Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Dan Garodnik, Chair of the City Planning Commission and Director of the Department of City Planning. Welcome to today's review session of the City Planning Commission. We are joined today by Vice Chair Knuckles, Commissioners Benjamin Cerullo Crowell, Kirmani, Maureen Osorio and Rampershad. Welcome to all of you.

Before getting through today's agenda, I just want to take a moment to highlight some recent news from the Department of City Planning and from the administration. To start, I want to thank the New Yorkers who attended last month's Long Island City Neighborhood Plan workshop. We had a great conversation on how to best activate city owned sites in the neighborhood. And alongside council member Julie Wan and the New York City Economic Development Corporation, we announced a request for expressions of interest to develop an existing Department of Education building at 4436 Vernon Boulevard. This site offers a great opportunity for us to deliver more active community serving uses for Long Island City.

It was a busy week for the Economic Development Corporation, which joined Mayor Adams to announce a request for proposal for Ganzibor Square. This bold redevelopment would include up to 600 units of mixed income housing with ground floor retail and new open space on a site alongside an expanded Whitney Museum and Highline. It's another step forward for the Manhattan plan that we recently announced to create 100,000 homes across the borough over the next ten years. Finally, one more RFP for the books. Mayor Adams and the Department of Housing Preservation and Development announced a request for proposals to construct a brand new state of the art library with 100% affordable housing at the Grand Concourse Library in the Bronx.

This development would build on the Mayor's City of Yes for Families proposal, which aims to make New York City the best most affordable place to raise a family. All three of these projects will help us tackle New York City's housing crisis and bring costs down for New Yorkers. Let's turn to today's agenda, shall we? We will begin with an important proposal to renovate and expand Lenox Hill Hospital in Manhattan. Many of the buildings in the hospital's campus date back 100 years or more.

And Lenox Hill is asking for several land use measures to bring the hospital campus into the twenty first century, so it may continue to effectively serve this community. The proposal would enlarge and renovate the hospital to fit four seventy five single bed patient rooms, state of the heart operating rooms, a dedicated mother baby center and an enhanced emergency department. The campus would include improved circulation for people and vehicles and a new entrance and elevator to the six train making the southbound 77th Street subway station ADA accessible. Moving a few miles north, the commission will next learn about a proposal from the Department of Housing Preservation and Development to construct Carmen Villegas Apartments, a 100% income restricted affordable building at 100 East 111th Street in East Harlem. It would include two ten new homes, of which nearly 150 would be dedicated to low income seniors through HPD's AIRS program as well as community facility space.

The project would be located near the 6th train at 110th Street, multiple community gardens and another 100% income restricted building at Sendero Verde, which includes the Eastside's SOUL family enrichment center. We'll next turn our eyes to three forty seven Flushing Avenue in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. This development would change its existing mix of offices, retail and an ambulatory healthcare facility to focus more heavily on local office and retail with reduced ground floor parking. The building sits near Classen Playground and Triangle, the Naval Cemetery landscape and a B57 bus stop. Also in Brooklyn, we'll hear about a proposed mixed use building at 236 Gold Street in Downtown Brooklyn.

It looks to create nearly 115 homes of which around 30 would be permanently income restricted affordable plus ground floor retail. Tenants would live just blocks away from Trinity Park, McLaughlin Park, Galakonda Skate Park as well as the F Train at York Street. Over in Downtown Jamaica, Queens, we'll review a proposal to allow a curb cut for 16325 Archer Avenue to access the parking garage of a planned as of right mixed use development. This 100% income restricted affordable housing building affordable building would sit across the street from York College and contain about 400 new homes. We'll also go over a couple of City Council modifications.

The first relates to February in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn. This project would create over four thirty homes, nearly 110 of them income restricted along with ground floor retail. The second 438 Concord Avenue in Mothaven Bronx. This mixed use project would create 90 homes, 25% sorry 25 of them permanently income restricted affordable as well as commercial and community facility spaces. I want to note we have also been joined by Commissioner Goodrich as well as Commissioner Gold on Zoom. So it's a busy start to the month. Madam Secretary, I'm going to turn it to you and let's get this party started here. Thank you.

Good afternoon and welcome to the City Planning Commission review session for Monday, 02/03/2025. The time now is 01:08PM, and a quorum is present. The first item on our agenda is a certification of a zoning map and zoning text amendment, a special permit and authorization in the Manhattan Community District 8. Our presenter is Aska Mohayuddin.

Hi, Asuka.

Hello. Good afternoon, Commissioners. This is a private application by Lenox Hill Hospital to facilitate the revitalization and enlargement of the Lenox Hill Hospital campus in its existing Upper East Side location within the full city block at 100 East 77th Street in the Lenox Hill neighborhood of Manhattan Community District 8. The applicant is requesting a number of actions, including a zoning map amendment, zoning tax amendment, a special permit and authorization. This slide provides an aerial view of the hospital with north at the top.

The development site highlighted here in yellow covers a full city block and is bounded by Park Avenue to the West, East 77th Street to the North, Lexington Avenue to the East and East 76th Street to the South. The surrounding area is primarily residential in character, ranging from between three story single family townhomes to up to 30 story multifamily elevator buildings. The immediate area also reflects institutional uses such as hospitals and school uses. The St. Jean Baptiste Church, a landmark building, sits immediately to the southeast of the hospital at the intersection of Lexington And 76th Street.

Central Park is located two blocks west of the development site seen on the upper left corner of this image. CRA is served by Lexington Avenue subway line, which has a station for the sixth train adjacent to the development site at the intersection of Lexington Avenue and East 77th Street. Bus services along Lexington Avenue, East 79th Street, and East 72nd Street are all accessible to the site. City Bike has a bike sharing station at the corner of Park Avenue and East 76th Street. This slide shows the area map with the north at the top.

The area zone with high density districts along the avenues and major cross towns are up there. Park Avenue is mapped with an r 10 district within the special park improvement district, which permits up to 10 SAR for community facility uses and up to 12 SAR for residential uses with affordable housing. The Special Park Improvement District was created to preserve the residential and architectural character of parts of 5th And Park Avenues. It limits the height of new buildings to 215 feet or 19 stories, whichever is less, and mandates streetwalk continuity and does not allow floor area bonuses. East of the intersection with Park Avenue, the East 79th Street frontage is mapped within R10A district, which permits a maximum up to 12 FAR for residential use with affordable housing.

Lexington Avenue is mapped with a C18X district, which is an R9X equivalent, permitting up to 10.8 FAR for residential use with affordable housing, nine FAR for community facility uses, and two FAR for commercial uses. The portion of 3rd Avenue within the surrounding area is mapped within a C19 district and are 10 equivalent, which permits up to 12 FAR for residential use with affordable housing and 10 FAR for community facility use. Mid blocks are mapped with our 8B districts, which permit up to 5.1 FAR for community facility uses or up to 4.8 FAR for residential uses with affordable housing. The first image on the left shows Park Avenue looking Southeast from East 77th Street with Lenox Hill Hospital to the left. The Park Avenue streetscape is characterized by large predominantly masonry multifamily buildings rising to a consistent street wall height of 120 to 150 feet with height above the parapet ranging from 160 to two ten feet.

The second image on the right shows the hospital from the intersection of Park Avenue and East 77th Street. The image on the left shows a view of East 76th Street from Park Avenue with Lenox Hill Hospital on the left. The image on the left shows a view of the hospital from the intersection of Park Avenue and East 76th Street. The image on the left shows a view of Lexington Avenue facing Northeast with Lenox Hill Hospital on the left. The build character of Lexington Avenue is more varied, including older townhomes and taller, more contemporary apartment buildings.

The image on the left shows a view of the hospital from the intersection of Lexington Avenue and East 76th Street. The image on the left shows a view of East 77th Street from Lexington Avenue with Lenox Hill Hospital on the left. The image on the left shows a view of the hospital from the intersection of Lexington Avenue and East 77th Street. These two images show a mid block view of the hospital campus from the adjacent narrow streets. The one on the left is from East 77th Street, and the one on the right is from East 76th Street.

The development site is a 82,700 square foot zoning lot, which encompasses the full city block. It is improved with 10 buildings used for nonprofit hospital use, which together comprise the Lenox Hill Hospital complex. Existing buildings range in height from one to 14 stories and were constructed between the late 1800s and early 1970s. Three of the existing buildings were constructed pursuant to approvals by the Board of Standards and Appeals. Together, the existing hospital contains approximately 620,500 square feet of zoning floor area or roughly about 7.5 FAR, which is greater than the amount of floor area permitted as of right under the current zoning designations.

Existing buildings represent a variety of architectural styles and multiple eras of hospital design. And as a result, while the existing buildings have been interconnected to function as a single hospital, there are inconsistencies in elevation, and many of the buildings have long narrow floor plates. Due to these constraints, operating suites are undersized. Emergency services are limited, and most patient beds are provided in multi bedded rooms. By significant investments since 2010, Lenox Hill Hospital does not meet current best practices for hospital design, and there are serious inefficiencies that impact the delivery of patient care.

These challenges are not limited to only internal constraints, but still over to the side streets as well. Existing public entrance to the hospital's emergency department, including the entrance for patients arriving by ambulance is on East 77th Street. Since the hospital does not include off street ambulance bays, East 77th Street is used for ambulance parking and unloading with patients being transported across the public sidewalk. The hospital's existing loading facility on East 76th Street is limited to three bays and is undersized for the trucks necessary to serve the needs of a contemporary hospital. This results in periodic conflicts with pedestrian movement along the sidewalk as well as vehicular traffic on both streets.

To address these challenges, the applicant is proposing an enlargement and modernization of the existing Lenox Hill Hospital complex to ensure continued delivery of patient care in the hospital's Upper East Side location. Following the renovation, Lenox Hill Hospital four seventy five single bedded patient rooms, state of the art operating rooms, a new emergency department, and a dedicated mother baby wing. The applicant proposes to alleviate existing streetscape impacts caused by on street ambulance parking and inadequate loading berths by providing new on-site ambulance bays and appropriately sized loading berths. The proposed development would include improvements accessibility at the 77th Street Station, which include at grade sidewalk expansion and additional covered open area at the intersection of Lexington Avenue and East 77th Street. To accomplish this, the proposed development includes two components.

On the eastern portion of the block, including the mid block on East 76th Street, the existing buildings will be demolished to allow for construction of the new hospital building with efficient floor plates and expanded emergency department and industry standard surgical suites and patient rooms. On the western portion of the block, the existing buildings would be renovated to seamlessly connect with the new building and meet modern hospital standards, including single bedded patient rooms. By retaining these buildings, exterior construction within western portion of the block would be minimized, and the hospital will be able to provide uninterrupted care throughout the duration of construction. The total floor area within the proposed development comprising the new hospital building and renovated existing buildings will be over 1,034,000 square feet or 12.5. The proposed use is nonprofit hospital with up to 2,500 square feet of ground floor retail for a pharmacy.

Of this amount, approximately 600,600 square feet would be provided within the new hospital building, and the remaining approximately 434,000 square feet would be in the renovated buildings to remain. The proposal would increase the current floor area on the site by roughly 5 FAR or approximately 414,000 square feet. Let's now take a look at the ground floor plan to better understand how the proposed development sits within the block. On Park Avenue, a new entrance to the hospital's mother baby wing would be provided along with the introduction of transparency on this frontage. In addition to the mother baby wing, the renovated buildings on the western portion would contain hospital support spaces, upgraded patient rooms, and a new fire stair.

On East 77th Street, the new hospital building would include a dedicated staff entrance west of the subway station and further west an approximately 148 foot wide bay that would provide a covered off street area for up to six ambulances. The ambulance bay would be accessible via three thirty foot wide carpets pond district. The proposed ambulance bay would address the current concern of ambulances parking on the street. The ambulances would be able to fully pull into the bay to ensure patient loading and unloading occurred within the weather protected hospital building. On East 76th Street, the existing loading berths on the existing buildings is proposed to remain.

In addition, a new loading area will be provided within the new hospital building with four berths sites to accommodate trucks fully within the hospital. This would address the current condition of larger delivery trucks impeding pedestrian vehicular circulation on the street. The main hospital entrance and lobby would be at the southeast corner of the site, running on Lexington Avenue. A dedicated patient discharge area would be located north of the lobby and include a small retail area for a pharmacy. A new entrance to an expanded emergency department would also be located on the northern portion of Lexington Avenue.

Adjacent to the emergency department entrance, applicant is proposing transit improvements at the existing subway entrance to the southbound platform of 77th Street Station. These improvements are a result of extensive consultation with the MTA. As seen in this photograph, the existing subway entrance includes two five foot wide stairs located within the sidewalk on 77th Street adjacent to the hospital. The applicant is proposing to replace these stairs with a single 15 foot wide stair on hospital property and add an ADA accessible elevator between the street level and mezzanine level. The southbound entrance will be made fully accessible with a ramp providing access between the mezzanine level and the platform.

This is an illustrated rendering of the proposed subway entrance. The new stair will be protected from the elements by overhanging portions of the new Hoffler Building and include improved lighting and security systems. This is an illustrated rendering of the Ground Floor along Lexington Avenue showing the public entrance and lobby, the emergency department entrance, and the subway entrance. Above the Ground Floor, the new hospital building would include a podium portion rising to a height of approximately 195 feet at the street lines of Lexington Avenue, which would include the expanded emergency department, 30 industry standard operating rooms, single bedded patient rooms and support spaces. Above the podium, two building envelopes are proposed in this application, which are identified as Envelope one and Envelope two.

The purpose of the two envelopes is to incorporate maximum flexibility for building design while providing two options for public review that could fit the required hospital program. Under envelope one, the base of the new building along Lexington Avenue could rise to a height of 195 feet before setting back 10 feet and rising to a maximum height of four thirty six feet, inclusive of screened mechanical bulkheads. This portion of the new hospital building would contain eight floors of patient rooms and several mechanical floors while allowing for an efficient configuration of patient rooms with natural light provided along all sides of the building. Under Envelope one, the portion of the new hospital building at the mid block could rise to a height of up to two ten feet, consistent with the highest floors currently existing in the mid block portion of the development site. Under Envelope two, the height of the new hospital building could be would be lower than Envelope one by 41 feet along the Lexington Avenue frontage.

To accommodate the hospital's programmatic needs with a reduced overall height, Envelope 2 moves some of that floor area to the mid block instead. The Envelope height along Lexington Avenue would be up to three ninety five feet inclusive of mechanical bulkheads. To the west, an approximately 80 foot to the west, an approximately 84 foot wide portion of the new building could rise to a height of up to three sixty feet. Under Envelope 2, there would be six floors of patient rooms above the podium in addition to mechanical floors. The portion of the building would allow for

an

efficient configuration of patient rooms with natural light along all sides of the building. This is an illustrative rendering of Lexington Avenue to highlight the difference in height along the avenue between the two envelopes. And this is an illustrative rendering of P 76th Street to highlight difference in height in the portion of the mid lot between the two envelopes. This is a diagram of the neighborhood character along Lexington Avenue with the two envelopes showing the new hospital building in dark gray. This is a diagram of neighborhood character along East 76th Street with the two envelopes showing the new hospital building in dark gray and existing hospital buildings to remain in light gray.

This is a diagram of the neighborhood character along Park Avenue with the two envelopes showing the existing hospital buildings to remain along Park Avenue in light gray and the new hospital building in dark gray in the background. This is a diagram of the neighborhood character along East 77th Street with the two envelopes showing the new hospital building in dark gray Existing hospital buildings remain in light gray. The applicant is requesting a MERB action to facilitate this development. I will go into detail on each of these actions in the following slides. The first action is zoning map amendment to rezone the mid block from R8B to C18, which is an R9 equivalent, the portion of the mid block within 100 foot of Lexington Avenue from C18X to C19, which is an R10 equivalent.

The rezoning would allow up to 10 SBIR community facility use across the entire zoning lot. The second requested action is the zoning tax amendment. The first amendment is to Article seven Chapter four to create a new hospital special permit that would allow up to 20% increase in floor area for nonprofit hospitals within a full block located in an R10 or R9 equivalent commercial district, partially within the Special Park Improvement District. The second amendment is through the R section 66,513 to allow the new hospital special permit to be used in conjunction with the transit improvement bonus. The third amendment would be to ZR Section nine thousand two and twenty one to allow the permitted FAR on a zoning lot partially within the Special Park Improvement District for which a hospital special permit is being granted to exceed 10 FAR provided that the amount for area within the Special Park Improvement District does not exceed 10 FAR.

And lastly, an amendment to ZR Appendix F would map MIH Options one and two over the rezoning area. GAPLIN is requesting the newly proposed hospital special permit pursuant to ZR Section 70 four-nine zero four to allow a 20% floor area bonus to increase the allowed FAR on the site to 12 FAR. The special permit would also allow the project to incorporate any transit bonus separately requested through an authorization. It would establish the maximum zoning envelope and allow height and block modifications. The tax amendment enabling the new special permit also includes conditions and findings that must be met.

