Skip to main content

Is Forest City's plan needed to develop Atlantic Yards site? ESD says yes, but also dodges issue

Is Forest City Ratner's plan needed to develop the rest of the Atlantic Yards site, notably the Phase 2 property east of Sixth Avenue?

Yes, suggests Empire State Development (ESD), the state authority overseeing/shepherding Atlantic Yards, in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final SEIS) approved 6/12/14. The Final SEIS was supposed to look at alternatives, as well, and ESD says no alternate plan would work.

But in the Response to Comments chapter of the Final SEIS, ESD dodges the issue. The comment:
The assumption that “none of the benefits related to Phase II would be achieved in the Future Without Phase II” is not supported. The benefits in question are for the most part affordable housing and open space. They are possible due to the opportunity for market rate development on a project site which has already been cleared and is in a desirable, gentrifying neighborhood of Brooklyn. Based upon the market analysis presented in the DSEIS, it appears more likely that there would be demand for the site if the current developer left the project. That likelihood is borne out by the fact that the site contained several recent market rate developments prior to project approval that were later acquired by Forest City Ratner and demolished to make way for Atlantic Yards. If demand is high and getting higher, the DSEIS should explain why is it reasonable to assume there will be no development on the Phase II site without this particular project. Conversely, with the understanding that the land comprising Phase II would be very likely to be developed in a future without Atlantic Yards, the delay of the Atlantic Yards project becomes more impactful. The DSEIS should, as we requested in our comments last year, study what would have been likely to be developed on the site based upon what we know now about the Brooklyn real estate market, and consider the land use and socioeconomic consequences of Forest City Ratner effectively warehousing the site. (BrooklynSpeaks)
[The DSEIS makes the] faulty assumption that existing blight would have remained for 25 years without the project, despite the rapid and escalating pace of economic and real estate development in the area. (Brooklyn Speaks)
(Emphases added)

The response:
With few exceptions, all of the lots on the Phase II project site are owned by ESD and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) or the project sponsors. Most of this area cannot be redeveloped without concerted and coordinated efforts by ESD and MTA, and thus analogies to privately owned land that is being developed elsewhere pursuant to existing zoning are not applicable to the Phase II site. In addition, much of the Phase II site is zoned for low-density manufacturing use and would have to be rezoned by the City if residential uses (including affordable housing) were to be built in the absence of an ESD-sponsored project. Finally, much of the property is made up of a below-grade rail yard, requiring extensive infrastructure and support prior to development.
The SEIS analyzes the build-out of this area with the Phase II development (With Action Scenario) against a baseline of no development (the No Action or No Build Scenario) because this analytical approach provides a conservative baseline for identifying the impacts of a delay in Phase II construction, as required by the Court Order. The approach suggested by the commenter—assuming substantial construction activities in both the With Action Scenario and No Action Scenario—would result in the potential for fewer and less intense environmental impacts of Phase II construction, because the Phase II construction activities would be measured against a background condition that also includes substantial construction. The approach suggested by the commenter would also under-disclose the environmental impacts of Phase II operation, because the operation of Phase II would be measured against a background condition that includes substantial development on the Phase II site.
Contrary to the suggestion of the commenter, the SEIS does not make any assumptions about what would have happened to the site if ESD, MTA and the project sponsors had not begun their planning efforts for the project site approximately 10 years ago. Speculation as to this counter-factual scenario is not required to analyze the potential delay in Phase II construction under SEQRA.
Looking deeper

Well, Chapter 3B: Construction Zoning and Public Policy of the Draft SEIS and Chapter 3B of the Final SEIS say the same thing:
However, none of the benefits related to Phase II would be achieved in the No Build condition (i.e., the Future Without Phase II).
The No Build condition may be a construct for the purpose of the environmental review, but it strikes me as exactly the counter-factual scenario noted in the response.

And while it surely would be challenging to change the zoning, put state-owned property on the market, and acquire privately-owned land from the project sponsors, it's surely not impossible. After all, the state helped the sponsor, Forest City, acquire land in the first place.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

Revising official figures, new report reveals Nets averaged just 11,622 home fans last season, Islanders drew 11,200 (and have option to leave in 2018)

The Brooklyn Nets drew an average of only 11,622 fans per home game in their most recent (and lousy) season, more than 23% below the announced official attendance figure, and little more than 65% of the Barclays Center's capacity.

