Comments on the Draft Scope of Work for the Jerome Avenue Rezoning a on E3 55 E3 66 53000 COMMUNITY VISION Submitted November 7, 2016 Table of Contents I. Introduction 3 II. Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy III. Socio-Economic Conditions IV. Community Facilities V. Open Space VI. Shadows 18 37 40 41 VII. Urban Design and Visual Resources VIII. Transportation IX. Air Quality 43 46 X. Public Health 48 XI. Neighborhood Character 50 XII. Construction 56 XIII. Mitigation 58 XIV. Alternatives 60 XV. Conclusion 63 Appendices 8 66 2 42 I. Introduction The city’s plan to rezone 73 blocks along Jerome Avenue in the Southwest and Northwest Bronx is the largest proposed land change in the Bronx since Co-Op City in 1973. It will change the use of land to facilitate the displacement of the manufacturing, auto and industrial spaces and to facilitate the construction of more than 4,000 privately owned residential apartments, providing housing for more than 12,000 people. But who will the housing be for? Who will build the housing? How will this impact the displacement pressures on the mostly rent-stabilized tenants who live in the surrounding blocks? And how will this impact the immigrant, Dominican auto industry? The City’s Plans Must Reflect the Community’s Goals Formed in early 2015 in response to the City’s proposed plans to rezone Jerome Avenue, the Bronx Coalition for a Community Vision is grounded in the belief that community members are the experts on the issues that most affect their lives. Beginning in March 2015, the Coalition has hosted numerous meetings to educate community members about the City’s plans, engage residents in conversations about current needs and challenges the community faces, develop policy solutions based in our shared experiences, and prioritize and advocate for these proposals. We have engaged thousands of community members through forums, visioning sessions, campaign meetings, phone calls, surveys, and more, and have collectively developed four main principles and corresponding policy priorities: › Anti-displacement strategies for current residential and commercial tenants. Current tenants and small business owners will not benefit from the rezoning if the rezoning increases rents, speculation, and the forces of displacement. The City should take steps to ensure that the people and businesses that are here now are protected and are able to stay. › Real affordable housing. All of the new housing built in the community should be at rent levels that reflect the need in the community. › Good jobs & local hire. New construction and businesses will mean a lot of new jobs in the area and the City should guarantee that those jobs create career opportunities for local residents. Also, developers should not be allowed to build unless they commit to using contractors that are part of State Department of Labor Registered and Approved Apprenticeship programs. The City must mandate provisions for worker safety and training to ensure our most vulnerable workers are protected. › Real community engagement. Residents need to have a say over what happens in the community, and the City should have long-term tools to ensure accountability for implementing commitments made during rezoning approval process, including a role for community in 3 overseeing progress. The community needs this to ensure that the rezoning is actually part of a community plan that is effective and fully implemented. If the City takes these community goals to heart and adopts the policy proposals and practices that residents have developed over the course of almost two years, we believe that it will be possible for the Jerome Avenue rezoning to serve as an important example of responsible, equitable development. As the first rezoning in the Bronx under the de Blasio administration, this rezoning will set the stage for all future rezonings in the Bronx, and we feel strongly that the de Blasio administration must seize this opportunity to rewrite the story of disinvestment and displacement that has dominated the South Bronx for too long. But after careful review of the Draft Scope of Work, we are gravely concerned that the City is on the wrong track already. Almost two hundred community members testified at the hearing on the Draft Scope of Work on September 29, 2016, and of those, only a tiny handful spoke in favor of the City’s plans. Instead, many community residents expressed outrage at the City’s seeming dismissal of the concerns and policy proposals the community has spent almost two years developing; fear at the thought that they may be displaced from the neighborhoods they either grew up in, or adopted as new homes after being displaced from other New York City neighborhoods; anger at a process that arbitrarily turns a blind eye from serious real-world problems, including the illegal displacement tactics many tenants are fighting every day; and determination to fight the City’s plans if they are not written to reflect what residents need. The Need for Real Community Engagement The Draft Scope of Work significantly misrepresents the extent to which the Department of City Planning has engaged community members and formulated a plan consistent with the community’s demands. For instance, this spring, the Coalition sent the Department of City Planning a detailed document that set forth the zoning text provisions we felt were critical for this rezoning - provisions that would help create deeply affordable housing, protect existing small businesses and auto workers, and ensure adequate space for community facilities, among other community goals. Yet DCP has failed to include any of our suggestions in the plan as described in the Draft Scope of Work. This does not seem like meaningful engagement to us. As another example, in the Draft Scope, the City states that : The [Jerome Avenue Neighborhood] Study takes a broad look at the needs of the community and through a community outreach process has developed a vision for the study area which has resulted in the Jerome Avenue Neighborhood Plan (‘the Plan’). The Plan provides a number of strategies to spur affordable housing, economic development, improve health and quality of life, investment in the public realm, in addition to proposed land use actions that accommodate the need for high quality affordable and retail uses.1 But the community has yet to see the Plan to which DCP refers, and it is unclear at this point what this plan is or where, if anywhere, it can be accessed by the public. The text makes it appear as though the Plan has been completed, even though our conversations with DCP, our presence at planning meetings convened 1 Draft Scope of Work, p.1. 4 by DCP, and an exploration of the DCP website all indicate that only preliminary activities related to the creation of what will be called the JANP have taken place and that there is no Plan that can be properly considered at this time. On page 15, lofty goals are stated and their achievement is attributed to the “direct result” of a Plan that is not yet completed. These claims are unexplained and unsubstantiated – how will JANP protect existing tenants and preserve affordability? How will small businesses be supported? How will the so-called direct results of the JANP be measured? How will these results be compared or weighed against the direct results of the proposed actions? Has DCP already completed the Plan? Will community members have an opportunity to meaningfully weigh in on whatever Plan DCP ultimately puts forth? Critically, will the community have an opportunity to review the Plan before the next stage of environmental review proceeds, or will we be forced to provide feedback on the basis of a Plan we have never seen? Further obscuring the public’s ability to evaluate what will be in the “Plan” and what is specifically linked to this land use action, there are a number of unclear or uncited statements in the Draft Scope. On page 16, greater detail describing the range of government regulation of housing should be provided, as should detail about the levels of affordability that were achieved for the 8500 preserved units, and the programs that were used to accomplish this. Recent housing and other development should be mapped, and the unsubsidized construction of housing that is referenced on page 16 should be labeled alongside the HPD-financed construction and location of HPD preserved units. Page 17 makes a reference to proposed infrastructure investments that the proposed zoning will leverage. These should be named to allow for the public to evaluate the status of these investments. In addition to clarifying the misleading language about the status of a completed plan, the process section should include the dates of the events referenced on page 5 - the Open Houses, Community Workshops and the Visioning Session - as well as the number of attendees of these sessions and who they represented. The involvement of Community Board 7 is not described – it is unclear in what way, if any, they were engaged in the process. This section should also include information about alternative ways that community stakeholders have been planning for the neighborhood and how those processes relate and how input for those processes has been considered (or rejected). Finally, in the listing of the goals of the engagement process, it is unclear how decisions were made to prioritize or balance among competing goals. Certainly, there has been no clear, collective process that carried this out. The decision-making process should be made explicit, since it is the underpinning of the proposed action and eventual plan. In the sections below, we outline our specific concerns about the Draft Scope of Work and the City’s plans for the Jerome Avenue rezoning as they currently stand. We demand that the Department of City Planning engage in the rigorous analysis necessary to determine the real consequences of the proposed rezoning, and consider our policy proposals as mitigation strategies for the significant detrimental impacts that are otherwise certain to come. 5 The Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario (RWCDS) Must Be Adjusted The RWCDS distinguishes where DCP believes that development will happen (projected sites) from where DCP believes development may happen (potential sites). In the aggregate, whether a site is classified as projected or potential has major bearing on the impacts analyzed and mitigated as part of the environmental review – especially with regard to direct and indirect residential and business displacement. Performing this analysis incorrectly calls into question the entire rest of the document. Problems with estimating where there will be new development We believe that the proposed analysis for projected development will lead to an incorrect undercount of impacts, and that the methodology for projecting development should be adjusted in the final Scope. Overall, we believe that projected development is underestimated and that the methodology described in the draft Scope incorrectly categorizes projected sites as potential ones, because of flaws in the criteria and failure to take into account site by site conditions. First, the draft Scope lists the size threshold for considering where new development will take place at 5,000 feet. Applying this threshold across the entire area without examining local site conditions is too generalized an approach which may inappropriately exclude likely development. In particular, in the areas zoned R9 where Cromwell meets Jerome and on the smaller sites rezoned to R8A on 183rd Street, east of Jerome, it is likely that smaller sites will be developed. In addition to initial criteria that is too restrictive, the draft Scope goes on to detail further exclusions from within the initial criteria. Several of these exclusions are problematic. First, the draft Scope assumes that no multi-family residential building in the rezoning area will be redeveloped. This is based on the assumption that the required relocation of rent-stabilized tenants would preclude development, regardless of the incentive to build. Yet this assumption is unlikely to hold true. Harassment of rent stabilized tenants in and around the rezoning area is well-documented, making it obvious that landlord actions to empty a building of rent-stabilized tenants by illegal means is entirely a possibility. Furthermore, the greater the degree of underutilized FAR, the greater economic incentive to redevelop. Currently, 30 residential properties in the rezoning area are significantly underbuilt (with at least 2.5 FAR available for development)2 and the proposed action would only increase the potential to build, suggesting that an “across the board” exclusion of existing residential properties - regardless of particular characteristics and vulnerabilities - is insufficient. Additional screening items that exclude sites from the projected category have great potential to result in an overly conservative projection. For example, lots “upon which the majority of the floor area is occupied by active businesses” were considered to be potential - instead of projected - sites. But being an active business is no actual protection for tenant businesses in properties that have sky-rocketed in value. Nothing in this criterion speaks to the extent of the economic incentive that a landlord would have to displace active businesses; it only speaks to the potential disincentive to the landlord caused by the 2 (2).pdf Analysis by Municipal Arts Society, accessible at file:///C:/Users/econte/Downloads/testimony-2016-10-10-dcp%20 6 hassle of ending leases and evicting multiple businesses. When the economic incentive to displace is great enough, landlords are not deterred by active uses on site. Similarly, being a “unique” or “valuable” business is no protection against the actions of a landlord if a business rents its space, like the overwhelming majority of businesses in the area do. With incorrect projections for development, the analysis for direct displacement of residents, businesses, and workers will be incorrect, as will the analyses for indirect displacement. An under-projection can also prevent the thresholds for more detailed analyses from being met. At a minimum, DCP should remove the criteria in bullets 1 and 5 on page 25 for differentiating between projected and potential sites, should evaluate residential properties on a site by site basis to determine the likelihood of redevelopment, and should remove the 5,000 ft screen when projecting development in the areas mentioned above. Problems with population projections We find that the multipliers used to estimate the projected population increase caused by the rezoning to be inappropriate for this piece of analysis. DCP’s methodology as stated in the DSOW is to use the average household size for the community district of the three districts intersected by the rezoning as a multiplier against the number of projected dwelling units in these individual community districts. This is problematic as the household size within the rezoning area is likely to be reflective of a far different density and fabric than the broader community district. Further, some these community districts barely intersect with the study area at all (CD 7 has only 3 projected sites within its boundaries) which makes their use even less relevant. Since data is readily available at a much more granular level that would provide a far more accurate picture of average household size in the rezoning area we ask that DCP update its methodology to use the average household size of the 78 census tracts used in DCP’s initial neighborhood profile as the multiplier for all projected sites across the study area. The neighborhood profile identifies an average household size of 3.013 for renter occupied units which we feel is more accurate than the numbers used in the individual community districts - yet still may not reflect the reality of larger household sizes in the study area. 3 DCP Jerome Ave Neighborhood Profile, 1-2 7 II. Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy This rezoning is massive. It affects more than 300 businesses and thousands of rent stabilized tenants, and it will drastically shape the history of the Bronx. As part of its analysis of Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy, the City will describe public policies applicable to the study area, and the extent of the Proposed Actions’ consistency with such policies. One major policy that will be analyzed is Housing New York, “a five-borough, ten-year strategy to build and preserve affordable housing throughout New York City … to foster a more equitable and livable New York City.” The plan’s five guiding policies and principles include both “building new affordable housing for all New Yorkers” and “preserving the affordability and quality of the existing stock.” The Proposed Actions Will Not Advance Housing New York’s Goal of “Building New Affordable Housing for All New Yorkers” Unless the Coalition’s Term Sheet is Adopted The City says that without a rezoning, the market would create 780 new apartments over the next 10 years. The rezoning will add 3,250 apartments to that number, across 146 different development sites. In total, the rezoning will determine the nature of the more than 4,000 residential units over the next 10 years. This is an incredibly bold government action. The plan repeatedly says that the City’s aim is to create permanently affordable housing. The City says it will do this through Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) and city and state financing programs for affordable housing. Unfortunately neither of these options create a significant number of units that match the neighborhood need. City officials have touted MIH as a vehicle to create deeply affordable housing. But the Area Median Income (AMI) for CB4 is $27,000 and $21,000 for CB5, and no Option in MIH reflects neighborhood needs—the best Option leaves out the 78% of neighborhood residents who make less than $50,000 a year. None of the MIH options require any developers, anywhere to build more than 10% of new apartments at or below 40% AMI – even though almost two thirds of families in Community Boards 4 and 5 earn less than $35,000 a year. MIH also does not require developers to build any housing at all for households who make less than 30% AMI, or $25,000 a year – even though almost half of families in Community Boards 4 and 5 (45%) are at these low income levels. The city’s best financing program, ELLA, is also wholly inadequate as most of the housing it subsidizes are for families making $52,000 a year. Under ELLA, only a quarter of the roughly 4000 apartments the rezoning will bring to the neighborhood would be affordable to families making $35,000 a year or less. The city therefore has no mechanism to mandate deeply affordable housing or leverage the market to create it, 8 at levels that reflect the needs of neighborhood residents. The stated goals of the rezoning are therefore either entirely false or entirely for another population. It is not simply that the housing built above rent levels affordable to current residents will fail to meet the existing neighborhood needs - it may in fact make matters worse, increasing instability and homelessness. As a recent report by the Institute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness concluded of Concourse/ Highbridge, one of the areas impacted by the proposed rezoning, “The neighborhood faces significant gaps in affordability for its poorest residents, and development that does not address these gaps could further destabilize the community and place thousands more children and families at risk for homelessness. Ensuring that development includes accessible rental units for all income brackets and addressing residents’ needs beyond housing, such as child care, education, and workforce development, are crucial to bring stability to a neighborhood that has long struggled with family homelessness.”4 Our coalition has worked with nonprofit developers, community residents and the building and construction trades to create a new financing program that would subsidize affordable housing at the levels that reflect the current needs while also at a cost that reflect the needs of career oriented and safe jobs. The rezoning cannot move forward until this financing program is created. Under our proposal, the affordability levels of new subsidized apartments would be: › 25% of apartments at 27% of AMI, ($24,462 or less) › 25% at 37% of AMI, ($33,522 or less) › 25% at 47% of AMI, ($42,582 or less) › 25% at 57% of AMI, ($51,642 or less) 4 “Housing Affordability in Concourse/Highbridge: The Promise of Affordable Housing May Bring False Hope,” Institute for Children, Poverty & Homelessness (June 2016). Online at http://www.icphusa.org/PDF/reports/ICPH%20ConcourseHighbridge_ Web.pdf. 9 Under the Coalition’s proposal, over 600 more apartments would be available to families making less than $25,000 a year than would be the case under the City’s ELLA term sheet. In addition, over 400 more apartments would be affordable to families making less than $35,000 a year. In total, under the Coalition’s proposal, half of all of the apartments created by the rezoning would be affordable to families less than 40% AMI – twice the share of housing that would be created at these levels using the ELLA term sheet. By adopting the Coalition’s term sheet for subsidized housing, the City can help to ensure that this area remains accessible to low-income families for generations to come and make good on its promise to create affordable housing for the people who need it most. We believe that use of our proposed term sheet offers numerous benefits, both immediate and long-term. First, housing built with this term sheet would be affordable to 78% of current residents in CB 4 and 5. Second, although this proposed term sheet would require greater City subsidy per unit, creating housing that is affordable to a greater share of lower-income CB 4 and 5 residents is ultimately far more cost effective than housing homeless families temporarily. Currently, many families in our communities are living doubled up, one step away from homelessness, and too many end up in the shelter system each year.5 Our proposal could help shift those trends. Third, our subsidy program, unlike the City’s, would promote safe, career-oriented union jobs, supporting economic stability for our residents. Fourth, our term sheet would help preserve the southwest Bronx as a mixed income community in the long-term. Today, “the neighborhoods that the Jerome Ave rezoning encompasses are already mixed-income neighborhoods. While the median income for a family of four is about $25,000, close to 25 percent of households make above $50,000 and 15 percent make above $150,000.”6 At the same time, our communities already 5 See “Housing Affordability in Concourse/Highbridge: The Promise of Affordable Housing May Bring False Hope,” Institute for Children, Poverty & Homelessness (June 2016) (describing Concourse/Highbridge as “a chronic feeder to the shelter system, ranking among the top four community districts for the number of families entering shelter since FY 2005”). Online at http://www.icphusa.org/PDF/reports/ICPH%20ConcourseHighbridge_Web.pdf. 6 Susanna Blankley, “Four Wrong Ideas Driving de Blasio’s Housing Plan,” City Limits (Fe. 25, 2016). Online at citylimits. 