Good evening and welcome to the December 2025 regular legislative meeting.

Madam City Clerk, please call the role.

Mayor Remels Herbert here.

Council Member Loja.

Councilmember Tarantino.

Here, Councilmember Peters.

Councilmember Asilayan.

Council Member King.

And Council Member Stern.

Here.

Thank you so much.

And again, good evening.

Welcome to the December meeting held a week earlier in observance of holidays for the month of December.

Just some promotion.

Don't forget the holiday market is happening through December 14th for all of you that are watching.

It helps support our small business vendors at New Rock, free parking, and it's very warm.

I'm advised that we have a new agenda item as a result of a late submission by one of our colleagues.

Ashen Louye and K, all in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you so much for that collegiality.

And the committee of the whole session for Wednesday, November 12th, 2025.

May I have a motion to end the second adopting the approval of the minute for those meetings.

All in favor say aye.

Any opposed.

And I'll note the submission of minutes for the regular legislative meeting for Tuesday, November 18th, and the committee of the whole session of Tuesday, December 2nd, 2025.

The next item on our agenda, items two through five were previously moved and seconded to be a part of our consent agenda.

Are there any questions or comments on items two through five?

Hearing none, they have a motion and a second adopting items two through five, please.

Kay and Lopez, all in favor say aye.

Any opposed.

Brilliant.

Moving on to now a series of um resolutions.

The first resolution is the proposed transfer of city council member Sarah Kay's stipend, um, authorizing the city manager to transfer $5,000 to feeding Westchester from City Council Member Sarah Kay's 2025 stipend to count.

Council Member Kay, anything you'd like to add to this?

No.

Great.

Motion then the second adopting item number six, please.

Kay and Peters, all in favor say aye.

Any opposed.

Item number seven is a proposed transfer of city council member Matthew A.

Stern stipend.

Resolution authorizing the city manager to transfer $2,500 to United Community Center of Westchester and 2,500 to the Boys and Girls Club of New Rochelle Mascaro branch, specifically for the High Wall do you know me program from City Council Member Matthew Stern stipend to count uh council member Stern.

Anything you'd like to add on this matter?

Just uh thank you for the work that she's nonprofits do, and uh the good work I'm excited for council members with her initiative as well.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Uh a motion and a second adopting item number seven, please.

Uh I would think Stern would want to be one.

Stern and Peters, all in favor say aye.

Any opposed.

Item number eight is a proposed transfer of city council member David Peters stipend a resolution authorizing the city manager to transfer $5,000 to the Bethesda Community Enrichment Corporation in the older adult care center from your stipend account.

Councilmember Peters, anything you'd like to add?

Yeah, I know that um in terms of our discussions that we've been having, we've been talking about creating and providing some level of support for for people growing older and those seniors, and not necessarily only having everything centralized in one particular place.

So this this is an attempt to move us more in that direction and defense on support.

So that's basically what that's a special program Tuesday and Thursdays, right?

1030 to 2:30.

Um any questions or comments on item number eight from my colleagues?

Hearing none may have a motion to the second adopting item eight.

I'm assuming Peters would like to be one of the movers.

Um and then Ashen Loye, all in favor say aye.

Any opposed, just got to try to give you your gold stars while we can, friends.

Item number nine is a proposed statement of intent to declare lead agency related to downtown overlay zone amendments.

I see our commissioner as well as two other colleagues approaching the table.

City manager, do you want to tee this up while they're sitting?

Sure.

Um we're entering almost 10 years of downtown overlay zone.

Um there's been a lot of lessons learned along the way.

Um we believe uh amended the overlay zone twice in 2021 and 2024.

Um so um, you know, we believe we're entering a period of refinement.

The memo uh defines for the old overlay zone.

Um we've experienced a tremendous amount of growth in the last 10 years.

Um and we've recognized of several things that we've heard through the community, through our developers, to all retail industry.

Um, and one thing, and I think what the proposed um uh item today uh recognizes is uh various things that we've been hearing and getting feedback from.

One thing is development fatigue.

Um, and that that's something that we've been hearing a lot lately.

And and offsetting that there's been also a demand for development.

So we're hearing both from both our residents, from our retailers, from the developers alike.

Um the amendments that you going to hear about today are a result of a lot of uh engagement with the community with uh commercial development industry uh over the last several years, especially in the last two years.

Um, and they they're gonna really propose the refine the downtown overlay zone to better match of what we've been hearing from our residents and from our from our uh retailers and so forth uh regarding scale, public space, the neighborhood character.

Uh we've also heard from uh discussions with various councils about some missing elements in the downtown overlays.

So some of the mint the missing middle that that we see and we recognize that, and I think we're gonna hear about that today in these uh amendments.

Uh we also learned about parking and what uh valet parking means and what that um uh the whole parking uh component of a development of how we're gonna get that right or how to get that right in the future from our lessons learned.

So again, today's uh is a series of proposals that would further refine the downtown overlay zone.

Um it is purely procedural at this point.

Um it is only to to the intent at this point is to declare lead agency, followed by a series of processes that were, you know, eventually we get us there, probably sometime in the first quarter of next year.

Uh so that being said, um introduce our development team to just introduce those topics to us and so we can learn a little bit more about this uh proposal.

Thank you, city manager, and good evening, Mayor and Council.

I'm here, I'm joined here tonight by Sarah Yacle, who is uh the principal, a principal at BFJ, and uh Kevin Kane, who you know is our director of planning and sustainability.

