Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Dan Gorodnik, Chair of the City Planning Commission and Director of the Department of City Planning. Welcome to today's review session of the City Planning Commission. Date is March 3. The time is 01:01 p. M. We are joined today by Vice Chair Knuckles, Commissioners Benjamin, Cerullo, Dweck, Gold, Maureen Osorio and Rampershad. Welcome to all of you and thank you. And before we get to today's agenda, I'd like to just highlight a few events and news involving the Department of City Planning. To start, I'd like to thank everyone who attended our Jamaica Neighborhood Plan Virtual Town Hall last Wednesday.

This was a great opportunity for New Yorkers to learn more about the planning process and to provide input on the future of this community. If you missed that meeting, you'll have another chance to get involved at our in person Town Hall on Thursday, March 6 at six p. M. At 9420 Guy R. Brewer Boulevard.

You can RSVP at jamaicaplan.nyc. I'd also like to thank the Hudson Valley Pattern for Progress for inviting me to participate in a conversation at Marist College in Poughkeepsie last week with regional leaders from across the Hudson Valley on how to best tackle our collective challenges including housing, economic development and transit. When New York City succeeds, the region succeeds and vice versa. It's vital that municipalities trade ideas and remain open to discussion to create a better future for all New Yorkers. Speaking of the New York Metro Region, we are now leading the country in planned office to residential conversions.

Adaptive reuse helps us tackle our housing shortage and thanks to City of Yes for housing opportunity, conversions are now easier than ever. By expanding conversions citywide, moving the eligibility date up to buildings before 1991 and allowing conversion to more home types, our city will remain a leader in this field for decades to come. Moving to our agenda for today, we're going to begin with 1946 East 7th Street in Homecrest, Brooklyn. Our first Green Fast Track qualifying proposal, so extra special one today, Passed in mid-twenty twenty four, you all will recall Green Fast Track enables small and medium sized climate friendly housing developments to access a streamlined environmental review process if they meet density, location and environmental standards helping us get shovels in the ground faster. This 100% permanently income restricted apartment building meets all of those qualifications.

And once Green Fast Track came into effect in June, it was able to secure environmental sign off within six months. 1946 East 7th Street would include 53 homes for low income seniors and a community facility space that's a short walk from Kelly Park Playground, McDonald Playground and the Kings Highway F train stop. I look forward to seeing many more projects advancing thanks to Green Fast Track in the months and years ahead. Next, we'll further discuss the general project plan for the redevelopment of the Bayview Correctional Facility by the New York State Empire Development Corporation. Located at 550 West 20th Street in West Chelsea, Manhattan, the building would be converted into nearly 150 income restricted homes with over half serving as supportive housing for New Yorkers reentering society after incarceration.

Located near the High Line, Little Island and Chelsea Market, the project also includes a short term transitional residential community facility for adults with mental illness who need extra support. We'll also continue our review of proposals that recently had public hearings at the commission. We'll go over a proposal to create over two sixty new homes, nearly 80 income restricted affordable at 7399 Empire Boulevard in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. We'll discuss the Atlantic Avenue mixed use plan, a transformational proposal to bring 4,600 new homes including fourteen forty income restricted affordable homes, 2,800 new jobs and infrastructure improvements to a roughly 21 block stretch of Atlantic Avenue and neighboring blocks in Crown Heights, Bedford Stuyvesant and Prospect Heights. And we'll close with the two development scenarios for the Western Rail Yards and Hudson Yards, the first of which includes a gaming facility hotel and commercial and residential buildings and the second of which would create a mix of commercial and residential development.

So with that Madam Secretary, let's get started and the floor is yours.

Good afternoon and welcome to the City Planning Commission review session for Monday, 03/03/2025. The time is 01:06PM and a quorum is present. The first item on our agenda is a certification of a zoning map and zoning text amendments in Brooklyn Community District 15. Our presenter is Ena Kussenfeld.

All right. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Guravnik and Commissioners. Today, I am presenting the 1946 East 7th Street rezoning. As stated, the first project to complete DCP's green fast track process. Next slide, please. This is a private application by the AHI EZR Expansion Fund for a series of actions, including a zoning map amendment from R5 to R6A and R7A districts within the Special Ocean Parkway District or SOPD, a zoning text amendment to Appendix F to map an MIH area coterminous with the project area and a zoning text amendment to Appendix A Article 11 Chapter three to remove the project area from the Special Ocean Parkway District Districtsubdistrict.

Together, these actions would facilitate a new seven story approximately 35,786 square foot mixed use building, including 35,786 zoning square feet of residential space in 53 permanently income restricted units and 2,292 square feet of subgrade community facility space. This project is located at 1946 East 7th Street between Avenues S And R in the Homecrest neighborhood of Community District 15 in Southern Brooklyn. The council district is 44, and the council member position is currently vacant. This is an aerial view showing the project area in the context of Ocean Parkway and the neighborhoods of Gravesend to the West and Homecrest to the East. The rectangular project area covers the southern portions of two blocks fronting East 7th Street and the north side of Avenue S.

East 7th Street is a north south residential narrow street that runs from Foster Avenue to Avenue W. Avenue S is an east west primarily residential wide street that spans Stillwell To Garretson Avenues. The surrounding area is characterized by low density residential and community facility uses, consistent with the underlying zoning district and special districts. The subject block is comprised primarily by one and two family homes, three story walk ups and four to six story apartment buildings near the avenues. Public transportation is provided primarily by buses, including the B82 and B82 SBS, which makes stops along Kings Highway, two blocks north of the project area and the B68, which runs along Coney Island Avenue, three blocks east.

The Kings Highway F Train Station is on McDonald Avenue, six blocks to the West, while the Kings Highway B And Q Train Station is at East 15th Street, nine blocks to the east. Shown here with the blue dots are also other properties owned by the Ahi Ezer Expansion Fund, which consists of residential and community facility buildings. As discussed, the project area is located in a predominantly low rise residential neighborhood, interspersed with houses of worship, parochial schools and other community facilities. The nearest commercial corridors are Kings Highway and Coney Island Avenue visible on the edges of this map. The project area is fully within an R5 district first mapped in 1961 and expanded in 1976.

The surrounding area is also mapped with R6A and C42 districts. The project area is also subject to the regulations of the underlying Special Ocean Parkway District or SOPD established in 1977 and the SOPD subdistrict added in 1933 to limit the proliferation of community facilities and protect the area's low rise residential character. The SOPD extends across three fifty blocks in five community districts of South Brooklyn. It is bounded by Fort Hamilton Parkway to the North, McDonald Avenue to the West, Coney Island Avenue to the East and Brighton Beach Avenue to the South. The SOPD restricts new community facility bulk to the residential regulations of underlying zoning district and requires developments fronting Ocean Parkway to provide a 30 foot landscape front yard.

The SOPD subdistrict limits commercial development and encourages enlargement of one and two family homes with a residential FAR cap of 1.5. The project area covers 13 full and partial lots improved with residential and community facility uses. As indicated on the aerial map, a number of the properties are owned by the Aji Ezer expansion fund, comprising a loose campus of senior housing and community services buildings. The development site, which has a total area of 9,200 square feet consists of two identical lots improved with four story formerly residential buildings, 1950 And 1946 East 7th Street constructed in 1925. These properties were acquired by expansion fund in 1988 and 2001 and have been operated variously as a study center, girls school and a synagogue for over two decades.

These uses were recently relocated in anticipation of the proposed development and both buildings are now vacant. Now I will move on to project area views and bring the building into the foreground. Here, looking south along East 7th Street, showing both 1946 and 1950 East 7th Street as well as the northwest edge of the project area. Now looking directly at the development site, you can see these buildings are virtually identical, showing also an alley between the two buildings, which are not interconnected, but have historically been used interdependently. Now looking north along East 7th Street, again showing the two properties on the development site.

Now looking south along East 7th Street toward Avenue S, showing the development site on the right and 1960 East 7th Street, a residential building that houses the Ahi Ezer Ocean Parkway Senior Citizen Center. Now looking at the northwest intersection of East 7th Street and Avenue S with the development site on the right and the Ahi Ezer congregation on the far left just beyond the project area along Avenue S. Looking north along East 7th Street with two Aji Ezer expansion fund residential properties, 1960 And 1965 East 7th Street, fronting the north side of Avenue S. Looking south along the east side of East 7th Street toward Avenue S at 1965 East 7th Street, an Aji Ezer owned apartment building. Looking west along Avenue S with 1960 East 7th Street in the foreground and the Ahi Ezr congregation in the background.

And finally, looking just outside the project area at the Southeast Corner Of Avenue S and East 7th, This is not an applicant owned site, but it is a typical four story pre war apartment building at this intersection and in the area. The proposed development would have be a seven story 3.9 FAR building, as stated, approximately 35,786 total square feet, which would be residential, with over 2,000 square feet of sub-four community facility space, yielding 53 income restricted units. In addition to the above, the PRO's development would provide a 30 foot rear yard to achieve 2,400 square feet of outdoor recreation space and reduce shadow impacts on one and two family homes behind the applicant site fronting Ocean Parkway. The proposed development would have a base height of 64 feet with a setback at the seventh storey and a bulkhead height of approximately 85 feet. The building would not be affected by transition rules per ZR23443D between the proposed R6A and existing R5 districts, as the site's northern lot line is located beyond 15 feet of the district boundary.

The zoning map amendment seeks to change the existing R5 district along this section of East 7th Street and Avenue S to R6A and R7A districts. R6A is a contextual district that permits up to 3.9 FAR for residential developments with MIH and up to three point zero FAR for community facility uses. R7A is a contextual district with a maximum residential FAR of 5.01 for MIH developments and four point zero FAR for community facilities. No parking is mandated for MIH inclusive developments. The application also proposes a zoning text amendment to Appendix F to map an MIH area coterminous with a project area, including options one and two.

The applicant also proposes a zoning tax amendment to Appendix A to remove the project area from the SOPD subdistrict. Together with the proposed zoning map amendment, this action as shown here would bring overbuilt residential and community facility properties in the project area into zoning compliance, including those shown using street views previously. This application requires a racial equity report on housing and opportunity. The proposed development is located in the Sheepshead Bay, Garrison Beach and Home Crest, Puma. The area median household income for this geography is $68,601 which is slightly higher than the median income for Brooklyn and slightly lower than the median income for New York City.

The proposed 53 units of senior housing would be income restricted at 50% AMI. As such, it is likely that the development would end up complying with MIH Option one. In Figure one, we can see that the population of the Sheepshead Bay, Garrison Beach and Homecrest Puma is predominantly white and Asian, with a percentage of white residents at 63%, which exceeds the borough and citywide figures of 3531%, respectively. At 20%, the Asian population is also higher than both the borough and citywide figures. Figure two shows the percent change in race and ethnicity in the Puma from 2010 to 2020.

The Asian population experienced a growth of 41% compared to 43% borough wide and 34% citywide. Though the borough and city's black non Hispanic population declined by 95% in that period, it grew by 26% in the Puma. The Hispanic population also saw a double digit increase of 21% compared to borough and citywide figures of 47%. The white population decreased by 7% compared to an increase of 8% borough wide and no change citywide. Figure 14 shows the percent change in housing supply and population from 2010 to 2023.

In that time span, housing units in this area increased by about 3%, while the population increased by 6%, showing that housing unit production has not kept pace with population growth. The proposed development would provide new income restricted housing in a neighborhood that has seen little housing production, but growing demand since 2010. In summary, this is a private application for a zoning map amendment from an R5 district located in the Special Ocean Parkway District and Special Ocean Parkway District subdistrict to R6A and R7A districts and zoning text amendment to appendices F and A to map an MIH area and remove the project area from the SOPD subdistrict. Together, these actions would facilitate a new seven story approximately 35,786 square foot mixed use building with 53 permanently income restricted dwelling units for seniors and just over 2,000 square feet of sub-four community facility space. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you very much. One question from me, and it relates to the green fast track element of this proposal. Can you tell us about the time savings here or cost savings? Or what was different about this application that otherwise would have been necessary, absent the green Fast Track?

