Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Welcome to the New York City Council hearing for the subcommittee on zoning and franchises.

At this time, I'd like to remind everyone to please silence all devices and at no point during the hearing may you approach the dais.

If you wish to testify at today's hearing, please see a sergeant at the back of the room to fill out a testimony slip.

Even if you have registered previously online.

Chair, we are ready to begin.

Good morning and welcome to a meeting of the subcommittee on zoning and franchises.

I am council member Fair Lewis, chair of the subcommittee.

This morning, we are joined by Councilmember Salam.

Today we are holding three hearings on the following proposals.

164th Street Mixed Use Residential Rezoning and Council Member Gennaro's district, 50-20 108th Street Mixed Use Residential Rezoning and Council Member Thomas Henry's district, and 198-208 Richmond Terrace Mixed Use Residential Rezoning and Majority Whip Hanks' District.

This meeting is being held in hybrid format.

Members of the public who wish to testify may testify in person or via Zoom.

Members of the public wishing to testify remotely may register by visiting the New York City Council's website at www.council.nyc.gov backslash land use to sign up.

Or for those of you who are here in person, please see one of the sergeant at arms to prepare a sub to prepare and submit a speaker card.

Members of the public may also view a live stream broadcast of this meeting at the council's website.

When you are called to testify before the subcommittee, if you are joining us remotely, you will remain muted until recognized by myself to speak.

When you are recognized, your microphone will be unmuted.

We will limit public testimony to two minutes per witness.

If you have additional testimony that you would like the subcommittee to consider, or if you have written testimony that you would like to submit instead of appearing in person, please email it to Lanyus Testimony at Council.nyc.gov.

Written testimony may be submitted up to three days after the hearing is closed.

Please indicate the LU number and project name in the subject line of your email.

We've also been joined by Councilmember Encanacio.

We request that witnesses joining us remotely remain in the meeting until you are excused as council members may have questions.

Lastly, for everyone attending today's meeting, this is a government proceeding and decorum must be observed at all times.

Members of the public are asked not to speak during the meeting unless you are testifying.

The witness table is reserved for people who are called to testify and no video recording or photography is allowed from the witness table.

Further, members of the public may not present audio or video recordings as testimony, but may submit transcript transcripts of such recordings to the sergeant at arms for inclusion in the hearing record.

I will now open the first public hearing on LUs 94 and 95 regarding 104th Street, a mixed-use residential rezoning proposal in Fresh Meadows, Queens, in Councilmember Gennaro's district.

The proposal involves a zoning map and text amendment.

Applicant is seeking to build a mixed-use residential building with approximately 80 apartments.

Mandatory inclusionary housing would be mapped as part of this application.

So up to 24 of the apartments would be permanently affordable, depending on the affordability options selected.

For anyone wishing to testify regarding this proposal remotely, if you have not already done so, you must register online by visiting the council's website at council dot nyc.gov backslash land use.

For anyone with us in person, please see one of the sergeant at arms to submit a speaker card.

If you would prefer to submit written testimony, you can always do so by emailing it to land use testimony at council.nyc.gov.

I will now read a statement by council member Gennaro.

We all understand the need for more housing, especially affordable housing in all parts of the city and borough of Queens.

However, my community has raised reasonable reasonable concerns about this proposed density and height in a predominantly low-scale neighborhood of one, one and two family homes.

I have my own concerns about infrastructure capacity as well.

I look forward to working with the applicant team and my community to get an outcome that will address the most serious concerns in a way that we all can be satisfied with.

I will now call the applicant panel for this proposal, which consists of Leia Vallone and Steve Sinakari.

Could you please raise your right hand and state your name for the record?

Leah Vallone.

Stephen Sinekori.

You swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth in your testimony this morning and in response to Councilmember questions.

Yes.

I do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You may now begin your testimony, which is limited to 10 minutes.

And you should start to you should start to conclude your presentation after eight minutes when you begin your presentation.

Please restate your name and organizations.

You all may begin.

Hi, thank you again.

