CIVITAS-ZONING FOR QUALITY AND AFFORDABILITY

Transcription

1 CIVITAS-ZONING FOR QUALITY AND AFFORDABILITY Recommendations for Manhattan Community District 8 and 11 September, 2015

2

3 CIVITAS Zoning for Quality Housing and Affordability Recommendations for Manhattan Community Districts 8 and 11 CIVITAS 1457 Lexington Ave, New York, NY Emma Bologna Executive Director This report has been prepared under the sponsorship and direction of CIVITAS, a community based non-profit organization dedicated to quality of life issues on the Upper East Side and in East Harlem. Special recognition should be given to our Board, Advisory Board and coalition members, East Sixties Neighborhood Association and East 86th Street Merchants/Residents Association, who donated the funds to support this initiative. CIVITAS commissioned to examine the proposed Zoning for Quality and Affordability text amendment, provide a detailed review of the potential impacts for Community Boards 8 and 11 and recommend changes. Oversight was provided by CIVITAS Executive Director, Emma Bologna, and the CIVITAS Zoning Committee: Mark Alexander, co-chair Bill Brothers, co-chair Sharon Pope, co-chair Bill Bateson Lucienne Bloch Natasha Brown Elisabeth Clark Joanna Delson Janis Eltz Naomi Fraenkel Altschul Mary Gallatin Roberta Hodgson Willa Hutner Genie Rice Agustin Rivera Robin Rivera Gus Rosado Jane Swanson James Tripp Felipe Ventegeat Prepared with the technical assistance of 115 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10003

4

5 I. INTRODUCTION This report presents preliminary recommendations in regard to the Department of City Planning s (DCP) Housing New York: Zoning for Quality and Affordability (ZQA) based on concerns raised in meetings held on July 16 and August 17 and September 22, 2015 with members of CIVITAS Zoning Committee. For this report, various materials related to ZQA were reviewed, including DCP s Draft Scope of Work for an EIS (February 20, 2015), DCP s Community District Profiles related to ZQA for CD8 and CD11. held conferences with Frank Ruchala, Deputy Director, Zoning Division, NYC Department of City Planning (on July 27, 2015), and Mark Ginsberg, principal, Curtis + Ginsberg Architects, LLP (on August 5, 2015). Additionally, CIVITAS and BFJ staff has reviewed the New York City Zoning Resolution Draft Zoning Text Amendments for Zoning for Quality and Affordability released in early September by DCP. Findings presented below are based on the information available to date and comments from the CIVITAS Zoning Committee. II. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Increased FAR or height should be bonusable in exchange for creation of affordable housing, except for minor changes (5 to 10 ) for technical purposes related to Citizen s Housing and Planning Council (CHPC) building envelope constraints (see Section IV of this report); 2. Proposed Zoning for Quality and Affordability and bulk changes should not apply to historic districts; 3. Unlimited as-of-right FAR zoning lot mergers and zoning districts that do not currently have height limits should have a height limit mechanism. One example would be to put a maximum height limit of 400 feet in the R10 district. Another would be to change the C1-9 zone in the avenues to a contextual C1-9X that would require a tower on the base; 4. Development of 197-a and 197-c Plans for both Boards 8 and 11 should be accompanied by an urban design element to provide a 3-dimensional urban design context to any proposed zoning changes. Zoning changes should be based upon these plans; 5. Encroachment in the rear yards should not be allowed, as it would negatively affect enjoyment of the remaining open space amenity, and CD8 s community facilities FAR should be brought in parity with the rest of the city; 6. DCP s proposed reduction in off-street parking requirements in East Harlem should be applied to all affordable housing in the CD11 Transit Zone, and to market rate housing within 1,200 feet of subway stations; 7. Proposed Zoning for Quality and Affordability and bulk changes must maintain the building height difference and proportion between wide and narrow streets. Buildings on narrow streets that are the same height as or taller than those on the avenues negatively affect light and air to the sidewalk and surrounding buildings. 2

