Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

In case you forgot. Maybe. Thank you.

Okay.

That's called flexing when you when you can hold up a hearing single handedly. That's that's flexing. You know?

Alrighty.

Are we

ready, Sarah? Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. For those of you who may be confused, I am not Dan Gurocchi. I'm Ken Knuckles, vice chair of the city planning commission, and welcome to today's review session of the city planning commission.

Happy New Year, everyone. I hope everyone had a relaxing and joyous holiday. We are joined today by commissioners Benjamin Cerullo Dweck, commissioner Gold Baramote, commissioner Goodrich, commissioner Kirmani, commissioner Marine, commissioner Osorio, I assume is en route, and commissioner Ram Prashad. The chairman, chair Gurodnik, will be with us shortly. Our first proposal entering public review in 2025 is a rezoning to facilitate an apartment complex with nearly 30 new homes, seven of them permanently income restricted affordable on North 7th Street between Berry Street and Bedford Avenue in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.

Tenants would live only a couple of blocks from the L train at Bedford Avenue and from Marsha P. Johnson State Park. Moving to Oakland Gardens, Queens, we'll look at an application to provide heightened setback relief for 40 for a new seven story residential building with 80 new homes, located within the Windsor Park Cooperative Campus. The site sits just seven, steps away from Cunningham Park. We'll also go over some proposals that are coming up for public hearing and votes this Wednesday. Let's take it away, Sarah. Thank you.

Good afternoon, and welcome to the City Planning Commission review session for Monday, 01/06/2025. The time is 01:04PM, and a quorum is present. The first item on our agenda first item on our agenda is a certification of the zoning map and zoning text amendments in Brooklyn Community District 1. Our presenter is Cara Cuevas.

Hello. And are you there?

Yes. Yes. Can

you hear me now? Yes. Wonderful. Happy New Year.

That's good.

I hope You all are well. So today, we'll be presenting a private application for zoning map amendment and zoning text amendment at 146 North 7th Street. As you could see over here, this is the project rendering. Again, good afternoon, commissioners and Vice Chair Knuckles. Sorry, this is not moving.

Can we go to the next slide, please? Sorry, I'm having some technical difficulties. Okay. This is a application by four private homeowners to facilitate the construction of a new six story mixed use building. The applicant is seeking a zoning map amendment from an R6B district and an R6B zoning district with a C1-four overlay to an R6A zoning district with a C2-four overlay and a zoning text amendment to map an MIH area with options one and two.

This project is located within Community District 1 in Williamsburg, Brooklyn and is within council member Gutierrez's district. The project area is located within the North Side section of Williamsburg with Greenpoint to the North, East Williamsburg to the East, South Side to the South and the East River to the West. The project area is bounded by North 7th Street to the North, Bedford Avenue to the East, North 6th Street to the South and Berry Street to the West, all of which are 60 foot wide streets. The project area is located within an R6B zoning district. R6B districts are medium density contextual residential districts that require quality housing regulations.

Under the new UAP rules, qualifying affordable housing buildings can achieve a maximum FAR of 2.4 and can be built up to a maximum height of 65 feet with a qualifying ground floor. Parking is not required for this district in this location as the development site is located within the inner transit zone where parking is not required. The surrounding area includes mid density contextual residential and manufacturing zoning districts within M1-twoR6A to the Southwest District M1-two and R6B zoning district to the West and further South along with M1-two and R6A zoning district further North East. In 2005, the Greenpoint Williamsburg rezoning sought to allow for housing and open spaces along with light manufacturing and commercial uses along the East River Waterfront and upland neighborhoods. This includes mapping contextual residential districts and MX zoning districts in the Upland neighborhoods.

The project area was rezoned from an R6 and M12 special mixed use district to an R6B. New MX districts like M12, and R6B and M1-two and R6A were mapped across surrounding areas that you see in purple here. Only some block frontages of Bedford And Berry Streets were mapped with commercial overlays. Since 2005, four private applications were approved to map commercial overlays in order to bring existing commercial uses into conformance or expand nonresidential uses. These neighborhood rezonings occurred between 02/2021 and include the Bedford Avenue frontage of this project area.

The surrounding area is generally mixed use with three to seven storey residential buildings, many with commercial ground floor uses. Additionally, the area serviced by two local commercial corridors, one along Bedford Avenue and one along Berry Street. Bedford Avenue includes C1 Dash four overlays, which includes four to five storey residential buildings with ground floor restaurants, banks, risk stores, medical offices, laundromats, grocery stores, and banks. Additionally, the area is well served with community facility uses and open spaces, including the Agama Church and the Consulea Preparatory School, the 37 acre McCarran Park, 11 acre Marsha P. Johnson State Park and the entire East River Waterfront Esplanade.

The project area is well served with transit access, including the L Train Bedford Avenue stop, one block east at North 7th Street between Bedford Avenue and Drakes Avenue, along with the B62 bus, which traverses between Long Island City, Queens and Downtown Brooklyn and the B32 bus line, which traverses between Long Island City and Williamsburg. The North Williamsburg ferry stop, which travels to Hunters Point South, is located about four blocks west of the project area. This is a view of the proposed project area looking Southeast from Berry Street and North Street. This the magenta line shows the proposed development site, and the Mint Green is the proposed project area boundary. The first image shows a view from Berry Street fading or facing Southeast, where we can see the corner of Berry And North 7th Street, where we can see Lots 511 And 12.

Lot 5, although not planned for development, is applicant owned and is a corner lot with two one story buildings that is currently utilized as a restaurant named Grand Reno. Lots 11 And 12 are two non applicant owned buildings. Lot 11 is a three storey walk up apartment building, and Lot 12 is a two storey one family building. Imagine we are walking along North 7th Street towards Bedford Avenue. This image shows a view from Berry Street facing Southeast, where we can see the development site.

The development site is shown here with Lots 13 To 16 and is comprised of four two story lots with two one story buildings on Lot 16. Each building has a range of two to three units, totaling about 12 units. There is currently a UPS store on the Ground Floor of Lot 14 and a Dessertster on Lot 16. Lot 17 is part of the project area and not part of the development site and is a one story tall convenience store. Now imagine we have turned around and are walking Northwest up towards Berry Street.

This image shows a view from North 7th Street from facing Southeast, where we can see Lots 11 To 17 with the development outlined in magenta. And finally, this image shows a view from North 7th Street, again looking South Northwest, pardon, and includes Lots 13 To 19. Lot 19 is part of the project area, but not development site and is a four story mixed use building. The proposed development will be a 26,875 square foot mixed use building that contains 3,320 square feet of commercial floor area and 23,544 square feet of residential floor area, which would house 28 dwelling units, seven of which are income restricted. The building will be approximately 75 feet tall and has a setback at the 6th Floor, which will serve as a common area for all tenants.

The building will provide 19 bicycle parking spaces and will voluntarily provide a parking garage for three parking spaces. The applicant is proposing a zoning map amendment from an R6B and R6B zoning district with a C1-four overlay to an R6A zoning district with a C2-four overlay to facilitate the construction of the proposed development. R6A is a contextual zoning district that permits a residential FAR of 3.9 with MIH and community facility FAR of 2.2 with a base height of 65 feet and a max building height of 95 feet. In Zone 1 or the inter transit zone, no parking is required. C2-four districts are commercial overlays that facilitates ground floor commercial uses and has looser parking requirements than the existing C1-four District.

The applicant is also proposing a zoning text amendment to Appendix F to map MIH. The applicant is mapping MIH Option one and MIH Option two, each of which require income restricted housing set asides, where Option one requires 25% of units at an average of 60% AMI, and Option two requires 30% of units with an average of 80% AMI. There are nine MIH areas met in Community District 1 between 2021 and 2024. As the project will increase the residential by more than 50,000 square feet, a racial equity report is required pursuant to local law 78. The applicant states that the proposal would produce 28 units, seven of which would be income restricted.

According to the Equitable Development Data Explorer, the median household income for this area or the Greenpoint and Williamsburg Puma is $93,676 which is higher than Brooklyn at or the borough of Brooklyn at $68,507 Pardon and New York City at $70,643 Furthermore, the median estimated monthly rent for a family making 60% AMI for a studio is $12.70 dollars or $19.10 dollars for a three bedroom apartment. As of 2020, more than half of the population in Greenpoint and Williamsburg was comprised of white non Hispanic individuals, which is significantly higher than the proportion in Brooklyn and New York City, with the minority being black non Hispanic individuals, which is significantly lower than the proportion in Brooklyn and New York City. From 2010 to 2020, the population grew 19%. Hispanic population was one of the only racial demographics that did not show growth, whereas the Asian American population showed the most growth at 55%. And the black Hispanic population grew 32% here, and the white non Hispanic population grew 17%.

Over the past decade, the neighborhood experienced 34% growth of housing supply compared to 10% in Brooklyn and 8% in New York City. This chart shows housing has been has exceeded the population growth. In summary, the applicant is proposing a zoning map amendment and a zoning text amendment to facilitate the construction of a six story mixed use building with 28 units, seven of which would be income restricted. Thank you, and I'm happy to take questions.

Thank you. Questions? Yep. Questions, anyone? I have just one. Sure. In the package, were statements from the property owners of the development site, adjoining well, those sites that comprise the development site indicating their support. I was just wondering, did you have any responses from the property owners for the project area that are not within the that are adjacent but not within the development site itself?

Not at this time, but we can reach out to the applicant to get back to you about Thank

you. Any other questions?

We have a question from Commissioner on Zoom.

Commissioner Osorio, good morning. Morning.

Can everybody hear me okay?

Yes.

Wonderful. Thank you so much for the presentation. I have a couple two quick questions. The first question is, can you say a little bit more about the rationale for the nonrequired optional parking?

Sure. So the optional parking, I believe, will be for the residents that live there or will be living there. In terms of the rationale for three spaces, that is something that the applicant can respond more closely to.

