Meta Brunzema, representing the Collective for Community, Culture, and Environment, expresses mixed views on the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity initiative. While appreciating the goal of increasing affordable housing across neighborhoods, Brunzema raises concerns about the proposal's lack of affordability requirements, potential impacts on local contexts, and the elimination of public review processes.

• Criticizes the voluntary nature of the Universal Affordability Preference, suggesting it may not effectively increase affordable housing in higher-income areas
• Recommends considering factors beyond zoning density, such as population growth, infrastructure capacity, and displacement potential
• Supports increased housing density in town centers and transit-oriented districts, but advocates for including affordability requirements
• Expresses concerns about reduced open space, permeable surfaces, and parking in campus developments without truly affordable housing requirements

• Appreciates the goal of affordable housing but cannot endorse current proposals without modifications
• Zoning changes are too numerous to be adequately reviewed as a whole
• Lack of affordability requirements in the proposal
• Increased supply is needed for low-income housing, not luxury housing
• Universal affordability preference is unpredictable and voluntary
• Proposal neglects local context beyond zoning density
• Concerns about reduced rear and side yards, lot sizes, and FAR increases in low-density districts
• Worries about loss of trees and permeability in medium to high-density districts
• Elimination of public review for many zoning changes
• Issues with campus development changes reducing open space and potentially causing displacement
• Agrees with increased housing density in town centers and transit-oriented districts, but notes lack of affordability requirements
• Concerns about allowing R5 density in R1 and R2 districts
• Supports allowing accessory dwelling units but worried about increased lot coverage
• Suggests that expanded transfer of air rights from landmark buildings should include affordable housing requirements
• Adaptive reuse changes are potentially positive but lack affordability requirements
• Reducing parking is commendable but must consider limitations of on-street parking and mass transit accessibility

[EXPERIMENTAL]

Which elements of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity were discussed in this testimony?

• UAP
• Campuses
• Town Center Zoning
• Residential Conversions
• ADU
• Small and Shared Housing
• Parking Mandates
• Transit-Oriented Development

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.

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.