In this case so first, I want to say that this kind of project, I think, is exactly the project that we want to see advanced through the environmental review process through GFT. The number of the overall number of units is rather it's below 100. It's fully income restricted development. It would be an electrified building. So in many ways, this kind of development is exactly what we want to see through that process and contains many public benefits.

In terms of what allowed this project to move faster through the GFT process, I'm happy to let my colleagues at EARD speak to that in detail, either at this hearing or as a follow-up.

Let's do it. Stephanie is coming up, and it's a great opportunity to talk about the impact of an important new initiative. So glad you're here.

Sure. Hi, everyone. Stephanie Schlu, Director of Environmental Review here at City Planning. Green fast track, the rules went into effect in June. We're obviously in February. There were a lot of things Oh, yeah, of last year. A lot of things that changed around zoning, including City of Yes for Housing Opportunities. So there were other elements of the application that took a little while to wrap up and get completed. But it was about six months following the conclusion that the project would be a good fit and a good case study for the Green Fast Track proposal about six months. So, usually, review for this size project can take a year or more.

And so we really feel like this is a great opportunity to shave some time off there on the environmental review side of the process. Cost is little bit different because we have access to consultant numbers, but we think there was both time and cost savings here.

So, on time alone, it

was

about half the time that it otherwise would have been. Is that right?

Yes. And this project was already into the environmental review process, so it was a little bit of a pivot down the line. So we think projects that are starting from this assumption at the outset will definitely be able to save probably about half the time.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Mr. Dweck?

Just congratulations to the department. I couldn't think of a better choice for the first application to come through that the the green fast track. I know the institution and the need for senior housing in that area is tremendous. So congratulations to you and to the entire staff in getting this done. You. Good luck with it.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Assorio?

Thank you, Chair. Thanks so much for the presentation. I was wondering, you mentioned that the building is supposed to be electrified, 100% electrified, but can you say a little bit more about the whether there's any additional sustainability measures? I'm particularly interested in the roof configuration, whether there's renewables on-site or anything else that you can share beyond what we have. Or if you can share more as this becomes available, that would be great.

Yes. I'll be able to follow-up on that. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Okay. Seeing no other questions, this item is certified. Thank you very much. Congratulations, and congratulations to everyone who worked on the Green Fast Track. Okay, Madam Secretary, let's move on to the next item.

The second item on our agenda is a prehearing review of a notice of intent to acquire office space in Queens, Community District 12. Presenting for the first time to the Commission is Mia Albert.

All right, Mia. Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you, Commission Chair Grodnik. Perfect. This is an application submitted by the Administration for Children's Services, here I'm referred to as ACS, and the Department of Citywide Administrative Services, here I'm referred to as DCAS, for the acquisition of office space in an existing commercial building in Jamaica, Queens. The proposed site, 16101 Jamaica Avenue, located in Community District 12 of the Jamaica neighborhood of Queens, ACS and DCAS are looking to renew their lease for the approximately 30,000 square feet of office space they've occupied in this building since 2008, specifically the Queen's Zone B Borough office of ACS.

Their current lease expired on 06/14/2023, and was a ten year lease with a five year option that was exercised. The proposed lease is a five year lease with a five year option. ACS is responsible for promoting the safety and well-being of New York City's children and families by providing child welfare, juvenile justice, primary prevention, and child care services. The Division of Child Protection is charged with responding to approximately 50,000 reports alleging child abuse or maltreatment, and the Queens Zone B Borough office responds to approximately 3,000 of those reports a year. About 165 ACS staff members operate at this location, including child protective specialists, supervisors, managers, investigative consultants, and support staff.

Here we see the proposed location and a map of the surrounding area. The proposed location fronts Jamaica Avenue, which travels east west through the borough of Queens. The proposed project area has good access to public transportation, located one block north and three blocks east of an E And J Subway, as well as the LIRR and the air train at Jamaica Station. The site is also within walking distance of the F train and is served by multiple bus lines. The proposed site, 16101 Jamaica, is a commercial office building with retail uses on the 1st Floor and comprises the Southwestern corner of Block 9760.

The lot is Zoned C45X and is surrounded primarily by other commercial uses, as well as some community facility uses and mixed use. The lot is located within the special Downtown Jamaica District, which is designed to promote and protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the Downtown Jamaica community. This is a bird's eye view looking northeast towards the project site. 16101 Jamaica Avenue is a five story approximately 92,000 square foot office building. It's fronted by Jamaica Avenue to the South and 161st Street to the West.

Here, you can see the other commercial uses along Jamaica Avenue. ACS proposes to continue the use of the approximately 30,000 square feet of office space at 16101 Jamaica Avenue in Queens, which is the space ACS is currently occupying. There's one shared entrance located on 161st Street, which is used by staff, clients, visitors, and other tenants in the building. There are three conference rooms and a reception area for visitors. The office receives anywhere between 50 to two thirty five visitors each month, operating between 07:30 a.

M. And seven p. M. This plan shows the 3rd Floor of the building, which includes desks, cubicles, conference rooms, a children's playroom, reception area, interview rooms, and some individual offices.

And this plan shows the 4th Floor

of the building, which includes offices, desks, a mailroom, stockroom, more bathrooms, and a lounge and a conference room. Based on the applicable fair share criteria, the proposed base at 16101 Jamaica Avenue meets the operational needs of ACS. Besides it being ACS's longstanding location in this area, it's a good fit because of its accessibility to mass transit, as well as being centrally located in a commercial district, which makes it easy to access for employees and visitors alike. Remaining in this space allows ACS to run its operations uninterrupted, as they have since 2008. The requested action is a notice of intent to acquire office space by ACS and DCAS pursuant to Section 195 of the New York City Charter to continue their use of office space at 16101 Jamaica Avenue in Queens.

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

Great. Thank you very much, Mia. I've got a couple of questions for you. Just one from me. And by the way, congratulations and So, well ACS has been in this site since 2008? Correct. Continuously, correct?

Correct.

What is it that requires them to come back to us for a redo here seventeen years later for the appropriateness of this particular site for ACS purposes?

I can definitely circle back to you on that. Or on Wednesday, the applicant may be able to answer that better.

Okay. Fair enough. Commissioner Dweck? You're to defer to the Vice Chairman? Go ahead. Chairman, go ahead. Oh, boy. All right. I think Vice Chairman, you're going to go for it.

You, Mr.

Jim. Thank you for your presentation. My question is likely for DCAST. You indicated that the proposal is for a five year lease and with an option for another five years. My question is why only a five year lease since conventional wisdom is that when you get within five years of a lease expiration, really need to start thinking about a renewal.

And in the fair share criteria, you listed all of the rationale for the continued existence at this location. And ACS is certainly gonna be there twenty years from now. The agency is gonna be around twenty years from now. So my question is why only five years as opposed to minimally ten, arguably twenty year lease renewal.

Right.

If you can extract that from ACS, so I guess they will be here. Is this certification or The White.

The Hearing Wednesday.

Yeah. Yeah.

Right. So

I do think DCAS will be able to better answer that question for you

Hopefully. On you. Hopefully.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. Commissioner Dwight?

Thank you. So just following up on that line of questioning.

With a lease renewal, it

would be a good opportunity to negotiate improvements to the site of the offices. Do you know of any improvements that are planned by the landlord? Has ACS requested any improvements be done as part

of this newly I don't know. But the applicant on Wednesday, I think would be the ones to know and to ask about that.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. Okay. Well, we'll pick this up on Wednesday. Thank you, Mia.

Thank you.

All right. Let's move on to the next item. We'll see this 161.01JamaicaAvenueACS office space on Wednesday. And let's do our next pre hearing review.

The third item on our

agenda is a pre hearing review of a zoning map and zoning tax amendments in Brooklyn Community District 1. Our presenter is Lucia Marquez Reagan.

All right. Hello.

Good afternoon, Chair Grodnick and Commissioners. This is an application by Capsgar III LLC for a zoning map amendment from a CA2 to an R70 C24 district and a zoning text amendment to Appendix F to map MIH. These actions are to facilitate the development of a new six story mixed use development with 15 dwelling units, four of which would be income restricted. The project area is located at 19 Mazpeth Avenue in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Community District 1, Brooklyn. The application was certified 11/18/2024.

The proposed development is, again, a six story 5.6 FAR mixed use commercial residential building with approximately 14,300 square feet of residential uses and 2,300 square feet of ground floor commercial space. The development would rise to a height of 65 feet with full lot coverage and consist of 15 dwelling units, four of which would be income restricted under MIH Option two. No parking is required and then would be provided. Eight bike parking spaces are required and will be provided. The proposed actions include a zoning map amendment to change the existing CA2 district to an R7 D C24 district, bounded by Humboldt to the West, Masbath Avenue to the South, and Kinsalea Street to the North.

R7 D C24 is a residential district with a maximum FAR of 5.6 for residential uses, 4.2 FAR for community facility uses, and two FAR for commercial uses. For MIH developments, maximum base height is 95 feet and the maximum building height is 125 feet. The applicant also proposes a zoning text amendment to Appendix F to map MIH coterminous with the project area, creating permanently income restricted housing via MAH options one and two. The applicant has proposed option two with four units income restricted at 80% AMI. Brooklyn Community Board one held a vote on 01/14/2025, and voted 38 in favor, none in opposition, with no abstentions to approve with conditions.

Conditions submitted by the community board include an NIH preference for the development and recommendations to work with relevant city agencies and community organizations to increase sustainability and pedestrian safety on the development site. On 02/05/2025, Brooklyn Borough President's Office held a public hearing. And on 02/24/2025, recommended approval without conditions. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions.

Great. Thank you. Well, this is another one that we're going to pick up for a public hearing on Wednesday. But let me see if there are any questions from commissioners. Okay. Seeing none, thank you. We will, in fact, pick this one up on Wednesday.

All right.

Madam Secretary, let's move on to the next item.

The fourth item on our

agenda is a prehearing review of the zoning map and zoning text amendments in Brooklyn Community District 13. Our presenter is David Weiscliffe.

All right, David. Good afternoon. Let's just make sure that microphone is on.

Testing. There we go. Great. Good afternoon, Chair Kubrodnick and Commissioners. This is a pre hearing for a rezoning application at 2201 to 2227 Neptune Avenue.

This application was certified in 12/02/2024 and the public hearing is scheduled for this Wednesday. The applicant for this project is Neptune Avenue LLC. The applicant is requesting a zoning map amendment from an M12 district to an MX district that will pair an M15 with an R7 III and a zoning text amendment to Appendix F to facilitate the development of a new 18 storey mixed use building including over 141,000 square feet of residential space or 145 dwelling units, 36 of which will be permanently income restricted and 20,100 square feet of ground floor commercial space. A Chairperson Certification is also required to confirm that no waterfront public access area or visual corridors are required for the site as it is not a waterfront lot. The proposed actions as noted include a zoning map amendment to change the existing M12 district along Neptune Avenue to an MX district and the zoning text amendment to map MIH coterminous with the project area.

Again, the specific MX district being mapped will pair an M15 district with an R7 3 residential district. On 12/18/2024, Community Board thirteen held a public hearing and with a vote of 29 in favor, 15 opposed and two abstaining voted in favor of the application. On February 5, the Brooklyn Borough President held a public hearing for this application. This slide, as you see here, is actually inaccurate. As of late last week, we have received the Borough President's recommendation.

