144 more apts., coming soon to Blake?
Dixwell Alder Morrison: Do better, developers.
Two plans that promise to bring a total of 256 new apartments to Westville and Long Wharf moved ahead — as alders pressed for more affordable units and questioned whether the city’s recently adopted “inclusionary” housing law goes far enough.
Those unanimous votes — and that debate about how to address the city’s affordable housing crisis — took place during two back to back aldermanic committee meetings on Thursday in the Aldermanic Chamber on the second floor of City Hall.
First, the Community Development and Legislation Committees held a joint meeting to hear a proposal to amend an existing planned development district (PDD) to allow for the surface parking lot and former factory-turned-office complex at 446A Blake St. to be converted into 144 new apartments. The owner of that property is a holding company controlled by Tom Gelman and Yair Barda of Brooklyn and by a California-based company called Moonars LLC.
Right after that, the Legislation Committee held a separate meeting to hear a proposal to amend a different existing PDD to allow for the 112-room extended-stay Village Suites hotel at 3 Long Wharf Dr. to be converted into 112 new apartments. The owner of that property is a holding company controlled by Juan Salas-Romer of the local development and real estate firm NHR Properties.
Both plans included promises by the respective developers to keep a portion of the new apartments at below-market rents while further densifying neighborhoods outside of downtown.
And, despite technical adherence with local zoning regs, including a recently adopted inclusionary zoning (IZ) law that sets minimum standards of affordability depending on the size and location of a new apartment complex, both developers received criticism from alders pushing for less pricey multi-family housing.
At Thursday's aldermanic committee meeting.
The alder-passed IZ law requires that large apartment complexes outside of the city center set aside 5 percent of apartments for renters making no more than 50 percent of the area median income (AMI), or $51,450 per year for a family of four.
On Thursday night, alders raised concerns that the Blake Street apartment plan — which is exempt from the IZ law because the application predates the law’s passage — doesn’t meet the area’s affordable housing needs by voluntarily setting aside 7.5 percent of apartments for renters making no more than 80 percent AMI, or $89,400 per year for a family of four. They also raised concerns the Long Wharf apartment plan may offer too few affordable apartments, even though it is in compliance with the IZ law’s 5 percent set-aside / 50 percent AMI requirement.
“We’re looking to see how we can be even more neighborly” than the inclusionary zoning law requires, Dixwell Alder Jeanette Morrison told the Blake Street development team.
Any individual, including developers, who helps build up New Haven is “family,” Morrison said. And as family, she added, “we help each other out” — by committing to house all of New Haven, and not just some.
“One-hundred and twelve more apartments coming online in New Haven is a good thing,” Board of Alders Majority Leader and Westville/Amity/Beaver Hills Alder Furlow said later in the night about the Long Wharf apartment plan. “It’s a good start and I appreciate what the developer is doing.” But, he continued, “at some point, we’re going to have have to revisit this IZ law” because “it’s difficult for us to set a standard and then say: ‘Go beyond the standard that we set.’”
The alders ultimately voted unanimously in support of both zoning-update proposals. Now those legislative items advance to the full Board of Alders for further review and a final vote.
446A Blake St.: Why So Many 1BRs?
Architect Samuel Gardner listens to feedback from Alders Morrison, Furlow and Marchand Thursday night.
The first apartment-boosting PDD amendment up for review Thursday night was the plan to build 144 apartments at a Blake Street office complex.
That plan would see 11 units — or 7.5 percent of the total number of new apartments — set aside for renters making no more than 80 percent AMI. The developer agreed to set aside those units at that below-market-rent level even though the proposed new apartment complex is technically exempt from the city’s inclusionary zoning law because the proposal was submitted prior to the law’s enactment.
Read more about that plan here, which received a favorable recommendation from the City Planning Commission in June.
The Blake Street developer’s representatives explained to the alders Thursday night that the apartment plan would create 29 studio apartments, 107 one-bedroom apartments, and eight two-bedroom apartments. And, per the developer’s commitment, 7.5 percent of those would be set aside at the 80 percent AMI “affordable” rental rate.
“Who are you trying to reach with so many one-bedrooms?” Board of Alders Majority Leader and Westville/Amity/Beaver Hills Alder Richard Furlow asked. Might this housing be “targeted” to nearby students? He said that students already have plenty of other housing options, while the city is in great need of more dwellings for families.