Thank you. I I I would appreciate if when we see this again, we can understand why in such a transit rich area we're, you know, having this. I mean, I understand this in other places of the city where you may still be within the transit area, but far away from from an actual rational commuting distance. But here, I would love to understand exactly. So why why is the case?

Thank you for that. The other question is, thank you so much for the both the, documentation and the observations that you made in the presentation about the, amount of affordable housing unit that has been that have been mapped under MIH in the community district. Do you know how many of the units that have been mapped have actually been built and occupied? Do we know how many affordable housing units have actually resulted from the MIH program in the city in the community district?

You're fine referring to the nine, MIH actions. Right? Or you're talking about

this The total the total, affordable housing units that you referenced in the documents and in the presentation that have been mapped in the community district to the MIH program, do we know how many of those have actually been built and occupied?

So for this particular project, there would be seven that would be built. But for the others that were referenced for the application, we can get back to you

about which ones have been

currently that have been constructed and have been occupied and the number of units that will be occupied as well.

Excellent. I would love to see that. Thank you very much.

Any

further questions, Commissioner Sario?

No. Thank you very much, Vice Chair Nachos. That's it. Well,

on the parking, is that not required by the commercial overlay?

So it would be required if the commercial overlay or if the commercial space would be built out to more than 40,000 square feet. But I think this commercial space will be built out to 3,000 square feet. So, that's not triggered, but I can get back to you in case that's incorrect.

Okay. Because it said, again, in the in the packet, it's one space for every 3,000 for every thousand square feet of of of commercial space, I believe it said. And

I'll get back to you

about Okay.

If there are no further questions, this is certified. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. The second item on our agenda is a non Mueller post referral review for an authorization in Community District 11. Also in your materials were written testimonies and comments. Our presenter is Tal Chin.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Can you hear me? Good afternoon.

Happy New Year, everybody. Today's project is the Winter Park Height authorization coming coming back from Queen's Community Board eleven votes a few weeks ago. This application was referred out on 11/21/2024. The applicant, WP Owners Corp, also known as the Windsor Park Cooperative, is requesting a CPC authorization to facilitate a construction of a new seven storey residential building that will penetrate the height and setback regulations of the underlying R5 zoning districts. The development site is in the Oakland Gardens neighborhood in Queens Committee District 11.

The development site is located within the Winter Park Cooperative Campus, also known as Winter Park for short, with low density residential one to two family homes to the South and low density garden apartments to the East. Winter Park is a cooperative with 26 to seven story residential buildings constructed prior to the enactment of the 1961 zoning resolution. It consists of eighteen thirty dwelling units and an approximate population of 5,000 residents spanning across a campus of 46 acres. In addition to public open space and recreational spaces, the private campus includes a swimming pool, pool house, tennis courts, fitness center and Ground floor community facility spaces. Immediately west and south of Windsor Park are significant open space resources, including Cunningham Park and the Vanderbilt Motor Parkway, respectively.

It is located within an R5 zoning district. An R2A district is mapped south of the Vanderbilt Motor Parkway. An R2 district is located East Of Bell Boulevard at 77th Avenue and approximately two fifty east two fifty east feet east of Bell Boulevard is an R32 district. Apologies for that. R5 zoning districts permit all housing types, including multifamily homes at a maximum floor area ratio of two point zero.

The maximum building height is 55 feet for residential buildings. The development site is served by various bus lines, community facilities within the surrounding area include two primary schools and the Oakland Gardens branch of the Queens Public Library. The project area located at 21010 75th Avenue or Block 7748, Lots 405 Hundred is coterminous with the development site. The development site is a southwestern portion of Windsor Park and bordered by Bell Boulevard to the East, 75th Avenue to the North, 210th Street to the West and the Vanderbilt Motor Parkway bicycle and pedestrian path to the South. The development site has a lot area of 991,050 square feet on which there are nine residential buildings containing a total of eight thirty four dwelling units and two single story recreational buildings.

The total zoning floor area is 885,215 square feet or 0.89 FAR. The existing nine buildings range from six to seven stories and 57 to 70 feet tall. And there are currently eight fifty one permitted parking spaces in below grade or surface lots. Here is a look at the driveway leading to the development site. This is a parking lot that is proposed for a buildup.

And here's a look at what the other neighboring buildings on the Winter Parks campus looks like, six stories. So the proposed authorization would facilitate the development of a new 71 feet tall seven story residential building in the southwest corner of the development site on Tax Lot 400 that is currently occupied by 43 space surface parking lot and that will contain approximately 82 market rate dwelling units consisting of approximately 109,866 square feet of floor area with an FAR of one point zero, which is below the maximum allowed FAR of two point zero in an R5 district. The resulting projects will yield a total of eight forty parking spaces across the campus through the redevelopment of the roundabout next to the building. Per the applicant, one taller building allows the larger campus to preserve a significant amount of existing vegetation and topography, as opposed to building two smaller buildings at 40 feet each per pre CACO guidelines within a campus. The applicant is able to propose a building that still maximizes its allowable SAR with the building's smaller footprint.

In the same pipeline here, the hatch markings indicate the scope of the waiver with the maximum building envelope. So the applicant requests a CPC zoning authorization pursuant to ZR Section 20 three-six 31 to permit a new structure penetrating the height and setback regulations following the list shown on the screen. Per the applicant, this will facilitate a more productive use of the development site while not impairing on the character of the area. The statement of findings further shows the applicant's rationale for this proposal. Here we have a section of the building showing a proposed maximum height of 71 feet.

The black hat shows the proportion of the proposed building that will exceed the pre CHO regulations pursuant to the ZR Section 20 three-six 31. The red hatch marking indicates a portion of the building that exceeds the CHO requirements, ZR 23 dash four two five. The campus infill component of CHO has increased the maximum building height for our five districts like Windsor Park to 65 feet. In other words, while the project was filed before the passing of CHO, the proposal will still require a waiver even with the passing of CHO. Here's another angle to look at the waiver extent.

And lastly, on 12/02/2024, Queen CB11 held its public hearing and recommended unconditional approval of the application with 24 in favor, 14 against, and two abstaining. I'm happy to take any questions.

Questions? Commissioner Goodrich.

Thank you so much. So I just

want to clarify for me about parking spaces. And the background to my question is there were votes, 14. And residents expressed various concerns about parking needs that the building would bring and air pollution and less green space. I want to first just address the parking needs because I heard you say that there's eight forty three more parking spaces that this project would bring. Did I get that correct?

So there are currently eight fifty one parking spaces. And with the redevelopment of the site, it will bring the total number to eight forty. So there's a Oh, net net parking spaces. Yes. Yes. There's a net loss of 11 parking spaces.

Okay. So do you have any insight into what is the applicant's response to the community's no votes and the reasons why there would be less parking spaces?

I'll have to look into that and I'll provide a response.

Okay.

And then I also know that this is a co op and they're building this precisely to for financial stability. And just for my own curiosity, I'm just wondering if the because I think the community has already asked this. I don't know what the response has been. Can you explain how more units would result in less maintenance fees?

I will also have to look into that.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Other questions?

Sarah? Commissioner Osorio has a question on Zoom.

Commissioner Osorio.

Thank you, Thank you for the presentation. Just a quick question. I just wanna confirm that I understood correctly this how how many affordable housing units would be produced here? My understanding is that this is Market market rate. Correct?

Yes. That's market rate.

And this is given the modification that the city of yes for housing opportunity allows. Right?

I believe so. Yes.

Yeah. I just wanted to express kinda, like, the concern for a project of this magnitude without any affordable housing. I just wanted to clarify that I was hearing you correctly and and and sort of, like, highlight my concerns around allowing a project of this magnitude without any affordability requirements. Thank you.

Understood. Yep. Thank

you, commissioner Osorio. Other questions and or observations? Is this for certification?

This would be a schedule for vote. We would put it

in calendar

in two weeks,

and then

we'll have it as a future vote at the next review session

if that is the outcome. Okay.

Next item.

Schedule for vote. Okay.

The third item on our agenda is a pre hearing review of a business improvement district in Manhattan Community District 11. Our presenter

is Jose Perricios on Zoom.

Good afternoon, commissioners. How are you? Can you guys hear me well?

We can hear you. It would be better if we could see you. I

have my

We'll get the Zoom on the screen right here. Okay.

Zoom on. Unfortunately, I am a little

There you are.

Under the weather. Okay. I wasn't able to make

it to

the office. But yeah. So the once you have my presentation, let me know, and I can proceed with my slides.

Waiting on the

Waiting on the slides. I think, yeah, I see it here.

Yeah. Okay. There we are.

You probably lost me, but I it's fine. I think the most important information here is the slides, and then, I can answer questions. But, again, good afternoon. My name is Jose Trusius. And today, the department presents an application by the department of small business services to establish and approve district plan for the proposed East Harlan East 1 25th Street Business Improvement District. It's located in Community District 11. It's Harlan in Manhattan. Next slide, please.

Jose, just one sec. Sarah, this isn't showing on my screen.

Look at the presentation, ma'am,

on the chair, screen. One second. Okay.

Okay. We're good.

We're good. Alright. The

Harlan Jose.

No. No worries. Sorry. The East Harlan East 1 25th Street bed will be located in Northern East Harlan Center along East 1 25th Street, between 5th Avenue and 2nd Avenue. The Department of Small Business Services is the applicant on behalf of the big formation steering committee, which is a group of businesses, property owners, residents, and elected officials. It's, you know, the proposed the development of proposed bid essentially will provide additional supplemental services to this area, which

will

include sanitation, district marketing, beautification, public programming, advocacy, and other activities and programs to the area. Next slide. Just to quickly note, there are 75 bids in New York City. You know, they have been around for more than forty five forty years or so. Bids are, I mean, are locally controlled by nonprofits with boards, directors.

And, you know, typically, they're cons this board of directors consist of property owners, commercial tenants, residents, and elected officials. They do, provide supplemental services, do not replace existing services by the city. It's it's, you know, misconception sometimes that if we do approve a bid, sometimes, existing services will be cut from other areas within the surrounding community district. These, services are primarily funded by a special assessment on the district properties. So what the catchment area of the bid and the benefited properties pay an assessment that is worked during the process of outreach and bid formation.