Thank you for having us today.

My name is Leah Vallone.

I'm an associate at Ackerman LLP, and I'm joined by Steve Sinicori, who's a partner at Ackerman LLP.

Together we're representing the applicant on this application.

Next slide, please.

Or thank you.

This is an application in Queens Community District 8 to establish R6A and C24 zoning that would facilitate construction of a six-story mixed use development with approximately 80 units, including 24 MIH units and a daycare on 164th Street in the Hill Crest neighborhood.

Next slide, please.

Just one second.

Let's try to.

Is this the correct slide?

Yes.

Thank you.

Awesome.

The rezoning area is located on the east side of 164th Street on the block front between 75th Road and 76th Avenue.

It was zoned R3-2 in 1961, and since the enactment, there hasn't been any changes.

It's worth noting that there's a large R6 zoning district, three blocks to the north of the rezoning area.

Next slide, please.

The rezoning area and the block front to the north have been historically non-residential and mixed use, despite the absence of a commercial overlay, which is in contrast to the surrounding low density context.

164th Street is a 120 foot wide north-south corridor.

And there are several mass transit options available here, including multiple local and express buses along 164th Street, as well as the EF train at Parsons Boulevard.

Next slide, please.

So the rezoning area is shown looking east here, and you can see with this aerial view how wide 164th Street is.

Next slide, please.

The application is seeking a zoning map amendment, which would allow new multifamily housing production on an underutilized site with access to mass transit.

So the R6A C24 along this block front would allow for an appropriate increase in density and the reinforcement of the existing commercial nature of the corridor here.

This zoning district is also more reflective of recent land use patterns in the surrounding area, as evidenced by the Union Turnpike rezoning and the Jamaica Hill Crest rezoning.

Next slide, please.

The proposed actions here would facilitate a mixed-use development with ground for community facility use as a daycare, which would be a expanded daycare for the current daycare on the site.

And although an R6A would permit up to a nine-story building, the site configuration here allows for an efficient plan of only six stories along 164th Street with setbacks on 75th Road and 76th Avenue.

Next slide, please.

So this is just showing some massings.

Um open space for building residents would also be provided on the rooftops as well as in the rear yard equivalent.

Next slide, please.

So there are 80 total dwelling units with 24 permanently affordable units.

This breakdown shows what the proposal would map pursuant to MIH option one.

It's probably easier to just read the breakdown of the units and percentages based on the slide here.

Next slide, please.

Oh, next slide.

And then next after the appendix.

Thanks.

So this is just some data from the community district profile.

Community District 8 is 48.5% rent burdened, emphasizing that need to provide more permanently affordable units.

As shown here as well, 80% of the buildings were built before 1970, despite the need for new housing.

It's worth noting that there's also no MIH areas mapped in the surrounding area.

Next slide, please.

Oh.

Wrong slide.

It's fine.

The tax map as well as these plans show some further details with respect to the rezoning area.

You can kind of see based on the lots that it's approximately a 240 24,000 square foot law, and it has frontage on those three roads shown on the site plan there, which is 164th Street, 75th Road, and 140th Avenue.

Next slide, please.

That's just the ground floor plan.

There's a large community facility space that I mentioned previously that will be utilized as a daycare.

Next slide, please, that's the cellar floor plan.

And this has the accessory off-street parking garage with a curb cut providing vehicle access from 164th street with um provided parking exceeding the parking requirements.

Next, but I think these are just the plans wrapping up.

So I don't know if yeah, great.

Okay, so that's the end of our presentation.

We're happy to answer any questions.

I remember you noted some concerns and we're happy to discuss them further.

Thank you for your presentation.

We've also been joined by council members Felder, Minority Leader Carr, and Councilmember Jay Sanchez.

Just have a few questions for you all.

Um, only so have you had any opportunities since the community board's recommendation to engage with the nearby civic associations that have written in opposition to the heights and density of the project?

The team here has been very open to the fact to hear from the interests regarding community facility space as well as connecting with the civic associations, to my understanding.