10 have a surplus of housing affordable to families making more than $50,000 a year. The City does not need to create more housing in our area to attract higher-income residents, or to justify long-overdue investments in our area as ways to attract richer people. The residents who are here today matter, and their needs matter whether or not any of our neighborhoods become the next “it” area in the City, as many developers seem to hope will be the case. By increasing the amount of housing that will be affordable to the people who are at the greatest risk of displacement, we can ensure that our area will stay accessible and meaningfully mixed-income over time. Analysis › The City should analyze and disclose the income levels of the households that stand to be displaced, then compare those figures to the amount of affordable housing expected to be made available at those income levels under the rezoning, in order to calculate the share of the new affordable housing that would potentially be accessible to current residents. The City should consider scenarios both with and without the 50% community preference. › The City should also analyze and disclose the share of proposed housing that would be affordable at local income levels if the City were to adopt the Coalition’s proposed term sheet. Although we have already performed a basic analysis of the differences, we request that DCP perform this analysis as part of the public CEQR review process and include it in the record to allow the community to make meaningful comparisons between the two options. › The City should not assume that developers will continue to accept HPD subsidies throughout the 15-year period following a rezoning. Instead, the City should analyze and disclose the impacts of the rezoning based on: • A scenario in which developers accept HPD subsidies for the entire period • A scenario in which developers accept HPD subsidies for only 5 years • A scenario in which developers accept HPD subsidies for only 10 years • The zoning text and public sites alone › The City should look into past rezonings and examine housing market shifts after these rezonings, for the purpose of determining the length of time during which developers are likely to seek HPD subsidies and the point at which interest in such subsidies may cease due to improved market conditions. Although the City indicated in the context of the East New York rezoning that analyses of past rezonings go beyond the scope of the CEQR review process for new neighborhood rezonings, if the City ignores these past rezonings, it ignores valuable data that could help to create a more accurate picture of future neighborhood change in our area. › The City should also disclose the extent of its capacity to move projects through the HPD subsidy pipeline - specifically, the number of projects and affordable units the City anticipates being able to move in the Jerome Avenue rezoning area a given year, given its current staffing, budgetary, and other limitations and the nature and extent of its work to create subsidized housing in other neighborhoods, including other rezoning neighborhoods. org/2016/02/25/cityviewsfour-wrong-ideas-driving-de-blasios-housing-plan/. 11 Mitigation › If the City’s analysis demonstrates that the City’s current plans fail to adequately advance the goals of creating affordable housing for “all” New Yorkers, the City should disclose, analyze and adopt additional mitigation strategies, including the adoption of the proposed Coalition term sheet for subsidized housing; dedication of additional funds as needed to create more housing affordable at local income levels; and, potentially, a reduction in the scale of the rezoning to better reflect the amount of subsidized affordable housing that the City is realistically capable of producing within our community in the next 5-10 years, given limits on its own capacity and interests of developers as market conditions shift. The Proposed Actions Will Not Advance Housing New York’s Goals of Affordable Housing Preservation and Equity—Unless the Coalition’s Anti-Displacement Strategies Are Adopted The preservation goal of the Housing New York plan accounts for 120,000 of the total 200,000 affordable units the City hopes to build and preserve in the coming years. But the de Blasio administration has yet to develop a comprehensive policy to prevent the displacement of low-income people in rezoning neighborhoods and otherwise. Creating new affordable housing - though important - will do nothing to preserve affordable housing that already exists. Extending affordability of apartments where subsidy agreements are expiring - though also important - is extremely difficult. For example, a recent study of Concourse/Highbridge showed that, “Every single subsidized rental unit—more than 1,800—that was eligible to convert to market rate did so from 2002–2011, ending affordability commitments” in these apartments.7 Within this context, the protection of rent-stabilized apartments should be of paramount concern as part of the City’s overall preservation strategies. As the Housing New York plan states, “The most effective preservation strategies will depend upon neighborhood characteristics and needs.”8 For the communities in the Jerome Avenue impact area, neighborhood characteristics and needs demand a focus on better tools and strategies to preserve affordability and prevent displacement in rent stabilized housing in particular. The City has invested significant funding into providing anti-displacement legal services for renters within the rezoning communities, acknowledging in the Housing New York plan that, “The lack of legal representation for low- and moderate-income tenants facing eviction limits their awareness of their rights as tenants and makes it more difficult for them to defend themselves against actions initiated by landlords. Legal services are a critical preservation tool as they can prevent landlords from pursuing evictions simply to move their apartments out of rent stabilization. Unfortunately, the current demand for tenant legal 7 “Housing Affordability in Concourse/Highbridge: The Promise of Affordable Housing May Bring False Hope,” Institute for Children, Poverty & Homelessness (June 2016) (citing NYU Furman Center Moelis Institute for Affordable Housing Policy, Subsidized Housing Information Project (SHIP) database, http:// furmancenter.org/data, accessed April 19, 2016; NYU Furman Center Moelis Institute for Affordable Housing Policy, What Can We Learn About the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program by Looking at the Tenants? October 2012). Online at http://www.icphusa.org/PDF/reports/ICPH%20ConcourseHighbridge_Web.pdf. 8 “Housing New York: A Five-Borough, Ten-Year Plan,” p.49. Online at http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/housing/downloads/ pdf/housing_plan.pdf. 12 services far exceeds supply.”9 Though the existing anti-displacement legal services are meaningful, they are not enough. First, they are not sufficient to break the profit motive that will always drive landlords of low-rent, rent-stabilized apartments to make moves to push out low-income tenants. Second, they lack permanence, do not cover tenants just outside of the zip codes designated for legal services, and could disappear with a subsequent mayoral administration. And third, they are not comprehensive, in that defending tenants in housing court is all too often a response to landlord harassment that should not have occurred in the first place. That is why the Coalition is proposing three core anti-displacement strategies passage of a citywide Right to Counsel, creation of a citywide Certificate of No Harassment requirement, and creation of an anti-displacement taskforce - that will help to create a comprehensive safety net around existing tenants in rent-stabilized apartments. These new strategies -described more fully in our response to the section on residential displacement - are necessary to shore up a critical source of affordable housing in our community. It’s especially critical that the City develop meaningful anti-displacement strategies given the demographics of the communities the City is proposing to rezone - so far, almost exclusively low-income communities of color with long histories of divestment and institutional neglect. If “equity” is a goal of the Housing New York plan, it is troubling that the City has selected only low-income communities of color for neighborhoodwide rezonings, with no guarantees that any significant share of the new housing will be affordable to local residents and no commitments that new development will bring high-quality, career-track jobs. In making these choices, the de Blasio administration is following closely in the footsteps of the Bloomberg administration, which also disproportionately targeted low-income neighborhoods of color for massive upzonings. Research into rezonings under Bloomberg shows that “upzonings occurred in areas with higher proportions of black and Hispanic inhabitants and significantly lower proportions of whites than citywide or in other types of rezoning.”10 In these areas, white populations increased significantly - in marked contrast to an overall citywide decrease in the white population11 - and median incomes and the number of higher-income earners increased substantially.12 Importantly, “figures make it fairly clear that in most cases, increases in neighborhood income were driven by newly arrived white households rather than upwardly mobile non-whites.”13 And nor were these changes inevitable, or part of broader citywide trends; in upzoned communities, “Even though housing supply outpaced population change, rents increased far faster than citywide.”14 9 Id at 53. 10 Leo Goldberg, “Game of Zones: Neighborhood Rezonings and Uneven Urban Growth in Bloomberg’s New York City,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology (June 2015) at 71. Online at https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/98935. 11 Id. at 66. 12 Id. at 67. 13 Id. at 68. 14 Id. at 83. 13 1. Jerome Ave: Bronx County, NY, Census Tracts - 197, 199, 209, 211, 213.02, 217, 219, 221.01, 221.02, 223, 227.01, 227.02, 233.01, 237.03, 237.04, 239, 241, 243, 251, 253 2. East New York: Kings County, NY, Census Tracts - 365.02, 367, 369, 906, 908, 1198, 1144, 1146, 1150, 1152, 1166, 1168, 1170, 1172.01, 1174, 1178, 1184, 1186, 1190, 1192, 1194, 1196 3. East Harlem: New York County, NY, Census Tracts - 166, 170, 172, 174.02, 180, 182, 184, 188, 194, 196, 198, 206, 242 4. Stapleton: Richmond County, NY, Census Tracts - 3,7,11,21,27 All data - American Community Survey, 2014, 5 Year Estimates 14 Median Household Incomes in Rezoning Areas vs Citywide 1. Jerome Ave: Bronx County, NY, Census Tracts - 197, 199, 209, 211, 213.02, 217, 219, 221.01, 221.02, 223, 227.01, 227.02, 233.01, 237.03, 237.04, 239, 241, 243, 251, 253 2. East New York: Kings County, NY, Census Tracts - 365.02, 367, 369, 906, 908, 1198, 1144, 1146, 1150, 1152, 1166, 1168, 1170, 1172.01, 1174, 1178, 1184, 1186, 1190, 1192, 1194, 1196 3. East Harlem: New York County, NY, Census Tracts - 166, 170, 172, 174.02, 180, 182, 184, 188, 194, 196, 198, 206, 242 4. Stapleton: Richmond County, NY, Census Tracts - 3,7,11,21,27 All data - American Community Survey, 2014, 5 Year Estimates We believe it is possible for the de Blasio administration to begin to write a different narrative and to achieve equitable development with this rezoning - but only if the City takes seriously the need to ensure that today’s community residents will be around to reap the benefits of the better tomorrow the City promises, and only if the City centers the goal of creating new economic opportunities and paths to advancement for current residents. Analysis In analyzing the consistency of this proposed rezoning with other policies, the City should consider: › The extent to which the Proposed Actions would create affordable housing for “all” New Yorkers, in particular individuals and families making below 30% AMI, who represent a significant share of rezoning area residents and are grossly underserved by the City’s current MIH policy and subsidy term sheets. › The feasibility of adopting the Coalition’s proposed term sheet in order to better advance the creation of low-income housing. › The extent to which the Proposed Actions would advance the goal of Housing New York to “preserve rent-regulated … affordable housing,” “stem the tide of units exiting rent stabilization” and “strengthen protections for tenants of rent-stabilized housing,”15 versus the extent to which an influx 15 “Housing New York: A Five-Borough, Ten-Year Plan,” p.52-53. Online at http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/housing/ downloads/pdf/housing_plan.pdf. 15 of housing aimed at higher-income residents might undermine these goals. Mitigation If the City concludes that the proposed rezoning fails to create affordable housing for “all” New Yorkers or is otherwise inconsistent with larger policy initiatives, the City should modify its plans to better meet these goals and/or adopt mitigation strategies to ensure that the proposed rezoning more closely aligns with the City’s stated policy goals. Among other mitigation strategies, the City should consider: › The adoption of the Coalition’s proposed term sheet in order to better advance the creation of lowincome housing. › The adoption of the Coalition’s proposed preservation strategies to more effectively advance the goal of preservation. The City has pledged to “proactively reach out to ... community groups to identify preservation opportunities in the broader housing stock … [to] design and target preservation tools to address the needs of properties that existing programs currently do not serve.”16 We believe that Right to Counsel, a citywide Certificate of No Harassment policy, and an anti-harassment task force will serve critical needs that the City’s current policies and programs do not reach, and we urge the City to implement all three strategies, which have a broad base of community support. The List of Applicable Policies is Incomplete Analysis › The City should analyze the consistency of the Proposed Actions with the City’s Industrial Action Plan. The list of public policies that apply to the study area17 notably excludes Mayor de Blasio’s industrial policy, announced in fall 2015. The Industrial Action Plan is available here: http://www. nycedc.com/industry/industrial and should be named and addressed as a policy that applies to the area. › The City should undertake a study and develop a citywide policy for the auto sector. The Bronx Coalition for a Community Vision and others have been calling for the City to craft an auto sector policy before proceeding with land use actions, such as this one, that will deeply impact the sector. The Jerome auto corridor is the second densest cluster in the City, and 80% of the auto businesses in community districts 4 and 5 are located in the rezoning area. Currently, less than 1% of city land is zoned C-8 and just 14% is zoned M. A citywide study that looks at the city’s need for auto repair, land use considerations, and other issues for the sector’s future is needed to fairly guide actions that will have a major impact on the industry’s local presence, and consider them in the context of citywide needs. Mitigation If the City finds that the Proposed Actions fail to advance the goals of the existing Industrial Action Plan or harm the auto businesses on Jerome Avenue, the City should modify its plans or adopt mitigation strategies as appropriate. These strategies could include: 16 “Housing New York: A Five-Borough, Ten-Year Plan,” p.49. Online at http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/housing/downloads/ pdf/housing_plan.pdf. 17 Draft Scope of Work, p.29. 16 › Maintaining no net loss of C8-3 and M1-2 land and buildable FAR citywide. › Adoption of a citywide policy for the auto sector, as described above. Expansion of Study Area The secondary land use study area should be expanded from a quarter-mile boundary from the rezoning area to a half-mile or more from the rezoning area. The planning area that is mentioned as part of the “JANP” process is a half- mile, and the study area for this land use action should correspond with that of the Plan it is supposed to support. Furthermore, certain analyses detailed in the draft Scope of work will look at half-mile study areas while others do not. This is inconsistent and confusing, and there is no compelling rationale offered for these differences. The Proposed Actions are likely to have far-reaching effects and this proposed rezoning is only the first step in a process that is intended to plan for a much larger area. 17 III. Socio-Economic Conditions Residential Displacement “I’m all for the new. The people who live in the Bronx deserve new, they deserve good, they deserve fair. But they don’t deserve it if the new, the good, and the fair is going to push us out.” - Bronx resident at the Draft Scoping Hearing “My children were born in the Bronx, as well as my grandchildren … I’m not saying we don’t need improvement, but not at the expense of people who have been here for decades … [and] built their communities …” - 30 year resident of 1081 Jerome Avenue at the Draft Scoping Hearing “I have been living here in the southwest Bronx since 1975, and have contributed all I could to help preserve my community, in my adopted home, for my own self and for my family here in New York … I was here during the ugly days when the city of New York as well as Main Street New York disinvested in the borough -- when, as the popular phrase goes, the Bronx was burning. I was here when fire houses were closed; when schools and after-school programs were defunded; when parks and our other green spaces were neglected and left to deteriorate along with other parts of the infrastructure. I was here and stayed here when others were leaving. I was not alone. Tens of thousands of others were here, too. Building families and communities. Creating businesses to serve the communities we were maintaining. Working two and sometimes more jobs to take care of our families. Dedicating our lives to making sure our children get opportunities we did not have, becoming college and university graduates, becoming doctors and nurses and lawyers and engineers and architects and teachers and bio-chemists and judges and physicists and accountants and other career professionals in all areas of life. And here, this evening, in this space, I am before you to decline the reward you have offered me and the rest of us for our decades of struggle to maintain and grow our communities despite all odds. And ‘What is that reward?’ you may ask. My displacement. Our displacement. For that is what you are proposing in your Scope of Work just recently released. You are saying in the clearest possible terms that you need the space we are occupying, that the tens thousands of us have called our home, for others. So we got to go.” - Fitzroy Christian, CASA Tenant Leader & Bronx Coalition for a Community Vision member Progress and change are not the same as gentrification. Gentrification is the process of creating or 18 transforming a neighborhood exclusively for the gentry. Progress can and should mean stability, security, and opportunity for all who live and work in the community - including, even especially, those who have been traditionally disadvantaged and denied access to job and career opportunities and safe, affordable housing. But change that does not fully examine and proactively address the needs of local residents and businesses is likely to become gentrification. Historically, neighborhood-wide rezonings in New York City have failed to slow rising rents or stem the displacement of low-income residents. We will not allow that to happen here. We deserve to build neighborhoods for and by the people who live and work in our community so that we can live with dignity and respect. This includes preventing residential displacement, and preserving jobs for local residents that provide access to pathways for advancement. The Draft Scope documents the current housing conditions of the impact area—or all of Community Boards 4 and 5. Two-thirds of the housing stock is government-regulated. The community is made up primarily of low-income people of color. Median household income is $25,900, and only 25% of households make more than $50,000. Approximately 45% of residents have incomes at or below 30% of AMI. And although rents in the area are lower than in many other parts of the city, they are already above what is affordable for many local residents. In 2014, the most recent year for which we have data, the median asking rents in CB4 and CB5 were $1,395, and $1,250 respectively - levels already unaffordable to well over 2/3 of existing residents. And rents are steadily increasing. The median rent for CB4 rose by 10.3% from 2005 to 2014. In CB5, the corresponding increase was 7.5%.18 Household Income >$20,000 $20,000-$35,000 $35,000-$50,000 $50,000-$75,000 $75,000-$100,000 $100,000 and up AMI Level Below 30% AMI 30%- 40% AMI 40%-60% AMI 60%-80% AMI 80%-120% AMI 120% AMI & up % CB4 Population 40.7% 19.6% 13.4% 14.4% 7.5% 4.4% % CB5 Population 48.7% 18.5% 13.9% 10.2% 4.0% 4.7% U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, 2014. The neighborhoods surrounding Jerome Avenue are majority Latino, with a substantial Black population, and small White and Asian populations. White Black Asian 18 NYC population CB4&5 Combined Population 32.7% 22.6% 13.2% 1.45% 29.1% 1.5% “State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods in 2015”, Furman Center, NYU. 19 Population in Census tracts touching Jerome Ave study area 1.5% 26.7% 2.4% Latino Other 28.8% 66.5% 1.6% 68.5% 1.6% U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, 2014. Unsurprisingly, given the numbers just listed, rent burdening is a serious problem for local residents. In CB4 median rent burden in 2014 was 39.7%, with 47.9% of low-income households severely rent burdened. In CB5, median rent burden in 2014 was 45.6%, with 48.5% of low-income households severely rent burdened. Most tenants (over 55%) pay more than 30% of their income towards rent.19 Household Income AMI <$20,000 $20-$35,000 $35-$50,000 $50-$75,000 $75-$100,000 Below 30% AMI 30% to 40% AMI 40% to 60% AMI 60% to 80% AMI 80% AMI and greater # Rent Burdened Households, CB4&5 Combined 34,617 14,168 7,448 1,740 318 % of Households Rent Burdened, CB4&5 Combined 84% 80% 59% 15% 3% U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, 2014. A survey conducted by the Bronx Coalition for a Community Vision found that 59% of respondents were concerned about being displaced from the neighborhood. Numerous residents have provided examples of both rising rents and landlord harassment as having displaced or threatened to displace them from their homes. At the public scoping hearing, one woman testified, “My family has been in the Bronx for over 60 years and I serve my borough as a case manager for families who are facing displacement … After the rezoning proposals, you can’t even imagine how many more families came to my office praying and begging … Landlords were telling them directly to their face, ‘The rezoning is going to get me a lot of money, I’m going to rent to richer white people’ … Any progress that is made through walking all over us is not for us.” However, the methodology for measuring indirect displacement in the draft scope promises to severely underestimate the real risk to many local residents because it considers only legal forms of displacement. Over half of the housing units in CB4 & 5 are rent stabilized. In theory, these residents are protected from displacement because they have the legal right to a lease renewal, and landlords are legally limited as to the rent increases they can impose. In fact, DCP’s methodology automatically assumes that rent stabilized tenants will not be displaced, and looks no further. But in reality tenants – especially rent stabilized tenants – commonly face a wide range of harassment tactics specifically designed to drive them out of their homes so that landlords can take advantage of both legal loopholes in the rent laws, and insufficient enforcement practices, to raise rents and deregulate apartments. And the displacement of tenants from rent regulated apartments often leads to the deregulation of that apartment, or at least to significant 19 U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, 2014. 20 jumps in the legally allowable rent. In other contexts, the Mayor, HPD commissioner, and other City officials have clearly recognized that rent stabilized tenants face harassment - yet DCP’s methods ignore it. The rezoning area is currently comprised of mostly nonresidential uses. If the rezoning goes through, developers will not need to tear town residential buildings to build higher ones; they will be building on sites that today are empty or include other uses, such as auto businesses. The City therefore projects direct displacement of fewer than 500 residents and concludes that this would not “typically be expected to alter the socioeconomic characteristics of a neighborhood,” making it unnecessary for the City to study direct residential displacement at all. The City does say that it might conduct a detailed analysis of indirect residential displacement – the type that is caused when an influx of higher-income tenants move into a neighborhood and change the local housing market, driving up rents for everyone. But the City MUST commit to looking at this issue, which is critical for our community. The fact that residential displacement isn’t a central area of study is highly problematic. Without a mechanism to create real affordable housing, the more than 12,000 new residents that the rezoning will bring will make at least $25,000 more than the average neighborhood Bronx family. If higher income tenants move in, services will change in the neighborhood and other higher income tenants will move into the rent stabilized housing. As new development targeted at a different population with a different income level increases, the gap between the amount landlords are currently getting in rent stabilized apartments and the amount the local market would bring them – or the amount they believe the local market would bring them – increases, further adding to the perverse incentive structure that tells landlords harassing tenants pays off. Landlords who already engage in a series of illegal behaviors that cause displacement and whose business plans often rely on such displacement, as has been incredibly well documented by grassroots campaigns against predatory equity, will have an even greater incentive to harass lower-income rent-stabilized tenants out of their homes to make way for higher income residents. But the City typically does not examine illegal tactics of harassment and displacement in the environmental review process. Because of this, the City will not be addressing the harsh realities low-income rent stabilized tenants are likely to face after the rezoning—masking the true impact of the City’s actions. Not studying the illegal behavior the rezoning will fuel, and its impact on tenants, is simply irresponsible and unacceptable. This rezoning will result in an increase in both legal and illegal displacement. We cannot and should not have to wait for ULURP to start to hear from the city about a comprehensive anti-displacement plan. In order to accurately evaluate the likely secondary displacement impacts of the proposed rezoning along Jerome Avenue, DCP must not assume that rent regulated tenants are secure in their homes, nor that those units will remain affordable simply thanks to the existing laws and regulations that govern them. Any method of study that accounts only for legal methods of displacement ignores the reality of tenant harassment as a pervasive problem, and dismisses the very real threat of displacement to the rent stabilized tenants of the Bronx. Further, DCP should look at likely secondary displacement impacts in relation to a range of potential 21 development scenarios under proposed zoning changes, because differences in both amounts and rent levels of new housing will have different likely impacts on the rates of indirect residential impact we should anticipate seeing. For example, an assumption that most new units will be built using both MIH and HPD’s ELLA subsidy program would yield an incoming population that is richer and whiter than the current local population. Even though both MIH and HPD’s ELLA subsidy programs generate affordable housing units the majority of the units are priced above the local population and therefore bring an incoming population that is distinct that the current neighborhood. An examination of other neighborhoods that have seen a substantial increase in Non-Hispanic or Latino White population to a previously Black and/or Latino community indicates cause for concern about the impact on both loss of rent regulated housing and rates of rent increases. Citywide, the percent change in the white population decreased by 6.01% from 2000 to 2014. However, in some neighborhoods, the trend was drastically different. Bedford Stuyvesant (Brooklyn CB3) saw the most drastic jump, with the percent change in the white population increasing by 665.76% over that same period. These same neighborhoods saw higher rates of the loss of rent regulated housing than the citywide average, and much higher increases in median rents. The 5 community districts with the highest rates of white share of population increase each saw either an above-average rate of rent increases or an above average rate of loss of rent regulated units – and some had both. The chart below illustrates the correlation. Changes 2000-2014 Rent Citywide BK CB3 (Bedford Stuyvesant) MN CB10 (Central Harlem) BK CB4 (Bushwick) BK CB8 (Crown Hts) BK CB16 (Brownsville) % Change in White Population Rent Reg Loss Change in Median Rent -6.01% 665.76% -17.83% -32.90% 14.7% 26.1% 478.96% -16.30% 24.7% 276.28% 156.93% 108.92% -35.80% -23.83% -14.31% 33.8% 13.0% 24.6% U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, 2014. U.S. Census Bureau; Decennial Census, 2000. Bringing in more than 12,000 residents and displacing almost all of the auto industry is an extreme act. Where is an equally extreme effort to enact an anti-displacement plan for residents who live here now? We need a study that encompasses both the legal and illegal displacement that could occur. Furthermore, the Jerome Avenue proposal does not exist in a vacuum, but rather should be considered in the context of past, current and future actions, and within the context of public and private actions. To the North, the Webster Avenue rezoning has already spurred private investment in the surrounding area.20 20 See Rebecca Baird-Remba, “Permits Filed: 235 West Kingsbridge Road, Kingsbridge Heights,” YIMBY (Sept. 12, 2016) (site on West Kingsbridge Road reported on as an example of a site anticipated to be filed for market development). Online at 22 To the South, there is market rate development ongoing in the Port Morris Section of the Bronx, along with aggressive efforts to “re-brand” the area as the “Piano District,” an approach that has preceded every area being gentrified in the city to date. This market-based development is complemented by the Melrose Common Urban Renewal Plan, substantially developed for affordable housing at 60% AMI and above, which excludes the majority of area residents, targeting “affordable” units for those earning two or more times the incomes of the area residents. To the east, there are plans underway for transforming of the Sheridan Expressway, providing new boulevards and new housing, along with an expanded park and various points of entry for waterfront access. The “impact area” for that proposal stretches from Bronx Park South to the tip of Hunts Point. Now, to the west, there is the Jerome Avenue Rezoning Plan, anticipated to spur the development of over 4,000 units of new housing along 73 blocks, relying on MIH to provide permanent affordability, which is not affordable to the vast majority of local residents, displacing hundreds of jobs, and likely already encouraging displacement and tenant harassment in adjoining neighborhoods by its simple announcement. All of these past, present and anticipated future actions need to be part of the cumulative impact assessment on South Bronx residents as a result of the proposed Jerome Avenue rezoning. Analysis In order to appropriately analyze the likely impacts of the proposed rezoning on residential displacement, DCP should: › Separately analyze preservation and creation of affordable housing. Creation of new affordable housing does not protect existing residents of the community, many of whom will be displaced by the time the new housing is created. › Look both at the impact on that housing stock typically included in the City’s evaluation of units preserved through subsidy and/or regulatory agreements, and at rent regulated housing that lacks additional regulatory frameworks, which is a different and crucial source of affordable housing for which City actions can speed or slow the rate of loss. › Analyze the effect on overall median rents that various city actions could have, examining not just units that fall into particular categories of regulation but also simply affordability levels. › In its analysis of potential displacement, present both best- and worst-case scenarios for the direct displacement that may be caused by the actions of private landowners who may seek to redevelop their sites after the rezoning. Although CEQR [City Environmental Quality Review] typically requires an analysis that illustrates a “conservative assessment of the potential effects of the proposed project on sites likely to be redeveloped,” we are concerned that for an area-wide rezoning of this magnitude, a “conservative assessment” will paint an inaccurately mild picture of potential displacement. Therefore, the City should present both best- and worst-case scenarios so the community can have a better understanding of the full range of possible outcomes in terms of direct displacement. › Conduct a detailed analysis of direct residential displacement, even if DCP’s initial assessment suggests that the amount of direct displacement falls below the threshold that requires a detailed analysis. This detailed analysis would require DCP to examine prevailing trends in vacancies http://newyorkyimby.com/2016/09/permits-filed-235-west-kingsbridge-road-kingsbridge-heights.html. 23 and rental and sale prices in the area… DCP should also conduct a detailed analysis of indirect residential displacement. › Analyze both the extent to which the rezoning may cause indirect residential displacement, and the degree to which it may accelerate displacement that is already occurring. This is required by the CEQR Technical Manual, and it is a critical piece of the analysis because it permits the community to assess whether and the extent to which the rezoning might exacerbate displacement pressures our residents are already experiencing today. In the critical Chinese Staff and Workers case, the New York Court of Appeals held that, “The potential acceleration of the displacement [emphasis added] of local residents and businesses is a secondary long-term effect on population patterns, community goals and neighborhood character such that CEQR requires these impacts on the environment to be considered in an environmental analysis. The fact that the actual construction on the proposed site will not cause the displacement of any residents or businesses is not dispositive for displacement can occur in the community surrounding a project as well as on the site of a project.”21 Typically, the City responds to the community’s concerns about the rezoning by saying that gentrification and displacement are already occurring and by stating, in a conclusory manner, that the rezoning will help address these problems. This is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the CEQR process; the City must analyze the extent to which displacement may be accelerated. › Expressly address the potential displacement risk of vulnerable populations in the area, including: • Tenants in unregulated apartments • Tenants in rent stabilized apartments • Tenants who are rent burdened • Tenants in apartments where regulatory agreements for affordability are expiring • Shelter, halfway house, and three quarter house residents • Residents of cluster site housing • Section 8 voucher holders • People of color • Seniors. One elderly tenant spoke powerfully to the displacement risks faced by seniors at the Draft Scoping hearing: “The majority of us – the most that we make is $25,000 a year… half of that goes to rent. Another quarter goes to your medication. Whatever you got left is for food and for clothing, and God forbid you don’t get sick too many times … What is going to happen to us [seniors]? We can’t go to the shelters anymore, the shelters are full. I worked all my life … If next year, my rent goes up $100 like it did this year, I gotta go. We the seniors need help.” › Analyze and disclose the impacts of past rezonings of similar magnitude as the proposed Jerome Ave rezoning. As part of this, the City should disclose and analyze demographic information suggestive of displacement, including changes (pre and post rezoning) in: • Racial demographics • Local area median income • Educational attainment level of residents 21 Chinese Staff & Workers, 68 N.Y.2d at 367. 24 • Average rent levels in market-rate units • Number of rent-stabilized units • Percentage of non-English speaking populations › Consider the Jerome Avenue proposal in the context of other public and private actions • Under the 1986 Chinese Staff Workers case, when a proposed action is inconsistent with area character and is likely to change neighborhood population patterns and community character, the city is required to consider secondary, as well as cumulative, impacts. • In assessing cumulative displacement, the President’s Council on Environmental Quality explains that consideration should be given to a proposed action’s cumulative effects in the context of “past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of who undertakes the action.” • The cumulative assessment for the proposed Jerome Avenue rezoning should cover an area that at the very least covers Bronx Community Districts 1 through 6. Considerations should include, but not be limited to, direct and indirect resident displacement; loss of political power; loss of cultural expression and interaction; loss of access to necessary and affordable goods and services; loss of social networks, destruction of social capital, and loss of institutional affiliations, including churches. Mitigation The City should analyze, disclose, and adopt a broad range of mitigation strategies for residential antidisplacement, including all those described in the Coalition’s platform. Most importantly, the City must take proactive measures to preserve affordable housing and create high-quality local jobs, as described more fully below. Preservation of Affordable Housing › Pass and fund Intro 214, providing a right to a lawyer for tenants facing the loss of their homes. For many years, advocates and tenants throughout New York City have been advocating for New York to establish a Right to Counsel—a right for New Yorkers facing the loss of their home to have an attorney to defend them even if they are too poor to pay for counsel. From a funding perspective, we are closer to a Right to Counsel than we’ve ever been. But a right is so much more than just funding. We believe that people have a right to stay in their homes and communities with dignity and respect, and that housing court can become a place where justice is applied equitably. A Right to Counsel is a key piece in making these goals a reality. Although the anti-displacement legal services the City has created are an important start, a Right to Counsel would make provision of legal representation less vulnerable to the funding priorities of a future administration and close the gaps in services that are already being provided now (including by guaranteeing services to tenants who may experience displacement pressures, but fall outside the zip codes currently covered by anti-displacement legal services funding). In addition, a Right to Counsel would help ensure tenant safety by empowering tenants to report housing code violations, form tenants’ associations, file overcharge complaints, and even take their landlords to court - secure in the knowledge that they will have legal counsel if a landlord attempts to punish them for exercising their rights. A fully funded and well-implemented Right to Counsel, which could be phased in over time, would be a 25 strong step forward in the path toward institutionalizing justice. More information about the need for and financial benefits of Right to Counsel is attached as Appendix A. › Pass and fund Intro 152-A, which would create citywide “Certificate of No Harassment” requirements, preventing landlords who have harassed tenants from getting certain permits from the Department of Buildings unless they agree to set aside part of the building as permanently affordable housing. This model has been locally effective in the Clinton special district, and should be expanded by requiring that DOB and HPD put a similar policy in place across the city. In addition, the policy should apply to a larger set of DOB permits. More information about the need for and benefits of a citywide Certificate of No Harassment policy is attached as Appendix B. › Create an Anti-Displacement Task Force, with regular meetings between local community organizations and HPD to discuss strategies for preservation. The task force should have the necessary resources to use all of HPD’s available tools, including AEP, 7A, 8A loans, aggressive litigation, and Spiegel, in a collaborative, focused, and consolidated way to maximize impact. › Create a live map of distressed buildings allowing local community groups to map progress and insert updates based on local information gathering. The map should include every residential building in CB 4 & 5, and the following information about each