Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Dan Gorodnik, 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, Dweck, Gold on Zoom, Kirmani, Mann, Marine, Osorio and Rampershad also on Zoom. Thank you all for being here.

Before we get to today's agenda, just want to acknowledge the unprecedented moment that we are in as a city. We owe a debt of gratitude to the deputy mayors who recently announced their resignations. And in particular, I would like to thank First Deputy Mayor Maria Torres Springer who has overseen the city's housing and land use initiatives over the past three years. It is my expectation that the transition will be managed so that the city services are maintained without any noticeable interruption. And as it relates to our work at City Planning, that will certainly continue.

The dedicated public servants at the Department of City Planning will continue their efforts with communities across the city. And this body, the City Planning Commission, will continue our evaluations as an independent body with regularly scheduled meetings and a time line for all of those projects that we are considering. I'd also like to highlight some recent news involving the Department of City Planning, starting with important opportunities for public input in our ongoing neighborhood planning work. Over the next two weeks, New Yorkers will have a couple of opportunities to get involved in the Jamaica neighborhood plan. DCP is holding a virtual town hall on February 26 at seven p.

M. And an in person town hall on March 6 at six p. M. At 9420 Guy R. Brewer Boulevard.

Both meetings will include a recap of the planning process so far and let the public share their thoughts on the future of this neighborhood. You can RSVP at jamaicaplan.nyc. Jamaica is not the only plan in the works for Queens. DCP and Councilmember Julie Wan have announced a second round of surveys for the Long Island City Neighborhood Plan, looking for your input on how to best use city owned sites in Annabel Basin to support priorities such as affordable housing, open space, resilient infrastructure, school seats, arts and culture and more. And you can fill out that survey at licplan.nyc.

So let's get to today's agenda. We'll start with a mixed use development at 4211 30th Avenue in Astoria, Queens. This proposal would include around 30 new homes of which a quarter would be income restricted affordable located a half mile from the N And W trains at 30th Avenue and the M and R trains at 46th Street. This project would also refurbish the existing supermarket on the site. We'll also receive an overview of a general project plan by the New York State Empire Development Corporation for the redevelopment of the Bayview Correctional Facility Located at 550 West 20th Street in West Chelsea, Manhattan, the building would be converted into nearly 150 income restricted homes with over half of them dedicated to supportive housing for New Yorkers reentering society after incarceration.

Across the street from Chelsea Piers and the High Line, Little Island and Chelsea Market, The project also includes a short term transitional residential community facility for adults with mental illness who need extra support. Next, we'll discuss another Manhattan proposal back from Community Board review, The Bell Nord, a mixed use building at 2360 Broadway in the Upper West Side is looking to expand the street wall width of its vacant ground floor to allow a bank to tenant there. The commission will also review a city council modification for 441 And 467 Prospect Avenue in Windsor Terrace, Brooklyn. This proposal would create two new residential buildings with two fifty homes. Tenants would live close to the Southwest corner of Prospect Park and the northern entrance of Greenwood Cemetery and close to public transit via the F and G trains at 15th Street 15th Street Prospect Park.

Thanks to council member Shahana Hanif, council speaker Adrian Adams and Rafael Salamanca and Kevin Riley, the chairs of the Land Use Committee and Subcommittee for getting to a yes on these new homes for New Yorkers most frequently referred to as the Arrow and InSight just for reference. Okay. That's our agenda. Madam Secretary, floor is yours.

Good afternoon and welcome to the City Planning Commission review session for Tuesday, 02/18/2025. The time is 01:07PM and a quorum is present. The first item on our agenda is a certification of a zoning map and zoning text amendments in Queens New District 1. Our presenter is Derek Jasmin.

All right. Welcome.

Thank you for having me this afternoon. This is 4211 30th Avenue rezoning. Next slide, please. This is a private application by CG Stone Realty LLC for a zoning map amendment from an existing r five c one two to an r six a c two four and r five zoning district and a related zoning text amendment to appendix f to establish a mandatory inclusionary housing area with both options one and two. These actions would facilitate the development of an approximately 39,900 square foot five story residential building containing three two dwelling units including eight income restricted units and 9,700 square feet of ground floor retail located at 4211 30th Avenue in Astoria, Queens Community District 1.

Here's an aerial view facing north of this portion of Astoria. The project area is located approximately three blocks east of Steinway Street, a wide street, and approximately one half mile north of Broadway. 30th Avenue is a wide street and 43rd Street is a narrow street. The project area was initially mapped with an r five zoning district in c one two overlay in 1961 and is located just east of the Steinway Street rezoning, which was passed in 1998. The surrounding area is characterized by residential and mixed use buildings ranging from one to five stories in height and commercial buildings ranging from one to four stories.

This proposal is located within the inner transit zone, and the nearest subway stations are at 46th Street Station along the MNR lines and the 30th Avenue Station along the N And W lines, both of which are located approximately one half mile from the project area. As seen here, the immediate surrounding area is characterized by a mix of land uses including residential, commercial and facility uses. Commercial uses are concentrated mostly along Steinway Street and 30th Avenue in line with the existing commercial overlays while most surrounding blocks primarily consist of residential uses in line with the underlying R 5 zoning district. The project area consists of the applicant owned development site on Block 698, Lots 41 And 44, and Lots 4 Lots 1404547, And 48, as well as parts of Lots 2 And 39, which are not applicant owned. The non applicant owned lots are improved with two to three story, two and three family residential buildings, as well as one single story commercial building.

The development site consists of Lot 41 which is currently improved with a one story commercial building occupied by Q Foods since 1949 and Lot 44 which is currently vacant. This image here face is facing east along 30th Avenue with the development site in the foreground. This photo is now facing north directly toward the development site from the intersection of 30th Avenue and 43rd Street. This image here is looking south along 43rd Street with the development site on the right. And this is another view facing west along 30th Avenue with the development site on the right.

The proposed rezoning would facilitate the development of a new five story residential building containing an approximately 39,900 square feet, an increase of 3,000 square feet from before the passage of housing opportunity and containing 32 dwelling units, including eight income restricted dwelling units. In pursuant to MIH option one, approximately 9,700 square feet of commercial retail on the Ground Floor will be occupied by the same Key Foods grocery store that is currently located at this site. The proposed development will have a five story, 60 foot high street wall along 30th Avenue with a 15 foot setback at the 4th Floor along 43rd Street. Accessory seller level would be extended for expanded for additional commercial storage. Building entrances would be located along the front of 30th Avenue with the residential entrance represented here in yellow and the two commercial entrances represented in red and a commercial loading zone along 43rd Street.

So to facilitate the proposed development, the applicant proposes a zoning map amendment from an existing R5 C12 zoning district to an R6 A C24 zoning district and a zoning text amendment to map MIH utilizing options one and option two. The proposed rezoning will increase the maximum allowable residential FAR from 1.5 to 3.9 and require 25% of dwelling units to be income restricted at an average of 60% AMI. Our 6A zoning districts allow a maximum base height of 65 feet and total building height of 95 feet with up to nine stories. The maximum floor area ratio with MIH in conjunction with MIH is 3.9 and no parking is required within the inter transit zone. C24 commercial overlays allow commercial floor area ratio of up to two point zero when paired with an RS6 district and are mapped at a depth of 100 feet.

MIH Option one requires that 25% of dwelling units to be income restricted at an average of 60% AMI. And MIH Option two requires that 30% of dwelling units to be income restricted at an average of 80% AMI. This application is subject to a racial equity report. Between 2015 and 2019, the median household income in CD1 was approximately $79,300 which is greater than the estimates for Queens or New York City, which are about $69,000 and $64,000 respectively. Three of the 32 dwelling units would be income restricted for 40% of AMI household levels and five dwelling units would be income restricted at 60% AMI.

Estimated monthly rent of income restricted units for a household at 40% AMI range from $850 a month for a studio to $12.70 dollars a month for a two bedroom unit. Estimated household incomes at the 40% AMI income bracket earned on average between $39,000 and $600 annually per one person to $56,400 annual for a four person household. Estimated monthly rent for income restricted units for households at 60% AMI range from $270 a month for a studio unit to $1,900 a month for a two bedroom unit. Estimated household incomes at the 60% AMI income bracket earned on average between $59,300 for one person and $84,700 for a four person household. Out of the approximately 193,000 total residents of Queens District 1, approximately 15% identified as Asian, 77% identified as black non Hispanic, 25% identified as Hispanic or Latino of any race, and 47% identified as white non Hispanic.

And between 2010 and 2020, the population in District 1 increased 7% close to the 8% growth seen at the Queensborough and New York City levels. All population groups saw increases in population during this period except for Hispanic Latino, which saw no significant change. So in summary, the applicant proposes a zoning map amendment from an R5 C12 district to an R6 A C24 and R5 zoning districts and a zoning text amendment to map MIH with option one and option two to facilitate the development of a five story mixed use building with 39,900 square feet containing 32 dwelling units, eight of which are income restricted and 9,700 square feet of commercial retail. This concludes my presentation.

