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. Today's date is December 2. We are joined today by Vice Chair Knuckles, Commissioners Benjamin, Cerullo, Crowell, Dweck, Gold, Kirmani, Maureen on Zoom, Asorio and Rampershad. Welcome to all of you. I hope everybody had a and Benjamin, did I not say your

name? Oh,

and Commissioner Commissioner Mann is here. Sorry about that. I hope you all had a relaxing Thanksgiving with family and friends. And before we get started on today's agenda, I just wanted to note a couple of big moments from the November. First, I'm very happy to share that the New York City Council's Land Use Committee and Zoning Subcommittee voted to approve with modifications City of Yes for housing opportunity our proposal to create a little more housing in every neighborhood.

I'd like to thank Council Speaker Adrian Adams, Chair Salamanca, Chair Riley and the council for advancing this text with thoughtful amendments and for prioritizing housing production across the city. We at the Department of City Planning deeply appreciate your strong leadership and are looking forward to the full council vote later this week. We'll have more to say about the modifications made to the proposal later during today's review session. On the same day that the council committees voted on City of Yes, Mayor Adams announced a historic labor agreement with the Building and Construction Trades Council. The agreement will cover more than $1,000,000,000 in capital projects including infrastructure improvements in Willits Point.

This transformative Queens project is set to deliver thousands of income restricted affordable homes and jobs. Now thanks to this new agreement, the workers who create WILLET's underlying infrastructure will be guaranteed to receive fair wages and benefits. That is a true win win for New Yorkers. So let us get to today's agenda. We're kicking things off with a significant new housing proposal in Harlem known as 145 for Harlem.

This mixed use development would create nearly nine seventy new homes of which over two ninety would be permanently income restricted and affordable. The site is located next to Brigadier General Charles Young playground and the three train at 145th Street. An earlier iteration came before this commission in 2021 and was withdrawn prior to a city council vote in the 2022. This new version of the project has increased the number of homes and removed the office and museum space found in the previous application. Moving to Bed Stuy Brooklyn, the commission will learn about 109 Marcus Garvey Boulevard, a proposed residential development with nearly 300 income restricted affordable homes for seniors.

The building would include a courtyard for tenants and be close to Lewis And Pulaski Playgrounds. Heading down to Coney Island, we'll discuss a proposed mixed use building that would include 145 homes around 35 of them income restricted affordable as well as ground floor retail located at 2201 To 2002 And 27 Neptune Avenue. The project would be constructed with resiliency in mind and be only a couple of blocks from Keiser Park and the B74 bus lot. We'll also look at Grace Houses, a residential proposal that falls within the boundaries of the East New York Neighborhood Plan. These 100% affordable buildings would include over 150 income restricted homes as well as space for Grace Baptist Church.

If approved, tenants would be close to several neighborhood resources including the East New York Health Club Medical I'm sorry Health Hub Medical Clinic, two Fresh Supermarkets and NYPD Community Center, the B-twenty and B-eighty three buses and the C Train at Liberty Avenue. The commission will also learn about a proposal from the New York State Empire State Development to redevelop the former Lincoln Correctional Facility in Harlem as part of their general project plan. The existing facility would be replaced with the Seneca, a residential building with 105 permanently affordable homeownership units and community facility space for Harlem residents. We will conclude today's session by reviewing the modifications made by the City Council to City of Yas for housing opportunity and holding several post hearing follow ups including the Spark Kipps Bay Life Sciences proposal. So that's it.

We got a lot on the agenda for today. So let's get right to it. Sarah, the floor is yours.

Good afternoon and welcome to the City Planning Commission review session for Monday, 12/02/2024. The time is 01:05PM, and a quorum is present. The first item on our agenda is a certification of a zoning map and zoning text amendment, special permits, and a CPC certification in Manhattan Community District 10. Our presenter is Jose de Cristios.

Alright, Jose. Welcome.

Hello. Can you guys hear me? Yes. Great. Good afternoon, commissioners. Let me see. I'm waiting for my presentation to load. There we go. 145 for Harlan. Some of you might recall or might remember this project back in 2022.

At the time, called one forty five Museum of Civil Rights. The project was certified by commission in 2022. Was later withdrew from the by the applicant from prior to the city council vote. And during that time, 2023 and today, the applicant has been working with multiple stakeholders in the area in Central Harling and also with city officials to ensure that the project is there was a betterment of the project going to meet the standards and requirements that the Commission as well as the community was asking for. Let's just start with this.

It's the same location as in 680 Five-six 91 Lenox Avenue at the Corner Of 145. The applicant is one hundred forty five Lenox LLC. The actions are Sony Map Amendment, Sony Text Amendment, Sony Special Permit and Sony Certification, which I'll get into each of the actions in more detail as I go through the presentation. The approval of the actions will ensure that a 34 mixed storey mixed use development complex with three towers approximately 825,000 square feet of floor area to all FAR will include residential, community facility space and commercial uses, providing up to nine sixty eight dwelling units, of which two ninety one will be permanently income restricted pursuant to mandatory inclusionary housing option two. The project is located in Central Harlan, Community District 10 in Manhattan.

All right. The zoning map amendment, the applicant is proposing to remap a CA3R72 with a commercial overlay of C14 to a C4 zoning district. The zoning tax amendment is to designate the area under the mandatory exclusionary housing. There is a special permit to modify the high and setback regulations for this development and also a special permit to modify the required residential parking regulations. The zoning certification is also being pursued to allow one additional car cut on an RS3.

And let's get into the actual area zoning. The entire of the project and surrounding areas are within the transit zone and by nature are well served by mass transit and multiple modes of transportation. The 145 sits right at the corner to the service of that number three line at the intersection of West 145th and Lenox Avenue. The entrance is adjacent to the proposed development or will be adjacent to the proposed development. Foresight city bike hubs are also located nearby along Adam Clayton Boulevard and intersections of West 144, West 147 and Glenys Avenue.

The Fresh program, the Food Retail Expansion to Support Health, also covers the project and the surrounding area. The project is also located within the flood zone at 0.2 moderate flat risk. There we go. Lot 29 is currently occupied by four one and two story buildings with approximately 20,000 square feet of retail and restaurant users. There are two vacant storefronts and approximately 8,000 community facility use.

The FAR is just around one FAR is relatively low scale. Community facilities in the area include the National Action Network and the Timbuk Islamic Center. There are six turcats on West 144, West 145th, and Lenox Avenue for the building and gas station entrances. The western portion of of Lot 29 is occupied by the gas stations, one of which is currently vacant. All right.

Just a quick look at the proposed development. At a glance, it will comprise three buildings, Building A, B And C located at the corner of Lenox and West Buenos Aires. Building B will be located in the mid block. So the Slimmer Tower is Building B. Have legioncing a little bit later for to discuss those.

And Building C will be located at the far end of the site along West 145th. It will be 30 or 40 stories, around four forty seven high including the bullhead and include 40 parking spaces with the special parking requirement to reduce those parking spaces. Getting a little closer, and I noticed that the actual laying, perhaps you cannot see, but it's divided by, like I said, Building A, B, and c. And here you can see Building A being at the corner of Lenox and West 145th, Building B being the building in the middle and C that the tail end on West 145th. Building A will be about 34 stories and include approximately 450,000 of residential floor area housing about five thirty seven dwelling units, about 12,000 retail space and 37,000 approximately of the event space, which includes the circulation.

A will also include the 40 parking accessory parking spaces that we will provide in the building will be located under Building A. Building B will also be 34 stories, although located at a slightly lower high at three eighty feet with two ninety two approximately square feet of residential floor area, housing four thirty one dwelling units, 14,000 retail space and 6,000 community facility space. Building C will provide about 8,000 square feet of retail space. In total, the building will contain about 37,000 of ground floor below grade commercial retail use. Building A And B are designed pursuant to will be designed pursuant to tower regulations and modified by the proposed special permit in more detail below with a base high of 47 inches and nine inches in setbacks along Y Street and 15 feet setback on a narrow street, rising to a total of four twenty eight, that's Building 420 feet, that's Building A.

And Building B will rise through three eighty feet plus the mechanical roof staff.

Alright.

Getting a little into the actual zoning action. So starting with the zoning map amendment, this to remap the CA3R72 with a C1 commercial overlay with a C46, this C46 zoning district would allow for greater residential community facility uses as a right, as well as also greater commercial and taller building heights, all in order to facilitate this development. C46 or C4 in general districts are generally mapped along major troopers. In here, the resorting area is bounded by Lenox Avenue and West 0.45, both wide streets. And in terms of use comparison, in the existing CA3, permitted uses include community facility use and also some commercial uses.

Residential uses are not allowed in CA3 zoning districts. And typically those are these uses are for gas stations, for storage complex and parking and other slide manufacturing uses. The development will allow residential uses in the area and will be developed pursuant to Sky's closure plan permit and the development to allow the 34 residential the three eighty feet residential development. If the zoning were to be developed under the existing zoning given that there is an R-seventy two that does permit residential to be developed in this area, although it's just a corner of the lot. It will be developed under 34,000 residential floor area and around 40,000 of residential floor area under the Quality Housing Program.

It could generate about 450,000 of community facility use, given that the community facility use is about 6.5 in existing zoning, and generate about 137,000 of commercial floor area. Again, for different uses, perhaps know what the applicant is proposing. And just a quick comparison, what we're proposing here is about $825,000 of total floor area of photo development, almost $725,000 So over $300,000 of residential floor area with this proposed zoning map amendment. With the remapping, there also will be a requirement because the added density will require the applicant to map MIH in this area of mandatory inclusionary housing with the option to so with the proposed dwelling units, the applicant will be required to provide two ninety one units. 30% of the unit will be affordable households earning 80% of AMI.

Just a quick flag on here. CB10 doesn't have that many areas of community district in Harlan. It doesn't have many areas of mandatory inclusionary housing. They do have 125th Special District that is thanks alone Community Board nine, ten and eleven that has inclusionary housing. But most of the development that we have seen in recent years focuses in East Harlan where East Harlan, where zoning has taken place and other greater density due to that commitment so that rezoning had taken place for mandatory inclusionary housing.

So this I believe this will be the third area map in CD 10 in total at a time. The zoning special permit. Zoning Resolution Section 3,564 for special power regulations for mixed use building requires the requires at least 68% of the total allowable floor area on the zoning development is for residential use. The development does comply with this because approximately 9078% of the development is all for residential use. All uses within the building comply with the locational requirements of Section thirty two and forty two.

And only the residential portion of the building penetrates the applicable sky exposure plan. The development does not meet that last requirement for 3564. Therefore, the applicant is applying for a special permit for a special bolt modification. Given that at the top highlighting here, just let me get back to one second to highlight what is being proposed in here. At the top two towers at the top of the tower and the two last floors that will be located in event space.

It's previously proposed in the previous application as well. This will be in a space dedicated for events and also for meetings and for use for potential tenants and also for the public by appointment. So not fully open to the public, but able to be rented out is my understanding. The proposed development will be located above the story of the dwelling units and there will be no access between the the event hole and the any level containing dwelling units according to the existing regulations approved by the CDFJS Economic Opportunity as well. But it does also meet the noise attenuation vibration standards.

All

right. Let's just get a little bit of into the actual special permit findings in here. Well, the building will rise to about 400 feet in its proposed commercial use. The event space locating the tapestry prevents the applicant or this project specifically to meet their requirement. Although they have the tap story will contain accessory kitchen, storage and station area as well as a little annex to the actual event space is still a commercial use and this is not allowed by the existing regulations.

In terms of the findings, the distribution of floor area, open space, room and units should result in a better site plan and better relationship among what would be possible without a soft distribution on the surrounding development. In this case, the applicant is not proposing to add additional bulk or additional height to the development as a use that's being proposed. The zoning special permit I also want to highlight has about 12 different findings that need to be met in order for us to approve the actual request. Only four apply to this project. There are other requirements that are not applicable to this project as it was provided in the statement of finance attachment.

All right.

A little more in terms of what's being proposed for living space located in Building A in the 34th Floor. About 39,000 square feet of commercial space will be located there. There is, like I mentioned, the accessorification and storage station area in the bottom to ensure that there is separation with the residential dwelling units in the area. And it will be visible and public facing from 145th, while the applicant expresses this that this will add to the actual appealing of the development. Additionally, during this time also the department, especially the Manhattan office and the urban design office, have worked with the applicant to ensure that there are additional urban design considerations met for this proposed development.

They are in addition to the existing requirements that are being met in here with these three wall setbacks, as I mentioned, 10 feet on the Y and 15 feet on the Narrow Street, we also have requested the applicant to provide a three wall articulation in development to ensure that there is continuously setback no less than three feet from the street line for this, especially for the base height. This will also add to the applicant all the applicants also proposing to add to the ground floor transparency that is required in the building to another extent. It will include buildings A, B, and C. So the entirety of the base high on West 145th to ensure that there is a visual interest of the development. The applicant also is looking to explore with different materials and different opacities to ensure that the development has a visual interest and enhances the visual appeal of the development.

Here's a little closer look at the addition to the three wall by the three feet on what is being proposed. This is again, this is in addition to what's already required. This allows the applicant also to be a little more flexible with the zoning envelope as well to meeting or exceeding what is being required in here.

All right.

So the third action, we went to the Sunnymap amendment and we went to the special permit for the commercial space. So this is the third action, which is the special permit to reduce the parking spaces in order to facilitate affordable housing. Pursuant to the zoning, project is required to provide about two seventy one parking spaces. For the transit zone, necessary parking is required for affordable housing units. The applicant is proposing to remove or to reduce the requirement to 40 parking spaces.

This is about 96% of reduction of what's being proposed. In terms of what needs to sorry, I keep speeding up on this. In terms of the findings for the parking, the applicant needs or the development needs to meet the following criteria that there needs to be a finding that a waiver reduction will facilitate such development and is also made in the consultation with Department of Housing and Development that will not cause traffic congestion and will not undo adverse effects on businesses and community facilities in the surrounding area. In terms of this meeting, the argument of the applicant is that providing additional parking will take floor area that is currently being allocated in the cellar and Ground Floor for mechanical space. And if they were to provide more parking spaces that will be below grade, they will add an additional financial harden to the actual development.

The applicant, to my understanding, is currently working with the community and other stakeholders in the area to have more conversations on what are the expectations in terms of parking. And we'll provide more information once we get to public review. And the last action, which is the zoning certification for car cuts, the applicant is required to provide about two loading bays and one curb cut given the zoning lot size. The applicant in turn is proposing to only provide two curb cuts serving the proposed development on a narrow street in which they will access they provide access to the parking facility and also to the loading bay. The waiver is required to locate on the second carcat on narrow streets given that currently only one could be located.

