Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everybody. I'm Dan Gorodnik, Director of the Department of City Planning and Chair of the City Planning Commission. Welcome to today's review session of the Commission. Today's date is December 16. We are joined today by Vice Chair Knuckles, Commissioners Benjamin Cerullo, Goodrich Kermani Marine Osorio and Rampershad.

Before we get started, I just want to note a few big news items from the last couple of weeks starting with the City Council's approval of City of Yes for housing opportunity. New Yorkers are facing a generational housing crisis and we need bold transformative measures to build a more affordable city. That's exactly what we have done with City of Yes. Thanks to the council's favorable vote earlier this month, we've made the most pro housing zoning revisions in the history of New York City enabling 82,000 much needed new homes over the next fifteen years. As a result of these sorely needed changes, working New Yorkers struggling to pay the rent will have more options and more leverage.

Growing families will have more room for younger generations and homeownership will once again be within reach. When future New Yorkers look back decades from now, they will see 2024 as the year that we finally turn the tide on housing in this city. I want to thank the City Council, especially Speaker Adrian Adams for getting this across the finish line. I'd also like to shout out our incredible team at the Department of City Planning for their tireless work to make this happen across the agency. Everybody was involved in one way or another.

But I do want to shout out in particular the project lead John Mangin and my amazing Chief of Staff Genevieve Michael for their great work. Some more great news, both Community Board eight and Community Board three in Brooklyn have voted to approve with conditions the Atlantic Avenue mixed use plan. This transformative proposal looks to bring 4,600 new homes including fourteen forty permanently income restricted affordable homes and 2,800 new jobs along with infrastructure improvements for these communities in Crown Heights and Bed Stuy. I'd like to thank both of these community boards for their careful evaluation and support of both for the plan and look forward to Borough President Antonio Reynoso's recommendation in the New Year. I'd also like to take a moment to celebrate the progress that we have made on the Gowanus Neighborhood Plan, which was approved three years ago and is already paying dividends for Brooklyn Heights.

In that time, we've seen permits issued for over 7,400 new homes and income restricted affordable homes that will be in resilient energy efficient buildings. Lotteries for nearly 200 of those affordable homes are open now at housingconnect.nyc.gov. But a neighborhood plan is more than just building new homes. It's about investing in a community. That's why I'm glad to report that several of our infrastructure commitments are underway bringing much needed improvements to Gowanus.

This work includes $216,000,000 in renovations to public housing at Wyckoff Gardens and Gowanus Houses, a cleaner remediated Gowanus Canal, new public open spaces and upgrades to community resources like Pacific Library, the Gowanus Community Center and the Wyckoff Gardens Community Center. We look forward to seeing these improvements continue to advance over the next few years and help to create a more vibrant Gowanus. Finally, earlier this week, Mayor Adams announced a new charter revision commission that will look at ways to promote fair housing. Former Deputy Mayor and Robinhood CEO, Richard Burry Jr. Will serve as the Commission Chair Sharon Greenberger, President and CEO of the YMCA of Greater New York will serve as Commission Vice Chair and New York City's Executive Director for Housing Leila Bozorg, who we all know of course as a recent member of this commission will serve as the Commission Secretary.

Former city planning leaders in addition to Leila, Anita Lairmont and Karl Weisbrod are also serving as members of the commission. We expect there will be ample opportunities next year for the public to make their voices heard. I do want to be clear that despite the similarities in name and even in some cases in subject matter, the Charter Review Commission and the City Planning Commission's work is separate. And last week's announcement is distinct from our ongoing work at the Department of City Planning and City Planning Commission. Let's turn to today's agenda.

Since the commission does not have any public hearing scheduled for this week, we may move all of our votes to this afternoon. But we're first going to go through our typical Monday review session items and we'll save votes for the end of today. The first project before us today involves multiple street map changes for the Coney development, a 1,300,000 square foot entertainment complex at Coney Island. I don't know if we're to do it in this order, so we'll just stand by for a second. That would include a gaming facility, hotel, convention center, food hall, retail space and more.

If approved the project would be spread out on Surf Avenue across three blocks between Maimonides Ballpark and Luna Park close to the Boardwalk. Just like the Queens Future and Western Rail Yards applications, this application is distinct from other required approvals around the gaming facility licensing process for the Coney development. In addition to the citywide gaming facility text amendment and this site specific application, it would still need to go through the state defined siting process, which includes required approval by a six person community advisory committee, which includes representatives from the mayor, borough president, council member and others. Next, we will head over to Midland Beach on Staten Island for proposed acquisition by the Departments of Design and Construction, Citywide Administrative Services and Environmental Protection. The agencies are seeking to acquire a portion of a privately owned lot at 1919 Highland Boulevard to allow DEP to advance its best management practices for the ecologically supportive New Creek Blue Belt stormwater management program.

Staying on Staten Island, we're going to hear details on a special permit renewal for a two building office complex with retail and parking at 2835 and 2845 Veterans Road West on the South Shore. The site is next to the Mill Creek Freshwater Wetlands and the Bricktown Center Shopping Mall. Back before us as well is a general project plan from New York State Empire State Development to redevelop the former Lincoln Correctional Facility in Harlem. This existing facility would be replaced with the Seneca residential building with 105 permanently affordable homeownership units and community facility space. Today, will move to approve a recommendation letter from this commission regarding the plan.

We will also hear an update on 441 And 467 Prospect Avenue rezoning commonly referred to as Arrow Linen. We had a public hearing on this item several weeks ago and we are going to have an update and recommendation from the department today. And after all of that, then we're going to hold a series of votes in a special meeting. But we'll talk about that later. Madam Secretary, I think we're going to start with 441 And 467 Prospect Avenue rezoning, if that sounds right to you?

Yes, sure.

Okay. Let's do that. I know we have a recusal from Commissioner Rampershad. So let's get the show on the road here and start with Prospect Avenue.

Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome to the City Planning Commission review session for Monday, 12/16/2024. The time is 01:14 p. M. And a quorum is present. The first item on our agenda, we're going to discuss future vote items. Staff have prepared reports for 440 One-four 67 Prospect Avenue, which had a public hearing at the November 6 public meeting. Chuky is here to present.

Good afternoon, commissioners. And I want

to note, the chair said we have an update and a recommendation. The update is on how City of Yes for housing opportunity will affect the project, and that's contained in the recommendation. So a two for one. The department recommends the approval of the 441 And 467 Prospect Avenue application by Arrow Linen Supply Company, which is seeking a zoning map and zoning text amendment to facilitate the development of two new 13 storey residential buildings with two forty four apartments, including 61 permanently income restricted homes in Windsor Terrace, Community District 7, Brooklyn. The department believes that the proposed zoning map amendment from an R5B district to an R7-one district and the mapping of an MIH area is appropriate, especially in this high opportunity area.

Before I get into the rest of the recommendation, I want to note that we have heard many comments on this application, including vocal opposition. Many have expressed concerns over height, scale, infrastructure and services and concerns on how City of Yes for housing opportunity would affect the application. I'll address this concern in the next slide. Testimony has also expressed concern that this development will not be affordable to residents and cause displacement. Some have also shared frustration with what they perceived as lack of community engagement done on this project.

Those in support of the application have voiced the desire to see new housing in a transit and amenity rich neighborhood. They've also expressed the belief that projects like this have the potential to ease displacement risk on nearby neighborhoods like Flatbush and Kensington that have higher displacement risk than Windsor Terrace. At the time of certification for this application, when City of Yes for housing opportunity had not yet passed, R71 districts granted a maximum residential FAR of 4.6 for MIH buildings and a maximum height of 13 stories. As of the passage of CHO, R71 buildings with MIH qualify for the FAR for qualifying affordable housing, which is 5.01. The maximum height for an R71 building with qualifying affordable housing is 11 stories.

However, under CHO, some eligible sites, including this one, are granted extra height. At this site, the maximum is 15 stories. As I mentioned, after the passage of CHO, some sites are eligible for increases in max height. Because the development site is on a zoning lot that is over 20,000 square feet, it would be eligible for a max height of 15 stories in an R71 district. Under the originally proposed version of CHO, this site would have been eligible to rise to 19 storeys.

However, modifications reduced it to 15. The final version of CHO also removed street parking requirements for residential buildings in the inner transit zone, which includes this site. As such, the applicant team has withdrawn its special permit to waive parking minimums as that permit is no longer necessary. The density offered by R71 is appropriate for this site given its exceptional access to transit, open space and commercial amenities. The hashed green line on this slide shows the two block walk between the project area and the entrance to the 15th Street Prospect Park subway station serving the F and G lines.

By subway, the project area is thirty five minutes from the Lower Manhattan Central Business District where we are right now. Additionally, the B61, B67, B68 and B69 bus lines all serve the immediate area. A block north of the subway station is Bartell Pritchard Square, where there is an entrance to the five twenty six acre Prospect Park. The 25th Street entrance to Greenwood Cemetery is a seven minute walk south of the project area. The area along Prospect Park West between the project area and Bartow Pritchard Square is a commercial corridor with numerous restaurants, grocery stores, drug stores, medical offices and other retailers.

The project area is also proximate to several public schools. Three of the streets bounding the project area, Prospect Avenue, Prospect Park West and 8th Avenue, are 80 feet wide, meaning greater access to light and air. Nearly all of Windsor Terrace is mapped with contextual zoning districts that have preserved the low rise built form, but limited opportunities for the neighborhood to accommodate housing growth. The restrictive zoning has meant that between 2010 and 2023, the Windsor Terrace South Slope neighborhood, as defined by its neighborhood tabulation area, produced six ninety two units of new housing. By contrast, just north, Park Slope produced over 2,300 new units and directly across the park, Prospect Lefferts Gardens produced nearly 2,500 new units.

Regarding the height and bulk allowed under R7-one, the department believes that the flexible building envelope is well suited for the project area outlined here in yellow. The development site outlined here in pink consists of two tax lots. Lot 73, and that's on the left hand side, is a square lot and Lot 61 is a flag shaped lot. Together, they combine into a single U shaped 54,000 square foot lot with an irregular depth of 148 feet and a length of four thirty feet across on that rear northern edge. There is no existing residential development on the development site itself.