building: • Ownership status, private vs. nonprofit • High rate of violations (3 or more) per unit • Financial Distress • Pattern of Cases in Housing Court • Word of Mouth Harassment Complaints • MCIs • High percentage of units with Preferential Rents • Foreclosure • Level of engagement, including who has done outreach at what time periods, whether an active Tenant Association exists, and whether the building has engaged in litigation › Adopt a new HPD subsidy term sheet to ensure that new housing more closely reflects the income levels of current neighborhood residents. Although new affordable housing should not be thought of as a direct mitigation for displacement, the more closely new housing matches the current income and rent levels, the less likely it is that new development will change neighborhood conditions in a manner that triggers higher rents, gentrification and displacement. Local Hiring There is nothing in this scope about the jobs needed to create more than 4,000 units of housing or the safety requirements for those jobs. 4,000+ units of housing will create about 4,000+ construction jobs. In her testimony at the Public Scoping hearing, a community member asked, “Who will build this new housing? As a woman in the construction industry, my concern is, will women and local residents have opportunities associated with the more than 4000 apartments that are being built? … With unemployment in the community at 15% and the average income at $24,000, the average single woman making less than 26 $20,000, why isn’t the City studying the socioeconomic impact of job creation? … The community deserves the opportunity to join the middle class, just as I did 18 years ago when I was a single mother of three kids … The union provided me with good wages, equal pay, and skills … The working man is not a sucker. Put the money in the hands of the people, and they will put the money back in the community!” Our neighborhoods have a 15% unemployment rate. Only 60% of the population over 16 participates in the labor force. If we are creating jobs in our neighborhood, we need to create jobs for our neighborhood. And not just any job, but safe, well-paying jobs. Moreover, we don’t want jobs—we want pathways to careers. With more than 4,000+ workers needed to build these buildings, we need to ensure that they come through state approved apprenticeship programs and that we have local hire provisions. The city can act now to reform its subsidy programs to mandate local hire and state approved apprenticeship programs. The city can act now to pass legislation to make sure work sites are safe and that workers are protected. The city cannot and should not facilitate the creation of 4,000+ jobs, without making sure they are high quality, well-paying jobs, for the Bronx. › Ensure local hiring, because no apartment is affordable without a job. City agencies (such as HPD) and the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) should make local hiring a requirement of projects they fund. The City should make this a requirement for all agency-funded projects citywide, through either legislation or an Executive Order issued by the Mayor. This would be especially helpful in the rezoning communities, where the City is investing a lot of money, where the risk of displacement is high because of increased development interest, and where the existing need for jobs is great. • When City agencies or the EDC start projects, they put out Requests for Proposal (RFPs) for developers who want to build the projects. These RFPs must include specific local hiring standards and state that developers who are prepared to meet those requirements will be given preference in the selection process. • These standards should be similar to and build on the standards and requirements set in the Build It Back Sandy recovery RFP: - Targeted hire standards: ▫ - 15% of work hours conducted by disadvantaged local residents ▫ - - 30% of work hours conducted by local residents 10% of work hours conducted by women Local Hiring Plan. Requirement that the Contractor develop a plan that ▫ Clearly demonstrates the proposer’s plan and capacity for ensuring compliance with the hiring requirements, and ▫ Identifies local organizations that the Contractor will work with to establish job pipelines and career opportunities on each project. Dedicated Staff. The Contractor must provide at least one full-time staff member dedicated to tracking daily hiring at the job sites and ensuring implementation of the 27 requirements of the Plan. - Reporting Requirements. The Contractor must comply with, in the least, monthly reporting requirements in line with Local Law 140 of 2013, known as the Sandy Tracker Bill. › Provide Job Training & Education to local residents. The City should provide funding for programs to ensure that local residents are eligible and prepared for state certified apprenticeship programs. • Fund GED programs in neighborhoods where apprenticeship programs are being implemented. • Allocate additional funding dedicated to local apprenticeship programs and implement them before construction projects begin so that there is a pool of skilled, available and local workers. The city must also conduct outreach so people know about training programs. • Provide scholarships, childcare and other support to residents so they can access apprenticeship programs. • Allocate funding to enable community-based organizations to provide sector-specific workforce training. The city should fund local Bronx organizations to provide training for industries with a strong presence in the Bronx. Focus trainings on fields that offer high-quality, highly skilled jobs. • HRA and SBS should also have job training programs and transitional job programs that train residents for jobs in the sectors where new jobs are being created. Business Displacement “When I came to this country, the first avenue I knew was Jerome Avenue…and because of my work eventually I was able to own my own business…I want to say to the Governor of New York, the Mayor, the elected officials, you are elected to represent the people, not to take people out, not to take the salaries of the workers of Jerome Avenue. I understand the world is changing and we want to modernize…but the changes have to be with the people and by the people. And not enough people are talking about the auto workers…but we serve the poor people of the Bronx… we want to be part of serving the people of the Bronx, we want to be part of the development of the Bronx. I want the city to remember that every step you take is going to be paid for at the end because this is the town that votes for you.” - Miguel Diez, CASA member and automotive worker “Do you think that the auto workers on Jerome, who work hard every day to provide for their families, do you think they want to get rid of 75% of their jobs? It’s late at night, and one person spoke in favor of the rezoning, and he got booed. It’s very clear what the community wants … The community does not want this deal, and any deal that comes in should benefit them, and require local hire and good jobs like the ones you’re getting rid of on Jerome Avenue … “ -Speaker at Bronx Draft Scope hearing 28 On the Displacement of the Immigrant Auto Industry The scope is completely silent on the benefits of the auto industry. Instead, according to the scope, auto shops (heavy commercial uses), block sidewalks, encourage vehicles to cross into auto shops and parking garages, operate in bays and behind heavy gates removing “eyes from the street,” and produce extreme levels of noise, all of which are generally “incompatible with a strong pedestrian experience.” We will correct that here. Auto repair businesses are an important source of jobs for people of color, immigrants, and people without a high school diploma or college degree. In NYC, more than 60% of auto workers are immigrant, 75% are people of color (with large percentages of African Americans and Latinos), 25% of auto jobs pay $40,000 to $60,000 a year, 23% of auto jobs pay more than $60,000 a year, about 70% of auto workers have a high school diploma or less22. Auto repair jobs—like mechanics and body repair—pay better than other jobs that don’t require a formal degree, like restaurant and retail work. For example, the average annual wage for auto jobs in the New York area is $44,000, compared to $25,00023 for food preparers. The city currently has no stated intention to assess loss of jobs and the impact on the local economy, neighborhood, communities and families. The proposed Jerome Avenue rezoning area is home to more than 100 shops, which employ hundreds of people24. It’s one of the densest auto corridors in the city, with high concentrations of businesses in a small area. This increases the area’s competitiveness, because customers go to places where they can find many services in one place and hunt for the best price. These businesses show no signs of wanting to move within the next 10 years. 77% of businesses surveyed along Jerome Avenue by United Auto Merchants Association (UAMA) say they plan on staying. 60% of these businesses have been operating and providing jobs on the corridor for more than 15 years. Despite these “retention areas,” the zoning of 83% of the land currently available for auto-related uses will change to allow housing. Landlords will be able to make more money from their property by selling it, or redeveloping it to build housing or bring in businesses that can pay higher rents. Under the current plan, the land the city will keep available for auto-related uses represents less than onethird of Jerome’s auto sector. Only 28% of existing auto businesses are in these retention areas, and only 26% of Jerome’s auto repair workers work at these businesses25. The rezoning plan’s message to the predominantly Dominican Auto Industry is: Get Out of the Way. The proposed rezoning corridor is a complex economic ecosystem that includes tenant businesses, subtenant businesses, and a large workforce with high percentages of immigrants who derive their livelihoods in a variety of arrangements, including full time, part time, and “per job” commissions. These conditions are poorly captured by traditional data sets. When considering the analysis of business and 22 23 24 25 ACS PUMS 5 Year 2014 NYSDOL Occupational Employment Statistics UAMA Auto Survey 2015 NETS 2014 29 worker displacement, it will be essential for the scope of the DEIS and the DEIS not to rely on standard methods of “behind the desk” data sets and to instead incorporate field data that is reflective of the reality of businesses and workers in the rezoning corridor. In addition, many restaurants, retail stores, churches and social service organizations currently rent space on the streets that will be rezoned. Under rezoning, they risk being displaced as property owners demolish their buildings, rebuild and seek higher paying tenants. To date, the city has expressed an indifferent view to the fate of the auto sector. Hundreds of shops were displaced from Willets Point to make way for more “attractive” uses at the expense of a largely immigrant workforce. Without a plan to accommodate the relocation or meaningful retention of the auto sector on Jerome Ave, the businesses and workers who have made their living in the area for decades will be forced out of business and out of work with nowhere to go. The city must change its stance on the fate of the auto sector or risk widening the gap of economic equality instead of closing it as intended by this administration. Context Auto and Industrial businesses are valuable and will experience significant negative impacts due to the proposed rezoning. This reality is disregarded by the Draft Scope and documents upon which it relies. The proposed Jerome Avenue rezoning will have a significant impact on auto related and industrial businesses that currently exist in the study area. There are statements in the draft Scope that indicate that this sector is not valued by the City and subsequently scapegoated for many of the negative characteristics currently associated with Jerome Avenue. For example, the draft Scope cites noise levels that destroy the pedestrian experience on Jerome Ave26 as attributed to uses under the current zoning in C8-3 and M1-2 (i.e. auto). Considering that the Jerome is located underneath an elevated train, it’s disingenuous to portray local businesses as the sole or even primary source of noise on the avenue. The draft Scope also relies on documents that include similarly biased and unsubstantiated claims about the auto industry. For example, the Place-Based Community Brownfield Planning Foundation Report on Existing Conditions – Jerome Avenue Corridor (2015) states27, without any substantiation: “Despite their proximity to mass transit stations, both Cromwell and Jerome Avenues are lined with dismantling shops, junk yards, open parking lots and auto-repair shops whose operations frequently spill over into the public streets and sidewalks. These uses do not generate significant jobs or provide basic services to local residents.” It seems that the displacement of this sector which is so critical to providing employment opportunities to a vulnerable and largely immigrant workforce is a major intended outcome of the proposed actions. At the 26 DEIS 15. 27 Place-Based Community Brownfield Planning Foundation Report on Existing Conditions – Jerome Avenue Corridor (2015), 10 30 same time, the extent to which auto and industrial businesses will be impacted is underestimated because of methodological flaws at various points of analysis, including the selection of projected and potential sites, the counting of jobs, and the individualized approach to economic impact that does not take into account the impact of disrupting clusters. As described below, we urge a fairer methodology to analyzing the impacts on the auto and industrial sectors in the study area. Furthermore, the draft Scope rationalizes the displacement of these specialized businesses that provide well-paying jobs with the idea that general retail development is a better alternative that is currently being stifled under existing zoning. However, the DEIS’s own analysis showing an expected increase of 200,000 sq ft of commercial space under the no action scenario contradicts the conclusion that current zoning is stifling the retail sector. We urge the City to study alternatives to the proposed land use actions that would enhance the opportunities for well-paying jobs in the Jerome Avenue corridor instead of dismantling them. The study area has a staggeringly high unemployment rate of 17%28 and a large population of residents who need access to quality blue-collar jobs. The auto repair and industrial sectors pay far higher wages on average -- $44,000 and $50,000 per year respectively -- than the retail sector, which pays an average of $24,000 per year.29 As described above, the auto industry is a critical source of quality jobs for people of color and immigrants with limited formal education. The proposed actions and subsequent displacement of auto related businesses will remove the job opportunities provided by the auto sector almost entirely from this area of the Bronx. 80% of auto related businesses within Community Districts 4 and 5 exist within the rezoning area. Analysis 1. Assessing and describing job quantities and qualities; a more accurate methodology is needed The draft Scope cites an increase of 1,016 jobs30 as a result of the rezoning over a “No Action” scenario, yet fails to provide reference as to how this number was determined,31 what percent of these jobs are expected to pay a living wage and in which sectors, and - assuming this is a net figure - what number and type of job loss it obscures. DCP should disclose the methodology used to create this number, and be transparent about which sectors and wages these new employees are likely to be associated with, and about what can and cannot be known from the analysis. The City’s proposed method for assessing job displacement improperly relies on counts from New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) and US Census. The Jerome Ave rezoning geography is far too small for either data set to produce an accurate count of jobs and many of the auto businesses employ workers that would not be represented in official record for various reasons32. Fortunately, the CEQR technical manual explicitly allows for alternatives, stating that the City can use information collected and published 28 29 30 31 32 Department of City Planning Jerome Ave Neighborhood Profile. NYSBLS Occupational Employment Statistics. DSOW Table 1, Pg 27. A footnote in the document offers calculations for expected resident increase but not worker increase. Workers not on official payroll would not be counted in datasets relying on unemployment insurance. 31 by local organizations to characterize the employment of businesses in the rezoning area.33 Department of Small Business Service (DSBS) recently contracted with three local community based organizations (WHEDco and Davidson), to collect detailed data as part of their Commercial District Needs Assessment (CDNA) process. It also contracted with another community-based organization, United Auto Merchant Association (UAMA) to obtain additional critical data about the auto industry in the area. DCP should incorporate this data as well as other primary methods to base their analysis on – instead of data sets that will grossly undercount the workforce. As part of this, the DEIS should analyze the change in the number of auto-related businesses and workers in the corridor since DCP’s initial field study and incorporate those trends into its displacement analysis. Using data collected through these and other appropriate methods, the City should disclose real job numbers for any businesses identified as being likely to be directly or indirectly displaced by rezoning. Further, the City should explicitly disclose which businesses would be directly or indirectly displaced from rezoning are family-owned and operated versus which are chain store businesses Development projections are too conservative and the business displacement analysis will not capture actual impacts on auto or industrial businesses. The draft Scope proposes to measure direct business displacement based on a site-by-site analysis of where DCP projects development to take place. The factors that are considered for determining the projected development sites assume that development occurs in an isolated vacuum. The problems with estimating where there will be new development are described in the section about the RWCDS, but new development is not the only way a business can be displaced on a site. Tenant businesses are particularly vulnerable to the actions of landlords who seek to replace businesses that pay lower rents with ones that pay higher rents, which is often the pattern that is triggered by dramatic changes in land values in an area. The City should take into account a full range of variables when assessing which businesses could be indirectly displaced by rezoning. These variables should include business tenure and whether the business owns or rents. 2. Direct and indirect displacement analysis must take into account the importance of clustering The CEQR technical manual states that “indirect displacement of businesses may occur if a project directly displaces any type of use that either directly supports businesses in the area or brings a customer base to the area for local businesses”34 and allows for wide discretion for how that analysis can be conducted. There is an important symbiotic relationship that exists between auto retail and auto repair businesses, and among auto related businesses in general; clustering is essential to the survival of the sector. The auto businesses in the rezoning area that are licensed by the Department of Motor Vehicles is one of the most tightly clustered auto corridors in the City. An analysis by the Pratt Center for Community Development reveals that the industry is highly clustered citywide – with half of all DMV shops forming part of 18 main clusters. Of these clusters, Jerome Avenue is the second densest, with the equivalence of 344 shops per 33 34 Section 5-6, 321.2 Section 5-9, 322.2 32 square mile. It is difficult for auto shops to survive outside of clusters, and as auto shops are displaced clusters are broken up or weakened, a domino effect takes place. An important element of these auto clusters is the auto retail component. Without the nearby presence of auto repair shops, auto retail becomes barely viable. Therefore, a disrupted cluster has impacts on repair and auto shops. The City must acknowledge this relationship and employ a methodology that will accurately assess the impact of rezoning on the full Jerome auto economic ecosystem, including the retail component. DCP must include a detailed methodology of how this will be achieved in the Final Scope of Work. The Draft Scope of Work references that significant adverse impact of direct business displacement will be found if “the businesses to be displaced provide products or services essential to the local economy that would no longer be available in its “Trade area” to local residents or businesses due to the difficulty of either relocating the businesses or establishing new, comparable businesses”35. When assessing the auto industries trade area, the city should consider the auto cluster that exists on Jerome Ave as the major driver of commerce and a competitive advantage over other districts due to the concentration and diversity of services and prices. The City must evaluate whether there are other clusters of similar density and diversity, or areas where such a cluster could relocate to within the “trade area”. If not, the city should determine a significant adverse impact. As described in CEQR there is no established “trade area” that is applicable to all types of businesses.36 Because of the number of auto businesses on the Jerome Ave corridor the trade area should be reflective of the customer base that is attracted to this large cluster. CEQR states that a trade area should be determined by the geography from which the majority of customers or clients of the businesses are drawn. To identify a trade area for the Jerome Ave auto cluster DCP should convene a working group of auto business workers, owners, and industry trade groups as well as local CDC’s to develop a representative trade area of this cluster. Establishing a trade area for which to evaluate the sector is critical to accurately identifying the size of the customer base that is likely to be impacted by this rezoning. As the auto sector by nature enables more range of businesses for consumers to choose from the trade area for the Jerome Ave auto cluster is likely to be quite large. If a trade area that is too small is chosen to evaluate the auto sector it is likely that full breadth of economic activity created by the Jerome Ave auto cluster will be undercut as well as the impact on consumers from a larger area than just the rezoning geography. The EIS should evaluate the impacts of displacement of auto workers in the context of citywide trends and the shrinking availability of, and increased competition in, land that is zoned appropriately for auto uses. It should evaluate prospects for relocation by considering actual vacancy rates and the competitive disadvantages that auto related businesses face against other uses that are allowed in C8, M1, M2, or M3 zones that can pay much higher rents. 