The applicant is not proposing to add an additional car cut on a Wise Street at the moment. This application requires a racial equity report, which helps put the proposal into context with the neighborhood level socioeconomic data. According to the racial equity report, the median income in Central Harlan is about $53,000 which is about 98% greater than the citywide median income. And the Displayment Risk Index estimates comparative levels of residential displayment rates on New York City neighbors. The index ranks neighborhoods from lowest to highest rates based on recent population characteristics, housing conditions and market pressures on this index.

We can see that the part of where the project is located is actually in kind of like one of the highest displacement risk category. The applicant has stated that this proposal will create new income restricted housing units, about two ninety one in a neighborhood with limited stock or income restricted housing where the median goes about like 50% or 60% higher or lower than the actual median income. Let me

just keep going in here.

The population in the area of black male Hispanic has increased compared to 2010 and 2020. And no sorry, this is the existing demographics of the project area or where the Rachel Equity Report applies. So you have 52% of Black or non Hispanic population located in the area and the second or the second highest being the Hispano Latino residents with 24%. And here is the percent change. So we see of those two high the predominant demographics in the area there is a decrease on the population of 7% for Black non Hispanic and an increase of 21% compared to 2010 to 2020.

All right. Housing production grew by about 4% from 2010 to 2022 in the number of housing units produced at Central Heartland. And in terms of the the housing production being lagging behind a little bit, you can see that it has a little more housing producing compared to Manhattan. This is another flag that I want to point out to the commission. I am personally the liaison for Community Board ten and I have worked with them for the last four years.

And one of those things is that there is development in Central Heartland. And what I mentioned before, this being only that third area of mandatory inclusionary housing, there are housing that's being created, but it does not require income restricted housing in the area. And a quick summary on what is being proposed. The 34 storey mixed use development complex, which will provide 168 dwelling units of housing, approximately getting almost to one thousand and two ninety one permanently income restricted houses to Harlan Community District ten. The actions are five actions, the MAP amendment, the MIH tax, the special permit to modify the high and setback regulations.

Again, although they're not proposing to add additional bulk or additional high on this, they're proposing a modification for the actual permitted permit the skyspoche to penetrate commercial uses and modify that residential parking regulations, reducing from two seventy one required parking spaces to 40 parking spaces and to allow one additional curb cut on an RS three given that only one is permitted and they're proposing two. And that's all. I can answer the

question. Great.

Thank you, Jose. Let me just get one point of clarification. Appreciate the presentation here. The special permit on the waiver of the special tower regs for mixed use buildings here otherwise require at least 65% of the floor area on the zoning lot to be residential, which they meet. They

meet, yes.

At all uses in the building complying with locational requirements of 3,242. Tell us what that is and sounds like they meet that, but tell us what that one is.

Yes. Give me one second because I have it in my notes. That's a little more technical, but I do have it in

my notes in here. Give me one second. This is the slide. All right. 32, 42. All right.

So, yeah, that is the actual finding or like the requirement between the dwelling units having there is no access to between commercial uses and residential uses. And there is also if there is access on there that there is proper attenuation and abreberation standards.

I see. Okay. So that's the separation between the residential and commercial usage.

Commercial usage.

Okay. And then the third one, and this is the one which they can't meet without the special permit, which is the that the only the residential portion of the building can penetrate the applicable sky exposure play. Correct.

Is that correct?

It is in this drawing, we can see it in this drawing, there is a piece here that does not work. Can you just explain what the issue is here and why they need to seek a special permit for it?

Correct. So it's a closer look into the commercial space that is being proposing here. So this event is basically the applicant is proposing a staff of their as part of their marketing campaign, I will say, or their the main attraction of the development is located above residential use at the top tower. As we know, with CDCS economic opportunity, we did approve commercial uses sorry, uses of board residential uses with the proper attenuation and the proper noise vibration standards. However, when as applicable in this is the sky exposure actually for tower relations.

That was not changed. And therefore, they're seeking this waiver. Although the applicant will be able to could potentially move this space somewhere in the proposed development, it was also will modify or take away from the provided residential floor area that they're proposing because they'll have to accommodate the development. One of the arguments that they have provided to us in discussions is also that it has been a potential selling point for development, ensuring that it becomes a beacon on Cortland on 145. Don't know if that's kind of like a good answer or not, but I can provide more information if needed.

Okay. Well, the point here is that if that banquet area at the top had been located somewhere else in the building, then the residential area would be the only portion that would penetrate the Sky Exposure to play and they would not need the special permit.

Is Correct. That

But because it's at the top, the commercial space is penetrating the Sky Exposure to play

and therefore, Correct? Special Correct. Okay.

All right.

Got you. Let me see what other questions. Vice Chairman?

Early in our written report, at the beginning, I think it makes reference to a fresh market certification of some kind. Is there a fresh market plan for this development?

There is there have been consultations on what could be filling the residential portion or other commercial portion of the development, but we do not have a certification application on hand right now.

Okay. Because there's about, what, 36,000 square feet of retail, I believe I read?

Yeah.

Mhmm. Yeah. A lot.

Let me see. Just to go back to

Secondly, could you go back to the, I guess, it's the racial equity report and the AMI? I I'm still not clear on, why the rents or the income restricted or higher than the market rate than the market rents. Could you explain that to me?

I, you know, I could follow-up with you on that, but this is the data that has been produced by the rate of record report. I do not have an answer on that at the moment.

Okay. Well, could you get it for me? Yes. I want to be edified about that. Thirdly, and this is tangential, but I just it's in the report. It's referenced in the report, so I just wanted to make sure. It it it mentions Dunbar Apartments, 27 stories. Right. Now is is that a night shift complex you're talking about? Because the Dunbar Apartments that I know of, the historical Dunbar Apartments are not 27 stories.

I I relate that.

It might have been a mistake, and it's actually the the the NYCHA houses before right adjacent to the development. The what what are they called? I forgot. But in this map, you can see they're located in the top corner in the yellow. Those two zoning lots, those are 27 stories. Right. But that's

not the Dunbar, Paul. No. Okay.

Are located a little lower. Alright. So I'll make sure to check that. Thank you.

Commissioner Benjamin?

A quick question about the banquet space and parking and how they relate. It would seem to me that the banquet space is going to need parking or a drop off or something to accommodate the people who will be coming. And do we know what the capacity will be of these two banquet spaces?

Yes. So at some point when this was and I also want to say that this perhaps was a prejudice or like pre war that we did for what was approved in economic opportunity. The tax amendment that was drafted at the time had included all those conditions, the attenuation, the no access to this. So we had a capacity maximum in order to ensure that there was no trigger for additional environmental impact savings in terms of transportation. That will now have to comply with the existing zoning given that the commercial uses are approved to be located on the top.

I do not have the actual number on capacity, but I can get back to you. But it will be pursuant to the existing Sony for the particular use. This will be use group nine.

Right. But as I said, I'm concerned about how those people are going to get there because in evening activities and others, I don't envision that people are gonna take the number three train to 145th Street or at the end of an evening, they're gonna take that home. So the it doesn't appear that there's parking associated with the banquet use.

Is Well, that

the 40 parking spaces that are being provided in there, my understanding that that will be for a specific for a retailer perhaps including also this event space. But it's limited to only 40 spaces. And they will what I know so far in terms of what was provided in the seminar find is that they will have a fully attended below grade grouping parking attendant. So there will be somebody in staff for this. But in terms of, like, if that is only allocated to the event space, I could follow-up with you with that.

Well, of the how many was it? How many spaces all told? 271 spaces?

Yes. Mhmm.

Which is attendant to the residential. Is that correct?

Correct. That's a requirement for the residential.

Right. So there were 40 spaces Mhmm. For the banquet hall and for the 35,000 square foot retailers. There's no additional parking associated with the retail ground floor retail.

Right. So it's 40 parking spaces in total for the entire development. So I I know, a 100% able to confirm if that is allocated to only the residents or for commercial use, but I can follow-up with you with the application.

Okay. Because that's a big concern of mine as well as how is there a separate lobby for the banquet? Yes.

At the Ground Floor. The 39000 does include a circulation space as well. So the elevator. And how does the loading dock relate

to that? I mean, if there's going be a banquet up there and there's going to be cooking and events and they're gonna need to bring up lots of supplies and presumably tables, chairs, and all the rest of it. And presumably, that will go through the banquet lobby, and they'll need to be connected to the the curb cut and to the loading dock. How is that Yeah.

So the parking and the loading dock will be located in Building 8 in this in diagram that you can see in the event space lobby is located just on West 145th. So that

little top L is very small,

I know. But maybe I can follow-up with a little more closer diagram on the actual site plan. But it's also located in the Ground Floor to minimize that interaction. That's something that we also talked during the errand considerations in the previous duration for the

And so the curb cut goes to that lobby?

Yes.

Correct.

But the curb cut could also be used to get into the parking?

Yeah. So there is a curb cut and a load in there. So there are two different access points.

Two different access points for the commercial, for the the banquet, or there were two different access, what I read it as, two different curb cuts for the entire development

Correct.

And the one on 144th Street is the residential?

Yeah. So parking is separated from the loading. Right. So loading is specifically for the bank recall and also for the commercial and retail uses only.

I don't

know. And the 40 parking spaces that are not the residential would be accessed through the residential parking?

Yeah. But I can confirm that they are not for the residential use or the commercial use. My understanding is for the total development is 40 parking spaces for all the floor area.

And if you could I'm sure that we don't have the answer now. But if you could get a floor plan that shows how people who are parked in those 40 spaces, I'm sure they're not gonna be identified, and I'm sure Mhmm. People are just gonna go and park. How they get to the different do they have to go outside and walk around the block? Do they have to go through the residential lobby to get to the commercial? How is that all going to work?

Yeah. I I don't have the, you know, assuming ground floor plan, but I'll follow-up with you in a response.

The other thing that concerned me among others is that in this development, only 28% are two or three bedrooms. Mhmm. 72% are studios and ones. And in the demographics, it seemed like there are a lot of families. So I would like to see an effort to increase the family size departments.

Yeah. And just to add on that, so applicant is currently working with HPD to finalize their unit mix and what's being proposed. The numbers that we provided in there are approximate in terms of Building A and Building B. I know Building A is providing around 31% between two bedroom and three bedroom apartments. And Building B is about 25% on those, so for two bedroom and three bedrooms.

But those are numbers that are still in the works are a little higher than the required mandatory inclusion of our houses. The number that we have provided in the slides are a little more actually on the requirement of the 30% affordability.

Okay. And this is just my ignorance. Sorry, this is the last question. When we see the sections and we see that the maximum height is 400 odd feet, does that include permitted obstructions? Or is that just the top level of the FAR of the floor area space?

Right. What we are proving here is the sonic envelope. So when we say 440 for example, for this one, I believe the maximum sonic envelope, it is 420 for for the for the sonic base plane, but it doesn't include the ball head. So the mechanical space that is located at the top. Doesn't

include Or any solar or anything else that's

Then that's why I put a four forty seven including the mechanical. So what we are proving is a four twenty maximum zoning envelope for the development and the building will reach four forty seven.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Gold?

Thanks. I just I wanted to follow-up on the piece for the special permit based on essentially the banquet hole. Because as I think about it, I mean, guess the standard is we said the distribution, yada yada, will result in a better site plan and a better relationship among buildings and neighborhood. And I get that we wouldn't be having the discussion if the banquet hall were on the 5th Floor, say, or 4th Floor rather than the Top Floor. But and so moving it might solve the issue.

But I think more broadly, I wanna understand, you know, where we get the comfort that it meets the standard, that there's a better relationship with the surrounding area, you know, would would be possible, let's say, without this distribution. So I was hoping you could speak a little bit about read, obviously, the memo, but where we take that comfort. And as I thought about it, guess I'd put in there. Are we saying are we thinking that providing this special amenity that the neighborhood doesn't have or doesn't currently exist is sort of the benefit broadly and that gives us support to meet the standard?

Yes. And I think that's a great question that we had considered in the past as well. When we are evaluating the proposed development itself in terms of moving perhaps that commercial floor area to either the ground floor or somewhere else in the development, how will that affect the floor area that's currently being allocated somewhere else? And to our understanding is the applicant has said that this will take away from the actual residential or perhaps commercial floor area they have allocated at the Ground Floor. And I think that to that argument in addition to the benefit of like the attraction selling point of this event space at the top as to the result in the better site plan and better relationship among the buildings in terms of our findings of what had discussed previously also in the previous application as well in this application.

I think, yes, we could the understanding also is like if the space wasn't in there, there is no additional bulk of high being requested in here. And I think typically when we see this permit for modification, we'll have an increase of either allowing some bulk or height that could help us evaluate how is that being better or worse in terms of the site plan that's being proposed. In this case, we essentially use a pyramid that is being proposed through a bulk modification. So it's a little hard to put into actual sorry, into the actual first finding on this. But in terms of like the other additional two findings, that's knowing they'll increase any additional bulk or the Lion Air to Oxelope Lion Air to the nearby buildings or the residents.

It does meet that criteria because there's no adding any additional modifications. And the proposed development, large scale general development, which is also meeting the general criteria of the what we relate adequate handheld traffic resulting on the large scale approval of the development.

So so so sorry. So hypothetically, if that top floor were residential, so take the the banquet rollout entirely. Right? And so we had one more floor of residential in there, would that require the the special department? It wouldn't. So got it. That makes it a little bit, you know, challenging to you know, we when you think about it because it's sort of it's a little bit of a self created hardship. Right? We could have it up till the 5th Floor and have no problem and no permit. Or we have this but I think I do take comfort in the second part of what you said.

I mean, presumably, this is really probably if they put this on the Top Floor, this is something that I can't imagine exists in the neighborhood. I'm not sure, but I'd be interested to know. But but if it doesn't, then, you know, perhaps that really does provide something there that could be a draw.

So Correct. I mean, I

think that piece of it helps.

Yep. And, you know, one and also another and I don't want to defend the project because the applicant will be here once we finish public review. We certify this application today. But, you know, adding, you know, one of these points or like this development for Harlan, especially given that the development that has been especially focusing on 125th and below for the communities in East Harlan and Central Harlan, having this attraction, this visual amenity, it does add to the vibrancy of the proposed development as a beacon of what Harlan is being. Got it. Thank you.

And we did say they're open to community uses to making it available to the community for other?