Between budget, within those 75 bids, there's, the lowest bid having about 80,000, you know, annual revenue or or annual budget with a median being 640,000 and the highest being 25,000,000. Next slide, please. Here are the boundaries of the proposed bid. And it's in East Harling. It's 1 25th.

This is 1 25th Street in the northern, you know, East Harling, which is the only community district in Manhattan that's not currently a bit. This bay will cover around 20 blocks, a 152 dock slots. It include also 95 businesses within the proposed area. Next slide. The properties within the proposed district are primarily commercial and mixed use.

Developments, 1 25th Street is a convenience shopping corridor comprised mostly of takeout restaurant bodegas, beauty salons. In addition, there are a number of good, health care clinics and pharmacies. There is some national retailers as well located within mostly located in the Western Side Of 1 25th District. But for this area, it's mostly in the a little a smaller scale type of businesses. There is excellent transportation of interest in the area, the Lexington Avenue 456 Subway Station, the Harlem 1 25th Street Station of the Metro North Railroad, as well as multiple bus lines and that I want I tend to remember and and mentioning here, And city bike docks are located within the proposed big district as well.

Next slide. The zoning is is the the proposed system will be entirely within the special 1 25th Street corridor. There is some, different commercial and residential zoning districts in the area as well as the, newly located in the inner transit zone, which does not require parking for this area, and the special transit land use district, which is, you know, aimed for the facilitation of the 2nd Avenue extension subway. Next slide. The proposed formula that was approved and created by the formation steering committee, aims to equal equitably assess the areas, the various mix of small retail commercial buildings, development size, and large affordable and mixed use or mixed income residential buildings in the area.

The assessment is based on a combination of front end footage and tax taxable value for class a one and class a two in the district. The difference between class a one and class a two is actually the tax loss size, you know, for a one being larger than eighty eighty thousand square feet and 80, class a two being lower than 80,000 square feet. There is a median rent of, or or a median rate, sorry, of 5 thous 5,853 per year. Once, you know, the bid is approved, property owners do not have the option to opt to pay or not pay. You know, you you had to pay the dues on the tax value of the proposed bid.

Next slide, please. It is anticipated that what the what you see here, you know, the bid is so let me step back. The bid has approved a budget of $1,000,000. For the first three fiscal years, the bid will be working with a 750,000 budget. It is anticipated that this amount will be collected from the assessment that we did previously saw in the in the previous slide.

And, you know, this will help that we provide a supplemental services and support maintaining and maintaining the conditions of East 1 25th Street. These services that you see include the sanitation and maintenance, the public safety, strict strict cave, verification, digital marketing, public programming, and admin and advocacy, which is an executive director, perhaps a staff member. And we we did project the annual expenditure to provide the services that are outlined. The photos on the right are from the fiscal year twenty three bit trends report, so from different other bits. Next slide, please.

The although the bid or conversations about forming a bid had started way before 2023, the formal outreach process have begun in in 2023 with, you know, public meetings, for property owners and tenants, and meetups with community by community request and also door to the survey. The proposed base has reached a 61% level of support from stakeholders. Of the total 152 tax slot, there are 79 commercial tax slot, which 48 highest price support, 13 residential stuff like 92 in support of the proposed development of the 59 exempt labs, which which are the government, and nonprofit do not pay a fee, also 42, in support of the proposed development. Next slide. And on December 20, our committee board eleven executive committee recommended approval of the application with zero opposing and and no voting zero for the proposed bid.

I would like to, you know, also mention that, you know, the committee board eleven is one elect official or elected representative group within the steering committee and have been also working with, the members of property owners of rest of his heartland to to form the bid. Next slide. And and just a quick summary slide here. You know, as I mentioned before, the the bid will provide the this supplement the services to support, maintain, and enhance East 1 25th District. There is, as some of you might know already, an an existing bid in 1 25th District, which is headed to the West.

It's outlining here. And we did if if we do approve, this proposed bid on East 1 25th, the total coverage for serve supplemental services on 1 25th District will be, pretty much around 22,000 square feet of list. 22,000 linear feet of service, which, you know, we're recovering from more than Side Avenue to 2nd Avenue. This proposed bid is essentially from 5th Avenue to 2nd Avenue. So the other big, which is right which is already existing, provides services and sometimes has a step, you know, to provide an extra hand on East 1 25th District, covers Morningside Avenue to Fife Avenue.

And with that, I can answer questions. And, also, just to know the SBS representatives and representatives from the steering committee will be, at the public hearing on Wednesday to answer additional questions.

Okay. Thank you, Jose. And we do have a couple of questions. Just let me ask one. Jose, could you go back to the slide with the budget?

I believe that is Slide eight.

Yeah. Now you said that, there had been a budget approved for $1,000,000 But for the first, what, two years, it would be at three fiscal years, it would be at $7.50?

Correct.

Okay. So $35,000 for for general and administrative is not really realistic, is it?

Yeah. This is, you know, what I I do have in in in the district plan for the 35,000. I do believe probably that is part of, like, ramping the the bit, perhaps $35,000 for the first three years until, you know, there is an additional staffing proposed programming for the area. But, yeah, I I did know this also as as part of, like, a general admin for hiring executive director or anybody who's gonna be part of managing the bit since a little bit in the lower end.

Yeah. I would say so. You have something to add on that?

Afternoon, Commissioners. It's Malik Skovits, Economic Development. It's my understanding too that the budget for beautification public realm and public safety also there are staff associated with those budgets, but that the budget for administrative in general are those that are not staff that are not otherwise allocated to a specific purpose.

That makes sense.

Yeah. So that would be so you won't have an executive director, essentially. Is it

it part can I just ask Please, Fred? Yeah. Is possible

that there are allocations associated in the divisions with portions of the salary that would go to the executive director? And so it there may be $35,000 left over that's unaccounted for. But let's say the position pays $55,000 but $2,000 of it is in maintenance and security and $3,000 of it is in different divisions so that the total amount for the executive director is somehow allocated within those categories. I'm guessing that's true only because it would be hard to imagine that they're only allocating $35,000 for general administrative unless that was not personal services. That was, you know, you know, paper and machinery and rent or something.

Commissioner, we'll ask to confirm.

Yeah. Yeah. I'm trying I'm just trying to clarify. I know. Sometimes it's, like, packaged that way, so it's not clear. But that number is so low, there's really no other explanation. Because they're not gonna have a bid this size is not gonna have five senior managers. Right.

It it I know this is your wheelhouse, though. Well, yeah.

I mean, so I I yeah. I could I see it. I mean, we all we we've been doing bids for years here, but Right. That would be an explanation that I think might make sense. Okay.

Commissioner Tirmani, commissioner Benjamin, commissioner Goodrich.

Actually, my question was exactly that of the vice chairs. So and I think it will likely come up with SBS since many of us have the same question.

And thank you, Fred.

Commissioner Benjamin.

I have two questions. The first relates to Fred's and the Vice Chair's comments, which is, is it possible that there is another organization that is actually going to run this bid on behalf of the bid and that the $35,000 is really just

part

of a consulting fee that's being paid up the line. But we can if you could just make sure that they're ready to answer that. And then my question is twofold. One, I'd like someone to actually break out the percentage of the area that the bid encompasses that is business, the percentage residential, and the percentage not for profit. That was not in the package. And I'm intrigued by that particularly because of the formula. And I'd like to understand the assessment formula better.

Mhmm. For sure. And I commissioner. Do have one slide here that kinda explains a little bit, but I wanna attempt to explain it, to you guys, in the, sorry, in the appendix. But I I think SBS could do a better job explaining a particular formula. I will do highlight that in this case, yes, you know, residential properties will be assessed as other, you know, properties, which is atypical for other bids that, we had heard in the commission before.

Except my understanding is that East Harlem has the highest percentage of NYCHA, and I wanna know and NYCHA government owned housing is not paying into the bid.

Mm-mm. No.

So I'm curious. It said that there are 95 businesses that are paying in. So I need to understand the formula because I don't know if NYCHA is not paying and they're the biggest residential. Residential is paying, but not for profits aren't paying. I don't understand how and why the formula was put together this this way. So if SBS can explain to me more about it and with the percentages of the different categories so that we can understand how they're coming who's paying the $1,000,000.

Okay. That's it. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Goodrich.

Hi. Thank you. Always

needs a

little warming up. My question is, I guess, of I'm wondering a bit of if bids have transformed. When I see the budget and I see that sanitation is the highest budget amount, One of the first things you said is that the bids are not replacing city services. And I'm just wondering if that's a new thing with bid budget. I'm very familiar with bids and the beautification projects. That is a completely separate maintenance and beautification. But I'm just wondering why is sanitation, which is also the city's responsibility, happens to be a huge part

of the bid budget.

Mhmm. Yeah. I mean I

think this is also

a hearing too, if I if I remember correctly. But I don't remember when that was. But now I'm jogging my memory when I see this budget.

No. Bits, in general, in in in and also in the transfer report had the you know, the highest allocation of funds go to sanitation. I don't have the exact number right now, but it's, you know, the the the most cost program that there is allocated for for all bids in in you know, throughout New York. I don't have this Okay.

Can I just

just as a general principle? I'm sorry. I cut I cut them off.

Okay. Were were you were you done, Jose?

Yeah. No. I was done. I was actually gonna ask commissioner to step in because I think he he might have.

Yeah. Yeah.

I know this is gonna

be probably doing that.

I I would just say as a matter of this this is really very consistent. This also has maintenance and sanitation, so we don't really know what the definition of maintenance is here is. But generally speaking, would say bids historically, at least a third of their budget goes to sanitation. It is the number one priority next to public safety, but that's a real visual impact in the neighborhoods. Legally, we can only perform supplemental services.

