flaws. But right now we have time only to study the
dozens of flaws in the current language and decide whether Cambridge deserves to be subjected to
them.
Growing thousands of voters studying this drastic ordinance know it does not.
So the question becomes what can be done to make it serve its alleged noble purpose without
throwing out the 95 years of thoughtful city planning that have made Cambridge the livable, appealing
city it has become.
The answer is simple: let this proposed ordinance die without a favorable vote, and spend the weeks
it really takes to work out corrections, refinements and reasonable compromises that truly maximize
the number of new 100% affordable units at optimal cost without destroying the environmental and
quality of life safeguards which all Cambridge residents deserve and you have all personally sworn to
protect.
That is the only sensible course. There is nowhere near enough time to study the potential impact of
all the proposed major zoning changes in this draft ordinance and work out the dozens of carefully-
crafted amendments required to deal with them.
Cambridge needs a well thought-out set of zoning changes that significantly increase Cambridge's
stock of affordable housing while retaining the successful checks and balances you and your
predecessors have provided us. And that has to be coupled with a very short-term sunset provision
to minimize the risk of disaster if unforeseen complications arise.
Thousands of Cambridge voters - and Planet Earth - are counting on you to do the right thing and
give us the time to craft a truly worthy Affordable Housing ordinance we can all support.
Best regards,
1
- Fritz
Law Offices of Francis E. Donovan
Immigration Law
Cambridge MA 02138
[phone removed] (cellphone)
2
ATTACHMENT 95
Lopez, Donna
From:
Rosemary Booth < [email removed]>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 7, 2019 5:38 PM
City Council
To:
Cc:
Clerk; Gerald C. O'Leary
Subject:
oppose 100% Affordable Housing Overlay
Comments to The Ordinance Committee re Meeting of August 8, 2019
Rosemary Booth
Jerry O'Leary
303 Third St, #505
Cambridge, MA 02142
We are writing in opposition to the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay.
To be clear, we support affordable housing and have addressed the City Council in favor of heightened requirements for
inclusionary zoning. In our view, the approach of inclusionary zoning has been a well understood, broadly supported,
and effective way to increase the supply of affordable housing in Cambridge.
In contrast, the Housing Overlay proposal now on the table is exceptionally complex and difficult to comprehend, even
without an array of potential amendments. What seems clear is that, at a minimum, the proposed Overlay would upend
current known and accepted zoning/permitting processes for getting an affordable housing development proposal
approved, and instead give developers such approval "by right." To the best of our knowledge, no other city has
implemented a housing overlay like the one being discussed, and so its impacts are both unknown and impossible to
evaluate. Because the proposed Overlay would be unprecedented, and because of its inherent complexity, we believe
the Overlay would almost certainly lessen the predictability of housing values in areas seen as probable targets for
development, and thus possibly lower those values.
Beyond these issues with the proposed Overlay's content, we are concerned that in advancing the proposal the City
Council has ignored existing norms and requirements for changing Cambridge zoning. In ten years as homeowners here
we cannot recall any proposal with similarly broad impact that was less compliant with accepted standards for revising
City zoning-including standards governing public understanding of a proposal's purpose and approach and of how it
would impact residents' neighborhoods and homes.
For these reasons and others we urge the Committee to take no action on the Housing Overlay proposal, and instead
move forward using processes such as inclusionary zoning to increase the supply of affordable housing in the
community.
1
ATTACHMENTIG
Lopez, Donna
From:
Elizabeth Shostak <[email removed]>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 7, 2019 7:20 PM
To:
City Council
Clerk
Cc:
Subject:
Affordable Housing Overlay
Dear Councillors:
I have been following the AHO issue with increasing concern. As presently written and presented to the public, the AHO
gives far too much power to developers without really solving the problem: insanely high housing costs. It is
disappointing that the City has focused so intently on a development-based solution instead of looking for ways to
maintain existing housing stock and help low- and moderate-income residents stay in homes as renters or as new
buyers. It is disappointing also that so many older multifamily houses have been and continue to be converted into large
single-family luxury homes, thereby reducing the number of rental units and, in a troubling irony, necessitating the
creation of hundreds of new units to replace those lost to luxury development. (I have not been able to find data on how
many of these conversions have been done in the past 10 years or so, but I have not seen fewer than 2 on any
residential block in Neighborhoods 9 and 10 and believe that a very conservative estimate would be 400.)
