Planning Commission - Special Meeting

Good morning, everyone. I'm Dan Gorodnik, Chair of the City Planning Commission and Director of the Department of City Planning. Welcome to today's public meeting of January 22. Before getting to our public hearings, we're going to start with votes on several developments that would create around 600 new homes in total if approved. First up is a 100% income restricted affordable transit oriented development by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development.

This building located at 581 Grant Avenue in East New York, Brooklyn would include over 170 new homes and around a third of an acre of public open space all close to the Grant Avenue A train stop. We'll next vote on another project by HPD in Brooklyn known as the Brownsville Neighborhood Construction Program, NCP. These 3100% income restricted affordable buildings would bring a total of 60 homes to 425 Mother Gaston Boulevard, 546 Thomas S. Boylan Street and 1733 St. Marks Avenue.

The sites are all within the vicinity of Subway or Long Island Railroad stations and a branch of the Brooklyn Public Library. From there, we'll vote on yet another HPD project, the Beacon in East Harlem. This infill development would replace a surface parking lot on East 120th Street with over two eighty income restricted homes and be located near several green spaces including Wagner Playground. This project would also facilitate a full renovation and enlargement of the East Harlem multi service center and the construction of new pedestrian pathways to the nearby Wagner houses. This site was first identified for affordable housing as part of the City Council's East Harlem planning study, a recommendation that made its way into the final DCP led plan for East Harlem.

It's a great example of how the city is following through with its commitments. The last vote for today is on an application to provide heightened setback relief for a new seven story residential building with over 80 homes located within the Windsor Park Cooperative Campus in Oakland Gardens, Queens. Besides, it's just steps away from Cunningham Park. There are only two public hearings on the agenda today, both office acquisitions by the New York Police Department and both located on Queens Boulevard. The first address 9777 Queens Boulevard in Forest Hills would provide new space for between forty five sixty members of the NYPD's Internal Affairs Bureau.

The second site is just down the road at 9525 Queens Boulevard in Regal Park. The NYPD looks to lease space in this building for its Queens North Traffic Enforcement Division. And if approved around two thirty personnel would operate there in several shifts. We will also hold a special review session to further discuss 125 Perry Street, a garage in the West Village looking to convert to a residential building and renew its authorization eliminate all 168 of its parking spaces. So with that, Madam Secretary, let's get into it. Floor is yours.

Good morning. This is the City Planning Commission public meeting held remotely through the NYC Engage portal and in person in the CPC hearing room one hundred twenty Broadway Lower Concourse. Today is Wednesday, 01/22/2025. I will now call the roll. Chair Gurodnick?

Here.

Vice Chair Knuckle? Here. Commissioner Benjamin? Presents? Commissioner Cerullo? Here. Commissioner Kral? Yes. Commissioner Dweck? Here. Commissioner Gold? Here. Commissioner Goodrich? Here. Commissioner Kramani? Here. Commissioner Mann? Here. Commissioner Mani?

Here.

Commissioner Osorio?

Here.

Commissioner Rampaschach? Here. A quorum is present. The first item is the approval of minutes of the public meeting of Wednesday, 01/08/2025.

Great. I make a motion to approve those minutes of Wednesday, January 8. Is there a Thank you, Commissioner Benjamin. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Minutes are approved.

Scheduling. Calendar numbers one through 14, scheduling Wednesday, 02/05/2025 for a public hearing to be held in person in the CPC Hearing Room 120 Broadway and remotely through the NYC Engage portal.

Great. On the resolution, I make a motion to approve. Is there a second? You, Commissioner Crumani. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. Okay. Resolution is approved.

The next part of the calendar is the reports section on Page six, Borough Of Brooklyn, calendar numbers '15, 16 and '17, 581 Grant Avenue Development, c D 5, calendar number 15, C240402 h a k, calendar number 16, C240403ZMK, calendar number 17N240404ZRK. In the

matter of applications for zoning map and zoning tax amendments, UDAP designation, project approval and disposition of city owned property concerning 581 Grant Avenue development for favorable reports on calendar numbers 1516, and 17. Chair Gurodnik?

