UES’s CB8 Zoning Committee Wrestles With ‘City of Yes’ Housing Overhaul

With the ‘City of Yes’ zoning overhaul gaining steam following a City Council vote that mostly approved its commercial proposals, the residential portion of Mayor Eric Adams’s initiative continued its community board review process on May 21.

Specifically, Community Board 8’s Zoning and Development Committee considered how the proposed changes might affect the Upper East Side’s housing layout. This came hot on the heels of full May 15 board meeting that featured a ‘City of Yes’ housing presentation by the Department of City Planning, followed by a Q&A. In essence, the latest zoning amendment would allow for significant bursts of housing construction in every NYC neighborhood, with an emphasis on constructing affordable units.

Much like the broader meeting, a full bevy of takes on the matter were on display. While some board members made clear their desire to whisk the housing overhaul to success, others expressed outright distrust of the city’s agenda.

This tension was obvious right off the bat, as committee co-chair Elisabeth Ashby began the meeting by referring to a few objections laid out by CB8 in a March letter. These included not permitting height increases above 210 ft., deeming the zoning text amendment too large in scope, and expressing a belief that the city itself (rather than private developers) should build affordable housing.

Elisabeth Rose, a CB8 member, took issue with Ashby kicking off the meeting this way: ‘If we’re sending a list of concerns, we should also be sure to reinforce where we have praise. It’s generally a good strategy.”

Then the time came for fresh community input. Dylan Geronimo Kennedy appeared to express support for the zoning amendment. He believes that with an uptick in job growth, “a lot of people want to live in the city.” Yet “because housing is constrained,” Kennedy added, these people are deterred from doing so.

Kennedy also noted that he personally loves the density of the Upper East Side, and that furthering that density wouldn’t disrupt the neighborhood’s character.

Others clearly disagreed. Andrew Fine appeared to view the entire zoning amendment with disgust, claiming that it “is the largest wholesale demolishment of community input and zoning that we’ve ever seen.” In a telling moment, Andrew Cohn–the committee’s other co-chair–could be heard providing an enthusiastic “yes” to Fine’s comments.

Rita Popper, a CB8 member, said she feared “taller buildings” coming to the UES. She didn’t, however, oppose ‘City of Yes’ coming to other neighborhoods in lower Manhattan.

Alida Camp, in a point that she echoed multiple times throughout the meeting, bluntly said that she intended “to vote ‘no’ on everything, because I don’t know enough about it to say ‘yes’.” Camp believed that the zoning amendment was too long, too “opaque,” and too “ambiguous.”

Popper later echoed Camp’s sentiment by claiming that “it’s not my job to study [the ‘City of Yes’]. It’s not my job to understand it. I’m not an architect. I’m not a developer.” Both board members instead felt that a more concise summary of the 1,386 page-long zoning amendment was needed.

Craig Lader, who holds a secretary position at CB8, pushed back against this strain of thinking. By attacking the entire text amendment, he said, his fellow members would be preventing housing growth in places with “underdevelopment, places where it makes sense to have development.” (i.e. outer boroughs).

If we want “smart growth” and walkable neighborhoods in NYC, Lader continued, “I think that [CB8] needs to be supporting this.” He believed that the UES would “largely benefit” from ‘City of Yes.’

Then, an informal poll on the various points of the zoning amendment followed. Beforehand, Lader gave the following advice: “I would please urge anyone, who is not comfortable with something, not to vote ‘no’ tonight because you don’t know enough about it. Take time over the next couple of weeks to learn. You do not have to vote in this poll tonight. Don’t skew the results if you don’t really know what you’re voting on.”

Indeed, some CB8 members were not too eager to provide straightforward “yay” or “nays.” UAP, or universal affordable preference, stood out as the most debated zoning point; it would serve as the crux of the ‘City of Yes’ overhaul for high-density neighborhoods. It would replace the current Voluntary Inclusionary Housing, or VIH, zoning regime.

UAP would contain three general elements, at least according to the poll worksheet: allowing developers to up units per building by 20 percent if the units are permanently affordable, eliminating distinctions between narrow and wide streets, and increasing building height limits from 85 ft. to 105 ft.

A compromise on UAP was eventually arrived at, which pleased some members more than others: supporting the affordable housing increases, opposing the elimination of zoning distinctions between wide and narrow streets, and asking that any height increases be proportionate.

Such debate will undoubtedly persist in the coming months. The City Council, which is able to propose modifications to the housing amendment, will vote on it by the fall. In the meantime, Mayor Eric Adams and City Planning Commissioner Dan Garodnick can be expected to enthusiastically pass for its easy passage.