The conditions of the special permit require that 75% of the floor area on the zoning lot must be for hospital use and 100% of the bonus floor area granted must be utilized for hospital use. Additionally, is the floor area to be located within the portion of the lot within the Special Park Improvement District cannot exceed 10 FAR. To grant the special permit, the Commission must find that the public benefit derived from such hospital development merits the additional floor area and where both modifications are being requested, that such modifications result in a more satisfactory physical relationship to existing hospital buildings for an efficient integrated site plan and a satisfactory site plan of urban design relationships to adjacent streets and surrounding area. As part of the requested hospital special permit, the applicant is requesting both modifications within the two proposed zoning envelopes. There are two types of waivers being requested, ones that enable the new building along Lexington Avenue and ones that enable the existing buildings to remain.

The requested waivers are to facilitate the new building on Lexington Avenue and portion of the existing buildings on the mid block include maximum front wall height, minimum required setback, and sky exposure plane. The request of waiver for front wall height would allow the podium height along Lexington Avenue and portion of the side streets to rise to 195 feet where 85 feet is required. The blue areas on the diagrams on this slide show the parts of the proposed buildings that exceed the maximum front wall height in the two proposed envelopes. The request for setback would allow setbacks between 9.4 feet to 10 feet along Lexington where 15 feet is required and portions of the side streets where 20 feet is required. The request of waiver for Sky's border plane would enable a maximum building height of 436 feet under envelope one and three hundred ninety five feet along under envelope two.

Again, the blue area on these diagrams show the parts of the building that exceed the heightened setback regulations in the two proposed envelopes. On the western portion of the lot, the request waivers have facilitated existing buildings to remain in one fire stair tower addition. These also include previously granted BSA variances. This includes a waiver for the maximum front wall height to permit certain portion of the existing buildings previously approved by BSA variance to rise to a height of up to 175 feet and a stair tower addition to rise to 165 feet along Park Avenue. A waiver for minimum required front wall height and location would permit the street walls at the mid block on Park Avenue at the location of the new entrance to the mother baby portion of the hospital and at the intersections of Park Avenue and East 76th Street and East 77th Street to continue to be less than the 125 feet required and offset from the street line.

A waiver for maximum lot coverage would permit the envelopes encompassing the existing buildings within the Special Park Improvement District. Gaskin is also requesting two actions in connection with the requested transit bonus, a chairperson certification to dedicate an on-site transit easement volume and a CPC authorization to facilitate the proposed transportation improvements. The proposed improvements on the 77th Street Station would increase the capacity of the stairway entrance on the Southwest corner of Lexington Avenue and East 77th Street by roughly 50%. It will provide full ADA access to a platform that does not currently provide ADA access and improve pedestrian circulation by providing covered open area adjacent to the new stairway and street elevator. The applicant is seeking a floor area bonus of up to point five FAR or 41,400 square feet in connection with the proposed improvements to the southbound platform of 77th Street Station.

This application requires a racial equity report, which helps put the proposal into context with an APER level socioeconomic data. There is no housing proposed as part of this application. The Displacement Risk Index estimates comparative levels of residential displacement risk for New York City's neighborhoods. The index ranks neighborhoods from lowest to highest risk based on recent population characteristics, housing conditions and market pressures. On this index, Lenox Hill Roosevelt Island falls in the lowest displacement risk index category.

The population of the Upper East Side is 74% white non Hispanic, 11% Asian, 8% Hispanic Latino and 3% black non Hispanic. From 2010 to 2020, the area saw a 6% increase in population with an increase in both the Asian and Hispanic populations, a decrease in the black population and a small decrease in the white population. Notice of completion of a draft Environmental Impact Statement or DEIS was issued on 01/31/2025. The DEIS identified significant adverse impacts with respect to shadows and construction noise. Mitigation measures were identified in the DEIS and we further explored in the FEIS.

In summary, the applicant is seeking a number of actions to facilitate the expansion and renovation of Lenox Hill Hospital with an updated emergency department, single bedded patient rooms and industry standard operating suites. The proposal would also alleviate existing streetscape impacts caused by on street ambulance parking and inadequate loading berths serving the current hospital. Requested actions will allow for demolition of significant portion of the existing outdated buildings on the eastern portion of development site, which we replaced with a new hospital building fronting on Lexington Avenue, as well as the renovation and reconfiguration of the existing buildings on the western portion of the block to support ongoing hospital operations. The proposed development would also include improvements to accessibility at the 77th Street Station. Thank you.

I'm happy to take any questions.

Great. Thank you very much, Aska. Let me just start here with a few, obviously very significant proposal here and a dynamic on the street that does not work very well today. Let's start with the ambulance bay and the truck loading. As proposed on 77th Street, ambulances would be able to fully enter within the footprint of the building and would no longer have to move patients across the sidewalk. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct. They will have space for up to six ambulances to be fully within the building.

Okay. And so there's six spaces, three curb cuts, right? Okay. And that means that ambulances would be head in and then they would have to back out. Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay. While I have this image up, let's talk about the emergency department and I'm going to ask you also about the 76th Street loading too. So the emergency department, there's walk in entrance as proposed here on Lexington. Yes. And then presumably also access through the ambulance bays through the emergency department support area, which I see here on the map.

Yes. As well as the elevator since the ambulance the emergency department on the 2nd Floor.

That's what I was going to ask you. Okay. So this is not the entire emergency department here. Yeah. Because that looked extremely small. So this is a 2nd Floor emergency department, sort of the entry and, I guess triage or welcoming area is on the Ground Floor.

Is Yes.

Okay. That All right. Now on to 76th Street for the truck loading. Give us a sense of the relationship between the size of the trucks that generally stock a hospital building like this and the size of these loading bays? And what would that mean for the dynamic on 76th Street?

Yes. So currently, as you can see on the existing loading that is to remain, it is mostly meant for really small trucks. However, transportation for hospital decide and size and the kind of materials that are needed require pretty large trucks. And that is where the new lowing berths come in, where it can fit up to four new trucks, two medium well, not medium, they're still pretty large, and then two even larger trucks. And those will be fully within the building itself, so they won't be pulling out of the building or as you can

see in this image.

And what is the length of the longest truck loading bay?

I'm not sure about the length, but I can give you that information.

Okay. And then the last question for me before I go to my colleagues here is you presented two envelopes as sort of alternatives. Envelope one, which

puts a

little more height on Lexington Avenue and Envelope two, which puts a little more bulk in the middle of the block. What are we approving here for the interest of the commission? What is the proposal? This is a little different from what we would normally see. Can you explain it to us what we're considering, why we're considering it this way, or any other insights you might offer here?

Yeah, of course. So typically, what we have for other applications sometimes when an applicant is looking for flexibility in the eventual building design is that we create a zoning envelope that would be able to fit that building design eventually, and then the waivers are being requested for that envelope. Sometimes that envelope could be larger where it would fit multiple building options within that. However, the applicant in this case chose to go with two separate envelopes so that it was clear to see that there were two different design options. And you would be approving certifying both of these if you were to approve, you would be certifying both of these on both options.

So eventually, it could be approved under both options. It could be approved under one option or whatever. And the applicant will choose if both envelopes are approved which of the two fits their program needs the best.

Does the applicant here have a preference between these two envelopes?

Not as they have indicated. They have said that both of these envelopes fit the programmatic needs of the hospital, which is why they have put these forward. Okay.

Thank you. Let me go to Commissioner Cirullo to start.

Just a very quick follow-up to that. And I understand in terms of the role we're playing in this process and what the applicant's options would be based on the approval here. But take it one step forward just to understand procedurally the council's role in the next piece of this. So we're we're focused on these options. We have one or two, or I'm assuming there's the potential to modify in whatever would be in scope. That would goes to the council, and the council has an opinion on that. Is that also is that open for modification so long as it's in scope?

Yes. Also? Yes.

So the So this is sort

of a

yeah. Got it.

Yeah. This sort of sets, like, the upper limits in both conditions.

Yeah. Understood. Okay. You, commissioner. Let me go to commissioner Gold on Zoom.

Hi. Thank you. Just a couple of other points of follow-up. So the largest is we'd be interested in how the applicant's thinking about staging on this for the neighborhood, you know, during during the construction period. It might be an early question, but I've heard a lot of rumbling around that this has been positioned as a twelve year project and that it was going to create a lot of both noise and displacement.

So it would be very interested in sort of how you're thinking about that from the perspective of are there ways to, a, accelerate? And b, are there measures that can be taken to minimize the disruption, if you will, to the neighborhood around them? So that's sort of my first question, if you've heard anything. And does that twelve year number sound right?

As far as I understand, I think the updated number is nine years for construction under both envelopes. And in terms of mitigation for construction, all of that, that is identified as an impact and being explored, the DEIS and FEIS. So I'll wait for the applicant to

see more on that.

Okay. Got it. And then second, but also be interested in during construction period, presumably, yeah, presumably, they they have a plan for how to operate. Right? I mean, if they're going to be taking down buildings, they have to move things from, you know, one to another, which I assume is quite complicated.

But, again, to the extent that that may create some difficulty for, you know, for the for the sorry. Obviously, you know, you want them to be able to continue to provide services, and I'm sure they've thought about that and how they do that, most efficiently. But at the same time, we'd also be interested in any, you know, thing that they're thinking there to both mitigate that potential disruption. And, you know, basically, if you knock down a building, where do you go? Right? So I I suspect, you know again, we may be too early for that discussion, but it it must be something that they're thinking of as they're thinking about the the envelope.

Yeah.

Sorry.

Go ahead. I was just going to say, yes. So the the longer time period in the construction is because of that phasing of making sure that the, you know, the while construction is happening for the new building, you know, they can con and also renovations that they can continue to provide care at at this location. But I'll let the applicant speak more to the details of what that phasing program looks like.

Okay. And then the last question that I have is, it's interesting, I guess, to see. I don't fully understand it, though. On the on the side that's on the Park Improvement District, presumably, would be interested to understand a little bit better how this layers on it. Is it is that the reason that all of the height is going on the Lexington side rather than rather than the Park Side?

Yeah. So they're trying to keep the Park Avenue, which has a height limit to where the the existing buildings are there, like, the height of the existing buildings there and but and then pushing the height towards Lexington Avenue that does not have high limit.

Got it. Got it. Okay. And then one more if I can. So, obviously, it was it's interesting, to see, the improvement that they're making, to the subway on the Lexington Side and 77 Side. Was curious, you know, beyond that, if there were other, you know, sort of proposed improvements, to the neighborhood, that, have been suggested as as they, look at this plan.

I can definitely have the applicant speak to that if there are other improvements beyond the, zoning lot itself.

Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Osorio?

Thank you, Chair. Thanks so much for the presentation. I had a quick follow-up to Commissioner Groll's question in terms of the significant potential mitigation measures that we're still waiting for in terms of the shadow impact. I think the answer may be the same that we'll wait to hear from them. But I was wondering if you can explain a little bit for the purposes of our analysis, given the fact that there's a difference in terms of the two envelopes in terms of the shadow impacts that we create. I'm wondering if you can help us a little bit sort of unfold how should we start thinking about it in terms of the difference that this may take?

Yeah. Sure. That's a great question. I think that's part of the applicant's thinking here as well in proposing those two envelopes is whether that height makes sense all fully within Lexington Avenue, or whether it makes sense to add some of that height towards mid block. And, you know, that's something because the community had also asked for a lower height on Lexington Avenue, and to be able to accommodate that, they're looking at that. So I've that's why I showed those illustrative red rings comparing the two. So the main difference between the two envelopes is really just the the height on the mid block or a portion of the mid block. And Stephanie? Hi, Commissioner.

It's Stephanie Schlew, Director of Environmental. Because the garden that's receiving the shadows impact, the H. Church of Christ Scientist Garden, is located directly across the street. It's really pretty much any incremental building height that's added onto the envelope as exists today would result in shadows because it's so close. So there's not a lot of difference between the two envelopes for the shadows impact just because of the lack of distance to the resource.

Thank you. That's very useful. And I look forward to reading more about this in the AS. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Benjamin?

Thank you for the presentation. My question is about many hospitals are in financial hardship, shall we say. So I'm curious about how the hospital is funding these improvements to the 77th Street subway and why it's only on the South Side platform.

I can let the applicant speak to the first part of your question. For the second part, that is the only part of the zoning lot that the applicant controls. So the entrance to the southbound is right next to the right adjacent to their development site and can be accessed through the development site. However, the northbound is across street, and it's on a different zoning lot that they don't control. Okay. If you would

let them know that I'm interested in how that's going to happen. And I'm interested in the mechanism by which can the applicant not start on their redevelopment until they finish the transit improvements? Do they do them at the same time? How is that coordinated? I can have the applicant seek more detail

on that. But just generally looking at the proposed development itself, the transit improvements are part of the proposed building itself. So it's fully within the development, like within the new new hospital building on Lexington Avenue. So the entrance would be under the portion of the covered will be partially covered by the the new building itself. Okay. If you would let them

know that I'd like to know more about what is the guarantee that these things actually get done and that they get done timely.

Yeah. There's also an agreement that they have to sign, which is part of granting the special permit that with the MTA, and there's a restrictive declaration that kind of controls a lot of these different aspects of Right.

And I'd be interested in what that restrictive declaration looks like. If we have it now, I'd love to have a copy of it. And I'd like to know whether it's just between the applicant and the MTA or the applicant and city planning. Is it our restrictive declaration?

Yeah. I can get more detail then try to do that. Okay. Thank you.

Thanks, Commissioner. Commissioner Mann?

Thanks, Chair. I just want go back to the ground floor plan, if we could, just to spend a little more time on the traffic and circulation questions the Chair was raising.

Sure. Do you mind pulling that up? Can we get the presentation up?

Much more interesting to look at than me. Yeah. So if we can just maybe flip back to the Ground Floor. Great. Yeah. So just to understand kind of how the proposal impacts traffic circulation and kind of pedestrian circulation given the ambulance base and new loading dock, Do you know if the applicant studied a below grade solution that was in and out, meaning in one street out the other, rather than a turnaround scheme for the loading in the ambulance bays?

Yes. So we, in our discussion with the applicant as well, we're exploring different options for the ambulance itself and trying to see if there's a way to have the ambulances pull in and pull out of whether it's on the same street or the other street. But there were constraints in terms of the existing structure and there's

sort

of structure columns and things that we can see in these little boxes in the floor plan as well that were proving to be difficult to work with while also accommodating all the needs that for you know, within this Ground Floor, including both the ambulance space and the loading berth itself. But I can definitely have the applicants provide some more details about what those constraints might be.

Yeah. It definitely seems like it's going to be a challenged street environment, depending on when ambulances will come in, which would be somewhat unpredictable, I imagine. I imagine loading will be more predictable, but the crosstown traffic seems like it may be challenged, not to mention just the pedestrian circulation around the building perimeter. So it'd be it'd be great to understand that a bit better. In terms of the Lexington Avenue, Lexington seems like one of the more sort of pinched sidewalks in Midtown. And I'm curious, are they doing anything to alleviate that by setting the building back from the property line here?

Yes. So they're providing a nonbonus arcade along Lexington Avenue that sets the ground floor back to kind of add you know it's it's only a 12 foot wide sidewalk on Lexington Avenue, and that would add some more for pedestrian circulation.

Okay. Yeah. It's probably in the plans. But do you what that dimension is? Just sort of that's the dimension between the column line there and the red line?

Yes. I don't have the exact dimension, but I can get that to you.

Yes. It seems like it's a bit of a misopportunity not to pull the whole building back and create a little more of a generous sidewalk along Lexington. But I can see why their site plan is constrained. Okay. And then just on the kind of urban design questions, which I seem like probably pretty central to this whole conversation of building height and scale and where the density goes and how much density is appropriate.

Do you all have just a simple section across Lexington or kind of pointing to some reference points to help us think through, not just here on in the East '70s, but along the East Side. And apologies, I was late, so I missed this. So I guess I'm just curious if the department is thinking about any particular reference points for thinking about the bulk along Lexington in terms of similar buildings?

Well, we have the neighborhood character that kind of outlines what subsections across from the site streets and as well as the avenues to help you kind of contextualize what the proposed development would look like within this area itself.

Yeah. So I guess maybe the simple question, which I can probably look up, is how far south do you have to go to get to this level of bulk on Lexington Avenue? Meaning, what's the nearest reference point for a building that's got a street wall this high in

a building at 400 feet? I can get that information

for you. And I can I can probably look that up too? Okay. So that's that's the the loading and traffic questions and then just the urban design, questions. I think I had one other oh, yeah. And the hotel special permit. So that is that I wanna make sure I understand the applicability of that. Is that a a citywide special permit then?

It is sort of in it's limited to it's pretty limited in terms of where it would be applicable, because it has to be for lots that have both an R9 equivalent commercial district and an R10 equivalent commercial district within the special improvement special park improvement So it's really just to CB8. And then within CB8, the eligible sites are very limited, this being sort of the only one currently.

