Atlantic Ave. Mixed-Use Plan "Community Vision & Priorities Report" avoids density question--which should be answered at City Planning meeting next Wednesday.

The Department of City Planning (DCP) and 35th District Council Member Crystal Hudson on 8/29/23 released what Hudson, in an email, called "the final community recommendations for the Atlantic Avenue Mixed Use Plan (AAMUP)," an effort to equitably pursue new housing, jobs, road safety, and open space along a contexted corridor. 

The Atlantic Avenue Mixed-Use Plan (AAMUP) Community Vision and Priorities Report, which covers 13 blocks with industrial zoning at or near Atlantic between Vanderbilt and Nostrand avenues, is also at bottom.

That led to summaries like Dense Housing, Job Creation Prioritized in Community-Led Plan for Atlantic Avenue Rezoning, from Brownstoner, and Brooklynites Push for Safer Streets, Affordable Housing in Atlantic Avenue Rezoning, from the Commercial Observer.

That, however, deserves some big caveats.

First, the reports punts on the key question of how dense the blocks at issue--starting just east of the Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park project--should be, as a trade-off for increasing affordable housing. 

Should, for example, the private rezonings Hudson negotiated last year, which allowed 17-story towers along Atlantic in exchange for more (35%) and deeper affordability, be a template?

It's not unreasonable to think that DCP is considering larger buildings--23 stories, at R10A zoning--given the background slide shared below. (If so, is that because they don't think they can demand the same same level of affordability achieved in the one-off rezonings?)

The report acknowledges that consensus isn't easy: "Some people wanted to see significant increases in the allowed residential density, some sought more moderate growth, and others felt that greater density should be contingent upon offering more deeply affordable housing."

Second, despite the references to "community-led planning," it's hardly clear who constituted the "community" and how much their views were incorporated and assessed, especially since later meetings in the process drew paltry attendance.

Behind the curtain: a zoning proposal

Questions about density get some answers by next Wednesday, Sept. 6, when DCP holds a virtual public meeting to share and discuss the first zoning proposal related to the AAMUP.  Registration is here.

But that raises another question: if DCP already knows what it wants to recommend, why didn't they release that zoning framework along with the report on priorities?

My best guess: because, duh, this is a political process and Mayor Eric Adams' "City of Yes" philosophy is the overriding force.

(Update: I got a comment from DCP spokesman Casey Berkovitz: "We’ll be sharing and explaining the draft zoning proposal at the Wednesday evening event. The proposal is responsive to the extensive feedback that we received at public workshops throughout the year and is a natural outgrowth of those discussions. We see the draft zoning discussion as a starting point, and there will be many opportunities for public engagement during and following the discussion, including a full Draft Scope of Work for environmental review, a scoping meeting, and a second draft zoning discussion this fall.")

The overview

The Executive Summary notes that this builds on work, since 2014, by Brooklyn Community Board 8 (CB8) on the M-CROWN (Manufacturing, Commercial, Residential Opportunity for a Working Neighborhood) plan, which would add affordable housing and job-creating space. 

From the Executive Summary:

For nearly a decade, the local community board has argued that this portion of Atlantic Avenue has potential for a coordinated holistic plan. CB8 has said the area should be rezoned to provide for affordable housing and encourage the growth of jobs that pay a living wage to community members without a college education. This opportunity is further emphasized by the area’s rapid population growth, numerous private rezoning applications in the Project Area, and the area’s proximity to transit that are at odds with current zoning that only allows for low-density commercial and industrial uses. The area’s zoning is a remnant of the industrial businesses that historically built up around the Atlantic Avenue freight rail line since the early 20th century and auto-oriented uses that continue to define the corridor’s character. Atlantic Avenue is a vital thoroughfare that connects Brooklyn and Queens and terminates at the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway; however, Atlantic Avenue can also serve as an important neighborhood commercial street and should be designed to better connect the communities that it touches. 

Unmentioned: the M-CROWN plan never got official approval, but the gold rush stimulated multiple one-off rezonings, some of which have not delivered on promises that were not locked in. 

In February, I criticized the AAMUP process for ignoring those private rezonings, as well as the potential 17-story benchmark.

Note: this new report does, for the first time, include a map and list of the private rezonings, as shown at right, including the total proposed units and affordable units.

But that should've been shared at the beginning. Moreover, that list is insufficient: it does not drill down to trade-offs between amount of  affordability and the density bonuses.

Rather, it states:

These private rezonings have supported the local communities’ needs for affordable housing, but they also have further amplified the concern voiced by the local community for a comprehensive plan that can transform the area while supporting new capital investments and coordinated City initiatives.

