A 150-unit (pending) development in M-CROWN area, 962 Pacific, would fill in parcel between two rezoned areas; repeat participants, questionable EAS
See collected coverage of M-CROWN rezonings: click here.
 |
| EAS: current & proposed view |
(Under the practice of member deference, typically--but not always--colleagues follow the local Council Member's cue.)
As reported, members of Community Board 8 are divided. Some are pursuing a petition to support Hudson's call for that neighborhood rezoning while opposing the two pending projects; others support Hudson's request while backing the pending projects.
The debate, and vote, concern more than just these projects.
As noted in my first article, and indicated in the map below I adapted, another project has surfaced: a large empty lot known as 962 Pacific Street has been proposed for a rezoning, very close to three other previously rezoned parcels along Pacific Street.
Proposed is a 9-story building, with 150 apartments (with 25% or 30% affordable), many with home offices.
It also would include significant community facility space (posited as an early childhood and youth arts center), and some 9,000 square feet of retail space.
A waiver of parking requirements is requested; 80 bike parking spaces are proposed.
 |
| Original map by Kaja Kühl, adapted to add 962 Pacific; rezonings in light blue are pending; apartment counts, from Environmental Assessment Statements, include areas beyond the parcels owned by applicants; 1050 Pacific would now have 234 units and 1010 Pacific 175 units |
Repeat players, timing unclear
The applicant is HSN Realty, but the professionals involved are well-known to Community Board 8 from previously-filed projects in the M-CROWN area: attorney Richard Lobel of Sheldon Lobel P.C.; architect Nick Liberis of Archimaera; and Kevin Williams of Equity Environmental Engineering, which prepared the Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS).
The latter document is dated 10/25/21, and was filed 2/17/22; as note below, certain omissions in the EAS bolster Hudson's call for an overall assessment of neighborhood impacts from pending and potential projects.
The city's seven-month Uniform Land Use Procedure (ULURP), which includes public hearings at the Community Board, has not yet started. (I'm not sure whether the application is being refined, and/or whether the applicant is waiting to see the results from today's vote.)
 |
| 962 Pacific rendering (from above), by Archimaera |
Bulk, and affordability
The requested Floor Area Ratio (FAR), is 4.6, which is in line with bulk guidelines in Community Board 8's proposed M-CROWN rezoning.
 |
| Mandatory Inclusionary Housing options. From HPD, using 2016 income levels |
The two affordable housing options under consideration are Option 1 and Option 2 of the city's Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH), would offer 25% (38) of the units, or 30% (45) of units as affordable.
That, said CB 8 has, with the past three proposed projects, requested the developer to agree to Option 3, which offers 20% of the units as deeply affordable.
It's unclear whether that will happen with 840 Atlantic, given that no separate agreement, called a Community Benefits Agreement, was signed. Such agreements have been reached conceptually, but not yet finalized, for the two pending projects.
Job-creating space?
The EAS states:
For the Mid-block area that includes the Development Site, Community District 8 proposed that the area between Grand Avenue and Classon Avenue should (1) require ground floor non-residential uses, (2) restrict retail and entertainment uses, and (3) set aside a portion of space for light industrial or artisan-based uses.
It adds that the proposed actions "would be consistent with the goals of the M-Crown Study Area that seeks the development of mixed-use buildings with residential and commercial space while ensuring the construction of affordable housing."
Well, sort of, at least as M-CROWN has evolved.
In the Grand Pacific rezoning, CB 8 required that 25% of the ground floor be set aside for job-creating uses, as indicated in the screenshot at right.
The early childhood and youth arts center at 962 Pacific would, according to the EAS, be under Use Groups 3 and 4. That would meet the Allowed Uses in that previous rezoning.
However, that would not necessarily be "light industrial or artisan-based uses" or, as cited in CB 8's press release regarding the Grand Pacific, "light manufacturing and creative businesses." At that building, that obligation may be met, as developer Elie Pariente said at a City Council hearing, by renting the space to a pre-K program.
Ownership and value
A rezoning surely would skyrocket the value of the property, albeit after not insignificant costs to pursue a rezoning.
Block 1133, Lot 13, was sold for $1,000 in 1974 by the City of New York to Atlantic Pontiac, which operated a used car lot at 975 Atlantic, now home to Auto Zone, for a period of time. By 1996, Atlantic Pontiac, by then known as HAP Holdings, sold the property to HSN Realty for "$10 and other valuable consideration."
Both seller and buyer shared the same address in Port Washington, NY, so it seems like an internal transaction.