Yeah. So just on that point, I guess I'm a little puzzled here. Meaning if we collectively believe hospitals are needed and valuable and are worth giving density bonuses to, why are we only confining that to one very small geography? What's our thinking there? If we're going to, on the one hand, argue that the space is needed, but on the other hand, limited only to a very, very small subset of sites. I can understand the applicant's rationale for that. That makes the environmental review easier. But I'm not sure what the public policy rationale is of giving density bonuses only in very small geographies for something that's a pretty citywide resource. Yeah.

We often have applications that come to us, and we review them on a site by site basis. And there's always a potential for additional eligible sites being added through further tax amendments for such applications that come forward. As of right now, within the Upper East Side, this is the only site that is a full block and could benefit from this. So removing those restrictions doesn't help any other hospital just because there isn't a site that we know that would be seeking that floor area bonus.

Yeah. I think I understand the construct. I guess what I'm just pointing out is that it would seem to suggest that this is the only place we'd want hospital development by creating a hospital bonus structure confined to this geography. And so I'm just trying to understand why, as a commission, we wouldn't say this is the geography we want to confine hospital bonus to. I'm not sure I totally understand that part.

So I

think this is in the parks improvement district.

No. Hold on one sec. I think I understand your point. I mean, obviously, this is a private application here that is seeking to achieve something on this site. If this were a city led sponsored proposal, we perhaps could have animated what you are suggesting, Commissioner. I think that that's I don't think there's anything inconsistent about our desires to enable hospitals around the city. But since this is a private application, it was narrowed to this specific site in order to accomplish their goals. And also, of course, any other analogous sites in the area, which, of course, there are none today. Commissioner?

Yes. I think that the reason it's limited in this way is because the Parks Improvement District does not allow for an exceedance of more than a 10 FAR. And that's simply for the park improvement district that's on Madison and on 5th Avenue. There are you're right, there are other hospitals on Madison And 5th. But the reason it's not citywide applicable is because other hospitals not in the parks improvement districts have other ways to exceed and other special permits. But there's an absolute limit in the Park Improvement District to a 10 FAR.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Rappershed? One quick question. Some of the other questions I had were about funding and how the job will be faced. Out of curiosity on slide 17 with the ambulance bay, I was just wondering how they why they decide to choose three thirty foot curb cuts as opposed to one larger curb cut in this case. Do you know what the rationale was on their part?

Sure. That was something also the the department had advocated for, just limiting the interruption of the sidewalk instead of, you know, ambulances being able to come in and out in a 120 foot bay without any kind of breaks in between. This limits where the ambulances can come in through to that 30 foot, and it provides a bit more protection for pedestrians who are utilizing that sidewalk on 77th Street.

And I believe it is there now. There's no standing on both sides of the street in terms of for the ambulances. Because I was thinking about what commissioner Mann was saying as well, backing in and out from that bay may be problematic. I I don't know. But I was just curious, do you know if there is no standing in the opposite side so ambulance can go in and out?

I am not sure, but I can confirm if there's a.

Thank you, commissioner. Okay. Thanks, Oskar, very much. We'll look forward to picking this one up down the line. This item is now certified. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Madam Secretary.

The second item on our agenda is a certification of a disposition of city owned property and acquisition and zoning map and zoning tax amendments in Manhattan Community District 11. Our presenter is Audrey Watts.

Hi, Audrey.

Cool. Thank you. Today,

I'll be presenting on Carmen Vega's apartments, an HPD application for income restricted senior housing in East Harlem. This is an application by HPD and its partners for four actions: a zoning map amendment to change the existing R72, R72C24, and R7BC24 districts to R91 and R91C24 districts a zoning text amendment to modify Appendix F to designate an MIH area, an acquisition of the property by the city, and a disposition of nonresidential city owned property. And approval of these actions would facilitate the development of a 28 story income restricted housing building with two ten units, including a 147 ARIS units, plus one superintendents unit and Ground Floor community facility space for seniors in East Harlem, Manhattan Community District 11. The surrounding area is characterized by a range of low to high rise buildings consisting mostly of multifamily walk ups and elevator buildings, as well as a number of NYCHA campuses. Institutional uses include income restricted housing and housing for vulnerable populations, as well as charter and public schools.

The surrounding area comprises a range of high density R districts. There's one C4 district just south of the project area, while C4 overlays, which permit typical neighborhood retail uses, predominate on the avenues. The surrounding area includes the special East Harlem Corridors District and special Park Improvement District and is covered by the transit, fresh, and coastal zones. The rezoning area is currently zoned R72C24, where residential FARs range from 3.44 to 5.01. And it's also zoned R7BC24, where residential FARs range from three to 3.9.

The surrounding area includes many high rise NYCHA developments. And northwest of the project area is Cindere Verde, an income restricted HPG housing development, which was completed in 2022. A major delineating feature of the surrounding area is the Park Avenue Viaduct, which supports the Metro North rail lines. Zooming into the proposed development site, today privately owned Lot 1 is home to Casita Park, which is a 94 unit residence for seniors. The lot was previously city owned.

And in 2000, HPD received approvals that facilitated the construction of Casita Park, plus 12 required accessory off street parking spaces. The rest of the rezoning area, moving clockwise, comprises 116 East 111th Street, which is Lot 66 and is now vacant, and 121 East 110th Street, which is Lot 8, which contains a mixed use building. Zooming into street level, the proposed development site pictured here in yellow would replace the now underutilized Casita Park parking lot, which has 12 spaces, and a portion of the open area adjacent to the Casita Park Building. To facilitate the development, the approximately 25,700 square foot Lot 1 would be re apportioned into two separate tax laws, one for the existing Casita Park Building and another for the development site, which will span about 9,200 square feet. Here's a view of development site sorry, of East 110th Street facing Southeast from Park Avenue, with the development site at the left.

A view of the development site facing east from the intersection of Park Avenue and East 110th Street and a view of Park Avenue and the Park Avenue Viaduct facing Northeast from East 110th Street, and with the development site, a corner of it, pictured in the rightmost area of the image. Here's another view of the sidewalk along the east side of Park facing Northeast from East 110th Street, that development side at right. Viewed the intersection of Park Avenue and East 110th Street facing west. This immediately across the street from the development site. And a view of the sidewalk along the north side of East 110th Street facing Southeast from Park Avenue, the development site at the left.

Circling around the block to East 111th Street, there are three views of Casita Park pictured here, and only the tower of the proposed development would be viewable from this vantage point. The proposed development would rise to a height of two ninety one feet and span 28 stories, be comprised of 139,000 zoning square feet, and include 63 income restricted units MIH income restricted units and 147 income restricted units developed under the ARRIS program. The building itself, the FAR would be 5.42. But the overall FAR for zoning Lot 1, including Cocita Park and the proposed development, would be 8.22. Finally, there is proposed to be 7,000 square feet of community facility space.

And it's proposed to be rented to Sage, which is an advocacy organization for LGBT seniors. Two outdoor amenity spaces in the proposed development include a 6th Floor terrace and Ground Floor open areas. The Ground Floor facing south on East 110th Street provides entrances for the residential and community facility uses. And adjacent to the building's residential lobby to the east, the proposed development includes open space consisting of an arcade, which would be named Falsa Way, that connects to an open interior courtyard. This space would be open to building residents of both the proposed development and of Cocita Park.

To facilitate the proposed development, the applicant proposes four actions. The first is the zoning map amendment to change the project area from R72, R72C24, and R7BC24 zoning districts to R91 and R91C24 zoning districts. The second action is a zoning text amendment to map a mandatory inclusionary housing area, with the applicant proposing to map MIH Option one. Finally, the applicant proposes an acquisition and disposition of the development site. Existing Lot 1 will be reapportioned into two separate tax laws for Casita Park and the proposed development site.

And the development site, Block 1638, that part of Lot 1, is proposed for acquisition by HPD. The development site will then be conveyed to HPD selected sponsor, Ascendant Neighborhood Development Corporation, which also manages Casita Park. And Ascendant will develop the property as a new construction income restricted housing development. This application requires a racial equity report, which includes the following findings. As of 2021, half of the neighborhood households in East Harlem earn less than $36,000 a year, median income that is significantly lower than Manhattan and citywide median income.

In this proposed development, there will be a mix of studios and one bedrooms up to 60% AMI. However, the applicant has conveyed that these details aren't final and will speak more about the details during the EULAR process. And overall, as you can see on the map, the neighborhood is at a higher displacement risk. As of 2020, almost half of East Harlem residents identify as Latino and over a quarter identify as black, which is in contrast to Manhattan as a whole, where almost half of residents identify as white. From 2010 to 2020, East Harlem's population increased at a slower rate than this abused population.

The number of Asian and white identifying residents increased by almost 50% and almost a third, respectively, while the number of black and Hispanic residents decreasing by 65%, respectively. Meanwhile, been a 13% jump in housing units constructed from 2010 to 2023, while population has increased by 4% in the area. This is a higher rate of housing production than the borough and the city as a whole, so the neighborhood's population is growing at a comparatively slower rate. In summary, the applicant proposes four actions, zoning map amendment to rezone those R72C24 and R7Bc24 districts to R91 and R91C24 districts, a zoning text amendment to modify Appendix F to designate an MIH area, an acquisition of property by the city, and subsequent disposition of that property. The approval of these actions would facilitate the development of a 28 story income restricted housing building with two ten units, including 147 ARIS units and ground floor community facility space for seniors in East Harlem Community District 11.

Thank you, and happy to take your questions.

Great. Thank you very much. Let's start with Commissioner Benjamin.

I think it was two weeks ago, but sometime this year. We had another proposal for the West Village Apartments that proposed eliminating parking that had been required and having residential on that roof. Is there any special permit or any other approval that's necessary to remove the required parking?

So

parking is not required for this development. Are you

sorry. For Casita, not for Carmen Villegas, for the original Casita development that had the 12 spaces, were they required to have them? Or were they Yes. They were required to have them. Mhmm.

Okay. So they have a CFO that says, this parking is required. I understand that now under city of yes, it may not be required, but is there any action that is required on our part or their part or the buildings department part to change their CFO to say that this parking isn't required Mhmm. Before they sell the plot of land that we sold to them for the parking. I see. And we buy it back from them and then

dispose Thank of you for the clarification. I have not looked at the CFO recently, so I will certainly get back to you on that.

Hi. Hi, Commissioner. Jose Tuzias, Albert Mohammad, team leader. For senior housing, there is the applicability that you can waive the parking requirement, specifically for senior housing Right. Before CHO even.

Are they waiving it now? Yeah. But they actions we're approving?

They don't need an action for that. It was only for senior housing before CHO and now through an authorization, I believe, you can do it as well.

So there's an authorization for that?

Right. But for all the projects if you're doing housing development in the area. But if you're developing senior housing, you're not required to provide any additional, you know, mechanism to waive the parking requirement.

Okay.

Okay. Maybe I can just jump in for a second. Commissioner Benjamin is asking really about the first development, not the second.

Correct.

She's asking about the one that's already there, the prior disposition from the city and the initial parking requirement that existed. There was a parking requirement when that building was built and they used the space next door that we're talking about here to satisfy that requirement. Is that right?

That's correct.

And at some point that obligation ceases to exist through some process or no process. What Commissioner Benjamin is really asking is, what is the technical point that needs to be executed in order for that first building to no longer have its parking requirement. Did do that do justice Yes. To Okay. Yes. So can you help us on that?

Yes. I will look into that and get back to you because I I I can't speak to those details and don't wanna speak it correctly.

Okay. And secondly, since we originally had UDEP and sold these two properties to Casita. Are we buying it back from them? Are they giving it to us? Is there money involved? And what is the transaction? So

Lot 1 is now owned by the Casita Park Housing Development Fund. And so in order to affect the proposed development, they would have to divide the zoning lot into the two tax lots. As far as money exchange, I will look into what the transaction process and what that would be for this particular proposed acquisition

and disposition. And this was the I believe that the original CASEDA, was the subject of a UDAP. It was. Yes. And so the UDAP was for both lots, I take it.

So the UDAP was the so lot one is presently just a single lot. And then it would be divided into two tax lots to facilitate the proposed development. So Casita Park, the lot one was created from a consolidation of a number of lots. I can get that exact number and configuration for you. But that was part of the UDAP application that was approved in 2000.

I guess my question is, do we need another disposition if we already have a disposition, a UDEP disposition resolution from the original?

Let me circle back on that. But it is my understanding that because in this situation, they're proposing just to divide the singular lot one, that the UDAP action was not needed. And they went with the acquisition and then disposition action. Okay.

But since we are acquiring the site, we need to dispose it again. But not to a Judah because you won't meet the requirements of the Judah for the acquisition disposition through a Judah process. So it is a a straight acquisition and straight disposition through Article 11.

Okay. Thank you.

Thanks, Commissioner. Commissioner Marin? Yes. So I'd

be interested in finding out how this gets resolved, too. Because having worked in development, you find that throughout the process, not all the documents are corrected. So there's regulatory documents here that dictate this was a UDAP. There is a CFO that says it has parking. I guess the concern that we're all trying to express is that those documents at Casita get corrected so that they don't have any issues in the future because the UDAP, again, was for the entire lot one. We're now segregating out a portion of that UDAP lot and doing something different. And so the UDAP will read something different from what we're doing today. Mhmm. And, again, the concern is that those ministerial documents get corrected when this building gets approved and built.

I see.

Well, I will certainly follow-up on that for you and get

you concerned. Concerns. Because throughout the city, when you when you when you see these developments and other not for profits are taken on development developments, there's some entanglement of past documents that then prohibit an action or don't allow a building to be built or don't allow a property to be sold. And I've encountered quite a few, which is disrupting in the process.

Yeah. Hi, commissioners. Nabilah Malik, deputy director of the Manhattan office. We understand these concerns, and we'll certainly have HPD HPD address them because we're not as privy to all of the contracts and agreements that they have.

We understand that. But I will say that if we are the responsible parties that are approving something, then we want to make sure that the past action gets corrected and gets closed out correctly. Otherwise, we're not doing our job correctly.

Of course. Agreed. And we'll make sure that HPD has the information needed.

Thanks, Commissioner. Commissioner Souriau? Thank you, Chair. Thanks so much for the presentation. I have two questions, one on flooding and the other one on energy.

On flooding, so even though it's clear you've achieved a negative declaration or concluded a negative declaration given the fact that this is not within the current one hundred year floodplain. Because this is within the coastal zone and the public acquisition, I'm wondering why there isn't a more detailed analysis compliant with Policy six of the Waterfront Revitalization Program, which would require not only a full analysis, but also a specific intervention to mitigate potential inundation. It also requires the analysis of projections by the New York panel on climate change. I looked at briefly and it sounds like the property would be in fact within the one hundred year floodplain as early as 2050, 2080. So I'm wondering if you can help us understand a little bit, you know, what's been the rationale there and and and if perhaps this is something that you're working on or anything that you can tell us about how the design is

Mhmm.

Prepared for that.

Yeah. So the information I have from HPD is that the development would elevate critical mechanical systems and the lobby vestibule with some ramping above that seed level rise adjusted design flood elevation. And there would also be a subgrade stormwater retention tank. And as far as sustainability measures, the proposed development is proposed to be built to enterprise green community standards. And and that would, this case, would include incorporating sustainable features that are in line with the passive house.

Yeah.

Yeah. No. Thank you. I I wanna follow-up on that, on energy, in a minute. But I I just wanted to suggest or maybe ask. I mean, it's it's it's great to hear, and I saw I didn't see that. I I saw your energy efficiency sort of like bullets in the documents, but I didn't see any analysis, especially on the flooding side. And I would love to understand, how is what is the situation basically in terms just of to make sure that we're fully compliant with the WRP here again, elevating the fact that this is a requirement of the WRP. In terms of energy efficiency, thank you. I saw that and this is great.

We need to guarantee the most the highest energy standards when it comes to this type of investment. And the question I had really was in terms of renewables, it's great that in terms of energy efficiency, there is a commitment to achieving passive house. That's great. But there's also some mention on solar panels, but without really any detail in terms of how much energy, where is it going to be stored, how is this factored into the energy matrix of the building. And so I'm wondering if if next time we see it I don't know if you have anything you can share with us. If not, if next time we see this, we have a full, like, a detailed understanding of what we're talking about. Mhmm.

Well, thank you for those flags. And I can follow-up with additional information and also flag this for HPD so they can share more details about the energy use and the flood resilience as well.

That would be great. Thank you. I appreciate that. I know that when we hear from HPD, we'll bring it up as well. I'm appreciative of the additional data that HPD in general has been sharing with us. It would be great if we can understand since in this area, in this part of the city, we've been recently approving a series of buildings that are proposing very high energy standards. I would like to understand what actually has been built. Have we been able to achieve those standards? And I think building on a question that Commissioner Goodrich had asked the other day, what is the expectation in terms of these energy efficiency standards actually resulting in lower rents?

Lower rents?

Yes.

Are these savings factoring in reductions in the cost of housing basically?

Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks, Commissioner. Okay. Thank you very much. This item is certified. Thanks, Audrey.

Thank you.

Okay. Let's move on to Item three.