I believe we have reached out and have not received a response.

Okay.

And how many seats are in the existing daycare facility and how many seats would be in the new one?

And what will happen to the daycare during construction?

Yeah.

So the daycare currently is currently licensed for 85 children.

The larger space would allow for an increase in nearly double the amount of children and expanded programming.

It's currently a New York City early education center, offers a broad range of services, but the operator also owns several daycares in the area.

So if this was to be approved, we have written a letter stipulating which we would be having to provide, explaining how it's been committed to that the children could be accommodated at the other locations locally, and there would be no concerns there.

Okay.

And the proposed zoning district allows uh building up to 95 feet, but your proposal is only up to 65 feet.

Can you explain why you're not seeking to map a different zoning district such as a R6B?

Sure.

All of the floor area is used up in the current height, so it doesn't make any sense to go above that because the floor plates would become inefficient.

So we're able to use all the square footage in the rendition that you see now.

Got it.

And I will now recognize I now have questions from Councilmember Gennaro.

The blocks surrounding this site are entirely small homes.

How did you determine that a six-story building would be an appropriate appropriate for this location?

Given the bulk on 164th Street, which is a 120 feet in width as a zoning zoning wide street.

So that's how that was determined.

Second question: Does the proposed project step down in height towards the neighboring houses on the block?

Yes, it does provide setbacks towards the neighboring houses on 75th Street and 76th Road.

And I'd also just like to add on to the previous point that we believe it's we're providing an um we're providing affordable housing on an underutilized site and its appropriate density here due to the fact that um it's located on a wide street that's transit oriented and it's also has similarity to the nearby rezonings that were more recent, obviously, than what was previously enacted um and hasn't been changed since the 2014 Union Turnpike rezoning was um a rezoning from R5D to C12.

This was 0.3 miles to the south, and this was to facilitate a six-story development, the Jamaica Hill Crest rezoning uh was a city-sponsored rezoning of approximately a 70-block area, and the zoning map amendments there were intended to encourage new residential and mixed-use buildings on major streets while also accounting for the lower residential context on the midblocks of the residential um corridors.

All right, uh, do you have a sense of how much water and sewer hookup costs might be, and could unexpected high cost threaten the viability of this project?

We can we can get back to you.

We don't have those estimates with us today.

Lastly, with approximately 37 parking spaces proposed, how was that number determined?

Yeah, we actually I um to my understanding, we are exceeding the parking requirements here and provided a accessory off-street parking garage on the cellar floor so that um parking residents would be able to um parking residents.

I I believe it's I actually don't want to, I will get back to you on the exact percentage, but we're accounting for a percent of the tenants within the building and wanted to account for the parking, but I might note that the EAS since this was filed um pre-GFT, there was an EAS conducted on the site, and the EAS noted that there is no um significant adverse impact on any of the parking traffic or infrastructure in the area.

In your presentation, I saw 50 parking spaces.

Was that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, so his number here is yeah, no worries.

Uh, we've also been joined by uh majority whip Hanks.

I will now invite my colleagues if anybody has questions for this applicant.

Seeing none, this applicant is now excused.

Thank you for making time to be here today.

Counsel, are there any members of the public who wish to testify remotely or in person regarding this proposal?

Yes, Chair.

We have two members online who would like to um to testify.

Oh, all right, you're now excused.

We'll take those questions online.

Thanks.

Okay.

For members of the public here to testify, please note that witnesses will generally be called in panels of three.

If you are a member of the public signed up to testify, please stand by when you hear your name being called to prepare to speak when I indicate that you may begin.

Please also note that once all panelists and your group have completed their testimony.

If remotely, you will be removed from the meeting as a group, and the next group of speakers will be introduced.

So once removed, participants may continue to view the live stream broadcast of this hearing on the council website.

Members of the public will be given two minutes to speak.

Please do not begin until the sergeant at arms has started the clock.

The following individuals who signed up to testify should now come to the witness table and sorry online.

I need to sleep.

Now we have Marva Dudley.

And Jill.

