Community Board 1 Rejects 14 of 15 Adams Proposals in Housing Package
As the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity plan formulated by the Adams administration is considered by the City Council — the last step before it will be adopted, rejected, or modified — the hearings and debate surrounding the package of proposals are being driven, in part, by the responses crafted by each of the City’s 59 Community Boards. (The Housing Opportunity initiative is one of three bundles of legislation sponsored by the Mayor. The others, City of Yes for Carbon Neutrality and the City of Yes for Economic Opportunity, were enacted last December and in June, respectively.)
Community Board 1 (CB1) compiled a detailed, 4,000-word set of reactions to the Housing Opportunity program, which rejects all but one of the Mayor’s initiatives, and declines to take a position on the one it didn’t disapprove. CB1’s rejection of each element in the Adams housing blueprint was predicated on objections that could (theoretically, if fully addressed) become endorsements. “Each of these is a ‘no, unless,’ rather than just a ‘no,’ ” explained CB1 chair Tammy Meltzer.
Six of the 14 rejected proposals were dismissed on broad grounds that “CB1 does not accept the premise that any material amount of affordable housing will be developed in our district without the incorporation of a meaningful mandated affordable housing component. The voluntary Universal Affordability Preference program, we believe, is wholly inadequate in our high density, high demand, high home-ownership district, to generate sufficient affordable housing.”
The planks covered by these general rejections included proposals labelled “Town Center Zoning,” which would allow housing above businesses on commercial streets in low density zoning districts, and “Transit-Oriented Development,” which (for Lower Manhattan) would mean increased height and bulk for residential development near subway stations, provided that it included affordable housing. Also in this category were “District Fixes,” which would allow larger buildings on smaller lots, and “Small and Shared Housing,” which would prevent developers from erecting buildings entirely comprised of tiny apartments. Additionally, “New Zoning Districts” would modify existing limits on size and square footage of new buildings. (CB1 also rejected an “Eliminate Parking Requirements” proposal, because it would have no direct effect on Lower Manhattan, where developers are not forced to include garages in residential buildings.)
For the remaining eight proposals, the Community Board articulated more specific reservations.The “Accessory Dwelling Units” plan (which seeks to make legal the creation of small apartments within or alongside existing structures) was rejected because the proposal does not make clear that it would not apply to high-density districts like Lower Manhattan.
Two provisions that sparked vehement pushback from CB1 were proposals to create a “Universal Affordability Preference” (UAP) and “Convert Non-Residential Buildings to Housing.” The Board’s objection was not to these aims, but rather that the Adams proposals do not go far enough. Noting that “UAP is the only affordability component” in City of Yes, CB1 argued that the proposal should create a fourth income tier (tied to 130 percent of area median incomes) and raise the overall average level of income permitted for residents of affordable units to 70 percent of area median incomes. These twin amendments would enable middle-class residents of Lower Manhattan (who are often struggling with expenses, but nonetheless exceed the threshold of permissible earnings) to qualify for rent protections and remain in the community.
Ms. Meltzer noted, “one of the strongest things that we had to say in here was that UAP has to be mandatory. The way that they have crafted it, it’s optional.” She added that the Adams administration “has said very specifically that this is a housing proposal that they hope will lead to affordability. But it’s not a mandate.”
For “Convert Non-Residential Buildings to Housing” (a trend more prevalent in Lower Manhattan than any other community in the City), CB1 rejected the Mayor’s proposal because its fails to require that all such conversions include affordable housing units. CB1 further argued that 100 percent of any floor area in excess of what would be permitted if the building were being newly constructed for residential use should be set aside for rent-protected apartments.
In a similar vein, the Board wants to amend the Mayor’s “Campus Infill” proposal (which envision new housing on vacant land in large complexes, such as publicly owned housing projects, and gardens or courtyards within developments like Gateway Plaza, Independence Plaza, and Southbridge Towers). CB1 asserts that any new apartment buildings occupying such space should be 100 percent affordable.
City Hall’s proposed “Updates to Mandatory Inclusionary Housing” (a program that requires developers to include affordable units in their buildings in exchange for zoning benefits) spurred CB1 to demand that the plan should “increase the percentage of affordable units per development, require a greater percentage of deeply affordable units per development, and increase the number of allowed income bands to ensure a range of lower incomes are evenly targeted.”
The Mayor’s recommended adjustments to the “Sliver Law” (which limits the heights of new buildings based on those nearby, even if prevailing zoning would permit taller structures), should be granted only “as an incentive to provide affordable housing units instead of being provided to all developments,” CB1 says.
While the Adams administration wants to revise “Quality Housing Amenity Changes” (a zoning rule that allows for bigger buildings in exchange for accessories like recreation space), the Community Board want developers to get these benefits only if they include necessities like “package/mail rooms, trash compactor space, and trash storage rooms.”
The plan to loosen regulations governing “Landmark Transfer Development Rights” (a stipulation that enables developers to build larger projects by purchasing air rights from nearby historic structures) motivated CB1 to call for a limit of 20 percent on the increased bulk that developers can accrue, rather than the unlimited bonus that the Mayor is pushing for.
The only provision of the Mayor’s plan that CB1 did not reject was a “Railroad Right-of-Way” clause, which seeks to reduce or eliminate approvals required for developments over train tracks. For this proposal, which would have no impact in Lower Manhattan, the Board took no position.
Not every member of CB1 was opposed to the Mayor’s City of Yes for Housing Opportunity plan, however. During the meeting at which this resolution was enacted, Jess Coleman called the plan “a crucial proposal to reform outdated rules that have long hindered housing construction, contributing to skyrocketing rents for New Yorkers. If approved, it would represent the largest initiative for affordable housing in the City’s history.”
“It is not a complete solution,” he said. “We need further investments in social housing, stronger tenant protections and more. But months into this debate, we have yet to hear any viable alternatives that would preserve the goals of this initiative.”