Ordinance Committee backs amended multifamily zoning package, sends drafting direction to city staff

The Cambridge Ordinance Committee voted Monday to send a package of amendments to the full City Council directing the city manager and the Community Development Department (CDD) to draft changes to two pending multifamily zoning petitions.

The committee approved reductions to the base residential zoning height, a density bonus for inclusionary development and other guardrails aimed at addressing neighborhood concerns. Vice Mayor (Chair) McGovern opened the meeting by saying the session was a continuation of a December recessed hearing and that the aim of the night was to get CDD focused directions for drafting language, not to finalize ordinance text.

Melissa Peters, the city’s Chief of Planning Strategy, and Jeff Roberts, the city’s director of zoning and development, briefed the committee on the Planning Board review and answered questions about impacts and process. Roberts told the committee the Planning Board transmitted a report to the City Council without recommending for or against the petition because board members agreed on allowing multifamily citywide but had concerns about heights, setbacks, open space and review processes.

Councilor S. Siddiqui, one of the housing co‑chairs and a lead sponsor of the amendments, framed the changes as a compromise to “end exclusionary zoning” while protecting neighborhood character. Siddiqui told the committee the core package under consideration included reducing the base as‑of‑right height from 6 stories to 4 stories, establishing a two‑story density bonus for inclusionary developments, restoring contextual 5‑foot side and rear setbacks (with townhouse exceptions), and requiring a 5,000‑square‑foot minimum lot for developments taller than four stories.

The committee debated several alternate proposals and clarifying edits during the meeting. Councilor Sabrina Wheeler proposed an exception that would allow developments under the lot‑size minimum if they include 50% affordable units; staff said that kind of change would require further analysis and the committee moved that question into a study/consideration list for CDD to report back on.

Key votes and outcomes - An amendment from Councilor Wilson to change the base height to 3 stories (instead of the 4‑story motion before the committee) failed, 4–5. (Roll call recorded No votes from Councilors Zine, McGovern, Siddiqui, Toner and Mayor Simmons; Yes votes from Councilors Nolan, Sabrina Wheeler, Wilson and Zusi.) - The core motion to reduce the base residential zoning limit from 6 stories (approx. 75 feet) to 4 stories (approx. 45 feet) passed unanimously, 9–0. - The committee approved a 2‑story density bonus for inclusionary developments (9–0). - Restoring contextual 5‑foot side and rear setbacks passed unanimously (9–0). - The requirement that developments taller than four stories be on lots of at least 5,000 square feet passed, 7–2. Councilor Sabrina Wheeler asked CDD to analyze a possible exemption for buildings that would include 50% affordable units and that question was added to the study list. - A motion to lower the special‑permit threshold for large projects from 75,000 sq ft to 50,000 sq ft (which would make larger projects discretionary and subject to the more rigorous project‑review special permit) failed, 2–7; staff warned that lowering the threshold increases litigation risk and review burden and that traffic and infrastructure studies are currently tied to the special‑permit process. - The committee confirmed that the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) would continue to scale with base zoning and that AHO developments in residential neighborhoods could go up to 9 stories under the revised base zoning (9–0). - For monitoring, the committee adopted a 5‑year comprehensive review cycle with annual updates, mirroring the AHO process (9–0).

Open space, trees and solar protections Committee members and staff spent substantial time discussing open‑space and permeability requirements and possible environmental consequences of upzoning. Staff clarified that the petition retains a 30% private open‑space requirement with at least half of that area required to be permeable under current rules; the Planning Board and several councilors urged a study of whether higher permeable open‑space requirements (the mayor proposed an example of 40% open space with at least 50% permeable for 5–6 story projects, and some councilors asked CDD to study up to 75% permeability) should be tied to height/density bonuses.

Council members also asked the city to report back on how proposed zoning changes could affect the city’s tree canopy and what mitigation — for example street tree planting, new parks or different landscaping standards — might be necessary. Because that kind of fine‑grained, parcel‑level analysis is time consuming, staff advised such work would likely be more appropriate for the scheduled multi‑year review work and for the directed study items.

The committee also asked the city solicitor and CDD to report on what legal protections can be provided, at the local and state level, for residential solar systems and to assess whether local ordinance language could protect rooftop or yard solar investments as the zoning evolves.

Why it matters The committee’s actions set the policy direction for the draft ordinance language that CDD will prepare and the full City Council will consider. The votes reflect attempts to balance the city’s declared goal of expanding multifamily housing—and with it opportunities for inclusionary units—against neighborhood concerns about height, tear downs, tree loss and design. Many councilors described the package as a compromise between accelerating housing production and preserving neighborhood scale.

Next steps The committee directed staff to draft ordinance text consistent with the committee’s votes and to return to the council. The full City Council will consider the recommended drafting and (if accepted) send the final ordinance language through the normal public hearing process. The committee also scheduled public comment on revised proposals for the January 8, 2025 meeting and additional hearings on January 16, 2025.

Provenance: CDD presentation and planning board summary (Jeff Roberts) informed the staff analysis; motions and votes on the items above are recorded in committee roll calls during the meeting and were introduced when the chair read the set of proposed amendments for Petition 1 and Petition 2.