Right. So at some point, and I think some of you might have recall, we had a very extensive community agreement that was proposed. I can get into a little bit of that if there was particular questions in those. But we did not include those in this certification as there have been about nine or 10 community board meetings with the applicant in the last year. And they're trying to get the agreement, a negotiation with the agreement of what's being proposed. There are two more upcoming meetings in December with the community board. So I would ask the public review. We will have a better sense of what those agreements will be about. I was

going to say, I think

better let those meetings happen before we discuss hypotheticals. But it's great to know that that's out there. So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Mann?

Yeah. I was just going to ask about the zoning district and the thinking on the C 46 and and also the dimensions of the zoning district. So it's A C 8 R 72. Right? Mhmm. Correct. I'm it's C 14. And across the street on 1 45th Street is also a C 8, if I'm not mistaken. I don't know if have an area map. Yeah. And then if we go further west Let's see

if I have a yeah. Yeah.

It's it's a good one. So I just was curious, you know, in the department's discussion with the applicant whether there's a thought about mapping the North Side of 145th Street. I think there's some residential. There's also a large self storage facility, which seems like a ripe site for housing on the North Side. And then over to the West, the C44D, which I think is an R8 equivalent on the corner of Adam Clayton and 145th, also two wide streets.

I think that was a twenty seven-sixteen rezoning. So I just was curious the thoughts about either picking up the self storage facility as a potential development site. I know again, it's not within scope. But I guess it's also a little bit of a hope that the department looks at the rezoning areas a little more broadly. And also the thought about why the C44D wasn't just extended across 145th Street?

Correct.

All

right. I can make note of those. The C44D was part of an HPD program at the time that was controlled by the actual ownership on that. In terms of expanding the C46 District, I'll get into an answer on the rationale of that. But we have been working with this project area since, I believe, 2019, 2020 at that time. I foresee there might have been some rational explanation as to why it wasn't expanded to the entirety of the block or even western of the block.

Yes. I mean, I think the boundaries always is a tricky conversation for us. But it seems like if it's good enough for the South Side of 145th Street to add housing, why not on the North side where, again, we have self storage facility? So that's one set of questions. And the C44D, again, I'm not really understanding why it makes sense on 145th And Adam Clayton and not Mid Block. But the second question is just about the EIS and the mitigation. So think last time around there was a parks impact that was being proposed to be mitigated. Do we have any more detail about the impacts and proposed mitigation at this point? Are we assuming that's still in play?

Yeah. So we are in a hold. Let me see if I do have a yeah. There was a tech memo that was signed off by the department on November 27, so a few days ago, indicating that no additional adverse impact have been identified given that the application or the project itself have been, to an extent contained to what was previously approved in 2022. This the impact that were identified remain in the sections that were identified in the past and they will be addressed during the at the or within the restricted declaration.

So we have been communicating to PARs and other agencies as part of the environmental process. And I believe they're finalizing the figure number at the time it was colonist Joan Park, which is located right at the corner of the development that was going to receive some sort of mitigation improvements in the form of payout or actual development or equipment development or so. Okay. Do we have

any more detail on that mitigation or just what's reflected in the last EIS is what's

What was reflected and then for Parks to confirm that that number that was previously negotiated works or if this one increased. We had conversations with them at the time also like they were already planning improvements for that part and maybe allocating some funds to a different part that was a little bit farther away from this area made more sense. So those are still being in development. But the the actual impact itself remains the same for the development. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner commissioner Goodrich.

Okay. It is. Sorry. I would like I'm bringing so my question is and I understand that you may not have an answer, but if the applicant team is I'm not sure why even the studios are even into the $2,000 range, especially for it's not even 130% AMI. It's 80% AMI.

I ask this because this project originally was tanked precisely because of the affordability. It also was tanked as the former council member was advocating on behalf of the community because of the disproportionate rate of studios and one bedrooms. And so I'm a little well, not a little. I'm disappointed that it's returned and it's the same thing. So it seems like there's not a lot of listening to the community. And I can ask, has the applicant been talking with the community? It doesn't matter because we're seeing the actual result. The answer is no. So that's my question along with a big old loaded statement.

No. I appreciate that. And I think I did say early on that the numbers that we're working here are specific to the mandatory inclusionary housing, the AMI, which we might agree or disagree with. But they're set in the bench. I am totally but I can't fully confirm that that numbers will be updated soon.

But the applicant is in conversation with the council member, the community board, HPD and other city officials and trying to have some sort of negotiation for different numbers. I do have different numbers that are like what is essentially being proposed in negotiation with the community board. We're not disclosing those or we haven't approval on those because they are not finalized until funding is committed on this. I do want to point out the community board and the applicant council member are in constant communication and advocacy also for solidifying the actual funding on this. But I do understand I also highlighted that this is a requirement by MIH.

So for the purview of the commission and also for the land use perspective. This is what we can enforce and require to happen on the zoning lab for this project. Anything above that will have to go through a city council negotiation or some sort of agreement community agreement that we might not have the authority or perhaps the yeah. The authority to actually mandate to happen. But during public review, I expect to have when this project comes back to have an updated what is it called unit mix and also income brackets.

Do you have a sense of when it will come back?

This will be referred out to a commuter board certified today, and it will come back about sixty days and plus thirty days for the Board of Presidents on ninety days.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Sourio.

Thank you, Chair. Thanks for the presentation. A couple of quick questions. What is the proposed floor to ceiling height right now? I believe it's 14.

But, yeah, I didn't include the floor area. Thank you. You you sorry. The.

If you can

if you can follow-up on that. I just the the renderings may be the problem, but it's it looks tight. Mhmm. I would just like to confirm that. In addition so the memo, references, the applicant's application to the DC to the BCP program, and I'm wondering if if you can share some of the resources associated with the the cleanup Mhmm.

That is being proposed. Thank you. And then in addition, the memo, you know, in your presentation, you acknowledge that right now, it's this is just subject to the five hundred year footling, but the memo is it goes into some detail in terms of how the projections will affect it. And I'm wondering if that has reflected in any way in terms of any potential mitigation strategies beyond the minimum required in this situation. And I'm wondering if that's something that you can include when this comes back or unless there's anything you can share right now?

No. At the moment, I think it would meet the requirements also in terms of the previous community agreements that we had. I don't know if you guys recall there was a geothermal type of proposed district in the area that was going to include a lot more of the full electrifying of the building and also including the NYCHA sites. You know, that is also, in talks right now, but I definitely could get that information to you, when it comes back or Yeah. No. Thank

you for hinting at that. That was my next question. And so if in addition to just explaining what the general plan is going to be, you can also talk a little bit about how much of that are we compromising with the mechanicals at the top? Like what exactly is the plan

for that? That would be great. Thank you.

And sorry, just to confirm, like in terms of like deductions that they're the deductions that are getting on in terms of like the entirety of the building or just on high

on Well, in terms of

in terms of height, I want to understand how much like just in general, how many renewables? Is there a renewables solar specifically? And how that going to work given kind of like the findings for the special permit?

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Rambuchad?

Thank you for the presentation. I actually had some more questions with regards to the height. I was marking up that section drawing. The same drawing you

have up and I know you're going

get us the plans. I'm curious to know what's happening on the 4th Floor because it looks like it's double the height, but the rest of the floors look like it's a typical floor plate height. Also, the banquet hall be utilizing the roof? And do residents have access to the roof in terms of recreation? How would that work when

it comes back to us? Definitely. For the terraces in the roof that are located throughout the development, those will be for residential use. For the bank hole or event space, I am I can give that answer to you.

Yes. Because typically, I've been seeing that throughout any borough. Bank of would like to utilize any open areas. So I'm curious how that would work out

in this situation. Thank you. Rendering. No.

Thank you, Commissioner. Okay. Back to Commissioner Benjamin. I'm sorry. Commissioner Benjamin, then I'm going go to we have a question on Zoom. Go ahead.

Okay. It's not actually a question, but it's a follow-up to Commissioner Goodrich, which is given her questions and I've asked this before, if the market rate rent is less than the 80% of AMI and we have currently 50% of the community is already rent burdened at the lower rent. I need a justification for why we're mapping MIH when it seems like the 80% will be beyond the economic reach of at least 50% of the community. So that will be either bringing other people in from which but I wanna know that that this development is not intended to address potential housing shortages or rent burdened people. It's intended to address another population as the justification for the MIH.

Just noting on this, yes. So it will require to map MIH given the added density. The department we typically and I know you have heard this discussion during the housing opportunity text in terms of what is mandatory and what what is is it called, optional application and housing opportunity having a little more of affordability in different income brackets. When MIH is triggered and although MIH is the highest or the most that requires the most housing in whole entire United States on this, but also it is based on density. So we're adding compared to what is proposed for now in terms of 1% to 12% more than 90% additional floor area.

Our threshold is about 40% of triggering MIH to require that a mandatory tuition our housing is providing here. And that's what is happening. In terms of the AMI, those kick racing. And I think I hear that from the community constantly. But I just Yes.

I know that you can address that, that that's the departmental policy. But I keep thinking if I hammer home, the department will start to examine that policy and change the requirement that in all cases where there is an up zoning, MIH must follow. And the department will look will add somehow looking at the question of what the MIH will produce. So I'm not expecting you to solve my issue, but I just wanna keep putting it on the record. Thank you.

Commissioner. Thank Then I'm going to go to Commissioner Marine on Zoom. I will note, however, that the policy is set because we want to make sure that we are guaranteeing permanently the affordability within zoning recognizing that the market will change over time. But this, of course, locks it in forever within zoning, and that's why we do it here and that's why we map it. So let me go to Commissioner Marin.

Thank you, Chuck. Can you hear me?

Hello? Hello?

Hello?

Hello?

Commissioner, we cannot hear you in the hearing room. We're gonna get that solved real quick.

Yeah, please. Thank you. Let me know when you can hear me.

We can hear you now. Yeah.

Thank you. I appreciate that. So thank you for, acknowledging me. I I I wanna follow-up on a question that commissioner, Benjamin has been sort of been pointing out, and that is that there is a lack here of family sized units, and there is the conversation of HPD and more subsidy. So I I wanna first point out that HPD and the subsidy conversation at at this point, is it just for the 291 units that are being created as a factor of the up zoning in MIH?

The reason why I asked that question is because if we're going to have HPD opine, maybe it is a time for HPD to consider adding more subsidy, making more units affordable, and having a regulatory agreement that is not in perpetuity much like they are doing with many of the buildings that are coming online in The Bronx. So the units at MIH are permanently affordable and the balance of the building and I'm not suggesting that a 100% of these units be affordable, but whatever other percentage gets included, that then those units had a regulatory agreement for a certain percentage of time. So I I I am not asking a question. I'm merely making a statement for AHPD to be hearing that and the community to be hearing that maybe that is a way of addressing the lack of or the shortage, the smaller percentage of MIH units. My question does the question I do have is out of the 291 units, can you tell us what the unit breakdowns are and what the AMIs are for those unit breakdowns?

Hi. And just to respond to the first part of this. Yes, the conversations for HPD are for both, for confirming the subsidies for the MIH units as any other development as the Chair has pointed out, this will be a mandatory permanent required by zoning mapping of income restricted housing. So those two ninety one units as the development gets to be approved and passed will be required to be provided regardless. But it's also part of that conversation.

And I know I haven't been in deep conversation with HPD about this, but I know there are some talks about like what type of projects they're financed as being 100% affordable or having other type of financing mechanisms, also affordability for those projects. And we'll find more information when those conversations end, but I believe that they're also waiting for the public review to commence to have those conversations in coordination with the community board. To the extent of the unit breakdown, it also relates to sorry, to the affordability breakdowns. It also relates back to that question as part of the requirements that HPD will be imposing given that or in anticipation of potential more subsidy. They will have requirements in terms of distribution and unit mix size and all those conversations.

At the moment with the MH, the my understanding is that those units will be distributed within Building A sorry, Building B.

Understood. And Building B is the building that's mid block. No?

Yes. Correct.

Okay. Also, understanding how HPD likes to dole out their subsidy. As you know, they like to maximize their subsidy. So, you know, it's it's imperative for them to understand that more family size units are needed, and I understand that pairing out subsidy for studios and ones actually works better, but that doesn't work for this community. My second question would be on the banquet space. I know that we talked about and commissioner Gold asked that we know that there are going to be more developments on the banquet space. But have there been any preliminary sort of commitments as to how the public can use the banquet space and any advantages that they may for using this banquet space, like free space?

Correct. So at some point in the previous application and like I said, this has still been negotiated again. We had asked the community or the community had asked the development and we also asked the development as part of the apartment city planning about plans for how to utilize that space. At the time, it seemed a little bit easier given that there were more offices because it was an office podium type of development. It had less units of housing, about 100 units of housing less what we're proposing in the previous development.

We're proposing 100 units more housing in this development. But given that we don't have a particular tenant for the commercial spaces in the area, there is no an agreement yet for how Dennis, one, will use the space. And also for the community, I think they are waiting to have those conversations. I believe the applicant intention was to rent out that space. But I think there was a request for also the community board to ensure that this were provided a free of charge for community facility users or other nonprofits in the area if they need. So I'll get you know, we'll we'll hear more about that in during public review.

No. It's good to hear that it's at least in conversation and being considered because that's exactly where I was going. And then lastly, you hit in in in in addressing commissioner Osorio's one of the one of his last questions, you hit on the geothermal. And so is there and I know you said they're still studying whether or not geothermal will be provided. Is that correct?

Correct.

And is there any sort of reason why geothermal may not be provided?

Well, in terms of, like, what's being required by the application, those are, additional, bonus community agreements into the application. You know, I don't know if they will be provided or not. What I was mentioning was that a part of the previous deterioration, those were presented by the applicant. The department didn't sign off on those or presented those to the CPC at that time because those were in separate negotiations with the community agreement. I just wanted to point out that there will they have been studying green efficiency of the building, passive housing and those terms. To say that if there will be a geothermal district or if not, I am unable to provide an answer right now.

I appreciate that. I also remember in the conversation with geothermal that it was supposed to not only serve this building, but the

By the nature.

Buildings that are there. So I I wanna hear more about that when

they come bring it forward. So I appreciate it, Jose. Thank you. Thank you, Thank you, commissioner. We're gonna let that be the last word because we have to move on. This item is now certified. Thank you, Jose. We will pick this up for public hearing in ninety days or so. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, let's move on to the next item.

Thank you.

The second item on our agenda is a certification of a zoning map and zoning tax amendments and special permit in Brooklyn Community District 3. Our presenter is Demetrius McCluster.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Commissioners. This is a private application from CB Amer Realty LLC seeking multiple actions to facilitate the development of a new residential building totaling approximately 175,000 square feet with 292 dwelling units, which are proposed to be 100% income restricted heirs units supported by HPD's senior affordable rental program. Additionally, existing open space and streetscape improvements for the residents are also being proposed.

