The citymeetings.nyc logo showing a pigeon at a podium with a microphone.

citymeetings.nyc

Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.
TESTIMONY

Lo van der Valk, President of Carnegie Hill Neighbors, on concerns with City of Yes for Housing Opportunity proposal

12:08:28

·

3 min

Report an issue

Lo van der Valk, representing Carnegie Hill Neighbors, expresses support for increasing affordable housing but raises specific concerns about the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity proposal. He focuses on issues related to the Madison Avenue special preservation district, protection of mid-blocks, and changes to development rights and affordability preferences.

  • Argues for maintaining custom bulk regulations in the Madison Avenue special preservation district
  • Opposes height increases in mid-blocks from 75 to 105 feet and reduction of rear yard requirements
  • Expresses concern about the increased reliance on City Planning Commission authorizations instead of public review processes
  • Questions the extent of boundaries for transferring development rights and the potential displacement of existing affordable units
  • Supports goals of increasing affordable housing but has specific concerns
  • Opposes changes to Madison Avenue special preservation district
  • Concerned about height increase from 75 to 105 feet in RBH zones
  • Objects to shortening of required minimum rear yards from 30 to 20 feet
  • Opposes allowing rear yards to be completely covered to a height of 15 feet for non-dwelling residential uses
  • Suggests avenues and avenue corners as appropriate places for height increases
  • Concerned about increased reliance on CPC authorizations instead of public reviews
  • Believes extended boundaries for transferring development rights may be too generous
  • Fears that 20% height increase for affordable housing may displace existing affordable units and mainly provide luxury housing

[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

"Regarding universal affordability preferences, this would create a blanket 20% increase. And if they are an allowed height and exchange for affordable house"

This quote directly references the Universal Affordability Preference (UAP) element of the proposal, mentioning the 20% increase in allowed height in exchange for affordable housing, which aligns with the UAP description.

"While the goal is laudable, we fear that the new building or additions may displace existing portable units and the newly built expansions will often mainly provide luxury housing."

This quote discusses concerns about the implementation of the UAP, specifically mentioning potential displacement of existing affordable units and the risk of mainly providing luxury housing, which are relevant to the UAP 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.

↗ Why are there transcription and diarization errors?
Lo van der Valk
12:08:28
Okay.
12:08:29
Okay, Dan.
12:08:30
Thank you.
12:08:31
My name is Low Vanderbilt, and I am representing the views of Carnegie Hill Neighbors with its catchment area located in the Upper East side of Manhattan.
12:08:41
We thank you, chair Garodnik, for this opportunity to address the commission on this urgent topic.
12:08:47
We support its goals of increasing affordable housing, but we have some specific concerns.
12:08:53
I will touch on some of the Regarding the Madison Avenue special preservation district.
12:08:59
This special district was one of the first created back in 1973, and the commission this commission, recognizing that a historic district would not be granted at that time instead created this special district.
12:09:15
It added the word preservation in its name.
12:09:19
To emphasize its special character.
12:09:22
The commission recognized the iconic status of Masson Abbey as a world class shopping street.
12:09:28
We think that the custom bulk regulations should be kept.
12:09:35
Regarding protect protection of the mid blocks.
12:09:40
First, in terms of RBH, this proposal will allow an increase in height from 75 to a 105 feet provided Affordable housing is created.
12:09:54
We think this height increase is too great.
12:09:57
It would alter the character of the network.
12:10:00
Second, we understand that the required minimum mirror yards will be allowed to be shortened from 30 to 20 feet.
12:10:10
We think this will have a serious detrimental impact on on the green donut spaces in in the midlocks.
12:10:19
Third, rear yards will be allowed to be completely covered to a height of 15 feet for non dwelling residential uses in the admittedly special cases of multiple dwellings.
12:10:32
We but we still oppose this.
12:10:36
But, no, the appropriate place we feel for increase above.
12:10:40
Right?
12:10:42
Are the avenues, especially the avenue corners, and we would support that.
12:10:47
Regarding the increase, and comprehensive reliance on authorizations by its CPC rather than the existing system of permits requiring.
12:10:59
In many cases, public reviews such as you are we understand that this will think this side stepping of the public review should be cut back.
12:11:10
And I understand Mister Garodick has explained this important.
12:11:15
They repeat that again, but we will review that more carefully.
12:11:20
Finally, regarding the the increased e's provided for the transferring of development rights by individually landmark buildings We agree that the current boundaries have been largely prohibited to such transfers, but the newly extended boundaries may be too generous.
12:11:41
Regarding universal affordability preferences, this would create a blanket 20% increase.
12:11:47
And if they are an allowed height and exchange for affordable house, while the goal is a lot of
Dan Garodnick
12:11:53
Look.
12:11:53
Low.
12:11:54
You're out of time, but let me just ask you to finish your sentence because we wanna hear it.
Lo van der Valk
12:11:57
Thank you.
12:11:58
While the goal is laudable, we fear that the new building or additions may displace existing portable units and the newly built expansions will often mainly provide luxury housing.
12:12:12
Thank you.

Subscribe to the citymeetings.nyc newsletter

Highlights of meeting moments and curious claims every 1-2 weeks.

Read previous issues

Citymeetings.nyc pigeon logo

Is citymeetings.nyc useful to you?

I'm thrilled!

Please help me out by answering just one question.

What do you do?

Thank you!

Want to stay up to date? Sign up for the newsletter.