35 36 Section 5-6, 321.2 CEQRA, Socio Economic Conditions 5-10, 5-4. 33 3. A comparable area to study indirect business displacement must reflect characteristics of Jerome Ave CEQR states that a preliminary assessment of indirect business displacement will identify trends that may make it difficult for existing businesses to remain in the area. CEQRA cites trends to include property values that have seen increases in other areas and similarly, rents that have reflected those increases in other areas. In order to accurately conduct this analysis the city must identify a comparison area that has the following characteristics and disclose all similarities in the Final Scope of Work: › Similar public transit access › Similar proximity to arterial roads › Similar existing building stock and lot sizes › Similar existing business composition › Similar increase in density under zoning action DCP has cited Webster Ave as a comparable location to Jerome, but the city must not use Webster Ave as a comparison area to assess indirect business displacement based on increase in rents and property values. Webster Ave does not have the same transit access, proximity to major roads, or increase in density under zoning action as proposed for Jerome Ave and therefore cannot be used as a comparison area. 4. The proposed rezoning does not fit the existing retail landscape of Jerome Ave Apart from the concentration of auto related businesses, Jerome Ave is a vibrant and active retail corridor with an incredibly diverse range of businesses. DCP has documented these businesses and the building types and sizes that they inhabit in their existing conditions report. Yet, the proposed zoning does not fit the needs of these businesses. As exhibited in the proposed and potential site analysis, the zoning designations encourage the agglomeration of sites into large lots to make housing development attractive. This lot consolidation will increase the floor plates of the ground floor commercial space to sizes likely too large for many of the smaller local retailers whose needs are for small affordable spaces as exhibited on the corridor currently. Developers are more likely to try and attract a single large ground floor commercial tenant than a number of smaller tenants as the single user creates more financial security for the project.37 Further, it is likely that newly constructed commercial space will rent for higher prices than the existing spaces and may be out of reach for many smaller local businesses. The City should conduct an analysis that would show current land value in existing building conditions versus anticipated land value under fully built out conditions as determined by area rezoning. This analysis should also provide an estimated price per square foot for renters under existing and future conditions since the cost of space is likely to determine what kind of business can exist in the new development. While the Department of Small Business Services has undertaken a notable initiative in the form of the 37 ILSR Affordable Space, How Rising Commercial Rents are Threatening Independent Businesses, 11. 34 Commercial District Needs Assessment and subsequent programmatic funding opportunities, this initiative cannot be seen as a mitigation measure for the likely displacement of many small local retailers at any point within the Final Scope of Work or Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The programs offer no security for these businesses against the strong market forces of development that the rezoning will bring to the neighborhood. 5. “Retention Zones” are Insufficient to accomplish their stated goal; alternatives should be studied The Draft Scope of Work sites that significant adverse impact of direct business displacement will be determined based on business displacement within a discrete trade area where their products are services are not offered by other businesses and whether a category of business is the subject of other regulations or publicly adopted plans to preserve enhance or otherwise protect it. The draft scope of work references four areas, currently zoned C8 and M1 (heavy commercial and light manufacturing), that are excluded from the rezoning as “retention zones” in order to support the auto and industrial sectors. While factors of consideration that are mentioned include number and types of businesses as well as jobs, the specific goals are not explained, nor is the magnitude of job or business support disclosed that is expected to be accomplished. The Scope should cite the number and type of businesses, and number of workers that this action is aiming to protect, as well as provide a more detailed rationale for how this action fits into the overall impact of the proposed actions. These so-called “retention zones” are grossly insufficient in size and not protected well enough in the plan to accomplish the stated goal. As such, they cannot be classified as a regulation or policy that will preserve enhance or otherwise mitigate or reduce the impact of business displacement within the auto sector in any section of the Draft Scope or Environmental Impact Statement. The “retention zones” are not up to the task for multiple reasons: › They have little to no vacancy - The City’s own analysis shows almost no vacant space within the retention zones to accept displaced businesses. DCP should make explicit their vacancy analysis within the “retention zones”. › The retention zones - even in their current state – primarily house non-auto or industrial uses. More than 50% of the area in these zones is already occupied by other uses. The draft scope even makes reference to recent gym, restaurant and self-storage developments in C8 and M zoned areas of the study area indicating the permeability of this zoning.38 DCP should make explicit the existing business composition within the “retention zones” including a full count of the number of auto related businesses and jobs that exist in these zones. › The zones only house a small portion of the Jerome Avenue auto cluster. Just ¼ of the auto businesses in the area actually operates within them. › The existing zoning designation – without additional protections for auto and industrial uses – is insufficient to protect these businesses against competition from higher paying uses ranging from self-storage to restaurants, which can operate as of right within both M and C8 zones. › Because the zones are designed to be separated by high density residential development, the 38 DSOW 12. 35 vulnerability of these businesses will increase. This land use pattern makes it unlikely that existing auto uses will be able to survive in the future there due to market pressures and compatibility issues. Mitigation To better support the auto and industrial sectors that exist on Jerome Avenue the City should study a range of alternative land use actions. Guidance for how these can be considered appears in the section of these comments that refers to Alternatives. In brief, the City should study and consider options that 1) include the proposed retention areas in the Special District and add protections, 2) expand the retention areas 3) employ creative zoning tools designed for outcomes that generate blue-collar jobs and/or 4) combine these approaches as appropriate. 1. Any potential relocation plan must be well considered and account for the specific locational needs of auto businesses. The City should provide relocation support for those businesses that are displaced through the rezoning. To do this the City should include in the Final Scope of Work and the DEIS an analysis of vacant, appropriately zoned, and otherwise suitable (correct certificate of occupancy) potentially viable sites for potential relocation, at various sizes, ranging from individual business level to sites that could accommodate a cluster of businesses and/or a vertical arrangement. These should be actual sites in the Bronx and/or Upper Manhattan and the analysis should include an evaluation of factors that rank the locations’ viability based on size, proximity to transit, proximity to major roadways, correct certificate of occupancy, or cityowned. Additional input from auto merchants in the area should be incorporated to identify criteria for collective relocation (such as size, distance from original location, building type, distance from transit). If a suitable location(s) based on mutually agreed upon criteria is identified, the city should sufficiently fund investments in the site and costs of business relocation up front and not as a reimbursement. 2. DCP must use zoning as tool to ensure a diverse range of retailers on Jerome Ave The City must deploy regulations within the Jerome Ave Special District that ensure the continued viability of small independent businesses that can serve residents at existing income levels in the area. These regulations should include requirements for developers to provide a range of commercial space sizes within large sized lots created through agglomeration. These regulations should be incorporated into the zoning text of the Jerome Ave Special District. 3. The City must expand its understanding of the auto sector in terms of its value, services, and future needs The City must conduct a study of the auto sector corridors throughout the five boroughs that assesses the real needs of workers and owners and the unique challenges that they face. Absent of an organized policy it is likely that the auto industry will bear the impact of future rezonings as the space they inhabit is seen as “underutilized” when evaluated through the narrow lens of unused FAR and potential for building large scale residential complexes. The study should be advised by a Steering Committee that includes 36 auto business owners and workers, and conducted by an entity that can fairly value the contributions of the sector to the city as a whole, including the necessary service it provides to consumers and as part of the city’s infrastructure system, the entrepreneurship and employment pathways it creates, and economic contribution. The study should lead to the development of a coherent policy that addresses the sector’s current needs, plans for and equips workers and businesses for industry changes, and makes recommendations for citywide land-use policies that address those realities so as to reduce the impact on the auto sector in future rezonings. As part of a comprehensive alternative to the proposed action, the City should communicate with businesses in collective forums and groupings, recognizing cooperative structures and ensure that local, small businesses can be physically located in and thrive in the new, rezoned area. Ways to accomplish this include: › Giving preference for return to local businesses. To do this, the City should create a system to offer existing, interested businesses in the proposed rezoning area a “right of first return” or preference in occupying new space(s) created by development. To support this policy, the City must consult with existing small local businesses and craft its zoning plan accordingly, as described at the beginning of this document. › Limiting increases in rents to no more than 5% in the rezoning area through all legal mechanisms, including requirements on developments that receive public subsidy, and throughout the City through citywide legislation. 37 IV. Community Facilities Context Community facilities such as schools, libraries, and early child care will undoubtedly be impacted by the city’s rezoning actions. Adding a substantial new population to the Jerome Ave corridor will further exasperate these already strained facilities lack of capacity. Schools in the rezoning area are already overburdened; many currently use temporary or transportable classroom seats just to keep up with the demand from current students. The addition of a potential 11,000 residents, many of which will be school aged, will make the current environment of overcrowding worse - further impacting the learning environment of existing students. Further, the CEQR manual fails to study anything apart from the impacts of overcrowding on schools, which is a shortcoming that must be addressed immediately. Students in the area are performing at below standard rates for a number of reasons ranging from sub par teachers to youth homelessness. Investment is needed now to ensure that those attending public schools in the area are given the quality education that they deserve before the city even thinks about adding additional students. In order to fully understand the impact of land use changes on schools CEQR needs to broaden its scope to include other indicators that should be developed in collaboration with students, teachers, community groups, and professionals. Additionally, the current population projections for expected students, and residents in general, are based on assumptions of the number of projected dwelling units that will be developed under existing MIH options. The Bronx Coalition for a Community Vision has developed its own term sheet that offers deeper affordability levels (see section 2, Land Use and Public Policy) that should be incorporated into the city’s DSOW and DEIS. The city should update its population and student projections to reflect the coalition’s term sheet which will likely increase the number of children requiring early child care facilities as well as students projected for the area as a result of the rezoning. Analysis › The City should evaluate future impact of proposed changes on each neighborhood. For each neighborhood that will be affected by the rezoning, DCP and related agencies should create a profile that analyzes and addresses increased demand for community facilities and services that the rezoning will create. Each neighborhood profile should: • Explain the impact of a proposed zoning change on housing, schools, parks, transportation, and other facilities and services in the area. • Include clear proposals of how and when the future needs will be addressed, with details specific to each neighborhood. › Schools 38 • Transportable classrooms and annex buildings are a fact of life in Districts 9 and 10. These facilities are meant to be temporary and the City should not count the school seats in these subpar facilities when calculating current utilization rates in the DEIS. • The City should not take into account school seat capacity within the DEIS for projects under the DOE five year capital plan unless site preparation or construction has commenced for those projects. • CEQR’s current criteria for determining if there will be a significant adverse impact on school utilization has a critical flaw. Instead of just requiring that the post-rezoning “target utilization rate” be above 100 to make the determination of a significant adverse impact, it also requires that there be an at least 5% increase in utilization rates after the rezoning. Given that schools in this area are already overburdened, a post-rezoning target utilization rate of anything over 100 should be enough to qualify a significant adverse impact. • CEQR states that only schools that are currently under construction can be referenced in the quantitative analysis of utilization. However, CEQR does allow potential school seats that are neither under construction nor in the School Construction Authority’s 5-year plan to be considered in qualitative analyses. This is risky. School construction projects, like so many other major real estate projects across the City, are complicated, expensive undertakings that are hypothetical until a shovel hits the ground, so the City should not count its chickens before they hatch. • The City must expand the CEQR manual to go beyond utilization rates and analyze performance and quality-related metrics when making decisions about impacts on schools. In 2013, 87% of students in grades 3-8 failed to meet grade-level math standards. Many teachers in the area are less qualified than their peers across the City, English language learners often don’t get the resources and support they need, and discipline and suspension are often favored over giving students with challenges the meaningful and constructive support they need. • The City should account for the space being consumed by charter schools within public school buildings and increased need for charter school space due to proposed rezoning project and should adjust estimates. • The City should take into account input from the CSD Superintendent, local Community Education Council, community education activists and socials service and health providers operating in school buildings on the growth patterns in the impacted schools in the study area in both the analysis and mitigation process of ULURP. • The City should update its student population projections to reflect the affordability levels offered by the Bronx Coalition for a Community Visions term sheet. › General facilities • The City should take into account space needs of neighborhood anchors that operate within schools in addition to the school seats themselves (i.e., Beacon, school based health clinics, etc.). › Libraries • CEQR’s definition of a library catchment area is a simple ¾-mile radius around a library itself. This geography does not take into account significant physical barriers, such as the Cross-Bronx 39 Expressway, that may make it harder for people of all ages to access a local library. The City must recognize these types of physical barriers and adjust library catchment areas accordingly. • In the past (e.g., the recent East New York rezoning), the City has claimed no significant adverse impacts in cases when an overburdened library’s catchment area overlaps with a catchment area of a library with capacity. Nowhere in CEQR does it state that this is allowed, and this should not be claimed in the case of Jerome Avenue environmental impact review should such a scenario occur. • The City should expand its library analysis beyond the current holdings-to-population ratio as the only measure of analysis to be used in determining a library’s utility. • The city should incorporate metrics into its analysis that display the services libraries provide in terms of community space and educational access. › Child care • In assessing significant impact on childcare facilities, the City should review waitlist information to better understand to what degree which childcare facilities are already seeing more demand than they can accommodate. • As with public schools, CEQR’s current criteria for determining if there will be a significant adverse impact on child care facilities has a critical flaw. Instead of just requiring that the post-rezoning “target utilization rate” be above 100 to make the determination of a significant adverse impact, it also requires that there be an at least 5% increase in utilization rates after the rezoning. Given that child care facilities in this area are already do not meet local demand, a post-rezoning target utilization rate of anything over 100 should be enough to qualify a significant adverse impact. • The City should update its early child care projections to reflect the affordability levels offered by the Bronx Coalition for a Community Visions term sheet which will produce more children requiring city funded early child care. Mitigation The City should analyze, disclose, and adopt mitigation strategies to ensure that community facilities are properly developed and funded, including. The Bronx Coalition for a Community Vision has identified specific policies that could mitigate the impacts on community facilities. These strategies have been outlined in both the Coalition’s platform and in letters previously sent by the Coalition to the Department of City Planning (attached as an Appendix), and include: (1) community facility zoning, (2) subsidies and programmatic commitments for new community facilities, (3) a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) fund to help support community facility uses, and (4) passage of a Community Benefits Ordinance. 