Though the illustrative renderings I am showing you are from the time of certification, which was before the passage of CHO, we believe they still demonstrate the flexibility of the district. To be clear, as noted earlier, the applicant would be granted an additional 0.1 FAR or roughly 22,000 square feet and a maximum height of 15 stories. In their letter to the commission, the applicant noted they are committed to a maximum height of 13 stories and would use the FAR granted on the lower floors of the building. The department believes that R71's flexible envelope better matches the site's irregular configuration and allows for a building form responsive to the context. In particular, the proposed zoning allows room for more building setbacks.

The applicant's architect has illustrated this through greater side lot line setbacks showing a building height four stories within 30 to 40 feet of adjacent properties, creating a buffer between the taller portions of the development and the existing row houses. I've indicated these portions with black arrows and pink shading. These step downs are intended to create less perceived bulk for pedestrians, a more cohesive streetscape and to allow more light to reach neighboring row homes. In addition to the four story buffers for adjacent properties, the development is proposing to rise to only seven stories for small portions of the street frontage and then set back 10 feet before rising to a height of 130 feet or 13 stories. The green arrows on this slide indicate those 10 foot setbacks that I mentioned.

Importantly, the footprints of the 13 story portions of the development are limited to small areas of the site. Only 65 feet in width and between one hundred and ten and one hundred and thirty feet in-depth, resulting in floor plates, which are between approximately seven thousand two hundred and eight thousand five hundred square feet on a lot that is 54,000 square feet. The pink arrows and shading highlight these slender floor plates. And just to be clear, I'm indicating the slender floor plates for the tallest portions of the building. The applicant floor plans also show additional consideration to light air and privacy within the proposed site plan, including creating ground floor courtyards in the middle of the development where adjacent properties have existing light wells or rear yards.

I've indicated these courtyards with green arrows on this slide. I know there's a lot of green. I've also denoted the existing yards and courts in grayish green and the proposed yards in transparent neon green. At the rear of their property, the applicant proposes a 21,300 square foot landscaped yard also shaded in transparent neon green. It is larger than the existing rear yard requirements further buffering adjacent properties in their existing yards and light wells.

Though taller than the existing built context, the applicant can set back from adjacent properties and produce more slender tower floor plates due to the flexibility provided in the R71 District. Though none of this is required by the R71 District, these renderings serve as an example of the flexibility possible under it. In addition to supporting the zoning change to R7-one, the department believes that the zoning text amendment to map an MIH area is appropriate. In addition excuse me. As noted at the public hearing, the project area is located in the Windsor Terrace neighborhood tabulation area, which is classified by the department's Equitable Data Development Explorer as having the lowest risk of displacement relative to other neighborhoods in the city.

As of 2022, the median household income in the Windsor Terrace NTA neighborhood tabulation area was $134,000 $134,366 which is higher than the citywide median household income of $76,607 and that of the Sunset West Sunset Park West NTA of $79,785 For reference, neighborhood tabulation areas with comparable medium household incomes include Murray Hill in Manhattan with one hundred and thirty eight thousand dollars three thirty seven dollars and the Upper East Side Yorkville neighborhood tabulation area in Manhattan, which is $133,582 AMI. Establishment of an MIH area is consistent with city goals of promoting the production of affordable housing, particularly in high opportunity areas that have seen little new affordable housing development. In higher income, high demand areas like Windsor Terrace, new developments can meet MIH affordability requirements without the need for public subsidy as the market rate units can cross subsidize income restricted ones. While the department agrees with the borough president's recommendation encouraging the developer to maximize affordability at this site, We note that doing so without public subsidy allows for limited citywide housing subsidies to be used in other less affluent neighborhoods where limited city housing subsidies are more desperately needed. To conclude, the department supports the application, which will increase housing capacity in a high opportunity, high demand neighborhood, which given its access to transit, open space and retail is well suited to accommodate additional homes.

Thank you. I'll take any questions.

Great. Thank you very much, Suky, and for all of your the information you provided through this process. Just one from me. One of the concerns that we heard raised was about the heights of the buildings. I think you covered that pretty clearly that pre housing opportunity, it was a max of I guess it was 13 with MIH.

This would allow it to go up to 15. And the department is recommending support assuming that they were to go up to 15. They also said that they did not intend to go up to 15. I recognize we're not going to they have they would if we approve it, they will have the right to go to 15. So we have to be comfortable with that. But can you explain why they felt that 13 was the better place? Did you get clarity on that point because it was a little uncertain at the hearing? Certainly, I couldn't rely on it there, but I don't know if there was any more clarity that you were able to get. Right.

Thank you, Chair. So the applicant team has in both of the public hearing and in the letter to the commission said that they plan for this building to go up to 13 stories. They've mentioned both that they could accommodate the additional FAR granted in the R71 District, that 0.4 FAR in lower portions of the building. They believe they can do so in a manner that is still keeps the building as responsive to the surrounding area. They mentioned some efficiencies in construction costs of going above 13 stories, and that was really kind of the extent of what they got into.

Efficiency of being able to build at 13 stories and a desire to keep what they believe is a more responsive building. That said, I just wanted to make clear the department does stand by the appropriateness of the R71 with CHO modifications at this site. The intent of CHO was to allow a little bit more density and accompanying height, and we stand by what it is doing across the city and at this location.

Very good. Thank you, Juki. Let me go to Vice Chair Knuckles.

Thank you, Juki. So which of the MIH options do they plan to implement here? I believe the applicant is planning to implement option one. Thank you.

Commissioner Goodrich?

Just a very quick question. And I you're very thorough, and I know that you probably answered this already, so I apologize in advance. There was at some point where the community was at it was said that they had a developer that would make this a 100% affordable housing. Do you know what was that a serious

what I've

Not a

Yeah, yeah. But a somewhat No.

And Commissioner Goodrich, no need to apologize. It's a great question. It's relevant here. There was a letter submitted, and it was read at the public hearing, that there had been a conversation between, I believe it was Catholic charities and the applicant. And the applicant was uninterested in selling this site. One thing I just want to say in this, if we had an opportunity to build 100% affordable housing, this density is absolutely appropriate. I would say it's the minimum. If we can build in 100% affordable development, why would we not build more instead of less? Just want to put that out there as part of this conversation. But I hope I responded to you appropriately, Commissioner Goodrich.

Yeah. And we have so many public hearings, to be honest, after all. Get all tangled. But one other question. I guess is the moderate the above AMI, the above 81% AMI, there are 11 units there? Is that

Let me grab my material on that. One sec.

I have it here. It's 11 25 very low income, 25 low income, and then 11 moderate income, and that's 81 to one twenty AMI. And I'm Right. Just wanna triple clarify. I guess the thought behind that is because the year I mean, it doesn't make any sense. The area's a little bit higher income anyway. Right?

Right. Well, I I think the the mix here is sort of under a typical MAH Option one program.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Souriau?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you so much for the update. This is very useful. I have two quick questions. The first question is for the department. I'm wondering if in building on Commissioner Gojira's question, was there any was there a formal request to HPD in terms of financing the more aggressive affordability scenario? I know that during the public hearing here, we brought that up. The applicant said that they hadn't, but they would be willing to. And I'm wondering if that actually happened and what was HPD's response in terms of financing options for that?

So with regard to that, Commissioner Osorio, my understanding is like typically if, let's say, 100% affordable development is entering into the EULIP process, and we're pretty confident that it's gonna be developed, there are sort of ongoing conversations, like an intake done by HPD around the project. I don't believe that's happened for this project. And I'm not aware of extensive communication between the applicant team and HPD for pursuit of a 100% affordable or anything mentioned by the borough president in this project between HPD. That said, I think option one that the borough president wrote into his recommendation was not using public subsidy. That's my understanding of it.

Thank you. That's useful. I I would just encourage the department to still seek, so like a formal statement from HPD because this is an example of of it will help us understand exactly where are the constraints and and how far can we go. I think that that's still a really valid question. The the second question that I wanted to ask you was in terms just in general, I know that during the public hearing here, had

a

we followed up with each of the different recommendations, modifications established by the Board of President. And at that point, I think that some of the specific recommendations were still being analyzed by the applicant. And so I'm wondering if there had been any additional feedback or any additional response after after the hearing, basically.

Thanks, commissioner. So the extent of the follow-up from the applicant was conveyed in the letter, but I I don't have anything beyond that.

Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner. Okay. Thank you very much, Suky. Appreciate it. Thanks, everyone. Thank you.

And I'll just note also for the future votes. Staff have also prepared reports for 200185 Coyle Street, 4939 Van Damme Street demapping, 854 5th Avenue Members Club, 455 1st Avenue, Spark Kipps Bay and Jacob Day Residence Landmark. Okay.

Great. Thank you.

Moving on. The next item on our agenda is a certification of a city map amendment in Brooklyn Community District Thirteen. Our presenter is Steven Johnson.

Good afternoon. Hi, Hello. All right.

There's an application by TSG, Coney Island Entertainment HomeCo LLC, for a city map change to facilitate the development of a gaming facility and associated uses located in Coney Island, Brooklyn's Canoe Board thirteen. This project is to demap portions of streets, purchase volumes of air over streets and to change the grade of a portion of a street. There are a number of lots that are controlled by the applicant and they are proposing to build on all those lots listed here on the slide and then to connect them with a bridge over two city streets. I will be showing some illustrative drawings of the proposed development that includes a casino, a hotel, and a number of other related uses. And that would be part of a gaming application to be submitted to the state next summer.

The applicant is seeking one of these three available commercial licenses that will be awarded by the 2025. I will be discussing the state's gaming license process and schedule as well as the city's gaming facility text amendment, which was the first step in the gaming process for the City Of New York. Now the proposed land use action is to amend the city map to eliminate, discontinue and close a portion of Bowery, D map and purchase a volume of air over a portion of West 12th Street, C MAP and purchase a volume of air over a portion of Stillwell and to change the grade of a portion of Stillwell Avenue. The proposed land use action in conjunction with the recently adopted gaming facility tax amendment would allow the state to consider a gaming application by the applicant for a gaming facility license on this development site. The applicant has stated that if they are not awarded one of the three available gaming licenses, they would not pursue the project and the development site would remain as is in its existing condition.

Now this is the agenda for the presentation. There are about 44 slides. And starting with the Gaming Facility Text Amendment, which was adopted by the City Council on 04/18/2024. This amendment permitted the gaming use for the first time in the city and allows for up to three gaming facilities in the city. Previously, this was not a permitted use in the zoning resolution.

