Director of City Planning Dan Garodnick speaking about the City of Yes proposals at the 189th CityLaw Breakfast last October. Image Credit: CityLand.
On July 10, 2024, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing for the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity zoning text amendment. The text amendment is the third and final City of Yes amendment proposed by the Adams administration to address outdated provisions within the zoning code that hinder the growth of housing, the economy, and the use of green infrastructure and technology in New York City.
The Housing Opportunity amendment consists of several proposals to find ways to build different kinds of housing all across the city. Earlier this year, the Department of City Planning released the 2023 Housing Production Update, which provided information regarding the amount and distribution of housing built citywide; of all 50 community districts, the ten most productive districts built as much housing as the other 49 districts. Many districts produced less than ten units of housing last year, and some districts even lost housing. This data helps frame the approach of the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity text amendment; instead of using a one-size-fits-all approach, the proposed amendment aims to remove restrictions to allow housing of different types to be built all around the city.
Some of the proposals include changes to parking mandates to reduce costs of constructing new buildings, implementing a universal affordability preference to allow buildings to add more housing if that housing will be permanently affordable, allowing accessory dwelling units in low density areas, transit-oriented development within a half-mile of subway or rail stations, and the conversion of non-residential buildings to housing, among other changes. For further details, see CityLand’s prior coverage or the City of Yes page.
Prior to the public hearing, community boards and borough presidents were given the opportunity to review the application as part of the ULURP process. The Department of City Planning has continued to hold meetings with community boards throughout this process to explain the complicated and extensive text amendment; the actual amendment is over 1300 pages long. The development of the amendment and the engagement process have been ongoing since the City of Yes amendments were first proposed in June 2022.
The Bronx, Manhattan and Brooklyn Borough Presidents all issued conditional favorable recommendations. Staten Island Borough President Vito J. Fossella voted against the amendment.
Community boards have been split on the issue, and not all community boards have issued their final votes as of the publishing of this article. So far, community boards have voted the following way:
Favorable: Brooklyn 6, Manhattan 6,
Conditional favorable: Brooklyn 1*, 2*, 4, 8*, 14; Bronx 3, 4*, 7*, 9; Manhattan 9, 11, 12; Queens 1*, 2*
Conditional unfavorable: Brooklyn 13; Bronx 6; Manhattan 2, 10; Queens 6, 7, 9, 12
Against: Brooklyn 5*, 9, 10, 11, 15, 18; Bronx 2, 5*, 8, 10, 12; Queens 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 14; all Staten Island districts
(Note: Districts with an * are among the top ten districts producing housing citywide, according to the Department of City Planning.)
At the July 10th public hearing, dozens of people testified in person and virtually both in support and opposition to the amendment. The hearing ran for over twelve hours. For those in support, the reason was generally the same: they agreed that the city’s housing crisis was out of control, and some action needed to be taken to ensure more housing could be built citywide. Some of those who testified in support included Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine, several representatives from the American Institute of Architects, and many housing advocates. Sarah Bronin, Chair of the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, testified that the council had adopted a policy statement on housing that included similar provisions to the City of Yes amendment. Bronx Borough President Vanessa Gibson also testified generally in support, but cited concerns about changes to parking requirements for parts of the Bronx with lack of access to public transportation and concerns about getting more NYCHA resident input for residential buildings added to NYCHA campuses.
Those who testified against the proposal had multiple reasons for their opposition; Council Members Joann Ariola, Christopher Marte, and Vickie Paladino testified in opposition. Council Members Ariola and Paladino argued their constituents chose low-density neighborhoods for a reason and that the proposed changes would jeopardize the quality of life for their residents.
Similarly, many residents who testified in opposition from low-density districts did not feel the changes were appropriate for their neighborhoods that are single-to three-family homes by design. Council Members Marte and Paladino argued that the process felt rushed for such a complex amendment. Others echoed the sentiment that they still could not fully grasp the impacts of an over 1,300 page amendment. City Planning Chair Dan Garodnick pushed back against some of the Council Members’ criticisms, highlighting that their districts had produced some of the fewest amounts of new affordable housing in recent years and that there had been an ongoing engagement process with elected officials and community members for the better part of two years.
Other speakers in opposition agreed with the overall need for more housing but thought the amendment, as is, appeared more beneficial to developers than to regular New Yorkers, that the amendment didn’t address other impacts to neighborhoods like schools or transportation, and or other issues with individual pieces of the amendment.
The City Planning Commissioner will vote on this amendment at a later date.
By: Veronica Rose (Veronica is the Editor of CityLand and a New York Law School graduate, Class of 2018.)