That's not untrue, given the potential for coordinated planning and city investments. But whether the needs for affordable housing have been truly supported is another question. The "community" was not given enough information to adequately participate.

Process and priorities

From the summary:

To empower community members as partners in the planning process, New York City Council Member Crystal Hudson and DCP engaged WXY Studio to facilitate a community-centered engagement process that culminated in the creation of this Atlantic Avenue MixedUse Plan Community Vision and Priorities Report. The process to date has consisted of a dozen public meetings and nine meetings with a project Steering Committee composed of local leaders who guided the community planning process over the eight-month period. The resulting report proposes six overarching Community Priorities and a full set of Community Recommendations that will serve as a basis for continued planning work. 

AAMUP Six Community Priorities:

1.  Create new, permanent, deeply affordable housing on private and public sites through increased density along Atlantic Avenue and surrounding streets. Preserve existing affordable housing in the larger community through programs and investment. 
2.  Apply zoning tools that foster mixed-use development to encourage a full range of services and local job opportunities for new and existing residents within walking distance. 
3. Plan, fund, and implement a comprehensive redesign of Atlantic Avenue to improve safety, increase amenities for all users, and improve environmental conditions. Commit to an expeditious timeline. 
4. Create new public green spaces and opportunities for active recreation and improve existing community parks. 
5. Invest in job training and business development to expand career pathways that are accessible to existing residents without a college degree, and prioritize Black-owned and M/WBE businesses as well as those that pay a living wage. 
6.  Activate the underutilized space in the Bedford-Atlantic Armory with new community amenities that support the existing men’s shelter as well as the broader community. 

About engagement

As shown in the graphic below, the public meeting process included 12 public meetings and more than 270 unique individuals as in-person participatings.--a rather small total. Less than 60% of those participants live in the area--a sign that this engaged people, including property owners and Open New York density advocates, from beyond the general area.

The participation also skewed younger, with a majority under 44, which is unusual in that many public meetings skew older. Also, about half those reporting identified as white, and 20% as Black. Note: the project team noted hearing "deep concern about the displacement of Black residents from Bedford Stuyvesant, Crown Heights, Prospect Heights, Clinton Hill, and Fort Greene."

The virtual kickoff meeting drew 433 registrants and 253 attendees, including dozens of staff. The in-person Community Planning Workshop Two drew 91 signed in attendees ("likely an undercount," according to the report) and Community Planning Workshop Three drew only 49 sign-ins.

The first meeting of Working Group A (Streetscapes, Physical Infrastructure, and Open Space) drew 118 registrants and 85 attendees, while subsequent meetings drew 41 signed-in attendees ("likely an undercount") and only 15 signed-in attendees.

The first meeting of Working Group B (Economic Development, Human Capital, and Services) drew 53 registrants and 32 attendees, while subsequent meetings drew 15 signed-in attendees ("likely an undercount") and 14 signed-in attendees

The first meeting of Working Group C (Land Use, Density, and Housing) drew 94 registrants and 62 attendees, while subsequent meetings drew 37 signed-in attendees ("likely an undercount") and then
44 participants. 

In other words, the key meetings to refine land use and density issues drew only a few dozen people. How exactly can that represent the "community"? 

The meetings were public, and reasonably well advertised, but it's not easy to get participation.

From the report: housing

The report states:

What We Heard: Housing 

The demographic shift in the Context Area has also precipitated deep anxiety over housing affordability. In all three rounds of the Land Use, Density, and Housing working groups - and across all three working group topic areas - the development of affordable housing remained the top priority. In an area where a significant portion of the population rent their homes, there was huge concern over the distressed state of many properties in the Context Area and perceptions that there has been an increase in illegal evictions and a lack of choice. Some participants also flagged aggressive and illegal homeownership buyout schemes, many of which intentionally target elderly Black homeowners. While the housing crisis within the Context Area coincides with the shift in racial and socioeconomic demographics, many felt that the housing crisis – particularly the lack of affordable housing and the pressure on the existing housing stock -- has contributed to the decline in the area’s Black and brown populations through high rents, evictions, and buyout schemes. There was consensus about the importance of allowing for more housing production in the area, although residents voiced different opinions about how that should be accomplished. Some people wanted to see significant increases in the allowed residential density, some sought more moderate growth, and others felt that greater density should be contingent upon offering more deeply affordable housing.

(Emphases added) 

About Atlantic Yards

The report notes considerable dismay with Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park:

In addition to new developments resulting from private rezonings, the neighboring Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park project is a 15-building, 22-acre development led by the New York State Empire State Development Corporation, which will include over 6,000 housing units and a new 6-acre public open space when fully built out. As of June 2023, eight mixed-use residential buildings have been completed, totaling approximately 3 million square feet and 3,212 units, of which 1,374 are affordable. This major project served as a key point of reference in land use planning discussions throughout this engagement process, especially given local disappointment with the state’s public engagement strategy, the relatively high skew of the project’s affordable rents, and use of eminent domain to displace longtime residents, and a lack of coordinated planning and investment for city infrastructure and services to support this growth. Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park represents a key consideration as the City plans for growth in the community and provides quality public services.