Aye.

Vice Chair Knuckles?

Yes.

Commissioner Benjamin? Aye. Commissioner Cerullo?

Yes.

Commissioner Dweck? Yes. Commissioner Gold? Yes. Commissioner Goodrich? Yes. Commissioner Kramani? Yes. Commissioner Mann? Yes. Commissioner Manning? Yes. Commissioner Osorio?

Yes.

Commissioner Rambajas?

Yes.

Favorable reports have been adopted on calendar numbers 1516, and '17. Calendar numbers 1819, and 20. Brownsville NCP CD16 calendar number 18 C250036HAK calendar number 19 C250037ZMK calendar number 20 N250038ZRK. In the matter of applications for zoning map and zoning text amendments, UDAP designation, project approval, and disposition of city owned property concerning Brownsville NCP. For favorable reports on calendar numbers eighteen, nineteen, and 20, Chair Gurodnik?

Aye.

Vice Chair Knuckle? Yes. Commissioner Benjamin? Aye. Commissioner Cerullo? Yes. Commissioner Dweck?

Yes.

Commissioner Gold?

Yes.

Commissioner Goodrich?

Yes.

Commissioner Kramani? Yes. Commissioner Mann?

Yes.

Commissioner Marine?

Yes.

Commissioner Osorio? Yes. Commissioner Rambuch?

Yes.

Favorable reports have been adopted on calendar numbers 1819, and '20. Borough Of Manhattan, calendar numbers '21 through '24, The Beacon, C D 11, calendar number '21, c 02/1986 z m m, calendar number '22 c February, calendar number twenty three n two 40388ZRM, calendar number '20 four c two four zero three eight five m m m. In the matter of applications for zoning map and zoning tax amendments, city map amendment, UDAP designation, project approval and disposition of city owned property concerning the Beacon. For favorable reports on calendar numbers '21, 22, 23 and '24, Chair Gurodnick?

Aye.

Vice Chair Knuckle?

Yes.

Commissioner Benjamin? Aye. Commissioner Cerullo?

Yes.

Commissioner Kral?

Yes.

Commissioner Dwark? Yes. Commissioner Gold?

Yes.

Commissioner Goodrich? Yes. Commissioner Kramani?

Yes.

Commissioner Mann?

Yes.

Commissioner Marine?

Yes.

Commissioner Osorio?

Yes.

Commissioner Rampershaw? Yes. Favorable reports have been adopted on calendar numbers '21, '22, '23, and '24. Borough Of Queens calendar number 25, Windsor Park Height authorization, CD11, N240382ZAQ. In the matter of application in the matter of an application for the grant of a zoning authorization concerning Windsor Park Heights authorization for the adoption of calendar number 25. Chair Grodnick?

Aye.

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

Yes.

Commissioner Dweck? Yes. Commissioner Gold?

Yes.

Commissioner Goodrich? Yes. Commissioner Kramani? Yes. Commissioner Mann? Yes. Commissioner Manin? Yes. Commissioner Osorio?

Yes.

Commissioner Rampachat? Calendar number 25 has been adopted. The next part of the calendar is the public hearing section on page eight.

Great. Thank you. Let's move right into it. For those members of the public wishing to be heard today, you are more than welcome and you'll have three minutes. But let's go right into the first item.

My apologies. Borough Of Queens, calendar number 2690Seven-seventy7QueensBoulevardNYPDOfficeSpace acquisition CD6N250105PXQ Public Hearing in the Matter of an Application for a Notice of Intent to Acquire Office Space concerning 9777 Queens Boulevard NYPD Office Space Acquisition.

Great. And on behalf of the applicant, we have Eric Alberti, Anthony Francione, Michael Grease, Ralph Giordano, William Costello and Alex Treszkowski of a variety of NYPD and DCAS here to present on Zoom. Welcome.