Great. Thank you very much. Let me see if there are questions for you, starting with Commissioner Benjamin.

Hi. Thank you for the presentation. I just have one quick question. Is there an interim location for the supermarket?

I don't know I don't know the precise answer to that question. I do know that there are multiple other grocery stores in the immediate area that the local shoppers will be able to rely upon during construction.

And is this supermarket moving back in, or is

it just a supermarket? They will be located upon completion of the building.

Okay. If you could find out what they're gonna do in

the interim, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner.

Okay. Great. Thank you very much. This item is certified. Thank you. Thank you.

The second item on our agenda is a review of a general project plan in Manhattan Community 4. Our presenter is Abby Ryder.

Hi, Welcome.

Good afternoon. This is a general project plan from the New York State Empire Development Corporation or USD for the proposed Bayview Correctional Facility Redevelopment Project located at 550 West 20th Street in West Chelsea, Manhattan Community District 4. The proposed project is a conversion and vertical enlargement of the former Bayview Correctional Facility to contain approximately 147 income restricted dwelling units, including at least 60 supportive housing units and would also include space for a short term transitional residence program, or STTR, with 15 short term transitional beds, as well as program space for formerly incarcerated individuals and other community oriented uses. The proposed development would be approximately 190 feet tall and 15 stories with a total of 8.5 FAR or 150,000 gross square feet. The development site is located in the Special West Chelsea District, and land uses in the surrounding area include multifamily residential buildings, art galleries,

open

and recreational space, including the High Line on the eastern end of the block and Chelsea Piers across the West Side Highway. The development site is primarily located in a C6 3 zoning district with a smaller eastern portion of the zoning lot located in a C6 zoning district, which is in the special which in the special West Chelsea District allows up to 7.5 FAR and six FAR, respectively. Here we have an aerial view of the surrounding context facing east with the development site outlined in yellow. Adjacent to the south of the development site is 111th Avenue, a 21 story condominium building. And further to the south is the IAC office building totaling 10 stories.

To the north is 551 West 21st Street, a 20 story condominium building. ESD is a state entity that's vested with the authority to override local zoning regulations pursuant to the Urban Development Corporation Act. The provisions of Subdivision three of Section 16 of that Act provides the city plan

of that Act provides that the

City Planning Commission may recommend approval, disapproval or modification of a general project plan whenever such plan requires the override of local zoning regulations for implementation. For this project, the ESD plans to override three applicable provisions of the zoning resolution outlined in the table on the screen. The first proposed zoning override pertains to FAR. As previously noted, the allowable FAR on the zoning lot is up to 7.5 for a majority of the lot and six point zero for a smaller portion. The ESD is proposing 8.5 FAR for the development site.

The next proposed zoning override pertains to maximum building height. A maximum building height of two fifty feet within the sky exposure plane is permitted in the majority of the zoning lot and 150 feet is the maximum height in the remainder of the lot. The proposed override would allow for a maximum height of 190 feet across the entire development site. DSD is also proposing an override concerning permitted projection. The ZR regulates how far signs can project across the street line.

The proposed blade sign would replicate and maintain the dimensions of the existing building's historic blade sign. And finally, the last proposed zoning override pertains to the required recreation space in multifamily buildings. This section of the ZR requires indoor recreation rooms to have at least one exterior wall with windows or ceiling with skylights measuring a certain percentage of total floor space of the room. The proposed override would allow for an indoor recreation room, which in this case is project's historic chapel to have skylights or nontransparent windows that are less than the required 9.5% of total floor area in order to preserve the character and dimensions of the historic stained glass windows in the room. The proposed project would contain up to 147 income restricted dwelling units, including 108 studios, twenty one one bedrooms and seventeen two bedrooms.

60% of the units are proposed to be supportive housing run by the Osborne Association, which is the co developer of this project. The units would be marketed to individuals reentering the community from incarceration. The other 40% of units would be income restricted to households earning between 60% to 80% of the AMI. The proposed project would also contain up to 20,000 square feet of community facility space. Half of that space would be dedicated to a 15 bed short term transitional residence program serve adults with mental illness who need extra support.

The goal is to strengthen the skills needed to move to a more independent housing setting. The other half of the community facility space would provide services that support young people ages 12 to 24, such as counseling, health and nutrition, workforce development, education, arts programming and recreation, and legal assistance and representation. These services would be designed to complement the Osborne Association's programming for families living in the proposed project. Here you can see a few images depicting the proposed design of the Bayview project. In the left image you can see the existing historic building in blue and the proposed extension and enlargement of the building in yellow.

The middle image shows the illustrative program stacking diagram. The images on the right show a proposed outdoor terrace for residents as well as existing exterior details from the existing building that would remain. This is an illustrative ground floor plan depicting three separate entrances for residents on the left, community facility space in the middle, and the short term transitional housing facility on the right. And this is an illustrative floor plan of a typical residential floor. In summary, this is a general project plan from ESD proposing a conversion and vertical enlargement of the former Bayview Correctional Facility.

The proposed development would be approximately 190 feet tall and 15 stories. And the total FAR would be 8.5 with 150,000 gross square feet. The proposed project would contain approximately 147 income restricted dwelling units, including supportive housing units and a short term transitional facility, as well as program space for formerly incarcerated individuals and other community oriented uses. This concludes my presentation. I'm happy to take any questions.

Great. Thank you very much. Starting with Commissioner Osorio.

Thank you, Chair. Thanks so much for the presentation. And I just wanted to highlight a couple of things. I found the materials useful in terms of understanding how is the proposal responding to the impacts of Superstorm Sandy in terms of first of all, justifying the redevelopment in and of itself given sort of like some of the findings in terms of the historic nature of the resources on-site. But I was a little concerned with the emphasis or most exclusive emphasis on flooding and building to reflect what's, you know, only expected to become worst, but limited in terms of the existing requirements on still water flooding.

I didn't see anything on storm surge impacts or wind speeds given and given the location of site in terms of sandy impacted areas, which was primarily a storm surge event. I'm wondering, in your review, what are the opportunities to strengthen that part and or whether there's additional research that has been done in terms of the review that we could take a look at. This is a priority, I think, here, and I would like to learn more about that.

Yeah. Absolutely. I think those are good questions that we have already begun to ask ESC, and, you know, we'd be happy to come back with more information to you at the next review session.

Thank you. I really appreciate that the same applies for heat mitigation strategies and additional permeability. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Abby, can you go back thank you, Commissioner. Can you go back to the overrides or the specific actions? Here we go. The proposed zoning overrides. Okay. So permitted FAR 7.5 in area D, six in sub area E. They're proposing 8.5. Building height, some of the sub area is higher than what's being proposed, some is lower, two fifty, 150, they're proposing 190. Okay. Permitted projection.

Let's talk about this one for a second. Permitted is 12 to 18 inches over the street line. And the proposal is to go beyond 18 inches. How far beyond? Is it an infinite number of inches beyond 18 here? And tell us what we're talking about exactly and what the limits are as proposed.

Yeah, it's a good question. We reached out to ESD about getting more specifics beyond what was in the GPP. And they let us know that at this time, they don't have the exact dimensions of the sign itself. So they their intent is to replicate a historic sign, which it can show on a later side in the appendix. But we don't have more details on the oh, I'm sorry.

I don't have it. Okay. Apologies.

Looks like we don't have that here. But I can bring that back to the next commission just or review session, what that looks like.

How far out does the current sign go?

I don't know if there is a current sign at this time. They they said their intent is to replicate that historic sign. So and because they don't have I see replicate something that Correct.

Was there, not something that is there that it was historic in nature. I'm not a 100% Okay. We'll come back. Okay. Not a problem. Okay. And then just go back to that the actions slide for one more second.

Oh, sorry. You can see it there, the signage. Oh. Just so you can see on the right, you know, on the right hand side of the

I see. So it goes out to about, I maybe eight feet or something. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Excuse me, Chair. I believe ESD said that the projection would extend approximately five feet from the building. Okay. Got it. And it would be common or appropriate for us to for there to be an override which just goes beyond the existing permitted distance without an outer limitation.

That would be a normal thing for us to do here, just sort of let them override the existing without any max. I'm not sure, but we can confer with counsel and get back to you. Great. And then my last question is on the required recreation space. So the existing is indoor recreation rooms have to have at least one exterior wall with windows or ceiling with skylights and that space needs to represent 9.5% of the room's total floor area floor space.

And here they're talking about having the historic space have nontransparent windows on an exterior wall. So they would not be transparent. And it would be less than 9.5%. Tell us what's actually happening here. What are they proposing to do? And what is the need for this particular action?