The Borough President recommended approval with one condition. That condition being that the applicant commit to a temporary relocation space for the existing manufacturing use within the project area and have that business return after the project is completed. And we'll be sure to communicate that specific recommendation to the commission as soon as we can.

In

summary, this is a private application for a zoning map amendment from an M12 to an MX district pairing M15 and R7 III and a zoning text amendment to Appendix F to facilitate the development of a new 18 storey mixed use building including over 141,000 square feet of residential space and over 20,100 square feet of ground floor commercial space. That concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions that

you have.

Thank you very much. We're going to start with the Vice Chairman.

Thank you. Do you know the basis for the 15 votes by the community board in opposition to this because the information didn't really elaborate on that?

Yes. No, it was approval without condition. So there wasn't a whole lot of info there. I will allow the applicant to speak more directly, but my understanding of it and from watching, much of the hearing is that, there was a little bit of issue with infrastructure in the area, and with potential flooding risks, as well as the scale of the project. But I will allow the applicant to go into more details that were present at the hearing.

Great. Thank you very much. We'll see this one on Wednesday for a public hearing. Thank you. Thank you, David.

Okay. The fifth item on our

agenda is a continued discussion of a review of a general project plan in Manhattan Community District four. A draft letter was provided in your materials. And if there are any questions, Abby Ryder is here to answer.

Great. We will pick this one up for an actual discussion at the next review session. But if there are questions now, we can address them. Okay. Seeing none, we'll move on. Thank you, Abby, for your availability, though I suspect we're going to see you in a few minutes again.

Okay. Future votes, future votes for consideration on Wednesday, March 5. First, have, 2003 And 60 Broadway, the Belnord. Also, staff have prepared reports for 215 West 125th

Street HPD office space. Dylan is here to present a slide.

All right, Dylan. Welcome.

Hi. Good afternoon, Commissioners. The Department of Citywide Administrative Services and the Department of Housing Preservation and Development's Division of Code Enforcement seeks to lease office space pursuant to section one ninety five of the New York City Charter. The office space is located at 215 West Hundred 25th Street in the Central Harlem neighborhood of Community District 10. This application was presented to the City Planning Commission on February 19 public hearing and is scheduled for a vote Wednesday, March 5.

Department of City Planning supports the requested action, which would facilitate the relocation of HPD's office from 3280 Broadway to 215 West 125th Street. The proposed office space is large enough to accommodate HPD's current DCE staff as well as its fleet for 10 vehicles. Moreover, 215 West Hundred And 25th Street maintains HPD's DCE location in Upper Manhattan, the region of the borough with the highest concentration of housing maintenance complaints. Treaty Board ten has not yet submitted an official letter, and borough president Leving's office has not produced comments. That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to take any questions.

Great. I see none, and thank you. Thank you.

Lastly, for future votes, staff have prepared reports on 10251 Queens Boulevard rezoning and 2510 Coney Island Avenue rezoning.

Okay.

For post hearing follow ups, first, we have 166 Kings Highway Rezoning, which had a public hearing at the February. David is here to present.

Hello again, David. Hello again.

All right. So this will be the staff recommendation for the 166 Kings Highway rezoning in Community District 11. The department supports the proposed application as certified, which will facilitate the development of new mixed use building with 97 units of housing, 30 of which will be permanently income restricted and ground floor commercial space in Bensonhurst Community District 11 in Brooklyn. Mapping an R7X C24 district to allow a development that includes housing, including income restricted housing as well as ground floor retail uses would revitalize a site that has remained vacant for many years due in large part to the restrictions of the existing R6B zoning district. This large irregular site sits at a special confluence of two street grids where Kings Highway and Quentin Road intersect and create a unique bow tie of triangular blocks and 80 foot wide streets.

The department recognizes that R7X allows up to six point zero FAR and 14 storeys, which is significantly higher than the existing context. But the unique conditions of this area deserve the opportunity to help revitalize and activate this community Main Street an important local hub. The Kings Highway And Subway Station is only four blocks to the east. The Brooklyn Public Library's High Lawn Branch is directly adjacent to the site. And the five acre Seth Low Playground is one block to the north.

The rezoning could provide an important activated ground floor helping knit together the Kings Highway streetscape and adding more customers to support neighboring small businesses. Rezoning of this block to allow for a higher density mixed use building would also help alleviate the significant housing shortage in the neighborhood without introducing new development on low rise residential streets. The Gravesend West NTA or Neighborhood Tabulation Area has seen significant population growth with limited new housing construction. Between 2010 and 2020, the local population has grown by approximately 9% adding almost 5,000 new residents. But during the same time period, the area has built only approximately three eighty five net new homes.

This is about one new apartment for every 13 new people introduced to the area. This NTA has almost doubled the amount of home overcrowding as compared to the citywide average. The department acknowledges the concerns raised about height and neighborhood context and the applicant's request for the CBC to reduce the proposal to R7AC24 reducing the allowable height from 14 storeys to 11 storeys and reducing the allowable FAR from six point zero to 5.01. The department also heard concerns from the public that this project would introduce affordable housing to the neighborhood and could exacerbate storm water flooding. Regardless, the department still believes that the project as certified is still most appropriate given the unique context of streets and block configuration and the dire need for more housing to relieve the area's significant overcrowding.

Additionally, department does not agree with the concerns raised by community members during public review that introducing affordable housing either via the HPD SARA program for seniors or for a portion of new units via the MIH program would result in any threats to the residents' public safety or reductions to neighboring property values. The department does acknowledge community members' concerns around stormwater flooding and agrees that this particular area faces stormwater flood risks. However, it is important to note that new construction facilitated by a rezoning such as this would be developed pursuant to the Department of Environmental Protection stormwater management requirements and performance standards and would likely result in significant improvements to neighborhood flooding as compared with the existing hardscaped conditions that exist on the site today. Therefore, the department recommends approval of the 166 Kings Highway rezoning application as certified. That concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Very clear. Are there any questions? Okay. Oh, wait. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. I very clear. But I was wondering if I didn't see in the package additional materials per sort of like the specific technical questions regarding the stormwater flooding. There was also some questions regarding the of like the rationale behind the different proposals that we saw. So I was wondering if you you can clarify a little bit whether that's something that still see or I didn't see that in the post hearing materials that you shared.

There was a package, I believe, that we

It was the previous Friday.

From the previous Friday, yeah, that

I We could double check.

Yeah, we could double check because the applicant did submit information specifically responding to that, both the change and their rationale for requesting the modification to the R7A District as well as details about their storm water mitigation efforts. So we'll make sure that that was communicated and we'll get that information.

Thank so much.

You. Commissioner, Commissioner Goeck. Thank you.

So the R7X allows for 145 feet height?

I believe so, if my memory serves.

Has agreed to keep it to a 100 feet? Or what was the 10 stories? How many feet?

Well The proposal. What's Oh,

the proposal itself. Here. I can get that information.

Just a second.

So they, they're proposing a 10 story building in which I believe their height would reach about one hundred and three feet ten inches. That's what they've listed.

That's within the parameters of even an R7A? That's I

believe that is the case.

Okay. Great. That makes sense then. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Back to you, Commissioner Sourio.

Thank you so much. And also the how the unit breakdown, does that was that included in the package? I know that we had there were still some some additional questions on that.

Yeah. Yeah. I believe it was in the package, and I actually just sent an email about that this morning. If I can remember the numbers,

I would, get that to

you, but they're not in front of me right now. But I I I can get that to you as soon as can.

Okay. In in the package, I see a a memo to us with the recommendations, but not the more president's recommendations, but not I didn't see I don't see any information from the applicant.

Okay. I'll I'll check on that because I believe we we had a a package either the previous Friday or the one before, and we'll make sure that's communicated to you ASAP.

Thank you so much.

Of course. Great. Thanks, commissioner. Thanks, David. Thank you. Okay. We're moving on.

Perfect. Next for post hearing follow ups, we have 7399 Empire Boulevard rezoning, which also had a public hearing at the February 19 public meeting. Jordan is here to present.

All right, Jordan.

Thank you.

Right. Commissioner Dwack is recused.

Okay.

Okay. Good afternoon, Chair Geronica and Commissioners. I'm here today to give the post hearing presentation for the 7399 Empire Boulevard rezoning. This is a proposal for a 13 storey mixed use residential and commercial building in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. In response to several questions from the commission at the public hearing on 02/19/2025, the applicant team prepared a memo that was included in your Friday package.

At today's post hearing, the department would like to walk through the shadow analyses linked to PS 375 Ks's open spaces and briefly address two other issues. The department wants to be very clear that the environmental assessment statement for this application determined that no significant adverse impacts would occur from shadows cast by the proposed actions. Seeker defined significant adverse shadow impact as the complete elimination of direct sunlight to a historic or cultural resource, a substantial reduction in sunlight to vegetation or a substantial reduction in the usability of open space, none of which was judged to occur here. However, three nearby public resources would experience incremental shadows at certain times. Those resources are the Russell Ramsey Memorial Triangle, which is site number one on this map, the PS 375 Ks Basketball Courts, Site Number 4, and Sullivan Place sitting area, site number three.

No other nearby resources, including the Brooklyn Botanic Garden, Jackie Robinson playground and McKeever Place Community Garden would experience any incremental shadows as a result of this proposal. The shadows on the basketball courts and sitting area would be concentrated during the morning, during the fall, winter and spring months. The sitting area would experience from two hours to two point five hours of incremental shadow and the ball courts would experience from three point five to four hours of incremental shadow. The reference here is a photo of the sitting area on the left and the basketball courts on the right. The EAS projected incremental shadows compared to a no action alternative of a two story commercial building.

At the commission's request, the applicant team also modeled in the last two weeks the incremental shadows that would be cast by the proposed project compared to a hypothetical 10 story residential building that could be constructed as of right in the R6 zoning district mapped in the northern half of the project area. This slide shows the shadows that would be cast by this hypothetical as of right 10 story building on December 21. As you can see, it would pass over the ball courts from about 9AM to 11AM with little to no shadow on the sitting area. Now we see the shadows that would be cast by the proposed 14 storey project on the same day, December 21. By about twelve noon, all public facilities are in full sunlight where they remain for the rest of the day.

The red areas on this map represent incremental shadow compared to the EAS no action scenario at a two story commercial building. Now we see the shadows that would be cast by the hypothetical as of right 10 story building during the spring and fall equinox. Compared to the winter months, the sitting area and ball courts received far more sunlight. Finally, here's the path to shadows from the proposed project would take over the ball courts and sitting area in the spring and fall. The vast majority of the ball courts remain in sunlight at all times.

And after about 11AM, all shadows have passed over the public resources. In response to concerns from the borough president and commission, the applicant team has prepared an alternative massing for the proposed project designed to reduce incremental shadows. An analysis of this alternative massing was included in your Friday memo. I also wanna briefly address two other concerns that came up during the public hearing. First, commissioners and community members noted that income restricted units created through MIH would not be affordable to a family in CD9 making the median household income.

The applicant stated during their hearing and reiterated in the memo shared with the commission on Friday they that are looking at potential avenues to achieve deeper affordability, including possible enrollment in HPD's new mixed income market initiative program. Second, in response to comments from members of Community Board nine who expressed worry that a neighborhood study was being conducted without their involvement, we want to reiterate that there is no proposed Empire Boulevard study at this time. As stated at the last CPC meeting on this application, the department is always happy to have discussions with elected officials and stakeholders about their issues and goals for their community. But due to the widely different perspectives on the future of Empire Boulevard, we think it would be hard to commit to a study at the moment, which also requires significant time and resources. In light of all this, the department recommends approval of the application.