The third item on our agenda is the certification of zoning map and zoning tax amendments in Brooklyn Community District 1. Our presenter is Jordan Fraud.

Jordan. Hey. How are you? Good.

Hey.

Alright. Good afternoon, Chair Gorodnik and Commissioners. Today, I'm going to present the 347 Flushing Avenue rezoning. This is a private application by Flushing Condo Holdings LLC, for a zoning map amendment from M12 to M15 and R71C24 and a zoning text amendment to map an MIH area in order to facilitate the conversion of three thirteen parking spaces, about 82,000 square feet of community facility space and about 58,000 square feet of commercial space into 84 parking spaces, about 26,000 square feet of community facility space and about 137,500 square feet of commercial space. This conversion would take place within an existing eight story building that was constructed in 2022.

The proposed actions would also bring a legal but nonconforming 30 unit residential building at the corner of Kent Avenue and Flushing Avenue into compliance. This building was authorized in 2004 by BSA variants. The project area is located in the Southwestern portion of Williamsburg in Brooklyn Community District 1, near the boundaries of Community District 2 And 3, and the Brooklyn Navy Yard. The project area is bounded by Flushing Avenue, Kent Avenue, Classen Avenue, and Wallabot Street. Here's an aerial view of the project area looking northwest.

The project area sits at the border of Williamsburg, Clinton Hill, Bedford and Bedford Stuyvesant, excuse me, one block east of the Brooklyn Queens Expressway, across which are the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Naval Cemetery landscape, a local open space. Williamsburg Bridge Plaza is about 4,000 feet north as the crow flies, and Pratt Institute is about one half mile southwest. Eight blocks east of the project area is the Flushing Avenue Station on the G train, and the B48, B57 and B62 bus are all accessible within a couple of blocks. The Brooklyn Queens Expressway and Interstate Highway is the only freight truck route in Brooklyn and ultimately connects New Jersey to the Bronx, passing through Staten Island, Brooklyn and Queens. Flushing Avenue is also a truck route connecting Downtown Brooklyn with Masbath Queens and the Long Island Expressway.

Here is a view from the bird's eye perspective of the project area. You can see the BQE immediately to the west and the Naval Cemetery landscape beyond that. Beyond that is the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Here is an axonometric view of the project area looking west. As you can see, the commercial and community facility eight story building has already and acts as a buffer between the Brooklyn Queens Expressway and Navy Yard to the West and various residential uses to the east.

You can also see on the eastern side of the area outlined in the yellow dash line, the project area, the existing 30 unit residential facility that was authorized by BSA variance in 2004. It's about six stories high. The project area consists of Block 2260, Lot 35 And 7501 bordered by Wallabad Street to the North, Flushing Avenue to the South, Classen Avenue to the West and Kent Avenue to the East. The site is currently zoned M12, a manufacturing district which permits commercial, light industrial and certain community facility uses, including retail, woodworking, repair shops and wholesale service and storage facilities. The maximum permitted FAR is two point zero for industrial and commercial uses and 4.8 for community facility uses.

Required off street parking varies by use, but typically one space per 300 square feet for commercial and one space per 1,000 square feet for industrial. Land uses in the surrounding area consist of a mix of light industrial, residential, mixed commercial and residential and community facility uses. Much of the existing multifamily housing in the area is located within an M12 or other manufacturing zoning district, making it legal but nonconforming. In particular, immediately east of 347 Flushing on the same block is a 30 unit residential development authorized by BSA variance in 2004. The applicant is requesting to rezone this lot to R71 with a C24 overlay to bring it into conformance and map MIH to ensure affordability at any future residential developments on this site.

I also want to draw

the commission's attention to two rezonings that occurred in the vicinity of the project area. The first is the February rezoning, which remapped about 15 blocks east and southeast of the project area from manufacturing districts to R71 and M12R71. This represented an early attempt by the city to convert abandoned or underutilized industrial parts of South Williamsburg into areas that could accommodate a wider range of uses, including residential. In particular, the MX4 zone in the lower right hand corner of this map is an early model for how manufacturing and residential uses can coexist on the same block. Second, the Rose Castle rezoning in 2017 rezoned the block Caddy Corner from the project area from M12 to R7AC24 to facilitate an eight story mixed use building with approximately 168 dwelling units.

Here are some photos of the site today. This is looking Northeast from the corner of Flushing Avenue and Classen Avenue. Brooklyn Queens Expressway would be located just to the left of this photo. As you can see, the existing eight story building has already been built and filled out its allotted height and bulk. Here's a photo of the front facade of the building on Flushing Avenue.

Glass atrium entrance provides access to the shopping and retail portions of the building. Here's a photo of the existing residential building at 760 Kent Avenue, which was authorized by VSA variance in 2004 and would be brought into conformance by the proposed actions. Here are photos of the two buildings located adjacent to the project area across Flushing Avenue. On the left is the Rose Castle Building mentioned previously, which was facilitated via a rezoning in 2017. On the right is a historic building used by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection to house water tunnel and shaft maintenance staff.

We now move to interior photos of the existing development. On the left, the entrance to the building for Flushing Avenue opens into an atrium providing access to several retail establishments on the first two Floors. On the right, an office linked to the outpatient health care facility that currently occupies the majority of the building's floor area. Here are some photos of the Ground Floor and cellar parking facilities currently located in the building. Most of these spaces would be removed according to the proposed actions today.

I would like to draw the commission's attention now to some discrepancies in the interior of the building that were discovered during the application process and are being addressed by DCP, the applicant team, and the Department of Buildings. According to materials filed with the Department of Buildings in 2022 when this building first opened, the current building includes two point zero FAR of commercial uses and 2.8 FAR of community facility uses, namely the outpatient health care facility. The healthcare facility and accessory warehouse space, warehouse space accessory to the healthcare facility are listed on the ZD1 and certificate of occupancy as occupying the 4th Through 7th and a portion of the 8th Floor. However, as you can see from these interior photos provided by the applicant, the 6th And 7th Floor contain what appear to be standard office space. This would result in the current building being nonconforming with more commercial floor area than the M 12 District allows.

During the application process, the applicant noted the discrepancy to DCP and also noted that the rezoning being requested today by mapping a district with up to five point zero FAR commercial and 6.5 FAR community facility would bring the existing building into compliance. Our office alerted the Department of Buildings to the discrepancy and our teams are working together with the applicant team to resolve the issue and move forward. Here we see a photo of the proposed project looking northeast from the corner of Classen Avenue and Flushing Avenue. The applicant is proposing the conversion of about 82,000 square feet of community facility space to 26,000 square feet, about 58,000 square feet of commercial space to 137,500 square feet and three thirteen parking spaces to 84 within an existing eight storey building. The total FAR of the building would increase from 4.8 to 5.57 since most ground floor parking would be converted to commercial uses.

According to the applicant team, the number of jobs on-site would also increase from about three eighty to 500 as a result of this conversion. To facilitate the proposed development, the applicant seeks a zoning map amendment and a zoning text amendment to map an MIH area. The M15 zoning district would be mapped beginning at the Northeast corner of Classen Avenue and Flushing Avenue to a depth of 100 feet and along the northern frontage of Flushing Avenue to a line 90 feet west of Kent Avenue. The R 71 C 24 district would be mapped from the Northwest corner of Kent Avenue and Flushing Avenue to a depth of 100 feet and then east along the remainder of the block. M15 districts permit a maximum FAR of five point zero for commercial and manufacturing uses and 6.5 for limited community facility uses with no required off street parking.

Height is governed by a sky exposure plane. R71 districts are medium density residential districts permitting a maximum FAR of 3.44 or up to five with MIH on narrow streets. For buildings on a narrow street, the maximum base is 65 feet with a maximum building height of 75 feet or in areas where MIH is mapped, a base height of 85 feet and a maximum of 105 feet. No parking would be required for buildings in the inter transit zone, which includes all of Brooklyn Community District 1. The applicant requests a zoning text amendment to establish an MIH area coterminous with the existing residential facility within the project area, ensuring that any future residential development on this site contains an affordable component.

This site is non applicant owned and no residential development is being proposed at this time. This application requires a racial equity report because it is seeking a change to the use regulations in a manufacturing district where a building in the project area contains at least 100,000 square feet of floor area. The project area is located in Puma 4001, roughly coterminous with Brooklyn Community District 1. As you can see from this graph, Puma 4001 is disproportionately white compared to both Brooklyn and New York City as a whole. This particular project area in South Williamsburg is located in the SopMar Hasidic community.

This graph shows income by race or ethnicity within Puma 4001. For all racial and ethnic groups, Puma 4001 contains more extremely low income and high income residents than the New York City average. The overall effect of the proposed project according to the RER would be an increase of 120 jobs compared to today. These jobs will be concentrated in the office, retail and medical sectors. This graph shows that Puma four thousand and one currently has a greater percentage of office jobs and a lower percentage of institutional and industrial jobs than Brooklyn or New York City as a whole.

The part of Williamsburg where the project area is located, Neighborhood Tabulation Area 72, is noteworthy for its high displacement risk according to the Equitable Development Data Explorer. What largely drives this conclusion is the fact that 74% of residents in this neighborhood tabulation area have an income less than 200% of the federal poverty level. To conclude, this is a private application from Flushing Condo Holdings LLC for a zoning map amendment from M12 to M15 and R71C24 and a zoning text amendment to Appendix F to map MIH to facilitate the conversion of an existing eight story building with commercial, community facility and parking uses to a new floor plan with more commercial floor area and less community facility and parking space than currently exists on-site. This would occur within the existing building envelope. In addition, the proposed actions would also bring a legal but nonconforming residential building into conformance.

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

Great. Thank you very much. I'll start with Vice Chair Knuckles.

Thank you, Chair. So was this a situation where the development, or the developers could not find a tenant or tenants to comply with the m one zoning so they had to essentially switch course?

No. I would know. I would not say that they couldn't find a tenant. The building is currently fully occupied according to M 12 zoning. The switch from M 12 to M 15 does two things. It changes the ratio of community facility to commercial Yeah. Pull out. Yeah. And it also reduces the parking. To my knowledge, there have not been issues actually finding tenants for the building, but they would like to rebalance the program on-site to include more neighborhood serving commercial and retail and office and reduce the number of parking spaces.

But under m one, they needed a greater percentage of manufacturing than m one m one. So it would be under m one two. Yeah.

They get up to two FAR of manufacturing or commercial

Yeah.

And up to 4.8 community facility. Right. What they're asking for with m one five, they would get up to five FAR of commercial or manufacturing and up to 6.5 FAR of community facilities. So either way, they're increasing the amount of floor area they can use.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Commissioner Benjamin?

Hi. Thank you very much. I would say that I live just a few blocks from this facility and they have never advertised for a manufacturing tenant,

even

now the signs that they have up for tenancy or for commercial tenants, but that's

That's right.

But I'm interested in the residential building that's going to be in the R7. Are they complying, fully complying with an r seven, including all of the balconies?

Let me so all of the studies that I did indicated that it would be fully compliant with r seven one. I don't know about your specific question about the balconies, but I can certainly look into it

Okay.

And get an answer for you, see if the balconies of the existing residential facility would would present some sort of obstacle to full compliance.

Right. Particularly the one that's on Kent. Okay.

No. That's it. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Rappershed?

Thanks for the presentation. Can you just repeat the number of square or the square footage amount that was supposed to be used for a community facility that was turned into office? And also, do you know if there's a lease agreement with those tenants that was being used for office now that was supposed to be used instead of community facility?

Meaning so I'll I'll take your second question first.

So you had you had a floor plate that was supposed to be used for community facility that was actually being used for office.

Yes.

Correct? That's correct.

So that tenant that's there, there a long term lease agreement with that tenant?

I do not know if there is a lease agreement for the offices that you're looking at right now, but I can find out.

Okay. Just curious.

Thank you.

And then well, sorry. What was your first question?

No. I I was just curious how that was working in terms of how how much was the square footage in terms of that was supposed to be used for a community facility? I forget the number you said earlier.

So in total, I've got the z d one here. The z d one says that on both the 6th And 7th Floors, about 15,770 square feet each are used for community facility.

Question. Yeah. On the date

of the z d one,

you because usually when you get the approval for DOP, you put that in at the very beginning of the job. Was that modified or amended later? Because the CEO came a long time after that. So I was

just curious. I don't So is that

the latest? I believe this is the latest this is the latest z d one as far as I know. Yes. Okay. The date is May 2021.

May 2021. Okay. Thank you.

Yep. Absolutely. Thanks, commissioner. Commissioner Soria?

Thank you, chair. Thanks so much for the presentation. And my first question is really just seconding Commissioner Ram Prashat's question. That was I wanted to ask you that. The second was in terms of the nonconformance, I mean, can you help us understand sort of like what's the department's position in terms of you know, perhaps maximizing the public benefit of kinda like addressing it right now?

In other words, what has been the history here? How can we make sure that that this is that there's a strong commitment to actually fully comply to what we are, what is being proposed or what will be designated now. Specifically, I would like to understand, this is now moving into the second question or the third question, whether there's been ever manufacturing, how much of the mix has been manufacturing? And just to confirm what I think I understand, which is that there is no manufacturing proposed. And so why is that?

It sounds to be that it could be part of the mix, especially when, you know, we we are talking about addressing a noncompliance Right. In the history of how this has been managed. So help me understand a little bit, you know, how is the department thinking about it? Sure. So the first

thing I'll say about this particular site is that it has not been used for manufacturing in some time. Right? Even before this building went up in 2022, the site that's you know, as far back as I could go looking at at aerial photos were outside of a vacant lot or a bodega or a deli or some, you know, single story commercial establishments. The other thing I'll note is that in this part of Williamsburg in particular, in the SopMar community, there is a pretty extensive pattern of land that is zoned manufacturing not being used for manufacturing purposes. There's a ton of legal nonconforming residential in the m zones that you see here.

And then in particular, you also have the Navy Yard on the West Side of the BQE, which is a huge manufacturing and industrial facility. So we don't see the creation of a commercial and community facilitated community facility oriented buffer zone to sort of serve as a buffer between the BQE and the Navy Yard to the West and the more residential mixed use neighborhood to the East. We don't see that as like inherently a problem given the way that the neighborhood has evolved up to this point.

So a couple of things. So so thank you. That's useful, you know, for a time we've been talking about a neighborhood wide study that can help us understand exactly what you're talking about, sort of like how many instances. But also, just in general, you know, what is the what are the needs, the potential land use rationale that could support something like that? And is that something that the department has made any progress? And I know that there were some procurement requirements with one particular aspect of that study, but I'm wondering if I'm very interested in what you're saying and would love to understand what is the status of that research. Sorry. I know that, Alex. Every time that this comes up, no. No. We land in the same place. But this is exactly why this would be so useful.

No. I appreciate it. And, unfortunately, I don't have any updates on the timing of this. I I feel pretty bad coming back. But we as we know, have a lot of applications in this area. But as soon as we have more information on the procurement process and when we can start the study fully, we'll definitely come back and talk with you through that. Yeah. No, thank you. That would be

just useful to as we approach cases like this one. I think that in this particular case to to your to what you just said, I think the the land use rationale makes sense. What the only part that doesn't make sense is why doesn't anything do at least some manufacturing just to be sort of like to respond to the district that is being proposed. And so so any additional information on this would be useful. And if you can, if not if if at any point you can encourage the applicant to consider that, I think that that would be useful. I mean, it's not unprecedented to have an MX that could actually you're not proposing an MX, but to have a mixed industrial commercial that could actually work here. So I would just be interested in understanding. If not, to the earlier point, why not?

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. All right. Thank you very much. Jordan, this item is certified. We'll look forward to following up with you down the Thank line you. Let's move to item four.

The fourth item on our agenda is the certification of zoning map and zoning tax amendment in Brooklyn Community District 2. Presenting for the first time to the commission is Griffin Mills.

All right, Griffin. Welcome aboard. Thank you. Floor is yours.

Great. Good afternoon, Chair Grodnik and Commissioners. This is a certification presentation for 236 Gold Street. This is a private application from two thirty six Gold LLC requesting a zoning map amendment from an r six b to a c six two a district and a zoning text amendment to appendix f to establish a mandatory inclusionary housing MIH area with options one and two. These actions would facilitate a 14 story mixed use building with over 79,500 square feet of total floor area with a 114 dwelling units, 29 of which would be income restricted under MIH option one and two thousand square feet of Ground Floor commercial.

This project is located at 236 Gold Street between Concord Street and Tilary Street in the Bridge Plaza neighborhood just north of Downtown Brooklyn in Brooklyn Community District 2. This project site is extremely well connected with public transportation. Within a half mile of project area, there are five subway lines five subway stations with 10 train lines, the B, F, Q, R, A, C, three, four, and five trains. By subway, the Financial District is about twenty minutes away and Midtown Manhattan is about thirty minutes away. The B57, B67, B69, and B62 bus lines also have bus stops within a four minute block of the project area.