So the city department of sanitation is not legally permissible permitted to reduce services in an area where bids exist. So this is supplemental. But the the way this budget, which I can't speak to how this budget was prioritized, but it's very consistent with how bids prioritize these categories of services. And that's because a bid may be on you know, and the cost of it is that a bid is doing seven days a week sweeping, bagging, in some cases transporting the garbage if not leaving it. I will say this, and Jose, I don't know this, but SBS may want to report on this at the hearing

Mhmm.

That there are increased costs now to

The container.

Organization the the containerization. Mhmm. So I don't know if they're reflecting the fact that they need to buy containers in here, which might be a one time purchase in the first year. But there are going to be new expenses for organizations because it's not just bids. There's other organizations that people hire to do sanitation like services in the neighborhoods around the city.

So I would say just as a general principle, BIDS perform supplemental services to the city, but they're doing it generally seven days a week. They're picking up garbage all day long, whatever their hours of operation are gonna be, which is not clear here. But that generally, if you look at the trends report, I would say one third of bid budgets generally across the board go to sanitation services. I think this is a very consistent sort of chart in terms of how they're prioritizing creating the bid.

Yeah. It's about half.

I mean, maybe I shouldn't say this, but I will. I think that that reflects a feeling, honestly, of the city sanitation model.

Except Yeah. He doesn't handle commercial waste.

Well, neither does the bid. The bid is only picking up public trash. This this is nothing Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah.

Just the per you know, because people don't wanna go in and there's trash everywhere. But

Mhmm.

It's an extension of city services because it's funded by the city.

Oh, it's everything generally the bid is a bid is doing is an enhancement to what the city could be doing if the city prioritized its budget differently. Differently. No question about that.

Thank you.

Okay. So this is on for hearing Wednesday?

Yeah.

Yeah. This is on for hearing on Wednesday. We also have a question from commissioner Gold on Zoom too.

Commissioner Gold.

Hi there. Thank you. Also had a question that sort of ties in to all of that. If we can go back to the chart that showed the approval for the neighborhood where I think we said the number was 61%. But then when we looked at the breakdown, it's 42% support from exempt organizations, right, who wouldn't be paying in, presumably. And I think I think we have the highest let's see. That's this actually, this is the slide I was looking for. That's the budget. Yeah. If yeah. I think it was after this. But I

Upfront. Like sorry. I think it's It's

it's it's okay. Essentially, we have the highest from residential. Right? 92%, but there were only 13 there. When we looked at at the commercial who are paying it, it's only 48%. So just wanted to get a better sense. I know we are framing this or it's been framed to us as something that the neighborhood is asking for.

But

the reality is most of the, you know, the majority of the folks, I think, by on broader numbers don't quite are are less than 50% approval. Right? I mean, if we look at the exempt too, I'm surprised that any of them would say no, but it sounds like most of them have said no. And then the commercial side, it's less than one in two are interested, and presumably, they they get the brunt of it. So just wanted to get a broader sense. I mean, when we yeah. We're we're we're we're getting that if the neighborhood is asking for it if if the support level is relatively low from from what we can see right now. Like, we sorry. And it might be a better question for SBS.

But

I was gonna say, you know, I think, you know, SBS can potentially into this. My my, you know, experience on this is sometimes, like, the statement also are, like, the guesses that we're getting in terms of, you know, how many people are responding and also many opposition. But I think, you know, they could have the breakdown between what was an statement of support, what were, you know, problems that did not respond in terms of, like, yeah, the the assessment or the, you know, outreach. But, yeah, they they do have those numbers, and and we'll

Yeah. No. I think I'd I'd look forward to have you know, hopefully, when they come and speak on Wednesday, I'd love for them to maybe give us the genesis of this. It might be more helpful of, you know I mean, if if it's gonna be support, where did that come from? Because right now, what they're getting doesn't look like it has as much support as we'd like to see, I think. Thank you.

Thanks, Commission.

All right. Any other questions? Okay. And this is a question that could be addressed by SBS on Wednesday. Where you have a corridor with a preexisting bid that takes up, I don't know, a significant percentage of the corridor. In the determination of a of of creating a new bid, does the preexisting bid have a right of first refusal, or is there any, are they given the option to consider expanding, their their bid? What is the what is the process and policy around that?

I can speak on the policy right now. SBS could definitely speak more on that, but I could tell you that the existing bid is in support of this expansion. So they they they have been outreach and work along between the information and existing bid, and they have expressed the support for the forming of the bid in this. But, you know, SBS could speak on terms of, like, any efforts on expanding or, you know, extending the existing bid or that conversation historically. Yeah.

K. Alright. This is all for hearing, Lindsay. Thank you.

Thank you. Bye bye.

Thanks, Jose. Bye bye.

The fourth item on our agenda is a prehearing review of a UDAP designation, project approval, and disposition of city owned property in the Bronx Community District 4. Our presenter is Brenna Hemmings.

Good afternoon.

Okay. Perfect. That's better.

Good afternoon again, and another happy New Year.

Happy New Year.

So my name is Brenna Hemmings, and I will be presenting on 10931095 Jerome Avenue, EDAP. So New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, HPD, is requesting a designation of an urban development action area project, UDAP, and disposition of city owned land. This would facilitate a new 11 story residential development with 61 units, including one for the on-site superintendent. This project is located in Community District 4 Of The Bronx, and it is located specifically at 1093 Jerome Avenue and 1095 Jerome Avenue within the Highbridge neighborhood. The development site is highlighted in blue on the map.

The area map shows the existing land uses located in the surrounding area and is in a primarily R7-one zoning district. The land uses in the surrounding area include residential and commercial as well as mixed commercial and residential uses. The proposed development will include one apartment, as I said, for the on-site superintendent as well as a mix of studio, one bedroom, two bedroom, and three bedroom units serving individuals and families earning up to 80% AMI as well as formerly homeless individuals and families. In order to facilitate the proposed development, the applicant is requesting a UDAP and disposition of city owned land. Bronx Community Board four voted unanimously in support on 11/26/2024, with 28 in favor, zero against, and zero abstaining.

The Bronx borough president convened a public hearing on 12/11/2024. Members of the applicant team were in attendance and spoke in support of application. Supporting the community board's unanimous decision, the Bronx Borough President voted to approve this application on 12/26/2024. That concludes my presentation, and thank you for your time. I also do want to say that I can take questions that you have. And there were some questions that were asked at the November 4 certification. I included I got an answer from the applicant team for Commissioner Orserio's question. And then for Commissioner Benjamin's question, they will be able to answer that on Wednesday.

Okay. All right. Other questions on this? MBD, right, is the developer.

So I believe there are two developers. There's Lemmer Development Group and then MBD Community Housing Corporation.

Right. Okay. Thank you. I'm home for hearing. Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Goodrich.

Very quick observation and comment, not a question, but, you know, once again, we have it's in Highbridge, which is a very low income neighborhood. And this is just for the applicant for the hearing. But it's at 80% AMI, which gives them the ability to charge for $2,000 for a studio. And, you know, it's clear that for the neighborhood and for seniors who are often the most economically vulnerable, that it's probably not going to be affordable for people who live there. So that's just my comment for the applicant.

And the applicant will have some points to that was actually, I believe, Commissioner Benjamin's question from the November 4 certification. So they have an answer, and they will be able to address it on Wednesday. But thank you for the comment.

Great. Thank you.

Thank so much.

Have a good day, everybody. Thanks very much.

The fifth item on our agenda is a pre hearing review of a UDOT designation, project approval, disposition of city owned property, zoning map and zoning tax amendments in Brooklyn Community District 16.

Our presenter is Chuky Tsai.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Good afternoon, Chuky.

This is an application by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, HPD, for a UDAP as well as a zoning map and zoning text amendment in order to facilitate three new 100% income restricted developments totaling 60 apartments and 2,000 square feet of commercial space. This application certified 09/09/2024, and the public hearing is this Wednesday. The project is located at three scattered sites in Brownsville Community District 16, Brooklyn. The first site is at 425 Mother Gaston Boulevard. The second is at 546 Thomas Boylan Street.

Both sites are located in Council District 41 and will be subject to a UDAP action. The third site is located at 1733 St. Marks Avenue in Council District 37 and will be subject to the same UDAP action as well as a zoning map amendment and a zoning text amendment. The surrounding area of Brownsville is characterized by a mix of residential and commercial use and industrial use clustered to the east. Nearby, there are large NYCHA campuses, planned or under construction HPD developments and community facilities, commercial retail and open space.

The three sites are well served by public transportation. The proposed development at Site 1 is a four story 7,018 square foot mixed use building containing six apartments income restricted apartments and approximately 2,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space. The proposed development at Site 2 is a six story 17,900 square foot residential building. It would include 21 income restricted apartments and a landscaped rear yard. The proposed development at Site 3 is a nine story 27,888 square foot residential building that would include 33 income restricted apartments and a landscaped rear yard.

HPD is proposing three actions to facilitate the project. The first is a UDAP action necessary to facilitate all three developments and that's the disposition of city owned property. And in addition, HPD is proposing two actions that would apply only to Site 3, that's the 1733 St. Marks Avenue site. Those actions are zoning map amendment to rezone part of an existing M11 district to an R7AC24 district and a zoning text amendment to map an MIH area and again in order to facilitate development on-site three.

Community Board sixteen voted 30 to zero to disapprove the application with conditions. The conditions are shown verbatim on this slide and I will summarize them briefly. The first is to adjust the AMI configuration to increase the number of units in lower AMI bands and decrease the number of units in higher AMI bands for greater affordability by the local community. The second is to consider sites for the development of homeownership opportunities. Three, partner with Central Brooklyn Economic Development Corporation for local hiring and subcontracting.

Four, abatement of rodent and raccoon issues on the lot at 546 Thomas Boiland. Five, explanation or more information on the open space within the projects and consideration of alternate designs. And lastly, the provision of some examples of similar rezonings to this one. HPD will respond to some of those questions at the public hearing. And they have as well to the community board.