40 V. Open Space Because of the public health crisis and high rates of obesity, diabetes, stress, and heart disease in the neighborhoods surrounding Jerome Avenue, ensuring that there is adequate, accessible, quality open space that meets the needs of residents and workers is especially critical. Any impacts that diminish available open space should be mitigated. Unfortunately, there are examples of significant adverse impact being found as a result of rezonings in the Bronx, where mitigations are grossly insufficient or not proposed at all. The methodology in the CEQR manual for calculating impact is complex and flawed. For example, ratios are based on acreage per residents. The special needs of neighborhoods with large youth populations, for example, are not taken into account through this ratio. Additionally, whether an area is well-served, or underserved according to the City’s guidelines determines the triggers for performing analyses, but an existing condition of underservice, for example, even if it is worsened by a proposed action does not automatically qualify as a significant adverse impact. This methodology allows for the consistent and repeated chipping away of open space access through land use with requiring mitigation. Analysis To determine the worker and daytime population, the draft Scope of work proposes to use the Census Journey to Work Data. As mentioned elsewhere, formal data sets will undercount the employees in the auto sector. The open space analysis for workers should be based on the most accurate data and should take into account the information obtained by field surveying - through direct agency efforts or through subcontracts issued to community-based organizations. The draft Scope indicates that future development that is anticipated to be completed by 2026 as well as future new open space that is anticipated to be completed by 2026 will be accounted for in the analysis. Without a full listing of the developments in each of those categories that will be included in the analysis, it is impossible for the public to comment on the list and to make additions or comment on the likelihood of development. It is also unclear how DCP will determine which projects are eligible for inclusion. The qualitative analysis referenced on page 37 should be a participatory process that involves community members in order to ensure that the full range of issues are captured, including limits in access that are created by unsafe roadways and proximity to the Cross Bronx Expressway, and by social and physical factors related to safety. Mitigation The CEQR manual’s methodology for assessing impact is inadequate. Mitigations should be designed in collaboration with the community to address the issues that they identify. 41 VI. Shadows The coalition is concerned with shadows cast from the proposed zoning district alongside the elevated infrastructure of the 4 train where substantial up-zoning has been proposed. The elevated train #6 and Jerome Avenue both run from south to north. Consequently, any new structures exceeding 50 feet in height will cast shadows on train infrastructure during both sunrise and sunset. The shadows cast by these buildings could have significant adverse impacts on neighboring buildings and streets, which could experience significantly less hours of sunlight. This is particularly concerning during the winter months when there is the greatest need for sunlight. Also, 6 community gardens may have shadow impact that might affect the productivity and quality of those open spaces in the community. Analysis › The EIS should assess the shadow impact of buildings where zoning has been proposed that will allow structures higher than 50 feet alongside the elevated infrastructure of the train. › The EIS should include a comparative assessment of shadow impacts between the RWCDS and a lesser build/lesser density alternative, as well as a redistributed bulk alternative. › Any new structures next to public spaces such as parks, plazas, and playgrounds should be carefully studied by the EIS to determine shadow impacts. Special attention should be paid to the following public spaces located inside of the proposed up-zoning area and the EIS should clearly state how many hours per day the site will be in full or partial shadow for each season: • Mullaly Park • Keltch park • Goble Playground • Inwood Park • Jerome Playground site • Jennie Jerome Playground Mitigation There are not enough details on proposed mitigation strategies on the DEIS to address shadow impact on the elevated train infrastructure and the public open spaces surrounded by the proposed rezoning. If shadow impact is found, the city should reduce the height of the adjacent buildings. 42 VII. Urban Design and Visual Resources The proposed up-zoning is located less than a quarter mile from the Grand Concourse Historic District. The proposed action is within a unique location that is surrounded by not only historically relevant areas such the already mentioned Grand Concourse Historic District but also unique characteristics of the multi-family residences towards the Harlem River. The study area for rezoning not only should contextualize with the historic district but also maintain some of the current area character. The community districts that comprise the Jerome Avenue Rezoning area have a very limited amount of existing public open space. This already has a negative impact on the physical and mental health of community residents. Additionally, the city’s estimated increase of 11,788 new residents will have a detrimental effect if no actions are taken to increase the amount of public open space, which is necessary to contribute to a better built environment. Analysis › A more detailed assessment of the urban design and visual resources should be included by the city to ensure the new development responds to the unique condition of the surrounded context located in the close proximity that has so much historic value. This should include 3-D studies or photo-simulations showing massing options for the proposed action on the development sites in the following two ways: • The newly proposed high-density character in relationship with the existing neighborhood scale context and character in relationship with the Grand Concourse Historic district • The newly proposed high-density character in relationship with the elevated infrastructure of the number 4 train. › An assessment about the need of public spaces that encourage small gathering should be done by the city taking in consideration the current and expected population. Enough access to small gathering space is a pivotal urban design element to make the neighborhood more livable. Mitigation › The rezoning should have specific urban design parameters in terms of scale and street front to ease the transition between the adjacent context and the new development. › Incentives should be provided to increase the availability of small gathering spaces and plaza. 43 VIII. Transportation Context Increased housing and population in the Jerome Avenue corridor as a result of the rezoning will undoubtedly create increased demand for road space, public transportation, and parking. We suggest that DCP incorporate the following comments into the Final Scope of Work to ensure an accurate analysis of these impacts that will lead to appropriate mitigation strategies. The CEQR technical manual states that projects located near stadiums should have peak periods of travel demand account for game day traffic.39 The Jerome Avenue study area is just north of Yankee stadium and located directly under the 4 train, which provides access to Yankee Stadium. Parking facilities within the rezoning area currently supply spaces for attendees on game days. As such, peak hours for analysis must account for game day traffic for all modes of transportation in the Final Scope of Work and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Under the with-action-scenario, many existing parking facilities are expected to be developed for housing. The transportation analysis as related to game day peak traffic should account for this loss of parking. As baseball season has recently ended, DCP must disclose an explicit methodology in the Final Scope of Work and Draft Environmental Impact Statement of how it will include game day traffic peak demand estimates in the transportation analysis without ongoing games to assess traffic levels during. The Draft Scope of Work lists 37 intersections that will be included in the DEIS traffic analysis. However, there is no mention of the on or off ramps of the Cross Bronx Expressway as intersections to evaluate in the traffic study. DCP must include the Cross Bronx exits and on ramps in the traffic analysis as these will be major access points for travel to and from the Jerome Ave rezoning area. DCP recently released a Cromwell Jerome Ave Transportation Study as a standalone report from the rezoning process. The study focuses on improving safety conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, enhancing pedestrian spaces, increased traffic control measures, and improved connections to transit. The report makes a number of recommendations that work to achieve these goals. However, conspicuously absent from the report is any mention of the impact these interventions may have on the existing businesses in the area. The Jerome Ave rezoning area is currently zoned almost exclusively for heavy commercial or industrial uses. DCP must acknowledge the existence of these types of businesses in their transportation analysis and include an analysis of how loading zones, auxiliary parking, and storage areas will be impacted by both the expected increased traffic in the area and also safety interventions as proposed by the Cromwell Jerome Ave Transportation Study. 39 CEQR 16-19. 44 The Draft Scope of Work states that parking demand generated by residential growth will be forecast based on auto ownership data for the rezoning area and surrounding area. New housing, as proposed under MIH, that will be constructed in the rezoning area will serve an income bracket far higher than that of current residents living in and around it. These new residents will likely have higher car ownership rates because of their higher income. The city should choose an area that has housing at comparable affordability rates to that of the projected units and should use auto ownership rates in that area as a forecast for parking demand. This comparable area should also have similar expected density, transit access, proximity to major roads, and population to RWCDS residential growth. The Bronx Coalition for a Community Vision is also calling for development that conforms to a term sheet that accomplishes much deeper affordability. The transit and auto ownership patterns for the population in this alternative should also be studied. All of this information should be disclosed explicitly in the Final Scope of Work and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Analysis 7.1 Yankee stadium will produce additional traffic that must be accounted for in transportation analysis. › The city must explicitly state how it will measure the impacts of Yankee Stadium on transportation in the rezoning area within the DSOW. › The city must include a methodology for how they will analyze the traffic impacts caused by a reduced number of parking lots as a result of RWCDS development on traffic for game days. › The city must detail their methodology for peak game day traffic in the absence of ongoing league play. 7.2 The intersection analysis must account for traffic going to and coming off of the Cross Bronx Expressway. › DCP must include the Cross Bronx exits and on ramps in the traffic intersection analysis as these will be major access points for travel to and from the Jerome Ave rezoning area. 7.3 DCP must adjust mitigation strategies to reflect the needs and operations of existing industrial and auto businesses. › DCP must acknowledge the existence of these types of businesses in their transportation analysis and include a detailed methodology for how loading zones, auxiliary parking, and storage areas that are critical to business operations will be impacted by both the expected increased traffic in the area and also by the safety interventions as proposed by the Cromwell Jerome Ave Transportation Study. 7.3 DCP should choose a more comparable area to evaluate impacts on parking and auto ownership. › The City must choose areas that have housing at comparable affordability rates to those of the projected units under the alternatives that are studied. DCP should use auto ownership rates in 45 those areas as a forecast for additional parking demand instead of housing rates in the study area. • This comparable area should also have similar expected density, transit access, proximity to major roads, and population to RWCDS residential growth. All of this information should be disclosed explicitly in the Final Scope of Work and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 7.4 Construction will have a significant impact on traffic and transportation within the rezoning area. The Final Scope of Work and Draft Environmental Impact Statement must include a travel demand forecast and traffic analysis for the construction period. › The Final Scope of Work and Draft Environmental Impact Statement must include a travel demand forecast and traffic analysis for the construction period. The construction activities associated with the Proposed Actions’ RWCDS meet all three criteria required for such an analysis according to the CEQR Technical Manual.40 • The construction analysis must also include peak demand impacts of Yankee stadium game days. Mitigation › It is likely that a Significant Adverse Impact will be found in the transportation section of the EIS due to the large influx of residents and already strained transit network. Any proposed mitigation strategy to address the SAI on traffic taken from the standalone Cromwell Jerome Ave Transportation Study must be revisited as part of the Final Scope of Work and Draft Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate the potential effects these interventions may have on auto and industrial business operations. › It should be possible to achieve the goals of the transportation study without adversely impacting industrial businesses in the rezoning area. This balance will require engagement with the business sector. DCP should convene a working group of auto business workers, owners, and industry trade groups as well as local CDC’s to develop strategies that will achieve the goals of the Cromwell Jerome Ave Transportation Study without impeding business operations. 40 CEQR 22-1,22-2 46 IX. Air Quality According to the most recent Community Health Profiles, the neighborhoods covered in the rezoning study area have higher micrograms per cubic meter of PM2.5, which is the most harmful air pollutant. It is about 10 micrograms per cubic meter in the study area, compared with 9.1 in the Bronx and 8.6 citywide. Additionally, the neighborhoods have existing respiratory health challenges including a higher rate of child asthma hospitalization compared with the city, and higher rates of avoidable asthma hospitalizations for adults compared with the Bronx and the City overall. These respiratory problems are exacerbated by housing conditions for renters, where over 75% of renters in the area have at least one maintenance defect requiring some form of capital repair – compared to about 70% for the Bronx and 60% for the City overall. Major highways – the Cross Bronx Expressway and the Major Deegan Expressway – are included in these areas and also contribute to the existing air pollution challenges in the study area. Because the study area already includes these related issues of highway traffic and resident respiratory concerns, the coalition requests that DCP adjust Task 14 to reflect the unique circumstances of this study area and ensure that a baseline air quality assessment is undertaken to quantify the existing concerns for residents and businesses. The coalition expects that newly introduced impacts (e.g. increase in the number of vehicle trips on the adjacent highways and local roads due to increase in car owning population), new construction and related pollution impacts, etc. be taken into consideration for an updated assessment. Task 14 also indicates that only one location will be tested for CO and three tested for PM. The coalition requests that DCP adjust Task 14 to include additional sites given the surrounding highways and existing high levels of harmful PM2.5. Additionally, the coalition requests that DCP provide transparency to community groups on how testing locations are selected. The assessment should focus on the areas adjacent to the Cross Bronx and Major Deegan Expressways as well as recommend mitigation interventions for rezoning and future development. Analysis › The CO and PM tested sites should be expanded given the surrounding highways and existing high levels of harmful PM2.5 in the neighborhood. › DCP should provide transparency on the selection of the testing locations. › DCP should provide an assessment should focus entirely on the Cross Bronx and Major Deegan Expressways. › DCP should provide an assessment to evaluate the indoor air pollution in the existing housing stock. 47 Mitigation › Increase the availability of programs that create awareness, self-management and medical facilities to treat respiratory diseases. › DCP should work with community groups to make more transparent the selection of the testing location for CO and PM. › A set of strategic interventions to reduce the outdoor pollution triggers by the Cross Bronx and Major Deegan Expressways. › Incentives should be provided to upgrade the existing residential stock that is affecting the indoor air quality of low-income residents. 48 X. Public Health “There is no excuse for ignoring our experience over the past few decades on the effects of displacement (including homelessness) on the health of the community directly impacted and the community as a whole. The lag in obtaining documented evidence on the relationship between neighborhood redevelopment and the health, education and welfare impacts manifested in displaced families, doubling up, and homelessness, when such massive undertakings such as this rezoning effort takes place should not be a basis for proceeding with such an action since we do know from experience that adverse impacts will emerge over time.” -Ron Shiffman, city planner and author, Building Together: Case Studies in Participatory Planning and Community Building According to the DEIS, “a public health assessment may be warranted if an unmitigated significant adverse impact is identified in other analysis areas, such as air quality, hazardous materials, or noise”. However, existing conditions already create public health challenges that should be assessed and combined with an analysis of future impacts to public health as a result of the rezoning. Kingsbridge Heights, Bedford, Fordham, University Heights, Highbridge and Concourse are the neighborhood that composed Bronx community districts 7, 5 and 4 and are affected by the Jerome Avenue Rezoning; currently, those community face abysmal health inequities with a multitude conditions affecting the health outcome such as, lack of educational and employment opportunities, high crimes rates, prevalence of preventable chronic diseases, lack of healthy food access, incidence of physically and emotionally traumas generated by domestic violence, lack of access to healthcare, among many other issues. According to the community health profile by DOHMM the life expectancy of the neighborhood affected by the re-zoning studies is 79 years compared with 85 years for the Upper East Side residents. Therefore, a comprehensive Public Health assessment should be provided by the city to decrease the social determinants of health. Also, as discussed in the Air Quality comments, the most recent Community Health Profiles shows that neighborhoods covered in the rezoning study area have higher micrograms per cubic meter of PM2.5, which is the most harmful air pollutant. Also, there are existing respiratory health challenges including a higher rate of child asthma hospitalization compared with the city, and higher rates of avoidable asthma hospitalizations for adults compared with the Bronx and the City overall. Major highways – the Cross Bronx Expressway and the Major Deegan Expressway – are included in the study area and also contribute to the existing pollution challenges in the study area. Beyond the respiratory concerns, there are several public health challenges that impact existing residents of these neighborhoods when compared to the City and even the Bronx overall. These include 49 socioeconomic stress of high poverty (40% below the federal poverty level), high elementary school absenteeism (about 30% of students), and higher teenage births. Additionally, the neighborhoods have a higher smoking rate and consumption of sugary drinks compared with the City overall. Drug and alcohol hospitalization is a concern as well for the study area. There are higher numbers of stroke (380 vs. 320 city-wide), higher HIV death rates (30 vs. 8.4 city-wide), and more psychiatric hospitalizations (800-1000 vs. 680 city-wide). Given the unique circumstance of this study area, being surrounded by highways, higher rates of respiratory issues for residents, and existing public health challenges as outlined above, the coalition requests that DCP adjust Task 17 to ensure a public health assessment is carried out to determine baseline concerns for existing residents. This should include an assessment of existing healthcare facilities, and mitigation options for current and future development scenarios. Analysis › A public health assessment should be carried out to determine baseline concerns for existing health determinants affecting current residents. › Assessment of the availability of health care facilities and programs that tackle the current health disparities. › A study to focus on the barrier for a healthy living neighborhood in the existing low-income housing stock. Mitigation › A set of actionable strategies to address the health inequity by tackling the current health determinants. › Leverage public funding to increase the availability of health programs. › Create incentives to increase community facilities through zoning designation on the study area to provide needed community facilities. › Leverage funding to upgrade the existing low-income residential stock to make it more accessible to healthy living. 