How New York City Council’s Land Use Committee Modified City of Yes for Housing Opportunity
The City of Yes – Housing Opportunity Text Amendment (“HOA”) proposal is a sweeping overhaul of zoning to increase as-of-right residential development across the City from low- to high-density districts. As described by City Planning, the text amendment is intended to promote “a little more housing in all districts,” without overburdening any particular neighborhood.
The text amendment reached a major milestone this past week with the City Council Land Use Committee voting in favor of the amendment, but with significant modifications in some areas. The modified text now goes back to the City Planning Commission for a determination that the proposed changes are “within scope,” with the full City Council expected to act on December 5.
This land use bulletin identifies some of the significant changes made by City Council Land Use Committee, which voted 8 to 2 to adopt (with a much slimmer majority in the Zoning and Franchises subcommittee). They estimate that the modified text is expected to produce 80,000 new housing units over 15 years, compared to 110,00 units in the original proposal.
As expected, the Council modified the proposed parking rules, and rolled back bulk rules intended for increased flexibility in lower density areas. However, density and height increases in exchange for affordable housing in medium- and high-density areas were not significantly changed, and key provisions continue to encourage transit-oriented development and town center development though with a more limited scope. Accessory dwelling units will also be permitted under the modified text but with restrictions on their locations, and conversions of office to residential will continue to be facilitated.
City Council Modifications
A summary of the changes prepared by the City Council can be found here. Key changes include:
Lower Density Areas
Town Center Zoning: HOA re-establishes a traditional building type on commercial strips in lower density districts with three to five stories of residential above a commercial base. The Council supported this goal but establishes a 20 percent affordability incentive for projects with over 50 units. To protect one- and two-family homes, the Council modifications removed the Town Center developments in these districts or those where the commercial overlay only covers one blockfront.
Transit Oriented Development: The proposal allowed all low-density districts near mass transit an incentive to provide three- to five-story buildings, depending on the district and site characteristics. As with Town Center Zoning, the Council calls for 20 percent affordability for projects over 50 units in size. It also makes TOD inapplicable in R1 and R2 districts and areas outside the “Greater Transit Zone” and those more than one-quarter mile from a LIRR or metro-north rail station.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): The Council affirmed the ability of many homeowners to provide ADUs, which will serve to expand the housing supply and provide homeowners financial wherewithal to stay in their homes. The modifications did restrict where they could be located. For example, ADUs would be prohibited on ground floors and basements in flood zone areas, and depending on the district, could not be located in backyards unless located in the Greater Transit Zone, and would be prohibited under certain conditions in historic districts. As discussed later, the parking would not be mandated in conjunction with ADUs.
District Fixes: The HOA made a number of changes providing added flexibility in lower density districts to make additions and bring more homes into compliance with current zoning. Council modifications primarily focus on preserving on-site open space and yards while continuing to allow flexibility for homeowners.
Medium to High Density Districts
Universal Affordability Preference (UAP): This part of the HOA establishes an incentive for affordable housing in all medium- to high-density districts by providing a floor area bonus (20 percent) and relaxation of certain height limits by one to three stories in exchange for permanent affordable housing. The new bonuses replaces voluntary inclusionary housing and would be available in many areas where mandatory or voluntary inclusionary housing do not currently apply. The Council modifications deepen the required level of affordability, and also reduce the maximum allowable heights for UAP by 10 feet in R8B and on narrow streets in R6 and R7-1 districts.
Citywide Amendments
Eliminate Minimum Parking Requirements: Perhaps one of the most controversial aspects of the text amendment, the proposal would have eliminated mandatory minimum parking requirements for residential development, recognizing that it drives up the cost of housing. Developers would have continued to be allowed, but not required, to provide parking. The Council modifications in this area were driven by the goal to “reflect community transit patterns,” recognizing there is a need to balance/require parking in areas less served by mass transit.
It created three parking zones. In Zone 1 (except for Inwood), parking would not be required in the rest of Manhattan, Long Island City, and parts of western Queens and Brooklyn. In Zone 2, parking minimums would be reduced in areas considered proximate to transit, but with longer commute times. These areas include Inwood and Washington Heights in Manhattan, most of The Bronx, Southern Brooklyn, and areas of Queens near mass transit. In Zone 3, current minimum parking requirement would continue to be maintained. These include more auto dependent areas such as south and eastern Queens, most of Staten Island and parts of The Bronx and Brooklyn outside of mass-transit zones.
Importantly, in order to maximize housing, parking would largely not be required for ADUs, office conversions to residential use, most affordable housing, transit-oriented development, and town center development. Distinctions are made for Parking Zone 3.
Campus Infill Rules: The City Planning Commission made several modifications to the original proposal to facilitate development on campus infill sites. The Council further modified the HOA, including restricting additional campus infill heights based on the scale of existing buildings. It also introduced lot coverage limits for smaller sites in order to preserve open space, and restricted development on open space used today for recreation purposes.
Landmark Transfers: Prior to the HOA, existing zoning mechanism that allow landmark structures to transfer development rights have been largely unsuccessful. The HOA recognized these deficiencies by expanding the areas for transfer of development rights, and making these transfers by certification. While currently unclear, the Council modification would require a special permit for transfers resulting in “height increases greater than 25 percent.”
In Summary…
The Housing Opportunity Text was always considered to be a major step forward in helping to address the City’s critical housing shortage while recognizing that it alone will not solve our housing crisis. It will go a meaningful way to help address the high cost of housing in New York City, as well as support existing homeowners to better adapt their homes to changing family needs. The Council modifications do cut back on the scope of some of the changes that had been proposed, but the text amendment continues to represent a significant change in the residential zoning rules that will promote new opportunities for housing across the city.
Importantly, the Council Speaker has negotiated a $5 billion infusion from the City and State to help achieve these important goals. From our perspective, the text amendment is a vital change that will make it easier to build housing of all types in the city, providing for incremental growth and meeting a variety of housing needs, while respecting and enforcing overall neighborhood character and livability. Because the modified zoning text over 1000 pages long was only just released, we will be examining it in detail over the coming weeks. Please contact Richard Barth or Brian Cook to discuss how it may affect your current or future projects.
