Regional Plan Association comments to New York City Planning Commission regarding proposed zoning text amendment City of Yes for Housing Opportunity - Environmental Impact Statement Draft Scope of Work CEQR # 24DCP033Y

Dear Chair Garodnick and members of the City Planning Commission,

Thank you for the chance to submit written comments regarding the proposed citywide text amendment ​“City of Yes for Housing Opportunity.”

Regional Plan Association (RPA) is a century-old non-profit civic organization that conducts research, planning, and advocacy to improve economic opportunity, mobility, environmental sustainability, and the quality of life for those who live and work in the New York metropolitan region.

Position and Background

The proposed City of Yes for Housing Opportunity zoning text amendment is the most ambitious land use housing proposal the city has seen in decades. The proposal closely aligns with the solutions that RPA has been actively researching, planning, and advocating since the release of the Fourth Regional Plan in 2017, including but not limited to the expansion of inclusionary zoning, accessory dwelling units, transit oriented development, infill strategies for ​“tower in the park” campuses, and reducing parking requirements to facilitate housing development. As such, we strongly support the proposal and encourage its adoption.

The proposed zoning text amendment comes at a critical time for the city and metropolitan region. Housing development within New York City –and across the tri-state area– has been insufficient to meet the needs of its residents. As housing supply has become constrained, available homes for workers, young people, and low and moderate-income households have declined.

The region’s failure to build enough housing has resulted in overcrowded apartments, increasing homelessness, and rents and home prices rising faster than income and inflation. This lack of housing has also hampered economic growth, accelerated environmental degradation, and worsened health outcomes. These conditions and how the regional housing market has evolved have been primarily dictated by policy choices from past decades long overdue for change.

The proposed City of Yes for Housing Opportunity zoning amendment represents the boldest move in housing and land use policy since the adoption of the city’s 1961 Zoning Resolution and the 1987 Quality Housing Program, which remain the foundations for most of today’s regulations. Despite contemporary urban planning and design advocating for mixed-use spaces, New York City’s current zoning code still keeps uses and populations segregated.

With the introduction of the 1961 resolution, a model of high-rise office buildings with expansive, uniform floors was accommodated. This solidified the dominance of commercial and office buildings in the city’s business districts. The resolution also introduced height factor controls that resulted in buildings that were poorly integrated with the surrounding environment, further exacerbating the problems with ​“tower in the park” campuses. Across the outer boroughs, the 1961 resolution significantly reduced achievable residential densities, which made the construction of apartment buildings impossible due to the low permitted floor-area ratios, or FAR. Furthermore, by establishing off-street parking requirements, the resolution incentivized the development of an urban landscape that prioritized automobiles as the primary mode of transportation, further reinforcing the separation of uses and communities. New York City’s Quality Housing Program, adopted in 1987, reinforced many of these outcomes with prescriptive regulations that sought to maintain the historical and architectural character of neighborhoods throughout the city.

RPA strongly supports the proposed City of Yes for Housing Opportunity zoning text amendment as it would help reverse grave mistakes from the past. The proposal would allow for significant increases in urgently needed housing production. If adopted, the proposal will allow more housing and housing types across all neighborhoods and address diverse needs and populations.

There are a few items we believe warrant further investigation and analysis, including expanding the proposed transit zones, providing flexibility to transfer development rights owned by New York City’s Housing Authority (NYCHA), and including a minimum dwelling unit factor to prevent consolidations and loss of housing stock. These ideas are elaborated in the following sections.

Purpose and Need

Last year, the New York Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) permitted 7.3 housing units for every 1,000 existing homes, a low rate that led the region to trail behind most other metros in the country. Unfortunately, the trend in the region has not been limited to 2022; the slow pace of residential development has largely defined the years following the great economic recession. The shared housing market of the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut metropolitan area has yet to recover from the steep decline in housing production experienced in 2009. During the 12 years of the post-recession period from 2010 to 2022, the region permitted 13% fewer housing units per capita when compared to the years before.

