Franklin Ave Rezoning EAS Part 2 – November 9, 2016
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Franklin Avenue Rezoning EAS Attachment E: Community Facilities developments in the future without the Proposed Action. This would increase projected enrollment to 1,783, resulting in a collective utilization rate of 85.2 percent, with 310 available day care slots (refer to Table E- 8) in the future without the Proposed Action. Table E-8: No-Action Public Day Care Enrollment and Capacity Changes Capacity Projected Enrollment Available Slots Utilization (%) 2,093 1,783 310 85.2 Notes: 1 No child care center capacity changes are anticipated in the No-Action Scenario. 2 Projected Enrollment is calculated by adding the projected new public child care-eligible children (Table E-7) to the existing publicly- funded group day care enrollment in the study area (Table E-6). The Future With the Proposed Action (With-Action Condition) As described in Attachment A, “Project Description,” in the RWCDS With-Action condition, the Proposed Action would facilitate a net increment of 284 DUs (151 of which would be affordable units). As shown in Table E-9, based on CEQR student generation rates, the Proposed Action is expected to result in an additional 27 children eligible for publicly-funded day care by 2023. Table E-9: With-Action Number of Public Day Care Pupils Generated by the Proposed Action Number of Child Care- Affordable DU Generation Ratio per Unit1 Eligible Children 151 0.178 27 Notes: 1Pupil Generation Ratios are for the borough of Brooklyn, as per Table 6-1b of the 2014 CEQR Technical Manual. As described above, under No-Action conditions, the day care utilization rate for the study area is expected to be 93.1 percent. In the 2023 With-Action condition, the estimated 27 children eligible for publicly-funded day care that would be introduced in the Project Area would increase the projected enrollment to 1,810, resulting in a collective utilization rate of 86.5 percent and 283 available day care slots in the approximately 1.5-mile study area (refer to Table E-10). Table E-10: With-Action Public Day Care Enrollment and Capacity Changes Projected Available Utilization Change in Utilization (%) Capacity Enrollment Slots (%) from No-Action Condition 2,093 1,810 283 86.5 1.3 Assessment This analysis shows that publicly-funded group day care enrollment would continue to operate with available capacity in both the No-Action and With-Action conditions. According to the 2014 CEQR Technical Manual, a significant adverse impact to publicly-funded day care would occur if (1) study area facilities would operate over capacity; and (e) the Proposed Action results in an increase in day care utilization rates of five percent or more. The increase in utilization from the No-Action to the With-Action conditions is anticipated to be 1.3 percent in the future with the Proposed Action, and study area facilities would continue to operate below capacity. As such, the Proposed Action would not result in a significant adverse impact to publicly-funded group day care facilities. E-11 Attachment F Open Space Resources Franklin Avenue Rezoning EAS Attachment F: Open Space I. INTRODUCTION An open space assessment may be necessary if a project could potentially have a direct or indirect effect on open space resources in the area. According to the 2014 CEQR Technical Manual, a direct open space impact would result in the physical loss of public open space, change the use of an open space so that it no longer serves the same user population, limit public access to an open space, or cause increased noise or air pollutant emissions, odors, or shadows on public open space that would affect its usefulness, whether on a permanent or temporary basis. As the Proposed Action would not physically affect any existing open space or recreational resource, they would not have any direct impacts on open space resources in the area. An indirect effect on open space may occur when a population generated by a proposed action would be sufficiently large to noticeably diminish the ability of an area’s open spaces to serve the future population. According to the guidelines established in the CEQR Technical Manual, a project that would add more than 200 residents or 500 employees, or a similar substantial number of other users to an area, is typically assessed for any potential indirect effects on open space. Under RWCDS With-Action conditions, the Proposed Action would facilitate an increment of approximately 284 dwelling units (DUs), introducing a net increase of 744 residents to the study area.1 The Proposed Action would also result in a net increment of approximately 16,384 gsf of retail space, resulting in a net increase of approximately 49 employees.2 The expected number of residents exceeds the CEQR threshold of 200 residents for a detailed open space analysis, while the expected number of workers is well below the CEQR threshold of 500 employees for a