Yeah. So they have historic stained glass windows in this area. And we followed up with ESD, and they let us know that approximately 3% to 3.5% would be the amount. So it's less than that 9% that's covered under the CR regulations.

Okay. And so it and they're using it as an indoor recreation space? Correct. Okay. Okay. So it's stained glass, you said, not transparent, and that's the reason.

Yeah. Sorry, I don't know that I have the exact image here, but we can

follow-up with them. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Let me see if there are other questions. Okay. Great. Thanks, Abby. We will pick this one up at the next review session. Thank you for that presentation.

Thank you. The third item on our agenda is a non Euler post referral review of an authorization in Manhattan District 7. Our presenter is Chelsea Evans. Good afternoon. Good

afternoon.

This is a post referral presentation for a private application at twenty three sixty Broadway for a zoning authorization pursuant to z r one thirty two two one three to allow a bank tenant to exceed the 25 foot maximum street mall width. The applicant, Belnord Retail LLC, is requesting a zoning authorization to allow a 4,639 square foot bank with a street frontage of 46 feet and three inches to locate along Broadway within the special enhanced Commercial District 3 on the Upper West Side, Manhattan Community District 7. Manhattan Community Board seven did not submit a recommendation during the formal referral period. However, prior to certification and anticipation of their summer recess, the board voted to recommend approval of the application by unanimous vote of 38 in favor. Additionally, the Belnerd Condominium Board has provided a supplemental support letter in agreement with the community board's recommendation.

Those recommendations can be found in commissioners' briefing packages. Pursuant to ZR 132,213, the City Planning Commission may authorize modification of the maximum street wall width if the applicant meets one of the following findings: A, that such additional frontage is required for the operation of the proposed use or B, that a high ground floor vacancy rate exists within a reasonable distance of the proposed uses and that such high vacancy rate is a consequence of adverse market conditions. The applicant is pursuing this authorization pursuant to Finding B. The terms reasonable distance and high vacancy rate are not defined in the ZR. At the time of the establishment of the Special district, Community Board seven recommended that 15% retail vacancy would satisfy this requirement, and the department has previously stated that a healthy vacancy rate is between 510%.

Currently, 26% of the retail frontages within the surrounding Special Enhanced Commercial Districts 2 And 3 are vacant. Along Broadway, within the Special Enhanced Commercial District 3, the retail vacancy rate is 14.8%. In summary, the applicant, Bel Nord Retail LLC, is requesting a zoning authorization to allow a bank tenant to occupy more than 25 feet of street frontage along Broadway. The subject commercial space has been vacant for over a decade, and department staff believes that this application meets the findings of the authorization and that there is sufficient evidence of high retail vacancy rates in the surrounding area and recommends approval of the application. Thank you. I'm happy to take any questions.

Great. Thank you. Let me just make sure I understand the dynamic of high vacancy rate for a moment. The Community Board had recommended back in 2012 that 15% was the would be evidence of high vacancy. Is that correct?

That's correct. Yes.

And here, we're coming in at 14.8%. Is that right?

Yes. Along Broadway. So that's between West 72nd Street and West 110th

Street. That's the total length of the special district.

And then within 600 feet of the project area is 26%.

Okay. Got it. So and the area that the community board had evaluated in 2012 was within a half mile, and we have within 600 feet here. That's 26% over the 15% is recommended by the community board, which I guess was relevant in the Community Board's deliberations and support of this relief being granted. Is that right?

That's right.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Let me see if there are other questions. Okay. There are none. So thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. And we will schedule this one for a vote. Let's move on to the next item.

The fourth item on our agenda is a pre hearing review of a notice of intent to acquire office space in Manhattan Community District 10. Presenting for the first time to the commission is Dylan Owens.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Today, I'll be presenting an application for an office space acquisition at 215 West 125th Street. The Department of Citywide Administrative Services and the Department of Housing and Preservation Development have applied for an office space acquisition pursuant to section one ninety five of the New York City charter. As a quick background, HPD's division of code enforcement is responsible for enforcing the New York City Housing Maintenance Code, which establishes legally enforceable standards regarding heat and hot water, mold, pests, gas, lead based pan exposure, fire safety, and the New York State multiple to law. DCE responds to tenant complaints and issues violations when conditions warrant.

In conjunction with its enforcement of the New York City Housing Maintenance Code, is the process of addressing violations when these are issued. DCE employs two public interviewers who meet with members of the public, both tenants and landlords. HPD's DCE proposed office space would be at 215 West Hundred And 25th Street, which is located in Central Harlem within Community District 10. The map on the right indicates where 215 West Hundred And 25th Street is in relation to DCE's current office space at 3280 Broadway. 215 West 125th Street is founded by 126th Street to the North, Adam Clayton Powell Boulevard to the East, 125th Street to the South, and Frederick Douglass Boulevard to the West.

The site and surrounding area are within a c four seven zoning district in the special 125th Street district, which permit a wide range of large storage of large store, theater, and office uses. While the blocks surrounding 215 West 125th Street are predominantly commercial, the surrounding area contains mixed commercial and residential buildings as well as fully residential buildings. 215 West Hundred And 25th Street has excellent access to public transportation. It's close to the 23456 AC and BD subway lines as well as the Metro North Railroad Station at Harlem 125th Street. The site is also a short walk from many Manhattan and Interborough bus lines, and in addition, several bike lanes also serve the neighborhood.

HPD's DCE Manhattan has been headquartered at 3280 Broadway, a privately owned building since 1990. Columbia University is the owner of this building and does not wish to extend HPD's lease ending June 2025, which is forcing this relocation. There are current they currently have 76 full time employees and a 10 vehicle fleet, five of which are electric vehicles. Since the current space at 3280 Broadway does not have parking, the agency has been forced to occupy on street parking for their vehicles, which has resulted in occasional vandalism. HPD's DCE hopes to move into an approximately 22,000 square foot office on 215 West Hundred And 23rd Floor and occupied 10 parking spaces in the building's 15,000 square foot parking garage.

It would be situated within a six story roughly 170,000 square foot building with a building entrance on 125th Street and a garage entrance on 126th Street. The office space is large enough to accommodate DCE's full time staff and inspectors who operate seven days a week from the hours of 8AM to 10PM. Storage the space would be renovated to provide offices, cubicles, conference rooms, storage areas, wellness room, pantry, locker rooms, restrooms, waiting lobby, and a cashier area. Here are some of the views of the office that HPD's DCE hopes to occupy. And here's the back entrance for vehicles to access the parking garage.

Here, you can see an illustrative layout for the space. Cubicles mostly occupy the upper and lower right quadrants of a pantry with a pantry, conference rooms, and lockers in between, while the left side hosts reception, the cashier, customer service, and ADA compliant restrooms. And here's a provided layout for the building's parking garage. The highlight section shows where DCE's cars will be parked, and a small structure in the middle marked in orange represents a charging station for the fleet's electronic vehicles. HPD is presenting to the community board ten's land use committee on February 20, so do not yet have a recommendation at this time.

In summary, HPD seeks to lease approximately 22,200 square feet of office space at 215 West 125th Street pursuant to section 195 of the New York City charter. The proposed office space will be large enough to accommodate HPD's 76 full time staff members of its Manhattan division of code enforcement as well as accommodate the division's parking need for the vehicle fleet. The new proposed site also importantly maintains HPD's DCE location in Upper Manhattan, the region of the borough with the highest concentration of housing maintenance complaints. This concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Great. Thank you very much. Let me see if there are questions for you, starting with the Vice Chairman.

Thank you for the presentation. Do you know the proposed length of the lease, sir?

I don't. But D. Kass will be present tomorrow and can speak accurately.

Thank you. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. We will pick this up for a public hearing on Wednesday. Great job. Thank you. Okay. Let's move on.

The fifth item on our agenda is a prehearing review of a special permit zoning tax amendment, city map amendment and a modification to a previously approved restrictive declaration in Manhattan Community District 4. Our presenter is Abby Ryder.

Welcome back.

This is a pre hearing presentation for a private application by WRY LLC, a partnership between the related companies and Wynn Resorts. A hearing on these two applications and related EIS is scheduled for tomorrow. There are four land use actions included in this application, which I'll detail more later. A zoning text amendment, a special permit, a city map amendment and a modification of a previously approved restrictive declaration. The development site forms the western half of the Westside Rail Yard in Hudson Yards and is approximately 800 feet by 700 feet.

West 33rd Street between 11th And 12th Avenues is also included as part of the project area. Since this project is so complicated and it's been several months since the application was certified, I'll briefly review some of the background for this project before introducing the CB and BP recommendations. The 2,005 Hudson Yards approvals established and facilitated the or to facilitate the redevelopment of the Far West Side as a high density mixed use neighborhood, but the Western Rail Yard Site was not originally included. In 2009, the Western Rail Yard site was rezoned from M23 to C64 and added to the special Hudson Yards District as Subdistrict F. Subdistrict F allows a maximum of 10 FAR overall, with the maximum FAR for residential and commercial uses limited to eight and community facilities uses limited to two.