These buses connect the project area to Brooklyn neighborhoods such as Gowanus and Kensington and Queens neighborhoods such as Mass Pets and Long Island City. This is an aerial view looking north towards the project area which is highlighted in orange. The project area is situated between the Brooklyn Queens Expressway to the East, Taylor Street to the South, which is a 150 feet wide, Flatbush Avenue, which is a 128 feet wide to the west, which turns to the Manhattan Bridge just north of the project area. The project area fronts on Gold Street, which is 76 feet wide and consists of medium density twelve and thirteen story apartment buildings. Cochrane Street to the north of the project area consists of primarily lower density three and four story townhomes as well as one story warehouses.

South of the project area is the Brooklyn Commons, formerly Metro Tech, with Borough Hall and Downtown Brooklyn Civic Center to the West. Nearby open spaces include the six acre Trinity Park to the North, the Golconda Playground to the Northeast, McLaughlin Park to the West, and the 10 acre Comber Barry Park to the East. These are mostly small parks with a wide variety of sport courts use of recreation. Cabin Plaza Park and Brooklyn Bridge Park are a ten minute walk west and north respectively. The Nytro Farragut Houses complex is located Northeast of the project site which consists of 10 buildings and are home to over 4,000 residents.

Further northeast, the Brooklyn Navy Yards Industrial Campus occupies 300 acres along the Brooklyn Waterfront and are home to over 400 businesses, primarily operating in the industrial and creative sectors. As illustrated here, the land uses in the area surrounding the project consist of low and mid density residential and mixed residential and commercial buildings, numerous academic institutions, open spaces, and industrial uses. Some institutions, as marked in blue, include the Brooklyn International High School just Northwest of the project area on Concord Street, PS eighty seven and Madison Square Boys and Girls Club northeast of the project area located on Nassau And Concord Street. Industrial uses shown in purple include a custom window and door manufacturer as well as one as three as well as three one story building supply warehouses that reflect the M 11 zoning that was mapped in this area prior to the 2003 Bridge Plaza rezoning. The project area is immediately surrounded by an existing C62 District to the South and the east and an R6B district to the North and the West.

There's an R6 District located both north and east of the project area and a C4 3 District located both north and west. There's an R71 district mapped further west of the project area as well. The special Downtown Brooklyn district sits south of the project area and was rezoned in 2004 as a part of the Downtown Brooklyn development plan to promote the growth of Downtown Brooklyn as a regional center business district. The project area was rezoned from an M11 to an R6B zoning district in 2003 as a part of the Bridge Plaza rezoning, which allowed for residential and commercial development in scale with existing land uses balanced with nearby C43 and C62 districts, which allowed for slightly higher densities to support development in underdeveloped lots. The rezoning prohibited new industrial and commercial uses on existing vacant lots within the Bridge Plaza neighborhood.

This is a view looking directly at the project area from Gold Street. Lots 333536, and 37 were previously used for parking but currently remain vacant. You can see the lower density townhomes in the R 6 B District to the north as well as the medium density residential apartment buildings directly south in the C 62 District. This is a view looking south on Gold Street. The project area is on the right highlighted in orange.

You can see Downtown Brooklyn in the background as well as 13 story buildings located both immediately south and east of the development site built to the existing C 62 zoning. This is a view looking north on Gold Street. The project area is on the left side highlighted in orange. You can see the mixed use 13 story residential building across the street from the development side, which has a Ground floor preschool. This is a view looking southwest on Concord Street looking at Gold Street.

The project area is highlighted in orange on the left side of the image. There are three and four story townhomes located along Concord Street in the R 6 B District as well as the window and door manufacturer directly on the corner of Gold And Concord. This is a view from Tiller Street looking north at Gold Street. Project area is highlighted in orange on the left side of Gold Street. This image shows the 13 story residential buildings located on both corners of Gold Street built to the existing c six two zoning.

The proposed development is a 14 story mixed use building. The base of the building will be 105 feet and they will step back to a total height of 145 feet. The building will have seventy seventy seven thousand five hundred square feet of residential with a 114 dwelling units, 29 which will be income restricted under MIH option one. The Ground Floor will contain 2,000 a 115 square feet of commercial uses. To facilitate the proposed development, the applicant seeks a zoning map amendment to rezone the project area from an R6B to a C6 2A district as well as a zoning text amendment to appendix F to map MIH with options one and two.

The zoning map amendment seeks to rezone the project area from R6B to C62A. This would extend the current C62 zoning on Gold Street for a more contextual mid block. The proposed C62A district has a length of 125 feet which is the entire length of tax Block 33, 3536 And 37 on Gold Street which comprise the development site. The rezoning boundary is set to the central line of the block which includes a 12 foot sliver of lots fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen at 7501 on Duffield Street which are not owned by the applicant or included in the proposed development. C6.2a zoning districts are contextual districts where quality housing bulk regulations are mandatory for residential buildings.

The residential equivalent of a C6.2a district is R8a. The FAR is 7.2 with MIH. C6 2A districts produce high lot coverage 14 story apartment buildings that at or near the street line. The maximum base height is 105 feet and then the building must step back before rising to a maximum height of 145 feet. No parking is required for residential developments in the inter transit zone.

The proposed zoning text amendment to appendix F would map an MIH area with options one and two for an area coterminous with the rezoning area. Option one requires 25% of the residential floor area to be income restricted for households on average making 60% of the area median income or lower. Option two requires 30% of the residential floor area to be income restricted for households on average making 80% AMI or lower. This application requires a racial equity report which helps put the proposal into context with neighborhood level socioeconomic data. The annual median household income for this project area is about 119,000 which is significantly greater than the median household income in both Brooklyn and New York City.

The applicant intends to utilize MIH Option one which would result in 12 units for families with income averaging 40% AMI and 17 units for families with incomes averaging 60% AMI. As per their racial equity report, the population of Brooklyn Heights and Fort Greene is 40% white non Hispanic, 20% black non Hispanic, 14% Hispanic Latino, and 12% Asian non Hispanic. The white non Hispanic population is significantly greater share of the area's population when compared to Brooklyn and New York City. From 2010 to 2020, the area saw a 29% increase in population, which is significantly greater than Brooklyn's 9% increase and New York City's 8% increase. There was significant growth in the Asian and white non Hispanic populations outpacing Brooklyn and citywide trends.

There was a 12% decline in the black non Hispanic population and a slight increase in the HispanicLatino population of any race. From 2010 to 2023, housing units in Brooklyn Heights and Fort Greene increased by 38% and the population increased by 29%. This significantly outpaces the growth in both Brooklyn and in New York City. To conclude, this is a private application for zoning map amendment from an r six b to a c six two a district and a zoning text amendment to appendix F to map MIH options one and two. These actions would facilitate a new 14 story mixed use building including over 79,500 square feet of total floor area with 114 dwelling units, 29 of which would be income restricted under MIH Option one and two thousand square feet of ground floor commercial in the Bridge Plaza neighborhood of Brooklyn Community District 2.

Thank you. I'm happy to take any questions.

Great. Thank you very much. Great job. Congratulations. Let me start with Commissioner Cramone.

Thank you. I don't actually have a question. I'm just here to embarrass Griffin. Just want to say good job.

And Griffin was one of my graduate students in the urban planning program at Wagner last year. Congratulations. Well done.

You'll be called back for the

next round. Thank you, Commissioner. Okay. You're off the hook. Thank you very much. Great job. Okay. Let's move on to the next item. That item is certified number 5236 Gold Street. Let's I'm sorry, that was number Four. Four. Now we're on to number five. Madam Secretary.

The fifth item on our agenda is a non Euler post referral review of a certification in Queens Community District twelve. Our presenter is Shrissy Bharacharya Shakia.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair chair Guratnik and commissioners. Next slide, please. So this is a private application by Archer Towers Development LLC, which is developing an as of right mixed use building in Downtown Jamaica within the special downtown Jamaica district. They are seeking for a certification by the New York City Planning Commission chairperson for seven two one one five dash four two of zoning resolution of the City Of New York to allow a 20 foot wide curb cut in Archer Avenue, serving car parking garage with six to seven parking spaces in connection with a new 22 story residential and community facility building at 163 Dash 25 Archer Avenue, a borough of Queens, Community District 12.

Next slide, please. So the project area is located at a proximity to a transit bridge destination with numerous transit resources. Jamaica Transit Hub is located within approximately point seven miles west of the project area servicing e j and c sub reliance, air train connecting to JFK Airport, and also the LIRR line. Jamaica Center Station is located four blocks west of the project area that also services e, j, and z subway lines. The Southern Boulevard and Parsons Boulevard stations, service the f train, is located approximately point seven miles north of the project area along Hillside Avenue.

There is an empty bus depot located four blocks southeast of the project area, fronting Merrick Boulevard, and Rufus King Park is located within half a mile of the project area. Next slide, please. The surrounding land use is mostly mixed commercial and residential and commercial depicted by pink and red shade on the map. The project area depicted by red dash line on the map was rezoned from from a C 42 zoning district to a C six one a district in 1973. Then the project area was rezoned to c six three during 2007 Jamaica rezoning and has remained a C six three zoning district since.

Next slide, please. The project area is located four blocks east of Parsons Boulevard, E J And Z Terminus with Frontage And Orchard Avenue between Gaia Brewer Boulevard and on 65th Street. The Hundred 64th Street to the east of the lot is a paper street, not in use as a public street. The Hundred 64th Street is part partially owned by the New York City Department of Transportation and partially privately owned and is part of Lot 116 to the east, which is a portion that fronts an Archer Avenue. As you can see in the aerial map view here, the development side is the vacant lot adjacent to the east of the 25 story mixed use residential and commercial building that was built as of right in 10/2021.

That is around 600 res residential units. Next slide, please. The special Downtown Jamaica district was established as part of the city sponsored Jamaica rezoning in 2007 with the goal to harness and strengthen Downtown Jamaica's core business core, expand the retail, entertainment, and commercial character of the area near major transit hub, and improve quality of development in appropriate locations. Special Downtown Jamaica District tax limits bulk and use controls with variety of regulations of which is the location of curb cuts, which are restricted, as you can see on this map, along primary streets, Jamaica Avenue and Orchard Avenue running east and west, and Zaffron Boulevard running south north and south. The idea is that these would be primary retail furniture, and DCP wanted to encourage an uninterrupted street wall and ground floor presence to reduce conflicts and encourage an active streetscape.

The project area is located to the North side of Orchard Avenue between Guy Abreu Boulevard to the West and 165th Street to the East. According to the CR section one one five dash four two, the current the curb cuts are prohibited along Orchard Avenue and require CPC chair certification to allow curb cuts no greater than 20 feet if such zoning lot has access only to such prohibited location. Next slide, please. Just to give a quick tour of the site, the photo on the screen is showing the view of the development site facing northwest from Orchard Avenue. In the photo, the orange solid line indicates the proposed curb cut, and the blue solid line indicates the existing curb cut that is going to be removed.

Next slide, please. Next slide, please. Oh, sorry. So this photo is showing the view of the sidewalk along north side of Archer Avenue facing west. The development site is on to the right side of the screen depicted by yellow solid line.

And to the left hand side of the screen, we can see the outlier track that runs east west along Archer Avenue. Next slide, please. This photo is showing the view of the sidewalk along the north side of Orchard Avenue facing east. The development side is to the left side of the screen depicted by yellow solid line. And to the right side of the screen is, we can see the LIR track that runs east to west along Orchard Avenue.

Next slide, please. The development team is proposing a 22 story mixed use development with 259,400 square feet of residential floor area and 2,000 square feet of community facility on the Ground Floor Level. They are proposing 400100% income restricted units of which 80 units are for households earning it at or below 80% AMI. The remaining income restricted units are for households earning above 80% AMI. They are proposing 67 parking spaces, of which 31 will be in the Southern Level, and 37 parking spaces will be in the Ground Floor Ground Floor Level open parking area.

Next slide, please. So this is the site plan of the development site. As you can see, the applicant is proposing a 20 foot wide curb cut to facilitate a permitted accessory off street parking in the development. The driveway leading from the curb cut will be open and unenclosed to the sky leading to the parking area under the proposed development and the center level garage. As you can see on the map, the development side is an interior lot with access only through one street frontage.

The Hundred 64th Street to the west is only a paper street, which is not in use and is being utilized as a a scrap storage area. To the west of the side is 25 story mixed use development that was built in 2021. The Archer Avenue Lot 9 is located within a portion of Archer Avenue where curb cuts are prohibited without a CPC certification. Next slide, please. And here is a section in ZR that specifies the certification.

Next slide, please. So the application was referred out to committee board twelve on 12/03/2024. The applicant presented the proposal before c v twelve minus committee on 01/07/2025. However, they were tabled and did not get scheduled to be in the agenda for community board twelve full board meeting on 01/15/2025, and no vote was taken. There is no recommendation of vote submitted at this time by the community board. They have recommended the applicant to come back for the land use committee and for board with their full project presentation. The next slide, please. And this concludes my presentation. I'm happy to take any questions.

Great. Thank you very much. So the applicant seeking a 20 foot curb cut, there's an existing curb cut there today. Correct?

That's correct.

How wide is that existing curb cut?

The existing curb cut is around 42, 42 feet. That's Okay. Yep.

And there's no other access to the site from any other street. Is that right?

Yes. That's correct.

All right. Thank you. Mr. Vice Chairman?

Thank you for your presentation. This doesn't go to the issue before us. I'm just curious, it's 400 units income restricted, 80 of which are up to 80% AMI. What are the other 320? What's the AMI level among the other 320 units?

That's above 80% AMI.

That's above 80%?

Yes. 80 units are going to be for households that are earning at or below 80% AMI, and the remaining income restricted units are for households earning above above 80% AMI.

And you said the three twenty are above 80% AMI? I guess I'm it it says income restricted, so I I was wondering what that meant in this context.

So as per what the applicant have provide the information that they have provided, there are 400 income 400 units total. Yeah. And 80 units would be, you know, it will would be for households that are earning 80 at 80% AMI or below 80% AMI, and the remaining rest would be above 80% AMI. I don't know if that answered your question.

So up to and between 80% and the maximum for eligibility is what, Christy? Yeah.

I don't I can reach out to the applicant team to get more clarity on this.

Because it says 100% income restricted. I just want to

There know what that is a maximum for eligibility.

It's 61 but she

Okay, hold on. There is a maximum for eligibility pursuant to the city's own rules. We'll follow-up and get that precise number for you whether maybe Commissioner Marina is about to No, answer I'm going to quote

the amount. All I'm going to request is you please give us a breakdown of the units by AMI and what they are please.

We can do that.

I will note that for the purpose of today the question is about a curb cut. I would like to proceed if everybody is okay on the question of eligibility here. Curiosity. Okay, Commissioner Muddin.

Just a quick question. If, are those are those required parking spaces in the surface parking lot that necessitates the curb cut?

Yes. It's this this application was referred out prior to the CHO regulations being approved. But yeah.

So today, are are they required, meaning post adoption of the PDF?

Post adoption post adoption, they may not be required, but despite different out yeah.

So has there been any consideration of removing the parking and not doing the curb cut?

We were not able to kind of take that into consideration at the point when we were working through this application.

Okay. I guess I would just wonder whether that's worth considering here, given that, you know, development of surface parking in Downtown Jamaica doesn't seem to be where the Jamaica neighborhood plan would take us. And I would hope that we would try to find ways of squeezing as much affordable housing out of these sites as possible, especially with surface parking lots.

I can get back to you with a with a clear answer to you.

Okay. Thanks very much.

All right. We will follow-up with the applicant on whether there's an interest in exploring other routes that would allow for them to not have to do the parking. We will follow-up on the questions of the precise AMIs for the three twenty units that are above 80%. And with that, I'm going to seek a sense by voice vote to send an approval letter to the buildings department. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Okay. Thank you. Ayes have it. Thank you, Srsty.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay. We're ready.

The sixth item on our agenda is a prehearing review of a notice of intent to acquire office space in Manhattan Community District 1. Our presenter is Matthew Gutierrez.

Good afternoon,

Hello, Matthew.

Hi. So today, I'll be describing an application for an office space acquisition at 1 Battery Park Plaza. The Department of Citywide Administrative Services or DCAS and the Independent Budget Office or IBO have applied for an office space acquisition pursuant to Section 195 of the New York City Charter. As quick background, IBO has since 1989 provided local elected officials and the public with information and analysis regarding the budget, fiscal implications of proposed policies as well as projected revenues. IBO's proposed office space would be at 1 Battery Park Plaza, which is located in the Financial District within Manhattan Community District One.

The map on the right indicates where 1 Battery Park Plaza is in relation to its current office at 110 William Street. 1 Battery Park Plaza encompasses an entire block and is bounded by Bridge Street to the North, Whitehall Street to the East, Pearl Street to the South, and State Street to the West. The battery is located opposite on the opposite side of State Street. The site and surrounding area are within a C55 zoning district and the special Lower Manhattan district, which permit a wide range of high density commercial, residential and mixed uses with ground floor retail. While the blocks surrounding 1 Battery Park Plaza are predominantly commercial, the surrounding area also contains mixed commercial and residential buildings as well as fully residential buildings.