The text amendment does not allow any future casinos or gaming facilities in the city that are not related to this specific state gaming commission process and these three available licenses. An approval by the gaming commission via the Gaming Facility Location Board shall be deemed to have satisfied all applicable regulations of the zoning resolution. Now the New York State Gaming Commission regulates and oversees gaming facilities, casinos and racetracks. And in a statewide referendum in 2013 approved seven new commercial casinos. Subsequently, four licenses were awarded in Upstate New York and those facilities are up and running.

The Gaming Commission subsequently created the Gaming Association Location Board to oversee the process to review the three remaining licenses in the Downstate New York region and that includes New York City, Long Island, Westchester, Putnam and Rockland Counties. They established a new siting and review process, which includes a Community Advisory Committee or a CAC. And the CACs will be created to review each gaming facility application based on the site's location and consist of the six members or appointees by these elected officials listed on the screen, the governor, the mayor, a state senator, state assembly member, city council member, and the borough president. Each CAC is subject to the open meetings law and must hold public hearings, issue a finding establishing support, and have a two thirds vote approval by the six members to advance the application. So, this map shows the nine gaming facility proposals in New York City.

There's also a proposal on Long Island and one in Westchester. In New York City, there's the five applications or the five projects five in Manhattan, sorry one in The Bronx, two in Queens, and this one that we're discussing today in Brooklyn. Now the four highlighted projects on the slide represent the projects that have additional actions that are not covered by the gaming facility text amendment. And this includes the Coney development, which has this mapping action. Queen's Future was certified on September 9 and Western Rail Yards certified on November 4 and will be back in January for the Bally's action.

So the gaming state schedule has all applications submitted to the state by July 27, which also starts the CAC review of those applications. All the projects must meet the Board requirement that gaming applications must have local zoning approval when the Board receives CAC approved applications in September. And like I mentioned, the CACs will hold public hearings, solicit feedback and testimony. And they must vote on applications by 09/30/2025, and they must have the two thirds of majority. So, all approved applications would then go to the Gaming Location Board.

So, this means from New York City, they could have anywhere from zero to nine applications to review. So moving on to the area overview. So for some historical context, in the late 1800s, Coney Island became a resort and amusement area with hotels, restaurants, ballrooms, casinos, a racetrack and amusement rides including the first roller coaster in The U. S. In the '20s, the Boardwalk, Wonder Wheel and Cyclone opened.

And in the '50s, Robert Moses began developing large residential developments through urban renewal throughout Coney Island. And in 2001, the baseball stadium was completed. We have the zoning section map on the slide showing that the development is within a C7 commercial district within the Coney Island Special District. And this is the footprint of the project on four blocks and connected by two bridges, one bridge over Stillwell and one over West 12th Street. The development site is bounded by Surf Avenue to the North, Wonder Wheel Way to the South, West 15th Street to the West, and then Jones Walk and Bowery to the East.

Here we have the DOF tax map. It shows the development site outlined in a red dashed line. You can see that the development site has the two areas in purple, which represent the volume of the two bridges crossing over the city streets and connecting to the development sites over Stillwell and West 12th. The striped blue area indicates the location of the proposed gray change of Stillwell, and the blue area in the center of the slide is the portion of Bowery which is proposed to be demapped. Now, the area map shows the proposed development site outlined in red is located within the C-seven zoning district of the Coney East Subdistrict within the special Coney Island District.

C-seven districts are specifically designed, designated for large open amusement parks. And the proposed development site is also located within a transit zone, a fresh zone, a coastal zone and flood zone pursuant to 2007 and 2015 flood insurance rate maps. Now the Coney East Subdistrict is the amusement and entertainment core of the Coney Island neighborhood. The existing built conditions and land uses are mainly one and two story buildings. Many existing structures are temporary and located on otherwise vacant land, which we'll see in a few minutes.

The 7,000 seat baseball stadium is one block to the west of the site, starting at West 16th Street, and the aquarium is about two blocks to the east of the site. There are a number of landmarks in the area, including the Wonder Wheel, the Cyclone, the Riegelman Boardwalk, Child's Restaurant and Parachute Jump, and the Coney Island Steel Wall subway stop is directly across Surf Avenue from the development and serves the F, D, N and Q trains. Now we're moving on to the existing conditions photos. The first image we see is looking east along 120 foot wide Surf Avenue. Nathan's is on the right, and that is where a steel well crosses surf.

And the second image you can see is looking south on the 100 foot wide steel well toward the boardwalk. This is the location where the applicant is proposing to create a grand entrance into a pedestrianized steel well. And I'll have some illustrations of that later So the first image here is looking toward the boardwalk again on West 15th Street. This is the western end of the proposed development. And the baseball stadium would be on the right of that image.

The second image is looking east along the 37 foot wide Bowery. And you can see the cyclone in the center in the very distance in the top half of the Wonder Wheel on the right. Now, the first image here is looking north on West 15th Street. The development site includes the area to the right in that photo. The second image is looking north on Steelwell with your back up against the boardwalk.

The rides and amusements in that image on to the left and the right are not within development site. So, these two images are looking at each other on Wonder Wheel Way. This is the southern boundary of the proposed development. And these two images are looking at each other along Bowery. This is the area that is proposed to be demapped and be in the heart of the proposed development.

Here we're looking north in both pictures. This first image is the 60 foot wide West 12th Street. And as you can see, the elevated subway line in the background of that image. And the second image on the right is of Jones Walk, which is a demap street, which would be the eastern edge of development. And then our final photo here is photo one is looking west along Surf, and photo two is looking south along Jones Walk, which is the corner of the site where the sign says Fun Food.

So now we're moving on to the project description. So this illustration, can see the proposed development site with here we're looking north. And in the context of the beach and the boardwalk, the stadium would be you can see the corner of it on the left. Luna Park and the Cyclone are on the right. The proposed hotel, which is the largest tallest building in the development, is proposed to be four ten feet tall with a convention center on the bottom taking up the bottom levels of the site.

Now, the two proposed pedestrian the two proposed bridges that are crossing the streets, one is crossing Stillwell, where it says The Coney, and the one crossing 12th Street. These both have open rooftops on the top floors. And there would be multiple levels of enclosed parking underneath. And just to dig in more on the details of the proposed development, the casino is proposed to be 350,000 square feet. The hotel approximately 250,000 square feet.

The convention center about 110,000 square feet below the hotel. There's a food hall. There's some general retail. There's an event space, 48,000 square feet event space. The 100 square foot open rooftop, and of course, 1,500 parking spaces.

Now here we have an illustration of the building heights and the uses. The hotel and convention center, as I mentioned, is the tallest building on Development Site 4. It's approximately proposed to be 43 stories and reaching a height of four zero three feet, not counting the mechanicals. The light blue color represents the convention center underneath it and is mostly located under the hotel, but is also within the proposed bridge crossing over West 12th Street, which is a six level bridge. And that will connect everybody to the two different sites, Development Site 4 and Development Site 2 And 3.

The tallest structure in the middle parcel is a 171 feet. You can see the darker green color underneath that number 129. That's Stillwell Avenue. That's the area. It's labeled public open space.

That's the proposed pedestrianized Stillwell there. The bridge over Stillwell Avenue will have three levels, including one for cars, vehicles to move, and then the rooftop open space. All vehicles would be entering from West 12th Street into the development, and all vehicles that are parking would exit from West 15th Street. And I have a transportation map illustration to show you in a few slides. So as I mentioned, one of the main features of the project is that the applicant is proposing to take the 100 foot wide steel well and turn it into a significant pedestrian walkway and thoroughfare.

And here's an image of the existing steel well at SURF. And this is what the applicant is proposing. This is obviously a nighttime with everything lit up. This area could then be proposed to be transformed into this pedestrian thoroughfare gateway entrance that is the gateway into the subdistrict and into the amusements. There will be greenery, seating and other public amenities.

They're additionally proposing the grade change at this location. And according to the applicant, that will provide superior pedestrian experience and help alleviate a portion of the ongoing and constant flooding in the neighborhood. They are referring to the bridge where the sign says Welcome to Coney Island as the Coney Arch. So they're also proposing some other streetscape improvements along Surf And Bowery. And you can see some of these here.

They're proposing to make some pedestrianized improvements around the development site. Here is an illustration of the Coney Arch just to give you an idea of the context and the scale of walking underneath the Coney Arch. So the walkway underneath is 48 feet high and 100 feet wide. Now, while the applicant is proposing to make the section of Stillwell a pedestrianized environment, emergency vehicles would still be able to use the street. As you can see, they've got a 25 foot pathway minimum through the area as needed.

And here we have the vehicular circulation. So, for those traveling by car or anyone wanting to park in the development, the main vehicle entrance will be off of the two way West 12th Street, which is on the right there. You can see the West 12th Street at the intersection with SURF. There will be this internal vehicular circulation path for valet and self park options. All cars that are parked in the facility would exit from Bowery and West 15th Street on the other side of Stillwell.

That way, no vehicles would be crossing over Stillwell to maintain a pedestrianized environment. Taxis, Ubers for hire vehicles will drive in from West 12th Street and either drop off or pick up, and then we'll also leave from West 12th Street. So a total of 1,500 parking spaces are proposed in development. You can see there's a couple loading areas on Sites 13, and 4. On West 15th Street, on the far left, you can see there's a line of buses parking there.

That'll be the focus of where the bus parking would be located. All right. So, now moving on to the actions, the one action, the city map change. So, for Bowery, the proposal is to eliminate, discontinue, and close a portion of Bowery. On West 12th, the proposal is for the applicant to demap and purchase a volume of air over a portion of West 12th.

And then I mentioned on Stillwell, demap a section of Stillwell and purchase a volume of air over a portion of Stillwell and to make the change of grade to the street where the pedestrianized area is. Now just to zoom in on the air volumes and streets. So this illustration shows the Bowery de mapping in blue superimposed over the top of the proposed development site. This includes the street and the volume above and runs from Stillwell to West 12th Street. This would facilitate the development of the largest footprint of the site and would also function as the main vehicular entrance into the site.

Now the gold yellowish color is showing the the air volumes to be mapped and purchased. Now the volume of air over West 12th Street proposed to be the mapped ones begins at a lower limiting plane of approximately 34 feet and rises to an upper limiting plane of approximately 194 feet. This will connect the hotel and convention center with the main casino and parking location. The volume of air above Stillwell proposed to be demapped begins at a lower limiting plane of approximately 58 feet and an upper limiting plane of approximately 154 feet. Now, this illustration here, there's an error over Stillwell.