We believe that given the width of Empire Boulevard, the site's proximity to a major transit hub and multiple large open spaces and the C44D District's allowance of multiple floors of commercial uses, a building of this height and density is fully appropriate for this location and will bring much needed housing and commercial opportunities to a high demand part of Brooklyn. We are also pleased to see the applicant consider affordability options beyond those mandated by MIH as well as changes to the massing of the building that would mitigate incremental shadows. Thank you for your time and I'm happy to take questions.

Great. Thank you. Let me see if there are questions. We'll start with Commissioner Osorio. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much for the materials that were shared and for addressing some of our questions. I really appreciate that. Materials are very useful. And I just had a quick question. I mean from the department's point of view, sort of like how do you see the prospect of the new proposed massing sort of like moving forward? I mean is that tell me a little bit about how did you achieve that? What was the and how has been the conversation with the applicant in this regard?

So one of the recommendations from the borough president was to try to reduce the shadow impact on the open spaces while preserving the overall FAR and density of the building. So the updated massing that the applicant shared is basically an attempt to do that. It maintains the either the current floor area or close to the total floor area of the proposed project. But under the project as certified, the the height, on the Sullivan Avenue frontage goes up to a total of 12 stories. And the proposed alternate massing, shrinks the width of that a little bit in order to cast fewer shadows on the public resources to the north, and it redistributes that massing around the rest of the building.

So either way, it's consistent with c four Port D zoning. It's just an alternate massing that could be possible under the same zoning district if we, if if the goal were to eliminate those incremental shadows or mitigate those incremental shadows.

Thank you. No. I appreciate it. And just to reiterate or to reconfirm rather, you the the proposed alternative mapping works for you for the department?

We have not discussed it as, like, a a team yet, so I don't wanna provide a commitment yet to say, yes, this works for us or no, it doesn't. We would need to discuss a little bit more. But, we're certainly pleased to see that the applicant was receptive to that concern.

Absolutely. Fair enough. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on that. Thanks.

Thank you, commissioner. Great. Thank you for the report. Okay. You.

Next we have Atlantic Avenue mixed use plan. We are joined by Jonah, Jesse and Bianca.

Hello, Jonah and team.

Hello. And I just like to quickly note, Carolyn Grossman, Mara

Carolyn. Sorry.

Will be joining as well. Great. Good afternoon, commissioners. So we are here to provide a few updates regarding a number of questions that the commission asked at the public hearing now almost a month ago. Just to give a quick overview of those questions, we we kinda categorized them into three buckets.

On housing, there were questions around, different resources that HP could provide for multifamily residential buildings, particularly to preserve existing affordable housing within the area. And then also to clarify a few points regarding the homeowner help desk or homeownership resources, MIH, the ability to cross subsidize affordable housing with other market rate housing, a registry for displaced residents. And then with respect to open space and sustainability, there were questions around what parks are under consideration and then energy standards for public and private sites. And then for the industrial, or I would say, kind of job related questions, there were questions around, how does this project relate to the citywide industrial plan? What data can we provide on MX districts more broadly across the city?

And how does that dovetail with a goal around preserving or creating more industrial space? And specifically, what are lessons or opportunities for, the vertical integration of industrial with residential? So for the first two buckets, we did provide actually, for all three, we've provided a pretty detailed memo in your packet, which we're happy to go over more in-depth. That was a collaboration with HPD and our internal divisions. For the third bucket, I'm actually gonna turn it over to Carolyn to support what we've said in the memo, but we also wanted to just walk through, some of the data that we have and also introduce, one opportunity that we've we've found, which could be a good modification, that we're requesting the CPC to have.

So with that, let me, pass it over to Carolyn.

Hello, Caroline.

Thanks, Chair. Hello, Commissioners.

Good to see you. So we've put together some slides, as Jonah said, that are sort of background on the industrial plan and on some larger facts about the industrial economy. Hopefully, these are useful foundational to the questions that we will more specifically answer in the presentation as well, specifically around MX areas, which I think are actually doing much better at preserving a mix of industrial and non industrial employment than I think is generally well understood. And then we'll finally end talking specifically about vertical integration and the proposed modification that Jonah mentioned, which we think is a real step that the commission could take to facilitate the limited opportunities that we do see where vertical integration may be possible and really make sense. So starting at the top, I think we've received a number of questions about the NYC industrial plan.

As you may recall, Local Law 172 was passed last year by the city council in November requiring DCP, EDC, SBS, and a series of other agencies, some names, some we have grown to include given the subject matter, to work together to create the city's first comprehensive look at industrial jobs and industrial lands. That legislation requires us to conduct a series of research and data excavations, looking at the existing conditions, trends and patterns related to the industrial economy. What you'll see today is a starting sneak peek at some of the things that are required of us. It requires us to gain feedback, particularly from industrial business stakeholders. We have a survey that is out in the field right now, collecting that feedback.

It requires us to identify for the first time primary industrial areas, a legislative classification to try and get at the areas that may be predominantly intended for the preservation of industrial purpose. And then four, asks us to make recommendations on a wide range of city policies, programs, including land use that we may seek to pursue to have the better, more modern industrial policy in the city. So four things that are going into this work right now. We've done an enormous amount of work in New York City on policy specific and geographically specific. The commission obviously has a robust discussion about industrial policy quite frequently.

So we're building on the work that we already have here in New York City, as well as looking to peer cities that have industrial plans and industrial policies. We're doing a lot of this quantitative work, pulling on all of the data resources that we have here at City Planning and our fellow agencies. We've conducted more than 50 stakeholder sessions to date, eight walking tours and a number of larger group stakeholder interviews and dialogues since we launched the plan last fall. And as I mentioned, we have at nyc dot gov slash industrialplan a survey that is live where we've received more than 400 responses to date. Here's where we are just in the plan.

As I said, we launched in September. We are close to the end of our first phase here, which was really the most open ended in trying to understand what issues should we be looking at and how do we think about the framing and scoping based on stakeholder feedback. We plan to release a first sort of interim update on existing conditions and some preliminary goals around the plan this spring, which will have an info session publicly and do some more stakeholder engagement in phase two as we refine, leading into the required first draft this summer, required public meetings in every borough throughout the fall, and a final report at the end of the year and then required every eight years thereafter. This is an ongoing requirement that we'll be building on. So just to step into again, you know, we have a plan for industrial jobs and industrial areas.

I'm gonna give some background information to that. So when we talk about industrial jobs, and this is something we worked on with industry stakeholders, we're looking at what we've now started to colloquially call moving, making, maintaining. So across the city, if you look at these areas moving, wholesale jobs, transportation, logistics jobs, there's about 250,000 in our private sector representing 19,000 businesses making, that may be making buildings, objects or making media, represents about 255,000 jobs in 25,000 businesses across the city or maintaining repairs. This is our utilities, our auto repair, our waste facilities, 36,000 jobs, and 4,000 businesses in the private sector. Collectively, that's 15% of private sector jobs in the city.

In addition to this, we think there's at least about 40,000 public sector industrial occupations, a little harder to count, but we think that's a minimum estimate based on what we can see for New York City government. And in another, perhaps 100,000 jobs that may have an industrial component in a non industrial business. And that could be everything from the people who are stocking in the back of a grocery store or certain bus drivers that are working for, let's say, an ambulance company or somebody who's cutting gems but in a jewelry store. Right? So there are a number of different occupations that are industrial but may not be captured by our industrial business totals.

I think we all know our relationship to the industrial economy has changed dramatically over generations. We are no longer a city that is industrial first and is our only component. As the city reinvented itself for a post industrial economy, we saw unlike many other cities around The United States, we were able to see enormous resurgence in non industrial sectors as our industrial base declined. So just here, a quick picture of 1955 to 2023, you can see the difference in complexion. In 1955, our economy was nearly half industrial and had almost a million manufacturing jobs.

That's not what we're looking at today, but we are looking at a sector that has stabilized in much sense around that sort of 500,000 employment, even as the city has increased its employment in other ways. But we're not seeing that level of decline that we once had been seeing in the industrial sector. It's starting to stabilize or have slower declines over recent periods. Under the hood of that though, you still see dramatic changes within the industrial sector. So this is looking at just some of those subsectors of moving, making, and maintaining.

You can see on the left warehousing and storage, passer passenger transportation, freight transportation, food wholesale, all in the positive. Consumer goods still really seeing some considerable decline, construction, the largest gains here 30,000 jobs, 30% improvement over the last twenty year period. You can see a lot of those components of manufacturing continuing to decline, but sound recording telecommunication have been bright spots within the overall production field and then some smaller changes within the maintaining area. So a lot happening to make our city more of a moving city with some high value and very specific gains within making. A quick look at our industrial workforce.

It is more racially diverse than the city overall. And I think this really speaks to why we hear, I think, a lot of advocacy around the importance of this sector in particular. You can see the non white and Hispanic is 67% of the workforce versus 60 in the city overall. It is also a workforce that is older overall. We hear a lot, particularly in talking to industrial businesses about the need for succession planning and attracting young talent.

And more male, there's a gender challenge, particularly here when we're talking about transportation and construction components of the industry where there's a lot of lifting and heavy work. We are continuing to see a gender imbalance in those areas. And it remains a critical source for well paying jobs for workers who do not have a bachelor's degree. So on the left, can see here all jobs in New York City that earn more than $50,000 a year but don't require a bachelor's degree. A really considerable component of that is within the industrial sector.

And a lot of that, again, is transportation, warehousing and construction components of that sector. So things that we're really mindful of is we're thinking about why and how we want to continue to support this industry. So moving on from the what, we'll look a little bit at the where. And I think quite surprisingly, the largest concentrations of industrial jobs of those zero five million remain in Manhattan. And this is because when you think about transportation and construction in particular, we're talking about a lot of businesses where the headquartering, the business location does not have industrial activity.

And that's many of these are fitting into office buildings where industrial activity is happening off-site at a construction site or on the streets of New York, right, as when we're talking about trucking and and and freight movement. So there's enormous concentrations of this in the places where we have the most jobs in New York City, our central business districts. However, we do see other clusters. You can see out by the airports. You can see industrial business zones showing up as large concentrations.

You also see a lot of jobs in smaller areas. South Brooklyn has quite a concentration of industrial jobs scattered throughout. It's small scale contractors and small wholesale businesses that are in many of our neighborhoods. 48% of our jobs we see are located in M zones today. 25% are located in the industrial business zones today.

And just a quick look zooming out, those half a million industrial jobs we have here, this is a slightly different calculation, but generally about a quarter of the region's industrial employment base. So while we are reliant on some really important concentrations of logistics support, for instance, on the West Side Of The Hudson in New Jersey, construction transportation sectors that are housed outside the city, just near our border in Nassau County, Long Island, as well as some important aerospace and medical manufacturing happening further out the island of Long Island. The Hudson Valley that has some food manufacturing, computer legacy computer manufacturing is seeing some growth in logistics as well. And Connecticut, really part of the ecosystem here that is supporting our metro industrial employment base. So we'll look specifically at industrial areas from the perspective of zoning.

So our M districts, obviously, are very relevant to this conversation, cover about 30,000 acres in New York City. We say the size of Boston is M Reservoir today, 15% of the land of the city. You can see here broken down by the M3, M2, M1 and MX designations with which you are so familiar. Of course, M1, M2 and M3 are allowing a wide range of uses except for residential. That we do find non conforming residential within those.

We do not allow new residential there. MX being the exception here, where we are creating M uses and residential as a pair. That's representing about 5% of the M acreage of the city. And then, of course, a reminder that our C districts now act as a function of MX districts as a result of City of Yes, where we're now also allowing for some industrial uses to locate within the C districts in addition to the M districts. So zooming in now a little bit on MX districts in particular.