6 III. DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDATIONS During our meeting on August 17, 2015 BFJ discussed seven recommendations (five of which were initially presented during a meeting on July 16) regarding ZQA and discussed these in the context of CD8 and CD11. During this meeting, CIVITAS added one more issue of concern regarding the treatment of narrow streets. Later, on September 22, the CIVITAS Zoning Board met with BFJ and discussed the recommendations in order to build consensus among members of the board. The seven issues and recommendations are discussed below. 1. Increased FAR or height should be bonusable in exchange for creation of affordable housing, except for minor changes (5 to 10 ) for technical purposes related to CHPC building envelope constraints. In 1961 FAR was created as a constraint, an upper limit of how much development is appropriate on a given site. Under this thinking, developers had to balance the amount of building versus the shape, form and unit size obtainable under a given allowable FAR. ZQA appears to move toward the idea of FAR as an entitlement by which developers are now trying to build to full floor area ratio in a building envelope. This risks incentivizing redevelopment with no protection of existing affordable units and no requirement for on-site replacement of those units. Through a review of the proposed zoning text amendment and interviews, BFJ has learned that, with the exception of smaller increases in height (5 to 10 ) to resolve technical issues related to building envelope in contextual zones, all proposed increases in height and FAR will be tied to projects that include affordable housing, affordable senior housing, or nursing homes. While this is not explicitly stated in the proposed zoning text changes, the proposed changes relate to the use groups and elements outlined in DCPs ZQA proposal. Furthermore, minor height changes would produce higher ground floors that will support quality retail space, enliven streetscape and benefit quality of life. ZQA s zoning incentives require further analysis of market conditions and thoughtful methodology to achieve its goal of creating new, high-quality, affordable housing units. Real estate professionals as well as community leaders must work to support the Mayor s initiative to provide opportunities for affordable housing and foster vibrant neighborhoods. Zoning actions alone do not guarantee that the marketplace will meet the housing needs of existing and future residents. 2. Proposed Zoning for Quality and Affordability and bulk changes should not apply to historic districts, i.e. the bonus should not be available in these districts. In DCP s ZQA proposal, the proposed changes would be applicable to properties located in historic districts. The thinking here is that these properties are protected because any development has to be reviewed by the Landmarks Preservation Commission. In fact, we feel that would not guarantee protection and that the only way to affirmatively protect these areas is for DCP to exclude historic districts from the ZQA proposal (as they have for R8B, R7A and R6B districts). The areas where the vast majority of historic districts are mapped in the Upper East Side are generally located to the west, along Fifth Avenue, Madison Avenue and a small portion of Lexington Avenue. This is some of the most expensive land in the city, and it is unlikely that developers are going to include affordable units generally or in light of any height increase. While a 421 tax abatement for an building (i.e. where 20 percent of units are affordable) or an inclusionary housing bonus might be an incentive in a high value location, no inclusionary housing areas are presently mapped in the existing historic districts in Manhattan CD8. Further, these districts contain some of the strongest examples of historic architecture in the city greatly adding to our overall quality of life, and it remains uncertain what visual and contextual impacts might occur from additional height and FAR allowances. While new buildings in these districts would 3