Good morning. Internal

Good morning.

Internal Affairs Bureau groups fifty one, fifty three, and fifty six were formerly located at a lease location at 1140 45th Road in Long Island City. They were there from 02/2020 twenty two thousand one to 2021. The landlord did not wish to renew their lease in order to sell the building. These groups were located or relocated to IV facilities at 241 West 47th Street, is our group fifty one. And group fifty three and fifty six were located to our facility at 315 Hudson Street.

These were already operational IV facilities that were at or near capacity, and we sort of shoehorned these groups into those, facilities. Group fifty one had to subsequently be moved to 233 Broadway from Brooklyn because of an overcrowding condition there. Group fifty one is our sexual assault allegations, group, previously investigated police impersonations. They're responsible for investigating citywide crimes of possible sexual nature. Group fifty three is our school safety division.

They're responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct involving school safety agents citywide. And group fifty six is our traffic group. They are responsible for investigating traffic agents citywide. The proposed new location at 9777 Queens Boulevard would be a 7th Floor location. 45 to 60, uniform members of the service were reporting to the site.

The site would be operational seven days a week, twenty four hours a day. Most will be working from hours of in shifts between o six hundred and, fifteen hundred and fifteen hundred to midnight. The 7th Floor location will consist of components of a reception area, private offices, administrative workspace, conference rooms, and interview rooms, and male and female locker rooms. We will consist of eight parking dedicated parking spots for the NYPD on the 1st Floor with access via 64th Road. The dedicated parking will be exclusively used for unmarked and marked police vehicles to include, several electric marked vehicles.

Two level three charters will be installed as part of the construction. All members of the service who work at this facility are not in uniform and will not draw any attention to this facility. The cars that will be parked in the garage will be unmarked cars and will also not draw attention to this facility. Does anyone have any questions?

Great. Thank you very much.

We're going to start with the Vice Chairman, Mr. Knuckles.

Thank you, Mr. Francione, for your presentation. What is the proposed length of this lease?

That I do not have information on. If someone else wants to jump in

with that.

I I I can answer that. This is Erica Bertie from Dcast. Can you hear me? Yes. So it is a twenty year lease, and we do have some options of two ten year options, after that. So this is a long term lease.

Thank you.

Commissioner Dweck?

Thank you. I noted you had eight department vehicles to be parked at the facility. How many private to personal vehicles from officers do you expect to be parked in the surrounding area? And to what extent will that impact the traffic and availability parking for residents in the area?

Well, the area has great access to public transportation. The, M and R subway lines are about a block away from the facility. The Forest Hills, Long Island Railroad is about a mile away from the facility. We don't expect too much street parking by our personnel at all.

Thank you.

We don't expect it to take public transportation.

Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Rampershed?

Thanks for the presentation. I have two quick questions. Number one, in the event that you have to expand, is this facility able to expand further in terms of the number of personnel that you would hold here? And second question is, were there any other locations that you were looking at before you decided on this location here?

Yeah. There there were a few other locations we did look at. Some of them fell through, in lease negotiations. I don't have that off top of my head. We we can get that for you, though, if needed. Most of them were around the Long Island City area, that we looked at. And, to to your other question is it's it's pretty much I would say we're we're, gonna move them in with about 90% capacity at this point, 90 to 95% capacity. Everybody has a seat.

I I can I can jump in real quick? Some of the other sites that were considered were 9525, Queens Boulevard, 421 27th Avenue, 903 44th Road, and 4501 Northern Boulevard.

K.

All in Northern Queens.

Yeah. Yeah.

Also to answer your expansion question, it's a class a building in Queens, one of the few ones in Queens. There's always space available and can be made available to the city.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Benjamin?

Hi. I'm not sure who to direct this to, but the person who spoke who said that one of the sites they looked at was 9525 Queens Boulevard, and we have another item on from the police department for space at 9525 Queens Boulevard. So I'm wondering why that space was not appropriate for two NYPD offices.

I I believe it was just a layout issue.