detailed open space analysis. Accordingly, this analysis of open space will focus exclusively on the open space needs of the study area residential population. A quantitative assessment was conducted to determine whether the Proposed Action would significantly reduce the amount of open space available for the area’s residential population, and is presented below. II. METHODOLOGY The analysis of open space resources has been conducted in accordance with the guidelines established in the 2014 CEQR Technical Manual. Using 2014 CEQR Technical Manual methodology, the adequacy of open space in the study area is assessed quantitatively using a ratio of usable open space acreage to the study area population, referred to as the open space ratio. This quantitative measure is then used to assess the changes in the adequacy of open space resources by the analysis year of 2023, both without and with the Proposed Action. In addition, qualitative factors are considered in making an assessment of the Proposed Action’s effects on open space resources. Open Space Study Area In accordance with the guidelines established in the 2014 CEQR Technical Manual, the open space study area is generally defined by a reasonable walking distance that users would travel to reach local open space and recreational resources. That distance is typically a half-mile radius for residential projects. 1 Residential increment is based on an average of 2.62 persons per household in Brooklyn Community District 9 from the 2010 Census. 2 Worker increment is based on the standard assumption of 3 workers for every 1,000 gsf of retail space. F-1 Franklin Avenue Rezoning EAS Attachment F: Open Space Pursuant to CEQR guidelines, the residential open space study area includes all census tracts that have at least 50 percent of their area located within a half-mile of the proposed rezoning area and all open spaces within those census tracts that are publicly accessible. The proposed rezoning area encompasses portions of three blocks in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn Community District (CD) 9. As shown in Figure F-1, the open space study area is roughly bounded by Park Place to the north, New York Avenue to the east, Fenimore Street to the south, and Prospect Park/the Brooklyn Botanic Garden to the west. The study area includes the following census tracts: 215, 217, 219, and 317.02 (which are located in Brooklyn CD 8), as well as 213, 321, 323, 325, 327, and 798.01 (which are located in Brooklyn CD 9). There are additional nearby public open spaces located immediately outside the study area boundary which are likely utilized by study area residents, such as the Brooklyn Botanic Garden, the Brooklyn Museum, Prospect Park, and Grand Army Plaza. However, for conservative analysis purposes, only open spaces located within the study area were included in the quantitative analysis per CEQR guidelines. Nearby open spaces located beyond the study area are discussed qualitatively below. Analysis Framework Direct Effects Analysis According to the 2014 CEQR Technical Manual, a project would have a direct effect on an open space if it causes the physical loss of public open space because of encroachment onto the space or displacement of the space; changes the use of an open space so that it no longer serves the same user population; limits public access to an open space; or causes increased noise or air pollutant emissions, odors, or shadows that would affect its usefulness, whether on a permanent or temporary basis. As there are no publicly accessible open spaces in the proposed rezoning area, the Proposed Action would not have any direct effects and no further analysis is warranted. Additionally, as detailed in other sections of this EAS, the Proposed Action would not result in the imposition of noise, air pollutant emissions, odors, or shadows on public open spaces that may alter usability. Indirect Effects Analysis Indirect effects occur to an area’s open spaces when a project would add enough population, either workers or residents, to noticeably diminish the ability of an area’s open space to serve the existing or future population. The 2014 CEQR Technical Manual methodology suggests conducting an initial quantitative assessment to determine whether more detailed analyses are appropriate, but also recognizes that for projects that introduce a large population in an area that is underserved by open space, it may be clear that a full, detailed analysis should be conducted. The proposed rezoning area is not located within an underserved or well-served area as determined by the CEQR guidelines. However, it should be noted that in the larger study area, census tracts 217, 219, 317.02, 319, 321, 323, and a portion of tract 325 are considered underserved by open space, while census tracts 215, 798.01, and portions of tracts 213, 325, and 327, including the lots immediately south of the proposed rezoning area, are considered well-served by open space.