Years of under-building have created a shortage that has failed to provide adequate housing opportunities for everyone but is felt most acutely by workers, young people, and low and moderate-income households. Both owners and renters in the city are struggling to keep up with housing costs. Since the pandemic, and in New York City alone, almost 600,000 owner-occupied households (55% of all residential owners) have been paying more than a third of their monthly income towards mortgages and maintenance costs. Approximately 1.2 million renter households (52% of all renters) are also housing cost-burdened. In the last thirty years, and when adjusting for inflation, housing costs have dramatically increased. The median gross rent has increased by 54% and the median house value by 41%. These events are also a reminder that for most, this type of expensive housing market translates to insecurity, less opportunity, and limited options for improving the well-being of communities.

Public opinion polls reflect this reality. In RPA’s New York Metro Area Issues survey, the high cost of living and the inability to find affordable housing have been consistently identified as the biggest threats to the region. In the past three years, the poll has identified housing affordability as a top issue, particularly in New York City and among people of color. Residents have also strongly supported several measures to create more homes in the region. 67% of respondents support legalizing basement and garage apartments to provide more housing options in the region. A more recent poll focusing on New York State registered voters indicated that 74 percent supported reforming the housing approval process, and 65 percent supported imposing housing production targets on towns and cities.

Expand the Scope of the Study to Evaluate Additional Actions

While the proposal is congruent with current best planning practices championed by the RPA, the scope of work for the Environmental Impact Statement should be expanded to evaluate the effects of the following additional actions:

• Transit Development Areas: Expand the scope of the study to examine the effects of adopting broader boundaries for the proposed ​“Outer Transit Development Area” and a higher allowable Floor Area Ratio within the ​“Inner Transit Development Area.” The proposed zoning text amendment would maintain and extend relief from parking requirements by defining a new set of transit geographies. We request the evaluation to examine the adoption of the proposed transit-oriented development (TOD) and parking provisions along all existing subway, commuter rail stations, select bus service routes, and the proposed Interborough Express (IBX) light-rail alignment. First envisioned and advocated by RPA, the IBX is a transformative rapid transit project that will connect currently underserved areas of Brooklyn and Queens. The project is steadily moving towards implementation. The proposed alignment is part of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA’s) capital plan, completed a feasibility study, and in initial evaluations for an Environmental Review. We also request the evaluation of increasing the allowable residential Floor Area Ratio within the ​“Inner Transit Development Area” to harmonize densities across neighborhoods served by transit.

• NYCHA Development Rights: Expand the scope of the study to examine more flexible rules for transferring development rights (TDRs) from NYCHA campuses. The text amendment proposes expanding the Landmark TDR program into low-residential districts. Under a separate action, the proposal would seek modifications to facilitate infill on tower-in-a-park campuses, including NYCHA. However, it is unclear the extent to which these actions would liberate development rights that are currently landlocked in NYCHA property. RPA estimates that there are 78 million square feet of unused development rights owned by NYCHA. However, most of these development rights cannot be transferred under current rules, given that TDRs may only be transferred to sites on the same block. RPA’s assessment revealed that an expanded TDR program that would allow as-of-right transfers within a half-mile distance from the NYCHA generating site could, in theory, provide a path to unlocking all unused development rights owned by the authority. A rough estimate is that this could ultimately provide a revenue source of between $4.2 and $8.4 billion. This additional revenue would provide necessary resources for investment in the preservation, maintenance, and improvements of NYCHA infrastructure.

• Apartment Consolidations and Dwelling Unit Factor: Address the issue of residential consolidation and too few apartments being built for the zoning by studying the implementation of a maximum Dwelling Unit factor (DUF). DUF is a current zoning regulation that sets a minimum average unit size for multifamily developments. In combination with the Floor Area ratio (FAR), the current DUF requirements effectively cap the maximum number of units a residential building can have. The opposite – a maximum DU factor – would require a building to have a minimum number of apartments per square foot. Through apartment combinations and conversions of buildings with several units into single-family homes, the city has lost more than 100,000 apartments since 1950, many in central areas near jobs and transit, where it makes the most sense to have more apartments. In several new developments, new buildings have eliminated more apartments than they have replaced due to overly large apartment sizes. Especially in high-income neighborhoods, where apartment combinations and conversions are most common, a maximum DUF could mitigate future losses of housing stock.