1 Battery Park Plaza has excellent access to public transportation. It is close to the 145, R, W, J and Z subway lines, as well as numerous Manhattan and Interborough bus lines. The site is also a short walk from the New York City ferry and the Staten Island ferry stops. In addition, there are several bike lanes in the neighborhood, including separated lanes alongside New York State Route 9A as well as below the elevated FTR Drive. IBO has been headquartered at 110 Williams Street, a privately owned building since 1996.

It currently occupies approximately 8,500 square feet on the 14th Floor. Since the mid 1990s, IBO staff has doubled in size and has now approximately 51 full time employees. As a result, IBO believes it has outgrown its current space. IBO hopes to move into an approximately 18,800 square foot office on 1 Battery Park Plaza's 4th Floor. It would be situated within a 35 story, nearly 900,000 square foot building at its entrances on Whitehall Street and State Street.

The office space is large enough to accommodate IBO's full time staff, interns and research fellows, as well as its charter mandated advisory committee meetings. The space would be renovated to provide ADA compliant private offices, office cubicles, conference rooms, storage areas, a wellness room, pantry area and restrooms. The downtown location of 1 Battery Park Plaza would also ensure that IBO would continue benefiting from proximity to other government offices such as the mayor's office of management and budget. And here are some pictures of the office that IBO hopes to occupy. And in addition to being larger, compared to IBO's current office, this space offers more natural light, improved ventilation, and opportunity for necessary technological upgrades.

And here is an illustrative layout of their space. Private offices line the bottom and left hand side of the image, while communal spaces like the pantry, conference room and cubicles are in the interior of this plan. IBO presented to Community Board one's land use committee on January 13. And while CB1 has not yet passed a resolution, it can do so and submit comments before the CPC vote on February 19. In summary, IBO seeks to lease approximately 18,800 square feet of office space at 1 Battery Park Plaza pursuant to Section 195 of the New York City Charter.

The proposed office space will be large enough to accommodate IBO's approximately 51 full time staff members as well as interns and fellows and to accommodate its charter mandated meetings. Renovations would take place providing ADA compliant and technologically upgraded facilities. And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to take any questions you

have. Great. Thank you very much. We'll pick this one up on Wednesday. We have a question from Commissioner Crowell.

Yes.

Hi. Yes. What was DCAS's role in the selection of this site?

So it is my understanding that IBO spearheaded the search. And once they found a site that they were keen on, that they brought it to DKAS to follow-up with next steps. But on Wednesday, they can provide more information

Right. On So, DKAS wasn't involved in the search. So, the search. The IBO independently was

Okay. Yes.

Got it.

That's very helpful. Thank you.

You. Commissioner, Vice Chair of Knuckles?

What was the prior allocation that they had of space at 110 William Street? What do they have now?

Yes. Let me pull that up for you. They had 8,500 square feet, approximately, just over 8,500 square feet at one 10000000000.

So so now they need twice as much space?

Yeah. In their application, they they described how since they moved into that space in 1996, their staff has doubled in size. So they want a space that is significantly larger.

Thanks, Mr. Vice Chairman. Okay. All right. Well, we will hear more about this one on Wednesday. Thank you very much.

Thank

you. Okay. Number seven.

The seventh item on our agenda is a pre hearing review of a notice to intent to acquire office space in Staten Island Community District 1. Our presenter is Vincent Mackie.

Welcome. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Vincent Mackie. I'm the borough certification manager in Staten Island office. I'm here today to present 209 Bay Street, an application to acquire office space for New York City Department of Social Services, Human Resources Administration.

This application is a notice of intent to acquire office space per section one nine five of the city charter. It is a public application being sought by the Department of Citywide Administrative Services and the Department of Social Services Human Resources Administration to lease approximately 2,000 square feet of office space at 209 Bay Street for the HRA's use. This site is located in the Tompkinsville neighborhood of Staten Island within City District 1. Here's the timeline of HRA's recent office space history. In 2006, HRA contracted provider Church Avenue Merchant Block Association or CAMBA Homebase, begins operating at 209 Bay Street in Staten Island, providing critical homeless prevention services under HRA's contract.

This location serves as a key site for assisting individuals at risk of homelessness. Today, HRA and DCAS seek to acquire approximately 2,000 square feet of office space at 209 Bay Street with the lease renewal for Canba Homebase pending. A 195 application is filed to formalize HRA's continued use of the location ensuring ongoing service provision for the Staten Island community. HRA intends to continue using the office space at 209 Bay Street for the next five years while exploring nearby options for a more modernized facility to better serve its clients and meet operational needs. Here's an aerial view of the subject site which is a one story office building located at 209 Bay Street.

The main entrance is the main entrance to the site is located in the Southwest Side of Bay Street between Victory Boulevard and Minthorn Street. Lot 7 is located in the Tonkinville neighborhood within an R6 C2-four zoning district. Tonkinsville is a transportation rich area, making it unique compared to most of Staten Island. The proposed site offers excellent access to public transportation, a core concern for the agency program that services at risk individuals. The site is just one block from the Tockensville Station of the Staten Island Railroad.

It's about 500 feet from the S-seventy eight bus route and 0.1 miles from several other bus routes at the Montgomery Avenue, Victory Boulevard and Bay Street stops. The proposed site is just 0.6 miles from the St. George Ferry Terminal. The project site is Lot 7, is located in the Toppensville neighborhood within R6 C2-four zoning district. HRA's office space is located on the Ground Floor of the one story building.

The proposed site primarily consists of workstations along with operational and common spaces including 12 desks, workstations, an orientation room, lobby, waiting area, pantry and restrooms. There are approximately 12 employees that utilize the office space on a daily basis who contribute to the area's local economy and utilize its mass transportation. Gamba's homelessness prevention services located on Lot 7 are in proximity to HRA's two other locations on the same block, 20 One-two 07 Bay Street as seen on the left and 215 Bay Street as seen on the right. HRA programs at 201 Bay Street include Benefits Access Center Richmond, Richmond Snap Center, Fair Fairs, Public Engagement Unit, Home Energy Assistance Program and Investigation Revenue and Enforcement Administration. In addition, HRA's HIV and AIDS Services Administration operates at 207 Bay Street.

HRA's Staten Island Medicaid Office, Adult Protective Services and Domestic Violence Services operate at 215 Bay Street. Together 201, 207, 209 And 215 Bay Street form a hub of HRA services for all of Staten Island. The proximity of these HRA entities allow for both operational and client services service efficiencies by the agency. The site office is the photo on the left and applicant waiting area is the photo on the right. The public access accesses the space by scheduling appointment via telephone or email or walk ins during normal hours, Monday through Friday 9AM to 5PM.

On occasion, the office will remain open until 06:45PM on a weeknight. There are no fleet vehicles that operate at this location and there are no parking allocated to staff due to its transit rich location. The applicant states that they meet the four fair share criteria related to the suitability of cost effectiveness, operational efficiency, consistency of location and supporting the development of New York City's regional business districts. This concludes my presentation. The applicant team is scheduled to present at the public hearing on February 5. Thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions at this time.

Great. Thank you very much. So we're going to have a hearing on this one on Wednesday. Commissioner Sirlou has a question.

Just a quick question and perhaps the applicant team could come prepared. Do we know what the lease is what the lease status is for each of the other locations along this corridor? I don't have that information, but we That's fine. Yeah. I'm just throwing it out there because it would be interesting to know what the cycle is for all of the different offices along this stretch, which of course is quite familiar.

The other question I would just pose, and I realize it's although, I'm gonna post it anyway. Are there any plans for the city to do anything to create a different pedestrian experience and for the clients and for the community outside this stretch? I mean, it's all continuous even though there are different addresses. But there's so much work going on in this area to improve the public realm. There are things happening at Victory across the street, just really everywhere in the vicinity here.

And I just again, it's just a question to throw out just to prepare the applicant team to see if they had any thoughts about what they possibly if and the pictures are quite representative that we of of what is there. It's very it's clean. It's stark. And I just want just wondering if there's any thought about how do we create a different even minor improvement to the public realm along that Bay Street corridor area, sidewalk particularly. Sure.

I'd be happy to have the applicant team take a look into any projects that are in along the area.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Commissioner. Okay. Thank you very much. We will pick this one up on Wednesday. Okay. Let's move to number eight. We are on to Queen's item.

The eighth item on our agenda is a prehearing review of the zoning map and zoning text amendments in Queens Community District 6. Our presenter is Andrew Wasserman.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Please let me know if you can be alright.

We can.

Excellent. Great. Thanks. I'm presenting 10251 Queens Boulevard rezoning. This application was certified on October 15 and is now back for prehearing.

Next slide, please. This is a private application by QBM Properties LLC in the Forest Hills neighborhood of Queens Community District 6 to facilitate the development of a new 17 story plus seller mixed use residential and commercial building with a total of approximately 184,000 square feet consisting of about 166,000 residential square feet with 216 total dwelling units, including 54 income restricted units and approximately 18,000 commercial square feet. The proposed development includes 87 total parking spaces, all of which would be provided for residential use split between parking areas in the seller and on the 2nd Floor. Next slide, please. The applicant seeks a zoning map amendment to change an existing r seven one slash c one two zoning district to an r eight x slash c two four and r seven one zoning districts.

The applicant also seeks a zoning text amendment to map MIH options one and two. Next slide, please. The application was certified by the city planning commission on October 15. On November 21, Queens community board six held a public hearing on this proposal. And on December 11, the board voted in favor of this application with with conditions by a vote of 23 approvals, six oppositions, and zero abstentions.

The board's conditions include recommendations to reduce the amount of parking in order to provide more affordable housing units, modify the rear facade of the building to provide more visual appeal and to increase the setback distances along the rear property line, and provide a carve out for 15% supportive housing units and an on-site supportive services program within the building. Next slide, please. On December 19, the Queensborough president held a hearing on this application, and on January 8 submitted a recommendation of approval with conditions. His conditions included a minimum 30% goal to include MWBE firms along with other local hiring efforts and a recommendation that there should be quarterly reporting of these hiring initiatives to the borough president and council member. The applicant should also adhere to community board six's condition regarding the rear facade to the best of their ability.

This concludes my presentation and happy to take any questions.

Great. Thanks very much, Andrew. All right. We will pick this one up on Wednesday. Thank you. Let's move on to the next.

The ninth item on our agenda is a pre hearing review of the zoning map and zoning tax amendments in Brooklyn Community District 1. Our presenter is Lucia Capuchio.

Okay, Lucia. Now we're talking about some more public hearing items. Let's go.

Yes. Good afternoon, Chair Geratna and Commissioners.

I'll just wait for the presentation.

Okay.

This is a prehearing follow-up for a private application from twenty five ten CIA LLC for a zoning map amendment from r four and c eight one districts to an R7 D C24 district within the Special Ocean Parkway District and a zoning text amendment to Appendix F to facilitate the development of a new 11 story mixed use development, including over 61,000 square feet of residential space or 60 dwelling units, 16 of which will be permanently income restricted, and over 6,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space. This application was certified on 11/04/2024, and the public hearing is scheduled for this Wednesday, February 5. The proposed actions include a zoning map amendment to change the existing R4 and C81 districts along Coney Island Avenue to an R7 D C24 District and a zoning text amendment to map MIH code terminus with the project area. On 12/17/2024, Community Board fifteen held a public hearing and with a vote of three in favor, 33 opposed, and one abstention voted to disapprove this application. During the Community Board review period, the applicant modified the illustrative materials and reduced the height and unit count of the proposed building.

The Board, however, still had concerns that the proposed rezoning would negatively impact traffic and congestion on Coney Island Avenue. The applicant has not filed a modified land use application with the department. On January 15, the Brooklyn Borough President held a public hearing for this application and subsequently recommended to approve the application with one condition, that the applicant reduces the parking spaces to a maximum of one parking space per two dwelling units. In summary, this is a private application for a zoning map amendment from an R 4 NCA1 district within the Special Ocean Parkway District to an R7 DC24 district and a zoning text amendment to map MIH and to facilitate the development of a new 11 story mixed use building, including approximately 60 units, including 16 of which would be permanently income restricted. Thank you, and I'm happy to take questions.

Great. Thank you very much. We will have a public hearing on this item on Wednesday. And we have a question for you now from Commissioner Ossurio.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you so much for the presentation. We'll save the questions for the applicant for later. But I just wanted to ask you one quick thing. From your from the department's point of view, what is your position in terms of the amount of parking that is being proposed? Specifically in the comments that the Borough President submitted, there's some numbers in terms of the additional cost quoting department. And I'm wondering if you can help us understand sort of like how do we get to those numbers. They sound significant and important in terms of maximizing the amount of affordable housing units that we can produce here. So help us understand a little bit where those numbers come from and so forth.

Yeah. I think the department is would like to hear the public during the public hearing on Wednesday before we comment on on the application.

But but not just generally. I mean, you don't have to give me what's your final position, but what's been sort of, like, more or less the discussion on your end in terms of yield at point? It sounds to be like a central point in the conversation. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. And anything that you would feel comfortable will be okay. I don't want to put you on the spot. I just want to sort of like think about it as I prepare for the hearing.

Thanks for the question. David Weisklas, Department Staff, Brooklyn office. The numbers that the Borough President quoted in his recommendation to my memory and understanding were numbers that were mostly taken from a lot of the research that we did for the city for housing opportunity. So that was a lot of research that went into overall numbers that may not be specific to this neighborhood or that building or obviously every building, every development has a life of its own. But generally, if my memory serves me correctly, a lot of the numbers spoke to the amount of cost it is to the developer to provide one parking spot and where that could be allocated elsewhere.

And so my understanding is that's a lot of the numbers that was quoted. The department stands by the research that it's done there. As for this specific development, I mean, as Lucius said, we do want to wait to hear a little bit more from the community at the public hearing. But just on those numbers, we do stand behind those and that was a lot of the research done for the city of yes, for housing opportunity.

Thank you. That's extremely useful. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thanks, Commissioner. Okay. We will see this one on Wednesday then. Great. You, Lucia. Great. Let's move on.

The tenth item on our agenda is a prehearing review of the zoning map and zoning text amendments, UDAP designation, acquisitions and disposition of city owned properties in Brooklyn Community Districts 3 And 8. Our presenters are Jonah Rovoff and Jesse Harikawa.

All right, Jonah. Welcome. Good afternoon, Commissioners. All right. So we're really pleased to return for today's brief hearing following the Community Board and Borough President review of AIM UP, which was certified on October 15.

Today, we're going to quickly just recap the plan's goals, give a brief refresher on the proposal, and update you all on the Community Board and Borough President recommendations. So first, this plan and its related actions, known as AIM UP, represents a major opportunity to re envision a corridor in Central Brooklyn to support housing and job growth, coupled with streetscape and infrastructure improvements, the culmination of over a decade of planning work and engagement.

As proposed, AimUp would create about 4,600

new homes, of which fourteen forty would be income restricted and over 800,000 square feet of space for businesses, totaling about 2,800 new jobs. To facilitate this vision, we're proposing a set of zoning map amendments and zoning text amendments to map MIH and establish a special district to improve the public realm and foster a mix of uses. In addition, HPD and DHCAS are co applicants for several site specific actions, including UDAP designations, acquisition and disposition actions to facilitate additional housing at five sites. AIMAP covers about 21 blocks along Atlantic Avenues, but between Crown Heights and Prospect Heights in Community District 8 to the South and Bedford Stuyvesant in Community District 3 to the North. And now I'll just pass it over to Jesse, to recap our proposal.

Awesome. Thank you, Jenna. And building on Community Board eight's MCOM process and AIM UP community vision reports, the plan introduces a new framework, opportunities for capital and programmatic investments and an expanded project area to create more affordable housing opportunities beyond MIH. And so once again, to help achieve these goals, we're proposing zoning map changes, a special district to go beyond what the underlying zoning can achieve on its own, site specific opportunities to unlock potential for public sites and other opportunities in coordination with agency partners. Specifically, the land use actions include a zoning map amendment, zoning text amendments and an urban development action area known as UDAP, acquisitions and dispositions of the city owned land.

And first, we have a zoning map change, which is transitioning the underlying M11 zoning into five distinct density areas. And so these areas are as follows, the Atlantic Avenue corridor you see in red, North South Avenue is in a darker orange and the mid block areas, a mixed use sub areas in the lighter yellow or lighter orange, which comprises of the primary area. And then we have a residential area, which is in yellow on the outsides. And the armory in the purple in the middle, which is a subarea which are related to specific sites. In summary of these areas, first, I'm starting with Atlantic Avenue.

This 120 foot wide Autocentric corridor has resulted in hundreds of traffic injuries over the past decade. It's narrow. It's uneven sidewalks lack shade, lack seating, and lack connectivity. And like other AMOP areas, this is a transit rich and also has seen strong interest in some private rezonings of the area. We aim to promote high density housing with active ground floor uses that enhance the streetscape.