More on land use and zoning

From the report:

Throughout the process, the M-CROWN framework was shared at several outreach meetings to solicit feedback on both the framework and specific priorities around land use and density. In general, there has been broad agreement with much of the M-CROWN framework that there is a desire for growth and increased density across the entirety of the Project Area, with significant density most appropriate along Atlantic Avenue. Some opinions agree that density should step down along the side streets while others prefer significant density across the entire Project Area. Participants agreed that Atlantic Avenue should have an active ground floor with residential above. The areas south of Atlantic Avenue should include a mix of all uses (community facility, residential, commercial, industrial and manufacturing). However, some participants felt that the framework placed too much value on manufacturing and industrial uses rather than a wider array of uses that provide amenities and jobs, and that non-residential areas in the framework should be adjusted to mixeduse areas to allow for more housing.

It notes that in the second round of working groups--remember, 37 signed-in attendees--participants. 

, participants were asked to apply strips of different colored construction paper to conceptualize where they would locate different land use subareas and the appropriate density. 

While some supported "a dramatic increase in all types of housing, inlcuding market-rate housing"--the YIMBY supply argument--others supported increased density only with affordability.

The recommendations from the land use Working Group (verbatim below)

Recommendation 1: Develop new housing, especially affordable housing. 

A. Maximize housing capacity on Atlantic Avenue and Corridors: create significant new housing opportunities on wide streets and maximize income-restricted and rent-regulated housing on these corridors. Highest densities and building heights on Atlantic Avenue, high densities and building heights on north-south corridors, and medium densities and building heights on narrow side-streets.

B. Inclusionary Housing: When rezoned, residential development should utilize a Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) option that prioritizes deeper levels of permanent affordability.

Note: Attendees indicated a broad consensus around the need for significant increases to density across the entire Project Area, with a special emphasis on incomerestricted housing. Some participants diverged from others on their willingness to accept more density in the absence of affordability requirements. Where some attendees were in favor of increasing density even without affordability requirements, others opposed density without guarantees for low income residents. 

C. Deepen MIH: On a citywide level, ensure that affordable housing meets the needs of very low and extremely low-income households that earn below 50% of the area median income (AMI). The community urges the City Council and agencies to study and implement MIH options that restrict affordable rents to lower levels than 30% of pre-tax income. 

Note: MIH was developed as a citywide program, so any changes would need to be evaluated on a citywide basis. Deepening affordability levels may affect the cost and feasibility of MIH developments. 

D. Housing Our Most Vulnerable Neighbors: There should be dedicated affordable housing going beyond MIH for groups with the greatest difficulties accessing and remaining in their homes, including housing for older adults, people with disabilities, families with children, and re-entering formerly incarcerated people. 

E. Deeply Affordable Housing on Private Sites: Identify and implement tools to increase the amount of low and extremely lowincome housing on private sites. 

i. Increase funding for rental assistance programs to assist lowincome New Yorkers in securing privately-owned apartments.

F. Deeply Affordable Housing on Public Sites: Explore every opportunity to construct 100% deeply affordable housing and supportive housing on City and state-owned sites. Sites to explore include: 

i. The MTA-owned lot between Atlantic Avenue and Pacific Street at Franklin Avenue currently used as a cable repair shop and parking lot.

 ii. Increase the allowable density above current levels at two HPD sites at 516 Bergen Street and 542 Dean Street to enable the delivery of more deeply affordable housing units. 

iii. Investigate opportunities to develop affordable housing in tandem with improvements to school facilities at underutilized DOE sites, including at the site of P.S. K753 School for Career Development at 510 Clermont Avenue.

 iv. Investigate all publicly-owned sites with city uses in the vicinity that have underutilized FAR for the option to redevelop improved public facilities that incorporate 100% deeply affordable housing. 

v. Explore potential for affordable housing alongside new community facility uses and continued shelter services at the Bedford-Atlantic Armory. 

G. Extend Community Preference to Displaced Residents: Include residents displaced from the Project Area after 2015 for community preference in lotteries for affordable housing in buildings constructed following rezoning.

Recommendation 2: Proactively preserve existing affordable housing in and around the Project Area. 

A. Tenant Rights: Identify opportunities to partner with local organizations to advance classes, workshops, and events that educate tenants about harassment and displacement prevention in and around the AAMUP Project Area. 

