A New New York: I LURP, ULURP, We All Want a Better Planning Process
Amazon HQ2. Industry City. Two Bridges. The Inwood Rezoning. The policies and politics of NYC land use planning are failing us, just as our city needs to become far more flexible and responsive. In this moment of crisis, we must act fast to stimulate our economy and build toward a greener, healthier future.
We’ve written recently about how NYC should be using a 15-Minute City framework for land use, while modifying zoning to enable it. In order to facilitate this, we must first look at the systems that allow for change to ensure that they work to optimize outcomes for everyone.
In NYC, that means diving into the much-maligned Uniform Land Use Review Procedure — more mellifluously, ULURP. ULURP is triggered when a developer or the City wants to modify existing zoning. You can find the details of the current process here, and if you still have questions, call us!
Officially, ULURP is a 215-day process used for both public (generally larger-scale, multi-block, led by DCP) and private (generally a single lot or assemblage, led by a developer) rezonings. It gathers valuable community input and allows time for response and engagement. But in practice, it can be far lengthier, expensive, subject to reactionary opposition, and may have limited citywide contextualization. Too often, ULURP is framed as a zero-sum binary with big bad developers on one side and the naive community on the other. These caricatures are false, harmful to political discourse, chilling to necessary and appropriate development, and they leave both sides tangibly worse off in the end.
The fact that the same process is used for such different goals may be part of the problem.
- Public rezonings should be made more collaborative, dynamic, and community-driven, using a biannual master planning process
- Private rezonings should be quicker and more transparent, using a slightly modified version of the existing ULURP process.
Public Rezonings
NYC’s current need for bold and visionary urban-scale action is in direct conflict with the ULURP mechanism we have in place for land use planning. We propose instead:
Formalizing Strategic Planning for the City and Region
In an ideal world, an official, public regional planning body would exist, but until one does, we believe City leadership (Mayor, Speaker of the City Council) should convene a recurring, inclusive task force with public sector leadership, community activists, RPA, etc., that identifies planning & development goals for the short, medium, and long term. We’ve got some great ideas, if anyone’s asking!
These plans would provide high-level, quantifiable goals for our urban policymakers through multiple administrations, and should include a process for interim review and update, progress reporting, and public accountability.
Public goals would be broadcast annually and be specific and measurable. They may include metrics like % carbon emissions reduction, % waste reduction, % increase in public transit availability, increased % housing density, % climate mitigation (protections from flooding or wildfire), % green space increase, % increase of protected bike lanes, % increase in affordable housing, x increase in supportive homeless housing, and more.
This can be a NYC Charter Amendment supported by a bi-annual process that regularly reviews and shapes the vision for NYC. There should also be a mechanism for interim updating.
Community District Comprehensive Plans
This is where community involvement is prioritized: upfront, where it belongs. In ongoing consultation and deep collaboration with City agencies and DCP, Community Districts and their constituents should prepare their own comprehensive plans that specifically outline how the Citywide goals are to be addressed in their districts for the next two years. Which areas are to allow more density? Which are best suited for mixed use and/or conversions? Which streets should be closed to car traffic? Where should any needed jails, subway stops, or schools be put? etc. Of course, this work — and the experts needed to inform the process — would need to be fully funded by the City, as Community Districts don’t currently have adequate budget to support it.
This also should be a bi-annual process (on the off-years). The NYC Charter already has a mechanism to allow such plans called 197-a. Community Boards should be required to produce one every other year.
City Approval
Following a timed review process (1 year?) and any required revisions, the City master planning body would approve the Community District Plan which would *automatically* implement any rezonings that were approved by the Community Districts. The process — from soup to nuts — would take 2 years.
Private Rezonings
Allowing communities to participate in planning their own neighborhood upfront through the public process should make private ULURP petitions go more smoothly, and maybe reduce the need for them. Before making recommendations, though, we’d like to acknowledge what works and what doesn’t work today.
The Good
One of the best things about ULURP is that it’s usually not necessary. The overwhelming majority of private development in NYC is done as-of-right. These projects are designed to conform with zoning and can move forward without any discretionary approvals or public comment. This is critical in a city as big and dynamic as New York. We have a code. If you design to meet it, you can proceed without a fuss.
Another positive is that ULURP (once you’re “Certified” and officially in it) is a timed process. This adds certainty, which benefits all stakeholders.
The third thing we like about ULURP is the opportunity for the public to participate in the process. It’s not perfect — questions about representation; access; NIMBYism; loud fringe-y reactionary perspectives, etc. abound — but it is a legitimate attempt to solicit input from the communities impacted by a proposed project.
The Bad
While ULURP itself is timed, the pre-Certification period can range from 9 months to 3 years or more. Not only is this period far too long and uncertain, it also is where most of the details of a project get hammered out, with lots of political horse trading and low public involvement. This pre-Certification period is (rightly) unpopular with both developers and communities.
Additionally, ULURP typically has a narrow focus on the immediate geographic surroundings of the project. The process rarely asks whether the project contributes to the community’s and City’s long-term planning and development priorities.
The narrow geographic focus is often accompanied by deference to the local City Council Member. This means that a successful ULURP application usually has to win over only 1 (of 51) City Council Member. This unofficial framework is inherently flawed, and puts too much power in the hands of a single politician.
The Recommendation: A New & Improved ULURP
How would ULURP work when the community has been involved in the planning upfront? If a developer is proposing a project that is:
- as-of-right: the process remains the same. No discretionary review. No public input.
- not as-of-right but supportive of the City’s Master Planning goals or consistent with Community District’s newest 197-a Plan pending approval: there should be a short public review window for the Community Board to determine if the proposal is indeed in substantial compliance. Once confirmed, the zoning for that site is updated to match the proposal and the developer may proceed to DOB for what is now an as-of-right project.
- neither as-of-right nor in line with the master plan or 197-a Plan, then they enter into a new and improved ULURP. We envision something like the following:
A limited, timed, online public proposal and comment period that actively solicits input from the entire community. The utilization of technology, social media outreach, apps, online forums, etc., is critical in this stage in order to invite and solicit diverse and representative community input.
A limited, timed, traditional process, with in-person public hearings before community members and elected officials.
A limited, timed period, upon formal submission of the rezoning application for City agencies to review the application for completeness, incorporation of and response to public comments, finalization of environmental review, etc.; and to consult with the Community Board before making a final ruling.
We can do better than the status quo. The above is simply a suggestion of how to learn from the past, take what works, and update the rest. It’s not perfect. But the current developer v. community framework is juvenile and ineffective. We can have a better process with more appropriate, upfront community involvement AND more certainty for developers. The moment demands it.