And so the proposal is to extend C6-3A along the corridor between Vanderbilt and Nostrand and Rezone one block from Class A Avenue to Franklin Avenue as an M14A, R9A to support existing manufacturing with mix of uses. Additionally, proposals include breaking up building facades for long street walls requiring active ground floor uses and also setting back street walls to improve the pedestrian experience. Moving on to the next area, we have Grands, Classen, Franklin And Bedford Avenues, which are all important connectors across Atlantic Avenue. Along these corridors, we seek to encourage mixed use developments with active ground floor uses and with a height that steps down from Atlantic Avenue. CR7DM13A is proposed along Grant And Clashen Avenues.

You see the orange in the middle. And then the C45D along Bedford Avenue, which was actually extended of the existing C45D mapped as part of the Bed Stuy South resorting back in 2007. In addition, mapping an C24 overlay in existing residential areas with non conforming commercial in the dotted red you see on the bottom there. Onto the third area, which is our mid block areas, which are comprised mainly of areas South Of Atlantic Avenue between Grand, Classen and Franklin, as well as the section of Herkimer Place to the North. Here, we're proposing a mix of uses and densities reflecting of the side street context, while incentivizing mixed use developments that support job growth.

And so to accomplish this, we're proposing to map a pairing of R6A and M12A districts in the Mid block South Of Atlantic Avenue and the C43A along Bedford Place. To incentivize one to two floors for spaces for jobs, we proposed an incentive of 1.1 FAR for all types of nonresidential uses and which would be unlocked for only mixed use buildings. Moving on to the top right where the orange sliver is of Herkimer Place, we're proposing to map M11A paired with R5B sorry, R6B. Once again, to incentivize basis for jobs, we propose to allow an increase of 0.6 FAR for a total of three FAR and this is once again only for mixed use developments. The Bedford Atlantic Armory is a city owned LPC landmark currently partly used by the Department of Homeless Services as a men's shelter.

Here we're proposing to map an M13A with a short term goal to bring the armory into compliance and with a long term goal of exploring ways to reactivate this as an underutilized space. Moving on to the residential areas, Aimov seeks to maximize affordable housing opportunities on city or non profitably owned sites. There is one to the south of the armory and two non contiguous areas to the right and left. As a first step to facilitating these opportunities, we're proposing to rezone these areas to R7 D, R7 II and R7 A. I will note that the two yellow areas on the left and right that are non continuous are not part of the special Atlantic Avenue Mixed Use District, the special district.

And so those proposed R70 and R72 zoning developments will be per as of rights that were now currently since the CHO has been adopted. This adds for the commission's awareness, this adds an extra 10 feet under R70 and a potential increase of 20 feet for R72, which is the location of the 457 North Trent infill that will be subject to LPC review and a forthcoming RFP, which Jonah will talk a little bit more about later. Moving on to tax amendments. The special Atlantic Avenue mixed use special district would include rules to ensure a lively ensure rules for a lively streetscape along Atlantic Avenue and other corridors and support a mix of uses, while MIH would also be mapped in all areas allowing residential. In addition, with the recent adoption of City of Yes for housing opportunity, this text amendment will also clean up some of the zoning text for AMOP.

As mentioned before, we're proposing a zoning incentive for mid block job generating uses with housing above. This text amendment also includes urban design measures to set back buildings to effectively create a wider sidewalk, mandate facade articulation on larger buildings, and also the first public space bonus expansion outside of Manhattan and central business districts. Now focusing on more site based proposals and investments that were announced at certification and also to provide some updates, I'm going to hand the mic back to Jonah.

All right.

So now, we'll just spend a few slides just recapping the additional income restricted housing units that we're proposing in AMOP. As a couple of quick updates, so during public review, we collaborated as a city with the Empire State Development Corporation, ESD, and local elected officials, particularly Crystal Hudson, the state electeds, to advance a project on a state owned site at 1024 Fulton Street, shown in the map above. ESD has started public outreach to redevelop that site for affordable housing, which is intended to occur through a general project plan or GBP process. So although separate from the CPC's actions, we're really pleased to unlock the site as part of a larger effort in the area. I'll also just note a quick update.

We have a site later on 11:34 Pacific, but that one, HP will be here on Wednesday to testify, but they were able to reach an agreement to have that be part of the Ella program, to reach lower income populations. So, just two quick updates. So moving on to the proposal. As a reminder, at 552 excuse me, 542 Dean Street, we're seeking to develop 151 affordable homes for older New Yorkers earning up to 50% AMI, as well as provide on-site social services, a separate community facility space, and 6,500 square feet of new publicly accessible open space. And then at 516 Bergen Street, we're seeking to facilitate the development of an 11 story mixed use building with 111 affordable homes for families with a majority of units up to 60% AMI and the remainder up to 80% AMI based on the Ella term sheet.

This proposal also includes a 5,000 square foot multipurpose community center and 23 replacement parking vehicles in the seller for HPD to continue storing their inspection vehicles. A UDAP action is proposed to facilitate both projects, this one and the Dean Street project. And then for the Burgundy project, we're proposing an acquisition action in order to allow HPD to keep a portion of their vehicles in the seller. And then at 11:34 Pacific Street, HPD is working with the developer and nonprofit Akashia Network to develop an 11 story mixed use building with 119 affordable homes, which as I just mentioned, will be part of the Ella program. And then to facilitate this proposal, we're including an acquisition and disposition action to allow HPD to reacquire the site and remove a deed restriction from a previously approved UDAP from 1987.

And this will be followed by a transfer or sale to a costume network to build the affordable housing. At 1110 Atlantic Avenue, there is an approximately 26,000 square foot site owned by the city and leased by the New York City Transit Authority used as a cable repair shop and storage. We're proposing an acquisition and disposition action here, for the site in order to facilitate future redevelopment. And discussions over the use of the site are still ongoing with City Hall and the MTA. At 47 Nostrand Avenue, we're continuing to evaluate infill here of up to 200 homes on a property owned by DOE that's used as an adult learning center and a large and includes a large surface parking lot, as shown above, where we're considering infill, with affordable housing and possibly school space on the Ground Floor.

And then to facilitate this, we're proposing a disposition of city owned property.

Okay. So as mentioned, the

certification AMOP includes a few city led programs and investments. While long term investments in the public realm and infrastructure are still be considered, we wanted to highlight a few existing and ongoing investments, some of which are a direct response to to Outreach and what we believe reflects a down payment on our commitment for a holistic plan. These projects include area wide tenant workshops and other ongoing initiatives or however should we done, but also specific investments in streets, parks, and infrastructure. So on top of the previously announced $24,200,000 at St. Andrew's Playground, the city is advancing immediate safety improvements for Atlantic Avenue through a partnership with DOT.

Apologies. I actually meant to describe this on this slide. And so here is just a view of an example of some of the projects which we call street improvement projects or SIPs, which will include neck downs, crosswalks, and marking refreshings and daylighting. We typically refer to it as painted plastic in lieu of, like, a larger corridor wide redesign. As part of the environmental review process, the DEIS identified impacts in the categories highlighted above in yellow.

Some mitigation measures were discussed as part of the DEIS and will be explored further in the FEIS. So now moving to an update on EULRP. Community boards three and eight both submitted favorable recommendations with conditions. Although no land use actions are proposed in Community District two, the department presented to Community Board two as a courtesy, given the coterminous boundary, and also to hear their feedback on non zoning opportunities. So starting with Community Board three, covering the portion North of Atlantic Avenue, the board held a public hearing and vote on December 2, voting 22 in favor, six against, and none abstaining to approve AIM UP with conditions.

These included conditions related to Atlantic Avenue, the 457 Nostrand Avenue DOE infill site, parks and open space, jobs and infrastructure, as shown on the slide above. Next, for Community Board eight, the portion South Of Atlantic, they held a public hearing and vote on December 12, voting unanimously with 26 in favor, none and against or abstaining, to approve aim up with conditions, including the conditions shown above, below, to promote specific types of nonresidential uses, increase the amount and depth of affordable housing, funding for legal services for tenants, and supporting tenants who have been previously displaced by giving them priority for new affordable housing. On the topic of economic development, the board recommended to set aside funding for a variety of programs to create and preserve jobs for local residents and businesses, shown on the slide above. Lastly, Community Board Aid included recommendations to improve sidewalk, streetscape, public transit, sustainability and open space, along with a broader general condition to fund a facilitation consultant to oversee the city's investments. On January 15, Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso held a public hearing and on January 27 submitted a recommendation for approval with the following conditions.

First, on the topic of manufacturing, he requested that AIM UP require ground floor manufacturing uses in the Eastern Mid Block area while incentivizing manufacturing uses in the Western Mid Block area, establish an industrial business service provider, and prevent manufacturing displacement. On housing, he recommended to take every effort to increase the production of affordable housing here, especially deeply affordable units, investigate a, tenant displacement registry or housing preference program, and then also, separate frame up, but related to introduce tenant relocation assistance, legislation. On transit and streetscape, there were conditions that subway improvements be made and that DOT commit to a road diet along Atlantic Avenue from four to six lanes I'm sorry, from six to four lanes, and then adjust parking rules to support businesses and improve enforcement, and finally, prioritize investments in Lowry Triangle. That concludes presentation, and happy to take any questions. I'll just quickly note that HPD and DOT, possibly SBS will be at Wednesday's hearing to testify.

Great. Thanks, Jonah. And thanks to you and the team for all of your efforts to date. We really appreciate it. And it has come a long way over a very, very long period of time. So congratulations

to

you Jesse and to the entire Brooklyn office. Okay. Let me see if there are questions now before we have our hearing on Wednesday. Commissioner Osorio?

Well, the question is is will we have time to ask the department questions on Wednesday? Or do you prefer that we start now? Or how do you prefer to No.

The the department you can ask department questions on Wednesday, but I think you might as well ask them now if you have actual questions because they're here and we won't take the time from the public on Wednesday. So that's a good time.

I have some questions for HPD and the other agencies, I'll ask them then. But I just wanted to get your general response to in terms of just process. It's clearly and and first of thanks so much for the presentation, the reports. Everything is very thorough, very clear. This is a very important comprehensive effort. I think I would say it's necessary, but there's also so many different aspects to it. And so, you know, I I just commend the department in terms of thinking comprehensively about this and serving as a facilitator with the other agencies on this. The tour was extremely useful, and thanks so much for the briefings. Last week, we had a really good opportunity to continue the conversation with HPD. And so thanks again for all of that.

Just the first quick question in terms of process. So clearly, there's a series of conditions that are being associated with the support that you've been receiving from the Borough President and from the community boards. Help me understand a little bit sort of like how is that going to play out? Will you be how will you be responding to these conditions? In addition, specifically the Borough President, I think includes a series of excellent questions. And so instead of me asking you question by question, I'm wondering if it's possible to or tell me a little bit how you're planning to address them.

Sure. So I'll just start off by saying internally, as soon as we received the the recommendations from both the community board and the borough president, we circulated that to the full interagency team, particularly to DOT, SBS, HPD, because they've been pushed close partners with us. Mhmm. So in coordination with them and city hall, we wanna make sure that we're on the same page. And then I would just, note too that, separately, the the council members have been very diligent in advocating for for some some of those. And so we're we're still looking at all of them and seeing how we can incorporate them, but I would also just wanna give them some credit as well.

Fair enough. Yeah. Okay. Cool. The the I look forward to that. If if you could at least explicitly on the questions that the board person has raised, which I think I are central. It would be great to get something in writing from you guys just so that we can, you know, continue the conversation that way. But specifically, I wanted to ask you two quick questions which have to do with the general research. One is, I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation from the board of person to require manufacturing uses. And so where appropriate and I wonder what's your what's been sort of like the preliminary finding in that regard?

What's your general response? I know that in addition to that, there's a recommendation to create a meaningful bonus to attract manufacturing in the mid box, is a slightly different question. But tell me a little bit about why do you feel that an MX like this one is actually going to help us retain manufacturing? Is there, for example, are there any preliminary findings from your larger citywide industrial retention research pursuant of the plan that you can share with us? Anything that you can help us understand sort of like where you're coming from and that would be useful. Otherwise, that's a big concern that I have and would love to understand how you're thinking about it.

Absolutely. So maybe what I'll do is I'll I'll start. I'll speak more for for AIM UP. And then

know, Mark, if you wanna

if others can kinda kinda jump in more broadly across the borough. Let me I'll I'll say that we've been we think that we've our proposed zoning does a lot to achieve a goal around how, balancing both housing and and job growth in a sense that, for I just to give you before talking about manufacturing,

I'll just say that we

overall, we think that we're making a real a strong effort to promote as many jobs as possible, doing them up by either requiring nonresidential space on all the corridors, including the North South corridors. And then in the mid block, where the underlying zoning doesn't go far enough, we're really excited to have an innovative tool to promote at least one to two floors of space. And so where we've seen a similar type of incentive, which we're looking at now, and Gowanus is part of Gowanus Mix, I know goes a step further by by specifying specific uses. We have seen strong interest in in that incentive, and almost all developments that have come online in in Gowanus have used that incentive. So we we think an incentive as a tool can be very powerful.

But at the same time, we wanna be cautious in a sense that, AimUp is not an IVZ. It's surrounded by residential. When we did our our outreach, we heard really loud and clear that there's, there's an interest in not just industrial, but other types of, uses, whether it's retail, office, community facility. We also wanna be a little cautious in ensuring that there's flexibility for those uses over time. Or if there's demand for for different types of jobs, that the the local market can evolve, we wanna be careful about, promoting specific types of uses, that could cause conflicts with with residents, and and we want the area to to grow organically.

The the other thing I would say is that, we're I think a key step for either promoting or even requiring manufacturing is, there's a key question of the is is does that work in mixed use buildings? And so we, in our special district, we included a provision for, or if you have a mixed use building with residential and industrial, you can get a you can currently well, let me take a step back. Currently, today, if you were to mix those uses, the zoning well, it does allow it, but there are other code regulations through DEP that restrict the mixing of residential and industrial. And so we we've learned some lessons from a project in Brownsville called 803 Rockaway, which we're hoping to apply here, and we're currently talking with with DEP, to possibly to consider updating the provision we have in our special district, to better allow the mixing of those uses. So all to say that we're before even considering, mixing residential, industrial, we wanna make sure that there aren't any issues with, compliance or, physical or financial issues with mixing.

The other the last thing I would say sorry for the long answer, but I think it's really it's a really important question. When it comes to promoting industrial, we wanna take instead of, like, a broad brush approach, I think we're really interested in thinking about what's successful at specific sites based on what owners are are interested in. So we've been working closely with GMDC, a local partner there. We're really interested in the Bedford Atlantic Armory, a city facility that could possibly occupy more space for jobs, like a workforce center. And so that that's an ongoing discussion.

We're also interested in nonzoning ways of of helping businesses through, like, through the IDA or other incentives. So we we feel that zoning isn't necessarily the best tool to really help

a

lot of these businesses, particularly in AMUP. But nonetheless, we're we're we understand that the mixing of those uses is an important goal for the council member, and so we we think this will be an ongoing discussion.

I don't know.

I can respond really quickly. Mean, I I don't I don't I know that you're in the in this is a little bit of a work in progress, and I understand that. And I don't mean for you to have answers to all of the questions now. But it sounds from what you said that you still have some questions that are sort of like still sort of like under exploration. For example, whether or not the MX is working in the first place.

Unless you know where what those numbers are and and could share those with me. It's hard for me to understand like why are we relying on the incentive so much and not using zoning more to the point here to require manufacturing industrial where we can, where it makes sense. And maybe in other places, to like think about the other tools in combination to your point. There's some other questions that the Borough President raises here, for example, in terms of providing additional services to the businesses, which sounds kind of like along the lines of what you were saying. And I'm excited to hear you say that, assuming that there's some type of synergy or you think that something along those lines is possible.

But just sort of like going

back to the question, maybe thinking about how can AIMUP be prototyped in terms of the industrial retention plan and think about sort of like how can we use this to explore, but explicit a more explicit toolkit to retain industrial, I think would be important. Otherwise, I'm afraid I don't see sort of like the full strength of what we could be doing here in terms of industrial retention, which I don't think it's exclusive with what you're talking about in terms of creating flexibility and increasing potential sort of like mixes in places where these things could coexist. The other question, which is more procedural is in terms of the amount of public resources that actually could be committed to industrial retention and to providing to growing the industry, can you help me understand also sort of like at what point are you is the department with the citywide industrial retention plan just to understand sort of like how these two decisions sort of like relate to. Is there something else that we should be that we could know in terms of where you are in that regard just to understand sort of like what's actually possible. I know that this the city is making an important commitment in terms of anti displacement for residents, but I don't see that level of investment with businesses, with industrial businesses.

And at a point where quite honestly we could be growing not preserving, just preserving like the minimum amount of businesses. But this is an opportunity to explore what other industries and how can we grow the existing like industries that would be

appropriate here. Completely understand. I'll I'll just speak really quickly, and I'll absolutely jump in. I'll just say for AIM up, but I wanna just clarify to you that, based on our our analysis, I think there are only about 26 actual manufacturing jobs that are within AMA. And the sorry.