And we'll start with Marva.

Good morning, everyone.

Um, is it required that I um have my screen open?

No, it's not required, but you may begin.

Okay, thank you.

Again, my name is Marva Dudley.

I am the president of the Flushing Suburban Civic Association, and my testimony today is in opposition of this application.

I want to first start with some corrections that I need to make.

Um, that there were statements that were made by the representatives of the applicant.

Number one, there is no express bus service on 164th Street.

There never was a narrative, never has been.

And it's not any as of today.

The express bus service runs along Union Turnpike.

Secondly, the bus stop that was located on that particular block was since removed when the umta did the complete overhaul of the bus system in the borough of Queens.

Secondly, as for myself and other civic leaders that I have been in contact with, the applicant nor its representatives have not reached out to any of us.

So to hear that they did reach out and did not hear back from us, that is also incorrect.

We have asked constantly to have some type of dialogue with them.

And we requested it even at the community board meeting directly with the representative that was there, and that was never done.

And this is very concerning to us because then we don't want this to be set as a precedent where this type of project can be brought and you know brought into an area and they feel as though they don't need to have any type of dialogue with civic leadership or even residents at all, and then still proceed because then we're concerned and then this will be an ongoing pattern.

Thank you for your testimony.

Your time has expired.

Thank you.

We'll now hear from Joe.

Hi, I get kind of nervous, but uh this I I request that you respectfully deny this application.

I oppose it.

Uh, yes, and because they don't have a community, we don't have a community plan.

They just submitted this in their upzoning.

And what they're doing is they're have they have spot zoning now.

If they build that, they're spot zoning because there's only one building being built for this one site, and you can't do that for the whole block when you block one or two family houses.

It's illegal.

It's called spot zoning.

And then you have uh it's not a transit area, it's beyond the transit area.

There's no transportation.

The woman was wrong in saying that uh there's wide streets.

There's no wide streets, there's only 164th, but it has a uh middle island and also uh 75th road and 76th Avenue is only 25 to 30 feet wide.

It's two-way, it has to be one way.

They say it's 60 on their mapping, it's totally wrong.

It should be maximum R5D, 45 feet high in a non-transit zone, not 55, not 65, not 75.

Nerve B R6.

We're not Palm Rock, we're not anything else.

I have so much to say, it's just so much to uh, it's too much to say do, but it's not as a right.

There are three are three two and the daycares, they're gonna mess up all the other daycares.

We have six daycares already, not including this one, and they're gonna uh either bring down the other daycares by having too many daycares, and also they're being kind of excessive with their building because they want more money because they don't have to build that high, they can just build like the other co-ops and kind of have been built built around here, four stories, about 30 apartments, they have parking underneath, and everything is fine.

But this we have no open land there.

It's all little houses, little blocks, no stop signs.

I asked for them, no tree trees are falling down, the sidewalks are up.

We don't get any help here.

We need a company, planned.

Thank you, Joe.

So this is only a part of what I'm saying, right?

We we have to get something done because it's a low density area.

We can't have an up zoning or medium or high density.

Testimony or time has expired.

But also, there's an area there that I talked about the other day in Casino Boulevard.

It's like uh liquidators used to be there, and and there's shopping stuff like that.

It's only one zone, and they could build up eight stories, 13 stories.

I don't think you can hear us, so we have to go.

They cannot develop unless they're going to be able to do that.

We can do so by submitting land to land use testimony at council.

NYCODE for 60 years, over 60 years.

My family's been there 70 or 80 years.

I, you know, and I'm a black American.

I'm gonna be displaced, my taxes go up.

I have a 6500 lot.

Like, can I do this on my property?

Can I build an eight-story building on my property with my neighbor that also has a 6500 lot?

We're the only two left.

Let's say 6500.

We appreciate my palette house.

I've been here all my life.

Where am I going to go?

Jill, can you hear us?

No, it's not a town center anymore because they're messing things up.

We have tech issues.

What else?

Thank you Joe for your testimony.