The area to be demapped should closely align with more closely align with the bridge where you can see underneath. It's not supposed to run from Bowery to Wonder Wheel Way. It's supposed to be following where the bridge is. Okay. So we have this section of the entire site looking north.

This shows the extent and height of the proposed volume of air over steel well on West 12th Street to be demapped. You can see that steel well is 100 feet wide or 48 feet tall, and West 12th is 60 feet wide and 26 feet tall. And then just to zoom in on the Stillwell section, this is looking east with the volume marked with A being the bridge that connects the buildings. The bridge would have three levels, with one being the parking vehicles and the other the gaming use and the connection into the buildings. And then likewise, the illustration here shows a section looking east of the proposed volume of the bridge connecting to the hotel and convention center, and the volume is marked with B.

And then the grain change. Finally, for the proposed grade change on Stillwell, starting at the northern end at SURF, at the street bulb at the intersection of SURF and Stillwell, the street grade slowly starts to rise until it was at a plus five feet at the sidewalk and continues to increase at an incline of 1.5% until the elevation reaches plus nine feet at the midpoint of the site. The grade continues to rise at an incline of 1.5%, reaching a height of plus 10.6 feet under the arch. Also, under the coning arch, there's going to be entrances into each building and steps into those buildings. And then it starts to slowly decline down again to 9.6 feet at Wonder Wheel Way.

Okay. So just moving on to the RER. The applicant is required to complete a racial equity report because there's a proposed increase in non residential floor area of at least 200,000 square feet. The applicant is not proposing any residential development. The development site is in Puma Four Thousand And Eighteen.

And in 2020, the census indicates that in the Coney Island and Brighton Beach area, a majority of the population was white, non Hispanic at 52%, 17% identify as Asian, non Hispanic, 16% identify as Hispanic Latino, and 11% identify as black, non Hispanic. From 2010 to 2020, there is total population in Coney Island and Brighton Beach increased by 5%, which increased which comprised of an increase of the Asian population by 49%, an increase in the Hispanic population by 2%, while the Black population dropped 2% and the White population dropped 6%. The profile of anticipated new jobs for non residential space with a known tenant includes the gambling industries with 3,772 jobs. An EIS was conducted with DCP acting on behalf of the CPC as a lead agency. The scoping meeting was held in June 2024.

The notice of completion for the DEIS was issued on 12/13/2024, and the DEIS identifies significant adverse impacts related to transportation, construction and historic and cultural resources. Minimization measures are identified in the DIS and will be explored further between the DEIS and FEIS. And the applicant is, to wrap up, is seeking the proposed map change in order to pursue a gaming license with the state in the 2025, Similar to the Queen's future proposal, if the applicant is not awarded a gaming facility license, the alternative maps for the city map change described in this application would not be filed and the discretionary action would not be implemented. That concludes the presentation. I'm happy to take any questions.

Great. Thanks very much, Stephen. I know there are going

to be

some questions from commissioners. Let me just start to kick this off with really just one related to the traffic movement. If you could go back to the slide that shows the car is entering and exiting. That's the one. Yes.

Okay. So the way you described it, think, and you can tell me where I go astray here, is cars would enter on West 12th Street. It's a two way street as contemplated. A drop off vehicle taxi or whatever would go through that circular driveway drop off exit right back out on West 12th Street or would they go straight out on Bowery? 12th Street. They would go back out on 12th Street right where they came from? Yes. Okay. And if somebody were parking instead of circling around and come back out, they would go into the depths of the building there somehow or perhaps up, perhaps down. I'm not certain.

That's right.

Probably up. I think so.

But then you go into the building there and then when exiting from a parking situation, you'd be coming out on Bowery on the other side. Is that right? And then exiting through West 15th Street?

Yeah. That's right. Okay.

Okay. Then Right where

it says Bowery on the left, you can see the little arrow coming down a ramp

Yeah.

Going up a ramp or whatever.

Yes. That's where they would exit Yeah. From the parking garage. Yeah. I do see an arrow that seems like it's coming out of the parking garage in the same area where I was just describing cars going into the parking garage. What's happening there?

Where exactly are you pointing to?

So when let's just take follow my taxi here. I go in on West 12th Street. Yeah. I hang a right turn into that circular area, and then I wanna park. So I go in and around and down into the building. Or you have to drop

it off to valet.

Right. Where I give it to a valet. Yeah. But right there's another arrow coming in the other direction out of that same space.

Over here. Yeah. Right. Right.

I could have actually made your life easier by standing up and moving myself here for like a half of a second. That's the arrow I'm asking about. So what is happening there?

I believe that might be for valet, But I'll check with the applicant to confirm exactly who is able to leave the parking and exit through that area. Okay.

And then West 15th Street would be the area where buses would go. Is there a place for buses to turn around on West 15th Street? Or is that it feels like they may be dead ending over there a

little Yes.

There is space according to the applicant and the transportation work they've done. I'm not sure whether it's at the end of the Bowery location or at the end by Wonder Wheel Way, but there would be there would have to be space for them to turn around or it's just not doable. Okay.

So the actions here, Justin, in short, it's eliminate, discontinue, close Bowery. And then there's both the elimination discontinuation of West 12th and Stillwell, but also with the air volumes up above to allow for the connection between the buildings, correct? Okay. And then just to you said it at the end there, but I just want to make sure that everybody is clear that this is still a contingent application. The process goes on to that Community Advisory Committee process that you described at the outset.

And if this application were not successful, the actions that we're talking about here, say again what happens to them, what happens to the demapping actions if this application does not end up getting awarded a license?

If it's approved, if the ULURP is approved and makes it all the way through, then the department would hold on to the application in anticipation of whether or not the license is awarded to them. And then if it's not awarded, then the department would not file the application, and it would not go through. So this would be detailed in the city planning commission report and have a process detailed as to why and how that can happen and the kind of uniqueness of this process dealing with the state, etcetera, and these gaming

licenses. Thank you. Steven, go ahead.

Hi. It's Steven Leonard, Director of Technical Review for City Planning. Just to add a little bit of detail to that. Section one ninety eight c of the city charter says that a city map amendment doesn't become official, doesn't become really real until maps are filed after EULIP approval. And that's the step that would be held and would not go forward if we didn't if they weren't issued the license. And there are many cases where, you know, a ULIP goes through, it's approved, but something happens, the project doesn't go forward and the maps aren't filed and then the amendment doesn't ever really happen. So it's not unprecedented. Okay. Great. Thank you for that. Okay.

Let me go with Commissioner Goodrich first and see what other questions.

Oh, there

we go.

Yeah. So Coney Island is a family friendly you know, it's an amusement park. And I guess, you know well, casino casinos and gaming are not family friendly. And as part of urban planning, we want to think about how the landscape change will affect the area. And so I'm wondering, in your opinion, what negative impact, if any, can there be with having a gaming facility next to children and family friend centered entertainment?

Well, when I went out to the community board for the gaming text amendment, There were a lot of questions, pro and con. And the pro focused on economic development and the jobs and bringing enlivening the area year round. And the negative focused on some of the detrimental impacts of gambling, which we are all aware of. I think it's up to the commission and the CACs to decide how to weigh that and if they feel it's a detriment or a positive or they balance out. And I think that's, I think, something that needs to be considered when looking at this.

And then if you look at some areas, I know you know, I hate to bring up another state, but Las Vegas is trying to become a family friendly area, and that's already inundated with casinos. So I think there's lots of things you can do depending on how you put your project to Guevler and how you develop the site and what uses are there to make it more or less, family friendly.

Okay. So as of now, there isn't there have been conversations, obviously, about the detriments of casinos, but nothing concrete about the one concern of I mean, it's sort of I mean, because Coney Island is not Disneyland, but it's sort of like putting a bunch of bars by Disneyland. That's how I think of it.

There are bars at Disneyland. Okay. I know. How else would I go?

Got it. All right. Let me move on to the second question then. One of the rationales behind this project is to bring in year round traffic. Coney Island is not Midtown where it has year round traffic. People go in the summers for the beach and stuff, but during the winter, it has it's there's a lull. And I'm wondering, wouldn't there just be the same thing but just with the casinos? You know, like, what what incentives so now you'll have a gaming facility there. But it's still hard to get to. Even I live in Brooklyn.

I don't really go to Coney Island that much because it's a little bit out of the way. Is there anything being done to now make it easier for foot traffic for people to have an incentive to go there other than the fact that it's gaming? Or

Well, I can tell you that, again, during my outreach for the text amendment, a lot of people, were really sad about restaurants leaving the area, closing down. I think there was a Bear Hall that closed down. A lot of retail economic development things left the area. So I would assume that if this development went in, you would have a draw there for restaurants, something to do, whether it's hot, cold, or warm outside. And then that would then attract other developments in the area too.

So you would have whatever type of chain restaurants or local restaurants or something that would be able to establish itself there again and have people go.

Yeah. Because one of the and I brought this up before. One of the concerns with gaming and casinos is that it drains the local economy. So in this instance, before it's even there, there have been problems with local businesses shutting down. So this would bring in new business is what you're saying.

That's the idea, that it would be a generator. People would be coming there, driving in. There is a transit line that's right there too. The people could take the subway in. I don't know if people would fly in, but it's pretty close to JFK. It's very actually, very close to JFK. So

My last question. Will this I I apologize if you if you mentioned this. I don't I'm not sure. But the sunlight, I mean, we've had this with other projects, right, where it's just like a small park and a tall building impacts the nearby park or maybe we just had it with one. But this is like an actual a big amusement park. And I guess I'm wondering if there will actually be any shadow impacts. And I think for me, this is a little bit more serious, not to minimize any previous projects, but, you know, this is not just like a small playground. This is a whole amusement park. So will it be darker? Will there be shadow impacts?

I personally like sun in my face when I'm on the roller coaster. So I, you know

Stephanie.

Hello. Stephanie Schlew, Director of Environmental here. So one of the things about this site that doesn't result in as much shadow as you might expect is because most of the amusements are to the south of the development site. And based on secret technical manual and the modeling of shadows, things that are kind of one hundred and eight degrees north and south of a southward line aren't able to be shadowed by development. And so pretty much everything that's south towards the boardwalk from the development doesn't receive shadows based on the placement of where we are on Earth.