Cambridge does need affordable housing. But residents should not have to lose important zoning protections when
affordable housing is created. Developers argue that they cannot afford to build such housing in Cambridge unless they
get everything presently outlined in the AHO. Surely the City has the right, and the responsibility, to ensure that
affordable projects can be built, without ceding to developers almost all decisions as to size and design.
I urge City Council members not to vote for the AHO as presently written. The rush to bring it to a vote seems motivated
more by politics than concern for progressive policy. I will vote in November for candidates who are open to amending
the AHO and who also offer a range of other solutions to the city's affordable housing problem.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Shostak
51 Standish Street
Lopez, Donna
ATTACHMENT 97
Crane, Paula
From:
Sent:
Thursday, August 8, 2019 8:33 AM
To:
Lopez, Donna
Subject:
FW: VOTE NO ON AHO
FYI
--Original Message-.
From: Patricia McGrath <[email removed]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 3:12 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>
Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov>
Subject: VOTE NO ON AHO
1 am definitely not against affordable housing. However, the current plan is flawed and simply not ready. It's profitable
for developers and not good for the citizens of Cambridge.
Though I have voted for a number of you before, I certainly will not vote again for anyone who is for the AHO.
Patricia McGrath
Mt. Vernon St.
Cambridge
Lopez, Donna
ATTACHMENT 98
From:
Crane, Paula
Sent:
Thursday, August 8, 2019 8:36 AM
To:
Lopez, Donna
Subject:
FW: Please Vote Against the Affordable Housing Overlay
From: Lisa Glover <[email removed]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 10:28 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>
Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov>
Subject: Please Vote Against the Affordable Housing Overlay
Dear Councillors:
I urge you to vote against the Affordable Housing Overlay. I've been watching the issue closely and am dismayed not just
by the flawed policy but by the chaotic legislative process. The overlay threatens the mature tree canopy,
neighborhoods of character, green space, and historic homes and buildings--all elements that help make Cambridge
such a desirable city to live in. There must be less radical, less divisive solutions to the affordable housing issue.
I will not vote for any councillor who supports the AHO.
Sincerely,
Lisa Glover
10 Avon St.
Lopez, Donna
ATTACHMENT 99
From:
Andrea Williams < [email removed]>
Sent:
Thursday, August 8, 2019 12:14 PM
To:
City Council; Clerk
AHO ordinance
Subject:
Dear City Council,
Rather than paraphrase the recent letter in Cambridge Day from the Fresh Pond Residents Alliance, with which I fully
agree, I am simply asking that you allow the current AHO proposal to expire, so that an effective, thoroughly researched
and considered alternative can be developed in its place. Affordable housing is a critical issue, but it is one piece of
what our city, a complex system, needs to plan for; the AHO is seriously flawed and there isn't time to carefully
determine the mandatory guidelines needed with its "as of right" provision. I'm convinced that there are other
solutions than simply build, build, build more but that's a much longer discussion.
Sincerely,
Andrea Williams
176 Appleton St.
Lopez, Donna
ATTACHMENT 1O0
From:
Edward k <[email removed]>
Sent:
Thursday, August 8, 2019 12:48 PM
Clerk
To:
Subject:
Opposition to Affordable Housing Overlay As written
FYI
Begin forwarded message:
From: Edward k <[email removed]>
Subject: Opposition to Affordable Housing Overlay As written
Date: August 8, 2019 at 12:46:47 PM EDT
To: council@cambridgema.gov
Cc: "Charles (Charlie) M. Sullivan" < csullivan@cambridgema.gov>
Dear Sir/Madam,
Much though I am sympathetic to the needs for affordable housing in Cambridge, I find the current proposal for
Affordable Housing to be inappropriate and I beg the council reconsider approval.
Cambridge is a BEAUTIFUL city and much has been done by excellent organizations such as the Zoning Board and also
the Historical Committee (Charles Sullivan is cc'd on this email) to preserve and protect and ensure that construction is
both respectful to neighbours and neighborhoods and ALSO in keeping with Scale and Style.
Cambridge is a vibrant city and one that we ALL wish to continue to grow but ....
I believe the appropriate pathway for affordable housing is the re-examination of existing zoning laws and relaxing
them as appropriate and in keeping with neighborhood scale, character and style.
The proposal as written is a wide open door to abuse.
I am a property developer (past) and can say without question that Developers will be able to move faster in than the
council. They will take advantage of every opportunity and the council will be delayed in assessing and subsequently
responding to unintended consequences of some of these choices.