And together we're gonna walk you through why this update is timely, what it includes, and what actions we're asking to take tonight.

But the city manager did an excellent job really of uh summarizing it.

So I'll try to be brief in my and at the same time kind of go into a little more detail about some of the um the option, the uh the amendments that are on the table.

So over the past decade, the downtown overlay zone has reshaped the Rochelle's trajectory.

I think we could all agree since 2015 with the adoption of the DOZ that we've seen um millions in private benefits, thousands of new homes, and a reactivated urban core, including strengthened tax base.

We've seen evidence in the property tax, we've seen evidence of the growth in the sales tax revenue that is generated from uh you know in the city, which is growth, and bounds above our neighboring cities.

Uh the DOZ did exactly what it's designed to do.

It jumpstarted a modern transit surf downtown.

Now, as the as the city manager uh described, we're entering a refinement phase.

We've done extensive community engagement, we've done extensive outreach to the retailers, to the developers, to the residents, and we we're hearing them and we're we're we're trying to develop the set of interventions essentially that look like amendments to the downtown overlay zone that are responsive to the needs of all of those constituents that we feel are all really critical in building a dynamic downtown.

Uh we're not replacing what works, we're optimizing it.

So we're trying to ensure that the next decade of growth delivers higher quality development, stronger retail performance, and better public spaces, as well as long-term economic value.

The updates shifts this update shifts the DOZ from a passive framework to an active market making model.

It helps attract a kind of commercial uses that we've all been asking for, that I've heard all of you talk about, that everyone, whenever we sit down, we hear where is the the when is the next retail concept coming to New Rochelle.

We see them opening in Port Chester, we see them opening in White Plains.

This is a very well-informed uh intervention or or or initiative that's designed to do just that.

It creates the type of standards and uh regulatory framework that's going to require developers to build the kinds of spaces that we know the retail community is looking for.

And while doing that, it's going to also, as the city manager pointed out, create opportunities for that missing middle housing that we feel is going to improve the streetscape in the downtown and improve the quality of life there as well.

So while we're here tonight is to initiate the seeker process, state environmental quality review process.

And to pursue these adjustments, um, we have to initiate uh two steps.

So the first is a full environmental assessment form, uh, for which uh part one can be found in your agenda packet on page 60.

Uh council resolution today is requesting um your vote to uh stating your intent to declare lead agency.

To reiterate what the city manager said, it does not approve any zoning changes.

It simply starts a formal state regulated review and informs other agencies of our intent to act as the lead agency in the coordination of the environmental review for these zoning updates.

So just to give you a little bit um to share with you all about what has informed these amendments.

Um the past year we've evaluated as the DOZ has performed in the real world.

This is not just a paper exercise.

We looked at shifts in market conditions, we've looked at upcoming infrastructure projects like the North Avenue Bridge reconstruction, like the Link.

Um we are continuing to redesign the uh transit center.

We are we know that the MTA is continuing to build out the Penn Station access, and we really need to position the city to uh benefit greatly from these developments.

Uh a few themes have stood out in that assessment.

Notice that some areas are flourishing and some need more clarity to uh to uh remain to keep retail competitive but also to engender the investment in those communities.

Others have absorbed significant density and are requesting and we believe need a pause in or a recalibration in the DOZ.

The community at large wants more neighborhood-friendly residential options, and our sustainability and equity goals are going to be added directly to the code and not just in these other documents, these other policy documents that we have created, which really make it difficult and unwieldy for the staff to incorporate those requirements in the planning, the site plans of the projects that come before us.

So, thinking of all those in mind, these are these are the types of changes that we're asking you to consider overall.

So, high level.

Uh, and I know this is in your memo, and so I'm trying to speak in the order of what you've uh what and provide a little more insight uh to what is before you this evening.

But the first is the boundary adjustments to the DO1 and DO2.

This really is the um refining the edge around Huguenot Street from the train station going down uh sort of east down the Huguenot Street corridor uh to support development of large format retail.

We understand this is an opportunity, it's got a proximity to I-95, the roadways are wide enough to support the the types of of uh traffic that um you know will be uh visiting these stores, but also logistically it works for the truck deliveries.

We feel really strongly we've looked at this through uh with engineering firms, and we feel that really is the one place in the downtown where there's enough real estate to put together assemblages that reflect what the retailers have said that they wanted.

And the big thing that retailers of all shapes and sizes have indicated is that they they need for their customer to park within eyesight of the front door of the retail store, and that they notice that their average register receipt is higher when the when this shopper doesn't have to traverse any kind of vertical uh separation between the front door of the retail store and the parking situation.

So, knowing that we know the spatial requirements are larger than what we currently require in the DOZ.

And we understand that the original DOZ that was adopted favored neighborhood scalp business, which we have a great deal of in the existing retail corridors.

This area represents a real opportunity for us to kind of take a new crack at developing a form-based code, relying on this form-based code that's been so successful to prescribe those types of physical uh spaces that are going to support retail development.

Uh the second is expanding and refining the DO8.

The update primarily reorients development along the, I call it the eastern edge, but if you think about Memorial Highway running, you know, north-south, it's on this side of Memorial Highway.

There's several parcels there that uh the current zoning would allow the back of the building to be facing Memorial Highway.

Knowing what we have planned for Memorial Highway in the Link project, we think the front doors should be open to the link project.