So that is helpful. There are some incremental shadows on the areas to the east and to the North, obviously. But in collaboration with with Parks Department and our other subject matter experts, it was determined not to have significant adverse shadows impacts, because some of those features are not sunlight sensitive. So obviously, everybody has a different perspective on how much sun they enjoy at amusements like this. But that was the conclusion of the technical analysis.

Thank you. Thank

you, Commissioner. Commissioner Osorio? Thank you, Chair. Thanks so much for the presentation. I have two sets of questions. The first one has to do I mean both of them in a way have to do with DEIS. The first question is, thank you for highlighting some of the adverse impacts that have been noted. Clearly, at this point in the process, you're still exploring mitigation options. But I'm wondering if there's anything that you can share with us in terms of the steel wheel interventions and the potential mitigation of adverse impacts on pedestrian traffic?

So, I think the pedestrian impacts are largely on the areas that will remain with traffic, so the Surf Avenue and 12th And 15th. So Stilwell, because it's being pedestrianized, there aren't impacts identified on that part of

the

corridor. Thank you. I guess in rephrasing my question, how can Stillwell I guess my question is whether the interventions proposed for Stillwell can mitigate the impacts elsewhere. That was my question.

Yes, yes. I think that's a great point. And there are interventions and mitigations proposed on SURF and on some of the other frontages to make pedestrian improvements, widen sidewalks, widen curbs. So there are a suite of measures that have been identified in the draft that we'll continue working on for the final.

Okay. Vivien, anything that you anything inviting that you can share with us in terms of in addition to what's already in the DIS would be useful. The other question has to do with the impacts of climate change. And so in the DEIS, you note the requirements under WRP and which includes sort of like alternative treatments for the surface. I mean, with a water table so high here, it will be interesting to understand what's actually sort of like feasible.

You discussed in the presentation some of the proposed elevations for the streetway for the right of way. But I'm wondering if what else has been or actually what has been explored because besides pointing to the requirements, the DEIS, that chapter doesn't have much detail.

Yeah. So great question. I think we'll follow-up with climate sustainability and the applicant to figure out more details on the measures that they're planning to implement.

Okay. Thank you. The the the given kinda like the the changes that have been introduced with City of Yes to references to the projected floodplain, it would be interesting to see now what does that mean for a project like this, given that the WRP requires to consider the latest projections. And so I'm just wondering how that would play, again, a conversation that I'm very interested in. But in addition to that or in relation to that and building a little bit on Commissioner Goodrich's question, given the vulnerability to storm surge, the Sandy impacts here, etcetera, This sounds to me like the type of intervention that could potentially support emergency preparedness and evacuation infrastructure.

And so I'm wondering if that has I didn't see anything in the DIS and I'm wondering if that's something that has come up in conversations or can that be explored? Clearly, we're not proposing or they're not proposing residential and we're focusing on de mapping right now. But because this could actually serve a neighborhood purpose, I'm wondering if from your point of view, what could be opportunities associated with that?

Well, it's a good question. We can discuss that with the applicant further. I just wanted to add to that one of the things that I want to point out is that they don't control the other streets and elevations of those streets because that actually it did come up about them looking at other areas that they were hoping to plan some things around. But then it was they control those sites. They don't control those streets. Somebody else controls that. So they can't they don't want to build a gray change that ends at a The railway, yeah. At a five foot drop or something. So it's a little bit difficult. It's a broader planning issue, but it's a valid point.

And I thank you for pointing that out. I was trying to imagine what's going to happen with that excess water. This is one of those cases where you can return it back to the ocean. But in the lack of a neighborhood plan in that regard, how can we what are the resources that we may have available for the potential intervention that the CPC could do could make to to provide some guidelines in terms of how to think about it given the constraints that you're talking about. Again, you know, in saying the evidence, this is an area that is highly vulnerable, but any and and anything that we can do to produce and build neighborhood wide infrastructure is is necessary.

Definitely. And also to point out, EDC controls a couple lots in this area. They control some of the properties, so that would be a potential area where we could work together with them to come up with a plan for flood mitigation and risk.

Sounds great. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Okay. Great. Thank you, Stephen, very much for this. This item is now certified, the Coney development. And we will pick it up again down the line here. Madam Secretary, let's talk about what's next.

The third item on our agenda is a certification of an acquisition in Staten Island Community District two. Our presenter is Andrew Jones. Correction. The presenter presenting for the first time is Justin Rivera.

All right. Fantastic. Welcome. All right.

Good afternoon, chair Gurodnik and commissioners. Today, I will be presenting, 1919 Highland Boulevard. It's my first time presenting before the CPC. I'm glad to be here. So moving along, I'd like to go over the overview and actions associated with the project.

So this is a public application by the Department of Design and Construction, Department of Citywide Administrative Services, and the Department of Environmental Protection seeking an acquisition of property by the city to advance the best management practices program by acquiring a portion of Block 3551, Lot 140 for the New Creek Blue Bell System in Community District 2 Of Staten Island. I'd like to note that the BMP facilities for BMP New Creek eleven and New Creek 12 have already been constructed. And the purpose of this action is to advance the maintenance of the program. Moving on. Here we have a tax map.

In red outlined is the proposed acquisition area and other blocks and lots surrounding context. All right. Moving into the existing conditions. The zoning of the project area is R5 with the C1 two commercial overlay. And the surrounding area is primary low to mid density residential.

This applicant provided imagery, showcases the adjacency of the project site to the creek, providing further context and upsizing rationale for the acquisition to efficiently manage the drainage along that portion of the creek. Is a key map. So image one is a south facing view of the New Creek Watershed from Joyce Street. Image two is also a south facing view of the creek from the accessory parking lot of the existing Highland Seaver Mall, which is the private development that currently exists on Lot 140. Image three is a west facing view of the creek from the sidewalk along Highland Boulevard, which is a commercial corridor in Staten Island.

And image four, also a west facing view of the creek from the sidewalk along Highland Boulevard. And image five is a north facing view of the Creek and the Highland Seaver Mall in the distance as well as the existing accessory parking lots. All right. So moving along into our proposed acquisition area. The acquisition, again outlined in red, is approximately 5,940 square feet of the privately owned Lot 140 with an estimated dimensions of 27 feet by two twenty feet south of the existing parking lot of the Highland Seaver Mall.

This action is being sought considering earlier discussions of a possible donation of the acquisition site haven't been settled. So now they're settling on an acquisition action and doing business with the city. So this acquisition would help facilitate advancement of the best managers practices program in Staten Island with a more seamless maintenance of the creek given the portion of land to be acquired embodies part of the developed stormwater management system. As defined by the DDC, best management practices are a method of reducing water pollution by capturing excess water from storms and sending it through a number of natural barriers, that filter pollutants and sediment from the water. And the Blue Belt System is a program that works to preserve natural drainage corridors, managing storm water, and reducing flooding in the borough of Staten Island.

All right. In summary, this site acquisition again is being sought by the Department of Design and Construction, Department of Citywide Administrative Services and Department of Environmental Protection to advance the BMT program through the acquisition of privately owned land in Lot 140, of which exists in the Blue Bell System in Community District 2 Of Staten Island. As far as the next steps, upon certification, this is to be referred to the community board, for sixty days. Thank you for listening. It was a great time presenting here today, and I'm happy to take any questions at

this time. That's great. I'm glad you had a good time so far. But, like, you know, let's see how how you feel after a couple of questions, and then we'll

do it.

No. But great job. Welcome. Very happy happy you're here. I I only just had a general question, see if you could contextualize this, what DDC, DCAS and DEP are doing here actually acquiring a site next to the New Creek. Tell us what the goal is? How does it work? What are they trying to accomplish as part of their Blue Belt system? If you could just explain that a little bit in basic terms so that anybody who's listening here might connect to that.

Okay. Thank you for the questions. It's definitely a comprehensive one. So as far as the Blue Belt system goes, there's a give or take 12 or so creeks and watersheds that are that the Blue Bell System is done on is comprised of. And the purpose of the Blue Bell System is to provide a more effective way of managing stormwater and runoff, especially considering that Staten Island is within a coastal flood zone risk area.

So having interagency involvement in advancing the development of such infrastructure is key to helping not only stand on residents, but ensuring that we're preserving nature in one of the city's most nature affluent boroughs. So as far as how this project contributes to that, the currently developed BMP NC 11 and BMP NC 12 are already in use and are effective in managing stormwater, but this acquisition would make it a more seamless process in terms of the management of the site considering it is currently privately owned, and there are definitely some obstacles that come with that. I don't know if team leader Obinaga or director Ionito has anything to add to that. Alright.

Okay. Great. Thank you very much. Commissioner Cerullo?

So great presentation. Congratulations. I'm a huge fan of the Blue Belt program and system. In fact, when I was a councilman, was involved in the very first Blue Belt that the city did, and it's grown over the last thirty plus years. Sorry to have to say that out loud.

That slipped out by accident. That this program has really, really been successful. And communities with no infrastructure, as you mentioned, you hit all the points. So I really, really like that. One question I have, and I know this is an acquisition of a piece sort of a lot that's adjacent to the parking lot of Highland Fever Mall, which I'm familiar with, and the pond that's adjacent to it.

Is there any part of this project that involves any physical improvements in terms of either accessing other Blue Belt projects, maybe more on the South Shore than anywhere else, have created more of an engagement and an activation in terms of the public's access to the area. I know this is a very simple Blue Bell project, but I just wondered if there was any thought on the city side about whether or not there would be any access? Are they beautifying it in any way, in any natural way? Or is this just sort of the basic sort of acquire another piece of property that makes it easier to manage the Blue Belt system that's that's there?

Yes. Thank you for the question. As far as what has been communicated, by the applicant team, it seems that this acquisition serves, your later your latter statement, a bit more as, they're proposing this acquisition to better manage the site. There's already developed infrastructure for the for that section of the BMP. So the applicant hasn't shared any further developments as of now. Understood. Yes.

Amy Obanagan, team

Currently speaking, though, there is a bench.

There is a bridge.

So DP did have some of that infrastructure already there.

Already there.

But they will be returning, of course, and they can answer any further questions. But in terms of this application, there isn't any investment further. But there is currently speaking, if you cross the street on Highland, there are benches and there is a bridge and another On the

other side of Highland? Correct.

And there's also signage that explains what the Blue Belt system is and what this one is. But that's already been

I appreciate that. Okay. Terrific. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner. Thank you. Okay. All right. Again, terrific job. Thank you. This item is now certified.