Overview of Proposed Actions

To create more housing and more types of housing, the Proposed Action includes components that fall into four major proposal areas: (i) Medium- and High-Density Districts, (ii) Low-Density Districts, (iii) Parking, and (iv) Other Initiatives that are miscellaneous.

Consistent with RPA’s aspirational vision and Fourth Regional Plan recommendations, the proposed zoning modifications would allow for greater density in places that are better served by public transit, and encourage mixed-use development and redevelopment along existing commercial districts and corridors. The proposal would also facilitate the development of mid-sized buildings with 2-4 housing units, generally described as missing middle housing, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) across lower-density neighborhoods. To achieve these goals, the proposal also aims to significantly reduce parking requirements, a relic of the late-century car craze that makes new development more challenging and housing unaffordable.

Medium and High-Density Proposals

The proposed initiatives in this category encompass various strategies to enhance housing accessibility and quality in medium and high-density districts. These include creating a universal inclusionary housing framework that would increase floor area (FAR) density for all types of Affordable and Supportive housing. Additionally, the proposal seeks to promote the development of small and shared apartments, thereby expanding the availability of single-room occupancy units (SROs). To further facilitate quality housing development, the plan suggests eliminating barriers by permitting infill projects within ​“tower in the park” campus settings. Finally, the proposal would encourage commercial conversions by facilitating adaptive reuse practices. These combined efforts address critical aspects for greater housing supply and a more inclusive and versatile urban living environment within the region’s core and higher-density districts.

Many of these initiatives have been advocated by RPA in the recent past. The proposed Universal Affordability Preference Framework is directly aligned with RPA’s Fourth Regional Plan recommendation #50, which calls for expanding inclusionary zoning rules that would incentivize or require building more affordable housing across more communities. Inclusionary zoning is an effective way to create more affordable homes and plays a critical role in creating more mixed-income housing and neighborhoods. New York City currently requires affordable homes as part of every new housing development, but only in a few parts of the city—specifically in areas that have been recently rezoned to create more housing. The proposed action would increase FAR for all forms of affordable and supportive housing in all medium and high-density districts, thereby increasing inclusionary zoning and affordable housing stock throughout the city.

Another text amendment proposal seeks to eliminate barriers that would permit infill projects within ​“tower in the park” campus settings. This policy approach would enable the scalable design solutions for NYCHA that were studied and advocated by RPA in 2020. The design studies explored show how to expand NYCHA’s existing buildings into the unoccupied ground floors to develop additional units and better integrate the campuses with the surrounding neighborhoods, streets, and sidewalks.

A separate proposed action would extend the city’s adaptive reuse regulations citywide and to buildings constructed in 1990 or earlier. It would enable commercial conversions to a wide range of housing types. In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, RPA provided testimony that advocated for the conversion of vacant or underutilized commercial properties into residential uses through adaptive reuse practices. Assuming new policy measures and budgetary commitments were made, our estimation indicated that approximately 1,800 or 6% of the total commercial parcels would be likely to meet suitable criteria for residential conversions. The proposed actions would facilitate the conversion of underutilized commercial buildings to facilitate a greater mix of uses and activities within business districts and increase the city’s housing stock. These conversions could be in the form of single-room occupancy (SRO), supportive housing, and mixed-income conversions, among others.

Low-Density Proposals

The proposed initiatives in this category seek to reverse layers of overlapping restrictions that have been adopted in low-density districts. These restrictions have seriously limited the ability of these areas, which cover more than half of the city, to accommodate changes to existing buildings or support incremental housing development. The proposed initiatives aim to modify zoning in low-density districts by providing more flexibility for bulk regulations and dimensional criteria, allowing missing middle housing along commercial corridors, and enabling accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Together, these will offer increased housing choices in low-density areas and adaptability for current structures and homeowners.

