PRESENTATION
Updates to Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) options and other medium/high-density proposals
0:42:59
·
5 min
Garodnick outlines proposed updates to the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) program and other changes for medium and high-density neighborhoods as part of the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity initiative.
- The proposal would make MIH Option 3 (40% AMI) available as a standalone option, rather than requiring it to be paired with Options 1 or 2
- FARs for MIH would be equalized with Universal Affordability Preference (UAP) districts where UAP FAR is higher
- The plan includes measures to support affordable homeownership programs by removing zoning conflicts
- Proposals aim to improve housing quality by allowing more flexible building designs, similar to pre-1961 standards
- The 'sliver law' would be replaced with height-limited contextual envelopes to create more housing, especially in Manhattan
Daniel Garodnick
0:42:59
Okay.
0:43:00
Other pieces of CWS for housing opportunity.
0:43:04
We are proposing to update our NIH options.
0:43:09
As you all know, very well, NIH includes different affordability options.
0:43:15
But one of those options, the lowest income option, option 3, at 40% of AMI, can only be used in partnership with 1 of the other 2 options, option 1 or 2.
0:43:30
That's how the program was designed.
0:43:32
You get you can do option 3, but only as long as it is partnered with option 1 or 2.
0:43:38
We are proposing to make option 3 available as a standalone option.
0:43:42
So the council will have this as a standalone opportunity in MIH projects, helping to create more housing for low income households, I will note This change, madam speaker, we we noted your request for this as well as from many council members and housing advocates.
0:43:59
We are happy to try to deliver this to you in this proposal.
0:44:03
Next slide.
0:44:06
We also would equalize the FARs for NIH, where it's mapped and for the UAP districts, wherever the UAP FAR is higher.
0:44:17
Just example, an example of this in an r 6a district.
0:44:21
You currently have an SAR for an NIH development of 3.6.
0:44:27
That would be raised to 3.9, so as to accommodate the universal affordability preference.
0:44:32
The NIH affordability rules remain unchanged except for what I just described in the last slide, slide creating an additional option for the council to choose the lowest level AMI as a as a path.
0:44:46
Same percentage of affordable income restricted housing would be required under NIH.
0:44:51
But we would adjust to align the universal affordability with NIH FARs where NIH exists.
0:44:58
Next slide.
0:45:01
Okay.
0:45:02
We also want to clear some hurdles for affordable homeownership programs.
0:45:06
Today, the rules that we have baked into zoning favor rentals over homeownership.
0:45:15
We know this is an important point for council members.
0:45:18
In fact, I I got a letter from many of you on this subject recently, but there are administrative rules in zoning that are inconsistent with HPD's own affordable homeownership programs.
0:45:35
So what we propose to do here is to remove the conflict in zoning so that if there is an opportunity to do an affordable homeownership project, that zoning is not in the way.
0:45:48
So 100% affordable homeownership projects would be exempt from conflicting rule tools in zoning.
0:45:55
We know that this will help more affordable home ownership projects to be built.
0:45:59
We share this goal with you.
0:46:01
Next slide.
0:46:05
We also want to support better quality housing.
0:46:08
Since our 1961 zoning resolution, our zoning has functionally squeezed buildings into bar shapes.
0:46:15
You can see on the bottom of this slide where you only have one exposure on each side of the building.
0:46:23
It's long and narrow.
0:46:24
You have one apartment on one end of the hallway, one apartment on the other end of the hallway, lights only in one room, potentially.
0:46:33
City of yes would allow buildings to use pre 1961's designs with larger, brighter, and better ventilated apartments and importantly, more family sized units.
0:46:45
How do we propose to do that?
0:46:46
Well, we wanna adjust the required distance from the lot line to the rear yard court and window.
0:46:53
We wanna actually make it easier to develop buildings that have more flexibility for windows, light, and air.
0:47:02
This is good for family sized units.
0:47:04
It's good for having windows in kitchens and bathrooms.
0:47:08
You can see in the top left hand corner of that image.
0:47:11
You can see a pre 1961 building, although the text is slightly hidden by some of the technology here.
0:47:18
The point of it all is That building is very difficult, if not impossible, to build today because of our rear yard rules and our interior court rules, and we want to make it possible to adjust our corridor requirements to allow more family sized units.
0:47:34
So we think by making adjustments here and allowing more lot coverage and more flexibility.
0:47:39
We get better design buildings for New Yorkers, more windows, more light, and air.
0:47:44
Next slide.
0:47:47
Also want to replace the sliver law with height limited contextual envelopes.
0:47:51
The sliver law sets strict limits on narrow lots, so less than 45 feet.
0:47:59
It was created in the eighties before height limits even existed in zoning.
0:48:03
Since then, we have height limits or height limited options to all of our contextual and noncontextual zoning districts today.
0:48:12
So we would, in this proposal, allow for these newer, more reasonable height limits to control the height of buildings on narrow lots.
0:48:21
This would help to create new housing, especially in Manhattan, and this, of course, would sliver law would continue to apply where any other height limits do not.
0:48:30
So we think this is a smart way.
0:48:32
For us to create a little flexibility, but also making sure that we have height limits in place.
0:48:38
Next slide.
0:48:40
Okay.
0:48:40
Some citywide initiatives.
0:48:44
Next slide.
0:48:46
Sorry, I forgot to do that.
0:48:47
Okay.
0:48:47
Next, lifting parking mandates.