On 11/22/2024, Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso submitted a recommendation to approve the project. At certification, the commission had a number of questions about the project, about affordability, energy efficiency, construction schedule, how CHO will affect the project, how units will be advertised to local residents, and for some clarity on existing conditions regarding windows and AC units on the adjacent properties at the St. Marks site. I've asked HPD to speak to these questions at the public hearing on Wednesday. Thank you.

Thank you. Questions? Commissioner Goodrich.

We see the reasons why the community board voted no. But to my knowledge, this is the first time I've seen in Brownsville, they vote down 100% affordable housing. And I can think, you know, the reasons are valid. But I guess my question is, is there some other context? Because this community often votes yes. So I'm wondering if there's something else.

So what I'll I'll say, commissioner Goodridge, I unfortunately was not able to attend that meeting. And I'll ask HPD to be able to explain a little bit more about this. I think sometimes and again, I don't wanna speak because I don't know exactly what was going through the you know, beyond

what the

board shared. I know that in certain cases, some boards, if they oppose a certain part of a project, will vote it down. Some will choose to vote it with conditions. I think a lot of it comes down to different boards have different styles of wanting to express approval or disapproval. But I I don't wanna speak for community board sixteen in this specific matter. Other

questions?

Commissioner Osorio on Zoom has a question.

Commissioner Osorio.

Thank you, vice chair Nichols. Thank you so much, Yuki, for the presentation. I have a quick question. Do does the department I mean, I I have some questions for for the applicant to be discussed on Wednesday, but but I wanted to know if, if the department has or keeps a record of how many units are approved specifically, I'm curious of UDAP designations and how many of them have actually been built and occupied. Do we have a record of how many units have been of that or have been completed have completed the process in this community district?

So as far as specifically related to UDAP, I mean, they need to not not that I'm aware of, but I I I will have to do some research and get back to you on that one, commissioner. As far as tracking the actual number of units, our, like, capital planning tracker does have a record of the housing, but I I'm sure you're aware of that one.

Fair enough. Yes. Unfortunately, that's only how many have been approved. But I wanna know how many have been built and successfully occupied, specifically how many affordable housing units have gone through this track. And so but I I fair enough.

Thank you for your response. I know that this is, sort of like a research question, but I would very much like to partner or collaborate with with the department somehow and try to understand, you know, where are we in that regard. We see a lot of really good applications, specifically some of the recent HPD applications have been really interesting in terms of the sustainability measures. I'm at a point where I wanna understand, you know, in the last few years, how many of those have been actually built and what has been built. And so any any additional help or data information that you can provide would be extremely useful. Thank you so much.

Thanks, commissioner. And Alex wanted to respond to that briefly.

Hi there, Commissioner. So what we'll do is and this is also responsive, I think, to your past question for the North 7th Street application. What we'll do is we'll reach out to our central divisions that track the housing production in the city. And we'll see if we can get some numbers on both affordable housing updates as it relates to MIH, but also working with HPD to see if can get some UDAP numbers for you. So we'll we'll reach out to them and and try and get some information for you on this.

Thank you so much to both of you. Not to jump again, I just wanted to but given that you're there, I just wanted to say thank you for the response to the questions on $581. This is ahead in the agenda. I just wanted to say thank you for that. And if we can include that application as well just in terms of the context of of the spirit of the question. Thank you so much.

Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. To someone for hearing.

Thank you.

The sixth item on our agenda is a pre hearing review of a city map amendment in Brooklyn Community District 14. Our presenter is Abraham Abreu.

Afternoon while we're waiting. Great. Thanks so much. So, yes, my name is Abraham Abreu, and this is, the prehearing for New York Community Hospital. So, this project is at 2525 Kings Highway in Brooklyn, and the New York Community Hospital of Brooklyn is seeking a city map amendment to eliminate, discontinue, and close a portion of Avenue 0 between Bedford Avenue and Kings Highway.

This is intended to facilitate the construction of an infectious disease isolation unit or IDIU. And this is to comply with New York State Department of Health order for summary action of October 1634, which mandated that hospitals construct these. So this would be a 500 square foot footprint, three stories tall, so 1,500 square feet of additional community facility space. And this was certified by the commission on 09/23/2024. So here is our land use context map. The blue is the hospital facility,

it's a little hard

to see, but we'll zoom in in a minute. The yellow is the area to be doing that. So you can as you can see, that's largely a residential area with some higher density residential and commercial along Kings Highway, and then it gets less dense as you get farther away from Kings Highway. So here's our aerial view. The sort of half arrow shape is the area that's proposed to be demapped.

I do wanna note that while the Avenue 0 map street width is would be decreased by 11.7 feet, that little 11.7 foot wide strip represents a ADA access ramp that is already covered by our revocable consent with DOT. So while the street with map width will

be

changing, the actual amount of space available to pedestrians wouldn't really change because that's already has something there. Assuming any bit closer, this is the site plan. So the blue shape represents what the new tax slot would be as the applicant intended to acquire this. And then the red again, the red arrow looking shape is the area proposed to be the mat. You can see on the inset on the the left half of that arrow, that's that's white.

That's the ramp that's already there, and then it would expand to the gray area. So on 10/07/2024, Brooklyn Community Board fourteen passed a favorable recommendation of this project. It was unanimous 33 in favor, zero against, and zero abstaining. And then on 12/18/2024, the Brooklyn Board President also issued a favorable recommendation for the project. So that is New York Community Hospital. Please let me know if you have any questions. Great.

Thank you very much. Any questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. We'll pick this up for public hearing on Wednesday. Thanks.

Okay. Oh, actually, we have a question

from commissioner Osorio. Oh, commissioner Osorio for a question.

Thank you so much, chair. Thank you for the presentation. Just a really quick question. I I just wanted to understand, you know, how can we assure that this is not setting a precedent? I mean, I think that in this case, it's pretty much the rationale is very clear. This is a public health care facility that is very much in demand, and and I understand and and very much agree with with the request. But but I'm wondering, you know, how can we make sure or from the point of view of the department, how can we assure that this doesn't set a precedent for using the right of way in this way?

I forgot a question. I don't know if you have any thoughts on that.

Commissioner, can you say a little bit more about what sort of precedent you're concerned about? Yeah.

This is an encroachment on the right of way. And so if in this case, I think that the request makes sense too because this is an opportunity to expand and strengthen the this health care facility. But, I would like to understand how can we make sure that we don't necessarily set a precedent for normalizing other types of encroachment.

Hi. Yeah. This is Steven Leonard, director of technical review at City Planning. I'd like to, you know, have some time to come up with a more polished sort of policy response on that. But the things that come to mind are the existing width of the sidewalk, the public nature of the use.

You know, those are all things that that that are are are fairly unique in in the the pool of of applications that we that we often get from, you know, situations where it might cause more of a obstruction or where, you know, it's more of a private function. But we we can get back to you on a a more polished sort of general policy response.

Thank you so much for that. I I appreciate it. And and, you know, as you were speaking, I was thinking about the principles of urban design. Perhaps this is an opportunity to raise them and use them, activate them in a way where we can explain to the public why it makes sense here. But but we need to be careful in terms of protecting public spaces elsewhere. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks, commissioner. Other questions? Okay. Seeing none, we'll pick this one up on Wednesday. Thank you very much. Thanks so much.

Okay. The seventh item on our agenda is a prehearing review of a zoning map amendment and a city map amendment in Queens Joint Interest Area 81. Our presenter is Steven Johnson.

Hello, Steven. Hello. Good afternoon. So I'm back Hey. With more gaming.

So this is an application. What's that? I am. Alright. Here we go.

This is an application by Queens Future LLC for a city map amendment and a zoning map amendment to facilitate the development of a gaming facility and associated uses located in Flushing Meadows, Corona Park in Queens, New York. This project is to map and demap parkland and streets and to map a CA4 commercial zoning district. The project was certified on September 23 and is now back for pre public hearing review. I'll give an abbreviated presentation that includes illustrative drawings of a gaming facility, parking structures and over 20 acres of new landscaped and program Parkland that would be part of a gaming application to be submitted to the state this summer. The Queens Future applicant is seeking one of the three available commercial gaming licenses that will be awarded by the 2025.

So, Queens Future LLC is the applicant for the project. The City of New York Parks Department is also a co applicant on the project as they are on all map change actions related to Parkland. In this presentation, when I refer to the applicant, I am referring only to Queens LLC. So there are two proposed land use actions. The first is a city map amendment, which has four elements.

The first is demap park plan corresponding to the area of the proposed gaming facility. The second is demap portions of street within the existing boundary of Grand Central, which is related to vehicular access into the proposed development. The third is to map new streets corresponding to the relocated westbound Grand Central Parkway ramp. And the fourth is to map new parkland corresponding to park improvements also related to the boundary of the Grand Central Parkway. Now the second action is a zoning map amendment to map a portion of the development site in the CA-four Commercial Zoning District.

Development site is within Flushing Meadows Corona Park, but is not located in any specific community district. And because of this application, it was referred to multiple community boards of Budding Park. So, we have the this map shows the nine gaming applications that are being proposed in New York City. There's four in Manhattan, one in The Bronx, one in Brooklyn, and two in Queens, including this one that we're discussing. The four highlighted projects are the projects that have additional actions that are not covered by the approved gaming text amendment.

This includes Queens feature, which has the mapping actions and the alienation of parkland, which requires state legislation. A quick review of the state gaming schedule. Gaming applications must be submitted to the gaming facilities location board by July 27, which also starts the review of each application by a six member community advisory committee. Each CAC will have public hearings, issue a finding establishing support and have a two thirds vote approval by the six members to advance the application to the Gaming Board. The CACs must vote on the applications by September 30 and all approved applications being submitted will then be submitted to the Gaming Board.

So, the Board could get anywhere from zero to nine applications to review from New York City. Just a brief historical context. The development site was a landfill for decades and was later paved and served as a parking lot for the World's Fair. In 'sixty four, Shea Stadium opened on the site of the parking lot. And then in 2006, the new stadium opened across from Shea, which was then demolished and currently exists once again as an open parking lot.