We think those buildings should very complement and celebrate their proximity to the link.

It's a once in a generation, once in a lifetime, even opportunity to really shape a new community that has been their connection to the rest of the city has been severed since the building of Memorial Highway.

And it's it's a it's a big move in creating the type of equity, creating the kind of people centered place in the middle of our downtown, um in a neighborhood that has historically been disenfranchised for you know the predatory with predatory practices that has uh been targeted towards the communities of color, the black community specifically that lives in that area.

So we really see this as continuing to use zoning to advance the goals, the equity objectives of the link project.

Another expansion of the DO8.

And currently what's there is a DO5 zoning, which really oriented itself always towards was always focused on North Avenue in that corridor.

Knowing that we have a new frontage coming online on the Memorial Highway, it's critical and imperative that we address that the interface of those parcels with the new link project.

Towards the western side of DO8, we're looking at really symmetry.

And uh we've looked um, and and Sarah can potentially, if if uh, you know, I have any air left after I finish.

Sarah can go into um you know more detail about it.

But um, we're really looking at symmetry, right?

We have these lots, the current delineation of DO8 really limited the amount of of residential housing opportunities.

We've heard from the community that there are smaller homeowners, there are people that want to create one and two family situations that so that they can achieve home ownership in a way that has evaded them historically in that district.

So we want to look at that.

We want to address with by by expanding the the overlay zone and by adding in these um this missing middle housing option, we feel like we're opening up those opportunities for economic development and the building of generational wealth in a way that DO8 um, you know, we haven't we we haven't seen.

So we're really redressing some of that missing middle in the entire DO8, but also expanding that because we think there are kind of more natural, I think, physical uh limits.

There are streets that form a more natural uh sort of delineation of the DO8.

And frankly, some of this western expansion has always been contemplated in the original formulation of DO8.

We've we've included these parcels, we've taken them out, and a lot of it has been kind of political uh for reasons that you know weren't really just sound planning practice reasons, and we're really revisiting them from the perspective of technically on the merits, we think that it makes a better city to pursue those that the expansion over there to the west side.

Um, again, one key feature of DO8 is that the fees generated from the development in the DO8 stay and are reinvested in the DO8.

Unlike the rest of the DOZ, where the fair share mitigation, the community benefit bonus fees, they can be used citywide.

DO8 is really about revitalization of that particular community.

So we feel expanding the footprint gives us an opportunity to take fees for projects that we know are kind of in the hopper and invest that in the community to build an even better, stronger community there.

Um, another key tenant of this DOZ amendment is the stronger controls on civic spaces and amenities in the public right-of-way to ensure that uh future development uh creates, preserves, and protects usable public space.

Um, we're gonna be looking at the uses that are adjacent to those public spaces, making sure that you don't have garbage rooms there or vents from with noxious fumes blowing onto places that are designed for human congregation and activation.

So we're really gonna be uh mindful of that.

BFJ will speak to this as well, the recalibration of the theoretical development scenario.

One of the key things there, um, even though we're we are proposing to add units to the overall downtown, this is gonna support that type of missing middle development that we talked about, and also the larger format retail.

Um, it's also um creating a sort of a moratorium, if you will, of approvals in the area of the downtown where we've experienced uh the most development to date.

So we're trying to cool it off there.

We recognize that the that community on the sort of western side of the downtown, if we want to think about the the, you know, what's the what the limits of that area are.

But basically, Main Street from you describe it.

Main Street from Street Prospect.

From prospect from church street to church to division.

Huguenot.

Huguenot and Maine to uh is that Pintard?

What is that?

Brother Brother Old Wire Drive.

It's a brother O'Dwyer Drive.

Um it's just it's it's that's western.

The eastern portion of the western portion of the of the downstream.

It's right around DO2.

It's kind of where there's just a dearth of um of development that has happened.

And we recognize that it's asking a lot.

This does not affect projects that are currently vested or that are approved there.

We're not talking about we're gonna have a moratorium on the construction or anything like that, but we are not really looking there as a as a focus.

We're trying to actually encourage investment in the parts of the city that have not had the same traction.

Um another is housing diversity and neighborhood scaled growth.

This is about the missing middle, as the city manager had talked about.

And at the end of the day, we're thinking townhomes, we're thinking brownstones, we're thinking small multifamily buildings that are supporting family scale living and creating real opportunities for homeownership.

Additionally, we're going to be integrating the updated green and our framework into the zoning.

We're gonna be adopting very affirmative, proactive of I guess interventions or uh prescribed actions that will allow the city to continue to advance its goals with regard to climate and sustainability.

Um, there will be more to be said about how that looks as we present the actual zoning code that will come later on.

And again, we're updating the fee structure.

So currently in the downtown overlay zone, we have a waterfront fee that has to be paid by uh projects that are nowhere near the waterfront.

So we think that and that waterfront money can only be used on the waterfront.

And we think that the types of infrastructure investments that are needed are better.

While we're proposing um we're eliminating the waterfront fee, we are going to increase the fair share mitigation fee to allow us to collect additional funding and resources, but that funding is more flexible and can be used to uh improve infrastructure throughout the city.

And uh I just want to refrain and note that you know, in DO7, which is a true waterfront district, that waterfront fee would still remain at 10,000 per unit.

So we're not proposing to remove it.

Uh so tonight we're asking the council to adopt a resolution stating your intent to declare lead agency for this update.

