At virtually-ignored Brooklyn BP hearing on 962 Pacific rezoning proposal, no mention of commitment, made at Community Board 8, to deeper affordability.

OK, I'm confused. 

A little-publicized public hearing Monday night held at Brooklyn Borough Hall on the proposed 962 Pacific Street rezoning not only drew no testimony other than representatives of applicant HSN Realty--nobody from Community Board 8, no concerned residents--the proposal discussed did not comport with the one CB 8 voted Sept. 14 to support.

That may be because the commitments to more affordable housing, at deeper affordability, must be locked in via a yet-to-be created side agreement, sometimes called (misleadingly) a Community Benefits Agreement. 

But those weren't even mentioned at the Brooklyn Borough President's hearing. The nine-story building, with at least 150 apartments, would rise on a vacant lot between Grand and Classon avenues.

Looking SE from Grand Ave. & Pacific St. toward
vacant 962 Pacific parcel (Photo/Norman Oder)

Also, those additional affordable units, as discussed last month, likely would upend the developer's earlier promises to avoid studio apartments and to include home office space in every unit. 

But the presentation at Borough Hall contained those earlier promises.

Also, while the site was described as shovel-ready, the applicant's representative seemed to indicate that construction wouldn't proceed without the equivalent of the 421-a tax break.

What next?

Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso has an advisory role, as do the local community boards, in the city's land use process, known as Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, or ULURP.

The proposal then goes to the City Planning Commission and City Council, where 35th District Council Member Crystal Hudson likely holds sway, due to the longstanding practice of member deference. 

Hudson has said she opposed spot rezonings while the larger Atlantic Avenue Mixed-Use Plan (AAMUP) is pending, but CB 8 voted to support the proposal based on applicant commitments that would exceed the public benefits in the current iteration of AAMUP. 

And Hudson, who hasn't commented recently on this project, has changed her posture in the past on spot rezonings after getting additional public commitments.

Public comments also may be sent, by tomorrow, to AskReynoso@BrooklynBP.NYC.gov.

The video

I didn't attend the hearing. Nor was it livestreamed. But the video surfaced yesterday on the Borough President's YouTube channel.

The presentation

The hearing, which lasted all of 25 minutes, consisted of a presentation by the applicant team and a few questions from the BP's rep.

Applicant to Community Board 8

As land use lawyer Richard Lobel described it, "the end result of these actions would be for 962 Pacific Street to be developed with a nine-story building with roughly 153,000 square feet," with "in current iterations: 150 apartments.

The building, as presented at Borough Hall, would have 25% to 30% affordability, or 38 units averaging 60% of Area Median Income (AMI), or 45 units averaging 80% of AMI. 

At 60% of AMI, a three-person household could earn $76,260, at least according to current guidelines, while at 80% of AMI the figure would be $101,680. 

Rents for a 2-BR, under current guidelines (which will rise), would be $1,906 and $2,542, respectively.

The building would contain roughly 8,500 square feet of community facility space, 19,000 sf of manufacturing space, and 8,700 sf of commercial space.

What's strange is that, as shown in the graphic above right, the applicant at CB 8 proposed 48 total affordable units, with 27 of them deeply affordable at 40% of AMI--or $50,840 for a three-person household. Rents could be $1,271 for a two-bedroom.

That was less than the Land Use Committee request of 30 units at 40% of AMI. Also, the applicant proposed 5 units at 60% of AMI and 16 at 80% of AMI. Those roughly comported with the Committee resolution as transmitted (mistakenly) to the applicant, which stated 5 and 18 units, respectively, though the Committee actually asked for 8 units at 60% of AMI and 15 units at 80% of AMI.

Later in the meeting, Lobel did say they were committing to "MIH [Mandatory Inclusionary Housing] Option 1 and deep affordability"--the latter would include units at 40% of AMI--but otherwise did not elaborate.

More comparisons

Lobel noted that the requested zoning would comport with that achieved in previous spot rezonings nearby on Pacific Street, and would deliver more public benefit. (Unmentioned: some of the previous rezonings were badly negotiated.)

Screenshot from presentation at Borough Hall

Lobel also said that the proposal "importantly does not provide for any studios at the site." 

At CB 8 last month, Lobel acknowledged the size and configuration could change. He stated that, while the original proposal assumed one-, two-, and three-bedroom units, “my understanding is the configuration is between ones and twos.” That implies more total units.