Please take heed, the zoning and historical boards have performed admirably for the city; continue to allow them to do
SO.
Regards
Edward Kerslake, MBA, PhD.
Nearly 20 year resident of Cambridge
102 Appleton St
Cambridge, MA
(Previously 15 Woodbridge St, Cambridge, MA and previous to that 50A Linnaean st
1
Lopez, Donna
ATTACHMENT 101
From:
Lee Farris < [email removed]>
Thursday, August 8, 2019 1:45 PM
Sent:
City Council
To:
Cc:
Clerk
Subject:
Priority amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay
Attachments:
CResA Priorities for Changes in Affordable Housing Overlay.docx
Dear Mayor and Councilors,
Attached please find proposed priority amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay, as well as comments on specific
proposed amendments.
Regards,
Lee Farris
269 Norfolk St. 02139
...
CResA Priorities for Changes in Affordable Housing Overlay
1. Affordable Housing follows the Tree Protection Ordinance (currently is exempt)
2. Provide 30% open space- few exceptions; no reduction for parking
3. Support Carlone's proposal on 3 height zones and reduced heights in transition zones near smaller buildings
4.
Support setbacks from adjacent buildings as Carlone proposed
5.
Min. parking of 0.2 space/unit near transit if street allows on-street parking; for building under 10 units or street
that does not allow on-street parking, require dropoff and ADA space on street; if street does not allow on-street
parking, require ADA and drop-off space on site.
6. Establish a guiding document with goals on income levels served, types of sites, proximity to public open space,
20% ownership units, geographic distribution of housing, increase in % of affordable housing in areas with low
amounts, and varied project sizes.
7. Require an annual progress report, including numbers of units and BRs built/year, problems/successes
encountered, #s of buildings demolished, what happened to displaced tenants, trees removed and added, and a
required Council and Planning Board review every three years of the goals in the guiding document.
8.
Detailed contextual design guidelines
9. No dwelling units shall be located below grade.
10. Affordable Housing Overlay buildings must be built Net Zero Ready, and all open space shall be permeable
11. Form a citywide Affordable Housing Overlay project review commission to make funding recommendations
Comments on specific amendments as summarized in the Mayor's Compilation 8.8.2019
Item 1: agree
Item 2: do not think over-income person can return to afd. building.
Item 3: agree
Item 4: agree
Item 5: agree
Item 6: not sure recently evicted people should have priority over other high priority people. I prefer
priority be for those who live in Cambridge, rather than those who work in Cambridge. Do not think over-
income person can return to afd. building.
Item 7: agree
Item 8 on p. 5. QZ section re business returning to new building
Item 10 and 11 on p.7. Prefer Carlone language to McGovern language re transitions
Item 12- agree
Item 14- not sure this correct
Item 15, 16, 17, p. 8-9, by Carlone, agree
Item 18, p.9 by McGovern, re parking and open space- agree
Item 19, p. 10 by QZ, agree re historic building having open space. But is this a strong enough definition
of historic building?
Item 20, p. 10 by QZ, agree re 100% permeable open space
Item 21, p. 10 by McGovern, re counting shared balcony/roof deck as open space- disagree
Item 22, p. 11 by QZ- ok
Item 23, p. 12 by QZ- no min. parking required except ADA; prefer to require parking as stated above
*Item 24, p. 14 by Carlone re site selection priorities- agree with idea, not sure about priorities
Items 25-29, p. 14-17 by Carlone, agree with need for design guidelines within zoning
Item 30, p. 17, by Carlone, agree re screening bike parking
Item 31, p. 18, by Carlone, agree re glass %. What about setting max glass %?
Item 32, p. 18 by McGovern, re non-business use of ground floor- disagree if space is along street;
would be ok on back side of building; front of building needs to be public-serving space
Item 33, p. 19 by QZ and item 34 by Carlone- prefer these approaches for ground floor space
Item 34, p. 20 by Carlone, agree re screening
Item 36, p.20 by QZ, agree, except do not think the FAR limit should be a multiple of the FAR in base
zoning.
Item 37, p. 21 by Carlone, agree re 1 preliminary meeting
Item 38 and 39, p. 21-22 by Carlone, agree re context analysis and design statement
Item 40, p. 23 by Carlone, agree with adding funder
Item 41, p. 22-24 by Carlone, agree with design consultation objectives
Items 42 by McGovern and 43 by Carlone: agree with these but want to see annual progress report and 3 year review,
as above.
