Cambridge housing committee advances plan to allow up to six‑story multifamily buildings citywide, asks staff to draft zoning language

The Cambridge City Council Housing Committee voted to ask the city manager to direct the Community Development Department and the Law Department to draft zoning language that would end exclusionary residential zoning and permit up to six stories of multifamily housing across residential neighborhoods, and to hold public meetings to inform the community before formal ordinance hearings. The committee adopted two motions on a roll call vote of four in favor, one member absent.

The action followed a lengthy public‑comment period in which about 36 speakers voiced sharply divided views, and a technical presentation by city planners. CDD neighborhood planner Lehi McCarthy said the committee’s planning‑scale model projects substantially more housing if the city adopts a six‑story standard: the presentation estimated about 5,570 total units created by 2030, roughly 5,000 net new units and just under 1,000 affordable units in that scenario; the model projected around 900 projects by 2040 with an average of about 20 units per project. CDD staff emphasized these are planning‑level estimates that depend on market conditions and project feasibility.

Supporters at the microphone said the proposal is necessary to increase supply and blunt displacement. ‘‘We urgently need more housing — build more, and people can stay,’’ said Aiden Wilson, a renter. Several speakers, including David Halperin, cited the city’s Envision goals (10,000 homes by 2030) and said zoning change is among the tools needed to meet that scale.

Opponents warned the change could accelerate gentrification, remove neighborhood protections and encourage teardowns. Henry Wardis cited CDD figures showing projected gains concentrated in higher‑income brackets and argued the proposal produces few units for households at 10–50% AMI unless paired with strong anti‑displacement measures. Carolyn Majid urged CDD to analyze how many existing affordable or naturally occurring affordable units could be lost and to present that analysis before a final zoning proposal. Multiple speakers asked for stronger tenant protections, a city voucher program, and limits on demolition.

On technical points, CDD Director of Zoning and Development Jeff Roberts described how the proposal would simplify dimensional standards: it would remove many lot‑area and FAR formulas, regulate primarily by maximum stories above grade and a height limit (about 75 feet where six stories is permitted), and apply an open‑space ratio and the city’s recently established Green Factor to mitigate heat‑island impacts. Inclusionary requirements would remain for projects that reach the current threshold (projects of at least 10,000 square feet or 10 units) at the present 20% rate, staff said. CDD also proposed tiered review thresholds so larger projects (e.g., 25k/50k/75k sq ft) would receive additional planning board advisory review or special permit review as they grow in scale.

Council members pressed staff on three recurring concerns: (1) displacement and how the city will measure and respond to it, (2) whether 6‑story construction would actually occur across all neighborhoods versus primarily along corridors and larger lots, and (3) whether the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) would retain its competitive advantage for 100% affordable projects. Staff responded that the analysis shown was planning‑scale (a ‘‘soft‑site’’ approach that identifies potentially viable parcels and projects historical redevelopment rates forward), that further geographic and feasibility work is possible, and that the AHO process would be adjusted to preserve its as‑of‑right advantages for affordable builders.

The committee amended the first motion to request that CDD ‘‘bring back any analysis, if available, on displacement concerns’’ alongside the drafting of zoning language. The two motions approved instruct the city manager to direct CDD and the Law Department to draft zoning language based on the proposal discussed and to report back to the council by September 15, 2024, and to direct CDD to hold public informational meetings before ordinance committee and planning board hearings.

What comes next: the motions move the process toward formal council referral and ordinance drafting. City staff said zoning language is not yet drafted; the committee’s vote asks staff to produce that language and to report to the full council by mid‑September, at which point the ordinance and planning board processes — with additional hearings and the opportunity for amendments — would begin.

Quotes from the meeting include: ‘‘We’re talking about 920 units on average… $900,000,000 worth of affordable housing that the city will get under this proposal without having to spend a dime,’’ a council member said while urging the committee to proceed with drafting language. Opponents warned: ‘‘This proposal basically guts zoning… allowing construction that would eliminate open space by removing setbacks,’’ one commenter said.

The Housing Committee adopted both motions on roll call, 4–0 (Councilor Sabrina Wheeler was absent). The committee adjourned after the vote; ordinance language and additional public outreach are expected to follow as the council considers a formal petition.