This is an image of the existing conditions of the site today with Citi Field Stadium and the large number of surface parking lots surrounding the area. The development site is bordered to the North by Northern Boulevard and Whitestone Expressway, the Grand Central Parkway is to the West, Beaverway is to the East, and the New York City Transit Yard And Bus Depot is right next to Roosevelt Avenue and the Number 7 Subway. The proposed development sites are labeled A, B, C, and D on this image. And here is an illustration of the proposed development. I will touch on each of the development sites later in the presentation.

Site A is the main development of the casino and hotel and parking. Site B is the food hall, community facility space and additional parking. Site C and D are parking. And the proposed new and improved park is located roughly between Site A, the casino and the existing stadium. So just a few existing condition photos.

This is starting at the north end. We have two images of Seaver Way and Shea Road. The first is looking Southwest at the surface parking lot with Citi Field in the back. This is the location for the parking structure in Development Site D. This image is looking south from Bow Basin Place with Citi Field on the left, and the proposed casino hotel would be on the right.

This is roughly the area where the proposed new improved park space would be located. And this photo is looking east from Shea Road across what would be the facade and main entrance into the Development Site A. You can see Citi Field in the distance. These two photos represent Development Site C, which are existing surface parking lots. Photo one is looking westward, while Photo two is looking toward the east.

In both images, you can see the elevated Subway 7 line in between. Between the two sites where this photo was taken is the Passerelle Bridge, which is the elevated wooden bridge that leads into the Billie Jean King Tennis Center and connects to the rest of the park and the subway station. Here is an image of the Passerelle Bridge. You can see the wooden planks there. That's over the existing parking lots and the rail yard and the bus depot.

And finally, have an elevated view looking north at the development site. Okay. So, this is the four development sites once again in total. The proposed development has a maximum of approximately 3,700,000 square feet and would be a major new entertainment, commercial and recreational complex. It includes parking structures with up to 13,750 total spaces, which includes replacement parking for the Mets and approximately 25 acres of improved public parking space.

Now breaking down each site, this is Development Site A, which should have up to 2,100,000.0 gross square feet of hotel space with 2,300 rooms. It has the gaming facility, music hall, restaurant spaces, retail convention space, hotel amenity space. And then, of course, there'll be parking on the first two levels of the primary building and a separate six level parking structure with a total of 5,500 spaces. The development Site D is located between Citi Field and the elevated subway line subway train. It would support city field visitors, local visitors and residents.

There would be a proposed Taste of Queens food hall, retail spaces, as well as office space that would be ancillary support spaces for site B uses and stadium uses. The community facility space would provide flexible meeting rooms and event spaces for community based organizations. Site B would also include a parking structure with up to eight twenty five spaces at an elevation of 114 feet as well as 75 surface parking spaces. And here we have an illustration of Site B. You could see the proposed design for the Taste of Queens food hall and how everything connects into the new improved entrance into the subway station, which is above grade.

So Development Site C And D. So C excuse me, Development Site D is to the north of Citi Field and is proposed to be developed solely as a 12 story parking garage with an elevation of 142 feet. Site C has two sites divided by the passe rail. The eastern side is proposed to be 10 floors of parking with 2,900 parking spaces at a height of 100 feet, and the western side would be a surface parking lot with two fifty spaces. Site C is also proposed to have a redeveloped park and open space with recreational uses.

So parking for the Mets would be available on-site C, D and VIP parking on Development Site B and will be operated by the Mets as the surface parking is today. The Mets parking will also provide up to 4,000 spaces for soccer games whose schedule will be coordinated to not coincide with Mets home games. Development Site A is mainly parking for the casino and hotel uses. So this illustration shows the proposed massing of the casino and hotel development. The tallest structure on the Development Site A is a proposed three forty two foot tall building and another two eighty two foot tall building.

For context, Citi Field is two twelve feet in height. The proposed park would be a new landscaped and programmed public park space on land that though today is mapped as park is used as an asphalt parking lot. The final design of the public park is subject to review and approval by the Parks Department. Now, the applicant would be required to maintain the public park space in accordance with DPR standards, ADA standards, and also have public restrooms. The applicant is also proposing a 3.8 acre park space next to Site C, which will be improved with active recreation and sports fields.

Also, there's a passive recreation area which would be provided at the northwest corner of the site and another one that would be located at Seaver Way that would include flexible plaza area to support events throughout the year such as farmers markets. The applicant is also proposing a number of bike, pet and transit improvements as well as resiliency and design standards for the development. So now moving on to the actions. We have the map change and the map amendment. So let's start with the mapping and the demapping of parkland and streets.

As I mentioned earlier, there are four elements. The first is the demapping of 25 acres of parkland, which mainly follows the footprint of development site A. And as a matter of state law, the state legislature must authorize the alienation of that parkland. The second element is the demapping of streets. Altogether, approximately 1.2 acres of street will be demapped. The third element is the mapping of 0.66 acres of city streets that corresponds to the Grand Central Parkway area. And finally, the mapping of 0.77 acres of parkland. I'll briefly review each of these changes here. So this is Development Site A. It's in the center here with the peach color.

This is the footprint of the casino and hotel along with the other park areas that constitute a total of 25.11 acres. The two horn like structures coming out of the development are the proposed in ramp and out ramp from the gaming facility, a portion of which are elevated above Shea Road up to 20 feet for vehicles to gain access into the front main entry point. The two thin areas at the top by the white stone are demapped parkland for the creation of new streets and a new on ramp for Grand Central Parkway. This is a close-up of the demapped parkland for the two casinos with access over shade. The existing condition is on the left.

A two d rendering is in the middle. And then the proposed is on the right. This is approximately 0.27 acres for the elevated section. The roadway below would remain as parkland. Moving on from the park, demapping to a street demapping.

This area in Lavender is currently map streets for the Grand Central. The lower one labeled entrance ramp is for the new vehicular access into the front of the development that leads to that elevated bridge that I pointed out and is 0.66 acres. The second demapped street for the north is also related to Grand Central Parkway, and that area is proposed to be 0.77 acres of new mapped parkland. So here's a close-up of the proposed entrance ramps into the development, the existing with the two d and the proposed rendering. The street de mapping of this area and the area further north comes to 1.43 acres.

Now moving on to the mapping of a street. This is a mapping of 0.66 acres of street related to the relocation of the new Grand Central on ramp. This is replacement that is required by the state because the proposed development is removing the existing ramp. And you can see the area at the top in blue, the westbound ramp winding its way underneath the Whitestone Expressway heading north the marina. The area outlined in red on this map is proposed new map street is already designed as street and does not need to be demapped to make that connection.

It's existing as street. This illustration shows a close-up of the relocated ramp, goes right by boat Basin place underneath the ramp. And you can see the marina at the top there with the water. This illustration is the new park mapping with the black arrow pointing to the area in a light green. The area is proposed to be a new 0.77 acre park.

This would be a new landscape park area and is related to the need to build a new ramp for the expressway. Moving on to the second action, the zoning map amendment. The applicant is seeking a zoning map amendment to map a CA-four zoning district on a portion of the development site. A CA-four commercial district permits commercial uses with a maximum FAR of five and no residential use is allowed. The applicant is seeking a gaming license to permit a gaming facility if the Queen's future applicant is not awarded a gaming facility license.

The alteration maps for the city map change described above would not be ultimately filed. The development site area would remain map parkland used as a surface parking area, and the zoning map amendment would not take effect. The proposed zoning map amendment to create the CA-four District as well as the map change would allow the gaming facility text amendment to apply to the development site. And pursuant to that text amendment, the gaming commission could then issue a license to operate a gaming facility within the zoning district, the CA-four, and it shall be deemed to have satisfied all applicable zoning regulations. So, we have the zoning change map here.

It says existing zoning is on the left, and the proposed DA four is in the dotted outline. So, the project was certified on 09/23/2024, and was referred out to six Greens community boards and the borough presidents. Community Boards seven, eight, and nine voted to approve. Community Board four voted to approve the application but has yet to send in their official letter, but we anticipate that the letter will arrive shortly. Community Board six and three voted to give a conditional approval.

As you can see with Community Board six, the condition is to ensure that the funds allocated to the community fund are used to fund projects that the communities themselves select. Now, regards to the community fund, this was one of the topics that came up frequently during the public review process. The applicant has committed to creating a $163,000,000 community improvement fund which would provide annual grants to benefit community based organizations within or serving the neighborhood surrounding the development. The applicant would organize and operate the fund and there would be a seven member board consisting of representatives of the surrounding communities, including community board members. Grants would then be based on recommendations of the board in cooperation with local governing partners.

Now, CB3's list of conditions listed on the slide there include commitments that the applicant has made for the project, including the community fund, the new park space, infrastructure improvements and continued engagement with and participation of the nearby communities. Now, the Queensborough President in a letter dated 12/16/2024 outlined his conditional approval, including the conditions summarized in these 12 points. They mainly follow what the applicant has proposed, committed to doing, and what the community boards have asked for. And it really falls prime the applicant to codify and undertake these improvements. Now, if the actions, if approved, would allow the applicant to be considered for one of the three gaming licenses that are available and to be awarded by the state.

If the applicant is not awarded a gaming facility license, the alteration maps for the city map change described in this application would not be filed and the discretionary action would not be implemented and the map change would not take effect. Now that wraps up my presentation. I'm happy to take any questions.

Great. Thank you, Stephen. We're going to pick this one up for a public hearing on Wednesday, but let me start with the Vice Chairman and go to Commissioner Benjamin.

Thank you, Chair. Stephen, could we go back to the early slide, I think it was second or third maybe, that had a list of the current applicants, the nine. Yep. Yeah. My question is about process because some of these sites we have considered and approved the c eight. Right? The c eight c eight four, which is the zoning regulation that would govern gaming. Right?