All right. Thank you. Have a great day, everybody. See

soon. Okay.

You too.

All right.

Okay, Madam Secretary.

Okay. The fourth item on our agenda is a non ULURP post referral review for renewals to previously approved authorizations and a special permit in San Island Community District, three. Our presenter is Andrew Jones.

Good afternoon, Commissioner.

Hello.

Alright. I'm here to present 2835200845VeteransRoadWest, an application to renew a previously approved zoning special permit and series of special South Richmond Development District authorization. This is a private application submitted by Ray Masucci seeking renewal pursuant to ZR Section eleven forty three. This action would renew a previously approved zoning special permit pursuant to ZR Section seventy four thousand nine twenty two as well as South Richmond District authorizations pursuant to ZR Sections 10,764, ten thousand seven hundred and sixty five and ten thousand seven and sixty eight for a three year term. The original CPC approval would have facilitated the development of a two building 99,000 square foot retail and office complex that would be serviced by 179 space open parking area and a 44 space subterranean garage.

The 196,000 square foot development site is located in M11 Zoning District within the special South Richmond Development District. The site is currently vacant and primarily wooded containing approximately 600 trees and approximately 8,000 square foot portion of a freshwater wetland adjacent area that occupies the site's northeastern corner and is a part of the Mill Creek Watershed. The site is immediately adjacent to the interchange between the West Shore Expressway and the Korean War Veterans Parkway, the North South Highway that provides access onto Outerbridge Crossing, which is roughly a half mile to the south of the development site. The site is also situated in the middle of a cluster of existing large scale commercial facilities, including the Bricktown Center, which was approved by the CPC in 2002, and the South Shore Commons Malls. In January 2020, the CPC approved application C180-308ZSR, which included the following land use actions.

A zoning special permit pursuant to ZR section 74,922 allow certain retail establishments larger than 10,000 square feet in a manufacturing district and South Richmond District authorizations pursuant to ZR Sections one hundred seven sixty four, one hundred seven sixty five and one hundred seven sixty eight to remove trees, modify existing topography and modify group parking facility and access regulations. A small portion of the proposed development is located within the Mill Creek freshwater wetland adjacent area. And as a result, the applicant saw and was granted a permit for development within such an area by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in December 2022. The image on the right is a site plan that was approved by the CPC in 2020. It depicts a two building roughly 100,000 square foot office and retail complex situated towards the rear of the development side.

As noted previously, the buildings will be serviced by 179 space open parking area and a 44 space subterranean garage that will be primarily accessed by a new 36 foot wide curb cut along Veterans Road West. The proposed development required the approval excuse me, the removal of approximately 600 trees and approximately 34,000 cubic yards of cut. The applicant has proposed to plant 62 new trees in order to comply with South Richmond district tree requirements. Roughly half of these trees would be located in planting islands throughout the open parking facility. And the other new trees would be mostly located in the cluster near the site's northeastern boundary intended to serve as a buffer between the development and the freshwater wetland areas nearby.

This application was referred to Staten Island Committee Board three on November 8. The CP3 Land Use Committee held a public hearing regarding the application on November 13, and the full board voted unanimously to approve it on November 26. In summary, a private applicant is seeking a renewal pursuant to ZR Section eleven forty three for prior CPC approvals including a zoning special permit pursuant to ZR Section 74,922 and SRD authorizations pursuant to ZR Sections ten thousand seven sixty four, ten thousand seven and sixty five, 10,768. The applicant has stated that the proposed development meets the key finding associated with ZR Section eleven forty three, which is that the facts upon which the original approvals were granted have not substantially changed. The applicant has also noted that the proposed development remains as originally designed and The department concurs with both of these assertions.

Thank you for your time and I'm happy to take any questions.

Great. Very clear. Thank you. Questions? Commissioner Ossurio? Thank you, Chair. Thank you

for the presentation. Can you highlight for us what has changed? I mean, what indicates that this time around the applicant intends to proceed? The one first question. Second question is, is there anything else that can happen with the remaining trees that will be removed but not replanted? I mean, there any what is the latitude that the CPC has right now to provide some additional guidelines in terms of how to reduce the environmental impact?

Sure. Thank you for the question, Commissioner. In terms of why the applicant's coming to us to seek the renewal, this application was approved right before the pandemic. And our understanding is also that DEC had not completed its permitting process. It took about two years after the approval of this application for that to come through.

In terms of the trees, our understanding that the planting buffer actually came as a product of the negotiations with DEC. In addition to the trees that are planted in those parking islands, our understanding is that those also would consist of bioswales and some degree of additional kind of nature based stormwater management, trying to prevent any sort of runoff from entering the wetland adjacent or wetland areas themselves. In terms of anything the CPC can do at this point, our understanding is that for ZR Section eleven forty six, the applicant is entitled to apply for renewal under the zoning at the time. As you may recall in November 2023, the CPC approved the South Richmond zoning relief, which kind of added protections for existing trees, in a special South Richmond district. But this application was not subject to those rules.

But it would now, right?

If it were to be a new application now, that's correct, yes.

Okay. Thanks.

Okay. Other questions? Okay. So, the standard here is renewal if facts and circumstances have not changed. Sounds like the department agrees with the applicant that those circumstances have not in fact changed and that is our simple basis here. So, okay. Unless there are other questions, I'm going to put this to a vote. Do you have a question, Commissioner? Go ahead.

Just clarification on clearly, the conditions didn't change, the proposal didn't change, but the requirements under in the right Right. Approval

can help. I think what you heard a moment ago, I think maybe there was a little confusion, is that this one is not subject to the rule changes because its special permit was granted before we made the changes. So they are entitled to renewals. Under the old Under the old system. Okay.

Correct. Apologies if

I'm Yeah. Trying I wasn't Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Good. Okay. Anything else here? Okay. Alright. So with that, I'm gonna seek consent by a voice vote to send an approval letter to the Department of Buildings. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Okay. Ayes have it. Thank you. All right. Let's go to the next one.

The fifth item on our agenda is a non EULIP review of a general project plan in Manhattan Community District 10. Our presenter is Trevor Levitz.

Hello. Good afternoon, commissioners.

Good afternoon.

This is just a very brief recap of a planned general project plan by the New York State Empire State Development Corporation at the site of the former Lincoln Correctional Facility at 3133 West 110th Street in Harlem, Manhattan Community District 10. The letter you are voting on whether to transmit to the ESD today will be reviewed if sent by the ESD Board of Directors this Thursday, December 19 at which time that body will vote on the project. ESD intends to redevelop the former correctional facility into a mixed use development with a maximum height of two forty feet across 22 stories with a total FAR of 14. The project known as the Seneca would contain 105 income restricted homeownership units and 6,500 square feet of community facility space. For this project, ASD intends to override three applicable provisions of the zoning resolution outlined in the table at left.

First, the project will exceed the zoning lots maximum FAR of 7.2 for a total of 14 FAR. Furthermore, the project will override the RA District's maximum height of 130 feet for a total of two forty feet. Finally, recreation space below the minimum dimension and total square footage specified by the zoning resolution will be included in the proposed project. In summary, the planned redevelopment of the former Lincoln Correctional Facility by the state will bring a total of 105 income restricted home ownership units to Central Harlem and the GPP will have 14 FAR, 12 of which will be residential and two of which will be rentable community facility space. Thank you.

Questions from Commissioner Marin, Vice

One Chair simple question, Trevor. When you say homeownership, are these units for sale? Yes. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Nichols.

Thank you. And following up on that, do you know the income levels that or would these are these units to be targeted to certain income levels, right? All the units would be marketed between 80% to 100% to very medium income. 80% to 100%. That's right. Thank you.

Commissioner Benjamin?

I wanted to thank the applicant, but I just wanted to make sure I had asked the question about the formerly incarcerated and community preference. And I know that in a letter that was addressed to us, the department said that they had misspoke and there was no

Very much so.

Community preference for formerly incarcerated persons in terms of their residents. But there was a community preference for formerly incarcerated for the jobs that would be available. Did I get that right?

Yes. We had we had misrepresented that. The 50% preference was for local hiring that was slated to go to formerly incarcerated individuals reentering the community, otherwise standard community preference.

Right. But if they are formally incarcerated and they are reentering, are they considered for the actual community preference since their residence presumably is wherever they were incarcerated?

I yes. But I imagine they wouldn't receive any additional preference beyond

But they would be eligible for the normal community Yes. Residents Yes. The

they had

been absent from the community, let us say.

Right. If they're living in Community District 10, they would be eligible for that.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner, Commissioner Goodrich?

Got to warm her up a bit. Just so I'm clear, so these are income restricted units, some of which are for formerly incarcerated. No, they're not.

No. That only refers to local hiring associated with the construction jobs.

Our income restricted units, all of them, all of them just but so I'm clear, they're all above 80% AMI?

Right. All 105 units are affordable between 80% to 100% AMI.

But what so now I'm curious because this is

do I

have to write a project? This is in Harlem. Right? I'm not being facetious. I'm actually just making sure I have so I'm trying to understand why that is.

As opposed to why the affordability levels aren't deeper Right. For the project. I mean, that's that's a valid point. I don't have a a strong understanding of housing finance. It's financed primarily through HPD's, what's it called, next door term sheet, which open door. Thank you, commissioner Marine. Which doesn't have the same deep affordability levels. Also, it's important to note that these are homeownership units, which I imagine tend not to be as deeply affordable as income restricted rental units.

Okay. So are they HDFC?

I'm not sure, but we can follow-up.

They're co ops?

Yes.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Now that cleared it up. Thank you.

Yep. Sure.

Okay. Thank you. This is this would be the moment that we would send our letter on to ESD. And so I just want to make sure there are no further questions. There are Commissioner Marin?

Yes. I'd like clarification because we just had a very brief conversation. You're saying co ops is saying 105 condos.

Yes. I'm sorry for that.

It is condominium. Right now that I've misrepresented.

And then I want to

ask one other question because I don't think it was clear to me because I know the question has been posed. When you say formally incarcerated, there's going to be participation by formerly incarcerated. Is that in the construction or is that in the purchase?

In the construction. Thank you. I wanted to make sure of

that because we have been having a different discussion. So thank you, Trevor. I appreciate it.

I apologize for any questions.

No, no problem. Not at all. Okay, stay right there. Commissioner Goodrich.