Mid-sized buildings with 2-4 housing units, generally described as missing middle housing, were in short supply pre-recession (1997-2009) but have become incredibly scarce in the post-recession era. Almost 75,000 units of these units were permitted in New York City during the pre-recession period, but that number dropped to just 15,000 units in the post-recession period. Bringing back the production of middle-density housing – as intended by the citywide text amendment – is an important policy goal for several reasons. This type of stock provides additional housing in a manner that fits existing communities’ structure, also known as​“gentle density,” while assisting in providing units for a wide variety of price points and needs. In addition, the feasibility of these mid-sized buildings also enables smaller developers - often M/WBE firms or nonprofit housing providers - to access more opportunities and could help address the lack of diversity within the real estate industry. By providing more flexibility on dimensional criteria and bulk regulations, the proposed text amendment would enable the production of middle-density housing.

Another set of provisions would enable accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on lots with one- or two-family residences. ADUs can provide a valuable source of extra income for homeowners and, at the same time, increase housing choices and the overall supply in the city. The proposed actions would create a definition for ADUs, set a size limit of 800 square feet, and provide relief from zoning requirements, including dimensional criteria and parking. If allowed, ADUs have great potential to address the housing shortage in the city. More than 314,000 parcels are classified as single-family dwelling buildings. Another 250,000 parcels are classified as two-family dwellings. Together, single-family and two-family dwellings constitute more than 65% of the residential land in the city. Previous RPA analysis examined the potential in these properties and estimated that more than half – over 320,000 buildings – meet proper dimensional criteria for doing extensions or conversions for an ADU.

Parking

The Parking proposals seek to eliminate parking requirements citywide for new residential development. It would do so by building upon existing geographies established in the Zoning Resolution, such as the Manhattan Core and the Transit Zone. The proposal would extend a comprehensive set of transit geographies that would serve as the basis for discretionary actions to remove parking requirements for existing housing. The proposal would also make minor amendments to Manhattan Core regulations.

Parking requirements—often called​“minimum parking requirements” or​“parking minimums”—are ratios set by municipal zoning codes that require the construction of a certain number of parking spaces per a certain number of housing units or overall square footage constructed. In practice, parking requirements mean that a developer must earmark a certain portion of development funds and a portion of the parcel area for parking facility construction and maintenance. By lowering or waiving parking requirements, greater percentages of budgets and parcel areas can be used not for parking facilities but more housing units, better addressing our city’s housing shortage. This trade-off better serves the needs of city residents. More than half (54%) of New York City households do not own a car.

Previous RPA research demonstrated how waiving parking requirements for new buildings in New York City has yielded more new affordable homes, especially on smaller parcels of land and serving the lowest income brackets. When comparing housing production in the Transit Zone areas from its adoption in 2016 until the COVID-19 pandemic (which interrupted regular development), to dates prior to the adoption in 2016, production of new affordable units rose by 36%. Units with the deepest affordability rose most precipitously, with a 64% increase in units for 50% AMI households and a 63% increase in units for 30% AMI households.

RPA previously recommended – as is being proposed by the text amendment under consideration – to expand the boundaries of the Transit Zone and incorporate additional transit-rich areas that were initially excluded in 2016. RPA also recommended expanding the types of developments that are exempt from parking requirements, including extending the waivers to market-rate residential development. In order to ensure that the amount of affordable housing does not fall short of goals, RPA also suggested changing zoning incentives that encourage more affordable or senior housing. As proposed by the text amendment, the new regulations would increase the allowable FARs for affordable and senior housing by approximately 20% more. This is especially relevant given that parking requirements are also being waived for market-rate housing.

Conclusion

Taken together, the various components of the City of Yes, Housing Opportunity text amendment would implement many of the land use reforms needed to address the city’s housing shortage. Most of the proposed initiatives have been researched and advocated by RPA for years. As such, we strongly support the proposal and encourage its adoption.