7 require approval from the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC), we feel this may not provide sufficient protection, nor do we feel the LPC is prepared to handle additional reviews. 3. Unlimited as-of-right FAR zoning lot mergers and zoning districts that do not currently have height limits should have a height limit mechanism. One example would be to put a maximum height limit of 400 feet in the R10 district. Another would be to change the C1-9 zone in the avenues to a contextual C1-9X that would require a tower on the base. The zoning lot merger allows creation of an inappropriately scaled building that stands alone surrounded by a carpet of lower scale buildings. For example, 432 Park Avenue and Trump World Tower (at First Avenue between East 47th and East 48th Streets), which formed a zoning lot from all but two of the ten lots on the block. This resulted in a building of more than 767,000 square feet and a height taller than 900 feet. Typically, under allowable zoning parameters, this building would be permitted approximately 241,000 square feet, including a 20-percent plaza. 1 We recommend a height restriction for zoning districts that do not have one in order to limit height in the event of zoning lot mergers. This will allow for additional affordable units while protecting resident s quality of life by preventing mega towers that would cast shadows on the surrounding neighborhood. Presently, the only cap on how much FAR a developer can place on any building lot is the amount of air rights he or she can buy (along with some other limits on how much TDR can cross zoning district lines). This has led to exceptionally tall towers elsewhere in the city. Limited height districts would effectively prevent unlimited zoning lot mergers that have resulted in exceptionally tall pencil towers. CIVITAS recommends a 400 height limit in R10 districts, which currently allow a greater maximum FAR 2 than all other residential districts. Another proposed height control mechanism is a contextual version of the C1-9 zone, which is largely mapped along avenues on the Upper East Side. C1-9 districts, allow for a building to rise directly from the ground plane in a single tower, potentially set back from the street line and, with a zoning lot merger, to rise to a height higher than would be desirable. The contextual version of this zoning, in the form of C1-9X, leads to a tower-on-a-base configuration which controls height without changing the underlying allowable FAR (i.e. no change in allowable density). It accomplishes this in two ways: a) the base consumes a substantial amount of FAR; and b) the tower is constrained to at least one-third of the lot. The result would be a building with a base that matches the prevailing streetwall in the area, and a moderate, but not overly tall tower. The new zoning would be a contextual version of the C1-9 and would require all development to be built as tower on a base. The base height would be dimensioned to match the existing lower scale development in the area - e.g. minimum of 60 feet and a maximum of 85 feet. The tower, above the base, would be required to be set back at least 10 feet on a wide street (avenue) and 15 feet on a narrow (side) street, and occupy at least 33 percent but no more than 40 percent of the lot area. The new C1-9X zoning should also include a provision to place greater height on the corners, and maintain lower scale development in the middle of the block frontage up and down (north/south along) the avenues. This could be accomplished by restricting height at a set limit to within 80 feet of the corners of the blocks along the avenues. The avenue mid blocks would be permitted a maximum height of 210 feet. In combination with the street wall (i.e. the tower on base), a new C1-9X contextual zone would help create a strong identity for the avenues in the 1 Municipal Art Society of New York. Zoned Out: A Call to Overhaul New York s Zoning Laws, The floor area ratio (FAR) is Developers may choose between Quality Housing regulations or tower regulations; height factor regulations are not applicable. 4

8 Upper East Side, giving them a boulevard appearance, while also protecting light and air to adjacent lower scale residential development, and encouraging hills and valleys along the avenues. Finally, as a measure of good governance, greater transparency should be practiced with regard to zoning lot mergers. New York City currently provides little information on which zoning lot mergers have occurred or are being considered. This creates a development process with little public input. Notification should be given to the local Community Board and elected officials when a lot merger occurs, and information should be made available. 4. Development of 197-a and 197-c Plans for both Boards 8 and 11 should be accompanied by an urban design element to provide a 3-dimensional urban design context to any proposed zoning changes. Zoning changes should be based upon these plans. Sound planning makes sense especially as DCP has embarked on a neighborhood planning process for East Harlem. It is unclear whether DCP intends for its neighborhood plan to be developed into a 197-a plan or a 197-c zoning change. The difference is important as a 197-c application would change the zoning (under Section 197-c of the City Charter) whereas a 197-a plan is advisory. Community input is vital, and advocacy groups like CIVITAS and others, should work together to form a collective voice on the issues most important to their constituencies. New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, who has assembled a 21-member East Harlem Neighborhood Steering Committee of community stakeholders, is leading the neighborhood planning process for East Harlem. While historically most rezonings enacted by DCP over the last decade in low-income areas of color resulted in upzoning, the fact that the action is being preceded by a planning process (led by the Council Speaker) sets it apart from previous efforts by DCP. Therefore, any recommended zoning changes would likely be strongly informed by the planning process. Our initial recommendation was to encourage development of 197-a plans for both Board 8 and 11 so that zoning changes could be based upon these plans. We still believe this to be a sound recommendation as 197-a plans set forth a community vision, and the current planning process in East Harlem could form the basis for such a plan for that area. CIVITAS should also focus on engaging Community Board 11 to develop a 197-c plan for the area. Additionally, we recommend that any plan for both of these areas include an urban design element in order to provide a three dimensional context for the vision set forth by the community and to provide something on which proposed zoning changes can be based (and physically understood). 5. Encroachment in the rear yards should not be allowed, as it will negatively affect enjoyment of the remaining open space amenity, and CD8 s community facilities FAR should be brought in parity with the rest of the city. DCP proposes allowing ground-floor accessory residential amenity spaces to be located in the rear yard, where parking garages or community facilities are allowed today. This would allow encroachment into the rear yard with uses other than parking, which is permitted in R1 through R10 residential districts. Extensions of the buildings are not desirable as a matter of public health, safety and quality of life. Issues of concern include access to light and air, fire protection and amenity of open space to residents of apartment buildings. Under ZQA, amenity spaces would be permitted to encroach in rear yards at ground level (up to a height of 15 ) for affordable senior and long term senior care facilities (nursing homes) where these uses are permitted, and for affordable units in inclusionary zoning areas. In order to facilitate this allowance, several other standards would be amended, including daylight standards for 5