In a similar transaction between limited liability companies with the same address, HSN Realty in August 2018 sold the property to 962 Pacific LLC, with no sum listed beyond the $10. Nadine Oelsner, who with William Oelsner has attended several past M-CROWN subcommittee meetings, signed the document as a representative of both entities.
As of February 2022, the owner has $8.5 million in mortgages attached to the site, presumably debt raised in anticipation of a rezoning.
How accurate is the EAS?
Some parts of the EAS raise questions. Consider this passage regarding the adjacent 1010 Pacific Street:
The site adjacent to the Development Site, Lot 32, was improved with a two-story industrial/manufacturing building that was constructed around 1900 until it was demolished in April of 2020. The demolition of the two-story structure follows the 1010 Pacific Street Rezoning... that was approved and adopted by the City Planning Commission and City Council in April of 2019 in order to facilitate the construction of a proposed 11-story plus cellar mixed residential, commercial and community facility building with 128 dwelling units that was planned to be completed by 2023.
At another point, the EAS says, more accurately, that the development was proposed to have 154 dwelling units. And while the proposed building was 11 stories and 154 units, that's not so relevant.
As I wrote, 1010 Pacific was downsized during ULURP to 9 stories and, as stated, 129 apartments. After the rezoning was passed, however, the parcel was sold; the new owner plans 9 stories and 175 apartments, as indicated on a building permit filed in April 2020, well before the 962 Pacific EAS was completed.
Also, the EAS describes the 1050 Pacific Street rezoning as aiming "to facilitate the construction of a new 8-story 113,188 GSF mixed-use building [with] 103 dwelling units."
Well, that was proposed, but the developer, having added adjacent parcels, now plans 953 Dean, a 9-story building with 160,000 square feet and 240 apartments, indicating far smaller units. (That information was disclosed after the EAS for 962 Pacific was filed. The permit says 234 units; the developer says 240.)
How many units coming?
A list of Major Active Construction Sites in the Study Area through 2024, aimed to calculate the expected future population by 2024, lists 1,163 new apartments in the half-mile study area, thus suggesting an increase of 2,314 residents, at approximately 2 people per apartment. That would mean a 2024 population of 50,872, before adding this new building.
However, the list omits the under-construction 1010 Pacific, 1050 Pacific, and Grand Pacific, which is alternately known as 979-985 Pacific or 505 Grand.
According to another passage in the EAS, those buildings would offer 154, 103, and 68 units, respectively, adding 325 units to the total of 1,163--a 28% increase. But according to current projections, those buildings would offer 175, 240, and 69 units, respectively, adding 484 units to the 1,163 total--a 42% increase.
That would mean some 970 new residents. At 962 Pacific, the EAS indicates that the 150 units would house 377 people, apparently because many of the units are larger. So the 2024 population might be calculated at 52,219. But why not add 840 Atlantic, with 316 units approved, and perhaps another 632 people, making the 2024 population 52,851?
In other words, the count deserves review.
The open space analysis
The future unit count is relevant to the analysis of open space, and bolsters the argument that a piecemeal analysis of each development project fails to assess the cumulative impact--as in a neighborhood rezoning.
The 962 Pacific EAS acknowledges that the area is underserved with open space, given that the current 5.72 acres of open space and existing residential population of 49,709 means a ratio of 0.12 (.1151, to be precise) acres per thousand residents--far below the citywide median of 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents.
With the increase in population from the purported 1,163 apartments, the open space ratio would decline to 0.1124 acres per 1,000 residents.
 |
| EAS: part of the site as of 1931-41 |
According to the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual, only a decrease in open space ratio that approaches or exceeds 5 percent is considered substantial, and "detailed analysis of open space effects on residents is generally unnecessary if the open space ratio decreases by less than 1 percent."
Given that the proposed 962 Pacific "would result in a 0.72 percent change in the open space ratio"--from .1124 to .1116 acres per 1,000 residents-- the EAS states, "further assessment is not warranted, and no significant impacts to open space utilization or availability would occur as a result of the Proposed Actions."
But let's look at it cumulatively.
If the current population of 49,709 goes to 52,851, well, that represents a 6% decline in the open space ratio. (Here's my math: the change would be from a ratio of .11507 acres/1,000 to .10822 acres/1,000.)
No, that analysis is not required by this spot rezoning. But clearly the deficit is increasing.
And if you draw the line differently, the open space challenge may be more significant.
Consider: the Environmental Assessment Statement for the adjacent 1010 Pacific project, using a slightly different set of census tracts for its half-mile study area, posited a baseline population in 2016 of 58,177.
Either way, there's no new open space along Atlantic Avenue and Pacific Street, as the population is set to increase.
Comments
Post a Comment