The the project is located in the Bethesda neighborhood of Brooklyn Community District 3. To facilitate this development, the applicant is seeking a zoning map amendment to rezone the project area from r six and r six c two four districts to r seven a and r seven a c two four districts respectively. The applicant is also seeking a zoning text amendment to appendix f in order to establish a mandatory inclusive housing area and a large scale general development special permit to modify height in both regulations. For context, this is a zoomed out aerial view of the project area. And so to the South of South Williamsburg and to the West of Bushwick, the project area is adjacent to the NYCHA Sumner houses, only blocks away from large public facilities like Woodall Hospital.

Looking further to the east, we can see that Pulaski Playground and Herbert Von King Park are also close to the site. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, while the avenues contain mixed use buildings with ground floor retail. And the buildings range from three to seven stories in height. As we get closer to the project area and the development site, we can see that they are bounded by Vernon Avenue to the North, Lewis Avenue to the East, Willoughby Avenue to the South, and Marcus Garvey Boulevard to the West. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, while the avenues contain mixed use buildings with ground floor retail.

And the R 6 District currently mapped across the project area and block to the North facilitated the development of several tower in the park style buildings after 1961 that rise between six and twenty four stories, most of which are NYCHA development. Blocks without the tower and the park style contain a mix of row house row homes between two and four stories, interest spread with small apartment buildings between four and six stories. In terms of public open space, Lewis Playground, a 7,000 square foot park owned and maintained by the parks department, is located immediately to the east of the development site. The surrounding area is well served by public transit. The development site is three blocks from the subway station at Myrtle Avenue and Broadway with the JMZ train service to Manhattan and other areas of Brooklyn and Queens.

And regarding bus service, the B 15 and the B 54 are accessible within a few blocks. As part of the Bertha Cyberson North rezoning in 2012, R 6 B was mapped to preserve the low rise row house style character, while the R 7 D C 24 along River Avenue and the C44 L along Broadway were mapped to promote housing growth along corridors. R6 is mapped on the development site and to the north in recognition to the tower and style development. The project area is coterminous with the development site. The development site is zoned R6 with a C24 overlay mapped along Marcus Garvey Boulevard.

The R6 allows between zero point seven eight and two point four three FAR for residential use under height factor regulations and 3.04 FAR under quality housing regulations. With the inclusion of community facility space, up to 4.8 FAR is permitted under height factor regulations and 2.4 FAR is permitted for commercial uses. As previously mentioned, the project area is coterminous with the development site. The project area currently consists of four mixed use buildings with two sixty seven units of housing totaling 284,500 square feet of residential, 5,700 square feet of retail in Building A and 4,600 square feet of community facility in Building B. The four buildings were constructed in 1976 and last altered in 2014.

The units within the buildings are income restricted. The project area also contains 63 surface level parking spaces and an existing playground that's being proposed to remain. I will now take you through various viewpoints of the project area and location of proposed infill development. This is a view of both the project area and the location of the proposed infill development looking towards the south from Vernon Avenue. This is a view of the infill development site looking northward from Willoughby Avenue.

And the and finally, these are views of the project area looking Southeast from Marcus Garvey Boulevard in the top row and looking north from Willoughby Avenue in the bottom row. The applicant is proposing a 14 story, 175,000 square foot residential building with two ninety two dwelling units of housing, all of which would be affordable independent residences for seniors and supported by HPD's senior affordable rental program. The development will have a series of setbacks and articulated facades as well as a new open space and 63 parking spaces in the cellar that will replace the current existing parking, which would be in the cellar space. Parking spaces will be accessible via two way ramp with a 22 foot wide curb cut along Vernon Avenue. The development will be set back approximately 45 feet from the eastward property line and rise to 155 feet with the bulkhead.

The building would contain a base height of 75 feet or seven stories before setting back along Willoughby Avenue by 15 feet and setting back an additional five feet at the 9th Floor. Along Vernon Avenue, the building's base would rise to a maximum of 75 feet and then set back 15 feet before rising to a maximum of 155 feet. The building's main entrance would be located inside a modified courtyard facing Building B and would lead to a ivy area of the building as well as support services and recreation spaces on the 1st Floor. In addition to the proposed development, 7,434 square feet of new plantings, landscaping, furniture and fencing would be employed to improve the overall site plan. This would include an additional 7,298 square feet of planted area in the preexisting courtyard as well as the creation of a new courtyard between the proposed new 14 story areas building and existing buildings.

To facilitate the proposal, the applicant requests three actions, a zoning map amendment, a zoning text amendment, and a zoning special permit. We'll use the following slides to walk through each action in detail starting with the zoning map amendment. The applicant proposes to rezone the project area from a mix of R 6 and R 6 C 24 to R 7 A and R 7 A C 24. The rezoning boundary would generally match development site and cover most of the block to a depth of a 100 feet from Lewis Avenue while maintaining the commercial overlay along Marcus Garvey Boulevard. Our 7 A zoning district facilitates contextual medium density residential buildings, allowing a maximum residential FAR of 4.6 with inclusionary housing and a maximum community facility FAR of four point zero.

With inclusionary housing, the maximum building base height is 75 feet above which the building must set back to a depth of 10 feet on a wide street and 15 feet on a narrow street before rising to a maximum height of 90 feet or 95 feet with a qualifying ground floor. The proposed c two four commercial overlay allows a range of local survey and community uses commercial uses, rather, up to a maximum FAR of two point zero, has low off street parking requirements, and typically results in ground floor retail or service uses within the mixed building. The applicant is also seeking a special permit for a bulk waiver to facilitate the proposed development. The waiver is to grant modifications to height regulations. The RCF special permit requires that the CPC find the modifications and locations of buildings appropriate and result and will result in a better site plan and better relationship to the street.

Pursuant to the large scale special permit, the applicant is requesting to increase the permitted height of development above the maximum permitted zoning bulk envelopes of the proposed R 7 A and R 7 A C C24 districts. The applicant is asking to modify the maximum building envelope height to add an additional 60 feet. The slide this slide shows a section of the requested waiver. The new building would keep its base height of 75 feet and setback of 15 feet but that was topping out at 95 feet as required by R7A. The requested waiver would allow the building to rise to 155 feet pursuant to zero second seventy four seven forty three(two).

The applicant states that the proposed development was designed to carefully respond to existing building context the develop of the development site in the surrounding area and that this design approach will provide new open space between existing and new development and also ensure the occupants of said buildings in the proposed development site and nearby buildings are able to utilize surrounding streets and receive adequate light and air. The applicant seeks to amend appendix f to designate the project area as a mandatory inclusionary housing area pursuant to options one and two. Option one requires that income restricted housing be set at 25% of the residential floor area at an average of 60% of the area median income. Option two requires that the income restricted housing be set aside at 30% of the residential floor area at an average of 80% of the AMI. The applicant is proposing that all two ninety two units would be income restricted as heirs for seniors within the 60% AMI range based on HPD's senior rental program.

Pursuant to local law 78, 2,001 applicant requires a risk for equity report on housing opportunity because it would increase the permitted residential floor area by at least 50,000 square feet. The applicant states that the proposal would produce two ninety two income restricted units of housing in a location that has an annual median household income of approximately $63,000 In 2020, 4% of the population in BEST are identified as Asian non Hispanic, roughly 10% to 12% lower than the rest of the borough and the city respectively. At the highest, 40% of the population in BEST are identified as black non Hispanic, where there was a decline down to 27% within Brooklyn and 20% within the city. 19% of the BEST of the BEST 5% in Brooklyn population identifies as Hispanic or Latino with an increase of 28% in the city at large. And 31% of the population in Best Buy and the rest of New York City identify as white, non Hispanic.

Shifting to percentage change in race and ethnicity from 2010 to 2020, the Asian non Hispanic population at BEST I increased at the highest rate at 147% and dropping down to 4334% increases in Brooklyn and New York City respectively. The Black non Hispanic population in Best Buy decreased by 24 with smaller decreases at 95% for Brooklyn and New York City respectively. The Hispanic population in all areas, Bessau, San Francisco, Brooklyn and New York City has seen smaller increase from 6%, 47% respectively. While the white non Hispanic population in Bessau has increased by 1308100% in the neighborhood and 8% in Brooklyn as a whole. However, there is a 0% change in New York City as a whole.

In conclusion, these requested actions will facilitate the development of a new residential building containing two ninety two income restricted units of affordable senior housing at 14 stories with approximately 175,000 square feet of residential space. Additionally, the actions will also contain over 7,000 square feet of streetscape and open space improvements. This concludes my presentation. I'm happy to field any questions.

Great. Thank you very much. Let me see if there are questions. Commissioner Benjamin?

Hi. Thank you very much for the presentation. It was very thorough. But I have one comment and one question. The comment that I have is in all of the since this is an Ayers building, in all of the demographics there's nothing about the population that is 65 and Ayers eligible.

And I think that that's really lacking when we're talking about this building. So in the future, if we could do something that shows us what the percentage is and why it might be good to have an Ayers building here, that would be something I would appreciate. And once again, comment that the rent level seemed to be higher than the community mid range median rental. That's my issue. And lastly, are project based Section eight available for Ayers buildings?

I am not sure, but I can reach

out to, folks ACD and find out for you.

Okay. Because I was thinking that that might bring the rental levels down if it was a percentage of the income as opposed to Right. Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Khamani, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you so much for the presentation. And I had a question similar to Commissioner Benjamin about the population. What is the 65 and over population? The presentation was great, very thorough.

Have a comment, too, that as we look at demographic information with such dramatic changes in race, 130% rise in the white population bed size. I've lived in the neighborhood for thirty years. It's definitely visible. And it would be, I think, good for us to know how the AMI has changed as the population has changed. So there's a truer kind of AMI, if that makes sense.

And perhaps that's not something that can be provided. But I think as neighborhoods change, it's really important for this body to know where are the income AMI increases correlated with the racial demographic change in the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Sario?

Thank you, Chair. Thanks for the presentation. Just wondering if you can share any discussion so far in terms of what's going be the energy efficiency standard. I I didn't I don't recall seeing that in the package, but I'm wondering if you can say that. And and also well, let me stop there and see if yeah. Yeah.

We don't have any current information on on energy sourcing, but I can reach out to

the applicant and get information. I I

think you think would really encourage the department to push on that here. I mean, is the scale where we should be maximizing. And so passive house, I think, could be really possible here. But in addition, the second question was about and given the population that is this is being proposed for, I'm wondering if there's any potential here for resilient energy systems. For example, a microgrid would be really interesting, particularly given the proximity to NYCHA. And so I'm wondering if you can encourage the applicant to consider that. It would be great to discuss what's possible.

Sure.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Okay. Thank you very much. This item is certified. We will move on to the next one. Thanks, Mitrais.

The third item on our agenda is a certification of the zoning maps and zoning text amendments in Brooklyn Community thirteen. Our presenter is Amelia Clark.

All right. Welcome.

Hi.

Good afternoon, commissioners and chair Girodnik.

Good afternoon.

Alright. This is a private application from Neptune Avenue LLC requesting a zoning map amendment from M12 to MX M15 R73 and the zoning text amendment to Article 12, Chapter three and Appendix F. These actions would facilitate the development of an 18 storey mixed use building, including over 161,000 square feet of total floor area, 145 residential units, 36 of which would be income restricted under MIH Option one, twenty thousand one hundred square feet of oh, and 20,100 square feet of ground floor commercial space. The project is located at 22012227 Neptune Avenue between West 22nd And West 23rd Streets in Coney Island CD13, Brooklyn. This is an aerial view looking north toward Downtown Brooklyn.

The project area sits in Central Coney Island in Southern Brooklyn. It is located about a mile south of the Belt Parkway across the Coney Island Creek and approximately half a mile northwest of the Coney Island Stillwell Avenue subway station with DFN and Q service. The project area consists of a single block bound by Neptune Avenue to the South and West 22nd and West 23rd Streets to the East and West. The project area directly fronts the Coney Island Creek to the North. Neptune Avenue, which is a 120 feet wide, is one of three vital corridors that run East West along the Peninsula.

It's largely characterized by automotive and low density industrial uses to the East of the project area and open space and lower density residential buildings to the West. The mid block areas South Of Neptune are a mix between semi detached and attached residential buildings and tower in the park style residential campuses. The project area is served by several bus lines, including the B64, B82, B36, B74, and the Crossboro 2838 buses, which connect to the rest of Southern Brooklyn plus Midtown and Lower Manhattan. The West 23rd Street Community Garden is directly adjacent to the project area at the site of the former Coney Island Pumping Station after having to relocate post Hurricane Sandy. West of the community garden is Mark Twain Intermediate School two three nine.

Westward still is the 26 acre Kaiser Park. On this land use map, the project area is outlined in green with the development site outlined in pink. The development site is a single zoning lot comprised of two tax lots, Block 6990, Lot 1 and Lot 10. As illustrated here, the land uses in the area surrounding the project consist of low and mid density residential, industrial manufacturing, parking in vacant land, community facilities and transportation uses. The purple industrial manufacturing uses on this map include a heating contractor and boiler manufacturer west of the project area, and three self storage facilities east of the project area, including one north of the creek.

Some notable community facilities shown here in blue include a Methodist Church FDNY Engine three eighteen and an adult day care center fronting Neptune Avenue between West 25th And West 27th Streets, just outside of our 600 foot radius. The transportation utility uses along Neptune Avenue to the east include a gas station and marina at West 20th Street. The rezoning area is currently M 12, which is a light manufacturing district that allows commercial and manufacturing uses at an FAR of two and community facility uses at an FAR of 4.8. The district includes height and setback regulations dictated by a sky exposure plan. The rezoning area was originally zoned R5 at the adoption of zoning resolution in 1961, but was rezoned to M12 in 1967 to bring into conformance and extend a knitting mill that was on the block.

Currently, zoning districts in the surrounding area include R5, R6, C3, C81 and M12. Relevant zoning actions outside of this radius include the 100 income restricted Sea Park North rezoning on West 28th Street between Neptune and Mermaid that was approved in 2018. Further southeast, the Coney Island comprehensive rezoning plan approved in 2009, rezoned 17 blocks of the amusement district with the intent of bringing year round economic revitalization and affordable housing to the area. Now we're looking south. This aerial shows a complete picture of the rezoning area and development site.

The rezoning area includes three lots with a combined approximately 77,000 square feet. The development site is comprised of two tax lots, Lots 1 And 10, with a combined area of approximately 40,700 square feet and extends along the full frontage of Neptune Avenue between West 22nd And West 23rd Streets. The applicant maintains control of Lots 1 And 10, which comprise a single zoning lot. Lot 1 is improved with a zoning compliant seven story transient hotel constructed in 2019 and operated as a family shelter. It has about 81,400 square feet, two FAR, and 25 ground floor parking spaces.