As many of you are aware, a special mixed use districts were created in 1997 to encourage investment in existing neighborhoods that had a mixed character, right, that were zoned for M where we saw a mix of industrial, residential and other uses and where we wanted to encourage that ability to further locate residential within the industrial context. So as a technical matter, these are a paired district, an M district and an R district added, and they're uniquely listed in zoning resolution 123. There are 25 of those areas across the city. Separately, there are several special districts that are not officially MX, but I think we treat colloquially as MX, and those include Hudson Square, Tribeca, the Gowanus Special District, Long Island City and SohoNoho and perhaps Atlantic Avenue in the future, where we consider these like an MX district. So we've included those in our analysis here for those purposes.

These are allowing those wide range of residential and nonresidential uses. They can be located side by side or within the same building, but there are significant regulatory design and marketing challenges to co locating within a physical building. And we'll talk a little bit more about that at the end. So here is a picture of jobs in all of our MX districts today. You can see, starting on the left, the largest job reservoir is in Soho, Noho, with about 51,000 jobs today.

Moving down Long Island City, 36,000. Hudson Square has 29,000. Tribeca is about 23,000. And then Dumbo is MX-eight at $10,000 and so on and so forth. We, of course, are sharing these with you.

So please, no need to memorize the numbers, and I'm happy to return to any if I go too quickly through the charts. So pulling all of those together, we looked just to answer the question of what is happening to jobs within all of our MX areas. And what we see over the last twenty years is that we've our MX areas have experienced a 6% decline in industrial employment. That's relative to a 4% decline citywide over the same period. And while it's a little light, think on the projection slide here, what you can also see is in that period, non industrial employment in MX districts has gone from 58,000 to 128,000.

So more than double non industrial employment, but very small declines in the industrial overall. In that same period, industrial employment wages have increased from $78,000 to an average of $104,000 the same time that non industrial employment has gone from an average of 88,000 to $121,000 That's inflation adjusted numbers. So the picture I think we see overall is relative stability in the amount of industrial jobs in MX areas as those areas have been unlocked to create more job productivity in total, that there's been a real complement here and that both industrial and non industrial have gained in value as that has changed. Now that picture looks very different in different market conditions. So, again, here, just looking breaking out each of the individual MX areas, you can see Long Island City, for instance, and gray is nonindustrial, purple is industrial.

Long Island City has gained in both. Right? 11,000 additional nonindustrial jobs and 3,600 industrial jobs. Greenpoint Williamsburg, on the other hand, lost some industrial jobs and gained 8,000 nonindustrial jobs. SoHoNoHo has been a little bit more of a mix, much more non industrial than industrial, but still both positive. Same for Hudson Square. And so

on and so forth, you

can see these changes are more marginal the smaller the areas become, but it's a very mixed picture in terms of where those growth and decline are occurring. Every MX area remains mixed to greater and lesser extent. So this is now just showing today the proportion of industrial and non industrial in each of the areas. A place like Long Island City with a really thriving industrial base remains a larger industrial component, as does a place like Port Morris. Some of these were not and are still not particularly strongly industrial in their context.

So just to move on a little and zoom us back into AIM UP, we just wanted to share a picture of the employment figures here. The area is relatively small. So overall, we see that there are about 900 jobs in the AIMUPS study area. 29% of those are industrial, which I haven't done my math. It's about two seventy industrial jobs in this area.

Over the last ten year period, we saw about 130 of those leave as we saw increases in the other four main buckets that we look at here, local services, office sector growth and health care and social assistance growth. I do want to note that some of the auto repair jobs may show up here in local services because some of them are more approaching a retail type job than an industrial job. So those are those can sometimes show up in both categories. And we have seen a little bit of employment growth here in auto repair. And and to to that point, just a quick, you know, sort of picture and and and and locating us on when we see those 270 industrial jobs in the area, what kinds of businesses are here that those are representing.

We have a number of gas stations in the area. We have several auto repair facilities in this area. A lot of the employment is related to a bus parking and repair facility that we see on Pacific. We have a self storage facility that also has some industrial employment in it. And then we have two larger buildings at 1000 Dean, where there's sort of a mix of loft office and industrial users in that space.

And then quite notably, and you heard testimony from them, Greenpoint Manufacturing Design Center runs an industrial light manufacturing nonprofit facility at 1102 Atlantic Avenue, which is a considerable concentration of manufacturing employment within the area. So now I'm just gonna talk the last bit here, a little bit about vertical integration and the zoning tools in play in the Atlantic Avenue Special District. So a reminder, this is a slide that we had shared when we adopted the City of Yes for Economic Opportunity and created the new MA District contextual industrial district types that are being used in effect here in the AIM UP Special District. We created these tools to respond to long standing concerns that a lack of the ability to have higher density industrial districts might inhibit the growth of businesses in our industrial areas, as well as bulk rules that did not favor the creation of those businesses as well. So we created a series of higher density MA districts to create those bulk that would allow for those loft like buildings to occur.

And we did it in three particular flavors to try and get at the different policy conditions which we would find in industrial areas, stretching across the intensity of the kind of industrial condition that we were seeking to pursue in that area. So for M3A, for areas that have a strongly predominant industrial context today, where we were looking for very modest expansion opportunities for legacy industrial and critical infrastructure, we proposed a district that could be mapped that would allow for higher densities, but really limit those higher densities for industrial purposes and for limiting additional commercial or other uses to them. For M2A, we pursued a district where we would encourage industrial

use

via higher FARs. And for those areas that were near residences and where we were looking for a mix of commercial activity and near transit, we thought to create a tool that would really have flexibility for the greatest mix of uses. So here, we accommodate industrial space but did not include incentives. And we built in the ability to pair these M1 districts as we do today as part of our MX program. So M1As in particular are designed to be paired with residences to allow for that use for the accommodation of a continued mixed zone, but to allow for residential and commercial as well.

And this was also built on some findings that we had developed in a 2018 DCP study, Can Industrial Mixed Use Buildings Work in New York City? This is on our website. Today, we studied extensively the financial, physical and operational issues associated with vertical development of a mixed industrial building with other programs. And what we found at that time, and these are things that we are now revisiting a bit in light of the new market conditions that we see in the city and the context of our industrial plan. But what we found is that there are times where vertical integration can work, but they are limited.

So some of the conditions that are really important for vertical integration are the kinds of industrial use you're talking about. Right? Some kinds of light industry work better when they are less truck intensive, less environmentally intensive, function more like an office or retail. They can function within a vertical construction. Office and retail are easier to mix than residential because of the core requirements and the environmental separation requirements really necessary when you're talking about a sensitive user like a resident.

Larger lots are much easier to lay out a building when you need multiple cores and multiple frontages to allow for, let's say, truck loading on one side and a residential lobby on another. Less parking and the envelopes can be a challenge to meeting both of those programs. Those are issues we have now addressed with the MA bulk relief. And then, of course, the projects that are most viable for mixing, whether it's residential and industrial or commercial and industrial together in a single building, rely on having a strong financial market for both uses. Right?

And those are really limited sites, limited geographies within the city, but they do exist. And I will note that we have heard from one tenant in this area, the Greenpoint Manufacturing Design Center, that is interested in pursuing such a vertical development. It is the only tenant we are aware of in the area that does intend to pursue such a development. But we think it is an interesting model, certainly one that the zoning should accommodate. So to end, I think on this point, we are proposing a modification that we believe would further enable and increase the likelihood of particularly residential and industrial vertical integration in the Atlantic Avenue Special District.

I mentioned several times we have strong environmental rules written into the MX zoning that make it particularly hard for some light industrial uses, things like a woodworking shop, to locate in an MX building that contains residents. And those rules are written to protect the residences, but they're written in such a way that even if those uses could be designed physically to prevent noise, odors and hazards, the zoning has no way to accommodate that environmental reality. What we because it is written as a sort of one size fits all exclusion of particular kinds of uses based on their environmental ratings. We are proposing and your initial proposal included some language around this. We're proposing a modification that essentially brings a chair certification into play that can provide an alternative environmental compliance pathway for a building such as this utilizing the existing e designation program.

So under this option, a building that is looking to include, let's say, woodworking on its base and residential above would come to the department with an air quality analysis of its proposed uses and would essentially request the codification of design controls to protect the occupants via an e designation, which the department would establish to codify those environmental requirements custom to that site. And so the language that we will be asking you to review is the specific language requiring the process for establishing the certification and the codification of e designations upon applicant request to facilitate these kinds of buildings that may need that alternative environmental compliance pathway, and in so doing makes them freer to experiment in a safe manner for these kinds of vertical mixed use projects. So with that, I hope that was useful context and appreciate Thank your

you very much. See a bunch of questions, and I'm going to get to them. But I'm just going to start with my own. One. First of was very useful and very clear. Thank you. Let's just start where you just ended on that woodworking shop. Absent the controls or the opportunity with a chair cert and an e designation, what would that look like here in AIM UP for that woodworking facility? What would the obstacle be? And what would be the challenge?

Yeah. So the way that the MX rules right now are written, they refer you for air code, for instance, to the state DEC to look at how your particular use is regulated and whether you are an A, B, or C rated air code use. Sometimes a business may be categorically excluded from that use. Sometimes it might be that you're allowed like a coffee roaster, but the amount or the size of your roaster may be contingent on whether you are on the use that is excluded or not. And sometimes it may be ambiguous based on the antiquity of that list relative to modern industrial businesses, and it may be unclear whether you are a full match for that.

All of that, of course, is prior to building a building which may not be tenanted or have prospective tenants at the time of its construction. So when what we've heard from a group like GMDC who intends to build industrial space for industrial users is that they are looking to create space that has the widest surety of the number of kinds of industrial users that can occupy it. And they don't want to find later that they you know, that a woodworker that, you know, might have been okay if they were only doing small jewelry, but in fact has a wider woodworking footprint, all of a sudden has run foul of air quality rules. Right? So the what what the what the process looks like today is one that really limits the creativity of industrial tenants that you may be able to seek or build for based on the stringency of categorical lists.

This allows for a developer who is industrially minded to seek clarity and predictability and create a custom environmental framework that is equally protective, but allows them to know as they build their building and try to tenant their space that they can open up to a much wider range of industrial potential tenants than may be allowed under the existing rules.

Okay. So I understand the flexibility point that the e designation could get you. I'm still a little stuck on the current process. So, I'm a woodworking business and I am looking to locate in a building that has residences in it. But it's an MX building, I'm going to

Right.

I want to go into the base of a building that has human beings upstairs. And I look to the state DEC code, and it will tell me I'm either flatly prohibited or it will say, okay, you're allowed if you use this machine or if you

Or Or the amount of emittance that you have.

Or if you don't emit more than x, y, or z, and it tells me that. Why does that not do the trick for this purpose, the state DEC's air code definition?

Yeah. I think the I would start with the what we have heard from experts who tenant industrial businesses is that they don't believe it suits their purposes and that it is both restricting the kinds of tenants that they can have, that there are industrial, that there are woodworkers who could not meet the air code requirements. But beyond that, there may be tenants that could or could not. The ambiguity of it is confining to their ability to tenant the spaces. It may be confining to the creativity of the operators themselves and not running afoul of air code requirements.

And so what they're really looking for is a circumstance where they can build separated vent structures, appropriate physical ventilation that keeps any emittance contained within the industrial perspective and then allow the businesses to do what they do, which is build furniture or paint things and not really be worrying about the threshold of emittance, which may run afoul of the state law.