So I'm back again now that I've processed this. So I still don't understand it. So if there is going to be a homeownership opportunity, shouldn't it actually be affordable for people in that neighborhood? Like, I'm you know, because I I grew up in a Michalama, and the 80% AMI is not was not with within my family's income range. I feel like it just feels a little bit like a finger in the eye. Like, great. You have you finally have you know, everyone doesn't wanna be a tenant. People wanna own something. You finally have something, and then it's like you need to make 6 figures to get this affordable homeownership opportunity. So I

I'm probably not the best one to respond to that point. But I would I would just point out two things that there's still a wide delta between what these units are being marketed at and what a market rate unit fronting Central Park would fetch. And that it's also responsive to the community's repeated calls for increased homeownership opportunities in the area. Your point's well taken that it's not most of the units aren't at an affordability level that would be accessible to many area residents.

Okay. Where's the council member on this?

It would be council member Solow.

Wait. Yeah. Where's he on this?

I don't know if he's expressing his opinion.

GPP. Yeah. Would just Good. Commissioner Benjamin.

Would just add that condos in particular, since they can't have an underlying mortgage, the maintenance levels or the HOV are higher than co ops because they don't have an underlying mortgage. That's been paid off. So there is a need for the people who live there to be able to support the ongoing maintenance of the building. But even in Nehemiah housing, the standards were such that and in housing partnerships, certainly. The standards are about 80 to a 100.

They had hoped in the original Nehemiah to be able to sell those units for $40,000 but they never reached that. It was always even 25 years ago, it was $100,000 and up. And housing partnership was 200 or $300,000

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Martin?

I'm sorry. Is this going to be the last opportunity to speak on this? Because I mean, would have been beneficial for HP to explain some of these questions. But it's very difficult to go down that low, especially on a condominium sheet, absolutely right, based on the underlying maintenance for those units.

Let's talk about where we are in the process here. This is a GPP, so it's a sponsored as a state project. It does not go through the normal course of business to the council. What is the timetable? Tell us what the story is here and what our opportunities are, if any, for follow-up or whether is really the day. My recollection is that this was a little bit under the gun.

We're sort of at the end of the process. Because as I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, the DSD Board of Directors will be voting this week on Thursday on the project. And they'll have the letter from the commission in hand, and that will be reviewed. But I will also say that we've been using this as a learning experience among the department staff, and we're creating a new SOP so that we'll be more proactive in coming to the commission and briefing the commission earlier in the process so there's more scope for back and forth. We apologize that there wasn't more time for deliberation.

Would there have been occasion for the commission to shape the project more fully if they had come earlier? Or would this have just been a question of design, scale, etcetera? Jose, you can just feel free if And you want go

I just wanted to provide a little bit of clarity here. For the EPP where we're approving are the zoning overrides that we requested, which is a high setback, the open space and the FAR waiver I believe. Those are the three items that are coming to the commission in here. The other items that we're discussing, I believe they're extremely important, but those are a little more in between HPD, HCR and the ESD. There's some negotiations that are ongoing.

I don't think we're having we could have been opined onto those even if they came earlier in the process. They're still not finalized. I know there are the language in the GBB says that they will do the best effort to maximize affordability and different income banks in the project. But those are still going to happen after the vote of the year, which is a schedule for December 2019. So in here typically how we evaluate those UPPs will be the applicability on how fit is the zoning override to facilitate the project.

And in this case, as we had spread to the commission, the surrounding area, the height, the open space also modified by CDFGS now doesn't take into account those conditions, it does make sense for us to sign off on this according to what the department has review and go back and forth in some conversations with ESD in terms of better design outcomes, how they consider.

But those are to the extent of our conversations. Okay. So what we are what we look at here in this context is the height, debt back, the waiver, the change of the FAR. Are that context that we are evaluating this thing. The questions of the affordability and programs etcetera are it sounds like some of them are still being determined. Is that a fair statement? Correct.

Okay. Sure, if I could just add regarding your question about the weight of the CPC's recommendation in this process. If the CPC issues a letter that's recommending disapproval to the SD, the Board of Directors would have to vote by a two thirds vote to proceed with the project. Otherwise, it would be back to the drawing board. Okay.

Thank you. There are other questions?

We can also add conditions to the letter. Yes.

I was going to recommend that we add to the letter just the commission's desire to seek maximum affordability considering area context and surrounding area median incomes. If you all would feel comfortable with that, I would gladly direct the team to add that a little more strongly to the letter before it goes. Does that sound like a fair amendment? And do you trust me to be able to incorporate it in with the specific language without litigating that question right here? Commissioner Benjamin, go ahead.

Could we also add with that, though, while not endangering the project's sustainability in the out years?

Yes. I'm certainly comfortable with that. Any objections? Okay. So we will add a request that they explore deeper affordability considering neighborhood context without endangering the success of the project overall. Okay. Good. With that and with those amendments, I would like to to by a voice vote to send that letter as amended in the way that I just described with the Empire State Development Corporation. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Okay, great. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Okay, Sarah.

Okay. Lastly, for post hearing follow ups, we have the Beacon, which had a public hearing at the December 4 public meeting. The team will present at the January 8 review session. Next, have 123, 12 Suffman Boulevard, which had a public hearing at the December 4 public meeting. Andrew is on Zoom to present.

Thank you, Sarah. Just checking to make sure my volume is okay for everyone.

It's okay. If you can find a way to pump it up a little bit, that would be great.

Alright. Let's how about now? Is that better?

Yeah. I think that's okay.

Okay. Sorry. Weird should be working. Okay.

We can hear you.

Great. Thanks. So this is 12312 Sutton Boulevard rezoning. The Department of City Planning staff finds the applicant's request for a zoning map amendment from r three a, r three a slash c one three, and r six zoning districts to r three a, r six a, and r six a slash c one three zoning districts, and a zoning text amendment to map MIH options one and two to be appropriate. These actions would facilitate housing growth on a currently vacant underutilized lot fronting a wide street through the development of an eight story mixed use building containing 125 dwelling units, including 31 income restricted units.

A CPC report reflecting this recommendation has been prepared for the commission. This CPC vote is scheduled for January 8. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. Any questions? Okay. Excellent. Thank you.

And I'll just correct my note above. The Beacon will return as of January 6 review session, not January 8.

Great. January 6. Okay.

I'll correct my note. And next we Yeah. What's next?

Next we have 122.0314 Avenue, which also had a December 4 public hearing. Joy is on Zoom to present.

Good afternoon. The Department of City Planning finds the applicant's request for a zoning map amendment from an r four a c one three zoning district to an r six a c two four zoning district and a zoning text change to map MIH options one and two appropriate. These actions would facilitate moderate housing growth through the development of a six story mixed use building containing approximately 103 units, including 31 income restricted units on an underutilized site fronting College Point Boulevard, a major North South corridor that connects the project area with Downtown Flushing, which is two and a half miles south. A CPC report reflecting this recommendation has been prepared for the commission, and the vote is scheduled for January 8. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Troy. Lastly, we have 581 Grant Avenue Development, which also had a public hearing on December 4. Lynn Hsu is on Zoom to present.

Hi.

Afternoon, everyone. Can you hear me?

We can. Yes.

Awesome. Good afternoon, Chair Grodnick and Commissioners. Today, I will be presenting 581 Grant Avenue Rezoning Agency recommendation prior to the future CPC report. Next slide. The department supports this application for an urban development action area program, also known as UDAP, a zoning map amendment and a zoning text amendment, which would facilitate a seven story mixed use development with approximately a 173 income restricted housing units, a community facility space for nonprofits and medical providers, and public open space in East New York neighborhood of Brooklyn Community District 5.

This UDAP designation facilitates the redevelopment and transformation of underutilized municipal parking lot above a subway station with new housing and enhanced public spaces. The proposed development delivers significant community benefits by creating a 100% income restricted housing, expanding access to essential amenities, and improving neighborhood connectivity. It contributes to the establishment of a vibrant transit oriented hub fostering growth and revitalization at a key neighborhood intersection. The change in re in zoning from a r five to r six district will allow growth in an area well served by transit with the a train Grant Avenue station directly adjacent to the proposed development. The proposed development was a commitment of the 2016 East New York neighborhood plan and also aligns with the vision outlined in the neighborhood plan to bring income restricted housing, mixed use development, and community resources.

This project reflects the collaborative planning efforts led by HPD to address long standing housing and community needs in the area. The zoning text amendment establishes the MIH area to ensure future developments in the project area, including permanently income restricted housing. Therefore, the department recommends approval of 581 Grant Avenue rezoning.

Great. Thanks, Linsoo. We have a question for you from commissioner Osorio.

Thank you, chair. Thank you so much for the update. I just wanted to ask if there had been any follow-up on the questions that we asked at the hearing. I didn't see that in the memo.

I could definitely follow-up with, HPD and the applicant team. I did not receive anything, and we'll definitely put that in the next CPC package.

Great. Thank you so much.

Thanks, Commissioner.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Linsoo.

Thanks, Linzhou. That concludes it for the review session today.

Great. Don't go anywhere. But thank you very much. We will finish the review session here. And thank you all for that.

Okay. I'll just note the end time for the review session is 02:55 p. M. Okay. Next. Good afternoon. This is the City Planning Commission Special Public Meeting held remotely through the NYC Engage portal and in person on the CPC Hearing Room 120 Broadway, Laura Concourse. Today is Monday, 12/16/2024. I will now call the roll. Chair Grodnick?

Here.

Vice Chair Knuckles? Here. Commissioner Benjamin? Present. Commissioner Thurlow? Here. Commissioner Crowell? Present. Commissioner Doak is absent. Commissioner Gold?

Here.

Commissioner Goodrich? Here. Commissioner Kramani? Here. Commissioner Mann is absent. Commissioner Marin?

Here.

Commissioner Osorio? Here. Commissioner Ram Prashad?

Here.

A quorum is present. The first item is the approval of the minutes of the public meeting of Monday, Wednesday, December four, twenty twenty four.

Great. On the minutes, I make a motion to approve those minutes. It's been seconded by Commissioner Benjamin. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Minutes are approved.

Scheduling calendar numbers one through eight, scheduling Wednesday, 01/08/2025 for a public hearing to be held in person in the CPC Hearing Room 120 Broadway and remotely through the NYC Engage portal.

We got

a vote on the schedule?

Yes. Okay.