On the image on the left of the screen, you can see an illustrative massing of the 2,009 approved zoning with eight buildings, seven of which are shown as primarily residential. The illustrative site plan on the right shows the six sites where the buildings could be located. As the Commission is already aware, the Western Rail Yard site is one of four potential gaming facility applications in New York City that require ULURP actions. Western The proposed project maintains the same overall density 10 FAR with a different contemplated mix of uses now weighted more heavily toward commercial. On the left, see an updated illustrative massing with one of two development scenarios, the gaming facility scenario of the proposed project.

The number of potential development sites has decreased from six to three. And you can see the larger you can see three larger buildings. The yellow is primarily residential. To the right is in blue is an office tower with community facilities indicated in orange. And on the north is a large podium with a gaming facility and resort tower.

The illustrative site plan on the right shows a larger, more cohesive open space. And another reminder that the proposed project has two different scenarios, a gaming facility scenario and an alternative mixed use scenario. The applicant's intent is to develop the gaming facility, and the alternative scenario is a Plan B should they not be awarded the gaming license. The casino and resort building in the gaming facility scenario is subject to the State Gaming Commission's approval. Should the applicant be awarded a license by the state, the gaming facility building would be automatically considered conforming and complying with zoning.

In that instance, nothing in the red box would be subject to the Commission's approval. If the applicant does not succeed in securing a gaming facility license, the alternative scenario could be developed, and the approval sought today would control for the entire site. Turning to the proposed project. On the left is a site plan indicating the three sites proposed, and on the right is an illustrative massing of the alternative scenario, which would allow up to five towers, up to two residential and three commercial. The applicant is proposing Site A to be a primarily residential building containing approximately 1,500 units, including three twenty four affordable units.

The building at Site A would have a maximum height of approximately 1,200 feet. On-site B, the applicant is proposing a primarily commercial office building totaling just over 2,000,000 square feet with a day care and potential for a school. In the alternative scenario, Site C is subject to the Commission's approval. The applicant proposes up to three buildings with abutting basis totaling approximately 2,500,000 square feet. The Western building would be residential with approximately 309 dwelling units.

The applicant is currently contemplating a hotel for the middle tower, which would be subject to a future hotel special permit. The building on the east side of Site C is proposed to be commercial. And the proposed project for the gaming facility scenario, which is the applicant's preferred scenario and subject to a separate state gaming facility license, is a gaming and resort building. Finally, the proposed project would involve a major redesign of the open space via the Commission approved design guidelines. There are several land use actions proposed by the applicant to facilitate this project.

The first is a zoning text amendment to ZR nine thousand three and fifty eight, an existing special permit that allows for the modification of various height and setback regulations to expand the list of regulations that can be modified or waived. The applicant proposes to add to the add text to the special permit to allow for the modification or waiver of additional sections of the zoning resolution in Subdestrict F only. The proposed additions include sections regarding use regulations, public access requirements, including site and landscape plans, and the maximum width of curb cuts. In the next proposed action, the applicant seeks a special permit pursuant to ZR nine thousand three and fifty eight to waive or modify the ZR sections listed on the screen. Because the proposed project is a wholesale redesign of the 2,009 proposed plan or the 2009 approved plan, excuse me, the difference between the 2009 plan and the proposed project is really an apples and oranges comparison.

Because of the major differences, there are numerous controls that relate to building locations in bulk, streetscape and open space that the applicant proposes to address via design notes and the special permit. Design controls incorporated into the special permit would regulate future development on the site to ensure that the flexibility sought by the applicant adheres to the spirit of the Hudson Yards zoning, contributes to a cohesive site plan, encourages attractive building forms, and creates an attractive pedestrian experience. The third action is the city map amendment to change the elevation of West 33rd Street between 11th And 12th Avenues. And the final action is a legal document to modify the previously approved restrictive declaration. Major updates include incorporating the public access area design requirements and chair approval process.

There would also be a public access easement for West 33rd Street Loop within the zoning lot to enable public access across the turnaround. And any new mitigations identified in the 2024 FEIS would also be included. For a bit more detail on the special permit, we have a side by side comparison of the existing site plan on the left and the proposed site plan on the right. The existing site plan shows six parcels. On the right, you can see the proposed site plan with a total of three parcels.

The sites shown are not depicting the final building footprints, but rather the maximum dimensions and relative locations of each building on the development site. To facilitate the proposed project, bulk and urban design requirements and controls are modified via the special permit. At a high level, these include updated height regulations, new ground floor requirements, minimum retail requirements, lobby allowances and transparency requirements. There are updates to the street wall regulations, including updated minimum and maximum base heights, percentage of frontage that must be occupied by a street wall, street wall recesses and setbacks, blank wall treatments, and mechanical ventilation and infrastructure treatments. Updates to the tower controls include maximum new maximum floor plate size and dimension requirements.

As a reminder, here we have an example of what the design controls incorporated into the special permit look like in an illustrative rendering. The image on this slide shows a view facing east from 12th Avenue looking at at the Site C podium. And it illustrates some of the design controls. The recesses and articulations along the length of the facade are required elements. There are several findings that the application must meet in order to be approved.

Those include: one, that the modifications will result in better distribution of bulk and will not adversely affect access to light and air Two, if there are requested waivers to open space requirements, that those waivers will result in better site planning. Three, that the modifications are consistent with the goal of the special district to provide flexibility of architectural design and encourage more attractive building forms. Four, the modifications will enhance the streetscape and be compatible with the surrounding development. And five, with respect to the waiver of maximum curb cut width specifically that the request is necessary to accommodate a fire truck. The next action is a related city map amendment to change the grade of West 33rd Street between 11th And 12th Avenues.

The grade of West 33rd Street would be adjusted to roughly match the elevation of 11th Avenue and align with the ground floor level of the proposed project. As a reminder, you can see in the applicant's illustrative rendering, the grade change of West 33rd Street would result in an upper and lower portion of the street. The upper level would be constructed entirely upon soil fill, which would span a length of approximately seven fifteen feet from 11th Avenue with a cul de sac at the western elevated portion. The lower level of West 33rd Street would retain vehicular access for LIRR operations. And an ADA compliant public staircase and elevator on the southern end of West 33rd Street is subject to a separate revocable consent.

As a reminder, the DEIS identified significant adverse impacts related to shadows, transportation, air quality and construction. Possible mitigation measures are identified in the DEIS and are currently being explored between the DEIS and final EIS. Following the review session presentation in November, the Commission had a host of questions and comments about this project. Broadly, those themes included the feasibility of the 2009 plan, including the construction of the deck over the rail yards, size and bulk of the Site C podium, the mix of uses and affordable housing commitments, the open space design and program, and environmental impacts and mitigation. The applicant team sent a letter to the commission addressing these topics, and it's included in your along with your briefing packet.

On 01/06/2025, Manhattan Community Board Four voted unanimously to disapprove the applications. Objections to the proposal included a lack of housing production, including both affordable and market rate the financing being dependent on casino approval unmitigated environmental impacts, including air quality traffic, shadows and construction noise a lack of quality open space and impact on the High Line and an overall lack of community support. On 02/14/2025, the Manhattan Borough President recommended to disapprove the applications. In the letter, objections to the proposal included not including more housing on a large site, the design's configuration and its impact on the pedestrian experience, and in particular the impact of the podium on-site C to the High Line. In summary, this application is meant to facilitate a redesign of Western Rail Yards in Hudson Yards with a proposed development including two scenarios with the same site plan, one with a gaming facility with three towers and an alternative mixed use scenario with up to five towers.

This concludes my presentation. I'll be happy to take any questions.

Great. Thank you very much, Abby. And we will look forward to what I know will be an exciting public hearing on Wednesday. Let me just make one observation. And we have seen a variety of applications related to casinos where there needed to be one small change at the city level to enable the proposal to be fully vested when it went to the state process.

This is the first where you have that and then you have an alternative alongside it. So I will just note for the commission that there are pieces of this, the ones that relate to the casino that are similar to the way the stuff that we've seen before where we would be looking at one piece and then essentially deferring to a state process. But the second part of this is the part that would live on if a casino application is not successful on this site, which makes that even more important for our review and consideration. I mean, that vein, I just wanted to and this is a question for the applicant for Wednesday, but I will note that it seems like the podium size is exactly the same in both proposals. And there's a discussion of a hotel, but there's no associated special permit application here.