Okay. And then sorry, I said it was only one, but I'm going to count this as only one. It's B and C. From the perspective of the people upstairs, how can we ensure that an e designation secured through a chair certification protects their interests from any potential challenges for air quality under the system that we're surfacing here?

Yes. I think it's the most important question, right? Because of course the entire idea here is that we're doing this in a safe way. And I would say we have one really good precedent example because GMDC has just completed its first residential industrial project at 803 Rockaway. That project went through a rezoning of its own.

The rezoning created these custom environmental requirements as a text amendment rather than through the e designation process. Those custom environmental requirements, which went through sister agencies, were codified in a restrictive declaration that runs with the project. The building was built to those standards. And today, we are now seeing a project, well, while new, that is being tenanted with the safeguards that we would expect here, vapor barriers, ventilation systems, a physical design that is separating all of those uses. So we have one example very similar.

We believe that the restrictive DEF process there was not ideal because the e designation system itself is so well known, so visible throughout the DOB and permitting process, the transparency of it and the replicability of the e designation makes it superior to a restrictive deck. But ultimately, it's the same sort of legal requirements and codification process that we would have here. So I would say we have one example where we think this has worked well. And of course, we have many examples of the e designation process working well to codify other kinds of environmental requirements over time. The Gowanus rezoning, for instance, codify very similar requirements looking at the sensitive users of the introduction of residential there.

And we have projects that are going through that right now that are building out ventilation systems and other kinds of environmental design that is specifically responsive to the adjacency of industrial use to residences.

Okay. Thank you for that. Let me go to Vice Chair Knoppel followed by Commissioner Benjamin.

Thank you. Carolyn, that was fascinating.

Thank you.

In fact, I'd love to get a hard copy so I wouldn't have to print out my whole docket here in order to

We'll make it happen.

Thank

You know, one of the earliest critiques of of MX districts was that property owners, that own manufacturing m zone properties would sell to residential developers and thereby erode the manufacturing base. How much evidence have you seen of that in your study?

We have not yet done a quantified look at the number of buildings that have gone. We looked at jobs versus land use. But I think anecdotally, is certainly true. As you've seen overall, the city has lost industrial jobs over recent decades. And it is also true that in areas where we've rezoned, a significant amount of the new housing that we're seeing in the city and the affordable housing that we're seeing in the city is coming on the sites of land that was formerly industrial.

So I think that it is absolutely the case that many sites that were formerly industrial in the city have been repurposed for residential use. I think the other and I hope this came across in my presentation is I don't think that that mix of use is necessarily the same as a displacement of industrial businesses. We've seen industrial businesses declining in the city overall as well. I think what we're seeing is these areas transforming into more high value mixed areas, right? So where the market has been strong and where we have introduced the potential for residential, we have seen it.

And we have seen other businesses there as well, sometimes industrial, if they are able to compete in a high market environment, sometimes commercial. And it's really that mix. But I would say the I think what we've seen is that it's certainly not the case that our MX areas are becoming entirely residential, for instance. We're seeing enormous job growth in them. We're just not necessarily seeing significant industrial job growth because we're not seeing significant industrial job growth en masse in the city in any context.

Understood. And just a quick question about Tribeca, which was obviously historically manufacturing, but over the last several decades has become residential. And it kind of embodies an MX district, but it's not an MX district.

What

is the predominant zoning in Tribeca right now?

Predominant. There are a lot there's a number of pure M's. There's a number of districts that are M's, but are effectively MX under the special district. There's a few Rs. Yeah. So I guess maybe rather than worrying about the vocabulary, I'd say there are a few areas still in Tribeca that don't allow for any residences. And then there are a number most of, I guess, the area of Tribeca is allowing for both. That answers the question?

So that would be commercial?

Or industrial. And I would offer anecdotally, we were just looking at one area on the closer to the Westside Highway in Tribeca, and you do still see things like some very like a UPS facility or like some of the new cargo bike distribution is happening in those areas, which is sort of the exception here of like there are some industrial users that can actually that are paying to rent or retain space in high market areas. And the need to distribute to Manhattan is one of the things that we think is driving that.

Thank you. You, Mr. Vice Chairman, Commissioner Benjamin and Commissioner Madin.

Thank you very much, Carolyn, and for the whole team both for the presentation today and for all of the work and the discussions that we had before last week and for your responses. I really do appreciate it. I have a couple of questions about the presentation and a couple of comments. I'll start with the little e. The first with a piece of history, the little e designation came about because we had formally done restrictive declarations which issue which included the particular requirements for that.

Yeah. But we found when we were doing rezonings that included property under not under the control of the applicant, we had no way to enforce any kind of environmental regulation. And it was particularly about and that's why it's written the way it is, it was particularly about gas stations and bulk storage facilities. And as a result, we came up with this idea of a little e, but it was only for certain environmental problems. And so the restrictive deck was always available for an individual applicant controlled lot.

So I'm not sure that we shouldn't still use it at times with an individually applicant controlled lot for these kinds of issues. Second, the other thing that comes up is that there's an air code from the city. There's a noise code that the city has in addition to building codes and other things. And they all have the ability, an applicant does, to go to BSA to get a variance. And a number of businesses have gone that route and gotten variances from the air code or the noise code as necessary.

So how do you see that interacting with this little e? Will they not get variances now once the chair certifies that it's okay?

Well, I would think that you wouldn't need the variance if you've just gotten the certification for that behavior. Is the certification going

to change the AIR code, though, or the bill oh, you're oh, you're

do you want to jump

in here, Stephanie? You know

Go ahead. I wasn't going to answer a question. No.

So codes will still apply. This is just about zoning. This is just about uses that are permitted through the zoning that has been established. And so, this is, as Carolyn said, just loosening the MX performance standard regulations through alternative means through the e designation.

But alternate the performance standard regulations and maybe we should do this somewhere else, because I'm not sure anybody else wants to hear this. But the performance standards ultimately have a relationship to the code, to the air code, to the noise code, to all the other codes. And by zoning and performance standards, we can't change the code. Only the city council can change the code. So even if the chair gives this certification, the entity still has to meet the air code or the sound code. So And

the fire code. I think your what I hear is, commissioner, this is not a solution for the many regulatory challenges that may meet industrial businesses in trying to locate in New York City and particularly in residential environments. This is a very challenging building type to achieve. And that is part of the reason we think it is and will always be a quite unusual build. So you may be right that despite our efforts to try and solve one problem, that we are not able to solve all of the challenges for every tenant and surely cannot for every tenant.

And by the way, there are some industrial businesses for whom there may be no environmental design controls that would make them appropriate to be in a residential building, right? So there are limitations on what this can do. We believe this relieves one potential difficulty, and our evidence for that is the building that was already approved.

Right. But I'm trying to get at what it would do, such as the large coffee roaster. One of the objections that residents not just in the building have is the odor. That's been a real odor problem wherever coffee roasters have been, including the Puerto Rico in Puerto Rico coffee roasting that's on Bleecker Street. The people in the building have complained to TEP for years about the odor. So are you envisioning that despite that, the complaints, etcetera, that the chair would be able to give this certification?

Well, I would clarify that coffee roasters are already an allowed use in all FX districts. So yes, there are odor challenges. There are odor challenges for a number of uses. We are not contemplating a change in use here. We are contemplating specifically a change in whether the in how you meet the environmental control. So we are suggesting that, yes, you may not be categorically excluded based on the amount of coffee that you are roasting, if you can show that you have environmental controls that are otherwise protective. But

if the coffee roaster, as a result of the odor, let us say, can't meet the air code, can the chair still give us certification? I mean, I know that it's allowed can definitely

bring this to our interagency working group that's on this, but our understanding is that codes are codes. We cannot change the codes via zoning, and so those would continue to apply. And this is solely as a way to have an alternative method for zoning compliance.

I guess what I without prolonging this, that I'd like to understand better where you think this new little e would work that would not come in conflict with the air code or the noise code or any of the other codes where this particular little e would find a path that didn't conflict with that, but that would allow for greater flexibility.

And just don't what I would say is while we don't know the outer bounds of all potential uses that are within that nexus of the Venn diagram, we can show you one project that has been recently completed and tenanted where that Venn diagram seems to have been fulfilled, projects that were compliant under AIR code but not under MX. Okay. That would be good.

But that is only what I'm trying to understand the kind of general.

If I can jump in, Commissioner. Think this is an excellent question, which is how does the e designation create a pathway for you that is not inconsistent with the codes? And I that really was where my questions were going to. So when we formally bring this back, I think that really is the question here, which is, is it about zoning compliance? And I think that is ultimately where it is.

Like what is it about the zoning that prohibits you from moving forward? And what does the e designation allow you to do within zoning? And how does the e designation allow you to proceed in a way that is not inconsistent with existing codes? How did I do, Commissioner? Pretty good. I'm with I I I understand your question. I think it's an import I think it's a really important question.

Great. And then second, with the little e designation, can the chair put conditions? How does that how is that gonna work?

That's entirely the idea would be

say, let's say, that the woodworking shop can only operate from ten in the morning until four in the afternoon?

If the hours of operation were somehow related to protection of the safety of the occupants.

And in if this little e is going on before we know who the occupants will be or what might be happening on

the We expect side that an applicant would come with a sort of proposed window of occupants. Right? So they may be saying, I'd like to approve this space for some component of production uses. So we don't we we think it would not be at the moment of an individual tenant, but rather a grouping of tenants.

And just operationally, right now, e designations don't usually use operational techniques like hours of operation, but it is more about attenuation levels of attenuation between floors, between at the window level, at floor level. So, we anticipate using a lot of the tools in the e designation toolbox now, window attenuation and floor attenuation and venting, ventilation and separation of ventilation and separation between air intakes for heating, ventilation, and cooling, and any air quality or industrial source pollutant emissions.

And would it also be able to control things like truck activity? What our I mean, that's really where the conflicts seem to come and you were talking about that.

And I would just say here, we're not controlling for that truck activity for any other production use, which is allowed under the MX District. So unless the activity was specifically related to the findings of the environmental compliance, it's hard to figure how we would do that, not to mention the challenge, I think, of regulating trucks versus what is happening on the zoning lot, which is typically outside the purview of zoning. So I would say no. But I would also say that we have no reason to believe that noncompliance with these particular components are more or less truck intensive than other allowed as of right uses.

Which brings up the actual manufacturing industrial uses in the industry versus the non industrial users. And the first part of that, and you don't have to answer them now, we can have more discussion is, are the same skill levels present with the non industrial users, are they also non college graduates or are the I saw the chart and that's why I had the question.

I mean, we haven't broken this down for MX districts. But I think just it's worth focusing on where are our what we call opportunity jobs. Jobs that are paying above 50 but don't require a degree, it's 30% in industrial, it's 25% in office, it's about 20% institutional, 20% or so local services. So I can't say for sure if this pie chart holds proportionately for every MX district, which I

think is what you're asking. Well, I'm asking that, yes. But also when you're talking about the growth in the non industrial

are they also matching this pie chart?

So that's a question for the future. And you can if you want to get back or you want to have more discussion so we can figure out exactly how to get that kind of tease that out of the information.

Just think about whether we can know it,

but I think so.

And lastly, the pie chart that you showed with the different MX districts, clearly Manhattan had the largest number of jobs. But is that, as you said, I just I'm not

sure I understood you correctly, because the headquarters of the firm is located in Manhattan or because the actual jobs are located in Manhattan? When we look at where jobs are, we're looking at where tax record is. Right? So we can't distinguish whether you're coming in just to get a paycheck or whether you're coming in to do some calls and then taking your truck out or what combination of activity it is.

It's a headquarters that does office work and you're out in the field in Queens where there's another facility.