9 laundry and recreation space to facilitate sky-lit spaces, and minimum distance between legal windows and lot lines. While these provisions would not apply to B districts, including the R8-B that maps a significant portion of the Upper East Side, there remain portions of East Harlem where rear yard encroachment would be permitted. This raises important issues regarding quality of life, including: Loss of open space and access to rear yards for residents, Impacts on neighboring properties, including the property owner s enjoyment through restriction of light and air, and also potential noise impacts, Fire safety issues, and Quality of the amenity space created, as it would be windowless. As stated in Community Board 8 s 2014 District Needs Statement, CB8 and local civic groups have urged the Department of City Planning to review the Community Facility provisions of the Zoning Resolution. CB8 is the only district where community facilities are entitled to a 5.1 FAR in the R8B mid-blocks. CB8 has proposed modifications to the Department of City Planning to change the current community facility FAR in R8B areas from a 5.1 to a 4.0 FAR as is permitted elsewhere in the city. The provision for the additional 1.1 FAR for community facilities came about in the 1980s to allow existing private schools an ability to expand. At this point, most have utilized this option. Keeping the provision available would allow developers to build larger, out of scale buildings in the district, including in the midblock, where many would likely utilize ZQA s proposal to permit encroachment into the rear yard. The community facilities zoning bonus in CB8 should be reduced to 4.0 FAR and brought in parity with the rest of the city and building encroachment into the rear yards should be prohibited. 6. DCP s proposed reduction in off-street parking requirements in East Harlem should be applied to all affordable housing in the CD11 Transit Zone, and to market rate housing within 1,200 feet of subway stations. DCP s ZQA proposal would eliminate parking for new affordable and senior units in Transit Zones (which includes all of CD11). DCP s rationale for this is that parking is costly to provide (and therefore a disincentive to affordable and senior housing production) and not needed because of low car ownership among low-income and senior households. ZQA also proposes elimination of parking for non-affordable housing in a mixed-income (market rate + affordable units) development within Transit Zones through a discretionary action. Further, ZQA proposes to create a discretionary action to remove (i.e. eliminate) existing affordable housing parking within Transit Zones. This would allow the City to reduce or eliminate parking for market rate units and existing affordable units. On the whole, we support the need to reduce parking and believe the low incidence of car ownership among residents of affordable and senior housing supports a lower parking requirement. This makes even more sense with the arrival of the Second Avenue subway, which will improve access to CD11. Finally, we recommend that any parking reductions to market-rate housing should be limited to within 1,200 feet of subway stations. Reducing parking will benefit resident s quality of life by decreasing emissions in an area. 6

10 7. Proposed Zoning for Quality and Affordability and bulk changes must maintain the building height difference and proportion between wide and narrow streets. Buildings on narrow streets that are the same height as or taller than those on the avenues negatively affect light and air to the sidewalk and surrounding buildings. DCP s ZQA proposes increases to maximum allowable building height to a variety of zoning districts in CD8 and CD11 as shown in Tables 1 and 2 in the appendix of this report. For basic residential height changes (i.e. those that seek to address technical issues), the proposed increases are mostly de minimis amounting to five or ten feet in all instances except in the R8 districts, where DCP proposes increases of 20 or 25 feet. In other areas of ZQA, including inclusionary housing areas and for projects that include affordable senior housing and nursing home facilities, DCP proposes more significant increases in height up to 40 feet, including FAR increases for senior housing and nursing homes. There are two noticeable aspects to DCP s proposed height and FAR increases: 1) the more significant increases apply to high density R10 districts; and 2) all increases seek to yield identical heights on both wide and narrow streets. For example, in CD11 in the R8 district where the existing maximum allowable heights are 105 feet on narrow streets and 120 feet on wide streets, DCP proposes to increase the height on narrow streets by 20 feet and by 5 feet on wide streets. This effectively erases differences in allowable heights between these two street types. DCP s ZQA proposal seeks to allow identical building heights on wide and narrow streets in several zoning districts, including the higher density R10 districts in designated inclusionary zoning areas and when projects include senior affordable housing and nursing homes. In our opinion, this would undermine what has been two long held principles of NYC zoning: (i) the consideration of street width as one of the important determining factors for building height in order to provide sufficient light and air to the sidewalk and surrounding buildings and (ii) that building should be similar in bulk regardless of use, and, therefore, should be opposed. We recommend that ZQA propose d height and FAR increases should not apply to narrow streets. Although the built environment of East Harlem is very different from the Upper East Side, a similar approach could be taken along avenues in East Harlem to create a zoning pattern of hills and valleys that maintains lower scale buildings on the mid-blocks while allowing higher density along the avenues. Greater density and bigger buildings being more appropriate along wide streets and at the intersections of wide streets because the wide streets allow greater light and air into the public realm. The hills on the avenues and the valleys in the mid-blocks allow for taller buildings and increased affordability along wide streets while also preserving the quality of life. This is a critically important zoning concept, not only for the Upper East Side, but also for other parts of Manhattan, such as the Upper West Side, Chelsea, and parts of the West Village. 7