If there are any members of the parking is 50 50 things 50 parking spaces but there's like sardines they need to hire hire a valet.

Is it done wrong?

If they have a smaller building they could have like 30 parking spaces.

And they're taking out another house that's being demolished and another house is being for sale and they can make those two houses into day.

Thank you, Joe.

If you have additional testimony you could submit it to the news testimony and council that did this open developing for no reason.

Okay.

We'll stand at ease.

Sorry I got muted I guess I'm done can I still speak all right if there are any members of the public who wish to testify regarding this proposal remotely please press the raise hand button now or if you are in person please identify yourself to the sergeant at arms this is the last call for this application.

All right being there no members of the public who wish to testify regarding LU's 94 and 95 relating to the 164th street mixed use residential rezoning proposal the public hearing is now closed and these items are laid over i now open the second public hearing on LU's 96 and 97 regarding 50-20 108th street a mixed use residential rezoning proposal in flushing queens and council member Thomas Henry's district the proposal involves a zoning map and text amendment applicant is seeking to build a two mixed use residential building buildings across the street from one another the two proposed buildings would have approximately 196 apartments mandatory inclusionary housing would be mapped as part of this application.

Stand at ease we'll stand at ease I can be heard online this is a check to see if I could be heard online hear me.

Yes we can hear yes thank you so ready one second okay let's do it again.

I will now open the second public hearing on LUs 96 and 97 regarding 50-20 108 street a mixed use residential rezoning proposal in Flushing Queens and Councilmember Thomas Henry's district the proposal involves a zoning map and tax amendment applicant is seeking to build two mixed use residential buildings across the street from one another the two proposed buildings would have approximately 196 apartments mandatory inclusionary housing would be mapped as part of this application.

So up to 59 of the apartments would be permanently affordable depending on the affordability option selected for anyone wishing to testify regarding this proposal remotely if you have not already done so you must register online by visiting the council's website at council.nyc.gov backslash land use.

For anyone with us in person, please see one of the sergeant at arms to submit a speaker card.

If you would prefer to submit written testimony, you can always do so by emailing it to Lanyus Testimony at council dot nyc.gov.

I will now recognize councilmember Thomas Henry for remarks.

Good morning.

And thank you, Chair Lewis, for hosting this hearing and to my fellow committee members.

Thank you for always showing up.

As council member, the council member representing this community, I approach every proposal with a simple question.

How does the this improve quality of life for the people who already call this neighborhood home?

The proposed rezoning at 5020 108th Street presents an opportunity to bring new housing, new commercial activity, and new community amenities to Corona.

But with that opportunity comes a responsibility to ensure that growth is aligned with community needs and that the benefits are felt by the residents, families, and small businesses that have invested in this neighborhood for generations.

Throughout this process, we've heard important feedback from community board four and local stakeholders regarding affordability, community serving space, and the role that commercial development can play in supporting local entrepreneurs and small businesses.

These concerns deserve thoughtful consideration.

As we evaluate this proposal, it is important that we understand not only what is being built, but who will ultimately benefit from it.

We must ensure that affordability reaches the residents who need it most.

The community facility space serves a meaningful purpose and that commercial opportunities contribute to long-term economic vitality of this neighborhood.

Today I look forward to hearing more behind the proposed rezoning area, the affordability strategy being pursued, and how the community and commercial spaces will be programmed serving local residents and businesses.

Thank you, and I look forward to the discussion.

Thank you, Councilmember.

I will now call the applicant panel for this proposal, which consists of Leah Vallone and Steve Sinokari.

Could you please re-raise your all right, huh?

And say your name for record.

Steven Sunakori.

Leah Valon.

Do you swear to tell it to you for another member truth in your testimony this morning in response to council member questions?

I do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You may now begin your testimony, which is limited to 10 minutes, and you should start to conclude your presentation after eight minutes when you begin your presentation.

Please restate your name and organization you may begin.

Great.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you again for being here.

Um I am Leah Lone.

I'm joined by Steve Santaquari.

We are from Ikerman LLP, and we are representing the applicant on this project.