Yeah. And I think it's combination of both of those things. Right? We can look at that for each geographic area. But the overall message, if the city is made up of a lot of transportation jobs and a

lot of construction jobs, then

those are showing up in all of these areas.

Okay. I really thank you for the work you've done and for making this available to us because it's been very helpful. And unfortunately for you, it sparked some additional questions. That's why I'm here.

Appreciate it. But thank you,

all of you, not just Carolyn.

Thank you, Commissioner. Okay. Let's move on to Commissioner Marin followed by Commissioner Osorio and then we're going to move on to the next item. Thank you.

Thank you, Chad. Thank you everyone for the presentation. So, Carolyn, my question is you have your litmus test where you have a building now in the Rockaways that you've actually integrated both manufacturing and residential successfully. What happens when that 1st Floor tenant changes? And the reason why I asked the question is because it relates to the air ducting within the building for that specific tenant, And knowing that on most retail fronts, you have a grill on top of your facade of the storefront that actually exhaust out, you take a coffee roaster and as much as they follow the rules of how this should be vented and sending out to the front, it's affecting the tenants upstairs.

Let's just say that there is a coffee roaster on the Rockaways and they change to a woodworker where the exhaust requirements become more egregious because now you're dealing with sawdust, so you're dealing with air quality as well as smells. The retrofitting of that tenant space that tenant fit out because of responsibility of whomever, whether it's the landlord or the tenant who's renting the space, Who is

to and of course,

we certify that or the chair certs that the uses within the uses allowed within this MX designation. Who monitors and who and I think I know the answer, but I just wanna be sure. Who monitors and who makes sure that what is supposed to happen does happen and happen so that when questions come back, let's just say there's still some issues, the right protocols are followed?

Yes. It's a great question and one we've been continuing to work through with our partner, Mayor's Office of Environmental Remediation, for instance, who administers the program. The first thing I would say is that the good news is that what we understand is that in most cases, whether you're a woodworker or a coffee roaster, if you're looking to have a ventilation system that is sensitive to your sensitive receptors, you're not doing the grate. You're venting to the highest tier of the building through a separated ventilation system. And there shouldn't be that much distinction between the system that you've designed for the woodworkers or the coffee roasters.

Different than what you're describing, if you've never designed for an industrial user at all, you may be not set up to have it. And that's exactly the challenge we're trying to address, right, is to have you come in voluntarily and say, I would like a woodworker or a coffee roaster. Probably either. Right? You'd probably come in and be preapproved for both or a number of uses that can function safely off the same operational requirements.

You design your building to have separated ventilation, separated vapor barriers between the industrial floors and the residential floors, and a whole series of design controls that should cover you for a multitude of uses. Now let's say the question is, what happens if you want to you still want to change to a use that you weren't covered for? How do we is there a check to to ensure that we know that, you know, the additional use that you're you're you're covering it and somebody's checking whether your environmental protections are are safe for that? We're talking to DOB about how we might flag something that's not a change of use within categories. It will be flagged for an e designation, so there is a transparency associated with that.

Talked about annual compliance reports as a potential solution to that as well. So there some checks we can put into the E itself to basically flag here are the uses that you are approved for, which are hopefully expansive enough that you would never have to come back for a change of use, but also some affirmative steps that would go above and beyond change of use that we normally have in DOB that may give some additional regulatory oversight to that change, which does not exist under existing uses today. Right? This would be I think the beauty of this is that it does create for this particular class of uses a slightly higher regulatory hurdle to locating, as it should if we're allowing for businesses that may have a slightly higher environmental profile.

Yeah, I think that's critical because we do notice that there are a lot of times when unfortunately staff at the buildings department misses something. They either missed the box that says landmarks, they missed the box that says this or that or the files are just not there because they've gotten lost in the soft somewhere at the buildings department which is what we hear plenty of times. So I think that we need to put in place something that we can feel comfortable with that doesn't come back to bite us that we've done our job, but others that we're depending on haven't. But because we've passed the action, we're getting blamed for it.

Yes. And I would just say, again, this is creating a higher level of oversight for than these any other project where an industrial use may also be allowed, but where they wouldn't have this environmental compliance

Yes. It's especially concerning in our day and age where the types of manufacturing changes drastically quickly. We have three d printing now that creates other issues. And while not industrial, you have smell conditions there and noise conditions. So thank you. I appreciate that.

Thank you. Commissioner, Commissioner Osorio.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you so much for the work and thank you so much for sharing it with us. I know that for a while we've been really wanting to see this. And so it's really great and exciting to see all this coming together. I would love to an opportunity to sit down and discuss some specific questions that I have.

In the meantime, I want to focus on two questions. One question has to do with, I'm wondering if you can expand on the public engagement that has happened so far or who are you who have you been with whom have you been discussing kind of like the methods, the goals and so forth. I know you mentioned there's an information session coming out in the second phase. But I wanted to know if the extent to which you've considered the Bronze White plan, which in my mind is economic development heavily focusing on industrial retention, same with the Brooklyn Borough President Comprehensive Plan. And some environmental justice groups have advanced their own industrial retention plans.

A good examples are GRID in Sunset Park by UPROs, but also The Point in Hunts Point has its own. So can you tell us a little bit about that? That's the first question. And the second question has to do with the performance of the MX districts. I think it's extremely helpful and so interesting some of these preliminary results.

But I was puzzled a little bit by two things that caught my attention. One is the such a big important decrease in advanced manufacturing, you noted in your chart, and sort of like, referencing the loss of manufacturing in New York City as your main baseline. Because in New York State, we seem to be seeing the opposite. And so NYSERDA in its 2024 New York Clean Energy Industry Report documents that there's almost 8,000 new jobs between 2022 and 2023. They say this is 4% of statewide employment increases, and you see some specific industry sectors like clean and alternative fuel transportation increasing up to 16%.

I see the same in their report with other sectors like building decarbonization energy efficiency, renewable electrical power generation. And so it's clear that you're trying to be fair in analyzing the immediate context, but what is it that has happened in New York City to Vice President Nuchel's question earlier that we see the opposite that what the state is doing. And so in thinking about the future of these areas, I feel there's something that we're missing.

I think this is a great question. So I thank you for asking it, commissioner. And I think what we do see a very different story of what is happening in industrial within context of New York City than we do in other parts of New York State and in other parts of the the metro area. And I think the primary distinction is density and land cost. We are seeing we have we have neighbors to the north of the city.

And we as part of our regional work, we we we had the conversations. In fact, Dan was up in the Hudson Valley last week talking with some of our planning counterparts there who are looking for large scale, single story, high truck intensity or at least high parking intensity industrial users either to build new construction or to replenish older stock. There are older warehouses that are still being redeveloped. So I think that's the primary difference we see is that New York State is doing a tremendous job at attracting advanced manufacturing in particular by building enormous scale, low density manufacturing facilities. And the Micron campus in Upstate is the best example of this.

This is, I think, 50 football fields wide, one story tall, building the most advanced microchips on the planet. Right? So there is a role in New York State for that kind of manufacturing to be buttressing economies, but it would be very difficult to house that kind of a manufacturing facility in the confines of New York City. So what can we focus on? I think from our perspective, the manufacturing elements that are doing really well in New York City.

I think the advanced manufacturing one is interesting because we do hear stories within advanced manufacturing of businesses that are doing well. So as a subsector, it's not. But we do know that when it comes to climate tech or biotechnology that there are components here that are. And that what we hear is that those are here because extraordinarily high value potential for the business, and they're attached to venture capital or other kinds of employment opportunities that are in the city. So the same thing, I think, for film, also helps by a tax credit.

But the centrality of New York City as a media market is the reason that we're seeing film generally paying higher rents and construction costs to be here. And to some extent, I think for other kinds of good manufacturing and food manufacturing, it's the centrality of the New York City market that is driving businesses some businesses to pay those higher costs and to work in smaller spaces in order to be closer to the market that they're serving. But I think we would those are trade offs that those businesses are making and handling in order to be in a location that is just higher per square foot cost and harder to function in as a truck intensive business.

Some of them may for sure. But I think that as you pointed out, it would be important to include in this analysis what are how can we through zoning, through planning, create the conditions for the rest of them. Some of which I think could be here as as they are in other high density cities too. So so we're

looking would actually say that's not our experience that a place like Micron, like a facility like that Not

that one. No. That one. I

Right? Those lot and and we hear from our peer cities very comparable experiences of the challenges of citing low density industrial spaces. But I do agree with you that there's there's some role for that, and there are some uses we have that are low density or even no density. The introduction of South Brooklyn Marine Terminal and large scale offloading facilities for wind turbines. Right? Like, there are things that we need to have here, but it's but we but we're not gonna make it easier to have low density space in New York City. What we can do is create more space for everyone, and that's why these conversations about vertical integration are so important.

Thank you for your answers. I would love to hear more about your methods and the case studies that you're looking at. So if there's an opportunity to sit down and discuss, I would appreciate that. Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you very much, Carolyn. Thank you, Commissioner. This was incredibly helpful. We appreciate your time with today. Okay. Madam Secretary, let's move on to the next item please.

Okay. Lastly for post hearing follow ups, we have Western Railyard modifications. There are public comments and testimony, follow-up letters and memos in your materials. Abby is here to present.

All Abby. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Good

afternoon.

This is a post hearing presentation for Western Railyard Modifications and Mapping Action. The public hearing on these two applications and related EIS was held on February 19. As shared in the briefing packet, there have been some updates following the public hearing. At the Commission's request, the Department made the applicant's February 12 letter public via ZAP. The letter included comprehensive responses to the Commission's questions posed at the 11/04/2024 review session.

The Department is also following up on questions asked by the Commission regarding the environmental review, including e designations, wind analysis and flooding, and we'll have more to share by the next review session. Additionally, the applicant team has shared two new documents with the Commission. The first is a letter from the applicant's engineer providing more information on the structural constraints posed by the arrangement of the tracks and columns that make the 2009 plan multiple small tower arrangements less desirable. The second is a document outlining the community benefits package that the applicant team recently announced for the proposed gaming facility. The applicant team has indicated that they are working on another letter to the Commission addressing other questions and comments raised at the public hearing and have indicated that they will share this letter prior to the next review session.

Additionally, following comments and questions regarding the size and configuration of the podium on-site C in the alternative scenario, department staff have been working with the applicant team to update the design to address these concerns. Discussions are ongoing still, so what's being shown is an in progress update. The image on the left is the 2,009 approved site plan. The site plan requires a mid block connection with a minimum of 60 feet minimum width of 60 feet on the northern part of the site between Sites 1 And 2, connecting West 33rd Street to the open space. The image on the right is the proposed mid block connection through the middle of Site C in the alternative scenario.

The proposed mid block connection is also 60 feet wide and open to the sky. In both images, you can see red hatching depicting the zone of flexibility where that mid block connection could be located. And here are additional images showing the proposal. Both images are facing north from the open space, with 12th Avenue on the left and 11th Avenue on the right. The image on the left are illustrative building envelopes for Site C produced by department staff.

The mid block connection is shown in red and open to the sky. I'll just note that the separate maximum floor plate size restrictions would limit the size of any towers within these envelopes. So what's being shown is just the volumes within smaller towers or within which those smaller towers could theoretically be located. The image on the right shows the applicant's proposed update to the site C in more detail. The darker gray shapes on top of site C indicate potential locations of three towers.

The red numbers and lines seen along West 33rd Street indicate the minimum distances from the avenues that the mid block where the mid block connection could be located. The applicant proposes that the mid block connection be at least two thirty five feet east of 12th Avenue and at least three sixty five feet west Of 11th Avenue. Department staff have reviewed the applicant's proposal. We think that the mid block connection shown is an improved design, but we think that more can be done to address the Commission's and public's concerns regarding the bulk of the podium. Design considerations such as a more generous opening from the open space to the mid block connection, an additional carve out of the podium at the southeast corner of the podium, similar to what's seen at the southwest corner.