11 IV. BACKGROUND ON CITY PROPOSALS AND CITIZENS HOUSING & PLANNING COUNCIL In summary, much of the ZQA proposal seeks to solve unintended outcomes of changes and amendments made to the NYC Zoning Resolution over time that have resulted in making development of affordable housing, affordable senior housing, and long-term senior care facilities (nursing homes) burdensome to developers. The City believes that it is essential to encourage these critical housing types today and in the future, and to remove unnecessary regulatory impediments that unfairly burden the creation of additional supply. There are aspects of the ZQA proposal, however, that warrant further study, including some that raise potential concerns regarding impacts to quality of life for residents in CD8 and CD11, and how increased development could lead to secondary displacement through increasing land values. The following pages seek to clarify the information that has been presented above, and explain the rationale for DCP s proposal. Apart from adjustments to height in contextual zoning districts that are designed to resolve technical issues related to building envelope (as discussed below), all proposed changes to building height and FAR presented in ZQA are promised to apply only to projects that include these housing types (i.e. they do not apply directly to market rate alone projects or units). Also, the ZQA proposal includes no FAR increases for market rate development. This was a point of serious confusion among many concerned community groups because it was not made clear in the information DCP released on ZQA. We expect that this provision will be made clear in the forthcoming zoning text. Summary of DCP s ZQA Proposed Height and FAR Changes The ZQA proposed amendments can be classified into the following three categories affecting building height and density: 1) basic residential height changes, 2) inclusionary housing area residential height changes, and 3) affordable senior housing and nursing homes height and floor area changes. These are explained in detail below. 1. Basic residential height changes: Changes to basic residential height can be seen as designed to resolve technical issues related to building envelopes to accommodate current building practices and market standards. (These issues are discussed in detail in the next section of this report.) Basic residential height changes would apply to all residential development (including market rate housing) in moderate and high density zoning districts and their commercial equivalents. For CD8 and CD11, in contextual districts, this amounts to increases in height of 5 feet in districts R6A, R7A and R8A, and increases of 15 feet in R9X and 10 feet in R10A. In non-contextual (height factor) districts, this amounts to increases of 5 feet in R7-2 and R10 districts, and 10 feet in R9 and R10 (on a narrow street), and 20 feet in R8 (wide street) and 25 feet in R8 (narrow street). These changes do not apply in the R8B district as DCP was concerned that the additional height could encourage enlargement scenarios, resulting in 1-story pop-ups appearing on the top of existing buildings. Proposed increases in basic residential height for all applicable zoning districts in CD8 and CD11 are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Note that these proposed height increases involve no increase in FAR but would apply to all development (not only to affordable, senior affordable and long-term care facilities nursing homes). 2. Inclusionary Housing Areas residential height changes: These changes would provide more significant height increases than those proposed in the basic residential height changes discussed above, but apply only to projects building inclusionary affordable housing. These proposed height increases involve no increase in FAR. Studies from both Citizen s Housing and Planning Council 3 and 3 Citizen s Planning and Housing Council. The Building Envelope Conundrum, June