Lot 10 is improved with a single story commercial building that was constructed in 1910 and is now partially vacant. Lot 20, which is the waterfront lot, is owned by Neptune Equities Group LLC and is improved with those single story warehouses that will remain. This is a view of the rezoning area and development site facing north on Neptune Avenue. You can see the existing family shelter on the right of each image. This view looks east and southeast along Neptune with the development site on the side of the left image.

This image sorry. The image on the left looks north from Neptune and West 22nd Street at the development site. The image on the right looks south toward Neptune Avenue from the street end of West 22nd Street. Back at West 23rd Street, the image on the left shows the development site on the right looking northbound. The image on the right looks southwest from the same corner showing fifteen and sixteen story residential towers in the background across the street from the project area.

Lastly, these views are from the street end of West 23rd Street. In the image on the left, you can see eastbound onto the Coney Island Creek. The image on the right looks southbound toward Neptune with the project area on the left and the community garden on the right. The project is within a flood hazard area and thus requires specific flood resiliency measures outlined in Appendix G of the New York City Building Code. Based on the current Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map or PFIRM, most of the project area is classified as Zone AE, which has a 1% annual flood risk and a base flood elevation or BSE of 12 feet.

The applicant is proposing an 18 story mixed use building totaling over 161,500 square feet of floor area. This includes over 141,000 square feet of residential space totaling 145 residential units, 36 of which would be income restricted pursuant to MIH option one. The development would include 20,100 square feet of Ground Floor commercial space along the Neptune Avenue and West 23rd Street frontages with an entrance on Neptune. The proposed building would have setbacks along both Neptune Avenue and West 23rd Street, and rise to a height of a 175 feet above the design slide elevation. The proposed development would include 62 parking spaces in the cellar level accessible via West 23rd Street and bicycle parking on the Ground Floor.

The overall building would have an FAR of 3.96, bringing the total FAR of the zoning lot, which, to reiterate includes the adjacent shelter building to 5.96. To facilitate this development, the applicant seeks a zoning map amendment and a zoning text amendment to Article 12, Chapter three and to Appendix F. This application also includes a chairperson's certification, which is a ministerial action, but I'll review it in a minute. The zoning map amendment seeks to change the m one two district to an m x M15, R7.3 district across the entirety of the project area. The Special Mixed Use District, or MX, was established in 1997 to enhance and encourage investment in existing neighborhoods with mixed residential and industrial uses in close proximity and create expanding opportunities for new mixed use communities.

R7.3 is a medium density, non contextual height factor district that is historically mapped in waterfront areas and thus has special height and setback requirements. R-seventy 3 allows for a maximum FAR of six with MIH, with a maximum base height of 75 feet and a maximum building height of 185 feet with MIH on waterfront blocks. Parking is required for 50% of market rate units and 15% of income restricted units. M one five districts are compatible with residential districts and provide medium density commercial and light manufacturing uses without the high parking requirements of the existing M12 district. M15 districts allow commercial and manufacturing uses at an FAR of five and community facility uses at an FAR of 6.5.

In MX districts, residential uses are generally subject to the bulk controls of the governing resident's district. Commercial, industrial, and community facility uses are generally subject to the M1 District bulk controls. In this instance, height and setback rules for waterfront blocks supersede. The applicant proposes a zoning text amendment with two components. The first piece amends Article 12, Chapter three, which designates the MX District, MX 26, within the zoning resolution.

The second piece amends Appendix F by mapping MIH coterminous with the rezoning area, creating permanently income restricted housing via MIH Options one and two. The applicant also requests a Chairperson Certification pursuant to 62,811, which is a ministerial action required to prove that no waterfront public access area or additional visual corridors are required on the development site. No waterfront public access is required because the development site is not a waterfront lot despite being within a waterfront block. No visual corridors are required because the development site is bound by West 22nd And West 23rd Streets, which extend to the shoreline of the Coney Island Creek, satisfying the visual corridor requirements. This application requires a racial equity report on housing and opportunity.

The area median household income for the project area is $41,640, which is significantly lower than the median incomes for Brooklyn and New York City. The applicant intends to provide MIH units that meet 40%, 60%, and 80% AMI income band limits. 25% of the units will be income restricted pursuant to MIH Option one. As per the report, the racial makeup of the Brighton Beach and Coney Island NTA is over 50% white. Asian residents are 17% of the total population, which is roughly commensurate with Brooklyn and New York City.

Hispanic Latino residents comprise 16% of the NTA, and only 11% of the population are black non Hispanic, a significantly smaller share compared to 27% borough wide. From 2010 to 2020, the area saw a modest 5% with increases in Asian and Hispanic residents generally commensurate to borough and citywide trends. The black population decreased by 2%, while the white population decreased by 6%. Between 2010 and 2020, Bretton Beach and Coney Island experienced a 7% increase in housing units, while the overall population grew by 5%. This is one of the few NTAs in Southern Brooklyn where housing production outpaced population growth.

To conclude, this is a private application for a zoning map amendment from M12 to MX, M15 R73, and a zoning text amendment to Article 12, Chapter three, and Appendix F. These actions would facilitate the development of a new 18 story mixed use building, including a 145 dwelling units and over 20,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space at 22012227 Neptune Avenue in CD 13, Brooklyn. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Commissioner Osorio.

Thank you, chair. Thank you so much for the presentation. It was it's really clear. I I I wanna talk about the vulnerability of flooding here. So, you know, the the 100 year foot plane, I'm sure, is being addressed and the proposal is going to comply with the minimum requirements.

And that generally, I think, would be expected, but this is one of those places where this is very complex. And so before we dive deeper into that part, I also just wanna talk a little bit about the velocity zone because I don't think we should be building in the velocity zone at all. I mean, this is this is I think it'll be useful to explain a little bit, you know, what this means. Mhmm. In addition to just still water, this means that there's gonna be wave action, considerable wave action.

And so, you know, you can think about it in different ways. This this proposal could serve as infrastructure to mitigate and protect the neighborhood, protect the neighbors, but there needs to be a plan for that. And so so I'm wondering if you can explain a little bit why does the department feel that this is reasonable.

Certainly. Firstly, I just wanna clarify, only a tiny sliver of the rezoning area is in the velocity zone. It's I should have an image, but from the actually, maybe, like wait. Let's see.

Yeah. You're you're right.

It's just excuse me. Sorry. It's just this tiny sliver that you can see. It's like rocks on the shoreline outside of the building. So, yes, I definitely wanna acknowledge that.

The sort of foremost tool that the city has to assess, like, the appropriateness of specifically ULURP actions on our coastal zones is the WRP, which functionally sorry, I'm trying to get to my slide here is an appendix to the seeker documents. It assesses whether an applicant is what an applicant is proposing meets a sort of set of principles, as I'm sure you're aware. I wanna call out that specifically as it relates to, like, the consideration of climate change and sea level rise, This applicant is proposing to protect the seller level and ground floor with a set of dry flood proofing measures, you know, water resistant building materials, removable flood barriers, you know, of course, their electrical and mechanical systems, and things of that sort, you know, because this is the primary tool that we have. These notes here, these criteria, the the applicant has noted that, you know, they they meet based on on what we ask.

Thank you. WRP. Thank you.

That's really clear. That that makes sense for the one hundred year floodplain

Mhmm.

Affectation. But I'm just wondering sort of like if you can expand, maybe as we see this later, if you can explain to us sort of what exactly how is this proposal responding to the part of the lot that is going to be exposed? I know it's a a tiny sliver Mhmm. But the water is not gonna, you know, reach the the building and come back. Great. So I'm wondering, you know, how are we gonna manage that? How are we gonna address this? And and where is that water gonna go? This is this is one of those places where, again, there's people living there, around there already. Mhmm.

This is an opportunity to provide some mitigation for them, but we need to be intentional about that. And I'm I'm just wondering, you know, if if there's room or if this has come up. And if you can explain a little bit more because this is really clear. And, again, this is to your point. This is addressing what's required Mhmm. For the Stillwater inundation. It's the wave action that I'm concerned with.

Yes. I certainly wanna acknowledge your point. I the department has been in constant conversation with this applicant team about resiliency concerns. I don't, off the top of my head, know how they intend to respond specifically to the portion of a lot that's within the velocity zone. But we can certainly continue the conversation with them.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Goodrich?

I think you probably asked the question that I'm going to ask, which is the rent. I am really I was really pleased to see the studios in the 1000s as well as well, yeah, in the 1000s. But when we get to 80% AMI, it goes back up to the 2000s. And we just saw the Harlem 145 with the same thing. And I guess my question is we know that the AMI band, the income eligibility is clear where it's an income range and a percentage.

But does that determine am I like does that determine the actual rent amount? Is this now, like, an collaboration where they're all gonna be 2,000 for a studio? Or am I missing something? What oh. No. Oh, okay. Yeah. I I guess I wanna know, like, why is it now becoming a common theme that it's 2,000 for a studio for the affordable apartments? Is it something I'm not aware of that it's part of the AMI or it is? Yeah. So the set rate is now $2,000 for 80% for a studio?

Yes. But

it's also for two bedrooms, it's also

Okay. Hold on. Let's just do this directly. I don't know if you want to answer the question. But the 80% of AMI is it's a mathematical equation. And it comes out to the numbers that it comes out to. AMIs obviously change over time. And they are set the way they're set. But that's where the numbers come from. Is there anything you want to add here?

My understanding is that it's based on the citywide AMI and that's why the numbers are consistent. Regional. I'm sorry. Maybe my colleagues can support me here on this one.

Yeah. Sorry. No, just to clarify, mean, the AMIs are set by HUD, right? And they're regional, right? And so that includes and what's factored into that is not simply affordability based on the existing income restricted units, but also market rate units and what people are paying.

Of course, this does. I don't even know why I asked this question. I have not had my morning coffee.

But I think I'm just looking at

this, like, I can't even afford a a $2,000 apartment. So I don't understand how people who are making, like, very I I I don't understand this.

Am I the problem?

So it's so I mean and I don't wanna get, you know, AMI, we don't control. But Okay. You know what? No. Because I could do a whole against AMI. Okay. That's it. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Benjamin?

I certainly reiterate Sorry. I certainly reiterate all of the concerns of Commissioner Goodrich along with the concerns I indicated earlier about how whether the impact of our MIH may be to bottom line increase rents in the area and to bring in people who can afford to pay that amount. But my question is or concern is that in this particular proposal, all of the income restricted units are studios. And there was an explanation that there aren't many studios available in this area. But I'm concerned that that certainly limits who can occupy and apply for these units and why we would want to only supply studios in any affordable housing scheme except for AIRS.

And even then, I'd want one bedrooms and more. But so if you could just address that or have the applicant or actually have HPD address why studios are the appropriate thing merely because the community doesn't already have them.

I can certainly have the applicant team reiterate their choice there. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Okay. Thank you very much. This item is certified. We will pick it up down the line here. Let's move on to the next one, Grace Houses.

The fourth item on our agenda is a certification of a zoning map and zoning text amendments in Brooklyn Community District 5. Our presenter is Lindsay Robinson.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Okay. I will be presenting Grace House's rezoning today. Grace House's is a private application by Grace Housing Development Fund requesting a zoning map amendment from a r five b to a R6A and a zoning text amendment to designate an MIH area to facilitate a 148,700 square foot seven story development. The development will include 132,800 square feet of residential use with 153 income restricted units, a 15,900 square feet community facility space and 68 voluntary below grade parking spaces. The project is located at 233 New Jersey Avenue and East New York Community District 5, Brooklyn And Council District 37, Sandy Nurse.

For orientation, the project area comprises of approximately two city blocks roughly bounded by Liberty Avenue to the North, Vermont Street to the East, Glenmore Avenue to the South and Pennsylvania Avenue to the West and split by New Jersey Avenue. Major commercial corridors in the area are Fulton Street and Atlanta Avenue to the North, Pennsylvania Avenue to the West and Pitkin Avenue to the South. The surrounding area includes notable public facilities such as 127 Pennsylvania Avenue, NYPD Community Center and CB5's office, which is a 30,000 square foot community facility renovated as part of the 2016 East New York Neighborhood Plan. To the north of this building is the East New York Health Hub along with 2700 Atlantic Avenue and 50 Pennsylvania Avenue, which were as of rights developments that filed an application with the department for a fresh grocery store, a program commitment from the 2016 East New York Neighborhood Plan. The neighborhood is well connected by public transit with the AC subway station located just one block west of the project area at the corner of Liberty And Pennsylvania Avenues.

The East New York Industrial Business Zone is also one block west starting at Sheffield Avenue shaded in green. Three blocks north of the project area, Fulton Street serves a local retail corridor with the elevated JZ train running overhead. Broadway Junction is to the Northwest, which you cannot see on this slide, but would be off to the top left of this photo, which connects multiple subway and bus lines with the Long Island Railroad. Additionally, several MTA bus lines serve the area, including the Q24, which travels east and west along Atlantic Avenue from Archer Avenue and Merrick Boulevard in Jamaica to Fulton Street, Van Sinderen Avenue in East New York. The B-twenty and B-eighty three run north and south along Pennsylvania Avenue from East New York to Bushwick.

The proposed project area sits within East New York Neighborhood Plan rezoning boundaries, which is outlined in a dash purple line. As a continuation from the previous slide, I would like to cover some high level background on the 2016 East New York Neighborhood Plan and rezoning. It was a city initiative aimed at preserving and developing affordable housing, boosting economic growth, creating pedestrian friendly streets and enhancing community resources to ensure the long term growth and sustainability of East New York, Cypress Hill and Ocean Hill. This plan was shaped through the extensive community planning process working closely with residents, stakeholders and elected officials. The surrounding area has a mix of residential community space, religious institutions, parking lots and vacant land.

To the west across Pennsylvania Avenue are industrial buildings, while the immediate area is primarily residential with some commercial and public facilities. Atlantic Avenue features a blend of high density housing and mixed use properties. The project area is primarily mapped with the R5B zoning district, which allows for a maximum residential SAR of 1.35 and a maximum building height of 33 feet. Immediately to the west of the project area along Pennsylvania Avenue is the R7A C24, which allows for a maximum 4.6 residential FAR and building height of 95 feet. And immediately north of the project area is a mixed use district running along a Liberty Avenue mapped with the MR4 R6A designation, which allows for a two point zero, a commercial industrial SAR and a maximum 3.6 residential SAR with a maximum building height of 85 feet.