Lopez, Donna
ATTACAMENT 102
From:
Crane, Paula
Sent:
Friday, August 9, 2019 7:43 AM
To:
Lopez, Donna
Subject:
FW: AHO rules and regulations..
thank you Harriet
From: [email removed] <[email removed]>
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 12:01 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>; Crane, Paula < pcrane@cambridgema.gov>
Subject: AHO rules and regulations.. thank you Harriet
Cambridge City Council.. The Affordable Housing Ordinance, AHO is very important to me. I may not be able
to attend meetings and rallies, but I am most interested in the AHO... and it is not ready for prime
time.. There are too many issues with the details.. especially community involvement and Height
limitations.. Housing is one of Cambridge's most pressing issues. We need to do it right now.. It sure is hard
to undue once buildings are erected. Cambridge is a lovely place to live.. I have been here for 30 years. Let us
make it a lovely place for everyone to live. Thank you Harriet
And of course, if there is anything else I can be of assistance, please do let know. Thank you
Harriet H. Ahouse
Travel Consultant
[phone removed]-direct line
[email removed]
www.alwaysharriet.com
http://alwaysharriet.wordpress.com (blog)
Virtuoso Member
Vista Travel
Specialist in France, Italy, Caribbean and Scuba Diving.
Virtuoso Family Travel Team
Thank you for all your referrals to family and friends.
"I work with busy, successful, curious people who want to master the joy in their life journey through the art of unique
travel experiences."
Lopez, Donna
ATTACHMENT 103
From:
Pjs Bells < [email removed]>
Sent:
riday, August 9, 2019 3:46 Pl
City Counc
To:
Clerk
Cc:
Subject:
Zoning
I would like a "common sense" approach to the proposed zoning overlay as recommended by Patty Nolan.
Thank you for your consideration.
Peggy J. Simms
Lopez, Donna
ATTACHMENT /04
From:
Nancy E. Phillips < [email removed]>
Sent:
Saturday, August 10, 2019 9:43 AM
To:
City Council; Peterson, Lisa; Farooq, Iram; Lopez, Donna
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ORDINANCE
Subject:
to the City Councillors and, especially, the members of the Ordinance Committee:
PLEASE support the Affordable Housing Ordinance. I have read innumerable emails detailing the possible
dangers to Cambridge lite and property that this modest proposal might impose, and I am unconvinced. As I
read it (I'm a retired atfordable-housing development consultant), the AHO would:
-reduce the per-unit cost of land purchase for Attordable vs. non-attordable housing developments;
-reduce the per-unit cost of site preparation, foundation and roof construction, and probably some building
systems (e.g. heating) for Affordable developments;
--and make it possible for Affordable developments to be built in more Cambridge neighborhoods than at
present.
Not only would affordable housing be less costly to build and more equitably distributed, but it would also
(because less costly per unit) be more competitive in competitions for state funding. The AHO proposal is an
excellent one, and Cambridge (not to mention its beleaguered low-income population) needs it.
Nancy E. Phillips
36A Rice St.
Lopez, Donna
AITACHMENTIOS
From:
Arthur Strang < [email removed]>
Sent:
Monday, August 12, 2019 6:49 AM
City Council
To:
Lopez, Donna; Clerk; Susan Miller-Havens Fine Arts
Cc:
Affordable Housing YES, Zoning Overlay NO
Subject:
Dear Counselors:
I am opposed to the zoning overlay. Please vote against it in any form.
Lhave decided to contribute to, support, and vote for City Counselors who vote against zoning-overlay.
Affordable housing, yes we need such.
Factually, the rising disparity of income in the US and the falling real incomes of the middle class, and most everyone
else, has made a housing problem of the 1970's, which I worked on in NYC, more catastrophic. What better word? How
many issues does it describe today?
I thought it humorous when I began to think of overlay in personal terms. Could I, I thought, develop 6-10 units on the
quarter acre (or less) lot where my house was built in 1924? Yes, seems to be the answer.
We seem to be moving toward considerably changing the dense but low structure of Cambridge. We have not
compared that "solution" with spending some of the considerable wealth of the City of Cambridge (say, moving from
our pride in our AAA Credit Rating reported when we first moved here in 1976).
We have not compared that solution with many alternatives. All of which can provide more housing. For example, how
much Cambridge land is dedicated to our water supply? What is the total implied cost of our water supply including the
value of that land? What would it cost to buy MWRA water as Cambridge did for some months during the recent
drought? How much housing, including affordable, and open space could be developed here and at our
reservoirs? How large a developer's fee paid Cambridge and used for affordable housing?