Landowner Nadine Oelsner, who's likely searching for a developer to either co-develop or buy the property, didn’t confirm it. After saying the large lot posed challenges for an architect, she said the building would contain “ones, twos, and some threes… We’re trying to avoid studios.”

From a previous developer presentation

The AAMUP context

Lobel said that 962 Pacific compared favorably to AAMUP, since it would offer slightly less bulk and a shorter building--95 feet vs. 125 feet--and required job-creating uses.

"In addition and I think most importantly," he said, "this site is shovel-ready. One of the reasons that the applicant here has been so ardently supportive and bringing such a great amount of effort to this process is because of the opportunity to create these units in the short term." 

(Or, perhaps, to gain a lucrative increase in buildable space?)

"While City Planning has worked on this application to the best of its ability," he said, "City Planning also has many different responsibilities, including area-wide and city-wide rezoning initiatives, and so the applicant here has taken its own initiative to try to bring these units online sooner rather than later."

As noted below, he later acknowledged that the project would depend on the return of tax incentives.

 

The site and the home offices

Architect Nick Liberis said that the very deep site, some 110 feet, allowed more depth than typical. That allows "every single unit" to have a home office, which was planned during the pandemic.

(If the number of total units is expanded beyond 150, it's likely some would not have home offices.)

"It's a huge bonus that the site site affords us," he said.

(I wonder: is it also the only way to make use of a windowless room on an interior corridor?)

A deep site "ends up soaking up a lot of square footage," he said, "so you're able to keep the building lower."

Questions on timing

Erin Wright, Reynoso's Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, asked if the project would respond to the proposed changes in the proposed "City of Yes for Carbon Neutrality" zoning text amendment.

That proposal, which has passed the City Planning Commission and looks to be passed by the City Council, would allow more rooftop space for solar panels, increase space for electric vehicle charnging, and would expand the use of permeable paving and rain gardens, among other things.

"I think the answer is yes," Lobel said, since once the proposal is adopted, it would govern future buildings going forward. "It is likely, given the fact that currently there are no tax abatement applications which would would benefit the building, that the building would actually be built at the same time as the text amendment is being adopted."

That sounds like a reference to the fact that, with the absence of the 421-a tax abatement or a successor, the "shovel-ready" site will not be built on until the finances work out.

Questions on AAMUP

Asked how the project would be affected by waiting for the AAMUP rezoning to pass, Lobel said the latter would allow a taller building, 125 feet, and while it would permit commercial uses, the latter would likely be retail rather than the job-generating uses. (Unmentioned: much of the latter would be underground.)

Also, this would deliver more affordable units, at least compared the initial proposal for AAMUP, he said.

Questions about affordability

Asked about affordability, Lobel responded, "Given the fact that the Council Member has not yet weighed in in terms of unit breakdown mix and affordability, we can just basically give you what projected numbers would be."

At 25% affordability at MIH Option 1 (60% of AMI), there would be 38 units: 16 1-BRs, 20 2-BRs, and two 3-BRs. 

At 30% affordability at MIH Option 2 (80% AMI), there would be 45 units: 18 1-BRs, 24 2-BRs, and three 3-BRs.

Perhaps the reference to Hudson was an effort to give her credit for locking down the promises already made to CB 8.

Questions about anti-displacement services

Asked about the process for selecting a community-based organization to provide the anti-displacement services, Lobel made the only mention of discussions with CB 8. 

"In line with the community board proposal"--which accepted the applicant's revision of the Land Use Committee's request for $100,000--the applicant "has proposed donating $50,000 to to support anti-displacement measures in the local community," Lobel said.

"Right now we're working directly with the Fifth Avenue Committee, who's one of our partners in terms of bringing the application through the public review process," Lobel said, "but we have been in discussion with several nonprofits in the area, so we've not finally selected someone to partner with us."

How real is that? A representative of the non-profit Fifth Avenue Committee spoke at last month's CB 8 meeting as if they expected the funds would go to them. 

Perhaps Lobel's statement was an acknowledgement that it's unseemly for the Fifth Avenue Committee to be negotiating on behalf of the community to benefit itself institutionally.

Questions about green issues

Asked about street trees, rain gardens or other sustainability features, Liberis said there'd be one tree every 25 feet. There would be rooftop green zones and also solar panel zones.