The New York Islanders also drew some 19.4% below announced attendance, or 11,200 fans per home game.

The surprising numbers were disclosed in a consultant's report attached to the Preliminary Official Statement for the refinancing of some $462 million in tax-exempt bonds for the Barclays Center (plus another $20 million in taxable bonds). The refinancing should lower costs to Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the arena operating company, by and average of $3.4 million a year through 2044 in paying off arena construction.

According to official figures, the Brooklyn Nets attendance averaged 17,187 in the debut season, 2012-13, 17,251 in 2013-14, 17,037 in 2014-15, and 15,125 in the most recent season, 2015-16. For hoops, the arena holds 17,732.

But official…

Is Barclays Center dumping the Islanders, or are they renegotiating? Evidence varies (bond doc, cash receipts); NHL attendance biggest variable

The Internet has been abuzz since Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reported 1/30/17, using an overly conclusory headline, that Brooklyn’s Barclays Center Is Dumping the Islanders.

That would end an unusual arrangement in which the arena agrees to pay the team a fixed sum (minus certain expenses), in exchange for keeping tickets, suite, and sponsorship revenue.

The arena would earn more without the hockey team, according to Bloomberg, which cited “a financial projection shared with potential investors showed the Islanders won’t contribute any revenue after the 2018-19 season--a clear signal that the team won’t play there, the people said."

That "signal," however, is hardly definitive, as are the media leaks about a prospective new arena in Queens, as shown in the screenshot below from Newsday. Both sides are surely pushing for advantage, if not bluffing.

Consider: the arena and the Islanders can't even formally begin their opt-out talks until after this season. The disc…

Skanska says it "expected to assemble a properly designed modular building, not engage in an iterative R&D experiment"

On 12/10/16, I noted that FastCo.Design's Prefab's Moment of Reckoning article dialed back the gush on the 461 Dean modular tower compared to the publication's previous coverage.

Still, I noted that the article relied on developer Forest City Ratner and architect SHoP to put the best possible spin on what was clearly a failure. From the article: At the project's outset, it took the factory (managed by Skanska at the time) two to three weeks to build a module. By the end, under FCRC's management, the builders cut that down to six days. "The project took a little longer than expected and cost a little bit more than expected because we started the project with the wrong contractor," [Forest City's Adam] Greene says.Skanska jabs back
Well, Forest City's estranged partner Skanska later weighed in--not sure whether they weren't asked or just missed a deadline--and their article was updated 12/13/16. Here's Skanska's statement, which shows th…

Not just logistics: bypassing Brooklyn for DNC 2016 also saved on optics (role of Russian oligarch, Shanghai government)

Surely the logistical challenges of holding a national presidential nominating convention in Brooklyn were the main (and stated) reasons for the Democratic National Committee's choice of Philadelphia.

And, as I wrote in NY Slant, the huge security cordon in Philadelphia would have been impossible in Brooklyn.

But consider also the optics. As I wrote in my 1/21/15 op-ed in the Times arguing that the choice of Brooklyn was a bad idea:
The arena also raises ethically sticky questions for the Democrats. While the Barclays Center is owned primarily by Forest City Ratner, 45 percent of it is owned by the Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov (who also owns 80 percent of the Brooklyn Nets). Mr. Prokhorov has a necessarily cordial relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — though he has been critical of Mr. Putin in the past, last year, at the Russian president’s request, he tried to transfer ownership of the Nets to one of his Moscow-based companies. An oligarch-owned a…

Former ESDC CEO Lago returns to NYC to head City Planning Commission

Carl Weisbrod, Mayor Bill de Blasio's City Planning Commission Chairman and Director of the Department of City Planning, is resigning,

And he's being replaced by Marisa Lago, currently a federal official, but who Atlantic Yards-ologists remember as the short-term Empire State Development Corporation CEO who, in an impolitic but candid 2009 statement, acknowledged that the project would take "decades."

Still, Lago not long after that played the good soldier at a May 2009 Senate oversight hearing, justifying changes in the project but claiming the public benefits remained the same.

By returning to City Planning, Lago will join former ESDC General Counsel Anita Laremont, who after retiring from the state (and taking a pension) got the job with the city.

Back at planning

Lago, a lawyer, in 1983 began work as an aide to City Planning Chairman Herb Sturz, and later served as the General Counsel to the president of the NYC Economic Development Corporation, Weisbrod himself.