So really, we'll pose to the applicant on Wednesday why no design differential between a site that has a proposed gaming facility and one that has a variety of other uses? And also why if you anticipate a hotel on-site, why did you not include that as part of this process? And therefore, not having included, are we looking at a complete vision for this site? So those are the questions that I will start with, Amwenta. These are really not for you, Abhi.

But I will just note that those are some of the things that I will want to probe on in addition to all the information they shared about ventilation and where buildings can be sited. Commissioner Benjamin?

Hi. Thank you for the presentation. And I have a couple of quick questions. One, is there a little E that is mapped along with this designation? Because there were some materials issues and impact concerns that had mitigation, And there was some discussion that there might be a little e. Is there a little e? You can get back to me. I can

get back to you on that.

Okay. And my other concern was also about the High Line. That part of the High Line is not built out. And it's not clear that the High Line has the money to build it out. So how will that design look different if that part of the High Line is not there?

That's a good question that I can refer to the applicant team.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Gloyn.

Thank you. Just to

clarify on the Chair's comments, It's my understanding that the hotel would only be built in the event of the gaming facility.

Well, that's a question. I saw that in the alternative too. In Site C, there is a commercial hotel and residential. And it just was included as a concept but without an associated special permit. So you're C2.

Right.

So this is the non gaming facility alternative, which still does anticipate a hotel tower there in the middle.

But the hotel if the hotel was built as part of the gaming facility, there would be no need for another permit for a special permit. Correct. Correct. Okay. So they would have to come back to us in the

event that they wanted to do

a hotel in the alternative scenario should they not get the gaming application approved. Correct. Got it. Okay. But this will be a

future development anyway. They, I guess

Yeah. Can come up

for a follow-up action if

they So this would

not impede their gaming facility application. This would just be another layer that they would have to go through to get hotel should they decide to build a hotel on that side in

the future? Two totally different scenarios.

Sure. Thank you, Commissioner. And the reason I bring it up is because in the absence of a casino approval here, not to say this could be approved, it could not be approved, I don't know. But if it is not, then we're left with whatever we approve as the alternative here, which would be a site plan, it would be a footprint, it would be lot coverage, it would be the waivers that are sought. And they would not be able to do a hotel without that subsequent action. They would be able to do lots of other things, but they would not be able to do that. That's the reason I bring that up.

Okay.

Commissioner Mann?

Yes. Thanks for the moment of time here. So I struggle with this on these casino applications because I still get a little confused. So let's say the commission modified the application to remove the alternative scenario and we've only got the gaming scenario, and they're not awarded a gaming license. What does the zoning leave us there?

So in the if that was not approved, then still site A and site B, if the alternative scenario is taken out, would be allowed.

Right. So I think just to the chair's line of questioning here, it seems like there are portions of this project that would still be modified even if we remove the alternative and kept in place the casino site plan theme. That's why I've been struggling with this one is that if we approve this that we are approving a modified site plan in either scenario. I just wanted to clarify that question.

I think it's an excellent point because the 2009 site plan has buildings right in the middle of the site. This one would modify to be A, B and C here. You are totally correct. So, even the gaming facility application does include a modification to the 2009 site plan. That is correct. Okay. Thank you. Back to Commissioner Dweck.

Sorry. Just to I believe in the past applications there was something specific that needed to be filed that would not be filed in the event that a gaming application wasn't approved by state. So that would negate the changes that are being proposed in the gaming or am I understanding?

I think I can maybe I can help here and I will defer to the department's air unit staff to correct me if I go astray. But the sorts of changes that we have evaluated in other applications were most akin to the things like the city map amendment here for the changing of elevation of West 33rd Street, where it was in the other cases that would not be filed in the event of no success with the gaming application. Here and to Commissioner Mann's point, we would be making that change, which of course could conceivably be held. But we are also making amendments to the 2009 site plan in a way that would enable the gaming facility. And if the gaming facility were not to be approved, we would also be left with the modification to the site plan.

So this one is a little bit different and I would say a little bit more complicated for the commission to evaluate because we there will be something that is left standing here that we need to be comfortable with. Maybe I didn't go astray. Thank you. That's great. Fantastic. I love when that happens. Commissioner Osorio, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. Thanks so

much for the presentation. And thank you so much for responding to our questions. That's appreciated. And I am interested in using that new vehicle to go into the detailed conversations, maybe in smaller meetings. But given the overlap with some of the communities concerns on the environmental impacts and some of your own responses to the questions that were raised. The first question is whether that letter is going be public. Are you planning on sharing that? Or is

it Yeah. Sorry.

Just to

clarify, that's the applicant's letter. That is not the department's letter. So the applicant wrote that letter in response to the questions that they heard from the commission.

But is that letter public? At this point, no.

I suggest you consider that given that there's questions that the community has asked that are related, directly related with some of your responses. If not, maybe I suggest that you consider incorporating some of responses in your presentation for the public hearing so that the public can see what is the status of some of those questions. And then just a quick question on my end. I know that, again, thank you for addressing some of the questions. But clearly, we're in the process where you're still analyzing mitigation strategies for some of the impacts.

And we won't see that until there's a final environmental impact statement. So I'm wondering if you can give us a little bit of a timeline in terms of where you are and whether we can see some of those mitigation strategies or when can we expect to see them in preparation for what's going to be I think already a little time to go through a lot?

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you for that question. I do know that the ERD team is in active discussions with the relevant agencies identifying mitigations, and I will follow-up with the timeline with you regarding, when you might be able to hear more information.

Thank you so much for acknowledging those questions. I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner. Okay. Great. Thank you very much, Abby. We'll pick this one up on Wednesday. Thank you for all your work. Appreciate it. Okay. All right. Let's move on to the next item.

The sixth item on our agenda is a pre hearing review of the zoning map and zoning tax amendments in Brooklyn Community District 11. Our presenter is David Wiseclass.

Hi, David. Good afternoon, commissioners.

Good afternoon. This is an application for the 166 Kings Highway rezoning. The application was certified on 11/18/2024 and a public hearing scheduled for tomorrow. This is a pre hearing for a private application from one hundred sixty six Kings Plaza LLC for a zoning map amendment from an R6B C23 district to an R7X C24 district and a zoning text amendment to Appendix F to facilitate the development of a new 10 story mixed use development, including over 89,000 square feet of residential space, which would be about 97 dwelling units, approximately 30 of which would be permanently income restricted and over 14,600 square feet of ground floor commercial space. The proposed actions include a zoning map amendment as stated to change the existing R6 district with the C2.3 commercial overlay to an R7X district with the C2.4 overlay and a zoning text amendment to map MIH coterminous with the project area, which you can see here outlined at that dotted line on the right side.

On 01/07/2024, Community Board eleven held a public hearing and with a vote of 28 in favor to oppose and one abstention voted unfavorably with conditions. In explanation, the Community Board gave the following conditions in their unfavorable recommendation. They recommend the conditions were that the proposed zoning district should be modified from an R7X down to an R7A zoning district that the proposed building should include additional parking and that the proposal should not participate in the SARA or senior affordable rental apartments program. The public hearing for the borough president was held on 02/05/2025. And we have yet to receive the recommendation, but been in contact with the BP's office and we expect it any day now.

And in summary, this is a private application for zoning map amendment from R6B C23 district to an R7X C24 district and a zoning text amendment to Appendix S to facilitate the development of a new 10 story mixed use building including over 89,000 square feet of residential space and over 14,600 square feet of Ground Floor Commercial space. That concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. All right. Thank you.

Are there any questions? Commissioner Dweck?

Yeah. I kind of concur with the community board on the R7A change. Mike?

Yeah. Mic check?

Okay. Okay. So I concur with the community board on the R7a change from an R7x. I think I had mentioned it at the initial review session. I think so, but the hike was a little bit too high. Has the developer come up with alternative plans of the

So the developer so obviously, do want to give them the opportunity to kind of present what their proposal is tomorrow. So I'll speak to it lightly. The developers told us that they have come up with alternative scenarios. The first one, which is why you hear the reference to the SARA program in the community board's recommendation, was to modify the proposal from the R7X down to an R7A and to have the building participate in the SARA program so it's fully affordable with senior housing. My understanding is that was the proposal that was brought to the community board and that's why they had their opinion there.

And then they have since, I think, had a new proposal with R7A that does not participate in the SARE program. So that accommodates more of the community board's recommendations. At this time, they haven't formally submitted any updated proposal to us. And so what I have presented today is what was certified and technically what's still on our desk at this point. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Rosher Nichols?

Just recite, if if you would, the difference in the FAR for an r seven a and an FAR for an r seven x.

Oh, you're testing me. The R seven a, if my memory serves me correct, that's your CHO. I wanna say, I think with m I h 5 o one, I I am I correct there? And then the R7X, I believe it's a six point zero. Yeah. So, I would be almost one point zero additional FAR from the R7X compared to the R7A.

Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner, Commissioner Serio.