The project is located within a fresh zone, allowing larger buildings with reduced parking for supermarkets and a transit zone reducing parking for affordable housing. The proposed development site consists of the existing Grace Baptist Church and related community facilities, surface parking lots and six two story family houses, Five are located along Vermont Street and one is located around on the New Jersey Avenue frontage. One small lot owned by Grace Baptist and used for church operations is located at the very north of the development site, but is outside of the proposed rezoning boundary. Now I will walk you through the project area. Here we are looking at the development site Southeast on New Jersey Avenue.

As described earlier, this two story building is used for church operations and will be included in the redevelopment, but is just outside of the proposed rezoning boundary as it is already located in M4 R6A zoning district. In the middle of the photo is the Grace Baptist Church itself built in the nineteenth century, but is in a state of disrepair and has not been occupied since 2019 due to the building safety issues. To the far left of the photo is a two story mixed commercial and community facility building that is not included as part of this application. However, it's occupied by Brooklyn Community Services in the first and second floor in the portion of this building. Here we are looking Southwest on New Jersey Avenue with the development site Grace Baptist Church and applicant owned two story family houses to the right where residents still reside.

You will see the rezoning area also extending across the street showing a non applicant owned multifamily walk up building. This is a view looking north on Vermont Street with a development site at mid block to the left, which is Grace Baptist Church parking lot and a two story family house. A one story commercial building is on the left and is included in the rezoning, but is not included in the proposed redevelopment. Wrapping up the last of the site photos, here is the one story commercial building I referred to in the previous slide looking northwest between Glenmore Avenue and Vermont Street with a development site in Grace Baptist Church parking lot on the right. You can also see a two story family house and a five story Department of Education high school building in the background on the left side of this photo.

The proposed development would consist of a seven storey residential building totaling 148,700 square feet. The development will include 132,800 square feet of residential use with 153 income restricted units, a 15,900 square foot community facility space, and 68 voluntary below grade parking spaces will be provided by the applicant even though it is not required in a transit zone. Here is another view of the development along the New Jersey Avenue frontage. Now I will speak more to the individual frontages of the development site. The proposed development on Vermont Street frontage between Liberty And Glenmore Avenues will rise to seven stories.

The New Jersey Avenue frontage between Liberty And Glenmore Avenues rises to five stories and includes a community facility space featuring a new church and additional community space not affiliated with Grace Baptist Church. Tenants will also enjoy two outdoor recreation areas on the mezzanine level at the rear of the building. Lastly, the building will be certified under the Enterprise Green Communities and LEED, ensuring its sustainability and will be fully electric. To facilitate the proposed development, the applicant is requesting a zoning map amendment to rezone approximately two city blocks from R 5 B to R 6 A zoning district. The applicant is proposing to extend the existing R 6 A along Liberty Avenue Southward across the proposed project area.

R6A is a zoning district with mandatory quality housing regulations resulting in a six to eight story apartment building near the street line. It aims to blend with older medium density neighborhoods. R6A

has

a FAR of 3.6 with buildings setting back 10 feet on wide streets and 15 feet on narrow streets, above a maximum base height of 65 feet, reaching a maximum building height of 85 feet. Off street parking is required for 50% of market rate units, while 25% is required for income restricted units and can be waived if only five or fewer spaces are needed in a transit zone. The second action requested to facilitate the proposed development is a zoning text amendment for a mandatory inclusionary housing area, MIH, requiring compliance with either MIH Option one or two. Option one mandates that 25% of the residential floor area be set aside for affordable housing with 25% of those units affordable to households earning less than 60% of the area medium income AMI and 10% of those units affordable to households earning less than 40% of AMI. Option two requires that 30% of the units be affordable to households earning below 80% of AMI.

These actions will ensure that a portion of the new housing remains affordable as the demand of such housing in East New York continues to rise. This amendment will also ensure permanently affordable housing is included in residential developments within the map zone. The applicant proposes a 100% income restricted residential development with all 153 units financed through NYC HPD's Ella program, which provides tax exempt bonds, 4% low income housing tax credits and subsidized financing. Under ELA, at least 80% of units will be affordable up to 60% of AMI, with up to 20% at 90% of AMI and 15% reserved for formerly homeless households. This bar chart illustrates the racial and ethnic composition of three geographic areas, Brownsville and Ocean Hill, Brooklyn as a borough, and New York City overall, based on the 2020 census.

Data reveals that Brownsville and Ocean Hill has predominantly black non Hispanic population comprising 67% of residents, significantly higher than Brooklyn and New York City. The Hispanic Latino population represents 23% aligning closely with Brooklyn and slightly below New York City. In contrast, white non Hispanic and Asian non Hispanic populations are minimal in Brownsville and Ocean Hill at 31% respectively. This is lower compared to Brooklyn and New York City. From 2010 to 2020, the total population of Brownsville and Ocean Hill grew by 12%, which is slightly higher than the growth rates in Brooklyn and New York City overall.

The most dramatic change in Brownsville and Ocean Hill was among the white non Hispanic population in the area, jumping by 255%, far exceeding Brooklyn and New York City. The Asian non Hispanic population, which surged by 120, outpaced Brooklyn and New York City. The Black non Hispanic population in Brownsville and Ocean Hill remained, while this demographic declined slightly in Brooklyn and New York City. The Hispanic Latino population increased modestly in Brownsville and Ocean Hill by 20% surpassing growth rates in Brooklyn and New York City. The median household income in Brownsville and Ocean Hill for the twenty seventeen-twenty twenty one period was approximately $34,500 significantly lower than the median incomes in Brooklyn and New York City overall.

In summary, Grace Houses is a private application by Grace Housing Development Fund requesting a zoning map amendment from a R5B to R6A and a zoning tax amendment to designate an MIH area to facilitate a 148,700 square foot seven story development. The development will include 132,800 square feet of residential use with 153 income restricted units, a 15,900 square foot community facility space and 68 voluntary below grade parking spaces. This concludes my presentation and happy to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you very much. Let me just pose one question to you and then we'll move to my colleagues. This site was within the area that was the East New York rezoning plan of 2016. Is that right?

That's right.

And yet there's a proposed zoning map change here from an R5B to an R6A. Can you just put this into the context for us as to why it had landed at an R5B previously and why an R6A is being proposed here now?

Since the proposed project is part of the 2016 East New York rezoning, the mid blocks at the time were zoned at an R5B, which does not trigger MIH and has limited development opportunities. So the applicant in this proposal is extending the existing R6A that is along the north end of the block near Liberty Avenue to basically align with the East New York 2016 rezoning with the R6A.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Great. Thank you very much. This item is certified. Thanks, Lucie.

Thank you.

The fifth item on our agenda is a non Euler preview of a general project plan in Mahan Community District 10. Our presenter is Trevor Levitz.

Hello, Trevor. Hello. Good afternoon.

I'll just jump in while this is getting pulled up. So the following is

a presentation on a planned general project plan by the New York State Empire State Development Corporation at the site of the former Lincoln Correctional Facility at 3130 oh, thank you. 33 West 110th Street in Harlem, Manhattan Community District 10. ESD intends to vertically enlarge and convert the former correctional facility into a mixed use development with a maximum height of two forty feet across 22 floors with a total FAR of 14. The project known as Seneca would contain 105 income restricted homeownership units and 6,500 square feet of community facility space. Land uses in the surrounding area are typified by pre war residential elevator buildings interspersed with community facilities.

Post war mixed use buildings are more prevalent along the major avenues. The development site is primarily located in an R8 zoning district with a small amount of lot area in an R7 2 district. However, due to the pursuant to the 25 foot rule, R8 zoning controls for this site. The R8 District generally encompasses lots along West 110th Street with Frontage on Central Park, whereas R 72 districts are widely mapped throughout Community District 10. You can see higher density commercial districts with more permissive bulk envelopes are mapped in the area of the Northeast Corner Of Central Park in a junction known as Duke Ellington Circle.

You can see the C46 and C19s there. Here's an aerial view of the surrounding context. The prewar buildings fronting West 110th Street fronting West 110th Street form a more or less consistent street wall that you can see right there on the North Side Of Central Park. Heights are more varied however in the surrounding blocks with height factor towers along the Duke Ellington Circle reaching three thirty feet and the nearby towers of the Tower In The Park superblock of the Martin Luther King Jr. NYCHA campus averaging about 140 feet.

The site is very close to mass transit with the subway station serving the two and three subway lines, a half a block west on Lenox Avenue and West 110th. The ESD as a state entity is 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 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 ESG intends to override three applicable zoning sorry, three applicable provisions of the zoning resolutions outlined in the table at left. First of these, the project will exceed the zoning lots maximum FAR of 7.2 for a total of 14 FAR.

Secondly, the project will override the RA district's maximum height of 130 feet for a total of two forty feet. Finally, recreation space below the minimum dimension and total square footage specified by the ZR will be included in the Seneca project. Second from right, you can see a massing. This is the as of right bulk for the zoning lot pursuant to the underlying RA District. And at far right is the massing proposed by the ESD.

And you can sort of see shaded in blue also the as of right RA bulk envelope. The development would be compliant with applicable street wall regulations for the RA District setting back 12 feet after achieving a base height of 86 feet. Therefore, the proposed development will therefore maintain the consistency of the street wall along West 110th Street while exceeding average heights on that block. In summary, the planned redevelopment of the Foreman Lincoln Correctional Facility by the state will bring a total of 105 income restricted homeownership units with applicant preference heavily weighted towards formerly incarcerated individuals. The GPP will have a 14 FAR, 12 of which will be residential and two of which two FAR of which will be rentable community facility space.

ESD intends to meet passive house energy standards in the design and construction of the building. Thank you. Happy to take any questions.

Great. Thank you very much. Just connect us back to the context for a second here and the buildings that are at the corner of Central Park there we go Duke Ellington Circle. Okay. So those are really setting the context for this building if I'm understanding. This one is a would as proposed to be a two forty foot building and you've got Duke Ellington at 330 and the Africa Center at 213.

Right. And farther away along Park is Sendero Verde, which you can see in the background that's four zero eight feet. Taino Tower is farther into East Harlem is well over 400 feet as well. So the context is pretty firmly established along 110th Street. As you can see there by panning more out, it's more of a varied context in terms of building heights. Thank you.

Commissioner Benjamin?

I'm curious about the material stated that there was going to be a local preference of 50% for the formerly incarcerated. Right. Is that permitted by HUD? I thought our local preferences were down to 20%.

I mean, that's a great point. It's a question of how city and state regulations differ in this. I I couldn't say federal regulations. Right. I I can't personally speak to that. I don't know if our general counsel is here, but

we can we

can certainly get back to you on how is actually how they actually are going to get away with that 50% preference.

Okay. Yes. That was

Thank you, Commissioner. Other questions? Okay. Another question for you. We will pick this one back up at a future review session. We have some draft communications here. So thank you very much. I

believe on the next item. So I'm going keep saying. Okay.

So stick around. Sarah, what's next?

The seventh item on our agenda is a pre hearing review of a UDEP designation, project approval, disposition of city owned property, zoning map and zoning text amendments in Brooklyn or in Manhattan. Oh, actually, one second. Sorry.

Manhattan Community District 11.

And a UDOT designation, a city map amendment in Manhattan Community District Eleven. Our presenter is Trevor Lovitz. Apologies.

Hello again. The following application was certified by the City Planning Commission on September 9, and the applicant team will be attending the CPC's public hearing scheduled for this Wednesday. The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development is seeking urban development action area designation, project approval and the disposition of city owned land in addition to related land use actions to facilitate the development of a 100% income restricted housing development and added community facility space in the parking lot of the Human Resource Administration's East Harlem Multi Service Center, which is located on East 120th Street in East Harlem, Manhattan Community District 11. The project named the Beacon would consist of two eighty one income restricted housing units financed pursuant to HPD's extremely low and low income affordability term sheet. The units would be contained in a new L shaped residential development and what is today surface parking surrounding the East Harlan Multi Service Center located between 1st And Pleasant Avenues on East 120th Street.

The UDAP would also entail the gut renovation of the existing Multi Service Center building, which is a community facility space housing non profit service providers as well as the vertical enlargement of that building with one additional story which would contain a basketball court and educational greenhouse. In addition to the UDAP, HPD seeks to rezone portions of existing R72 and R7X districts to an R8 districts and a zoning text amendment to Appendix F of the zoning resolution to map MIH code terminus with the rezoning area. Finally, in the separate but related land use approval, HPD seeks to demap a portion of the map street fronting the development site and a portion of the map street fronting an adjacent lot. Currently, the MSC encroaches into the map street line, but the roughly 20 foot demapping area will bring the map street into alignment with existing built condition of East 120th Street. Shown in right is amassing the transparent shade is amassing depicting the existing MSC building and its proposed vertical enlargement.

The darker gray is the new residential development that would wrap the MSC. The mastering also depicts how the proposed development would conform to the bulk regulations of the proposed R8 District with respect to setbacks and maximum building heights. The proposed development is slated to meet passive house design standards and create new pedestrian connections to the adjacent Wagner House's NYCHA campus. On October 29, Manhattan Community Board eleven voted unanimously to approve the application with conditions including that the developer commit to CB11's local hiring preference guidelines and that the developer partner with local workforce development organizations to source employment opportunities created by all phases of the project to qualified CD11 residents. On November 6, the Manhattan Borough President recommended approval of the application.

In their recommendation, the Manhattan Borough President echoed CB11's recommendation to commit to local hiring guidelines and to provide professional development opportunities to local residents. Thank you. Please take any questions.

Great. Thank you very much. Okay. We're going to pick this one up on Wednesday for a public hearing. Anything before then?

Okay. Great. Thank you, Trevor.

Okay. Next up here will be 581 Grant Avenue, calendar number seven, also a prehearing item. Madam Secretary, did I get it right?

Yes. The seventh item number agenda is a prehearing item of UDOT designation, project approval, disposition of city owned property, zoning maps and zoning tax amendments. In Brooklyn Community District 5, our presenter is Lindsay Robinson. Hello again.

Welcome back.

I am returning for a prehearing presentation for the 581 Grant Avenue rezoning application, which was certified on 08/19/2024. The project area is in Community District 5, East New York, Brooklyn, Council District 37, Sandy Nurse. The project area located at 581 Grant Avenue in the East New York City Line neighborhood is currently a 50,000 square foot city owned municipal surface parking lot serving the Grant Avenue Subway Station A line, which runs beneath it. Bordered by Glenmore Avenue, Grant Avenue, Pitkin Avenue and Elder Lane, the site is part of a 2016 East New York rezoning commitment aimed at delivering affordable housing and community improvement. The project is also located between two rezonings, the Ozone Park rezoning area, which you can see at the right of this photo, and the 2016 East New York rezoning at the bottom.