B. Proactive Information: Information about tenant rights and rent regulations should be proactively disseminated in the community and meet residents where they are. For example: 

i. Buildings with rental units could prominently display this information in a shared common area 

ii. This information could be included with lease materials 

iii. This information could appear as part of the rotating advertisements on LinkNYC kiosks in the area 

C. Proactive Enforcement: The City and State should step up their active enforcement of affordable housing programs to ensure that existing and new rent regulated housing do not become illegally deregulated, and close loopholes that allow for units to become legally deregulated. This may include increased funding and personnel dedicated to the Project Area. 

D. Anti-Displacement: Provide robust funding for anti-displacement services, including legal assistance and tenant organizing, to target tenants in and around the Project Area. These resources should be administered through community based organizations and tenant advocates. 

E. Homeowner Preservation: Conduct targeted outreach to all homeowners to promote programs that focus on stabilization, home repair, and foreclosure prevention in and around the Project Area.

Recommendation 3: Foster a vibrant mixed-use community. 

A. Diverse and Vibrant Mix of Uses: Create spaces for a variety of uses in tandem with new housing, including space for jobs, services, local retail like grocery stores, community facilities, creative and cultural uses, and light industrial businesses. 

B. Active Atlantic Avenue: Consider requirements to create an engaging pedestrian experience along Atlantic Avenue that may include requirements for transparency (windows) or prohibitions of blank walls along the street-front. 

C. Accessible Quality Jobs: Explore and implement initiatives to increase the number of jobs and businesses in the area to support a vibrant, walk-to-work neighborhood, particularly jobs that are accessible to people without college degrees and pay a living wage. 

i. Options to accomplish this goal that may include new and existing tools. Tools to explore may include financial incentives, set asides, Floor Area Ratio (FAR) bonuses 1 , zoning text amendments, and other economic development programs. 

ii. Explore and implement mechanisms to ensure that space that may be set aside for specific uses does not remain vacant for long periods of time. 

D. Restrict Undesirable Uses: Explore options to prohibit the proliferation of uses that are inactive and promote low job density or bring disproportionately large amounts of truck traffic to the area, for example warehousing and self-storage.

Recommendation 4: build sustainable and resilient infrastructure into new developments. 

A. Building Electrification: New residential and commercial developments in the Project Area should be all electric, and prohibited from hooking up to gas lines upon the advent of the rezoning, in line with the New York City Local Law 154. 

B. EV-Ready Parking: Any new development that incorporates vehicular parking should be required to enable 50% of parking spaces with electric vehicle charging hook ups. Additionally, all unused parking spaces should be made available to the public. 

C. E-Micromobility: All new developments with a bicycle room should be required to include the necessary hookups to charge personal e-mobility vehicles such as e-bikes, e-scooters, and e-skateboards, contingent upon the City’s proactive regulation of battery safety standards and crackdown against illegal battery firstand second-hand sales. 

D. Green Infrastructure: Work with developers and existing homeowners to incorporate green infrastructure and other stormwater management investments into the design of new developments and retrofits. 

E. Stormwater Management: All new developments must be required to comply with the City’s new Unified Stormwater Rule, and should be required to contain wastewater for graduated release into the sewer system in the occurrence of a rain event. 

Recommendation 5: Preserve individual landmarks. 

A. Individual Landmarks: Consider individual landmark status for the Cathedral Condominiums at 555 Washington Avenue.

What's next?

First, the draft zoning framework:

The zoning framework aims to build upon the M-CROWN framework and recent outreach by identifying sub-areas with proposed land use changes related to use, building heights and setbacks, and off-street parking. These changes typically include zoning districts with a combination of Residential (R), Commercial (C), and Manufacturing (M) districts, and may also include incentives or requirements for uses or urban design elements. All areas where new residential uses are allowed would also require that a percentage of new housing be permanently affordable.

Then that release, DCP will begin an environmental review process, which starts with a public Scoping meeting to collect public input on the Draft Scope of Work, which details the environmental topics and issues that will be analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

A Final Scope of Work will include responses to comments received during the scoping process. After Scoping, it takes approximately 8 months to complete the DEIS, which is released at the start of the city's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, or ULURP. This begins the public comment period on the DEIS.

Later, another opportunity for public comment will occur during the City Planning Commission’s (CPC) public hearing to accept comments on the DEIS. That DEIS will be further refined and published as a Final EIS (FEIS) prior to the CPC vote. The FEIS will reflect and respond to public comments received during the DEIS hearing. 

"The conclusions of the environmental review help decision- makers such as the CPC weigh and balance the potential negative consequences with the benefits and positive changes that the proposed project will bring to the neighborhood," the document states.