Again, it's a procedural step.

It is essential, and it positions council to lead the coordinated environmental review.

Um, with that, I'll I'll hand it to Sarah and Kevin to go over the the timeline and maybe discuss some of the high-level uh theoretical development scenario updates that we're proposing.

Yeah, uh thank you, Commissioner.

That was a great overview and uh good evening all.

Um just one additional comment to make uh with respect to what Adam just said was regards with respect to height.

I think it's important to note that in the DO1 expansion into that DO2 area where we're talking about the large large format retail, that area will maintain its existing 28-story height limit.

So the height area is not increasing to the 40 stories that is allowed in DO1, so that we'll have a new crosshatch that maintains that height at the lower level.

Um, and then with respect to the area that is to the east of memorial that will be coming DO8 that's currently DO5.

There's also a new crosshatch proposed there because there will be some additional height because that area is closer to downtown and the train station, the max there will become uh nine stories under the development standard three, but I think it's important to note that we're also proposing to increase the bonus, the community benefit bonus fee to maximize that height under both the development standards two and three.

So there will be additional funds generated there that then will be spent and kept within DO8.

Uh, with respect to the uh theoretical development scenario, I think you've probably all seen this.

It's a pretty complicated table.

And when this was sort of crafted back in 2015 in the original downtown overlay zone, it was really just sort of a we won't even call it a reasonable worst case.

It was sort of a worst case because it wanted to allow maximum flexibility so that anyone that was interested in coming in and developing would have the opportunity and would have the square footage they needed.

And I think as we've seen over the last 10 years, there's definitely been a greater preference for residential units, the office market really has cooled and is continuing to do so.

You do also have some you know numerous existing office buildings uh available for development or redevelopment.

And so you can see what we're proposing is to increase the residential units throughout all of the districts except DO7.

There are no changes proposed for DO7 district.

That's important to note.

And then fairly moderate changes throughout most of the other districts, except for DO1, where we are proposing approximately 1,500 new units.

And I think that it's important to know that some of those I think have are reserved for some of the city sites as well.

But what you can see in sort of the proposed changes at the bottom of the table are some almost almost a three-quarters of a million square foot reduction in other uses.

And so it's really a rebalancing of the theoretical development scenario, looking at where the market's going, where we can anticipate it will continue to go so that we're not going to have a whole host of new impacts looking at transportation, water and sewer, school.

But school children is one area we will have to pay particular attention because we are adding residential, but most of the other issues in impact areas will hopefully be balanced by this reduction in the other uses.

And then the city manager, you really are the beginning of the process.

You will not be voting or discussing or even moving forward with any action for for quite some time yet.

This really is the very first step in the process where you look declare your intent to be lead agency, similarly to what you did in 2015, 2021, and I think 2022 for DO8.

And then we will come back in January and you have to so once you've declared to declare tonight tomorrow, we would circulate the part one EAF to all the other involved agencies.

They have 30 days to say whether they are okay with you being a lead agency.

They'll come back after that 30 days has expired.

And at that point, you can move forward with what's called the environmental assessment form parts two and three and a positive declaration.

The positive declaration just sets forth your intent to require that a supplemental generic environmental impact statement be prepared, analyzing these proposed zoning amendments and the revised theoretical development scenario.

Once that happens, we would then go away and do our work preparing what's called the supplemental draft generic environmental impact statement that would look at all of the proposed zoning changes, the TDS changes, and then that would go to you ultimately for your acceptance and review, and then go out for public distribution, um public hearing, etc.

And this is a very exactly the same process that was followed on in the three previous iterations of this work.

I'll just add after this evening, assuming you do uh circulate the intent to be uh lead agency uh next month, you come back and actually declare yourselves lead agency, we would approve uh parts two and three of the EAF and give a positive declaration and start the process that Sarah uh noted and the the timeline that we laid out uh would results you know would lead up to uh a final vote in in May.

And to to embarrass my children if we're talking about a six to seven six, seven jobs colleagues are still gonna end of the presentation.

And yes, I mean, unless and we're here for any questions.

We've done enough.

Before I just we begin the discussion, I just wanted to on item number nine.

I just want to make sure any council members have a conflict of interest or any of the reason they'd like to recuse themselves from this matter.

Maybe if you own property or something, does this affects property in the downtown?

Um that's the first time this has come up in since the beginning of the DOC.

And it was because I do own property in downtown and uh with former corporation councils and former city managers, it was determined that the DONC is such a broad program that covers such a large portion of the city that it wasn't required to abstain from voting on these because it doesn't impact one particular property, it impacts everybody's on the same level playing field.

So I just want to make that clear that that has already been something that's been discussed in the past and then cleared the hurdles that were were believed 10 years ago that could exist.

Can we comment on that?

Because yeah, you can comment and it's an individual decision at the end of the day.

That's okay.

I would just, you know, like to offer the same opportunity because as the councilman that represents literally the heart of a lot of this zoning and has seen so much development.

I do have to, you know, acknowledge with more data, you know, maybe that first former city managers and former corporation council have seen uh middle conflict of interest.

But if you actually look at the way development has occurred, and we have a map of that.

I was actually looking for it here, but we have a map of where the development is actually occurring, and a lot of it does seem to be around a particular council members store.

So I don't want you know us to, you know, I want us to look out for each other.

We need to be more amicable with each other and acknowledge the new data that we have.