12 DCP 4 suggest that greater building envelope capacity is needed to make inclusionary affordable housing more economically feasible for developers (i.e. take advantage of the optional bonus offered under the inclusionary housing program). ZQA proposes therefore to increase allowable building height i.e. expand the permissible building envelope to allow for greater flexibility only for inclusionary housing developments in designated moderate and high density zoning districts and their commercial equivalents. For CD8 and CD11, this amounts to increases of 20 feet in Districts R8A and R10A (wide streets) and 40 feet in R10A (narrow streets). Proposed increases in inclusionary housing areas residential height for all applicable zoning districts in CD8 and CD11 are presented in Tables 1 and Affordable Senior Housing and Nursing Homes height and floor area changes: DCP s propose d increases in height and FAR for affordable senior housing, including long-term senior care facilities (nursing homes) are intended to encourage greater housing production and a wider variety of options for seniors. These changes would apply only to projects that include Affordable Independent Residences for Seniors (AIRS) and Long-Term Care Facilities (nursing homes) (LTCF) in R3-R10 zoning districts and their commercial equivalents. In summary, for CD8 and CD11, this amounts to the following proposed increases in FAR and building heights. Proposed increases in FAR that average approximately 20 percent across all applicable zoning districts, ranging from a 0.48 increase in FAR in R9 districts to a 2.0 increase in FAR in R10 districts. Proposed increases in height of 20 feet in R7A, R7X, R8A, R9X and R10A districts, 30 feet in the R9X district, and 40 feet in R10A (narrow streets). Proposed increases in FAR and height for Affordable Independent Residences for Seniors (AIRS) and Long-Term Care Facilities (nursing homes) for all applicable zoning districts in CD8 and CD11 are presented in Tables 1 and 2 (note that the proposed changes include increases in both height and FAR). DCP s Rationale for ZQA DCP s rational for ZQA includes a long list of areas where they assert that zoning regulations limit affordabl e and affordable senior housing production, make such housing production costly and inefficient, or produce residential development that is not in keeping with its neighborhood context or contemporary trends. These can be broken down into two categories: 1) changes designed to resolve technical issues related to building envelope (as discussed below) and 2) larger citywide housing policy initiatives. Technical Issues (CHPC) Contemporary building practices have changed since the current FAR and contextual building envelope regulations were adopted in 1987, which presently map 43 percent of New York City zoning lots. Originally, these regulations were designed to provide more building envelope than could be filled by allowable FAR, some estimates place this envelope excess between 20 and 30 percent. The purpose of this envelope excess was to provide flexibility for design (i.e. better buildings) and to accommodate public policy objectives (providing the 4 DCP s own studies found that, as a general rule, it is possible to utilize allotted floor area, but the resulting buildings tend to replicate zoning diagram buildings (i.e. blocky, flat façade buildings that hardly anyone finds attractive to look at or to live in). [Personal telephone conference with Frank Ruchala, Deputy Director, Zoning Division, NYC Department of City Planning (July 27, 2015)] 9