This public application by HPD seeks the following actions: a zoning map amendment from a R5 to R6 a zoning text amendment to designate an MIH mandatory inclusionary housing area and approval under the Urban Development Action Area Program, also known as UDAP. These changes aim to enable the development of a seven story, 144,000 square foot building featuring 135,200 square feet of residential use for 173 income restricted units, 8,800 square feet of sorry, community facility space and 37,300 square feet of public open space. On 10/23/2024, Community Board five held a public hearing and issued a conditional favorable vote, 26 in favor, one abstaining. The Board recommended prioritizing units for formerly homeless seniors, veterans, youth transitioning out of foster care, and pregnant women or single mothers with one child. They emphasize that this priority aligns with the fair housing laws, ensuring these units remain permanently designated for the formerly homeless.

Additionally, the Board urged the agency and developer to focus on individuals from these priority groups who are returning to CB5 neighborhoods and providing displaced residents an opportunity to reconnect with their community. On 10/09/2024, the borough president held a public hearing and on 11/26/2024 recommended approval without condition. This concludes my presentation and happy to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you very much. So another one we will pick up for public hearing on Wednesday. Anything for Lynn Sue before we do that? Okay. Thank you very much again. Thank you.

The eighth item in our agenda is a Pre Hearing Review of the Zoning Map and Zoning Tax Amendments in Queens Community District 12. Our presenter is Andrew Wasserman.

Hey. Just, can everyone hear me?

Keep talking for a second. It was very faint.

Oh. Very faint. That's alright.

That's good. That'll do. That's okay. Thank you.

Great. Sorry. I heard nothing, and I'm like, oh, great. Perfect timing for technology to, you know, do its thing. Sorry, everybody.

Wouldn't be the first time around here. Welcome.

So, yeah, my apologies. Thank you for everyone's patience. Alright. I'm presenting today on, 112312 Sutton Boulevard Rezoning. This application was certified on August 19 and is now back for pre excuse me, prehearing.

Next slide, please. This is a private application by Full Gospel Mission Church and SBR Equities in the South Jamaica neighborhood of Queens, Community District 12 to facilitate the development of a new eight story plus seller mixed use residential and community facility building with a total of approximately 87,425 square feet consisting of 83,060 residential square feet with 125 total dwelling units, including 31 income restricted units and 4,365 community facility square feet. The proposed development includes 55 parking spaces at the rear of the building. Next slide, please. The applicant seeks a zoning map amendment to change existing r three a, r three a slash c one three, and r six zoning districts to r three a, r six a, and r six a slash c one three zoning districts.

The applicant also seeks a zoning text amendment to map MIH. Next slide, please. The application was certified by city planning commission on August 19. On October 16, Queen's Community Board twelve held a public hearing on this proposal. Based on our presence at the meeting, we understand the board did not take a formal vote, but they submitted a recommendation of unanimous disapproval.

Next slide, please. On November 7, the Queensborough president held a hearing on this application, and on November 19 submitted a recommendation of approval with conditions. His conditions included that there should be a minimum 30% goal to include MWBE firms along with other local hiring efforts, and there should be quarterly reporting of these initiatives to the borough president and council member. The applicant should create a system through which local community groups can use the multipurpose space in the building when it's not in use by the house of worship, and the applicant should use stormwater management strategies as such as permeable pavement for the rear parking lot. This concludes my presentation.

But I also just real quick wanted to follow-up to some questions and comments from review session. We had a question from vice chairman Knuckles at certification about the ownership of the community facility space. Per the applicant, that arrangement has not been determined yet, but the house of worship could potentially condo the space out or sign a long term lease, but that hasn't yet been determined.

Great. Thank you very much, Andrew. Okay. So this will we will see a public hearing on this item, 123.12 on Wednesday. Without questions here, we'll move on to the next one. Thanks, Andrew.

Thank you.

Thanks, Andrew. The ninth item in our agenda is a pre hearing review of a zoning map and zoning tax amendments in Queens Community District 7. Our presenter is Joy Chen on Zoom.

It was 34 to zero. Yes.

Hi, Joy. We can't hear you, but we can see you.

Can you hear me now?

Yes. We can.

Great. This application, 12203 14th Avenue Rezoning located in Whitestone Queens Community Board 7 was certified on 09/09/2024 and is back for review. Next.

Joy, we lost you again. Lost your audio.

Sorry. Can you hear me now?

Barely. We we can hear you just slightly.

I I turned my volume all the way up. I'm not sure if I should

Okay. Yeah. That works. That works right there.

K. Sorry about that. The proposed six story mixed use development shown here at the intersection of College Point Boulevard and 14th Avenue across the street from College Point Park and adjacent to Walgreens is proposed to have 103 units, including 31 units that are income restricted pursuant to MIH option two. There will also be ground floor commercial space and a parking garage at the seller level with 52 spaces. Next slide, please.

In order to facilitate the proposed development, the applicant is proposing to change an R 4 A C 13 District to an R 6 A C 24 District. Next slide. On October 21, Queen's Community District seven held its public hearing and recommended approval of the application with 34 in favor, one against, and one abstaining. Next slide. On November 7, the Queensborough president held a public hearing and submitted their approval with conditions on November 19.

They recommended hiring of MWBE firms, consideration of MIH option one to ensure deeper affordability and consideration of green infrastructure in the project's open spaces. Next slide. In summary, the proposed actions for rezoning from an r four a C 13 zoning district to an r six a C 24 zoning district at 12203 14th Avenue is scheduled for public hearing this Wednesday. The applicants will be making a three minute in person presentation. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you, Joy. Alright. We'll look forward to seeing them on Wednesday. Thank you for everything. Okay.

Thanks, Joy. The tenth item on our agenda is a city council modification scope determination for city of yes for housing opportunity. The city council proposes to modify the zoning tax amendment, and staff believe this modification is within scope. John Manchin is here to present.

Hello, John. Welcome. Hello. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Good to see you again. We're here today to present the modifications that emerged from the City Council's Land Use Committee. Next slide. Next

slide, Jeff.

Sorry, was told by Jeff to give it second. The way we'll structure this though is we'll start with low density proposals, move on to medium and high density proposals, and then talk about the citywides. Great. Next slide, Jeff. Go ahead.

So, first, modifications to our missing middle proposals. Missing middle, again, being transit oriented development, town center, and the community facility allowances to enable three to five story apartment buildings in lower that meet the criteria in lower density areas. First, oriented development, Again, modest apartment buildings, three to five stories on large sites near transit that meet other criteria. City Council modifications would exclude applicability in R1 and R2 districts. And then reduce the applicability radius around certain transit stops, namely the farthest out Long Island Railroad stations and Metro North stations in Queens and in The Bronx.

The map you're looking at here shows the resulting applicability for the transit oriented development proposal. Next slide, Jeff. Missing middle, next, the town center, again, to allow three to five story apartment buildings in low density district zone for commercial or manufacturing uses. The council modifications eliminate applicability of that in areas where the commercial overlay is one block only or less. So these are not commercial corridors.

They're often most scraps of commercial applicability there. And so there would not be applicability there anymore. Similarly, the modifications eliminate applicability on blocks where 50% or more of the frontage is just one or two family homes without any commercial uses. For the community facility allowances, this is regardless of where you are in the city. Beyond the transit zones on large sites provide these missing middle allowances for community facility sites like libraries, like faith based organizations.

The council modifications require there to existing community facility uses on the site as of the date of enactment rather than something you can spring into applicability for in the future. And then last but not least, for

the missing middle

modifications, for certain larger sites for all three of these proposals TRD, town center, community facility. If they enable more than 50,000 square feet of permitted residential floor area, then it's a UAP like mechanism, where in order to max out the permitted floor area on your site, you have to provide a portion of permanent affordable housing here at an average of 80% AMI. So the affordable floor area is 20% higher than the market rate cap. Next slide, Jeff. ADUs.

The proposal here is to enable one or two family homes, regardless of where you are in the city, to add a size limited accessory dwelling unit of various topologies, whether basement, whether attic, whether rear yard attached or rear yard detached. The referred text, as you may remember, limited your ability to do subgrade ADUs in the coastal flood zone and prohibited any ADUs at all in the special Coastal Risk District. Council modifications have added a few different restrictions that I'll go through now. First, at initial occupancy of an accessory dwelling unit, an owner has to live on the zoning lot, whether in the primary housing unit or whether the ADU. So there's an occupancy restriction at initial occupancy.

Next, the council modifications prohibit subgrade ADUs or backyard detached or attached ADUs in an expanded coastal flood zone or an inland stormwater flood zone as well. Next, no backyard ADUs in certain low density contextual districts, R1, 2A, R2A, and R3A districts outside of the greater transit zone. Next, prohibiting backyard ADUs in historic districts. Next, limiting ADUs to one story unless they're above parking, in which case they can be on a second story in a detached or an attached building. You can see in the map where applicability is modified.

Worth noting that ADUs and some topology are available for all one or two family homes still. Next slide. District fixes in low density areas. We made certain adjustments to FAR, perimeter heights, yards, etcetera, in order to enable districts to do what they say they can do, namely two families and two family districts or modest multifamily and modest multifamily districts. Council made some modifications there.

First, reducing our proposed decreases in lot width and lot area in certain lower density districts. As one example, R11, we had proposed to go from 100 foot yard width minimum to 50 feet. Council modified that to be 75 feet so as not to encourage subdivision and teardowns. Certain more minor adjustments were made in some other districts as well. Next, adjusting yard and open space requirements.

So reducing the permitted obstructions in a rear yard from a proposed 50% to 33%. Sorry, next slide, Jeff. Next, we had proposed in all districts to reduce the required rear yard from 30 feet to 20 feet. Council modifications would restrict that to lots that are 40 feet or wider. So as to limit the ability of narrower lots, homes on narrower lots to bump out into the rear yard as of right.

Next, limiting reductions to required side yards to make sure that when you have buildings on adjacent lots that to maintain a certain distance there beyond the proposed five feet side yards. Next, in certain of the lowest density districts, we proposed to increase lot coverage rules in R1 and R2 districts. Council modifications adjusted that upward. They didn't eliminate it, but they adjusted it actually reduced our proposed increases in lot coverage a bit. Next, we had proposed to eliminate the transition rule that applies when you have medium and high density districts adjacent to lower density districts.

Council modifications reintroduced that in modified form, again, between the goalposts, not eliminating it, but with more allowances than exist today. Finally, limiting additional FAR on large lots when you just have a single family home there. So you only can unlock access to that additional FAR on certain larger lots if you're doing an ADU or if you're doing a two family or modest multifamily rather than just enabling a bigger single family home. Next slide, Jeff. Universal affordability preference.

Again, enabling at least 20% bigger buildings for developments that provide permanently affordable housing at an average of 60% AMI. So council modifications would require a tranche at 40% AMI for UAP projects that have at least 10,000 square feet of UAP affordable floor area. Council modifications also reduced heights by 10 feet in certain areas, namely R8B districts, R6 and R7 districts along narrow streets, within the Special Clinton Preservation Area in the Special Clinton District, Subdistrict F of Special West Chelsea, and not listed here, but in Special Little Italy District also a 10 foot reduction on certain sites. Finally, removing the sunset provision for off-site UAP for sites that are in existing inclusionary housing designated areas or IHDAs. So sites in those geographies will be able to use UAP into the future.

Next slide, Jeff. Parking. Again, we had proposed to eliminate parking for any new housing citywide. Council modifications implemented a sort of three zone geography. In Zone 1, represented here in the dark blue, no parking requirements for any new housing at all.

Zone two represents reduced parking requirements over what exists today. And there would be no parking requirements for ADUs, conversions anywhere or affordable housing within that area. Town center would be exempt from parking up to 75 sorry, TOD would be exempt from parking requirements up to 75 units within the lighter blue geography. And then finally, Zone three, where parking requirements are somewhat simplified but are similar to what you see today in those geographies. Again, ADUs conversions would not have parking requirements there.

Affordable housing would have and supportive housing would have parking requirements, but at limited amounts. And then town center would be exempt up to 75 units to facilitate those types of developments in the green.

Okay. Next slide.

Small housing. We propose to eliminate DUF within the existing transit zone and to reduce dwelling unit factor to 500 beyond that geography. Council modifications limited the geography within which we are eliminating dwelling unit factor to the Manhattan core and to Downtown Brooklyn. Within that geography, there would be no dwelling unit factor for new construction for new buildings or for conversions at all. Beyond that, we would have a dwelling unit factor of six eighty, which is the existing dwelling unit factor for R6 through R10 throughout the city.

One little detail there is that conversions from community facility uses to residential would be exempt from dwelling unit factor regardless of where they are in the city. And council modifications would maintain existing dwelling unit factors for existing buildings so as to limit subdivision possibilities. Next slide. Contextual infill, also known as campus. We introduced a series of changes intended to enable contemporary height limited infill on campuses where zoning today mandates tall, skinny, non contextual development.

So council modifications restricted the availability of the height allowances that we proposed. We had proposed to give a 25% bump in medium and high density districts on certain large sites or a 10 foot bump in lower density campus scenarios. Council modifications would limit those allowances to situations where existing buildings to remain meet or exceed those heights. Next, preserving open space on campus sites. We had proposed to introduce a heightened lot coverage standard of 50%.

That's the maximum on sites above 1.5 acres. The underlying lot coverage maximum is 80%. Council modifications introduced an intermediate level For sites between 30,000 square feet and 1.5 acres, there would be a 65% lot coverage maximum. So, you'd have eighty, sixty five, 50 as you move up in lot size. Next, prohibiting development on open space on campuses that's used for playgrounds and other fixed recreational facilities unless those types of sites are replaced in kind elsewhere on the site.

Finally, in situations where you have large zoning lots with one or two family buildings on them, we had proposed to reduce distance between buildings from 20 to 10. Council modifications upped that to 15. Next slide. Discretionary actions. First, we created a new authorization for bulk modifications for irregular sites.

And this is a brand new discretionary action. Council retained that discretionary action, but they upped it to a special permit. Next, in relevant districts, namely R6 and R7.2, that can access a higher FAR for supportive housing, but today only with a special permit, We had proposed to reduce that to an authorization, and council modifications restored the special permit in that situation. Last, we had proposed to allow development of large railroad rights of way by certification or authorization rather than the special permit as it exists today. Council retained that, but they wanted to keep that special permit for sites above 1.5 acres.

So, the special permit will remain for large sites. Next slide. Landmark TDR, we proposed to streamline procedure, expand transfer radius, and expand geography. In almost all districts, there's a 20% cap on how much you can increase the floor area on a receiving site. However, there was no cap proposed for high density commercial and manufacturing districts, the 15 FAR districts.