Thank you, Chair. So much for the presentation. I'm wondering if you can just clarify for us two quick things. Building on Vice Chair Nachal's question, what is exactly the change, the reduction in number of units from the two proposed districts? And then how much more parking is being proposed than required?

So I don't want to speak to go reverse. I don't want speak too much to the applicant's proposal in terms of their parking proposal because that will be specific to Fair enough. Yeah. As I said, so I'll allow them to speak to that tomorrow. And I do believe we have something, if I remember my memory serves me correct, of some of the numbers that may be different if it were to be modified. I thought I had that at least. Unfortunately, I'd have to get back to you on that one.

Is this if if you I didn't see this in the report either in the materials. If you can share that before hearing that would be great. But also just in general, what's been sort of like your preliminary analysis in terms of the implications of the change in district in terms of the amount of housing? Mean, given sort of like the larger sort of policies and specifically the needs in this area, this seems to be a considerable implication for the larger mission here. No, it

would certainly be a reduction. That's for sure. Let me check my numbers one more time to make sure I've got everything. Yes. It would certainly be a non insignificant reduction.

I don't want to speak out of terms specifically in the number of units. We are waiting as staff to hear from the public, more at the public hearing and during the conclusion of the EULAR process to issue a staff recommendation, so to see exactly the specifics. But we do believe that obviously housing is significant all over the city and particularly in this area in South Brooklyn where there's been difficulty in producing housing, particularly income restricted housing and mapping additional MIH areas. So I would like to get back to you on that, on the specifics. Yes.

Thank you. One last question, if I may. It it from from the department's point of view, it would be great if you can highlight any potential restrictions or or limitations to, you know, to Sarah in the new proposed district. I know that the community is specifically sort of like concerned with the proposal going or applying for SARA, but I'm wondering if from a zoning point of view, you see any potential concerns or limitations that could be created by by the the proposed zoning by the new proposed zoning.

Yes. I can get back to you on some of that as soon as I can.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Okay. All right. That's it for this one. Thank you. We will see this one tomorrow for public hearing. Let's move on to the next item.

The seventh item on our agenda is a pre hearing review of a zoning map and zoning text amendments in Brooklyn Community District 9. Presenting remotely is Jordan Frappe.

Good afternoon. People hear me?

Hold that thought for just one moment.

Jordan, we're just gonna recess for one minute.

Yep.

We're gonna recess.

Thank you very much everybody for your patience. We are back on track. Madam Secretary, let's officially call that next item.

Okay. The seventh item on our agenda is a prehearing review of the zoning map and zoning text amendments in Brooklyn Community District 9. Presenting remotely is short and fraught.

Everybody hear me?

We can. Yes.

Great. Good afternoon, Chair Geronik and Commissioners. I'm here today to give the prehearing presentation for the 7399 Empire Boulevard rezoning. Next slide, please. This is a private application by Empire Boulevard Holdings LLC for a zoning map amendment from c eight two and r six c one three to c four four d and a zoning text amendment to map an MIH area in order to facilitate a 13 storey mixed use development with 261 dwelling units, 78 of which would be income restricted and approximately 62,235 square feet of commercial use.

Next slide. The project area is located at 7399 Empire Boulevard in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Community District 9 in Brooklyn. The application certified on 11/04/2024. Next slide. Here we see a rendering of the proposed project looking north from Empire Boulevard.

The applicant is proposing a 273,542 square foot building or 7.2 FAR containing both residential and commercial uses. The applicant proposes 261 housing units, 78 of which would be income restricted pursuant to MIH option two, and sixty three thousand two hundred thirty five square feet of commercial floor area, which would be facilitated by the C 44 D District's allowance of commercial uses on both the 1st And 2nd Floor of a development. The proposed development would total 13 stories or a 145 feet in height. 190 parking spaces are proposed, 92 for residents and 98 for the commercial facilities. And the applicant has stated that they will provide these spaces regardless of recent actions taken through City of Yes to eliminate or reduce minimum parking requirements.

Next slide. Here we have two renderings of the building from other perspectives. The proposed building height is a 145 feet. On the northern side of the building, facing Sullivan Place, the height would rise to a 125 feet. The base height of the building would range from 75 to 95 feet.

And on the left hand side in back, you can see the Ebbetsfield houses currently, adjacent to the project area that rise up to 250 feet in height. Next slide, please. The applicant is seeking a zoning map amendment from c eight two and r six c one three to c four four d. Next slide. The applicant is also seeking a zoning text amendment to map a mandatory inclusionary housing area.

The applicant has stated that they will choose option two, which requires 30 of residential floor area to be set aside for households making an average of 80% of area median income. Next slide. On 11/12/2024, community board nine held a public hearing to discuss this application. And on January 9, the full board voted to disapprove the application unless certain conditions were met. The community board's overall preference for this site is a retail commercial development with parking at up to two point o FAR.

If there must be residential units in the building, the community board's conditions were that 30% of those units should be set aside for households making 40% of AMI. There should be limits on height and shadows to mitigate any incremental shadows on PS 375 K and other sunlight sensitive public resources nearby. They would like commercial space at affordable rents for small local businesses to be included in the new building. And finally, the community board has a long standing interest in a more comprehensive study of Empire Boulevard, and they stated that any zoning changes to the current site should not be seen as presidential for future developments along the Empire Boulevard quarter. Next slide.

On 01/07/2025, the Brooklyn Borough president's office conducted a public hearing. And on February 12, they issued their recommendation to approve this application with conditions. The conditions are, first, to adjust the, proposed massing of the building to mitigate the incremental shadows on PS 370 Five's public facilities while still preserving the maximum allowable floor area of the building at seven 0.2, And 2nd, to initiate a corridor wide plan for Empire Boulevard to facilitate more housing, streetscape, and public realm improvements, and honoring of local historic landmarks. This concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to take questions.

Great. Thank you. We'll start with the Vice Chair.

Thank you. What is proposed for the Ground Floor? It looks like a retail space with perhaps a a single tenant, at least from the the rendering. Do you know what is proposed for the Ground Floor space?

I will double check and confirm, but I believe it is supposed to be a full service grocery store.

Ah, okay.

And

there is gonna be parking. And and and just reiterate how many, spaces would be provided here.

92 spaces for residential and 98 for commercial.

Thank you.

Total of a 190 spaces, and that's even post City of Yes. They've committed to providing all a 190 of those spaces.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman, Commissioner Benjamin.

Hi, thank you for the presentation. The community board was interested in a non impact in an impact free shadow solution, what would that building look like in order to achieve no impacts on Jackie Robinson's school?

Sure. So I I want to be clear about terminology here and actually No additional impacts. Right. So we have some shadow slides. If you could go two slides forward, please, in the presentation.

We move forward a couple slides. Is that possible? Okay. I will try to explain. We've we've got some visual aid, and I can try to explain without them. Currently, there are no shadow impacts according to Seeker. There would be some incremental shadows on a couple of sunlight sensitive public resources linked to PS 375. There we go. I think we're almost there. There we go.

Unclear what would have to be done to the building. No shadow studies have been done yet to model what the building would look like with a lower maximum height facing to the north, facing Sullivan Place. That's something that the applicant would have to do some additional shadow studies to model what it would look like with a with a lower overall height. But what the community board is looking for is minimizing or eliminating the incremental shadow impact the incremental shadows, excuse me, on on the basketball courts and running track, which are map reference number four here, and the sitting area, which is map reference number three.

Right. I I read that, but I also read that the impact, the shadows, were basically from eight something in the morning till noon. And the borough president's suggestion was might pull it back so that the impacts would only occur from eight to eleven. So from eleven to twelve something, the it would not have the impact during the winter season. Is that your understanding too?

That's right. And I I think changes would have to be made to the massing of the building in order to make that happen, and we just don't know exactly what those massing changes would look like yet, but that is the proposal to minimize or eliminate the incremental shadows.

And could you make sure that the applicant knows that we're interested in seeing what that would look like?

Absolutely. Yeah.

And my second one, as usual, is about the market rate rents versus our MIH rents. And according to the data from the racial equity report, the estimated monthly rent of an affordable studio for households earning 80% and since they're only proposing 8040% no, they're all 80%, I'm sorry would be a studio's rent would be $1,700 But the non income restricted are only slightly more. How do we handle this?

I think the

Yes. On

the another one of the documents from that said the non income restricted rent at the market rate rent for a studio would be $17.40 dollars and the studio at 80% of AMI is $1,700 So for all of this, what we're getting is a $40 lessening of a studio rent.

Right.

Yeah. Yep.