Yes. Layout issue and the other site, when we get to that one, the 9525 was better suited for, who who the unit that that's going to because it offers a lot more parking, and the other unit has a more of a parking component than this one does.

Right. But you didn't need parking. So except for eight cars. So I'm just wondering whether it would have been more economical except to combine all of the space in one location rather than have two leases in two locations that are a couple of blocks away from each other.

If I could just answer up really quickly. The use for the Internal Affairs Bureau is of a confidential nature. So it wouldn't be conducive to have a space with another New York City, Police Department unit, specifically because of the confidentiality of our investigations. We have, victims that come forward that that need, that safe space. So to have them walk into another, New York City Police Department facility, wouldn't be conducive to our confidential investigations.

And the units going into that other building is a traffic unit, and our unit who investigates traffic units would also be in the same building as the traffic units.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner, commissioner Gold.

Just one or two points of follow-up there too. Commissioner Benjamin's question, and you tell us you certainly have looked at the different spaces. Perhaps, was there space you know, was there enough space available in either of the buildings that perhaps, you know, one broader lease could have been signed, right, so you could have taken more space and, you know, different entrances or whatnot? Just sort of want to understand that a little bit better. And then two, when you think about internal affairs or really anything for investigations, I think you mentioned this is Class A office space. Is there a need for Class A considering? I mean, I think we're not in Class A space.

To to to answer your class a question, you know, Queens isn't an office market necessarily, so you really don't have the different classes like you have in Manhattan. You know, your your class c in Manhattan is probably the same or class b is probably the same caliber as a class a in Queens. So it is a different market. It is a different animal. When I say class a, I mean, it's a dedicated office space with all the office amenities that an office space requires. So that's kind of what you have in Queens. That's the product.

Got it. Got it. Okay. And then just to the first, I mean, you know the market, I assume the decaf, we know the market certainly better than we do. But, you know, was was it possible, or was it actually examined or looked at to see if, you know, consolidation, separate floors, separate entrances, or was it just not enough space available in in the buildings?

It was before my tenure, those spaces that we looked at. From what like, the notes I have is they were just inadequate layouts for the the use of this this this unit.

Okay. Thank you.

No problem.

Thanks, Commissioner. Commissioner Mann?

Yes. Hi. Just a question for DKA. It's a bit of a larger policy question that relates to these two applications. Given the depressed value of commercial real estate in the city, Has the city been thinking about acquisition of buildings as opposed to long term leases?

Because a lot of the other actions we're taking will actually reduce the supply of office space, which will I suspect over the next couple of decades increase office rents. So I'm just curious how is the city thinking about acquisition of office space from an ownership standpoint in a depressed market? That's the first question. The second question is just really more about the ongoing swirl of concern about DCAS's decision making around real estate. Is there anything you can do or provide today to reassure us there about that this transaction was done in an appropriate arm's length context from the city's perspective?

Sure. I can answer that. In terms of acquisitions, there is rumblings. It's a little bit of of my my personal pay grade, in terms of what's gonna be acquired, what's not. But I do know there are rumblings of acquiring space in a depressed market. I can easily put you in touch with the people who are discussing that at the moment. In terms of arm's length, I've been working on this particular project for a year and a half, and it's been going on for a year and a half prior to my my involvement in this. We we do do a market survey. We do compare it to other buildings. We do shop around, and we do we can't we're not allowed to do a above market transaction.

So this is we do our due diligence to make sure that this the comparables and the appraisals come through so that these numbers work.

Just a quick follow-up there on the first point. Then yes, I think it just it does seem I don't need to have a follow-up. I appreciate the offer. It does seem like a very opportune time, though, for the city to be in an acquisition mindset, especially for functions we expect to need over the course of many decades. I think that will save the city money over the long term. So just wanted to encourage that. Thanks for the answer.

No problem.