Council proposed a 30% cap in those higher density districts on how much you can increase your FAR on a receiving site. We also proposed an unlimited authorization for bulk modifications on a receiving site if you needed bulk modifications in order to accommodate those landmark TDRs. And council modification makes it a special permit if you are seeking to increase the height on your site by more than 25% over the underlying. And so those are the modifications. The department has taken a close look at these and we believe that they are all within scope. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions. Great.

Thank you very much, John. I see a few questions for you. Let me just start by thanking you for all of your efforts of bringing us to this moment. We really appreciate it. And let me see who has questions. I saw your hand. Commissioner Kramani, let's start with you.

Thank you. And yes, thank you for all the work that's got into this. And thank you also to the council for a very close review. Just perhaps an obvious question, but if there are ADUs that already exist that don't comply with what the council proposed? Do those ADUs remain like a backyard one that doesn't comply? Or would the owner have to remove it?

So, there's the zoning initiatives for ADUs as part of this. There's companion legislation that the council is looking at that deals with legalization of existing units that may not be able to comply with zoning, with building code, and everything else. So in that situation, if you couldn't comply with the zoning, then you would be left to the companion legislation if and when enacted. If that would cover that situation, then you would be able to legally occupy legalize that unit and occupy it into the future.

You. Commissioner, Commissioner Cerullo?

Thank you. A couple of quick questions.

In the missing middle town center modification,

the exclusion of blocks of 50% or more of the frontage is a one or two family home.

This is in this commercial overlay blocks, which I understand how it reads. But that's potentially a moment in time. What what how does it play out? Is it frozen in time today? And that if it changes over the next ten years and it for whatever reason someone comes in and builds a strip mall on that land and knocks all the houses down, does that change the status? Or does the status get locked in upon approval now?

Yes. The zoning in that situation works similar to the way predominantly built up areas works. I don't know if you're familiar with that from low density areas, where it can change over time.

Okay.

If for predominantly built up areas, if the built context of the block changes, then it may become appropriate for the allowances that are included in that to apply. And so it's a similar situation.

So it's a living breathing this is a living breathing section that if over time a house comes down, a house comes down and now you've beyond the 50% threshold,

it could potentially then be eligible. Potentially, got it. I just wanted to be clear on that.

Wasn't clear. Thank you. This is silly question and perhaps this is

a question I should have thought of when we were considering this. But is there a this is

in the ADUs section where we refer to the term backyard. Is there

a definition for backyard Yes. Specifically? Yes. The the council modifications created a new definition for backyard ADUs. Yes. Okay. So they defined backyard Mhmm. Which would is it distinguished from side yard? Like, on

a lot, that would be a 100 by a 100. Is a side yard

ADU permissible versus a backyard ADU, or is it the lot and we're just calling it backyard? I mean the ADU regulations were intended to facilitate ADUs in rear yards but not inside yards. So it remains relevant to rear yards. And that's for attached or detached ADUs that are at least in part in a required rear yard. And so the restrictions that apply to backyard ADUs would prohibit that typology within the relevant geography. Understood.

And that's defined in the council.

Is it brand new definition in there? Brand new definition. Okay.

Thank you. And lastly, on the parking slide and the parking map page, the slide eight,

I understand the changes that were made. I'm just wondering when we look at the maps and by the way the sort of the geographic maps and colors very helpful in seeing the differences in what the application will be. But for example, if just looking at the Staten Island borough and seeing the Zone 2, which kind

of sits toward the bottom cross, What is the actual line? How does it get defined in the zoning resolution or in some mapping? Because it looks fine here, I get it. But what are those lines? I mean, I know the I mean, obviously, the Staten Island Railroad is this runs pretty parallel to Staten Island Railroad. But how do

you how do the lots get determined that surround this area? Good question. The light blue there, it represent in Staten Island represents blocks that intersect in whole or in part with a half mile radius around Staten Island Railroad Around the around the station. So that's why it's not a perfect circle because it if you're if it captures the corner of your block, then the whole block's in.

Yep.

And so that's why it's not perfect circles, but that's how it's defined. That's how it's defined. Okay. Thank you. Good.

Thank you for the those. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Dweck?

Thank you. Just to clarify on the affordability component on the UAP, 20% of the affordable units have to

be at 40% of AMI,

but the blend still comes out to 60%. That's correct. Yes. So you can have an 80% component, 60% component as long as 20% of your units are at 40%, but the total blend equals 60%.

That's right.

Commissioner Representative? Yes. Thank you. Thank you for the update. Sticking with the same slide because that was one of the questions I had. In terms of will these maps I had mentioned this during the whole sequencing of when you presented it. Will these maps be under Zola? How do you know that you're in the Zone 1 or Zone 2 specifically? If you go to Zola, type in your address, will it be there?

Gotcha. No, it's a great question. I mean, I know that it's not evident looking at this, but

it

is capable to define these geographies clearly with a reasonable number of words. That said, we will take a look at adding a layer in Zola when all is said and done, when all the dust settles, because that could be helpful. Because I bring that up because if you do down the

line file something with the billing department, the examiner gives you an objection, how do you justify to them you would zone you're in? Will they require the surveyor to put a radius map on the survey that you're within the quarter mile? Or whatever it is. I don't know. I'm just I just wanna bring it to your attention so that way they can address it now. So that way the industry the professional industry can avoid issues that may come up. No.

We we understand the issue very well. Obviously, this

has been a bit of

a moving target recently. We still believe that we have a system in place that will minimize ambiguity at DOB. That said, we can consider reinforcing that even more strongly an actual layer.

And just two more quick questions. On Slide six, you had for lots less than 40 feet. Is that 40 feet of frontage on the lots? Because sometimes you have lots that do widen out in the back. Let me start out at 38 feet or whatever and then could be 50 feet. So I just wanna just confirm.

And same time, with regards to lot coverage rules, if I remember right, was it 60% for, an interior lot and 80% for a corner lot? That sounds more like the medium and and higher density regs. These were really in, like, the lowest of the low density districts. I'm trying to take a look here. Where R1, R2, we had proposed to increase lot coverage max from 30% to 60%.

And R3s, we had proposed to increase lot coverage to 60% from 35%. And council modified that kind of split the baby a little bit 40% in R1, R2 and 50% in R3. So again, in between today's and what was proposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner, Vice Chair Knuckle.

Thank you. John, could you go back to the dwelling unit factors and the 500 square feet minimum versus the six eighty?

Sure. I think that was Slide nine, Jeff. Great. Thank you.

Yeah. Just go over that again.

Okay. So, excuse me. Under the initial proposal, we had proposed to eliminate dwelling unit factor entirely within today's transit zone Right. Which is a a fairly extensive geography that reaches into four out of the five boroughs. Council modified that to they shrunk the geography over which we are eliminating dwelling unit factor to just Manhattan Core, Manhattan Community Districts 1 through eight, plus Downtown Brooklyn.

Beyond those geographies, we had proposed to reduce dwelling unit factor to 500, all the way down to 500. The council modifications raise those back up to six eighty, which is a the dwelling unit factor today for R6 through R10. They are maintaining council modifications would maintain a dwelling unit factor for existing buildings so that you're not opening a new possibility for subdividing existing multifamily buildings into smaller and smaller units than would otherwise be the case. I got a note here, too, that the proposal that we made eliminates dwelling unit factor for one and two family houses, and council modifications maintain that. So while there is dwelling unit factor for R1 and R2 districts, because you can do you would be able to do multifamily in those under certain conditions today.

And Dwelling Unit Factor would apply to multifamily in those districts. There is still no DUF for one or two family buildings. So that aspect of the proposal is retained.

So the elimination in the Manhattan Court, what would that be? The northernmost boundary is what? 96th Street?

96th Street on the East Side, I believe 110th on the West Side.

On the

West Side. Yep.

And Downtown Brooklyn would be?

Yes. Within the special Downtown Brooklyn District, dwelling unit factor would be eliminated there as well.

Thank you. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman, Felicia Risorio.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the presentation. Super clear. I have a couple of questions. One is, first actually a suggestion in response to Commissioner Rampershot's question and Commissioner Cerullo. In addition to overlaying the data graphically, it may be interesting for you to consider adding an attribute in Pluto that is a binary yes inside or no outside. That way, you provide a relief for, like, very specific data in terms of what lot is within what.

Okay.

I think that that sounds like a good way to do it. I had a similar question in about the flooding restrictions. So in the definition of ancillary dwelling units, you combine and be both the ten year rainfall flood risk area for the 2050 projections with the 1% chance of flooding according to the 2080 projections. And so the first question is more substantive in terms of did they explain why they're using different years for the stormwater flooding and for the coastal flooding? Why not using 2080 for both?

So with the coastal, I can answer. They wanted to capture a more extensive geography than the 2050. So going from 2050 to 2080 does that. I don't know if other folks here can help me out with the stormwater geography. This is a geography that DEP will have to promulgate within the next hundred and twenty days under companion legislation. It's not

I see.

The case as with coastal that there are different geographies that already exist to choose from there.

Thank you. That's I guess, yes, that's a response. I'm just wondering practically, so you're saying that BP is actually gonna legislate on like, not legislate, but they're gonna be establishing these these geographies as how is that

gonna happen? Twenty fifty inland stormwater geography, yes, will be promulgated in the next hundred and twenty days.

I see. Because I guess the question is I'm I'm trying to think how the way in which this is written in here perhaps should explain that. It's just a I'm I'm just thinking that in time the what's currently the high risk zone in zoning, the current the preliminary one hundred year floodplain will eventually become the projection. And so what projection would apply? I'm I'm just trying to understand how will this language basically evolve as time moves forward.

Yeah. I don't know if Susan who worked extensively with city council on the language around this in particular has anything to add to that.

I would only add that the zoning is written so that as those maps get updated over time and could be looking at other years that update so those maps get automatically incorporated into the zoning. That's what the intent of the way the zoning is drafted.

That's what it was intended for.

In the past, though and I understand. Thank you for that. I mean, answers my question. It's just that in the in the past, whenever you've used the latest science, the latest available science sort of suggests that there is that you should use the because it well, my my my concern is that the 2015, the 2080 may change. And so you're saying we'll use whatever they promulgate as the latest science. Is that right?

And then so as John says, there will be stormwater maps promulgated within the next several months. If those stormwater maps get repromulgated in five years or something with more up to date data with different types of projections. Then when they get promulgated, the zoning is drafted so that the new maps that replace the maps that are specifically mentioned will then be incorporated into the zoning and the restrictions would apply based on those new maps.

So, the zoning will always reference the maps that are promulgated by DEP in the case of the storm water and in the case of the coastal?

The coastal maps get updated pretty regularly too. It's the same I think the same language applies in terms of the updating to both the coastal and the stormwater maps.

But those maps would be produced by whom?

There's a bit of a discussion going on precisely who's the right entity.

Exactly.

But

they will be the 2080s will actually be promulgated. And

Thank you. Thank you.

I mean, I you're you're you're of, like, getting to where I wanna get, which is it sounds to me that this we should be able to define that within the zoning somehow. Mean, we could use the data that the NPCC provides, but enacted clearly within the zoning. Do you think that's possible?

It really provides much more flexibility to have it and because these maps have other purposes other than zoning.

Sure.

So there's much more flexibility. You have the maps adopted independently of zoning and then for zoning to reference and to have restrictions based on those maps. But if they were part of the zoning itself, then they would be very hard to update

I get it.

And difficult to use for other purposes.

That makes sense. That makes sense. If there's any opportunity to maybe anchor that through Pluto or through a specific dataset that then the department can provide to the public, I think that that will be will be useful at least to formalize that in the zoning.

Yeah. And I I think this the the questions about how do people know where they're where they're, you know, where their buildings or their lots are are in relation to these are all good things that we need to, you know, do some thinking through.

Thank you.

Sure.

Thank you, commissioner. Thanks, Susan. Other questions?

Commissioner Rambuchet. Just the timeline. When is it scheduled for a vote? When does it

So, today's charge is scope determination for the commission. The council is scheduled to vote later this week. Okay. Other questions? Okay. So, the official act here is to make the determination that the council's changes are in fact within scope. So, I will at this point seek a sent by a voice vote to send a letter to the council that the modifications they made to CVS or housing opportunity are within scope. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay.

The ayes have it. Thank you again John to you and your team. And thank you to everybody in the agency who worked so hard on this proposal. And of course, to our partners at the City Council, Speaker Adrian Adams and Chairs Salamanca, Riley and all the council members who worked so hard on this. We very much appreciate them too. So thank you. Madam Secretary, what's next?

Okay. For future votes for consideration on Wednesday, December 4, Safar prepared reports for 438 Concord Avenue and Gleeson Funeral Home commercial overlay. Also for consideration is 975 Nostrand Avenue curb cut authorization. There was a follow-up memo in your weekend materials, and Kaira's on Zoom if there should be any questions. Okay. Also for future votes for consideration later this month, we have a landmark designation report for Jacob Day residents. Briefing materials were provided in your weekend materials. Post hearing follow ups. Okay, lastly for post hearing follow ups. First we have 2185 Coyle Street, which had a hearing at the November 18 public meeting. Lucia is here on Zoom to present.

Great. Hello, Lucia.

Hello. Good afternoon. Can you hear me?

I hear you fine.

Perfect. Okay. Good afternoon, Chair Gurodnik and Commissioners. First, I would like to note that the applicant is still preparing a post hearing response to the questions that were raised by the commission at the public hearing and I will share that response when the Brooklyn office receives it. Now I will give the staff recommendation for this project.

This application was certified on August 5. The public hearing was held on November 20, and the CPC vote is scheduled for December 16. The department supports this application, which would facilitate the development of a new nine story mixed use building with 435 units of which a 109 would be permanently income restricted at 2185 Coyle Street in the Sheepshead Bay neighborhood of Brooklyn Community District 15. The current r four zoning has been in place since 1961 and its restrictive regulations do not enable opportunities for growth. The change in zoning districts to a blend of R6A, R7A and R7X will strike a balance on responding to existing context and conditions of the full block while allowing for the flexible envelopes along Avenue V, a major neighborhood corridor that is 90 foot wide and adjacent to the NYCHA notion in Chiefs Head Bay campus.

The proposed zoning district support a vision of growth for this area and are also in context with recently approved rezonings for an r seven a district at 2134 Coyle Street and an R 7 D District at 3033 Avenue V, both of which are located directly across the street from this project. The zoning text amendment will ensure that future development in 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 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 a 138 new income restricted units at less than a 120% AMI have been produced in this district. Therefore, the department recommends approval of the 2185 Coyle Street rezoning.