50 XI. Neighborhood Character Analysis 10.1 The City should exercise its discretion to perform a detailed analysis of the impact on neighborhood character if any significant impact is identified in one of the technical areas that contribute to the neighborhood’s character, or if DCP finds only moderate effects (as opposed to significant impacts) in several of the relevant analysis areas. Under the standards in the CEQR Technical Manual, performance of a neighborhood character impact assessment is generally dependent on a finding of significant impact in another task area. But the Manual states that, “a significant impact identified in one of the technical areas that contribute to a neighborhood’s character is not automatically equivalent to a significant impact on neighborhood character. Rather, it serves as an indication that neighborhood character should be examined.”41 Given the tremendous risks of displacement that exist in our community today and the possibility that the proposed rezoning will exacerbate those risks, the Coalition demands that DCP perform a neighborhood character impact assessment if a significant impact is found in any task area. We further demand that the City conduct a neighborhood character assessment “even if the proposed project would not have a significant impact on any one defining feature of the area … [if] the project may have moderate impacts on a number of defining features that, cumulatively, [could] result in a significant impact on the neighborhood character.”42 Although the Manual provides the caveat that, “Only under unusual circumstances would a combination of moderate effects to the neighborhood result in an impact to neighborhood character, in the absence of an impact in any of the relevant technical areas,”43 we believe that this massive action, unprecedented in our community, represents an “unusual circumstance” that demands a detailed neighborhood character impact assessment. 10.2 The City’s Analysis of Neighborhood Character Must Go Beyond the Area’s Physical Characteristics and Include an Assessment of the Impacts on the Socio-Economic Character and Demographics of the Area DCP must go beyond an analysis of physical impacts and also look at socioeconomic and demographic impacts in its analysis of neighborhood character. The Jerome Draft Scope states that, “The character of a neighborhood is established by numerous factors, including land use patterns, the scale of its development, the design of its buildings, the presence of notable landmarks, and a variety of other physical features [emphasis added] that include traffic 41 42 43 “Neighborhood Character,” CEQR Technical Manual (2014), Ch. 21 at 21-1. Id. Sec. 400. Id. Sec. 400. 51 and pedestrian patterns, noise, etc.”44 However, this definition does not comport with what is in the CEQR Technical Manual, which defines neighborhood character as “an amalgam of various elements that give neighborhoods their distinct ‘personality.’ These elements may [emphasis added] include a neighborhood’s land use, urban design, visual resources, historic resources, socioeconomics [emphasis added], traffic, and/or noise.”45 It is clear that the definition of “neighborhood character” is broader than the City’s summary of that definition suggests. First, the analysis need not be limited to the enumerated task areas; neighborhood character “may include” those task areas, but and any element that gives the neighborhood a “distinct ‘personality.’”46 Second, the analysis is not limited to physical characteristics; the Manual expressly includes “socioeconomics,” i.e. all factors addressed by the socio-economic conditions chapter, as a component of neighborhood character. Therefore, DCP must analyze any changes to the socio-economic character of residents and displacement of either residential or business uses as part of the neighborhood character analysis. Third, although an analysis of racial and ethnic composition is not expressly required, it is also not expressly precluded, and the Manual suggests that a neighborhood’s demographic characteristics are also relevant to an assessment of its character.47 The City should adopt a comprehensive approach to the neighborhood character analysis that looks at potential changes in the racial, ethnic, and socio-economic diversity of the community - specifically, the impact of the proposed rezoning on people of color, immigrants, and low-income people. This approach was affirmed in Chinese Staff & Workers Association v. City of New York (1986)48, where the Court of Appeals confirmed that the impact that a project may have on population patterns or existing community character, with or without a separate impact on the physical environment, is a relevant concern in an environmental analysis since the statute includes these concerns as elements of the environment. That these factors might generally be regarded as social or economic is irrelevant in view of this explicit definition. By their express terms, therefore, both SEQRA and CEQR require a lead agency to consider more than impacts upon the physical environment in determining whether to require the preparation of an EIS. In sum, population patterns and neighborhood character are physical conditions of the environment under SEQRA and CEQR regardless of whether there is any impact on the physical environment . . .”49 Although New York courts have, in subsequent decisions, rejected several legal challenges that cited the Chinese Staff & Workers case in arguing that the agencies in question were required to give greater 44 Draft Scope of Work for an Environmental Impact Statement: Jerome Avenue Rezoning (CEQR No. 17DCP019X) at 56. 45 “Neighborhood Character,” CEQR Technical Manual (2014), Ch. 21 at Sec. 100. 46 Id. 47 Id. at 21-1. (Describing forces other than Proposed Actions that may shift a neighborhood’s character, including “shifts in demographic patterns”) 48 68 N.Y.2d 359 (N.Y. 1986). 49 Chinese Staff & Workers, 68 N.Y.2d at 366. 52 consideration to socio-economic issues in the CEQR review process,50 none of these cases disturbed the fundamental holding of that case: that review of socio-economic impacts, including “population patterns,” is required under CEQR.51 In addition, these cases in no way limit DCP’s discretion to perform the specific sorts of analyses we are seeking – i.e. potential changes in the racial, ethnic, and socio-economic diversity of the community, and impacts on people of color, immigrants, and low-income people in particular. 10.3 Rent-Stabilized Housing, the Presence of the Auto Industry, and the Area’s Existing Racial, Ethic, and Socio-Economic Diversity Must Be Considered “Defining Features” of the Neighborhood › As part of its preliminary assessment, DCP is required to enumerate the “defining features” of the neighborhood. The Manual provides as an example “For instance, the analysis may consider whether a particular housing type, such as rent-stabilized housing, serves to define the socioeconomic character of an area. The displacement of a large amount of this type of housing from the area may potentially affect neighborhood character.”52 › The Coalition demands that (1) the presence of a significant amount of rent-stabilized housing, (2) the auto industry, and (3) our area’s existing racial, ethnic, and socio-economic diversity be considered “defining features” of the neighborhood and analyzed accordingly. › Rent-Stabilized Housing: As we have described in the sections above, rent-stabilized housing forms the backbone of affordable housing in our community, and we do not want the City to disregard these homes in its rush to transform our neighborhood. Importantly, the existing rent-stabilized housing must be considered a “defining feature” of our neighborhood, and if the City anticipates a loss of existing rent-stabilized housing resulting from direct and indirect displacement pressures, it should consider that to be a negative impact on neighborhood and develop appropriate mitigation strategies to address that impact. Simply creating new affordable housing would not be enough to mitigate negative impacts on existing rent-stabilized housing, because it will not protect the individuals and families at risk of displacement, many of whom have lived in the community for decades or generations. › The Auto Industry: As the Jerome Ave rezoning area is a well known and utilized commercial corridor, an analysis of neighborhood character must account for the businesses, who are the majority of tenants on the avenue, contribute to the personality and character of the area. As described in the comments related to business displacement, Jerome Ave is one of the densest clusters of auto businesses in the city and this unique characteristic must be included as a recognized defining feature of the area’s neighborhood character. As part of its analysis of impact on physical characteristics of the neighborhood, DCP should analyze effect of rezoning corridors from M and C8 to high-rise R. This will significantly shift character of those areas, to the detriment of the existing auto industry. 50 See, e.g., Chinese Staff & Workers’ Association v. Burden, 88 A.D. 3d 425, 428–30 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) (rejecting petitioners’ argument that DCP’s EAS “failed to adequately analyze CEQR technical areas such as neighborhood character and socioeconomic impacts”), aff’d by 19 N.Y.3d 922 (N.Y. 2012). 51 See, e.g. Wellsville Citizens for Responsible Development, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 140 A.D.3d 1767, 1770 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016) (granting environmental group’s petition to annul Town Board’s resolution adopting a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA because the Town Board “failed to take a hard look” at the impact of a proposed retail store construction project on the community character of a neighboring village). 52 “Neighborhood Character,” CEQR Technical Manual (2014), Ch. 21 at Sec. 320. 53 › Racial, Ethnic, and Socio-Economic Diversity: The areas impacted by this rezoning have high levels of racial and ethnic diversity today. The Census tracts along the Jerome Ave corridor are 1.5% White, 26.1% Black, 2.4% Asian, 68.5% Latino, and 1.6% other. No census tract along the Jerome Ave corridor has over 90% any one race. In contrast, there are 133 census tracts in the City that are at least 90% 1 race.53 We value the racial and ethnic diversity we enjoy in our community today and feel it is critical that the City consider the specific impacts of its actions on the diverse groups that call the Bronx home. The community is also socio-economically diverse. In numerous settings, the City has stated or implied that our neighborhoods are not economically “diverse” because they do not include enough high-income people. We disagree. The median income for a family of four in CBs 4 and 5 is about $25,000, but close to 25 percent of households make above $50,000 and 15 percent make above $150,000.54 Higher-income people can already afford to live in the community if they so choose, and it is not necessary for the City to socially engineer our neighborhoods to include wealthier people. Instead, it is critical that the rezoning plans for this area prioritize the creation of housing affordable to lower-income people, many of whom are overcrowded or severely rent-burdened today, to ensure that our neighborhoods remain socio-economically diverse in the long term. 10.4 DCP Must Analyze and Disclose the True Impacts of the Proposed Rezoning on Neighborhood Features Addressed in the Socio-Economic Conditions Chapter in Order to Accurately Assess Impact of the Proposed Actions on Neighborhood Character › If the City improperly limits its analysis with the relevant task areas, including socio-economic conditions, the neighborhood character assessment will also be off. Therefore, we demand that the City conduct the more rigorous analyses of each task area we have described in the relevant sections so as not to improperly downplay impacts on neighborhood character - especially the auto industry, existing rent-stabilized housing, socio-economic diversity, and racial and ethnic diversity, as described above. › Rent-Stabilized Housing is a key component of the socio-economic conditions chapter. By improperly limiting the analysis of displacement from rent-stabilized housing in the socio-economic conditions chapter - including, as discussed more fully in our response to that chapter, by limiting the analysis of rent-stabilized housing to legal displacement tactics, and by excluding numerous potential soft sites in its analysis of direct displacement - the City is likely to conclude that the threat to rent-stabilized housing is less than we know to be true, which will also improperly limit the reported impact of loss of rent-stabilized housing on neighborhood character. › The Auto Industry: Similarly, the city’s proposed analysis of the rezoning’s impact on the auto sector is insufficient as described thoroughly in the response to business displacement. Without an analysis of data sets that will accurately display the number of jobs and businesses represented by the auto cluster on Jerome the city’s findings will be a misrepresentation of the potential impact this rezoning will have on the community. › Racial, Ethnic, and Socio-Economic Diversity: In our response to the Socio-Economic Conditions task, the Coalition has requested that the impact of the rezoning on certain vulnerable groups, 53 U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, 2014. 54 Susanna Blankley, “Four Wrong Ideas Driving de Blasio’s Housing Plan,” City Limits (Fe. 25, 2016). Online at citylimits. org/2016/02/25/cityviewsfour-wrong-ideas-driving-de-blasios-housing-plan/. 54 including low-income populations, people of color, and immigrants be analyzed and disclosed. Performance of that analysis is also critical to inform the neighborhood character analysis. 55 Mitigation 10.5 DCP Must Take Into Account the Community’s Strong Preferences for Deeply Affordable and RentStabilized Housing, the Preservation of the Existing Auto Industry, and the Area’s Existing Racial, Ethnic, and Socio-Economic Diversity in Assessing the Meaning of Potential Changes to Neighborhood Character › The Technical Manual expressly acknowledges the question of whether changes to a neighborhood’s character are negative or positive are extremely subjective. Per the manual, “As with other technical areas, significant impacts on neighborhood character may be either beneficial or adverse. Because a neighborhood’s character is perceived and contextual, this judgment may be more subjective than in other technical areas. For example, a new and modern apartment building in an older neighborhood may be perceived as an improvement by some, but as out of context and adverse by others. The lead agency should consider comments made during public review in making such a determination as to which significant impacts are adverse and require mitigation.”55 › Affordable Housing: Given the overwhelming support for deeply affordable housing and against luxury development expressed by those who testified at the Draft Scope hearing, DCP must regard any reduction in the amount of existing affordable (including rent-stabilized) housing, or creation of market rate or luxury housing, as significant negative impacts on the community. The City may believe that the introduction of luxury housing into our community would be a positive impact; we do not, and as the CEQR manual requires DCP to take the lead from the community on such manners, DCP should not substitute its own opinion about “what is best” for this community with the community’s clearly expressed preferences. › The Auto Industry: Community members at the Draft Scope hearing and other forums have made numerous comments in favor of the preservation of the auto industry along Jerome Avenue. Therefore, any threats to or reduction of the auto industry should also be regarded as negative impacts on neighborhood character. › Racial, Ethnic, and Socio-Economic Diversity: The community has made clear its preference that our area remain accessible to lower-income and working-class people, people of color, and immigrants. Any threat of displacement of these populations must therefore be regarded as a negative impact. 10.6 DCP Must Disclose, Analyze and Adopt Mitigation Tactics to Address Negative Impacts on Neighborhood Character That May Not Be Adequately Addressed by Proposed Mitigations in Other Analysis Areas › In developing mitigation tactics to address negative impacts on neighborhood character, the City should be mindful that mitigation tactics for the other impact areas do not necessarily reduce negative impacts on neighborhood character, and mitigation measures specifically to address such character may be required. › Rent-Stabilized Housing: As described below, the creation of new affordable housing, though a critical goal, is not sufficient to mitigate the loss of existing rent-stabilized housing in the community today. Therefore, the City must adopt additional mitigation strategies for the specific purpose of preserving today’s rent-stabilized housing. 55 Id. Sec. 400. 56 › The Auto Industry: The City cannot include the so-called retention areas as designated in the Draft Scope of Work as adequate mitigation strategies to address the significant impacts the auto sector will be subject to as a result of the rezoning. As described in responses to both the business displacement and alternatives sections, these retention areas must be included in the Jerome Ave special district and assigned limited use groups, expanded to be sufficiently sized to protect a significant portion of the auto industry, and made continuous so as not to allow pockets of high density residential in between cluster areas. › Racial, Ethnic, and Socio-Economic Diversity: As the CEQR Technical Manual explains, “In [some] situations … mitigation measures may alleviate significant adverse impacts in other technical areas, but significant impacts on neighborhood character may remain … [One] example is a project that may result in both significant adverse socioeconomic impacts related to secondary residential displacement and a related significant impact on neighborhood character because of the change in the area’s population profile. The socioeconomic impacts may be mitigated by finding affordable housing for displaced residents, but if the residents move out of the neighborhood, the significant impact on the neighborhood’s character still occurs. If mitigation measures presented for the project’s other significant adverse impacts, if any, would not mitigate neighborhood character impacts, other mitigation measures are to be identified where feasible.”56 Even if the City manages to create affordable housing within the community that is sufficient in number to meet the needs of and reflective of the incomes of the residents most likely to be displaced - which nothing in the City’s current plans, programs, or term sheets suggests will be the case - the rezoning will still have a negative impact on the character of the community if residents are displaced from their current homes and are unable to get access to the new affordable units within the community. Therefore, the City must assess the extent to which today’s community residents will be able to remain, and develop appropriate mitigation strategies - including the adoption of a Certificate of No Harassment requirement, passage of Right to Counsel, and the creation of an Anti-Displacement Task Force to devise further solutions to prevent displacement and preserve the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity of our community, including a significant share of low-income households. 56 Id. Sec. 500. 