So the zoning text amendment approved it in c four, c five, c six, c seven, c eight Yeah. And m one, two, and three. So those are any of those zoning districts would be allowed to propose a gaming facility in the summertime.

Okay. So of the nine, we have not all of them have been before us.

That's right. Right? That that's because the zoning text amendment, which was approved in April Yeah. Of 2024, provided a text amendment that permitted the use Right. In those zoning districts and established codified the process, which was established by the state Right.

To have the community advisory committees to review the applications. And then if they're approved, those applications would be deemed to could be okay with the zoning regulations the zoning resolution. So that's why those applications do not need to come before the city planning commission, because we were working on a time schedule. It's been very difficult to get these four applications through the process or starting the process because of the time constraints that the state gave us. That's why we created the text amendment.

Now, the reason why these four applications don't totally fall under the text amendment is because they have these mapping actions. Two of them are with the state. They have to get the state alienation legislation approved. That's a completely different process. We can't control that here. And because of the mapping actions related to the other projects. Now, Western Rail Yards is also a little bit different. They have a two scenario proposal with and without the casino that's also a little bit different. So, want to if they are not awarded a license, they still have a project that can go forward. But the four applications need these actions.

And if they're approved, then they will be considered to be able to submit the gaming application to the state in September.

So at this point, are these nine is it a closed process in terms of of of other applicants? Or if if an if another applicant wants to propose a site, how does that applicant and I'm just you know, I'm representing nothing. I'm just asking about the process.

So we've known about these nine projects for a while now Yeah. Because, frankly, it would be absolutely insane for somebody to come forward at this point and say, I'm gonna propose a gaming facility Yeah. And not have talked to us first because they also might need an action. Right. We don't know if they have a previous special permit or any previous approvals, why they think they can go forward. And each of these projects is a massive project. Right. People are working on these for a number of of years.

Right.

And they have groups, as you can see in the the the different groups representing each project. They have an entire array of groups in each project because they have to get a group together that specializes in gaming, specializes in whatever development that they have. That's why you can see, like, for example, Queen's Future has Cohen and the Hard Rock Cafe. And then they have the, architectural firms, working with them and the engineering firms. It's They're just massive projects. So, for somebody not to come forward until the last minute would just be a very poor decision on their part.

Sure. Just one additional thing. Even the projects that are not coming before the commission because they don't need any map changes are actually working with the state already on environmental reviews. Right. And so there's nobody who who would be able to come up now and get through the environmental reviews or other things that they would need to do in the time frame if they hadn't already started. So everyone is working with someone even if it's not coming to the commission for a ULURP approval.

Okay. So we have not yet seen Ferry Point Park, have we?

No. That one will be coming in January. Okay. That's the Bally's project

with And the golf that would be the

That would be the fourth of the four that have to before the City Planning Commission.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mr. Vice Chairman. Commissioner Benjamin?

Thank you very much. I still as you know, I have some issues with the process in which we're doing this and I feel like I need to understand more. So I'm gonna go back to the I see as possible conditional zoning, and I wanna understand when we can use that, when we can approve a rezoning and then say it's not so later on and remove it. What is the kind of Sloan Kettering wants to do a project and we're changing the zoning for Sloan Kettering to do that project, they don't get the funding, We can't then say, well, you got your old zoning back. You can't.

So how are we controlling this type of conditional zoning?

Sure. So the entirety of this process created a unique situation with the state. Understood. So in order for us to work through the time frame that they've given us and the process for which they've given the city, this is how we've we've had to

do it. But when else are we gonna be able to use it? I mean, once we do this, communities will certainly come before us and say, well, we'd like the project that they're bringing. But if they're not gonna do that project, we don't want the rezoning. So how are we gonna put the genie back in the bottle after we do this?

Right. So my name is Steven Leonard from Technical Review at City Planning. There's already a mechanism in the zoning. Section eleven thirteen says that the zoning resolution does not apply within public parks and that nothing can be built in a public park that is relinquished from the parks commissioner's control until a map amendment is processed through ULURP. So in this case, if the land is not alienated, the parkland is not alienated, then the zoning would not take effect. There are circumstances That's that already exist.

There are things we're allowed to build in public parks though.

Right. But those are not casinos. Correct. But if the They're casinos not subject to zoning. So whether a CA-four is on this park or not is irrelevant to what the parks department could or could not build within a mapped park that is that meets the definition of public park in the zoning.

Then why do it at all?

Because when the the the development site is demapped and alienated, it will need a zoning district for the for the casino to be built. And if the if the

But that kind of begs the question of we do have facilities in public parks. And my recollection, and I could be wrong, is that the parks department can allow certain things to be built, including for economic development.

They're not subject Susan, maybe you could help

me with this. Parks department can only allow park uses in parks. So economic development is not allowed in park just for economic development purposes. You can have a restaurant in a park because a restaurant is considered, you know, a amenity for park users. And you can have lots of things. You can't have a casino. You can't have a hotel. You can't have museums. And so in order to have all of Isn't there a museum in Queens? Museum The City of New York Museum is on Parkland.

Yeah. There's there's I don't want to get into the issues, but I think that actually predates something. And even the museums in Central Park are alienated. And so the land that the museums in Central Park are on is not actually Parkland anymore. But that's sort of getting a feel far afield.

The only way that casinos can a casino can be licensed under the state legislation and under the zoning text that we passed is if it has all its zoning approvals and the zoning approval under the state under our text only applies to certain zoning districts. So, it has to have a zoning district. That zoning district though doesn't mean anything unless, as Stephen said, the Parkland is actually alienated. And not just gets state authorization to alienate, but is actually alienated by an agreement with the city after the state authorizes it. And that will only happen if they get the license.

If they don't get the license, land isn't alienated. Any zoning district that we put on is not effective under the zoning as it now exists. And so it's not contingent zoning. It's not conditional zoning. We are making a zoning decision. But under the zoning rules as they now exist, because it's parkland, that zoning doesn't become effective unless and until the land is at the parkland is actually alienated. I'd still like to talk to you more, Susan. Okay. Because I'm you knew the law of unintended consequences. I'm very familiar with it. Yeah. I think we're gonna see Was

it on the bar?

I think there was an essay on it. Yeah. I think we're gonna see this, and I think we're gonna see communities wanting this. And we're gonna have I'm really concerned. So maybe we can talk about I don't wanna bore everybody else.

We agree absolutely that we do not wanna open any, any door, even a crack to suggest that you can have zoning that's conditional on For this for this project and then it goes away. So we totally agree with that. We view this as a very unique situation where the two properties that are being zoned, having zoning districts, are on Parkland, which is very unique in and of itself.

And Already has unique status within the zoning resolution. Right.

Right. But where is the state action on alienation? The state would be dealing, addressing it this Has it been introduced in both houses? That's a good question. There are drafts of it floating around.

I don't know if it's been formally introduced yet. I suspect that the fact that it's this early in January, it's probably going to be introduced in the next several weeks, but probably hasn't been introduced yet just because, you know, the session is just starting. But, you know and what typically happens is alienation legislation would get introduced, and then it would either generally, as you know, get addressed sort of towards the end of the session. Well, also need a home rule message. Needs a home rule message, needs support of the local, you know, legislatures, all things that the that the applicants are working on.

And on that realm, one last question about this. If, let's say, this site and Mr. Cohen get all the way through the process, I understand that in terms of the mapping and demappings, the city's in charge because we don't have to file it. But on this one, if it gets all the way through the process, the CAC votes for it, the state gaming commission says, this is the site. We want the casino here.

And then the financing group, etcetera, fall apart. After they've got everything, the financing just doesn't work out, they can't make it work, What happens to the zoning then if it's been approved all I the mean, the process and the review and the requirements that the state have suggests that that's probably not really a possibility because they I mean, we just look at the land use. The state licensing process, probably 75% of it is about finances. And not as much about land use. And so there are all sorts of before you can even get a license, there's all sorts of payments that need to be made, all sorts of guarantees.

And so the likelihood of that happen, I think, is probably minimal. There was an instance, I think, and Stephen, correct me if this is wrong, where they in in one of the Upstate casinos, somebody stepped in and to replace somebody else. And so it wasn't a new licensing provision, but the state process is very detailed about all the things you need to do to show the financial wherewithal in order to even get a license. Because at that point, you're so far down the line, you've made so many payments that the state itself is also also really concerned that if they're giving you a license, you will build it.

Also, just to add one other factor in that. If the CAC approves a certain application, then that has to be built. So if some peculiar situation where financing falls apart for a developer, whoever steps into that would then have to build according to what was approved by the CAC and confirmed by the gaming commission.

In terms of the alienation and other agreements, will that be in writing that the zoning will not take effect if the project is not approved and built by this developer? Well, the zoning resolution already says that if something is Parkland, zoning doesn't So that's already written. I'm saying if we get beyond that point and they're all the way into the pool. Right. If they get beyond that point, I mean, the city is not planning on doing the actual land transaction, which would be the alienation, the actual alienation of the property until after a license is granted.

So I don't think there'll be an instance where we alienate property. The zoning then becomes effective because it's no longer parkland, and then and then they don't get the license. So it the license comes first, and then the alienation and the other things that go along with the alienation, the zoning designation come second. I understand what you're saying, but you can see I'd be more comfortable if we kept dotting and crossing the appropriate letters as many times and as many ways and as much legal action as we possibly could because I do fear that we will, maybe not us, but when there are other people sitting around, Well, Ken and Fred will still be here. But there will be other people sitting in these other chairs.

Is that a backhanded compliment? What is that?

So maybe, as I said, if if we could see how that could happen, that would really tie it in a complete form. I'd appreciate that. And last but not least, there were going to be mitigation measures explored between the draft and the final on transportation, in particular, both during the construction and thereafter. Do we have that yet? Mean, I know we don't have the DEIS, the FEIS. But do we have those measures? Can we

Well, so the environmental impact, just as a reminder, were related to transportation, operational, traffic, highway, subway, bus, and ped, construction, traffic, and ped. And then there's some questions around water sewer infrastructure. So those have not been completed and ironed out yet, but those are still being discussed. And I'll ask MOEC if they have anything to update us on those elements of the project. Okay. Thank you. MOEC is the lead agency for the

And is this EIS going to be used by this? Are we co leads? Is the state going to use this for their review process also?