So it's one of the issues that we have with the moratorium that we're discussing for a very particular area is a very high density development area, and that's why it's a part of the discussion at all.

So just looking up for us at the end of the day.

I would like to clarification of what you're saying because I don't understand what you would be talking about.

So I would just like to have a we exist in a physical reality where things have occurred on a timeline and on a map.

If you look at a map of all of our downtown overlays, right, just to be specific, and I don't want to you know put you on the spot.

No, you don't get putting me on the spot because this is a very interesting it looks to me, it looks like there's an attempt to get me to abstain from voting.

I would like to explain it so you asked me for an extra.

Well, yeah, but you're going off in 20 different directions, just be specific.

What properties are you talking about?

So the store that you have that's on the corner of center and main street, which is in district two, and which will be actually eliminated from uh being a moratorium where you can't even build on the property, correct?

So if you there's no advantage there for me, okay.

That's number one.

Explain to me the advantage.

Well, if you look around the entire purpose of us trying to create this program was to increase the traffic that we have in there, so increase the residencies so that we would improve specifically our business impact with new residents who would be spending in our downtown spheres, hopefully.

That's where the original thinking was.

So having an increase in population would actually directly impact the uh traffic of a store owner theoretically.

And again, as you said initially when all of this was done, it was all theoretical.

Now we have actual data to show that it actually looks like a halo around your store.

Well, did you notice that?

No, did you notice that there's no business there?

It's closed.

I'm saying I'm not sure.

So I haven't, I just want you to understand I can't make a living in a closed store.

I mean you're not original because you're your rationale is ridiculous.

I can't it's a close, a store has been shut down.

I retired from that business.

It's an empty store.

The only thing that could be done with it is it can be rented.

So now I'm I'm in the position as a as a landlord.

So it's not, I don't benefit from a retail store being there.

And in fact, if you want to know, walk up and down the street and see how many empty stores there are.

So very few retailers have benefited from what's going on down there.

So I I'm trying to understand is you're basically making the claim that I should abstain because I had a business down there that doesn't exist anymore.

I'm not making any claim.

But you made an insinuation.

I don't want to go back to the case.

I'll despair council.

The the answer that was in the non-existing business there.

It's an empty store, it's been empty for eight months so far.

Um explain to me in an area that has a moratorium in DOZ 8, DOC 7, the OC6, DOC5, the OZ431 is a massive section of Neuroshell, very large.

So if you're gonna hold me to that standard that I can't vote on what's going on in the DOZs, then that should make me not even be allowed to be on council because you're gonna have constantly people that have some sort of involvement with some sort of business or property in your shell, unless you look for people that are not involved in business.

That should be a criteria when you run for council.

And I'm just trying to understand that this has never been brought up.

We've had the issue at the beginning when it first came out 10 10 years ago, it was brought to this corporation council, it was brought to the city manager.

Uh they're estimation it was not an issue.

Uh and we voted on it, and I voted 10 years ago.

So to come to me 10 years later and say, Oh, you should have never voted on this, it's kind of ridiculous because if you want to look at anything, I haven't I haven't benefited financially from any of these DOZ expansions or DOZ per se.

My buildings have been kept as retail stores.

If you look at my buildings, aside from Towers, which we just retired from, all my buildings are filled with retail stores, businesses in downtown continuously, never had any issues, but I never made additional money by selling it for massive amounts of money because of the uh what's going on with the DOCs.

And right now, you couldn't give away a building downtown.

Right now they're selling way below what they were selling for a couple of years ago.

So if anything, what's going on downtown has deflated the value of the buildings down there.

And adding what we're talking about, adding while we're here at it, while we're adding more units to the DOZs, we're devaluing the existing units that exist down there.

When they started, they were at 65,000 per unit in a complex.

If you had 300, 400 units, it was about 65.

Am I around that number correct, Kevin?

Do you remember?

Well, I'm sorry, was it 65,000 per unit for the land cost when it started 10 years ago?

Then it went down to 45,000.

You're adding 2800 more units, it's going down probably to 35,000.

So the the land cost what I don't think that's correct.

Well, what is the land cost for the current projects that are coming forward?

You gotta have that number.

Somebody has it because I can get it if you need it.

I mean, I I can look it up.

Yes.

I would like to have a non extra.

I don't think that there's this devaluation.

And again, I'm not I'm not looking at tests, but I'm just bringing out the point that what he's talking about makes absolutely no sense.

I I'll frame a couple of points.

A tonight we're not voting on any of the moratorium, it's lead agency status to trigger communication to other governmental entities.

That's how I understood you saying that.

One of my comments was actually, can you just explain the process again just a little lower, less accurate, please?

Um and two, as I understand it, because we've had this issue of conflict quite a bit in my six years, disclosure and recusal are also two separate things.

So disclosing as we're about to vote on an amendment to the downtown seems to be at least a minimal standard if you do have a conflict of interest.

It doesn't necessarily lead directly to recusal.

You have to go to an ethics board and everything else.

Now, and those are your choices.

Nothing mandates you to do that, right?

That's your choice.

But I again that has come up a lot.

This issue of disclosure at the board, especially if there's going to be potential uh financial interest or benefit, is to at least disclose.

And so as we kind of approach this new iteration of the DOZ before we vote on any final legislation, so there is no moratorium because we haven't voted on it because we haven't triggered the process.

The goal tonight is to trigger the process.