Okay. Thank you. Those are all the questions that we have for the applicant team. So, thank you all very much for your time and your answers to the questions. I do not see members of the public wishing to be heard on this item. Just going to give a final call for that just to make sure. Okay. Seeing none, we'll close the hearing on calendar twenty six. Let's move on to the next item.

Calendar number twenty seven, nine thousand five hundred twenty five Queens Boulevard NYPD Office Acquisition, CD6N250092PXQ, public hearing in the matter of an application for notice of intent to acquire office space concerning 9525 Queens Boulevard NYPD office acquisition.

Okay. And for this application, we have Nicole Pavez, William Costello, Franklin Sepulveda, Charles Gross, Owais Kanzada, Mohammed Raman, and Michael Grease, all on Zoom. So welcome to you all. And whenever you are set up, you can go ahead and proceed.

Charles, are you able to unmute your mic?

It's Frank. Thank you.

This is Frank. Can you hear me?

We can.

Okay. I'm the executive director of the traffic enforcement district. I will be presenting with, the attached, documentation that you have in front of you regarding 9525 Queens Boulevard in Flushing, New York, occupying the 4th Floor of this location. So we are the traffic enforcement district. We have we we we serve six police precincts, six community boards.

We we do traffic enforcement throughout the whole city, but mainly, it's gonna be in Queens North enforcement, serving the six pieces and community board that I mentioned. We are dedicating our resources to the enforcement of parking rules and regulations, directing of traffic at major intersections where traffic needs to be mitigated by a traffic agent at the location. We also have, of course, safety and mobility posts where we also mitigate traffic, and we try to expedite traffic as best as we can along the bridges and the tunnels. We do towing when vehicles need to be removed to release pace for the movement of traffic. We enforce the traffic lanes, the bus lanes, the bike lanes, and all that stuff.

So if anybody's obstructing it, we look to remove that vehicle and to take an enforcement action. We also have what's called construction and compliance. So if you're both if you open up a street or manhole in the street, we go and make sure you have a permit to do so. And if you don't, we we take appropriate action and issue citations, or we try to shut down the location to get the roadway laners back. We also serve on all special events, parades, any any protest that you may have, or anything of a nature where it's unplanned, we direct resources to address the condition, it may be.

We respond to all emergencies throughout the whole city, and we handle the emergency according to the nature of the emergencies. We do vision zero corridors where we patrol specific corridors for zero tolerance enforcement. And we also have a presently, have a both ghost plate operation that's going on citywide with the illegal license plates throughout the whole city. We've taken enforcement action with them and adjusting that accordingly as well. That's basically what we do as a traffic enforcement unit.

We are a seven day operation. We are from o seven hundred hours to approximately twenty hundred hours at night at 8PM, Monday through Friday. On the weekends, we have our shuttle staff, and we patrol from we we actually operate from, like, seven in the morning to about nineteen hundred at night, which is all 7PM. That's Saturdays and Sundays. Again, it all depends on the nature of what's going on in the city and what the needs are for our for our location.

Our current location is 135 Dash 20 32nd Avenue in Flushing. That's where we currently are housed. However, the landlord has expressed that he is not willing to renegotiate the lease as he wants to remodel his his his facility, possibly do demolition, and and build a a new facility at at the location where we are now. So therefore, we we we visited several location can you hear me?

We we can. Your your time just ended, but I would like you to just finish that thought so we can make sure we

have that. Locations, you know, to try to come up with which best location suited it, and we found that 9525 Queens Boulevard suited all our needs, essentially located in the area of Patrol, and it does have a parking facility available on the 1st Floor for our marked vehicles that we will be parking inside the facility. We're close to public transportation, so our personnel does use public transportation to and from work. We don't anticipate any water parking on the street. You also have a diagram of what the parking layout is gonna be, which is attached to the to the presentation.

And it it it also includes electric vehicles as well. There'll be four to eight stations for electric vehicles. You have a blueprint of the layout. You have a picture of the facility itself, and I'll be more than happy to answer any questions you may have.