The the mismatch between the median household income of households in Community District 9 and the rents for apartments built through MIH has been a long standing concern of this community board. I would leave it to the applicant to discuss whether they are open to other MIH options, you know, now that the deep affordability option has been enabled as a stand alone option through City of Yes, whether that's something that they would consider. All I can say is that this is a long standing concern of the community board, and it's something that we are aware of when we map MIH MIH applications in this area that the income is targeted through the income restricted apartments, that there's just a fundamental mismatch between the incomes those apartments are targeted at and what a typical family in this district is making.

Okay. Well, you should know it's not just the community board who's interested in those discrepancies. This commissioner is, and I have voted no on some of the other MIH in those situations.

Mhmm. Understood.

Okay. Thank you.

Thanks, Commissioner. Commissioner, sorry. I'm sorry.

Thank you. No worries. No problem. Thank you, Chair. Thanks so much for the presentation and for addressing our questions. I had a couple of questions for you. I'll save the rest for tomorrow, the applicant. But just going back to the recommendation from the Board President and the Community Board and what you referenced in the presentation regarding the need for a quarter wide plan or study for Empire Boulevard. Where is the department? What is your rationale so far in terms of this?

I know that this is yet another neighborhood, but critical study. And so do you have a timeline? Is this going is this happening? How do we respond to this community's concern about setting precedent here and having to make decisions on environmental impacts that, you know, are concerning to the community. So where where where is the department? What is your thinking in this regard?

Sure. So, obviously, you know, full on corridor studies to a certain extent, it's a question of, you know, prioritizing and deciding on our work plan from year to year. What I will say is that the Empire Boulevard corridor has been identified for many years as a big problem in this part of Brooklyn. There are people in this part of Brooklyn with wildly divergent views on the proper scale development and on proper land use, and everybody agrees that the Empire Boulevard corridor is terrible and needs major changes. So it's something that we've been thinking about for a long time and that we would very much welcome the opportunity to move forward on given, you know, given the time and resources to make it happen.

I think everyone is in agreement that it's a corridor that needs a lot of work and could use a comprehensive forward looking vision to improve it.

So it sounds like you you understand the the need you would be willing to do it. You just don't know if you're gonna be able to do it or when. Is that

I think that's

I would encourage I would encourage maybe sort of like a to the extent possible. I know that the department is considering a couple different similar studies, and there's a lot going on. But but this is a this is a critical need. I mean, for example, going back to the findings of the EAS in terms of shadows, is something that that I would also wanted to ask about, Robinson is being is subject to potential shadow impacts from other recent rezoning that in that case actually were considered significant adverse impact. And so without such study, the EIS that is being conducted right now is not addressing the potential cumulative impact of development on some of these community assets, community resources, creating a concern for how much we know about what these projects are actually creating.

Does that make sense? I understand and I'm not challenging sort of like the use of effectiveness or the completeness of the EAS in this case. I'm just pointing out that there are cumulative impacts that are not being studied. And so, you know, I think that this is urgent because here again, we're asking a community to consider a, you know, increasing significantly increasing residential density to contribute to what we know is a citywide priority, but at the expense of, you know, having their public spaces be be affected. And so I I just this is just me kinda, like, really encouraging to take take that invitation as as as seriously as possible and trying to start as soon as possible with that.

In addition to that, I actually wanted to ask you, so I didn't see this and please correct me if I'm wrong, but did the EAS look at the cumulative impacts of shadows particularly in and around in and around Jackie Robinson, or the incremental shadows are only measured in terms of this proposal, the proposal that is being analyzed?

It's the incremental shadows are measured in terms of what this specific proposal would cause on on nearby facilities. I did not see in my review of the EAS any study of cumulative shadow impacts based on the multiple new developments or multiple new rezonings that have occurred in this area recently.

No. Thank you. Yeah.

That that that values what I was saying, and and I understand why not. Given the fact that the EAS determined this was a negative declaration probably in a full draft EIS that would have been studied. But that's why I feel that it's so important to have this neighborhood wide understanding of how are these different proposals creating cumulative impact. The other question I had was I

just want to

sorry, clarify. Alex from the Brooklyn office. So I just want to clarify, there is a nomenclature that I want to clarify here. So there is Jackie Robinson playground, which was discussed as an impact as part of September, which was on the Botanical garden as well. To clarify, this project, there is no shadow onto Jackie Robinson Playground from this this proposal.

You're you're and and to clarify, Jackie Robinson's school p s three seven five. Right. Which to the open spaces to the south, which is the play area and a sitting area, paved sitting area, that is where the the incremental shadows fall from this proposal. But it is a different I just wanna clarify. It is a different so there is no cumulative impact or cumulative shadow analysis from, September versus this proposal? I just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you for the clarification. I think that's important. But I think the point about or the need for the comprehensive neighborhood study still stands.

No, 100%.

Because we don't know if we don't look if we don't measure it. But thank you. I appreciate that. I have another quick question, if you don't mind, Alex, just in terms of the just to

make sure I

fully understand the potential for this study. Is that something that you think is I know that there's no response in terms of now when it could actually happen. But but do you think that this is something that potentially we could expand the response in terms of a timeline or something within the next certainly before we vote on this?

Probably not. And I'll explain why. And this has been in the works for multiple administrations. We've been looking at this geography. As Jordan mentioned, it definitely needs some serious thought. The zoning hasn't changed since 1961. If you go down the corridor, there's a lot of self storage that has been developed. And so we think that that's kind of like a mismatch of uses. It's got decent transit access next to world class open spaces. I think the the Jordan kind of referred to this before.

There is wildly disparate views on the future of this space. And so I think to prioritize this study, which has a huge opportunity cost for other neighborhood studies, I think we need to get a lot closer with Community Board nine and other stakeholders before really fully engaging with resources on this study. And I'll just like, for example, the community board nine references that they're interested in a comprehensive study, but their goal is for two stories of nonresidential. And I think that's like there's a big gap between where we see the opportunity for land use changes and comprehensive like streetscape redesign and things like that where we'd normally do a holistic plan. I think there's a lot of work to still do with the community board and other stakeholders before we can even get to a commitment on a on a neighborhood study.

Thank you. Well, I I encourage you to, as much as possible, see how quickly we can get to that because that, in my mind, is primarily the reason. You know, by going back to another way of of interpreting what you said that of why we need some research to guide us in terms of what are the potential scenarios and what are the cost and benefits and where and how should we where we should prioritize public impact in that regard. I had another quick question. In terms of the

affordability, what's

going to happen basically with the existing business that is in the footprint? I think the laundromat that is there, is there a plan for relocation? What is

I'll defer to Jordan on that. And what is

and or just in general, what's the general, you know, response? And maybe this is something that we can ask the applicant. But but just in general, what's the general response for making sure that those commercial spaces are as affordable as possible?

So, Jordan, I'll pass this one to you.

Sure.

The

future of the laundromat, I don't know if applicant has committed to any sort of plan to include the laundromat in future developments or what that would look like. So I think that's something to ask them tomorrow. As far as the broader vision of affordable businesses on-site, That was a condition that the community board placed on their placed on their resolution. And, again, I think I would ask the applicant tomorrow whether they have a particular vision for how to ensure affordability in the commercial and retail programming. I'm not aware of what that would be.

Yes. Fair enough. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner. Okay. We'll pick this one up tomorrow at a public hearing. Thank you, Jordan.

Thank you.

Okay, Madam Secretary, let's move on.

The eighth item on our agenda is a City Council modification scope determination for 441004 And 67 Prostic Avenue rezoning. The city council proposes to modify the zoning tax amendment to appendix F, removing MIH option two and to modify the zoning map amendment. And staff believe this modification is within scope. Tucci is here to present.

Thank you very much. Madam Secretary?

I'll just note also Commissioner Ron Prachette is recused on this item.

Great. And did we note that Commissioner Dweck was recused on the last great. He was out of the room. Thank you. Go ahead, Juki.

Good afternoon, commissioners. This is a city council modification to the 441 And 467 Prospect Avenue rezoning, a private application by Arrow Linen Supply Company for a zoning map and zoning text amendment in Windsor Terrace, Community District 7, Brooklyn. This application was approved by the CPC 12/16/2024. This is a modification to both the zoning map and zoning tax amendment by the city council. Here, you can see the CPC approved rezoning, which mapped in R 71 District on a portion of the northern frontage of the mid block of Prospect Avenue between 8th Avenue and Prospect Park West.

Here, you can see the city council modified districts. Please note the overall boundary of the area to be rezoned would not change. The area on Lot 61 And 73 corresponding to the development site shown here in blue would be mapped R7A. The remaining lots in the rezoning area shown here in green would be mapped R6B. In addition to the modification to the zoning map amendment, the city council modified the MIH area to remove option two. The city council's proposed modifications are within the scope of the land use application and the environmental review for this project.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Juki. Any questions for Juki? Okay. Seeing none, I am going to seek a sent by a voice vote here to send that scope determination letter to the council. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Okay. That is approved. Thank you, Juki. Thank you for all of your hard work on that application. Madam Secretary?