13 City room to offer bonuses for affordable housing, community facilities, plazas and the like). These envelope standards were based on 8-8 floor-to-floor heights. Since then, building practices, market preferences and regulations (e.g. floor area deductions) that govern the production of affordable housing have changed. Possibly the clearest discussion of these changes and their impacts on residential development is presented in a report by the Citizen s Housing and Planning Council (CHPC) entitled The Building Envelope Conundrum (2014). 5 In this work, CHPC contends that present NYC building envelope regulations, not allowable floor area, is the effective determinant of the development capacity of new residential buildings in the city s contextual zoning districts. Examining 17 residential development projects, CHPC compared the total amount of floor area allowable by zoning and the total amount of floor area that could fit using building envelope regulations based on each building s contextual district regulations. 6 For the seventeen projects, CHPC found that only one project developed all of its allotted floor area. In eight projects, floor area was underbuilt by an average of 11 percent due to building envelope rules. In a further eight buildings, neither the floor area nor the building envelope were maximized for reasons unknown, whether it was because the number of housing units was determined by the subsidy program or the developer simply chose to limit the size of the building for other reasons. While by no means a scientific study, CHPC cites four reasons why floor area is left unbuilt in many residential projects: 1. Extra floor area is used to achieve public policy goals: This was always the case, and some floor area bonuses and deductions were permitted in 1987 when contextual zoning was adopted. In recent years, however, they have become more prevalent in zoning policy to accomplish public policy goals such as affordable housing, the use of green technologies (i.e. to encourage sustainable building practices), bicycle parking and flood proofing, to name a few. CHPC goes on to say that, while these goals are necessary and laudable, no flexibility is granted to a building s envelope in order to offset the internal space used (deducted) for these incentivized features. 2. The building envelope rules were designed for regularly shaped sites: The dimensional rules were designed for standard sized rectangular lots and they become more complicated and restrictive when applied to irregularly shaped lots (i.e. deeper or shallower than the standard 100 dimension). As the city has matured and filled in, irregular lots are increasingly common, and it is more difficult to maximize floor area inside the building on such a lot. 3. Floor-to-floor heights for apartments have changed: As mentioned above, in 1987, the standard floorto-ceiling height for an apartment was 8 feet. This was far less than a typical pre-war building. However, today, the accepted floor to ceiling height for an apartment is a minimum of 8-4 in both subsidized and market rate units. This results in a floor-to-floor height of 8-8. In addition to this, new regulations requiring sprinklers or thicker insulation typically increase the floor-to-floor height to 9-4. For modular housing, a construction system that DCP cites as 25 percent more cost effective, the typical floor-to-floor height is 10-1 due to how these buildings structural elements are manufactured. Thus in a contextual zoning district with a 100 foot height limit, a building with an 8-8 floor-to-floor height can accommodate 11 stories, whereas a building with a 9-4 floor-to-floor height results in ten stories. This is amplified in higher density districts where more floors can be built. 4. Construction materials and techniques have changed: Related to the previous point, the 1987 building envelope rules were based on a construction technique using poured in place concrete. Since then 5 This report is cited on page 27 of DCP s Draft Scope. 6 The calculation included bonuses that would allow a building to develop more floor area in exchange for satisfying certain public policy goals (e.g. affordable housing through the Inclusionary Housing Program) and deductions that allow certain features of the building to be excluded from the total floor area calculations (e.g. mechanical and plumbing spaces, bicycle parking rooms, trash rooms, recreation rooms, etc.). 10

14 building technology has advanced and today the most cost effective construction system for mid-rise residential buildings is block and plank. This uses masonry-bearing walls and precast concrete planks, which favors different building envelope dimensions than the original building envelope regulations established. Rather than a 60 to 70 depth of building, block and plank favors a 60 deep building (due to standard manufactured dimensioning of plank structural elements). CHPC s study found that using block and plank in a contextual zone shrinks the building envelope by an average of 7 or 8 percent, making it harder to maximize floor area inside the building. Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that zoning is intended to control both bulk and density. New York City s original zoning in 1916 controlled bulk through height and setback envelope controls; its current zoning from 1961 added density controls through FAR. Envelope controls protect light and air in the streets, the public realm; density controls seek to match development with the supporting infrastructure, including transportation, schools, parks, and other facilities. The zoning intends to control development in both of these dimensions to protect the public interest. The case has yet to be made that FAR is an entitlement and that envelope controls should be relaxed to allow all possible zoning floor area and floor area deductions to be used in a development. Citywide Policy Initiatives Coming at a time shortly after the release of Mayor de Blasio s Housing New York: A Five-Borough, Ten-Year Plan, released in May 2014, ZQA can be seen as part of a larger citywide housing policy initiative to expand affordable and senior housing. The Mayor s housing plan sets a goal to build and preserve 200,000 affordabl e units over the coming decade for households with a range of incomes. The Plan discusses the city s ongoing housing shortage and affordability crisis and lays out policy objectives and tools necessary to address these issues. As discussed in DCP s Draft Scope ZQA would implement some of these key policy objectives. A key policy objective of the de Blasio Plan is to make inclusionary housing mandatory. 7 Presently, New York s Inclusionary Housing Program is optional. As such, since its inception in 2005, it has resulted in 2,767 units, representing less than two percent of all newly developed, multi-family units over ten years (i.e. 278 dwelling units per year) and 13 percent of multi-family units developed in designated inclusionary areas. 8 Apart from initiatives related to inclusionary housing, analyses by DCP suggest that older New Yorkers are a diverse and rapidly growing segment of the City s population. There are presently slightly over a million persons 65 years and over in New York City, and this population is expected to increase by 40 percent over the next 25 years. 9 The total share of older New Yorkers (65 years and over) is expected to increase from about 12 percent presently to 16 percent over the same time period. 10 Further, across the city, 60 percent of households with persons 65 years and over earn less than 80 percent of adjusted Area Median Income (AMI). Thus much of ZQA is aimed at incentivizing development of affordable senior and long-term senior care facilities (nursing homes), in part through height and FAR increases discussed above. But ZQA also seeks to amend outdated zoning regulations put in place to limit production of these residential uses. For example, in the 1970s, the City adopted regulations to carefully oversee nursing home developments in response to their over expansion. During this period when ample state and federal funding was available, nursing homes became concentrated in particular areas of the city, many of which were built out-of-scale to their existing neighborhood contexts. Today, these regulations designed to limit nursing home development remain in effect, as demand for senior affordable and nursing home units is increasing at a time when there is significantly less state and federal 7 Office of Mayor de Blasio. Housing New York: A Five-Borough, Ten-Year Plan, 2014, p.6. 8 Office of Council Member Brad Lander. Inclusionary Zoning in New York City: The performance of New York City s Designated Areas Inclusionary Housing Program since its launch in (2013). 9 New York City Population Projections by Age/Sex & Borough, ; New York Department of City Planning, December 2013 (as cited in Housing New York: Zoning for Quality and Affordability: Draft Scope of Work for an EIS. DCP, February 20, 2015). 10 Census 2010: Changes in Elderly Population of New York City, , NYC Department for the Aging, July 2012 (as cited in Housing New York: Zoning for Quality and Affordability: Draft Scope of Work for an EIS. DCP, February 20, 2015). 11