“It’s really open to everybody and anybody,” developer-hired local attorney Jim Segaloff responded. Young couples and families, empty nesters, widows and university faculty, Segaloff said, are some potential tenants. “There was never a discussion about students… It was about developing the Westville neighborhood.”
“As we’re doing all this development around the city, people are being priced out of their communities,” said Dixwell Alder Jeanette Morrison.
Segaloff responded that his client’s application was not required to include any affordable units given that the inclusionary zoning legislation that mandates as much was not passed until last January.
If the plan had been submitted after the law’s Feb. 18 start date, the developers would have been responsible for ensuring that 5 percent of their apartments would have to be affordable to those earning up to 50 percent AMI, which translates to $51,450 for a family of four.
Instead, the developers chose to make 7.5 percent of their apartments “affordable” — but at a higher income level of 80 percent AMI.
“This project decided at the very beginning it was going to include affordability even if it was not required at the time,” architect Samuel Gardner added.
“I hear your explanation that they did it out of the goodness of their heart,” Morrison said. She then pointed out that plenty of people are without housing or getting priced out of their life-long communities — and asserted that while developers may “lose some” by increasing the range of affordability, they wouldn’t “lose all” like many tenants have.
“Being good neighbors, we need to do a little more,” Morrison insisted. She urged the developers to consider pricing their rentals at 60 percent AMI to encourage tenant diversity.
“Eleven out of 100-plus units is not anything… I’m really struggling with this,” Morrison concluded.
Ultimately, the committee voted in favor of the PDD update.
“I think that there’s no question that there’s an affordable housing crisis in the City of New Haven,” Westville Alder Adam Marchand stated. But, he said, it still seemed to him that “in general, having more density down in Westville center will be good” and could potentially “enliven the commercial and artistic district nearby.” He noted his appreciation for the proposal’s stormwater management plan and intention to grow green space on the lot by 25 percent.
Furlow noted that he was also “happy to hear about the storm water, because we have an issue in lower Westville.”
He said that while he was “concerned” about the development’s lack of multi-bedroom apartments, he also believed that this “project makes sense” as a means to house Westville residents looking to downsize without leaving their neighborhood.
“I’m going to vote favorably today,” he said, “but reserve the right to vote no on the floor because we need to have more discussion.”
Asked by this reporter after the vote whether he would consider upping the number of affordable apartments in his application, developer Tom Gelman said he would have to “consult with my team and see what they think.” He argued that even though they’re not obligated to include any affordable housing, he and his colleagues included “50 percent” more affordable units than required by the city’s new inclusionary zoning law.
Long Wharf: Complying With Law ≠ "Doing Us A Favor"
Salas-Romer after buying the Village Suites in 2016.
A similar discussion followed during an assessment of a second proposed PDD amendment to allow for multi-family dwelling unit use in what is currently a 14-building, 112-room extended-stay hotel at 3 Long Wharf Dr. and 175 Hallock Ave.
Read more about that planned conversion here. Site owner Juan Salas-Romer said he is looking to convert those 112 rooms into 84 studio apartments and 28 two-bedrooms and abide by the inclusionary zoning law by establishing affordability at 50 percent AMI for 5 percent of those apartments.
He said he is aiming to attract professionals like nurses, cops, and other workers within a similar income bracket.
A map of the Long Wharf hotel lot.
“Even though 50 percent [AMI] is good, are we looking to do more of these?” Morrison asked, suggesting that a higher percentage of the apartments should be open to individuals with lower incomes.
Simply abiding by the IZ law, she added, doesn’t mean a developer is “doing us a favor.” Rather, she pointed out, developers also receive “perks” like tax incentives to meet the law’s minimum requirements.
“This application is proposing to meet the requirements of the IZ ordinance,” Salas-Romer’s attorney Chris McKeon said. “Maybe I’m missing something but I’m not sure I’ve seen a proposal like this that offers units close to downtown that are in this sort of workforce, putting aside the IZ ordinance.”
Salas-Romer ultimately stated that he was “open to exploring different avenues” to make the apartments more affordable — and his application more desirable to the legislators.
If Morrison wants to house poor people, she can be a good neighbor and build housing and then rent it below market, and, likely, below cost, judging by the rents she wants to charge for new construction. If she wants to force others to build more, she can work with her fellow alders to change the law. My recollection is that the downtown areas had higher affordable requirements than outlying areas like The Hill and Westville/West Rock. Have there been any new applications for housing developments downtown subject to its affordability requirements? If not, perhaps the requirements are too onerous.