Next slide, please.

So this is an application in Queens Community District 4 to change the existing R6B and R6B C23 districts to establish R7A, C24, and R7 zoning.

That would facilitate construction of two mixed-use developments, which are seven and eight stories with approximately 196 units in total, including 51 MIH units pursuant to MIH option one on 108th Street in Corona.

Next slide, please.

So as just noted, the proposed rezoning area is located within the R6B and R6B C23 districts.

These were established in the Elmhurst Corona rezoning of 1989, and the zoning has not changed in 37 years.

Next slide, please.

The aerial view here shows the rezoning area along 108th Street, shows development site one and two, as well as the frontage of the area on both Corona Avenue and 108th Street, which are wide streets.

You can also see the commercial buildings along the southern edge of the site on this view.

Development site one is approximately 28,000 square feet.

It contains mostly commercial buildings and a surface parking lot.

And then development site two is an approximately 15,000 square foot corner lot that's improved with a nonconforming lumber yard.

Next slide, please.

The application here is seeking to change that R6B to an R7A between 108th Street and Corona Avenue, which are again both wide streets.

Taking that corner shown on the map to the north of 50th Avenue and the irregularly shaped block for more appropriate density on the front, considering the frontage on two wide streets.

Next slide, please.

The proposed actions would facilitate the redevelopment of the two sites with new mixed-use buildings, including 95 parking spaces, which was increased by 28%.

Local retail and community facility space.

Next slide, please.

The slide shows the details of development site one, which features 122 of the apartments out of the total of 196 and 31 permanently affordable units.

16 additional spaces were added here for a total of 60 garage parking spaces.

Next slide, please.

And this is the relevance, this is the relevant square footage and details of site two, which features 74 apartments out of the 196 and 17 MIH.

Five additional parking spaces were added here, and the rest of the details regarding the site are on the slide.

Next slide, please.

So this massing provides, was the slide skipped?

Or no?

It's fine.

Oh, okay.

We're good.

Sorry.

So the massing provides color on the land use in the area and shows developments in relation to each other.

There's a real mix of uses on 108th Street and Corona Avenue, which are both within and outside of commercial overlays.

Uses here include commercial, industrial, and community facility.

Um it's worth noting that 108th Street corridors mostly developed with one to five-story commercial and mixed-use buildings, and then south of the LIE, still on that 108th Street corridor, it's mapped with that existing R6A, and it consists of some notable six to eight story mixed use commercial and multifamily buildings as well as some higher density developments.

Next slide, please.

I also just wanted to note in relation to the previous slide before talking about the MIH that the rezoning area is within the outer transit zone, and there are several mass transit options in the surrounding area, including bus service and the 103rd Street and 111th Street subway stations to the north.

So on the MEI, on the MIH slide, just to recap, the proposed actions would facilitate the redevelopment of two sites with new mixed-use buildings.

And the um number of units in total is 196.

Pursuant to MIH option one, this would produce 51 permanently affordable units across the two development sites sites.

And similarly to what I mentioned in my last presentation, this slide shows the breakdown pursuant to option one of what this proposal would look like.

Importantly, there's a critical need for housing in community district four.

54% of the residents are red burdened, which is higher than New York City overall, as well as Queens overall.

This application would provide affordable housing on an underutilized site in an area with very little housing production.

Next slide, please.

And I guess that's the end of it.

So if we are open to any questions, thank you for the presentation.

And we're happy to discuss anything further, especially regarding the council members' concerns.

Thank you for your presentation.

I have two questions before I hand it over to council member Thomas Henry.

What is the proposed unit breakdown, including affordability levels and mix of unit sizes?

I know you had it on the slide, but if you could just go over it one more time.

Yes, I do.

So the project breakdown pursuant to MIH option one provides 25% of the residential floor area at a weighted income of 60% AMI.

One of the concerns raised has been the affordability to residents.

And while we recognize that this will not completely solve the affordable housing crisis, the provided income range across this MIH option will address some of the critical need in the area.

