Roosevelt Islanders may get an exclusive lottery crack at 25 "affordable" apartments if the Octagon project is built.

But the RIOC Board tabled the Octagon matter at its December meeting.  Board Chair Marybeth Labate explained that members had just received the transcript of the December 12 hearing on proposed changes to the Island’s General Development Plan (GDP) required to accommodate the development.  Had the Board acted, it would have been voting on a "negative declaration" of environmental impact.  It may also have voted on seeking City approval for changes in the GDP.

RIOC Board member John Mannix, who also serves on the Board of the State Housing Finance Agency, told Board members at their December 19 meeting that, of the 100 "affordable" apartments, half may be reserved for residents of the Community Board 8 area.  Of those 50, half may be reserved for Roosevelt Island residents.

"It is a true lottery system," Mannix said, explaining that in the 80/20 split under which 80% of the apartments will rent at market rate and 20% will be "affordable," there is a "community preference" exception.  "In this case there is a framework in place, which we [RIOC] would need to push forward, to enable half of these 100 affordable apartments to be set aside for Community Board 8 [area residents].  Within CB8, for Roosevelt Island, we would be able to have a separate lottery, for half of the half, [or] 25 apartments.There would be a CB8 lottery for the other 25, and a wider lottery for the other 50."  (The "segregation" would be only a set-aside for lottery purposes, and would not relate to the location of the affordable apartments in the complex.)

Roosevelt Island residents whose income meets the requirements to apply for affordable apartments would be the only ones allowed to enter the Roosevelt Island lottery, but they could also enter the CB8 lottery for those 25 apartments, and the wider lottery for 50 more.  According to Mannix, the wider lottery will be open to "people from all over the world."

The Octagon plan currently before the RIOC Board provides for 148 studio apartments, 182 one-bedroom units, 79 two-bedrooms, and 91 three-bedrooms, for a total of 500 apartments (one would go to the super).  Presumably, about 20% of each size category would be set aside for the affordable category.

According to the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by consultants to Becker and Becker, the Octagon Apartments developer, rents in the new development, with the maximum income qualifying, would be:

Parking

In the RIOC Board meeting, resident Board member David Kraut asked for more information on the plan to make underground parking part of the Octagon development.  “I have not yet heard a satisfactory explanation of why parking needs to be built in that area at all,“ Kraut said.  “The argument seems to be that we have to build parking there because RIOC has no plans to extend Motorgate.  There seems to be an indication that if RIOC extended Motorgate in the area where Motorgate was designed to be extended, we wouldn’t need parking up there.  So it sounds like all of this argument is being caused by an internal RIOC decision, and I wonder if there’s a chance to revisit this issue without significantly slowing things down...  The need [to expand Motorgate to accommodate both Octagon and Southtown development] wouldn’t even be apparent for a couple of years.“  Kraut said he doesn’t understand why “we’re insisting that this garage be built.”

Board member John Mannix said he suspects that there are marketing issues related to the proposed development.  He said he could think of only one 80/20 development approved in recent years without parking.  In response, Kraut pointed out that Motorgate is close enough to qualify as parking for the development.

Bruce Becker, President of Becker and Becker, told The WIRE Wednesday that his firm is taking “a second look“ at the parking question, but said a key question is, “Can we get the thing financed without the parking?  There’s a serious question about that.“  Further, Becker said, “Our ability to do the affordable units is based on our ability to have strong market-rate rents, and that component would be threatened by having parking less attractive.”  Becker pointed out that, unlike the buildings of Northtown Phase I (Westview, Island House, Rivercross, Eastwood), the Octagon Apartments will be far from the subway station and Tram station, making them more marketable with parking.

Becker said that his firm’s early assessment that project funding from the sources currently involved could not be used to expand Motorgate is now being evaluated again.  He said that, so far, however, the early assumption has been confirmed.

Hurdles

The Octagon matter still faces a challenge from City Council Speaker Gifford Miller, who insists that the Council, not the Mayor, must approve any changes in the GDP.

In addition, Assemblymember Pete Grannis has challenged the plan on grounds that the Open Spaces law signed by Governor George Pataki in September allows only open-space use of the land surrounding the Octagon landmark.

Becker said he would like to discuss the legislative consideration with Grannis’s office, but has not yet had an opportunity to do so.  He said, however, that his reading of the legislation gives him a “comfortable feeling“ about the viability of the project under the law.  He quoted Wall and Associates, the project environmental consultants, as saying ”the language of the [law] does not limit the development to the footprint of the landmark itself.

The law says there may be no further development other than for park purposes in the open-space areas identified in the GDP “unless such development or construction includes the reconstruction, restoration, rehabilitation or preservation of the historic landmarks... and furthers the use of the areas surrounding the landmarks as open-space areas.“  The Wall report says, “The proposed action would not convert current open space to residential use, because the area to be developed for residential use is not now usable, accessible public open space but rather an unimproved area that is fenced to prevent public access.“  The Wall report assesses the law as giving an exception “for a project that includes rehabilitation of the landmark.”

In the end, the viability of the Wall evaluation versus the Grannis contention may hinge on the fact that the law reads “furthers the use of areas surrounding the landmarks as open space areas“ rather than “furthers the use of open-space areas surrounding the landmarks as open space areas.”