Have we considered transportation? In other major metropolitan areas, people of all incomes commute considerable
distances on timely, dependable subway systems—2 times or more the length of the Red Line from Alewife to Post
Office Square. More people could commute even longer distances, as they do elsewhere, by commuter rail. Competent
Transit would offer more families the opportunity to live in, say, Acton, and work in Cambridge, Somerville or Boston,
even Quincy. Transportation, one reason housing is so expensive in Cambridge is the barrier that surrounds the City:
DCR Parkways, the commuter rail, the river. There are about 15 roads into Cambridge, all reduced in lanes over the last
decade or more.
Which is not to say Cambridge does not have to build more housing including affordable. All that parking space
unutilized according to the recent study, what plan? Why do we hear of low parking utilization just now?
Housing both affordable and market is a big issue in Cambridge. Who specifically is responsible for the actions
Cambridge has already identified, say, in the 2005 plan for development of Alewife. What about all the other studies to
date involving neighborhoods, housing, and many other issues? Who is responsible for execution? What metrics? What
progress? What remains to be done?
1
Contrary to the other institutions in Cambridge with world views and impacts, our City limits itself to our
boundaries. (For example, SeeClickFix can't respond to the danger to bicycle riders from private plants growing into our
public road (Blanchard Road), because the private property is in Belmont.).
Or, as we have struggled to improve bus service on Mount Auburn Street and have successfully developed a partnership
with Watertown, the state agency, DCR, which spent a half million to study the corridors of Mount Auburn Street and
Fresh Pond Parkway, has been slow-the nicest word I can think of—to perform the promised: intersection redesign,
signalling installation, new radar speed signs still not functioning, traffic enforcement, lane redesign on and tree planting
along, the Parkway.
How many votes has the Mayor of Boston when he sits down with the Governor? How many votes has the Cambridge
City Manager when he sits with the Governor? Does he sit down with the Governor?
I have decided to contribute to, support, and vote for City Counselors who vote against zoning-overlay.
I ask your support for a less consultant driven, more widely focused, insistence for an inclusive set of strategies focused
on: utilizing the wealth of Cambridge for its residents now and future, partnering with towns and cities and the
Commonwealth for a 21st Century transportation system, and an identified person with real responsibility and support
for the mutual future of all our (not just Cambridge) neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Arthur Strang
Fresh Pond Parkway
Cambridge
2
ATTACHMENT 106
Lopez, Donna
Crane, Paula
From:
Sent:
Monday, August 12, 2019 9:15 AM
To:
Lopez, Donna
Subject:
FW: AHO proposal
--Original Message--...
From: Susan Hockfield <susan. [email removed]>
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 10:09 AM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>
Cc: Susan Hockfield <[email removed]>; Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov>
Subject: AHO proposal
Dear Cambridge City Councillors:
As a Cambridge resident and voter, I join many of my neighbors in my opposition to the currently proposed AHO plan.
While I am very much in favor of Cambridge having an actionable and effective plan for affordable housing, the current
proposal should be revised and rethought after the November election. Our City needs a plan that addresses the need
for affordable housing while preserving the nature of our neighborhoods.
My votes in November will be based on your positions on this issue.
Susan Hockfield
Lopez, Donna
ATTACHMENT 102
From:
Crane, Paula
Sent:
Monday, August 12, 2019 9:17 AM
To:
Lopez, Donna
FW: AHO
Subject:
From: Clarice McDonald <[email removed]>
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2019 11:04 AM
To: City Council <CityCouncil @ CambridgeMA.GOV>
Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov>
Subject: AHO
Dear Council Members:
I support affordable housing, but I do not support the AHO proposal and do not plan to vote for any council members
that support it.
There needs to be more thoughtful planning in creating affordable housing that will not drastically change our city. Back
to the drawing board, please.
Sincerely,
Clarice McDonald
Lopez, Donna
ATTACAMENT 108
From:
Crane, Paula
Sent:
Monday, August 12, 20199:19 AN
To:
Lopez, Donna
Subject:
FW: Affordable Housing Citywide Overlay Zoning Proposal
----Original Message-----
From: Susan McNally <[email removed]>
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2019 8:33 AM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>
Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov>
Subject: Affordable Housing Citywide Overlay Zoning Proposal
City Councilors,
Please vote against this zoning proposal. I understand the importance of affordable housing and density in Cambridge,
but this proposal is too broad brush.
