As this process comes to a close, I want to thank you again for your thoughtful approach to addressing our city’s housing crisis through Charter change. Below are my updated comments on the ballot proposals as outlined in your Interim Report:
Proposal 1: Fast Tracking Affordable Housing
I generally support the Fast Track Zoning Action, which would allow 100% income-restricted projects (as defined by a regulatory agreement) owned by HDFCs to receive approval from the Board of Standards and Appeals rather than the ULURP process. Our housing crisis is dire, and allowing affordable housing development to have its own expedited process is a smart solution.
I also support the Affordable Housing Fast Track in concept. Requiring districts to do their fair share of housing development is another critical step toward creating enough affordable housing to meet citywide needs. However, I previously recommended creating a fast track for projects that are in line with a citywide comprehensive plan. Barring that, I recommended giving community boards one year to develop a plan for how to implement Fair Housing Framework targets in their districts and fast-tracking projects that are in line with that plan. Without either provision, I have concerns about how community needs and priorities will be incorporated.
That is why I disagree with making the community boards’ and borough presidents’ review timelines concurrent rather than sequenced. As I mentioned in previous testimony, while I may not always agree with community boards’ recommendations, their opinions always inform mine, and my recommendations benefit from having their review completed first. So at minimum, I would ask that as little time as practicable for review be split between the two. For example, the community board could have 40 days (to account for committee and full board meetings), and the BP 20 subsequent days. My office can commit to this, especially as we have already committed to expediting applications that comport with The Comprehensive Plan for Brooklyn, the recommendations of which center fair housing.
Another concern I have with both these proposals is regarding MIH. Right now, the City Council determines which MIH option is utilized. Fast Track Zoning Action projects will not have MIH mapped, and therefore we will lose the permanent affordability that MIH guarantees. I would encourage the BSA to require permanent affordability for these projects, especially on City-owned land. For projects using the Affordable Housing Fast Track that will have MIH, the developer will propose the MIH option and the CPC will approve it. I agree with concerns raised
by my colleague Public Advocate Jumaane Williams at the Commission’s last public hearing: the range of incomes potentially served by MIH is broad, from 40% to 130% AMI, and the CPC will need to heavily consider recommendations from the community board and borough president to ensure that their choices balance local and citywide needs.
Again, I want to thank the Commission for its creativity here and for taking steps toward comprehensive planning. Requiring the City’s Ten-Year Capital Strategy to incorporate the Fair Housing Framework is a step toward the kind of comprehensive thinking that we need to support our city’s growth.
Proposal 2: Simplify Review of Modest Housing and Infrastructure Projects
On this proposal, I again agree with the concepts behind it: ULURP is complicated and is certainly unnecessary for projects that strengthen our infrastructure, promote climate resiliency, or build 100% affordable housing on City-owned land. (Though in the case of acquisitions, I reiterate my recommendation that this be limited to only mission-driven, nonprofit developers who keep profits in their communities.)
However, regarding low-density projects, while I agree that they will help achieve our goals of allowing, as we said in City of Yes for Housing Opportunity, “a little more housing in every neighborhood,” I worry about the potential unintended consequence of disincentivizing larger-scale development that would produce more housing. For example, when London changed its inclusionary housing threshold from 15 to 10 units, they saw a sharp increase in developments with nine units or less, leading to a loss of affordable housing. I recommend that the Commission address this by pairing Proposal 2 with incentives for larger-scale development near transit.
Additionally, I reiterate my opposition to concurrent community board and borough president review timelines.
Proposal 3: Establish and Land Use Appeals Board
Given my potential role on this Appeals Board, I want to stay away from taking a clear position for or against. I will say that I agree with the underlying assumption that we need a citywide or even boroughwide approach to our housing crisis, which is a citywide problem. I take my responsibility for doing my part to get us out of this crisis very seriously and am prepared to take a role like this very seriously as well. I also would commit to strongly considering recommendations from the communities in my borough as part of my review. I do not think that the creation of this Appeals Board would change outcomes too much, but it would address egregious situations and could help solve for the fact that there are many developers who avoid even proposing projects in certain communities because they know that the Councilmember won’t support them.
Proposal 4: Modernize the City Map
On its face, a proposal to modernize the City Map has merit; however, the centralization of borough-based Topographical Bureaus currently housed within the borough presidents’ offices raises significant concerns while not materially supporting the Commission’s stated goals of expediting housing production or saving significant time.
The Commission’s report drastically underestimates the volume of maps (it assumes there are about 8,000 citywide, when in fact there are tens of thousands of maps on record) that would need to be reintegrated into a singular system. The adoption of a new City Map would require a citywide ULURP action, provided there were material changes to the reference points and measurements of significant sections of the city that currently utilize a different mapping reference point. Further, to assess and compile the street status of every street segment in the city will require a tremendous amount of research. By placing blame on Topographical Bureaus for delays without any full accounting of procedural review, interagency coordination, or applicant errors, the Commission has demonstrated that it does not fully understand the rigor or scrutiny that map changes require.
DCP lacks critical capacity to take on a mapping project of such magnitude. As your report notes, current Topographical Bureau staff are the experts in procedure, protocol, and patterns of practice – in some cases exceeding multiple decades of direct experience that spans across many different administrations. Further, the proposed Charter language does not reconcile how DCP will maintain the expertise needed to carry out these critical functions. Given the level of expertise needed, simply allocating the work to existing planner positions would not be appropriate. And as Public Advocate Williams testified, consolidating this critical role into one agency puts it at risk of experiencing cuts or generally being unsupported and under-resourced based on the whims of one agency head or mayor.
On the issue of addressing, display, and enforcement of displayed addresses, this system is best maintained at the borough scale. While the Commission received testimony from large consulting firms on the benefits of a centralized office, many homeowners, small builders, and other impacted customers receive benefit from an accessible, well-resourced, and knowledgeable staff. Each borough addresses its buildings and other key pieces of infrastructure in accordance with the borough-system that has been established through time, practice, and codification. At times, there is intense pressure from applicants to divert from the official numbering system to cater to a particular preference. Centralizing this power into DCP would give too much influence to the mayor in determining these cases. The relative independence of the departments provides additional assurances that addressing systems can be maintained without fear of political interference.
Lastly, while the Commission indicates that after the compilation of the City Map, borough presidents could maintain a Topographical Bureau (though not be mandated to staff one nor have an engineer on staff), what this Bureau would do, exactly, is unclear. Essentially, the proposal asks BP staff to continue to do their work until such time that DCP feels they can take it over. The administrative code outlines a process by which the City Planning Commission and the mayor can direct borough presidents to update their portion of the City Map. The Commission has not addressed why this would be insufficient, nor had meaningful discussions with our offices about potential impacts to staffing, record retention, physical space needs, or other procedural limitations and milestones needed to “modernize the City Map.” Further, there has been no opportunity or investment by DCP to bolster their relationship in Technical Review with staff within the borough offices.
Thank you again for your work to facilitate housing development throughout the city. I look forward to working with you on informing and educating voters about Proposals 1-3, and to the opportunity to further discuss Proposal 4.