And more variation in the required setbacks are examples of comments we are making to the applicant team. We expect to have a further updated design to show the commission at the next review session on March 17. That concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to take any questions.

Great. Thank you very much, Abby. And many of these questions you may resolve at subsequent visits, in which case that's okay. You'll just let us know. So on the design, I just want to thank you and department staff for working to address the podium size and the alternative scenario.

I to thank the applicant too for working with us on that. And obviously, is it's progress, but I certainly agree with your perspective that there's work to be done here. On the mid block connection and the two thirty five feet from this side or in the 200 some odd feet from the other side, Is there any reason why there needs to be so much flexibility on where that mid block connection is from anything that the applicant has stated or from the department's perspective?

What we've heard from the applicant team is that because the programming in the alternative scenario has yet to be fully developed, they're looking to maintain flexibility to be able to build out, you know, whatever the ultimate programming would be should they find themselves in the alternative scenario. In terms of specific needs that the department has identified, I mean, I think certainly there are some things in terms of some flexibility needed based on what we've heard from the applicant team for the infrastructure requirements below, so some flexibility would be needed in that circumstance. The range, I think, is something we're still looking at. Okay. And

in your introduction, you noted that there is information coming to us about the complexity of maintenance resulting that would have resulted from the 2009 design on the rail below. There's information was is We now have. So my question for you as we go through that is, is there anything about smaller footprints on the north end of this site that would impede the ability of maintenance on the rail below? Or is it just those mid block buildings as delineated in 2009 that created the issue?

I would want to sort of refer back to the letter that we received from the applicant's engineering team, and we can follow-up.

Okay. And I will go through that in more detail too.

And this came up at

the hearing. I just want to understand the dynamic of we have two alternatives. One is a gaming facility proposal and one of them is the alternative. In both, the commission would need to modify the 2009 site plan, correct? Yes.

And focusing on the first, the casino, the gaming facility opportunity that is being sought by the applicant here. If we were to modify the site plan as sought by the applicant, it would change the precise location of the two buildings in the South, and it would replace everything else with the podium at the North. Correct? Correct. If the the state process reviews that site plan and concludes that the podium is too large for that site even for a gaming facility?

Does the state have the ability to modify that podium to accommodate whatever it believes is the right shape, form, design?

That is a good question. I'd like to get back to you with the exact parameters at the state.

Susan, do you know Susan knows the answer to this question. So I ish. Okay. So we're gonna bring her up, and we're gonna just get a little bit more information because I don't know. I have a follow-up on that

too. Right.

I think I know the answer to this question as well as anyone else, which means not very well. Because I think that the state CAC process is a little bit undefined now and we are waiting for more information from the state about how that process will work.

Okay. So based on what you know now.

Right. But so as our understanding is the CAC will look at this and everything that is sort of part of the gaming criteria, the gaming facility criteria that the state has issued, which I believe has to do with the physical structure of the facility as well as impacts on the neighborhood, are things that the CAC can weigh in on. And I don't think the state will be looking at it independently. I think it's really the CAC process that will be looking at that. Now, they can say we would recommend this or that we would only approve it if it's less, it's a little unclear, I think, at this point as to precisely how much the CAC can say we want something different.

But I think that's where it would go. And they do have, I think, a fair amount of authority to say if it's within the gaming facility criteria, which impacts on the neighborhood and the physical structure, I think, probably are that the CAC can restrict its approval. Well, if there

were any uncertainty about that point as to whether the CAC could perhaps reduce the size of the podium in the gaming facility proposal, should this commission then not pay significantly more attention to the question of the precise size, shape and scale of the gaming facility podium?

Well, so this commission isn't looking at the gaming facility podium because the gaming facility is sort of within that black box that is not in front of the commission. The non gaming facility, plan B podium

But let's just talk about plan A for one moment. So we're changing the site plan. We're being asked to change the site plan to allow for podium of a size and a new No. Us what it You're

looking at the site plan under the gaming facility to look at the open space and the two southern buildings. Everything outside of the gaming facility, but nothing within that gaming facility envelope is you're not looking at that.

So we would be able to lock in here for the gaming facility purposes, the two buildings to the south plus the open space, and then everything else would be left to the state for the northern part of this site, meaning the podium specifically. Right? Right. Okay. Now in a scenario in which in the gaming facility is sought, we amend the site plan, we allow for a certain amount of open space, two buildings to the south and the applicant is not successful in securing a license for a gaming facility at this site.

And we do not have an alternative, but we have a 2,009 existing site plan. What happens here? As a legal matter, what are we left with in a scenario in which we're just dealing with we've modified the site plan here and we have not approved an alternative for the non gaming facility scenario.

So, if you've modified the site plan, sort of the gaming facility site plan, so you've approved everything outside of the gaming facility footprint. Where the gaming facility would be 2,009 still exists, which becomes an essential it becomes an impossibility because you can't have 2,000 that 2,009 plan cannot be built just in that part that's in that little footprint when the rest of it has been changed. I mean, we've you know, it's like a sliver of a building, a part of a street. So what really then has to happen is that for anything to happen on that site, there would need to be a new process, a new proposal and new So we

kind of break the site plan by not having an alternative. So in this concept here, so scenario one, we amend the site plan, two buildings to the south, open space, opportunity for the gaming facility pursuant to state law. If no gaming facility is granted by a license then we sort of have no there's nothing left here that really can work unless we somehow provide for an alternative site plan that is workable and survives without a gaming facility?

Theoretically, Site A, Site B and the associated open space could all be built and then there would be this blank where the gaming facility footprint would be.

Okay. So we would be left with the two buildings at the south and the open space. And then there would be an open question as to what happens and that would require further process from the applicant. Yes. And And as we understood from the hearing, there's a possibility of a hotel. Hotel, of course, would require a follow-up action. So there is the question about if we cannot come to an alternative design, which is satisfactory to the commission as to whether you leave this for future action. So that is a possibility at least for the commission to understand. But now let's talk about the alternative. And this is where I may be able to bring Abby back.

So thank you Susan. Okay. So there was a lot of discussion at the hearing about housing units, number of housing units lost. But we're even in the alternative scenario here, we are the underlying zoning is staying the same. Correct. So can you explain the argument as to whether we are or are not losing housing units and why that might or might not be?

Sure. So as the Commission may recall, the zoning on the site is very flexible. So it's 10 FAR allowed overall with eight for residential or up to eight for residential or up to eight for commercial. And that allows for a mix of uses, and the idea was sort of flexibility for how that for how the site would be designed. The site plan in let's see if we can find a 2009 site plan. Here we can just use on the left. The

2009

site plan, you can see there's we have the six different sites. And beyond that, the zoning also sort of prescribed the floor plates. So while overall the FAR allowed was very flexible, the floor plates sort of necessitated or the logical conclusion with these smaller floor plates prescribed in the zoning was development that much more heavily favored residential development. So with the FEISs that was analyzed, the reasonable worst case development scenario sort of looks at even in the potential maximum commercial development scenario sorry, this is the 2,009 FEIS either in the maximum commercial or maximum residential, a very high number of residential units potentially developed on the site. And then within the proposed 2024 certified plan, you're looking at the applicant coming back, all of the uses still being within the permitted FARs allowed under zoning, but just a much lower amount of residential proposed in this updated plan.

But

as you described it, some of the smaller sites in 2009, '3, '4 and '5 are the best example and perhaps those were the actual ones where residential was proposed in 2009. But those sites were have smaller footprints best done for residential, maybe extremely difficult or impossible for commercial. So therefore, the practical result would have been more residential on the site. But in the alternative here, you have bigger footprints, which creates more flexibility, but it also does not preclude a smaller building on the site. Correct.

Correct? Yes. So and we see this all the time around here, which is we are enabling a thing. But once we are enabling it, we have lost some control over what actually happens. The applicant here in ten years could say, you know what, residential. That is the way. We have a footprint that we have defined by law on our site plan, but we're actually doing residential as opposed to commercial. And that is not their intention today, but that is possible under the zoning. Is that correct? Correct.

Okay. On the open space, I believe the applicant said that there is more open space on the alternative proposal than on the 2009 approved site plan. Is that correct?

That's correct, just slightly. So, it's about 5.4 acres. And again, that's inclusive of in 2009, it was 5.4 That's inclusive of about one acre from the High Line In the certified proposal in front of the Commission, it's 5.6 acres. And again, inclusive of that one acre from the High Line.

Okay. So either way, the High Line calculation is the same?

Correct. Okay.

All right. Okay. Got

Now let's talk about the High Line for a moment. They came in and presented some information about wind, which this may be an area in which there's follow-up coming. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Really the question that I asked and then maybe part of the follow-up is whether wind was studied as part of the 2009 site plan?

I believe it was the 2009 site plan, but we can confirm. Okay.

Yes.

All right. Great. Thank you. Those are my questions. Let me see if there are other questions.

Commissioner Osorio?

Thank you, Sher. Two quick questions. One was so and perhaps this is also coming, but I was specifically interested in whether there had been a response to the access to a school being below design floor elevation. And it sounded like there could be something else, but I don't know. Is that fair?

Yes. We're following up with our climate and sustainability team and we'll have a more comprehensive answer to.

Okay. Thank you. And then there's another question. I mean, for reference, I'm wondering what are we using to determine that the proximity and again, this is all side b, so this is within our scope. But in the case that there is a casino, what are we using as our basis to determine that the distance between the school and the casino or the distance between the daycare and the casino is enough? Do we have kinda like a legal basis to to to determine that, or we'll see as the process move moves forward or or or where are we in that regard? Help me understand how far should a school and a day care be from a casino or how do we know that we're within safe distance?

Right. Yeah. It's a good question. I don't have specifics for you right now, but we can follow-up in the next memo.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner, Commissioner Marek.

Thank you. So I sat through the presentation, and I'm really having a hard time understanding how is it that smaller buildings with a different structural requirement can restrict the operations at the base of the rail yards and yet larger buildings with may probably many more columns do not restrict operations on the rail yard. I understand all the arguments that the chair is trying to make about what can happen above ground, but just logically, it's not making sense for me. Is there any way that the applicant could superimpose both on the 2009 and the proposed site the conditions under the rail yard so we can better understand what these columns are doing and where they're creating the problems?

I believe there were some images included in the letter sent to you, including your briefing packet for this meeting that did superimpose this I'll have to

check those. I I have not checked this weekend.

But if there's sort of further information that you'd like or those images aren't sort of getting to the information that you're looking for.

No. I just I really want to understand. I mean, argument that was made that is being made is that train operations and maintenance can't happen because these columns are too close to each other. So I one is better understanding what those critical maintenance operations are because again logically it's just not making sense. So I'd like to better understand that. I'm going study what has been sent. If I have additional questions I'll let you know.

Okay. Thank you.

I'm gonna do the same, commissioner. I appreciate that. Yes. Yeah. I think, for next review session, we'll come with, more detailed images for the actual

I I think I I think, you know, sharing that information is critical because that's an argument that's being made. And if it was shared over the weekend package, it should have been part of this, my own opinion is. But we should be able to we should have a conversation about that. Thank you, Andy.

Good. And we will. Thank you, Commissioner. Okay. All right. I think that's it for the moment. Thank you very much for all of your efforts here. Appreciate it. And good luck in your continued conversations. Madam Secretary, what's next if anything for the day today?

That concludes today's review session.

Well, is great news. Thank you everybody. With that, we will see you all on Wednesday at ten a. M. And we are adjourned. Thank you.

Time is 03:32 p. M.