I would encourage you to address this issue not by zoning changes, but by careful and long terms individual planning. I
especially worry about the restriction of community appeals. Cambridge's engaged and informed residents are a
strength of this city.
Thank you,
Susan McNally
Lopez, Donna
ATTACHMENT 109
From:
Taylor, Bernice
Sent:
Tuesday, August 13, 2019 9:05 AM
To:
Lopez, Donna
Subject:
FW: 8/13/19 Continued Ordinance Committee Hearing on AHO
From: Young Kim <[email removed]>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 8:56 PM
To: Taylor, Bernice < btaylor@cambridgema.gov>
Subject: Fwd: 8/13/19 Continued Ordinance Committee Hearing on AHO
If it is not too late, please enter the corrected version below. The only correction is deletion of two extraneous lines
below my signature/address.
Thank you
Respectfully yours,
Young Kim
-- Forwarded message --
From: Young Kim <[email removed]>
Date: Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 12:03 PM
Subject: 8/13/19 Continued Ordinance Committee Hearing on AHO
To: Carlone, Dennis <dcarlone@cambridgema.gov>, Kelley, Craig <ckelley@cambridgema.gov>, Devereux, Jan
< jdevereux@cambridgema.gov>, Mallon, Alanna <amallon@cambridgema.gov>, McGovern, Marc
<mmcgovern@cambridgema.gov>, Siddiqui, Sumbul <ssiddiqui@cambridgema.gov>, Simmons, Denise
<dsimmons@cambridgema.gov>, <ttoomey@cambridgema.gov>, Zondervan, Quinton
<gzondervan@cambridgema.gov>
Cc: Farooq, Iram <ifarooq@cambridgema.gov>, Roberts, Jeffrey < jroberts@cambridgema.gov>,
<pcrane@cambridgema.gov>, DePasquale, Louie <Idepasquale@cambridgema.gov>
Dear Ordinance Committee Members,
Thank you for your persistence in last week's 7.5 hour grueling, marathon session to hammer out consensus on
amendments to the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay zoning petition. As you are well aware, the
hearing on this amendment started on 7/29 that lasted almost 5 hours resulting in 270 page minutes. This was
followed by another 5 hour meeting on 8/1. In parallel, there were two long Planning Board hearings and on the
second hearing former Chair T. Cohen pointed out numerous sections in the zoning petition that he called
confusing or contradictory.
These long hearings which included hours of public comments clearly show that the amendment is not ready to
be enacted; that it needs a lot more work. It is apparent that the petition was drafted without careful
consideration of potential unintended consequences or how it will be enforced
Instead of trying to go through the reminder of committee members amendments, I beg you to send the
petition back to the Community Development Department to rewrite it, from the point of view of Zoning
Ordinance mindful of its purpose; taking into consideration of Planning Board and Ordinance Committee
deliberations; taking into consideration all the public comments; and threading through potential abuses by for-
profit developers..
1
Entire Article 11.200 of the Zoning Ordinance should be reviewed and restructured to address AFFORDABLE
HOUSING REQUIREMENTS comprehensibly and coherently without overlap and without
duplication. Incentive Zoning, Inclusionary Housing and now the proposed Affordable Hosing Overlay Projects
are three different mechanism to achieve affordable housing. Shouldn't there be only one set of income
qualification for both Inclusionary Housing and AHO Project? Who and how are these qualification rules to be
Please take the time to get this complex amendment affecting the entire City correct. Up-zoning amendment
of this magnitude should really be decided by the voters in a referendum.
Thank you for your consideration,
Respectfully yours,
Young Kim
17 Norris Street
ATTACHMENT
Lopez, Donna
From:
Crane, Paula
Sent:
Tuesday, August 13, 2019 7:49 AM
To:
Lopez, Donna
Subject:
FW: AHO Zoning
From: Doug Hanna <[email removed]>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 2:22 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>
Cc: Crane, Paula <pcrane@cambridgema.gov>
Subject: AHO Zoning
Dear Council Members,
I want to communicate that I am opposed to the Affordable Housing Overlay Ordinance in it's
present form. As a Cambridge resident for the last 53 years, I have seen many changes in this city. I recognize the need
for good quality affordable housing and support that goal. The proposed ordinance is not acceptable to me. Some
measure of design review, a sunset clause, and tree protection need to be included to get my support. While I am very
fond of certain councilors, including some who are in favor of the currently proposed overlay, I will not be voting for
councilors who support the provision in it's current form.
Sincerely,
Doug Hanna