Last week, the City Planning Commission (CPC) approved the nearly 1,400-page text amendment, which would, among other things, eliminate accessory parking mandates citywide, allow an increase in buildable floor area in exchange for the provision of onsite, income-restricted apartments for 20 percent of the building (known as Universal Affordability Preference or UAP), and create the concept of Ancillary Dwelling Units (ADU) to facilitate the development of more small apartments in suburban parts of the city.

That CPC approved City of Yes was unsurprising; CPC is comprised of planning and land use professionals who were appointed to steward the city's growth and development in the long term.  But their buy-in is not enough to make City of Yes the law.  The City Council--51 elected officials who are up for re-election every two years, including in 2025--must also approve the proposal.  The council members are as different as the districts they serve, and each will be looking to modify City of Yes to serve their constituents - and their re-election campaigns.  Here is a summary of what to watch for as the council members begin their negotiations:

• Will the elimination of mandatory accessory parking survive?

  • Council members in suburban areas will be pushing to modify or even eliminate the parking changes, so the question will be whether it survives in certain areas. 

  • It is conceivable that parking will be eliminated only for the densest urban areas or where the development will be within walking distance of the subway (and to be clear, most of Manhattan is already exempt from providing parking for new housing developments). 

  • A patchwork of exempted areas is the likeliest outcome – certainly not what CPC wanted but better than no change at all.

• What will happen to UAP?

  • Will its applicability be limited to certain areas of the city or further limited to the highest-density districts?

  • How will the council members look to change UAP?  They could conceivably require more affordability (i.e., reduce the maximum rent for what constitutes “affordable”), a higher percentage of the building (i.e., increase the 20 percent to 25 or even 30 percent) in order to receive the bonus floor area, and/or (note the ‘and’ possibility) reduce the amount of the bonus received for delivering UAP.  This final point would be a sop to City of Yes critics who believe the initiative would change the physical character of neighborhoods by allowing taller, bulkier buildings.   

• Will ADU survive? 

  • Again, will certain council members try to reduce its applicability geographically or will the suburban members band together with the general NIMBYs to kill the concept in its entirety?

• How will members protect their constituents on a neighborhood and/or project-by-project basis?

  • As with any text amendment, we will be looking for specific changes to City of Yes intended to serve local areas, special districts, and important constituents’ needs.  Such changes, on occasion, have broader consequences than anticipated. 

Approval of City of Yes could be a watershed moment in the city's fight to make more housing available to more New Yorkers, but only if the City Council does not hollow it out. 

Look for further communications from us on this topic.  The fate of City of Yes should be known before all the leaves are off the trees in Central Park.

Authored by Ross Moskowitz and John Egnatios-Beene.