Before we trigger a process, it would seem that disclosure, if appropriate, a lot of this is self-disclosure.

A lot of this is self-assessment, self-review, self-reflection, self-intimation.

You know your budgets, you know your addresses, you know your bank accounts.

I don't know that.

So it's a question as we do that, and it's a choice, and that's it.

But it's not there's no, there's no the recusal again, would either be self-impose or via an ethics opinion, right?

I mean, we've gone through the same thing.

I will say this.

I and I say it again, and I say it usually at every time we go through this process, and Adam's been here in the past when I've done this.

I will tell you that I do own real estate in downtown Euroshell.

I owned it since the 1980s.

So, you know, I bought real estate in downtown Euroshell when nobody wanted it.

It was empty buildings that I restored.

One of them was Towers.

We restored the entire outside, brought it back to its original state.

We spent a lot of money doing those things.

So those were done out of a love for the city.

And you know, from a financial standpoint, they weren't always the best choices, but they were choices for me nonetheless.

So I'll acknowledge that I do own buildings in downtown Eric Shell.

But to recuse myself, like I said, I've already had uh gone through this process.

Um, and if somebody wants to file a complaint with the ethics board against me from this body here, go right ahead and we'll deal with that at that time.

Thank you.

Um I'm assuming no one else looked like they wanted to disclose any conflict of interest or property interest at the table for my colleagues.

Okay, seeing that now we can shift to the discussion portion of this.

I'm sure do you have questions for the discussion of this item?

No, okay.

Great.

Any other questions for my colleagues about this?

Uh Councilmember Stern.

Can we go back to your request regarding the process?

And just explaining it again.

Do you want to go maybe?

But like maybe Kevin can.

But like not urban planning style, friends, sorry, it's not urban planning style.

Like, like let's find a plus full first grade level.

We'll be breaking forward uh the uh request to adopt parts two and three of the FEAF, which is the full environmental assessment form, uh, and a issuance of a positive declaration and a declaration of lead agency.

So it'll be the affirmation.

I'm gonna let us please look I guess starting with with tonight, basically in this process, what what you have to do is you have to notify other agencies that may be you know subject to future approvals uh with development of what we're doing here, right?

So we we reach out to them and say, hey, we're looking into doing these changes, these are you know, kind of like high level what the changes are, and you know, we believe it's appropriate for us to act as the lead agency uh in this process is what that's what what the the state calls it lead agency, right?

So we let them know, we say, hey, this is what we're doing.

We think it's appropriate that we're lead agency.

If you have any objections to this, please let us know if you're okay with it, please let us know.

We'll give you 30 days.

Uh so we wait to hear back.

Assuming no one has any objections, after that 30 day period, we can then legally proceed and actually declare lead agency, finish the environmental assessment form, which we finish the environmental assessment form to then lead to the environmental impact statement, um, which is much larger document, uh a lot more technical stuff that we'll we'll try not to you know get too too carried away in future meetings.

But BFJ will prepare uh that environmental impact statement, and then we'll come back with the draft for you to accept the draft document.

And once you've accepted that document, we can then send it out to the public.

And that is in March.

I just want to put some great calendar points on the yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

So that we do that in March, uh, hear comments, you know, get get comments from from the council, of course.

Um, but obviously that's also a public window where we will you know accept comments from the public.

Once we get all of those comments together, BFJ will then go back and figure out how to address those comments, how you know what what are the responses to all of those, and then from there prepare a final uh document that will come back to you again and correct seven six or seven months.

Six, seven months, yeah.

Um come back with that final document, you accept it, and then you're in a position to finalize that and to adopt the zoning as it has been drafted at that point in time.

I recall from the past, sorry, just in the same vein, like um when the public give questions and comments, then you guys go back, and then the booklet has like the questions are usually layered into the section of the book in which they're applicable, and then your answers are there and they're like numbered.

Question number 18 was about parking, and this is our response.

It's not a revision to the draft, it is a separate standalone document.

It is a response to comments document, so it is exactly that.

So every comment that was received at the public hearing or submitted in writing gets a response response, maybe comment notice.

It's not relevant to the environmental review process, but any relevant comment to the environmental review process gets a substantive answer in that final thing.

I remember that from the last COZ8.

Okay.

And I think just one technical nuance in this trying to keep this at the at the uh, you know, we'll say 10th grade level, is that because this process has been going on since 2015, we are preparing what's called a supplemental generic environmental impact statement.

The generic part comes in because this is an area-wide uh zoning.

You know, these are zoning amendments that are broadly applied to this.

I think it's about 400 acre area now, and so these are not site-specific.

We're not looking at site-specific impacts, we're not looking at actually that would occur from any shovel in the ground development logic.

It was our higher level setting up mitigation, the fair share mitigation fund.

And the reason it's a supplement is because we've been building on the environmental analysis over the past, you know, from 2015, and then there was an update 2021, and then again in 2024.

So we're not starting from scratch, we're building off of that previous word.

Just when you receive the documents, we'll try to explain all of that as easy as simply as we can.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Matt, Council Member Stern, apologies, Matthew Eastern, according to the agenda.

Sure.

Um, so uh I I appreciate having the table, the theoretical development scenarios.

Um feels like a great high-level summary of of just the raw data of this.

Um you just I think for those who are new to this process, um, and you know, obviously very interested in how our downtown development is you know, shifting course a little bit.