And with that being said, we um have proposed doing this presentation today pursuant to MIH option one, but we're obviously open to connecting with council members Thomas Henry as well.

All right.

Have you engaged owners of the non-applicant sites in the rezoning area?

What commitments are you willing to make to mitigate the potential displacement of existing businesses?

Yeah.

So the non-applicant lots, there's 13 properties there.

And one thing to note regarding potential displacement is that there is no direct displacement.

The RER and the EEDE associated with this project, really, uh, it is worth noting that they do classify displacement risk as highest.

However, they kind of break down how this is due to a bunch of different sub-indexes that we can look at within the report, and we're happy to circulate afterwards.

But with that being said, the um 96% of this area's housing stock lacks income restricted units.

And with respect to market pressure, the redevelopment of those relatively small independently owned properties.

Um the EIS kind of based on the assessment, there's actually only two lots there that would constitute a projected development site and one lot as a potential development site.

The EAS and the negative declaration issued also concluded that the proposed actions would have no significant adverse impacts on the socioeconomic conditions.

So there was also some data within the EIS that stated that the estimated population increase resulting from the proposed rezoning would be approximately one percent.

So while this is a um, this is a theoretical consideration, we definitely recognize the concern within the area, and we are happy to connect with anyone who has further concerns and get back to you on in writing regarding that.

I do believe there was a letter circulated to the CPC on this topic already, so we can we're happy to share that too.

Thank you.

I now recognize Councilmember Thomas Henry for questions.

If we could unmute Councilmember Thomas Henry, thank you, Chair.

Um, and thank you to the applicant.

I will say they have come and met with me a couple of times.

Um I want to focus on the community concerns.

Um, so community board four, as you mentioned, is uh heavily rent burden, um, and the average median income is about $55,000.

Um, with the proposed plan as is, a small number of individuals would fit under be able to afford these units.

Um, have you given consideration to how to accommodate the existing residents who need housing in this plan?

Yes, hi, council member.

So we have looked at the possibility of within option one bringing down some of the AMIs to a lower weighted average to respond to those concerns.

So we'll be preparing uh a letter to you uh and we will share it with the uh as well as with the land use division addressing that.

So we'll be trying to bring the weighted average down.

And um and the follow-up to that is a lot of um this community's families.

Um have you also looked at bringing down the number of studios and increasing the two and three bedrooms?

Correct.

We're also having the architect look to see if we can increase some of the larger family-sized units as we discuss.

We will include that as well.

And as far as the you know, community facility space uh and the commercial space, certainly we would love to have local tenants, but specifically on the community facility space, when we start to plan the construction, we're happy to work with your office to find a local not-for-profit that might be interested in the space.

Or it doesn't have to be not-for-profit, could be also you know, another community use, but we'll work closely with your office on that as well.

Speaking of commercial spaces, there are quite a few commercial spaces occupied on this site, as well as I believe a couple of residential as well.

Um any plans for where these individuals, will there be a temporary solution where they can go during construction?

Or have you spoken to them about if they would be allowed to come back once finalized?

Sure, most of the correct.

Most of the most of the obviously we we wouldn't construct both both projects at the same time.

It would have to be done, you know, in a in a phase.

But on the restaurant site, obviously we have other commercial tenants which have you know been there for quite some time.

So if they would like to come back once the building is complete, um, you know, we'll work with them to come back.

Perhaps some of the tenants on the restaurant site can also take space um in in the first building after it's constructed.

There's a obviously there'll be details to work out, but we'll we'll work with your office on that.

Um, two more questions if it's okay, Chair.

Absolutely.

So the proposed rezoning area is generally bounded by Corona Avenue, which is predominantly a mixed use corridor with one and two-story buildings, and then 50th Avenue, which is a narrower, primarily residential street.

108th Street is the wider bus corridor with 51st Avenue across from William F.

Moore Park.

Uh, can you explain the rationale for selecting these specific boundaries for the rezoning area?

Well, obviously, Corona Avenue and 108th Street are wide, as you say.