Firms. Mhmm. And that's heavily concentrated at GMDC and a few other so I I think for AIM UP, our we wanna take a more targeted approach. The vast majority of industrial uses in AIM UP are are not kind of active manufacturing. They're more distribution,

wholesale

building suppliers. So I think we're we're also looking at ways of looking at job training or apprenticeship or other service and programs that kinda target or green technology that look at growing industries. So I I think and I'll just say we're we're definitely coordinating with our central divisions on industrial plan. So we're reviewing this as kind of a large one piece of a larger whole, but in the end, trying to be very targeted about what we're doing.

That that makes sense, and I and I appreciate that. And and, you know, it's it's a I I just I I wanna be careful and sort of be, like, our interpretation of the numbers of the existing number of companies and jobs, because the reason why they're so low is because there's been little planning to grow them. And the amount of speculation that has happened in this part of the city and displacement is a major factor in sort of like hindering the potential that we could be literally attracting here. And so particularly at a moment where a just transition, the type of climate mitigation goals that Citi has committed to etcetera will require services and goods that are simply needed urgently needed and we have to import. So, what I'm trying to tell you is that we have to super I think respectfully that we have to be careful in terms of how we interpret how little or what is too little and rather create a historic context and plan for growing that.

And this seems to be like an important opportunity to do that. I'll I'll I'll stop there, But I would love to hear from you guys in terms of anything in addition to what you've already shared with us that can help us understand how much do you think in terms of industrial retention is really possible and then an explicit response to the questions that have been put forth, which I think are excellent and very clear.

Sure. And so I want to talk to your question about citywide commitments as they relate. You might recall as part of economic opportunity, there was a commitment as part of the points of agreement to work with IDA to update some of those incentives as it relates to tax incentives. And that's a citywide initiative, and we're working on that. Jonah mentioned updates to MX text.

We are going to pilot something new here as it relates to mixing those uses. We've been working very closely with GMDC who, as Jonah mentioned, worked on 803 Rockaway. We've had to work through some of the unique implications, not just mixing industrial uses with residential, but manufacturing. So things like woodworking, metal fabrication, so on, very difficult to mix with residential, especially when you're including affordable housing. And so that's something that we're trying to work with DP on.

You mean vertically, right?

Vertically. But horizontally? Yes. So it would so right. The way it works is based on the zoning lot. But the intention is to make sure it can work vertically, but also horizontally and working with DEP and DOB and using GMDC as an expert to guide that conversation. And so like I said, it's not just broadly industrial, but specifically manufacturing and we think GMDC is a good thought partner on that. Jonah mentioned briefly the SBS work that we're undertaking. And that has been a significant component of our conversations. We've undertaken business roundtables.

Predominantly, it has been retail community facility and and, some light industrial, not really manufacturing aside from GMDC. But SBS has been working with us and the council members on thinking through, whether there's existing programs that work in the toolkit or new ones that should be applied, not not just here in AMIP, but citywide. And importantly, something we've been talking about is the role that the armory can play. And as you know, we have examples of city or public facilities or nonprofit facilities that really can target the affordable industrial spaces in a way that on the private sector, we can't really target that. As you know, the price differential is extreme.

And also in a way where we are not trying to force two uses together that may not go well, like residential and real industrial. And so we may have more flexibility in a nonresidential site such as the Armory to do something like that.

So that's

But correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding is the Armory has been more explored for workforce development or

Yeah. And like I said, we don't have a set proposal, and there's no there's no programming yet defined. But that that could be location for something where we're focusing on nonresidential space, be that industrial could be an opportunity.

That sounds great. That sounds great. But since that's not part of the proposal per se, I mean, you're in a way rezoning or creating the foundation for something like that and I appreciate that. And I would love to hear sort of like whether to what extent do you think that could actually be a strong commitment from the other agencies that have to be involved for that. But just to and I don't mean to take more time on this, but if you can share additional information particularly any data on DMX, the amount of jobs that have resulted from What are the constraints that you're seeing?

Where are those specific kind like constraints where you definitely have concluded that the vertical integration is not going to be possible here? I would love to understand that. I would love to see sort of like the extent of the research and particularly I'm excited about this question given the fact that the department, the city is working on a city one industrial plant. This to me sounds like at the heart, at least at the heart of Brooklyn in that conversation and and would love to contribute to that. Absolutely. If we, I think, do not get the industrial retention part here, I'm afraid that we're hindering sort of like the ultimate goal of this plan.

No, heard. And we can come back with numbers on in areas that have gone either from M to R or MX, what's kind of the precedent. I will note and Jonah alluded to earlier, we just started pulling the numbers for Gowanus as it relates to building permits and use groups that have been developed per the Gowanus mix. Not the exact same because it wasn't mandatory, number one. And number two, it didn't focus purely on manufacturing. It was it was a wider variety of, like, parts, light industrial community facility. But we will have some numbers there that we can also, showcase. Very different market, and different site typology, but it's another, kind of litmus test. But we'll come back for sure.

Thanks again to all of you for that. I appreciate it.

Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Benjamin.

Hi. I also want to thank you for the tour and for the information you've been providing for all of us. Like my fellow commissioner, I am concerned about the manufacturing. And my first question is, this area has been known for auto related uses. And it doesn't sound to me like you're considering that as part of manufacturing. Am I right or wrong?

I would say they're part of the uses that are

there today that are kind of quasi industrial but not technically So you're not really one of

my concerns is the whole both Grand Street, Carter, and a number of uses along Atlantic Avenue, including the Meineke and the Zap, that are auto related, that employ a lot of people and particularly people for whom blue collar jobs are scarce. So if we're not talking about in on Grand Street in particular, South Of Atlantic, one of my concerns is those those entities that do a lot of kind of bodywork and other kind of what one would normally consider industrial work. They're one story buildings, maybe two stories. So in my mind, those will be some of the first places that are converted and that are demolished. So do we have a plan for where we think these auto related jobs would go?

This was an issue not for you, but when we did Willard's point that that whole area was filled with people who worked in auto related and those firms weren't going to be able to relocate. So what's our plan for an area that is known for being auto related?

I would say, well, first, whether they're industrial or not, they're they're jobs that are there. Today, we've we've heard from, many stakeholders that there's a need to support those businesses if they need to relocate. And so, working with SBS, we're we're we're still trying to put together a strategy learning some lessons from, Gowanus and Jerome where there have been demands for relocation. I think we're we're trying to see the best form of support. Some of those businesses do own their properties, others don't. And so they may be more at risk. I would

say it's Well, but at $54 a square foot versus $27 a square foot, the owner, even if the owner is an operator, might well opt in favor of their economic interests short term as opposed to the economic interests of their employees.

Understood. Yeah. I would say generally, the the it's issue around business displacement and, particularly for the auto related businesses, has has been an important topic. And so we're we're trying to see the best form of support that we can provide and working with SBS on that. But I would say in the in the short term, we we don't wanna do anything in zoning to necessarily hinder their ability to to stay. And so that that's partly the reason why we we feel strongly about maintaining kind of like an MX or

Right. But by changing it from a strict m to a mixed use, aren't we incentivizing their leaving?

If I could jump in. I'll also note that obviously there's a price point where residential is more valuable than nonresidential in a lot of cases. I would say that there's also the current trend of what's allowed today, which we see as conversion of these uses as of right to nightlife, entertainment, retail, self storage in a lot of instances. We've seen a lot of these spaces are basically open storage or parking. Recognizing that there are obviously businesses along Atlantic Avenue, there is an underlying as of yes, and the North South corridors.

But there's a trend today of kind of a commercialization of those uses. And I think what we're trying to identify is that the trend that we want to see continue. And I would say that the surrounding neighborhood and the goals of affordable housing production are important as well.

They are, but the people as I said, I take as an example Willett's point where IDA and others tried to work, but the bottom line was that of the of 100 auto related businesses, only two remained in the city. Two. We tried to do classes, and to offer classes to the employees, to give them a different skill set. But because many of the employees were undocumented persons, they were afraid to take advantage. And in our atmosphere now, clearly, will not step out to do that.

And so my concern is how we plan to handle that in a way that will keep people employed because without jobs, we don't need the housing. If people can't live, don't have the money to pay rent at all because they don't have jobs, then the affordable housing that we're providing is at their expense.

I completely agree. And I think you're getting at a point here where there's kind of a lot of under the table work that is not going to be picked up in the environmental documents necessarily. It is below minimum wage in a lot of instances. So again, when looking at like Gowanus or Jerome, when we've looked at like relocation programs, think there has been difficulty in reaching some of the some of those like off the books kind of employment. But noting that, again, those are those are like a relatively small amount of jobs in this area.

This is this is not like a Willett's Point type area. It's two to four blocks deep, 21 blocks. It's surrounded by row houses. It is not like a core industrial area where we would identify like relocation of lots of heavy industrial uses or even a strong kind of industrial presence in this area.

I mean, we may not agree on that point about how strong the auto related uses are in this area. I think that you are correct East Of Nustran, But West Of Nustran, whether it's the gas stations or the Meineke or the Zap or the car wash, until you get to maybe Clinton, you do have a strong characteristic of auto related uses and that's what this strip was. I also have some concerns about reducing the number of moving lanes on Atlantic Avenue from six to four. Atlantic Avenue is one of the like, Flushing Avenue is one of the main transportation connections for trucks because they can't go on the Belt Parkway. They can't so Atlantic Avenue is one of the main thoroughfares.

And it's not clear to me how reducing the number of lanes is going to accommodate that traffic.

No. And that debate about the appropriate number of travel lanes and space for pedestrians and cyclists has been part of a long decade long discussion in these communities. And we definitely do not have a proposal as part of the aim up to make any engineering changes to Atlantic Avenue at this point in time. The recommendations have been mixed. The borough president recommended a reduction from six to four.

The community boards, if you notice, there was kind of a back and forth on actually how to get there. If any engineering changes need to occur, there would have to be a separate DOT study to do exactly that kind of analysis. So I want to make sure that it's clear like we are not recommending at this point in time any engineering changes. We have the SIPs which are temporary in nature and they're really about like interim improvements based on the immediate need. But I totally hear you. And that's been a very, very important back and forth that we've been

having at the community level.

And Leslie, it seems to me and we talked about this that and you expressed it that the mixed use district, the history of mixed use districts from the original one in SoHo, it seems to me that they've kind of been interim uses or interim zoning as kind of the market determines whether it's going to be residential or industrial. And most of the time, it's residential. And the more residential it becomes, the less the residents want the manufacturing or industrial there. And as a result, the less the manufacturing and industrial tenants want to locate there or stay there because they keep seeing that the buildings put more restrictions on their ability to operate. So in constructing this MxR District, again, how do we safeguard?

I know when we were going down, I think it was Pacific Street, maybe it was Dean. And we were looking at the first floors that would be manufacturing with residential above. How are we going to make the manufacturing really possible in an atmosphere where the residential does not want to be constrained or bothered? I mean, I think of the meat district meat packing district where even in cases where we made the the owners and landlords put in restrictive declarations that they were on top of a meat packing firm and there was gonna be noise and vibrations and trucks. It didn't matter.

Once people moved in, they wanted a residential, and they believe that having that was what we promised them, that they would be living in a residential area, but there might be some manufacturing, but it wouldn't disturb them. How are we making that happen in this district?

I'll I'll start. I'll I'll say that that's been a really key question for us internally as well. And so the latest and we've done this also also done this in coordination with central divisions who have been an incredibly important partner. So working with DEP, we've learned that some of the there are certain fairly key issues like ensuring putting it I'll put it put aside fine and financial issues, just physical issues with colocating industrial and residential. So you you alluded to this, like, noise and vibration.

One key issue is if you have a spray booth. So making sure that, like, air quality and contaminants are well contained, and that you're you have proper ventilation. And that, not just includes protecting the residents in that building, but also looking at adjacent buildings or even across the street. So that's a key part of it. Another one is vapor barriers.

And so we're learning some of these physical challenges as part of our ongoing work with DEP, lessons from the 803 Rockaway project, which a fully affordable housing development by GMDC and the bridge. So that's been a really key first step for us, just understanding how do we overcome these physical issues, both at the start of a project when it's being formulated, but also issues with enforcement and oversight over timing.

But the things that we heard most often when I was both at the council and at DEP, doing SEEKER were not the issues the residents didn't talk about the spray booth or you're right. They did talk about noise. They talked about parking. And they talked about cars and trucks, whether the trucks were delivering items, picking up items. That was a big issue.

Another big issue was the employees sitting outside, eating their lunch, making noise, and that strangers were coming in and out of what they saw as their residential building even though it was in a separate entryway. They, by and large, that was one of the big complaints was they didn't know who these people were. It made them feel unsafe. And so they tried very hard to regulate the employees in a way that the employees felt harassed and victimized by the residents. The hours at which manufacturing starts work was a big major issue that manufacturing started at six in the morning and the people who faced that side were just bonkers.

And those are the kinds of issues that I think more often than the DEP issues that lead to the conflicts in the MX that I think we all need to address if we want to believe that the MXR can really work.

Alex, before you respond, I just want to we're to have to move on in a I just want to make sure that we give you a chance.

I'm done.

Yeah. Okay.

All right. Terrific. Go ahead, Alex.

No. I really appreciate it. Because in working in MX districts across Brooklyn, right, like the three eleven complaints, stroller getting blocked by a freight truck. We know it's an issue. I'll just say that's getting to the larger, I think, point about the use flexibility that we're trying to build into the MX districts here, which we've done lessons learned from other MX areas where for example we do a two FAR non residential district M Zone with a three or four FAR residential district.

You're not really incentivizing or creating the space. There's high parking requirements on the M Zone. So I just want to note the importance of the new tool here is not a kind of a standard off the shelf MX district. It really is incentivizing one to two stories of non residential. And I say non residential because I don't want to insinuate that it is only manufacturing. I think this gets to the larger discussion as to like a requirement is that are we instituting conflicts later on down the road? And are we being honest with the public when we're saying it's going to be a variety of jobs and uses over the next fifty or sixty years? We're not really going to go back and change the zoning a lot after the fact. But these are important. And I this is stuff we're grappling with.

And I just want to give a shout out to our study, Can Industrial Mixed Use Buildings Work? It's on our website. It looked at the difficulties and the possibilities of mixing some of these uses. And brings us up.

Okay. And you and I can talk off book.

Yes. Absolutely. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Mann?

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Well, first of all, congratulations on getting a positive recommendation of the Board on a significant rezoning. I just wanted to drill down I'll save my HPD and DOT questions for the public hearing. Had a question about sidewalk cafes. We're taking a different direction here a little bit. But I'm just curious, as we do these neighborhood rezonings, how are we thinking about the coordination of where cafes are allowed or not allowed, especially as we're trying to encourage ground floor uses? And I was just curious if there is a kind of little bit of coordination that happens with DOT around if anything needs to happen around Sidewalk Cafe rules, both, in street and on Sidewalk to update them?

Good question. We may need to get back unless, Jesse, do you

I could start. But also, yeah, I think to the exact point of sidewalk cafes, could definitely get back to you on some more questions. But maybe I'll point out a little bit to what AMOP is doing in terms of that area, right? And so I think there's two things to kind of note. One, for any kind of new developments that are happening at least along Atlantic Avenue, we're working on not working on, we're proposing, right? Any new buildings is mandating to step back, right?

And Jesse, I can cut you off. Don't want to I know it's going late, I don't want to belabor the point. Just I think when you have a chance to clarify Sure. Where cafes might be allowed, either on the sidewalk or on the roadbed, I'm just curious how as part of rezonings, maybe rethink the streetscape with that in mind, given how successful restaurants are and given how essential this is for their operations.

Okay. So, I think you're back here. Thank very

much, Commissioner. Okay. Well, I think we'll probably leave it there and we'll pick this up on Wednesday. But thank you. Important and really interesting conversation as it relates to MX and precedent and the interaction between residences and manufacturing businesses.

We obviously have studies coming. We have follow ups related to what has happened in the past. The only observation I would make here is that this commission will recall that one of the reasons why we were having this engagement with the public on Atlantic Avenue was the sort of pressures that we were seeing where we're having one off residential developments coming on this corridor. They were happening and there was a desire in the community among the council members, certainly among the department to think about ways that we could do that in a more wholesome fashion, allow for housing, allow preservation of businesses, allow for the entire assortment of potential uses on Atlantic Avenue and on the Side Street. So that is one of the animating factors that actually brings us to this conversation today.

So with that, we're going have a great hearing on Wednesday. We look forward to seeing that. You all will introduce the subject. We're going to hear also from HPD and then we're going to move on to the public. So thank you very much gentlemen. Appreciate it. Okay.

Is DOT there?

Yes. Okay. Let's move on to the next item for the day.

The eleventh item on our agenda is the City Council modification scope determination for February. The city council proposes to modify the zoning tax amendment to appendix f, removing MIH option two and adding the deep affordability option and to modify the zoning map amendment, and staff believe this modification is within scope. Lucia Capuccio is here to present. Hey. Thank you. Hello again.

Hello.