Great. Thank you very much, and thank you for being with us. I also note thank you for the work that you all do. It's obviously a very difficult job and we appreciate your efforts. Let me see if there are questions starting with the Vice Chairman.

Same question as to the prior transaction. What is the proposed length of this lease?

The proposed length will be twenty years beginning upon substantial completion and there will be two five year options.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Rambuchad.

Just a point of clarification. On the first slide, you put 9525 as Flushing, but that's Regal Park. I think you should modify that.

We will. We will take

Other than that, the other last question is the same question as before. If you had to expand, is there room to expand at this current location at this new proposed location? They have to expand staff.

Mike Rice, you want to answer that or you want me to take it?

We always we always try to account for 10% growth. So anytime that we look at a space, we do take that into consideration. Okay.

Thank you. Commissioner Gold?

Director Subobutu, just a quick one. We have in front of us two thirty two personnel operating in several shifts.

Can you

just talk for a second how many of those are, let's say, inside versus agents, or or does that include everyone?

Right. That that that includes everyone, but our 95% ninety ninety seven to 98% of our our personnel all go in the field. They're only there temporarily to, in a locker room to, change into uniforms and get into the appropriate and get the directions for the day. But 97%, I would say, of all personnel are in the field at all times. We have a very minimal, office staff that maintains the office throughout the day.

Got it. Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner. And that's all the questions that I see for you all, the applicant and applicant team. So thank you to NYPD and DCAS for joining us today. And we will see if there are members of the public who wish to be heard. I do not see any on my list. Just make a final check. Being none, we'll close the hearing on calendar number '27. Madam Secretary, what is next for us?

There are no there is no other business before the commission for the public meeting, but I do have some public information to share. For those of you who were unable to or did not wish to testify, you can submit written testimony online by selecting this hearing on the NYC Engage portal through DCP's website or by mailing your comment to City Planning Commission Calendar Information Office, one hundred twenty Broadway, thirty first floor, New York, New York ten thousand two and seventy one. The time now is 10:29.

Great. Thank you very much. And now at 10:29, we will adjourn our public meeting and with a reminder that we will be commencing with a special review session in just a moment. So with that, we are adjourned. And welcome everybody to the special review session of the City Planning Commission of 01/22/2025. Madam Secretary, if you could just introduce the item that we're going to hear today.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, and welcome to the City Planning Commission special review session for Wednesday, 01/22/2025. The time now is 10:30 a. M. And a quorum is present. The first item on our agenda is a non Euler post referral review for a previously approved authorization in Manhattan Community District 2. Our presenter is Ben Huff.

Okay. Thank you, Ben. And a quick reminder to the commission, this is the item that we had heard briefly yesterday, questions about the West Village houses, 168 parking spaces, etcetera, etcetera. We had some follow-up questions and Ben is here to answer them. Ben, welcome back.

Ah, there it is. That's hard to see. Good morning, commissioners. So we discussed yesterday 125 Perry Street in West Village, Manhattan. It's a second renewal of an eleven four three of a thirteen four four three authorization, to remove required parking spaces.

So one of the questions that we had yesterday was what would happen if a 13443 authorization was not reviewed renewed. So if the authorization is not reviewed renewed, the parking would remain or revert back to the required parking spaces. That would be unfortunate for this application as the original owner who had the required parking spaces has already sold the building. But I think the question was posed more broadly. So in order to remove required parking in the Manhattan core, you must apply for the thirteen four four three authorization.

Again, if the commission were to not renew it, they would likely just come back to the commission requesting the same authorization with a similar application if they still want to move forward with that, removing the parking. So that's the first question I have. I don't know if there's any clarification on that anyone needs.

I'll just make sure that I'm clear. So the answer is that a nonrenewal of this authorization, the rules would revert back to the initial parking requirement. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. And then to remove parking, you may be about to talk about the process. So I'm going to hold this question. But I think that you're going to tell us about removal of exist removal of any parking requirements. You said still needs 13,443, but why don't you put that into the broader context for us. Go ahead Commissioner Soule.