57 XII. Construction Task 19 currently states that the areas of Transportation Systems, Air Quality, Noise, and Other Technical Areas will be assessed only if the preliminary assessment indicates the potential for significant impact during construction. Given the typically long duration of large construction projects and the impact they will have for pedestrian safety, access to public amenities, noise, and disruption for businesses and students/ teachers in adjacent schools, the coalition requests that Task 19 be adjusted to require a construction impact analysis with a focus on resident satisfaction needs, environmental, and economic impacts. Socioeconomic factors related to construction should be highlighted in the assessment. Topics should include, but not be limited to, existing business activity, the impact construction (especially large multisite projects in the study area) will have on local business activity, the impact neighborhood disruptions will have on schools and outdoor recreational facilities, and provide an understanding of local resident training, business capacity building, and hiring requirements that contractors will be obligated to. Given the health profile of the existing community, it is important that an assessment look at the impact construction will have on existing social service infrastructure. This includes disruptions to utilities, installation of new utilities (e.g. sewer and water mains), and ensuring that interagency coordination is a priority so that existing residents have a voice in long-term projects and their needs are met. Analysis › An assessment of the impacts in study area that the proposed actions will have on pedestrian safety, access to public amenities, noise, and disruption for businesses and students/teachers in adjacent schools, outdoor recreational facilities, and provide an understanding of local resident training, business capacity building, and hiring requirements for contractors. › A deeper study to tackle the impact of projected population growth on disruptions to existing utilities, the installation of new utilities (e.g. sewer and water mains), and ensuring that interagency coordination is a priority so that existing residents have a voice in long-term projects and their needs are met. Mitigation › A set of interventions and strategies that will allow the neighborhood to function during the construction process. Also, the provision of the required infrastructure for the expected growth in the neighborhood. NYC is in the midst of a construction boom and inadvertently there has been an increase in construction accidents and fatalities. Although there is a correlation between the rise in construction activity with an increase in construction accidents, these preventable accidents have outpaced construction activity at an alarming rate. The administration has the responsibility of ensuring all workers and pedestrians 58 are protected from low-road contractors who put profits over safety and proper training. To protect the workforce and the neighboring community, the City must act now to rectify the current rise in construction related fatalities and life changing injuries. We request that the City consider the following strategies as mitigations to construction-related impacts: › HPD Procurement Reform. The city must attach standards to the procurement process to ensure taxpayer funded projects are awarded to contractors with a track record of labor law and OSHA requirement compliance. Details about our proposal are attached as Appendix C. › Subsidy Reform. Recipients of economic development subsidies must be held accountable to ensure they are truly benefitting the public and not just the businesses and corporation who receive them. Safety, labor and wage requirements must be attached to all city subsidies. › Department of Buildings (DOB) Reform. • Improve DOB oversight and investigations of worker injuries and fatalities. DOB’s record keeping on construction related fatalities and injuries should mirror efforts by OSHA in order to collectively address safety violations. • Increase DOB penalties for accidents and fatalities. If a contractor is found to be responsible for a death on a construction site, the fine to the contractor is approximately $7,600. Because the fines are significantly low, contractors see them as the price of doing business. The City must impose higher fines to deter contractors from not complying with OSHA and DOB requirements. 59 XIII. Mitigation DCP should disclose, analyze and adopt a broad range of mitigation strategies to address the impacts of the rezonings. We request that DCP analyze and adopt the full range of mitigation strategies we have proposed throughout this response, as well as the broader range of ideas we sent to DCP in our correspondence earlier this year (which reflects the full platform of the Bronx Coalition for a Community Vision). The following are the mitigation strategies that the Coalition views as especially critical to the success of this rezoning: › Anti-Displacement and Anti-Harassment Policies for Residential Tenants: • Pass and Fund Intro 214, providing a right to counsel for all tenants facing the loss of their home in NYC • Pass and fund Intro 152-A, which would create citywide “Certificate of No Harassment” requirements, which must be in place before the Jerome Ave ULURP applies. • Create an Anti-Displacement Task Force, with regular meetings between local community organizations and HPD to discuss strategies for preservation. › Anti-Displacement for the Commercial Tenants and Auto Workers on Jerome Ave: • Select an area in the proposed rezoning area where auto-related businesses— including auto parts, security and audio stores—can remain and be protected. › Good Jobs and Local Hire: • Provide Job Training & Education to local residents, so that residents are eligible for the state approved apprenticeship programs. • Make local hire a requirement of all projects that the City subsidizes. As explained more fully in the sections above, the new term sheet developed by the Coalition accounts for construction costs reviewed and approved by the building and construction trades and would promote safe, career-oriented union jobs. › Real Affordable Housing: • The City should adopt the new term sheet proposed by the Coalition to ensure that new housing better reflects the needs of current neighborhood residents, including rent levels affordable to the current community and local jobs. › Real Community Engagement: • Give residents a seat at the decision-making table and a chance to vote. • Create an affordable housing taskforce open to all local residents who want to work with officials 60 to figure out how much affordable housing there should be, and at what rent levels. Those principles could then guide the plans. • Create a formal opportunity for community oversight of the plan going forward. In order to ensure that the commitments that are made by the City are actually upheld, we believe that the City needs a comprehensive and coordinated approach to documenting, monitoring, overseeing and enforcing all public and private commitments made during the rezoning processes. This approach should include a citywide and a neighborhood-based, community-led component and should build off and fill the gaps of the various proposals put forth by the City, including Intro 1132. We believe that a specific mayoral office is needed to provide overall agency coordination, oversight and accountability for the implementation of commitments made to communities during the rezoning process. We also propose that neighborhood monitoring committees be established to ensure that any commitments made during a rezoning process are implemented, and support community priorities. Community members must be able to continue to participate in the monitoring and decision-making related to the changes in their neighborhood. We further propose that the new Mayoral office work in close coordination with neighborhood monitoring committees to create goals and benchmarks for each rezoned neighborhood, based on the community’s stated priorities and commitments made in the zoning plan. The office should then conduct ongoing assessments for each rezoned neighborhood to track progress towards goals and benchmarks and neighborhood change over time. The office could also track the funding status for all commitments made during the rezoning process and ensure projects are completed on a clear timeline, and in consultation with neighborhood monitoring committees. This comprehensive oversight proposal, which was developed by a citywide coalition of groups from most of the rezoning communities, including stakeholders such as CASA, is attached as Appendix D. 61 XIV. Alternatives As described above, the proposed actions betray many of the community’s clearly expressed goals for the areas. At the same time, it is unclear whether the proposed land use actions will satisfactorily accomplish DCP’s own stated goals57 in the best way possible. For example, the goals for the area include “support autorelated businesses” and “promote and support small businesses and entrepreneurship.” Similarly, the objectives of the proposed land use actions include “preserve zoning for heavy commercial and light industrial uses in areas to support mixed uses and jobs” and “establishing [zoning] controls...to ensure consistency with the goals and objectives of the rezoning.”58 The proposed actions in their current form will not accomplish these goals, for the reasons described in the business displacement section. As already described in detail, the proposed actions do not meet the needs for housing in the surrounding neighborhoods. For these reasons, we encourage DCP to analyze multiple alternatives that have the potential to better accomplish the stated goals or to achieve a more appropriate balance among the stated goals. Below we include a range of possible alternatives that DCP should analyze. To ensure a fair and genuine discussion, alternatives that encompass all the major concepts below should be analyzed. To better achieve the stated goals the City should study a range of alternative versions of the retention zones and residential zoning coverage, including: › Including any proposed retention areas inside the Jerome Avenue special district to enable heightened protection mechanisms, such as a restriction of allowable use groups to minimize competition for industrial and auto related businesses. Restrictions on uses with regard to transient hotels are already being proposed as part of the Special District, so the introduction of additional controls to accomplish the stated goal of supporting auto businesses is consistent with 57 The draft Scope cites the following goals for the JANP (page 5) of which the proposed land use actions are intended to support: ● Provide sustainable, high-quality, affordable housing with a range of options for residents at all income levels. ● Protect tenants and improve housing quality. ● Ensure every neighborhood has green streetscapes, quality parks and diverse recreation spaces. ● Create greater retail diversity to meet current and growing retail and service needs. ● Prepare residents for job and career growth through job training and skills development. ● Promote and support small businesses and entrepreneurship. ● Support auto-related businesses. ● Promote a safe, walkable area in and around the elevated train. 58 Page 2 62 DCP’s approach here. Use groups outside of 7,11,16,17 should be considered for exclusion from as of right development within the retention zones. Because including retention areas inside the proposed boundary would technically be an enlargement of the area (albeit resulting in a lesser environmental impact if included as above) this alternative must be included in the final scope of work and studied if it is to be eligible for consideration later in the process. › Expanding the area(s) intended for retention to be continuous so as to promote consistent clusters of business activity without introducing conflicting residential uses and heightened market forces. While not an exclusive list, potential alternatives for expansion of retention areas that should be studied might include any or all of the following: • Creating continuous retention areas on both sides of Jerome Avenue between 177th and the Cross Bronx Expressway • Including the area south the of the Cross Bronx Expressway to 168th Street in a retention area • Connecting the proposed two southernmost retention areas south of the Cross Bronx Expressway by extending them across 170th Street along EL Grant Highway, Inwood, and Cromwell Avenues › Creating additional retention areas where significant numbers of auto businesses would be protected. While not an exclusive list, potential alternatives for expansion of retention that should be studied might include any or all of the following: • Creating a new retention area on the East side of Jerome Ave between 177th and the Cross Bronx Expressway. • Proposals for retention areas anywhere throughout the proposed zoning area that are linked with specific job or business retention goals › Include more innovative land use proposals designed to strengthen the capacity of the area to generate quality blue-collar jobs. The proposed actions do not fully exploit the opportunity of land use actions to maintain and spur job growth in sectors that residents in the area sorely need. • A holistic vision for growth of the auto and manufacturing sectors in this area and ways that it might modernize and co-exist alongside residential uses through balanced mixed-use measures has not been offered. Land use proposals that advance a cohesive, employment- centered vision for the area would be a welcome response to the needs expressed by community members and workers in the area. › Rezone a smaller area / fewer lots, but permit greater residential upzoning on those lots. This alternative could potentially achieve the same number of new construction residential units (approximately 4000) without creating as much displacement pressure on existing automotive and residential uses. › Reduce the total amount of residential upzoning to match the amount of affordable housing the City believes can realistically be created in the area within the next 5-10 years given the limits of the City’s capacity to move projects through the subsidy pipeline and likely disinterest of developers in accepting such subsidies after the local housing market has strengthened. Each of the alternatives described above could potentially do more to advance the goals of affordable housing preservation and protection of the existing auto industry than the current plans proposed by the 63 City. We request that the City analyze and disclose the impacts of these Alternatives to help the community better weigh the range of possible options for the future. 64 XV. Conclusion The City has made much of its efforts to engage community residents in the creation of the Jerome Avenue Neighborhood Plan and Proposed Actions. But on too many occasions, the City has cut short or discouraged community participation in this process and the formulation of its plans. For example, we are glad to see that DCP created a Spanish language copy of the Draft Scope of Work for monolingual Spanish speakers who might be interested in reading it. But in many early meetings in this process, interpretation and translated materials were not provided. In addition, even at the Draft Scope hearing, interpretation was provided from Spanish to English, but not English to Spanish. This meant that although monolingual Spanish speakers could testify in Spanish, they could not understand all of the testimony delivered in English or fully understand what was happening unless another community member interpreted for them This is extremely disrespectful in any community, and especially one where for so many residents Spanish is their first or only language. The Draft Scope hearing was also held at an inaccessible venue that is up a steep hill, confusing to access and far from mass transit. Because of Bronx Community College’s security restrictions, many community members were forced to wait outside of the venue for hours before they were able to come in and testify. Some ended up needing to leave before they could testify. When people arrived at the security checkpoint, they were also treated differently, with people who showed up in a group being subjected to more extensive security checks than those who appeared to have arrived alone. In addition, the heavy security and police presence at the event - which, in our opinion, far exceeded what was necessary - may well have deterred community members who feared negative interactions with the police. Although many of these restrictions may have been imposed by BCC rather than DCP, to make this an accessible process, the City should ensure that venues for future hearings are also accessible. For example, Rent Guidelines Board hearings are typically held at the Bronx Museum, a far more centrally located venue with fewer security restrictions that might deter participation at the outset. Importantly, listening to residents also requires more than simply receiving their feedback on plans already created by the powers that be. As resident at the Draft Scope hearing said, “I don’t want you to go back to your office tomorrow and say that you went to the hearing and did your job because you went to the community and listened to the people, then pass a rezoning that’s not what this community wants. “ Real community engagement means crafting plans that are responsive to residents’ needs and inclusive of the ideas they have proposed. At present, the Proposed Actions do not achieve these goals, and have left the hundreds of residents who participated in the formulation of platform the Bronx Coalition for a Community Vision with the sense that the City simply does not care what they think or need. CASA leader Fitzroy Christian spoke powerfully about this at the hearing: You deliberately dismissed our communities’ ability to be full partners in the proposed upzoning and redevelopment of our neighborhoods. And even when you were presented with a community driven vision, showing how the redevelopment can happen without the painful and unnecessary 65 displacements, dislocation of families, destruction of communities, you contemptuously disregarded it. And us... Another CASA member, Madeline Mendez, emphasized how the proposed affordability levels of new housing under the rezoning made it clear that the rezoning is not intended to benefit members of this community: This ‘affordability’ is for the middle class and for the upper class … All this ‘affordability’ is not for me, and it’s not for my people, and my neighborhood … People need a place to live. They need an auto mechanic job. I don’t need to tell you what our community needs, because I already told you what our community needs, so I don’t need to repeat, and don’t act like you don’t know. By ignoring the goals the community has set forth, the City is missing out on a critical opportunity for collaboration and true partnership. As another woman at the hearing testified: Many of the people in this room have been going to meetings about this for 18 months. We’ve sent you recommendations based on 4 principles, and I don’t really see them in the report … Truly affordable housing, good jobs with local hire, protections against displacement, and real community engagement in figuring out what these plans should be. We’re not really an ‘against everything’ kind of groups. There are a lot of people in this room who would be for the rezoning plan, if it were for the people in this room. We would work with you. But if it’s not, we will do everything in our power to shut it down. At present, what the City has put forward is not a “neighborhood plan”—it runs through multiple different neighborhoods and does not address the needs of any of the neighborhoods impacted. It is not an affordable housing plan, since DCP can neither create affordable housing nor guarantee what developers will build and since the City’s best tools to leverage the private market for affordable housing, leave out 78% of neighborhood residents. It is not a jobs plan, since there are no provisions for local hire, worker safety or wages for the close to 4,000 construction jobs the plan will create and since it will most surely displace the more than 1,000 largely Dominican and immigrant auto workers and business owners. To City must create time and space for the formulation of a plan that meaningfully addresses the goals the community has created, refined, and advocated for in countless meetings, rallies, forums, and other events over the last 18 months. As Mr. Christian stated at the hearing, “You need to slow the process down, stop this mad rush to the deliberate destruction of families and communities, and work with us to develop a plan that will benefit those of us who are here now, and who intend to stay, as well as others who may come later … You have to slow it down. And let us do it right. Together.” As part of this, the City must work to pass the numerous citywide reforms we have proposed - including Right to Counsel, a citywide Certificate of No Harassment Requirement, a new subsidy term sheet to create deeply affordable housing and local jobs, and passage of an oversight bill to guarantee that the commitments made in the rezoning are kept. Without these broader reforms, both the members of our community and lower-income and working-class people in the many other neighborhoods the City is rezoning will continue to be at risk of displacement, homelessness, and chronic underemployment. 66 We urge the City to delay ULURP certification until these citywide reforms are passed and both the environmental review process and a revised Jerome Avenue Neighborhood Plan have been completed. It is inappropriate to consider such a large land use action in the absence of the a completed Jerome Avenue Neighborhood Plan. To fully understand and evaluate the combined impact of simultaneous actions, all the proposed actions and planning initiatives should be disclosed at the same time. For similar reasons, certification for ULURP for the proposed Jerome Avenue rezoning should not take place until the environmental review process has been completed for the revised plan we are proposing. Adopting this strategy will permit each entity involved in the review and approval process to understand the full and true impact of what they are voting in favor of, or against. Likewise, each entity can more adequately consider appropriate mitigating approaches to anticipated negative impacts. We believe that development without displacement is not only possible but necessary. We created a set of policy recommendations for the city to implement, none of which have been implemented. We believe the current plan is about relocation, gentrification and displacement. We say no to the plan and yes to the Bronx. 67 XVI. Appendices Appendix A: Right to Counsel Appendix B: “Certificate of No Harassment” Legislation Summary Appendix C: Ensuring Responsible Contracting: HPD Procurement Reform Appendix D: Comprehensive Oversight Proposal Appendix E: Coalition Zoning Text Proposals Appendix F: Proposed Term Sheet for Deep Affordability Appendix G: Miscellaneous Citation Issues in the Draft Scope of Work › There is an error on page 6 that refers to Grand Concourse as the western, not eastern boundary. › There should be a map of the No-Action development scenario. › On page 7, the boundary and data source for the 345,000 residents is not given. 68