Right. Well, let us do that on the resolution for scheduling. I make a motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Ramperchette. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Okay. Thank you all. The schedule is approved.

The next part of the calendar is the report section on Page eight.

Okay. And before we get into that, let me just quickly summarize what we're going to be voting on at today's special meeting. We're going to have a series of votes starting with February located in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn near the B3, B31 and BM4 buses. This development would create over four thirty homes, nearly 110 of them income restricted as well as ground floor retail. Also in Brooklyn, we will vote on four forty one and four sixty seven Prospect Avenue.

This proposal would bring two new residential buildings to Windsor Terrace with nearly two fifty homes in total around 60 of them permanently income restricted affordable. Tenants would live a five minute walk from the Southwest corner of Prospect Park and the northern entrance of Greenwood Cemetery and close to public transit via the F and G trains at 15th Street Prospect Park. The next vote is on 854 5th Avenue on the Upper East Side. This landmark previously served as a United Nations permanent mission site and is now looking to convert into a private members club with guest rooms. As part of this application, the developer will repair and restore key historic features of the building.

Staying in Manhattan, our next votes will cover a pair of important life sciences projects for New York City. We'll first vote on Innovation East at 455 1st Avenue in Kipps Bay. This project by the New York City Economic Development Corporation would revamp the New York City Department of Mental Health and Hygiene Public Health Lab into a modern life sciences multipurpose building with lab space and Ground Floor retail. We will then vote on its important neighbor, the Science Park And Research Campus, aka Spark. One of the biggest life science projects in the history of the Tri State area, this first of its kind career and education hub will bring over 2,000,000 square feet of space dedicated to a mix of commercial life sciences uses New York City Health and Hospitals the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, CUNY New York City Public Schools, Retail and publicly accessible open space.

New York City has long been a leader in the growing life sciences field and this education jobs healthcare and public space is a vital investment in our ongoing success. Moving downtown, we'll next vote on a designation by the Landmarks Preservation Commission for Jacob Day Residence. This building located in Greenwich Village was a residence in place of business for Jacob Day, a prominent black caterer, property owner and abolitionist who later became a leading advocate for voting rights and economic opportunities for the black community. Our last vote of the day and for the year is on the demapping of a road at 4939 Van Dam Street in Long Island City. This unutilized area adjacent to the Long Island Expressway on ramp would be removed from the city map to make room for an outdoor eating and drinking area as part of a conversion of warehouse space to restaurant use.

And since it's our last meeting of the year, let me just take a moment to wish all of you, my fellow commissioners, everyone who is watching online and those of you who can hear my voice through whatever means here, a very happy holiday season and a happy New Year. I hope you all will have an opportunity to relax with your family and friends. And I would be really remiss if I did not take a moment to wish a very special happy birthday to one of our own commissioner, Fred Cerullo. It is his birthday today. And and I I figured I would spare him the singing, but not the greeting. So happy birthday to you, Freddie. We very much appreciate you. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. We're glad you were able to spend some of it. We got to spend some of it with you.

Me too. So with that, Madam Secretary, let's get to it.

Okay. Burr, Brooklyn. Calendar numbers nine and ten, 2185 Coyle Street, CD15, calendar number nine, C230248ZMK, calendar number 10, N230249ZRK, and the matter of applications for zoning map and zoning tax amendments concerning 2185 Coyle Street for favorable reports on calendar numbers nine and ten. Chair Gurodnick? Aye. Vice Chair Knuckles?

Yes.

Mr. Benjamin? Aye. Mr. Cerullo?

Yes.

Mr. Crowell?

Yes.

Commissioner Gold?

Yes.

Commissioner Goodrich?

Yes.

Commissioner Kamani? Yes. Commissioner Barrin? Yes. Commissioner Osorio?

I vote yes. I just wanted to make a quick recommendation in terms of the report. I really appreciate how the report states an agreement with the borough person's recommendation regarding the excess parking. But it will be important for the report to explain why, why the department believes that that's right. I know that some of us have made questions about this that are still sort of making progress, so the report will be a great way to address them. Thank you.

Commissioner Rampaschad? Yes. Variable reports have been adopted on calendar numbers nine and ten. For Brooklyn, calendar numbers eleven, twelve and thirteen, 441 And 467 Prospect Avenue rezoning CD7, calendar number 11, C240280ZMK calendar number 12, N240281ZRK calendar number 13, C230249ZSK has been withdrawn And the matter of applications for a zoning map and zoning tax amendments concerning 441 And 467 Prospect Avenue rezoning for favorable reports on calendar numbers eleven and twelve. Chikorodnik?

Aye.

Vice Chair Knuckles? Yes. Commissioner Benjamin? Aye. Commissioner Stroulo? Yes. Commissioner Crowell?

Yes.

Commissioner Gold?

Yes.

Commissioner Goodrich?

I'm voting yes, but I did want to acknowledge I was very much on the fence about it for the same reasons that the community raised, is affordability. I will still vote yes.

Commissioner Kramani?

Yes. And I align myself with Commissioner Goodrich's comment. Commissioner Maden?

Yes. Commissioner Osorio? I vote yes.

And I have two quick recommendations. On page 15 where the report addresses the Board of President's recommendation to substantially increase the percentage of affordable housing units. I understand why the report states that this is beyond the purview of the actions. I disagree with that. But at the very least, I think that this would be an important point to state the department's position on this, which would be according to the rationale of the proposal.

I don't see why the report can actually state the need to increase affordable housing here also in agreement with my colleagues earlier. Sorry. And I have a second recommendation. On page 16, the I appreciate how the report addresses some of the concerns about potential environmental impact. I think that in addition to concluding the negative on the negative declaration, it would be important to explain that there is a new designation and what is the scope and extent of it to address the public concerns on that. Thank you.

Mr. Ramprashad. Reviews. Review reports have been adopted on calendar numbers eleven and twelve. Borough Of Manhattan, calendar number fourteen, 854 5th Avenue Members Club CD8 B240349, z S M, and the matter of an application for a special permit concerning 854 5th Avenue Members Club for a favorable report on calendar number 14. Chair Grodnik?

Aye.

Vice Chair Knuckles?

Yes.

Commissioner Benjamin? Aye. Commissioner Surula? Yes. Commissioner Crowell? Yes. Commissioner Gold?

Yes.

Commissioner Goodrich? Abstain. Abstain. Commissioner Kramani? Yes. Commissioner Marim? Yes. Commissioner Osorio? Yes. Commissioner Rampashad?

Yes. Favorable reports have been adopted on calendar number 14. Borough Of Manhattan, calendar numbers, fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen, four fifty five First Avenue, CD6, calendar number 15, C240342ZMM, calendar number 16, N240344ZRM, Calendar number 17, C240343ZSM. In the matter of applications for zoning map and zoning text amendments and special permit concerning 455 1st Avenue, for favorable reports on calendar numbers 1516, and '17. Chair Grodnick? Aye. Vice Chair Knuckles?

Yes.

Commissioner Benjamin? Aye. Commissioner Cerullo?

Yes.

Commissioner Crowell?

Yes.

Commissioner Gold?

Yes.

Commissioner Goodrich? Abstain. Commissioner Kramani? Yes. Commissioner Maren?

Yes.

Commissioner Sotio?

Yes.

Commissioner Ramprashad? Favorable reports have been adopted on calendar numbers fifteen, sixteen and seventeen. Borough Of Manhattan, calendar numbers '18, 19, 20, 20 '1, '22, '23, '24 and '25. Spark Kipps Bay. CD6, calendar number 18, C240369ZMM. Calendar number 19, C240370ZSM. Calendar number 20, C240369ZSM. Counter number 21, N240371ZRM. Counter number 22, C240372ppm. Counter number 23, C240373pcm.

Calendar number 24, C240391PQM, calendar number 25, C240309MMM, as a matter of applications for zoning map and zoning text amendments, special permits, disposition of city owned property, acquisition and site selection and city map amendment concerning Spark Kipps Bay for favorable reports on calendar numbers eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty one, 22, 23, twenty four and twenty five. Chair Grodnick? Aye. Vice Chair Knuckles?

Yes.

Commissioner Benjamin? Aye. Commissioner Cerullo?

Yes.

Commissioner Krowl?

Yes.

Commissioner Gold?

Yes.

Commissioner Goodrich? Yes. Commissioner Khamani? Yes. Commissioner Omada? Yes. Commissioner Osorio? Yes. Commissioner Rampashad? Yes. Favorable reports have been adopted on calendar numbers 1819, 2021, '22, '23, '24 and '25. Borough Of Manhattan, calendar number '26, Jacob Day Residence, CD2, calendar number '26, N250101 HIM, in the matter of an application, concerning a communication from the Landmarks Preservation Commission concerning Jacob Day residents for the adoption to the referral to the city council on calendar number '26. Chair Grodnick?

Aye.

Vice Chair Knuckles? Yes. Commissioner Benjamin? Aye. Commissioner Cerullo?

Yes.

Commissioner Kral? Yes. Commissioner Gold?

Yes.

Commissioner Goodrich? Yes. Commissioner Kamani? Yes. Commissioner Mehden?

Yes.

Commissioner Osorio?

Yes.

Commissioner Rampasad? Yes. Calendar number, '26 has been adopted for referral to the city council. Brier of Queens. Calendar number '27, 04/2002. Calendar number '27, C220305MMQ and the matter of an application for a city map amendment concerning 4939 Van Damme Street Demapping for the adoption of calendar number '27. Chair Grobnick?

Aye.

Vice Chair Knuckles? Yes. Commissioner Benjamin? Aye. Commissioner Srullo? Yes. Commissioner Krowl? Yes. Commissioner Gold? Yes. Commissioner Goodrich? Yes. Commissioner Khamani? Yes. Commissioner Varen? Yes. Commissioner Sodio?

Yes.

Commissioner Ramparshad? Yes. Favorable report has been adopted on calendar number '27.

Anything else, Madam Secretary?

No, Chair Grodnik.

Any announcements? No, Grodnik.

Okay. Well, with that, let me note again, this is the last meeting of the year, so we will pick this up on 01/06/2025. Again, lots of appreciation to all of you. Happy, healthy, happy holidays. Enjoy. We are adjourned.

New Year.

Crazy. Crazy.

The time is 03:09PM.

Well done.

Thank you, sir.

Yes. Good year.

You've had quite a year. Yes. Happy