Just to build on that, just to make sure that the clarification is really clear. So in the event, if we had the discretion just to say no or we didn't believe that conditions hadn't changed or had not not changed in order for this to continue and we voted it down,

the

applicant could reapply for the thirteen four four three under the newer conditions that we may have determined existed at the time so that that process doesn't disappear for an applicant. But at the moment in time, we voted down and the renewal is not granted and the time period between the rejection of the renewal and a new application in action, the original whatever preceded the first approval would then be controlling again on the parking, of of course.

I was going say that's a great clarification and that's correct.

Okay. Got

it. Appreciate. Thank you.

Okay. Commissioner Benjamin?

There was reference in the packet and a letter from the Department of Buildings and one from BSA that suggested that whether we approve this or not, they already considered that the conditions had been met so that this permit was whether we approve the permit or not, the conditions had been met and the parking would not be required.

That was a letter from the council of the West Village houses, like, referencing another application, I think.

Well, it referenced this application, and there was an attachment from the buildings department that said, yes, his understanding was correct.

I yes. I believe they were speaking of a different building, though, in that letter that went through a similar process. But, you know, the certificate of occupancy still refers to the required parking spaces. They are still in the process of converting the building. So we had advised the applicant to just do the renewal, with and to just make sure that everything's clear on this application.

Okay then. Okay.

Then what what was the other point that you were gonna make?

So the well, one of

the other questions was how have parking requirements changed as a result of CHO? So I just want to clarify this application is not impacted by CHO. CHO primarily changed City of Yes housing opportunity. I should say the full name. It primarily changed the parking regulations outside of the Manhattan Core and LIC.

So this area is in the Manhattan core and would still seek a thirteen four four three authorization to remove previously required parking. So now that we have the housing opportunity text, how does one remove required parking in the inner and outer transit zone? So housing opportunity, like I said, it it lowered or removed parking requirements for new dwellings in many parts of the city outside of Manhattan Core and LIC. So for existing buildings in the inner transit zone, there is a new authorization seven five three one to remove previously required parking. It is similar to the Manhattan Core thirteen four four three and has very similar conditions and findings.

And for existing buildings in the outer transit zone and beyond the greater transit zone, there is a special permit seventy four five two to remove previously required off street parking. So there's you know, we've sort of expanded this authorization, but the Manhattan Core and LIC, it's the same

condition. Okay. So there is a procedure that exists that is analogous to 13443 that is 7531. That's to remove parking where it was initially required. But that is you said outside of the Manhattan core where it already had been eliminated. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Benjamin?

So I know this action is only about the building on Perry Street. But does West Village Apartments have to change their CFO? Since their CFO now and irrespective of what we do on Perry Street, their CFO still now says that they have 168 required parking spaces.

We'd have to get back to you on exactly how the lifting of the parking requirement would be effectuated by DOB. The the pharmacy plan doesn't doesn't administer Right. Of occupancy. But the the effect of the implementation of the authorization that's being renewed today would be to lift that requirement for required accessory parking at West Village houses.

Okay. If you could get back to me. I'm very curious about what happens to West Village apartment and what relief they may need to seek in changing their C of O and what would happen if they tried to change it. Would buildings just say, okay, you don't need the parking because you gave it away? So if you could get back to me on that.

We will. I mean, I my my guess is that it's administrative. Right. That there wouldn't be another discretionary action involved. This this is the discretionary action that would authorize the changing of the CFO, But we'll go to DOB and we'll confirm.

Okay. Are there other questions before we vote on this item? Okay. So we'll follow-up with you Commissioner Benjamin on the answer to that specific question. And in the interim, I'm going seek a sent by a voice vote to send an approval letter on this one to the Department of Buildings. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Ayes have it. This item is approved. Thank you gentlemen for And your I know we were deep in the weeds on this one. Good place to be. Thank you Madam Secretary. Are there other items for our special review session today? No, Chair, there are not. Okay. Wonderful. With that, the special review session is now adjourned. Thank you all.