UES’s CB8 Hears ‘City of Yes’ Explainer, Asks A Few Probing Questions

As the massive zoning text amendment referred to as the ‘City of Yes’ undergoes public review, Manhattan’s community boards are now getting a crack at it. Meanwhile, the city government is mounting a parallel campaign to promote the changes.

During a May 20 interview on PIX11, Mayor Eric Adams & Department of City Planning Commissioner Dan Garodnick offered their support for the zoning amendment. They clarified that the current proposal is technically the last of three ‘City of Yes’ elements; the first two have concerned the environment and commercial districts, respectively. The environmental element passed last year, while the commercial portion is set to be voted on by the City Council this week.

The current and final “housing” amendment, which has been broadly (and a bit misleadingly) designated as the ‘City of Yes’ by most commentators, will require lots of public relations work for city government.

“Most importantly, for this [amendment], we see that our zoning rules have gotten antiquated. They call out taxidermy and telegraph stores, but not 3D printing or virtual reality. We need to modernize our zoning so that we are not limiting our own growth and evolution. It’s a 21st century economy. We’ve got 1961 rules and we’re looking to deal with that now,” Garodnick told PIX11.

On May 15, the Department of City Planning (DCP) gave a presentation to the Upper East Side’s Community Board 8 on the planned residential overhaul, which would essentially allow for small bursts of affordable housing development to accumulate more or less everywhere. The UES would be classified as a “high-density” area, and thus would see a specific set of changes.

Some of the changes outlined by the DCP include slight height increases to buildings, ranging from 10 ft. to 30 ft., which would allow for the provision of new affordable units. Current height-limited zonings districts were deemed “archaic” by Azka Mohyuddin, a DCP representative, who added that spreading out such minor tweaks to building height could result in a “lot of [affordable] units.”

The DCP noted that this would technically fall under the umbrella of a zoning regime called Universal Affordability Preference, or UAP, which would replace something called Voluntary Inclusionary Housing (VIH). One standout advantage of UAP, Mohyuddin said, is that it caters to residents that fall within the lower range of an area’s Average Monthly Income (AMI). This means that new units made possible by the zoning changes would have cheaper rents, Mohyuddin explained.

Other proposed “City of Yes” housing tweaks include allowing for contextual “infill” housing on school campuses, as well as landmarks to transfer development rights to zoning lots in the immediate vicinity.

Then the questions from CB8 began to roll in, and while cordial, some of them clearly expressed a measure of doubt. John Mangin, another DCP employee, took point on most of the rejoinders. For starters, board member Elizabeth Rose was concerned about height increases not being “proportionate.”

Mangin expressed his opinion that tight zoning districts end up being full of “super flat buildings that are kind of of ugly.” Rose didn’t budge, saying that “I can imagine our community board is not thrilled” with the concept of uneven height increases.

Husain Sahar, another board member, began her speaking slot with the caveat that she was “in favor of more affordable housing.” She added that hadn’t noticed much in the DCP’s presentation “in terms of how [the zoning amendment] impacts the environment.”

Sahar also said that while “she does not own a car, by the way,” she was worried about ‘City of Yes’ housing provisions that would eliminate mandatory parking spaces for new buildings. She personally believed that this would “create more of a crisis” on the UES, “because we already don’t have enough parking spots.”

Mangin replied to the second question first, noting that none other than Community Board 8 itself has “pioneered” the concept of not requiring parking in UES buildings “for over a decade now.”

He then said that the DCP’s environmental review for the ‘City of Yes’ housing amendment was the “biggest we’ve ever done, [while] working with the full range of city agencies—whether it’s [about] water, sewage, or open space.”

This draft review demonstrated that “a little bit of housing” spread out everywhere will have negligible impact, Mangin added, specifically because it would create “less than 1 unit [of housing] per acre over 15 years.”

Saundrea I. Coleman brought up the campus infill provisions, which she appeared to be quite skeptical of; she claimed that infill could “block sunlight,” damage land, worsen air quality, and have a “negative psychological impact.”

Mangin seemed to disagree with Coleman entirely, and instead unsurprisingly took a pro-development tack. “Today we’re seeing campus sites that have available development rights and footprint for new housing,” he said, that are stymied by current zoning text. He believes that the ‘City of Yes’ housing amendment will “create opportunities on the margin” of these campuses, similar to NYCHA complexes, and that infill would instead provide “huge psychological benefits” to residents that “get to live in that new housing.”

After the proposed zoning amendment is presented to NYC’s many community boards, it will go to the City Council for modifications and a vote, which is expected no earlier than October.