Okay. Future votes. Future votes for consideration tomorrow, February 19. Staff have prepared reports for one Battery Park Plaza IBO office space. There was a post hearing memo in your materials, Matthew is here to present.

Good afternoon. Hi, Matthew.

Welcome. So

the Department of Administrative Services and the Independent Budget Office seek to lease office space pursuant to section one ninety five of the New York City Charter. The office space is located at 1 Battery Park Plaza in the Financial District neighborhood of Manhattan, Community District 1. This application was presented to the City Planning Commission on February 5 at the public hearing and is scheduled for a vote tomorrow. The Department of City Planning supports the requested action, which would facilitate the relocation of IBO's office from 110 William Street to 1 Battery Park Plaza. The proposed office space is large enough to accommodate IBO's current and expected staffing levels as well as its charter mandated advisory committee meetings.

Moreover, 1 Battery Park Plaza's proximity to other governmental offices would facilitate interdepartmental collaboration. Community Board One has not submitted comments on this application nor has the borough president. We have also been informed that, city council does not plan to call up this action or this application rather. That concludes my presentation. Happy to take any questions.

Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Thanks.

Also staff have prepared reports for 209 Bay Street HRA office space. Vincent is on Zoom to present.

Hi. Good afternoon. I am here to present the staff recommendation for HRA and DCAS application to acquire office space pursuant to section one ninety five of the New York City Charter for approximately 2,000 square feet at 209 Bay Street in Staten Island for continued use of HRA's homelessness prevention services. The requested action would allow HRA to continue providing a stable and accessible location for vital programs directly benefiting individuals at risk of homelessness. The applicant states that the site's proximity to other HRA service locations enhances operational efficiency, allowing for better coordination and easier access for clients.

Lastly, the applicant states that this project demonstrates New York City's commitment to supporting vulnerable populations while making the most of a transit rich location to ensure equitable access to services. For this reason, the department recommends approval of the requested action.

Great. Thanks, Vincent. All right. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Vincent. Lastly, for future votes for tomorrow. Staff have prepared reports for Queen's future. There were memos, letters, public comments and testimony in your materials. And we are joined by Steven.

Hello, Steven. Hello. Good afternoon. The department recommends approval of the application by Queens Future LLC in the Parks Department for a city map amendment and a zoning map amendment on the development site located in Fleshing Meadows Corona Park in Queens, New York. The project is to map and demap parkland and streets and to map a CA-four zoning district.

The two land use actions would allow the project to move forward in the state designed to find gaming license process and for the state to consider a gaming application by the Queens Future LLC on the development site later this year. The land use actions along with the future approvals by a community advisory committee, the state's Gaming Facility Location Board, the State Gaming Commission and the state authorization to alienate Parkland would facilitate a new $3,700,000 gross square foot mixed use development, including a gaming facility, music hall, hotel, convention space, parking and other amenities, as well as approximately 25 acres of design public park and green space. The department believes that the medium to high density CA4 zoning district is appropriate within the context of the existing development in the surrounding area, which includes the Citi Field Baseball Stadium, the USTA Billy Gene National Tennis Center, which has the Arthur Ashe Stadium and the Louis Armstrong Stadium, and the new 25,000 seat soccer stadium opening in 2027. The department believes that the public benefits linked to the demapping of Parkland and the possibility of a gaming facility are situated in the context of the applicant being awarded a gaming license.

If the applicant is not awarded a gaming license, the city map amendment would not take effect and the project area would remain map parkland under the jurisdiction of the Parks Department. The related zoning map amendment would have no effect because pursuant to the zoning resolution section eleven thirteen, zoning does not apply to public parks. The project then would continue to be used as a surface parking lot.

Okay. Thank you, Stephen. Commissioner Benjamin, Commissioner Surio.

Quick question, Stephen. The items that are part of the CBA, one, I would prefer that they not be in our report as anything, unless they are related to our approvals. So much of what the community board and the borough president have asked for is not part of our approval process. Is that correct?

That's correct. But it's in their resolution. So that would Right. Be

within the report.

There is a reference to it in our report. And if it's not directly something we're approving, this commissioner would ask that it not be in the report and kind of muddy the waters of CBAs and what our role is with them.

Sure. So, I can take a look at that, whatever section you're referring to. I think much like my comments here, it should if it had any reference to it, it would be in reference to a future possibility of that. So if you could highlight Okay. And we could discuss what specific sentences or sentence you have.

Yes. Just one section that kind of refers to that. If on the other hand, for some of them, if it's gonna be part of the demapping agreement, like the fact that there will be this 25 acre park, that's fine. But if it's just the community is going to have this fund and there's gonna be a group, I think we'd be better leaving it out. And I will point it out to you.

Okay. And I'll discuss it with counsel also. Okay. Thank you.

Anything else, Gail? No. Thank you. Commissioner Arserio?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you so much for addressing our questions and for your summary. I'm still having some questions with the way in which the FEIS is responding to the adverse environmental impacts, as specifically as it relates to this being a special natural waterfront area. So I'm wondering if in addition to what you shared, which I've reviewed, there's anything in particular you can explain to me what is the actual level of detail in which of the mitigation actions have been addressed, one? And two, how has the analysis factored in some of the questions that we heard from the community during the hearing particularly regarding other types of flooding as well as some of the additional impacts on the existing sewer and wastewater management capacity.

So the mitigation related to the FEIS is focused on the transportation issues. So that's where the most significant impacts were felt. So I'm not sure if I could speak to things that were not addressed in detail. But there's like a transportation monitoring plan that could be take place and those items. If there were specific details about those elements that you brought up, I could try to get you some responses No. Later

Well, thank you. Yes, I will follow-up via e mail. It's just that that's precisely my reading that the transportation impacts are seem significant substantively addressed, but kinda like the more ecological impact on the waterfront are not. And those were highlighted since the DEIS. And so I just wanna understand sort of like how how is that being processed just to to before I can support a report that says that all the adverse impacts listed in the DIS have been Okay. Got it. Well, I'll get back to you. We'll discuss it. Perfect. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Okay. Thanks, Stephen. And thank you for all of your work on this. Okay. Madam Secretary.

Post hearing follow ups. First, we have 1000251 Queens Boulevard, which had a public hearing at the February 5 public meeting. Andrew is on Zoom to present.

Good afternoon, commission.

Good afternoon.

I will keep this brief. The Department of City Planning staff finds the applicant's request for a zoning map amendment from an r seven one slash c one two zoning district to r eight x slash c two four and r seven one zoning districts and a zoning text amendment to map MIH options one and two appropriate. These actions would facilitate the development of a 17 story mixed use building containing residential and commercial uses on a currently underdeveloped lot fronting Queens Boulevard, which is a major thoroughfare. The the department finds this appropriate due to proximity to transit, and the proposed actions would reinforce the medium density mixed use nature of the boulevard. A CPC report reflecting this recommendation has been prepared for the commission.

The CPC vote is scheduled for March 5.

Great. Thanks, Andrew.

Thank you.

Thanks, Andrew. Okay.

Thank you.

Next for post hearing follow ups, we have 2,510 rezoning, which also had a public hearing at the February 5 public meeting. David is here to present.

Hello again, David. Hello again.

I'll present our agency recommendation on this application 2510 Coney Island Avenue. The department supports the proposed application, which will facilitate the development of a new mixed use building with 60 units of housing and ground floor commercial space in Sheepshead Bay, Community District 15 in Brooklyn. The current R4 and C81 zoning has been in place since 1961 and their restrictive regulations do not enable opportunities for growth. The zoning map amendment to change these districts to an R7 D district with a C24 commercial overlay would help establish a context that is more appropriate for this major 100 foot wide thoroughfare with access to public transit, allowing new housing including units permanently income restricted and subject to a lottery in an area that has seen limited new housing. The zoning text amendment will ensure that future developments within the project area will provide permanently income restricted housing that is subject to a lottery and is sorely needed in this community district.

Community District 15 has been increasing in population while producing some of the lowest levels of housing units and income restricted units across the city. From 2014 to 2022, a total of only 138 new income restricted units at less than 120 AMI have been produced in this district. Aligned with this proposal to change the zoning to R70 C24, the Brooklyn office envisions a wider range of uses for this area, particularly new housing with active ground floor uses that serve the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, the department recommends approval of the 2510 Coney Island Avenue application. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. Okay. Excellent. All right.

Okay. And just lastly for post hearing follow ups on Atlantic Avenue mixed use plan. I'll simply note there were comments and testimonies in your materials. The team will join us at the March 3 review session to present and discuss.

Wonderful. We'll look forward to that. Anything else on the agenda for today?

No, Chair.

Okay. With that, we will pick this up tomorrow morning at ten The time is now 02:56, and we are adjourned. Thank you all.