Yes. So, the four applicants that are Western Railroad, Fairy Point, Queens, Future and Coney, they already have environmental review undertaking. They might have some additional documents or a certain way they have to assemble the documents, which could create some time. But that's the environmental review for the

And so the state is a co lead or the state is State is the lead. Involved agency.

It's an involved agency, but they're the lead on the other five applications.

Right. Okay. Thank you. Sorry to bother everybody with this.

Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner, sorry, on Zoom.

Thank you, chair. You've you've partially answered my question. I had a similar question to the last question posed by commissioner Benjamin. I was specifically interested in the response on the potential significant adverse impacts on the 24 inch sanitary main and the 37th Avenue pump station. And so your answer suffices. But I I just wanted to understand if which which I I just wanna reiterate that as well as with the transportation impacts. In this case, there hasn't been any significant sort of, like, the mitigation strategy identified since the DEIS. Correct? That that's what you said. Right?

Yes. That not not that I'm aware of, but I'll Got follow-up with MOEC, and the applicant team might have some more insights, that they can fill everybody in on Wednesday. Wednesday.

Thank you. Thank you. I I guess my question is, if if you don't mind and and given that Susan is there, thank you, Susan, for for your explanation earlier, what are the implications for the waterfront revitalization program if, in fact, the impacts on water and sewer infrastructure are deemed to be unavoidable? Given that this is a special special waterfront area, the Flushing Meadows, how do we interpret that? How can we have both significant adverse impacts and be required to protect a significant waterfront area here? How can we sort of, like, balance those or or help us understand?

No. I am for yeah. For clarification. Okay. Yeah.

I'm not totally comfortable with answering that question in a in a discreet and exacting way. So, I'll look into that. We will look into that and get some information on it and get back to you.

No. Fair enough. Thank you so much. I know that this is a little bit of a conundrum, but I I'm especially very interested here in how can we leverage the WRP as much as possible. Also, understanding the constraints that you explained at the certification stage where we're really just looking at the demapping. We're not really looking at anything else. But thank you. I I would appreciate and would welcome the opportunity to explore this with you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, commissioner commissioner Cerullo.

So just a clarification question. And and, Susan, I think you referenced this, my recollection, about the applicants having to basically have all of the zoning required approvals in advance of a desi of a selection or application. Is it the application? Or guess not because they're in the application process. But before the someone could be receive the approval, they need to have all of their zoning

That's right.

That's approvals.

That's the state requirement. Correct. The beginning of the they submit the applications by June 27. Yes. They don't need to have them by then. I think most of them, the four will. It's

possible that

all four will, but they don't really need to do it until an approved application goes to the state. And that's on September 30.

So so he this is a clarification question, which wasn't clear to me. In an application where alienation is part of the application, Does the state have to act and alienate in advance of it going to the state to act, or is that one piece of the zoning approval that doesn't need approval in advance?

It's it's our understanding that the alienation legislation would also need to be in place Okay. By the time the the approvals are needed.

Okay.

And and that would make sense. I just wasn't sure. And then in the context of some of commissioner Benjamin's questions about what happens if if it wasn't necessary, there's it's open. But if they have it at the time, then it would be clear that if they are a recipient of a license that they would have everything. It's not that they become a recipient of the license, and then the state legislature ends up debating alienation or there's a battle between the city and the state in the next piece of this. So I just wondered how that works.

The gaming, I mean, our understanding is that the state gaming commission doesn't want to go through process designate somebody only to find out that some critical approval alienation or something else isn't going to happen, and then they'd have to start the process over again. So they won't And I

I agree with that. Procedurally, I I would have that same concern. I just didn't it wasn't clear to me in this conversation whether or not that piece of the puzzle, the state's action also needed to be completed in advance of, someone winning the Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks, Commissioner. Commissioner Madin?

Thank you, Chair. Question. If the state then alienates Parkland for an application that doesn't go through, do they then and I don't know that you have the answer. Do they then reinstate it as Parkland?

It's not actually alienated until I mean, they get the authorization from the state, but that in itself doesn't effectuate any alienation.

So it's just an authorization for alienation. It's not the actual authorization

to the city to alienate the city under certain terms if the city decides to proceed.

Thank you for that clarification. It's very helpful.

Thank you, Commissioner. Back to you, Commissioner Benjamin.

A quick question about the sorry, I'll get it later. About the fund that Mr. Cohen and the applicant have said they would establish for community uses. We've seen some of them before. The one I remember most prominently was for Yankee Stadium, which did not result in did not have a good result, we can say, and continues to be a battlefield and minefield of who gets to decide what and with allegations at different times about self serving by the members who are on the deciding group, which are appointed by the council members.

So I have some concerns about this group saying they're going to appoint seven people who are community people, who are going to have the sway over how many million dollars over this period of time, and how that fund is going to be monitored, authorized, what are the requirements for people to serve? Can they give their own groups money? I think we need to be very I understand everybody in the communities and the community board loves this idea, but I think it could be problematic. How are we going to try and establish boundaries for what's gonna happen there? Sure.

I mean, are all completely

legitimate points. Those are process questions that I don't know if the applicant is really determined at this point. It might be something later on in the process. But you could ask them on Wednesday and see if they have any ideas about how they're going do it. They have really focused on community board input and people in that area to be the members of the board to approve projects. So I don't know if all seven members of the board have been established. But I think they did publicly state CB3 and seven would have a person on that board. But I don't know if they discussed it with the other community boards.

I just wanted to sort of note that as a general matter and this is a bit of a unique situation, you know, these types of community benefit agreements are not part of approvals under ULURP. They're not part of what we can do. I know, you know, they happen sometimes without commission involvement. And and generally, they're just not part of what the commission's really approval process can consider. And that in fact is true here.

Here, the state legislation, the casino legislation does have requirements for community benefits as part of the whole licensing process and as part of the CAC process. We would anticipate that the CAC will may and certainly the state will look at these things, and weigh in on them. And so which is why it's a little bit unique here maybe. But in terms of what, you know, the commission's review and approval is, community benefits really have to, like, stay out of the equation because they're just not an appropriate part of this process. And I do understand that, but it is all over this process that that is why the community board, several of them, approved this.

That that is what they are looking for and that they will believe no matter how incorrectly that we have approved this and they are therefore expecting a level of responsibility about this fund.

Thus far, working with the Queen's community boards, they've been pretty on top of what's being looked at, which is in between the mapping actions and the zoning district. The community benefit funds that you're referring to, that will be a process that the CACs can look at and have a discussion about. So those are types of questions. And it's, like Susan said, it's part of their application to the state this summer, outlining what they're doing for their community benefits. And, of course, they're going out of their way to tell everybody what their improvements will be. Right? Because that's a huge selling point for the projects.

As I said, the community benefit for the Yankees was outside the land use process. But when the blame started shifting downwards, it was the council and the who ended

up

in the seat trying to explain how

it all happened. Okay. So I mean, I think those are great points to bring the process at future stage. And you can always ask the applicant on Wednesday if they have any comments on that at this early stage.

Okay. Thank you.

Thanks, Commissioner. Other questions? Okay. Well, we will look forward to picking this one up on Wednesday. And thank you, Stephen, for all of your work on all these proposals. We appreciate it.

Thank you.

Okay, Sarah.

Okay. Future votes for consideration on January 8. Staff have prepared reports for 12312 Sutphin Boulevard rezoning, 12203 14th Avenue rezoning. Also for consideration on Wednesday is 3111 Henry Hudson Parkway SNAD botanic modification, which is a SNAD authorization in the Bronx Community District 8, 105 Anfield Court and 386, Nugent Street, which are SNAT authorizations in Staten Island Community District 2. And lastly for consideration is Signal Hill Road tentative Lot 110, which is a special hillsides authorization in Staten Island Community District 1.

Okay. Great.

Next, post hearing follow ups. We have 581 Grant Avenue development, which had a public hearing on December 4. Lynn Tzu presented at the last review session. Lastly, we have the BEACON, which also had a public hearing at the December 4 public meeting. Trevor is here to present.

All right. Trevor, hello? Hello.

This is the post hearing follow-up and staff recommendation for the Beacon, a project by NYCHPD, which would bring 281 income restricted housing units and renovated community facility space today's to today's HRA East Harlem Multiservice Center on 820th Street, Manhattan Community District 11. The public hearing for this project was held on 12/04/2024 and the City Planning Commission vote will is scheduled for January 22. Just a brief recap, HPD is seeking the designation of an urban development action area and project, project approval and the disposition of city owned property and a change to the city map. Approval of the actions would facilitate the infill development of the multi service center service parking lot. The residential development would be 100% income restricted and financed through HPD's Ella term sheet.

Moreover, the existing MSC building will be got renovated and enlarged with an additional floor of community facility use. All not for profit service providers currently located at the MSC will be invited to return. Departments now recommend approval of the actions given the project's exceptional responsiveness to community needs and community input stemming back to the East Harlem neighborhood plan. Finally, and I want to apologize to Commissioner Osorio, the project architect had prepared a memo in response to questions raised at the public hearing regarding solar batteries and microgrids. Due to no fault of the applicant team, we missed the deadline for the CPC package, but that will be included in the next CPC package prior to the vote.

Thank you very much, Trevor. Let me see if there are any questions for you. Okay. Seeing none, thank you very much. Sarah, what's next if anything?

There are no further items, Chair.

No items. Okay. Well, thank you commissioners for your time. Happy New Year again. And we'll look forward to picking this back up with some public testimony on Wednesday. With that, we're adjourned. Thank you.

You.

Thank

you for your help. My pleasure. My pleasure.

What I was gonna say, but they didn't.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Not at all.

Yeah. Yeah.

Is that can it be designated?