15 funding available. Part of ZQA seeks to amend such regulations that the City believes are outdated and inadvertently impede production of new housing. ZQA is intended to implement some of the key policy goals established in Mayor Bill de Blasio s Housing New York: A Five-Borough, Ten-Year Plan. This admirable plan seeks to remedy the city s on-going housing shortage and affordability crisis and lays out policy objectives and tools necessary to address the issue. 11 In this light, ZQA seeks to reform a variety of zoning elements relating to building height, envelope and density in order to encourage greater affordable and senior housing and remove regulations that can inadvertently impede the production of new housing. In principle, the strategy makes good sense and should be supported. However, the one-size-fits-all approach the City has adopted for implementation can inadvertently result in negative impacts to other dimensions of the urban built environment and on the quality of life of residents. These shoul d be carefully considered before ZQA is adopted. CIVITAS supports the good work of the Mayor and DCP s efforts to promote fair and affordable housing, but calls on the City to give greater consideration to potential impacts on extant neighborhood conditions as discussed in the recommendations above. 11 Zoning for Quality and Affordability Draft Scope of Work for an EIS. DCP, February 20,

16

17 TABLE 1: Summary of Proposed Height and Density Changes for CD 8 (DCP ZQA Proposal) Date: August 2015 Community District 8 Zoning Distirict Existing Max. Proposed Max. Proposed Height Proposed FAR Height (ft) Height (ft) Increase (ft) Increase Basic Residential Height Changes R8 (narrow) R8 (wide) R9 (narrow) R9 (wide) R9X R10 (narrow) R10 (wide) R10A (narrow) R10A (wide) Inclusionary Housing Areas Height Changes R10A (narrow) R10A (wide) Affordable Senior Housing and Long- term Senior Care Facilities (Nursing Homes) R R R R9X R10A (narrow) R10A (wide)

18 TABLE 2: Summary of Proposed Height and Density Changes for CD 11 (DCP ZQA Proposal) Date: August 2015 Community District 11 Zoning Distirict Existing Max. Proposed Max. Proposed Height Proposed FAR Height (ft) Height (ft) Increase (ft) Increase Basic Residential Height Changes R6A R7-2 (narrow) R7-2 (wide) R7A R8 (narrow) R8 (wide) R8A R9 (narrow) R9 (wide) R9X R10 (narrow) R10 (wide) R10A (narrow) R10A (wide) Inclusionary Housing Areas Height Changes R10A (narrow) R10A (wide) Affordable Senior Housing and Long- term Senior Care Facilities (Nursing Homes) R R7A R7B R7X R R8A R R9X R10A (narrow) R10A (wide)

19 Community Board 11 East Harlem Existing and Proposed Zoning Source: East Harlem Land Use and Rezoning Initiative. Community Board 11 of Manhattan

20

21 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 115 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY Frank Fish, FAICP, Principal Jonathan Martin, Ph.D., AICP, Senior Associate John West, Senior Associate Isabel Aguirre, Planner and Designer 13