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

citymeetings.nyc

Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.
TESTIMONY

Meta Brunzema from the Collective for Community, Culture, and Environment on concerns and recommendations for the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity initiative

2:20:32

·

3 min

Report an issue

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

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

"Unfortunately, as it is voluntary, universal affordability preference is unpredictable, and in higher income neighborhoods, South may elect not to take advantage of the increased SAR."

This quote directly mentions the Universal Affordability Preference (UAP) and discusses its voluntary nature and potential limitations in higher-income neighborhoods.

Residential Conversions

"While adaptive reuse changes and enable conversions to a wider range housing types like supportive housing, dorms, and rooming units are pot potentially positive. It is unclear why these do not include affordability requirements."

This quote discusses the conversion of buildings to various housing types, which aligns with the Residential Conversions element of the proposal. The speaker acknowledges potential benefits but raises concerns about the lack of affordability requirements.

Town Center Zoning

"We agree with Increased housing density in town center in transit oriented districts. However, there are no affordability requirements in either."

This quote directly mentions town centers and increased housing density, which is a key aspect of the Town Center Zoning element. The speaker agrees with the concept but expresses concern about the lack of affordability requirements.

Parking Mandates

"Finally, while reducing parking is commendable, eliminating parking mandates must consider the limitations of on street parking As it is voluntary, parking may be included in market rate developments. However, without adequate mass transit in low income neighborhoods, residents may need to rely on car services."

This quote directly addresses the removal of parking mandates, acknowledging the positive aspect but raising concerns about its impact on low-income neighborhoods with limited public transit options.

ADU

"We agree that there are real benefits to allowing accessory dwelling units. However, there are concerns about increasing lot coverage, especially for smaller lux."

This quote directly mentions accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and acknowledges their benefits while also expressing concerns about increased lot coverage, which is relevant to the ADU element of the proposal.

Transit-Oriented Development

"We agree with Increased housing density in town center in transit oriented districts. However, there are no affordability requirements in either."

This quote mentions transit-oriented districts and increased housing density, which directly relates to the Transit-Oriented Development element of the proposal. The speaker agrees with the concept but expresses concern about the lack of affordability requirements.

Campuses

"The changes for campus development are also problematic reducing open space recover permeable surfaces and parking, and without a requirement for truly affordable housing may cause secondary displacement."

This quote directly addresses the campus development aspect of the proposal, expressing concerns about reduced open space, permeable surfaces, and parking, as well as the potential for displacement due to lack of affordable housing requirements.

Small and Shared Housing

"While adaptive reuse changes and enable conversions to a wider range housing types like supportive housing, dorms, and rooming units are pot potentially positive. It is unclear why these do not include affordability requirements."

This quote mentions dorms and rooming units, which are forms of shared housing addressed in the Small and Shared Housing element of the proposal. The speaker acknowledges potential benefits but raises concerns about the lack of affordability requirements.

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?
Meta Brunzema
2:20:32
Hi.
2:20:33
My name is Mehta Bronsima.
2:20:34
I'm testifying on behalf of the collective for community culture and environment, LLC.
2:20:38
And all women owned planning and architecture firm.
2:20:41
We will be submitting full comments in writing.
2:20:44
While we appreciate the goal of having all neighborhoods contribute to the need for truly affordable housing, we cannot endorse the current proposals without modifications.
2:20:53
The proposed zoning changes are so numerous.
2:20:55
That they cannot be adequately reviewed as a whole, especially without considering their interaction with other city of yes zoning text amendments.
2:21:04
There are a few affordability requirements.
2:21:06
If supply alone were adequate, the higher vacancy rate of luxury housing would have already trickled down.
2:21:12
Increased supply is needed for low income housing, not luxury housing.
2:21:16
Unfortunately, as it is voluntary, universal affordability preference is unpredictable, and in higher income neighborhoods, South may elect not to take advantage of the increased SAR.
2:21:30
City of YES, neglect neglect local context beyond zoning density.
2:21:35
It should consider population growth, income, infrastructure capacity services, neighborhood character, climate risk, and potential for displacement.
2:21:44
In low density district, reduced rear and side yards, lot sizes, f a r increases are concerning.
2:21:51
And in medium to high density district, reduced rear and side yards, legal window size, and inner courts, and increased tower coverage may lead to loss of trees and Permian bilt ability.
2:22:03
Many of the changes to yard, open space, and height regulations in most zoning designations subject to DCP or BSA permits would become as of right.
2:22:12
Thus eliminating public review of different contexts.
2:22:16
The changes for campus development are also problematic reducing open space recover permeable surfaces and parking, and without a requirement for truly affordable housing may cause secondary displacement.
2:22:29
We agree with Increased housing density in town center in transit oriented districts.
2:22:34
However, there are no affordability requirements in either.
2:22:38
Also, we are concerned that in R1 and R2 districts, R5 density would be allowed.
2:22:44
We agree that there are real benefits to allowing accessory dwelling units.
2:22:47
However, there are concerns about increasing lot coverage, especially for smaller lux.
2:22:53
In certain contexts, these expanded transfer of SAR from landmark buildings, including houses of faith, could be positive.
2:23:00
However, it should include affordable housing.
2:23:03
A special ferment should be required to adequately consider the full context.
2:23:09
While adaptive reuse changes and enable conversions to a wider range housing types like supportive housing, dorms, and rooming units are pot potentially positive.
2:23:18
It is unclear why these do not include affordability requirements.
2:23:23
Finally, while reducing parking is commendable, eliminating parking mandates must consider the limitations of on street parking As it is voluntary, parking may be included in market rate developments.
2:23:35
However, without adequate mass transit in low income neighborhoods, residents may need to rely on car services.
2:23:42
Thank you so much.

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.