This seems like one one kind of lens into it.

This has a summary.

And you know, you would look at kind of the changes and you see 2800 additional residential unit, a decrease in the medical office space, and even in the restaurant space.

Can you explain how how those decisions are made and kind of the intended impact on total enough?

So one of the reasons why we took some of those uses down is because the corridors where we want to increase the residential density has a lot of those types of music.

So if you think about the deal one where we're adding a lot the the majority of that residential density, um it's currently has a a lot of uh commercial development there, right?

And medical offices, frankly.

So anything that is already existing, if it gets replaced with a development, you you don't you you can use the credit for whatever existing and demolished as part of a development to rebuilt what at least what was there.

And so what we're really talking about is only needing enough new uses or new units of of use of those uses in those categories to supplement uh to achieve the desired build out in that district.

So having this focus um of you know we're basically trying to repurpose and add sort of a residential component to that corridor that currently is largely commercial and medical office and institutional use.

We think uh it it's it calls for a reduction in those uses in the TDS, which is only for the new incremental above what's there.

So that's why we're kind of um you know, taking credit for what's already existing.

So we're not actually going to net reduce that we're gonna just sort of reposition it and put it into a form, right?

An architectural format that is more consistent with the DOZ and like our overall kind of goals uh of of urbanism and walkability and and kind of put it in in a into a context that better relates to the human as opposed to you know having things sort of tucked away and big warehouses and that kind of thing.

Right.

So to be clear, like this is not us saying because we there's a reduction in the restaurant square footage space, we want fewer restaurants.

It's just among what you know, the plans that we have.

We have some other plans.

And and we do know, and I'll just gonna say this, we do know from our engagement with the retail task force and with the experts that we uh retained to drive that process that retail really wants to be next to other retail.

So like I I think the sort of intention was it was a well intended uh sort of concept to require ground floor retail throughout the city no matter what.

But the reality is on the secondary streets and in those side streets, you know, retail and restaurants are really not appropriated.

They want to be neighborhood scale, they want to be townhomes, they want to be brownstones, they want to have maisonettes types of things with stoops and activations of people.

So like focusing, we have a tremendous vacancy rate in our downtown.

So if we really and what we're trying to do is focus like tenancy of those existing legacy retail places and encourage them by using the developments to create the additional parking that we so crave in our downtown to create those opportunities uh for to build the infrastructure that's gonna drive the activation of our existing retail corridor.

So it it's not that we're saying we need less, we're just being more focused about the retail.

And I just want to add as you look at all the different use categories that are in that table.

When when we do the analysis, we're looking at each one of those uses has a different level of you know, trip generation, um, you know, water usage, toilet flushes, like all these things.

So so when we're making these adjustments, we're looking at all those things in each of these subdistricts to understand those impacts and to make sure that there's not going to be a negative impact generated from it.

Thank you.

And then just what are independent units in this table?

What does that mean?

Independent units.

Well, it's it's not it's it's basically uh adult housing, so it's not senior, it's not senior assisted.

Okay.

Um but as there's usually an age restriction of s of sorts, so it's not generating usually school-aged children.

Any other questions or comments on that?

This is number nine, number nine.

Hearing that a motion in the second, she adopted.

We'll call vote.

Madam City Clerk, we're asking for roll call vote on item number nine.

Um I'll just read the introduction while we get ready.

It's again a proposed statement of intent to declare lead agency related to the downtown overlay zone DOZ amendments.

This is essentially just notifying all of the vested stakeholders that we're interested in engaging in this process.

This is not the final vote on the final legislation or charter or anything like that.

We have about six or seven months to do that.

Please.

Yeah.

No.

Um we have to roll call vote.

A motion, well, a motion and a second to go to roll call vote, please on item number nine.

Ashan Loye and Lucas.

Oh, go ahead.

No, so my question is so this is just like for us to move forward to just this procedure.

It'll notify the county that we get a letter from Commissioner Luca that until I'm back.

Yes.

So a motion and a second to go to roll call vote for item number nine.

I think I saw Ashan Loya.

Are you still?

And then need a second.

K.

Um, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Sure.

Councilmember Lopez.

Yes.

Councilmember Tarantino.

Um thank you, Shane.

You made it easier for me.

I say gonna vote no.

Um now I put myself in a position that I don't have any um advantage um to having this move forward because I don't totally agree with it anyway, but thank you.

No council member Peters.

Yes.

Councilmember Aston Laye?

Yes.

Councilmember Kay?

Yes.

Councilmember Stern?

Yes.

Mayor Raymond Service.

Yes.

Thank you.

Moving on to item number 10.

Thank you, all three of you for your presentation.

Um, 10 and 11 are two items that were previously discussed in executive session, but we'll take them independently.

Item number 10 is a proposed settlement of a lawsuit.

It's a resolution authorizing the settlement of Jaheem McDermott versus Alicia DiAnsante and the city of New York Shell um and the City of New York Police Department.

Any questions or comments on this item?

Hearing none, may have a motion then a second to adopt this resolution authorizing the settlement.

Lopez and Kay, all in favor say aye.

Any opposed.

Moving on to item number 11.

Again, discussed an executive session.

It's a proposed settlement of a lawsuit.

It is a resolution amending prior council authorization regarding the settlement of a tort claim of Edward Rory O'Kane as father and natural guardian of AAO.

Um and some other uh parties versus the city of New Rochelle increasing settlement authority um from 130,890 to in some sense to 230,890 of an addition of 100,000.

