Jim Power from Kramer Levin on concerns about the Universal Affordability Preference (UAP) formula for R10 equivalent zoning districts
6:41:20
·
149 sec
Jim Power, representing clients who own property in R10 equivalent zoning districts, expresses support for the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity proposal while raising concerns about the Universal Affordability Preference (UAP) formula. He argues that the current UAP formula may unintentionally discourage housing development in certain scenarios.
- Power explains that the 20% UAP affordable requirement applied to all floor area, including existing buildings, could lead to disproportionately high affordable housing requirements for enlargement projects.
- He provides an example where a 4 FAR enlargement project in an R10 district with existing 8 FAR would require 50% affordable housing.
- Power suggests considering alternatives, such as applying the UAP formula only to the enlarged portion of the zoning lot, similar to the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) regulations.
- Supports many components of the housing opportunity proposal
- Concerned about the proposed UAP formula for zoning lots with existing buildings
- The current proposal may disincentivize housing development in certain scenarios
- Suggests an alternative approach where the required affordable percentage is applied only to the enlarged portion of the zoning lot
- Argues that the alternative approach would incentivize developers to build out the full amount of residential floor area available
- Recommends considering alternatives to the UAP formula for infill sites
[EXPERIMENTAL]
Which elements of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity were discussed in this testimony?
- UAP
The following are AI-extracted quotes and reasoning about which elements of the proposal were discussed in this testimony.
This is a quick, close approximation. Occasionally, the connection between a testimony's transcript and specific elements of City Planning's proposal is tenuous.
Read about this AI-generated analysis here.
UAP
"We support many components of the housing opportunity proposal and believe it will help address the city's housing crisis. However, we are concerned that the proposed UAP formula as it applies to zoning lots with existing buildings to remain may have the unintended effect of disincentivizing housing development."
This quote directly mentions the UAP (Universal Affordability Preference) and expresses concerns about its implementation, indicating that the speaker is discussing this element of the proposal.
"As proposed, the target 20% UAP affordable requirement would apply against all floor area on the zoning lot, including existing floor area to remain."
This quote specifically discusses the details of the UAP proposal, showing that the speaker is addressing this element of the City of Yes For Housing Opportunity plan.
"We urge the commission to consider alternatives to the UAP formula as it applies to these infill sites."
The speaker is directly asking for changes to the UAP formula, which demonstrates that they are discussing this element of the proposal.
About this analysis:
This analysis is done by AI that reasons whether or not a quote from the testimony discusses a particular element of the proposal.
All the prompts and data are open and available on Github.
You can search for testimonies that mentioned a specific element in the table on the main meeting page.
When an element is explicitly stated in the testimony (e.g. "Universal Affordability Preference" or "UAP"), the analysis is accurate.
But the connection between a quote from the testimony and an element of the proposal is sometimes implicit.
In these cases, the AI might eagerly label a testimony as discussing a proposal when the connection is tenuous, or it might omit it entirely.
Follow-up discussion/remarks
Commissioner Benjamin questions Jim Power about proposal's application to merged lots
6:43:49
·
132 sec
Commissioner Gail Benjamin seeks clarification from Jim Power of Kramer Levin about how his proposed alternative to the Universal Affordability Preference (UAP) formula would apply to merged lots. Power struggles to provide a clear answer, leading to some confusion about the potential implications of his proposal.
- Benjamin expresses concern about unintended consequences, such as developers merging lots to limit affordable housing requirements
- Power argues that the math wouldn't work out that way, but fails to provide a convincing explanation
- The exchange highlights the complexity of zoning regulations and the potential for unintended loopholes in proposed changes
- Supports many components of the housing opportunity proposal
- Concerned about the proposed UAP formula for zoning lots with existing buildings
- The current proposal may disincentivize housing development in certain scenarios
- Suggests an alternative approach where the required affordable percentage is applied only to the enlarged portion of the zoning lot
- Argues that the alternative approach would incentivize developers to build out the full amount of residential floor area available
- Recommends considering alternatives to the UAP formula for infill sites
[EXPERIMENTAL]
Which elements of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity were discussed in this testimony?
- UAP
The following are AI-extracted quotes and reasoning about which elements of the proposal were discussed in this testimony.
This is a quick, close approximation. Occasionally, the connection between a testimony's transcript and specific elements of City Planning's proposal is tenuous.
Read about this AI-generated analysis here.
UAP
"We support many components of the housing opportunity proposal and believe it will help address the city's housing crisis. However, we are concerned that the proposed UAP formula as it applies to zoning lots with existing buildings to remain may have the unintended effect of disincentivizing housing development."
This quote directly mentions the UAP (Universal Affordability Preference) and expresses concerns about its implementation, indicating that the speaker is discussing this element of the proposal.
"As proposed, the target 20% UAP affordable requirement would apply against all floor area on the zoning lot, including existing floor area to remain."
This quote specifically discusses the details of the UAP proposal, showing that the speaker is addressing this element of the City of Yes For Housing Opportunity plan.
"We urge the commission to consider alternatives to the UAP formula as it applies to these infill sites."
The speaker is directly asking for changes to the UAP formula, which demonstrates that they are discussing this element of the proposal.
About this analysis:
This analysis is done by AI that reasons whether or not a quote from the testimony discusses a particular element of the proposal.
All the prompts and data are open and available on Github.
You can search for testimonies that mentioned a specific element in the table on the main meeting page.
When an element is explicitly stated in the testimony (e.g. "Universal Affordability Preference" or "UAP"), the analysis is accurate.
But the connection between a quote from the testimony and an element of the proposal is sometimes implicit.
In these cases, the AI might eagerly label a testimony as discussing a proposal when the connection is tenuous, or it might omit it entirely.