Questions or comments on item number 11.

Hearing none, may I have a motion and a second adopting this resolution, please?

Um, Stern and Kay, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Item number 12 is the proposed transfer of city council member Shane Oshan Loye stipends.

Um this is let me just pull this up to read the authorizing the city manager to transfer um $2,000 to Hope Community Services, $2,000 to feeding the sound, $500 to Big Vivs Inc, and $500 to the uh West Cap Westchester Community Opportunity Program from his life and account.

Questions or comments on item 12.

Just repeat myself.

Yes, yes, please.

I just want to say thank you very deeply to the city manager.

The mayor has a lot of tact and grace.

I was the council member with the late item.

I was trying to get these through for Christmas.

Um regarding getting Christmas gifts for kids, specifically what they want.

I'm very big on hitting the list, and the other items are on actually uh feeding as many seniors and families in need as we possibly can afford.

Um, and then the last item for West COP is specifically to go to OLASA Center um to buy the toiletries and underwear garments that they need, especially for the winter.

Um so I'm very excited about these.

I'm so grateful to our city manager and our staff, and I apologize for being late, but it's Christmas, so I I needed this.

Thank you.

Questions or comments on item 12?

Hearing none, we have a motion and a second adopting this resolution.

Uh, and I'm assuming Oshan Loye.

Um, all in favor say aye.

Aye, any opposed.

Item 13 is a 2026 budget regarding lead levy confirmation and warrant.

It's an ordinance levying taxes, unpaid solid waste collection fees, and sanitary sewer and stormwater fees for the year 2025.

Um ordering an apportionment thereof, confirming the tax rule and directing issuance and signature of the warrant.

I see our deputy commissioners uh squared of finance.

And do you like to add?

Really?

Questions or comments for the team here.

Hearing that, a motion and a second adopting item number three.

Oh, roll call vote.

Okay, uh, madam city clerk, please.

Councilmember Lopez.

Yes, Councilmember Tarantino.

Uh I'd like to make a statement.

Um this budget, while we came in under the cap.

Um, we reached the maximum on our debt service.

We reached the minimum on our fund balance.

Um we have no cushion for emergencies.

We haven't looked at really maybe we should have looked for other areas to save money so that we had a little more money in our fund balance to protect us.

We have no money to offset uh grants that come in in a lot of cases.

We would we would have to attempt it to half into our fund balance to get those.

Uh and all of these things set us up for the possibility in the near future to have our credit rating uh impacted in a very negative way.

Uh and based upon that, uh, this budget makes me uncomfortable, so I will vote no.

I think 13 was about fee.

I think I think you wanted to say that for the next item, right?

Which was the budget.

Oh, okay.

This is 14 fees.

Yes, what I said we'll save for that.

Okay.

So do you so how do you vote on 13?

On the left, no, um, no.

No.

Councilmember Peters?

Yes.

Councilmember Assin Layeg?

Yes.

Councilmember Kay?

Yes.

Councilmember Stern?

Yes.

Mayor Angel Service.

Yes.

Item number 14.

I suspect my colleague would like a roll call vote on the budget vote.

This is for the budget, proposed 2026 City of New Rochelle budget.

Ordinance adopting an amendment as amended the 2026 City of New Rochelle budget and the appropriating amounts therein.

We had a public hearing on 12 2.

Um, Madam City Clerk.

Councilmember Lopez.

Uh yes, can I ask short question?

Uh, from my understanding is that our budget is fine, that we're not in any danger at all of you know getting uh credit rating, right?

No, actually, because of the way that we have our budget.

You know, think our fund balance and move up like that.

So there is no basics.

Thank you.

That's what I thought I used to remove.

Yes, that's what I thought I understood.

Okay, yes.

I'm gonna ask you.

Councilmember Terry knows.

Okay, I'll repeat what I said before.

Okay, uh, we reached the maximum of the debt service.

We're at the minimum for fund balance.

We have no cushion for emergency.

And while and just to respond to that, uh while right now our credit rating is good, uh, they reevaluated again in six months, and they can very well uh see stress in that if we bring that fund balance down any more than where it is, or if an emergency comes up and we need to borrow uh from our and reduce our and increase our debt service, uh we can be put in a position uh to have to see our rating drop, which then snowballs into other issues for the city.

So there's no guarantee uh that things are gonna go perfect between now and next year's budget, and say that uh we're not in a position that we have to worry about anything.

I think that when you're at the maximum debt service and you're at the minimum fund balance, this should be a cause of concern, and that's why I'll vote no.

Councilmember Peters.

Yes, Councilmember Asin Lay.

Yes, Councilmember Kay?

Yes, Councilmember Stern.

Yes, Mayor Rainbow Serbia.

Yeah, just a quick clarifying question.

When we stayed moody's, what was our rating?

Meg one double a double double in.

Say that one more time just clearly and like it's a it's called it, it's a make one, double A two.

That's good.

Highest classification.

When we were make, we were the highest classification.

Brilliant.

Yes, thank you so much.

Yes, my vote is yes.

And with that, we have no items for executive session.

This is our last meeting for the 2025 year.

I wish everyone a very festive, safe and joyous holiday season.

Hit up the holiday market if you haven't.

A motion and a second to adjourn, please.

Uh Stern and Kay, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, Mary?

Happy all the things.

Happy all of the things.