Um, when we worked with the Department of City Planning, um, you know, we obviously we had a rezone more property than just what the applicant controls.

Um, so it was a rational proposal, the way that the map was was drawn.

In addition, um, as you said, we there was only two projected development sites within the area.

So we we believe that the uh proposed zoning is is rational and makes sense, but we're happy to continue to to look at it with your office.

And then finally, um, our QBP did recommend um coordinating with parks to support uh nearby open spaces.

He um highlighted William F.

Moore Park.

Um, I want to add to that Flushing Meadows Corona Park, because we are in dire need of open space.

As you know, the community is continuing to grow.

Um, and unfortunately, our park spaces aren't adequate as they are.

So, is that something that you guys would look into supporting?

We'd be open to work with you on that as well.

Thank you.

Okay, Chair.

Thank you.

And I now invite my colleagues to ask questions.

Anyone have questions?

Seeing none, this panel is now excused.

Council, are there any members of the public who wish to testify remotely or in person regarding this proposal?

No, there's no one signed up in person in online, but I see somebody in the audience saying that they want to testify in person.

Is that correct?

Is this Maria Silva by any chance?

Okay.

So, yes, we have one person uh in person who would like to testify.

You can just give that.

I know that we call Maria Silva.

I now call Maria Silver to testify.

You may begin.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Maria Silva, and I am here representing SCIU Local 32BJ.

32BJ is the largest union and property service workers in the country representing 175,000 members across 13 states, including tens of dozens of commercial property workers, um, security officers and residential building staff in New York City.

32BJ supports responsible developers who invest in the communities where they build.

I am happy to report that the developer of this proposed project, Federici Builders, has made a credible commitment to creating good jobs for the workers who will permanently stop the building.

Good jobs like these mean prevailing wages, meaningful benefits, and a pathway to the middle class for local community members who tend to fill such positions.

We need more housing to be built in every neighborhood of New York City to make sure that working families are not displaced by shrinking supply and skyrocketing rents.

The proposed development will include roughly 200 residential units, about 50, which will be permanently income restricted for low to middle income residents.

As the course of living rights and working New Yorkers struggle to stay in their homes, it is important now than ever to create more affordable housing and good jobs to uphold the industry standard in the city.

For these reasons, 32 BJ is in strong support of the 50-20 108th Street rezoning, and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

For members of the public here to testify, please note that witnesses will generally be calling panels of three.

Stand at ease.

Um, no, no, no.

Oh, sorry, no, we just uh just call.

If there are any members of the public who wish to testify regarding this proposal remotely, please press the raise hand button now.

If you are in person, please identify yourself to one of the sergeant at arms.

This is the last call.

Being that there are no members of the public who wish to testify regarding LU's ninety-six and ninety-seven relating to the 50-20 108 street mixed use resident residential rezoning proposal.

The public hearing is now closed and items are now laid over.

I will now open the third public hearing on LU's ninety-eight and ninety-nine regarding one ninety-eight-208 Richmond Terrace, a mixed-use residential rezoning proposal on the north shore of Staten Island in majority whip Hanks district.

The proposal involves a zoning map and text amendment.

Applicant is seeking to build a mixed use residential building with approximately 118 apartments.

Manatory inclusionary housing would be mapped as part of the application.

So up to 35 of the apartments would be permanently affordable, depending on the affordability options selected.

For anyone wishing to testify regarding this proposal remotely, if you have not already done so, you must register online by visiting the council's website at council.nyc dot gov backslash land use.

For anyone with us in person, please see one of the sergeant at arms to submit a speaker card.

If you would prefer to submit written testimony, you can also do so by emailing it to Lanyus Testimony at council.gov.

Stand at ease, I will now read a statement by majority whip Hanks.

Thank you, Chair, and good morning, everyone.

I am Councilmember Kamala Hanks, and I am here today to discuss the 198-208 Richmond Terrace rezoning application.

The proposed project would produce a 14-story mixed-use building with residential and community facility uses.

The proposed building would contain 118 residential units, a portion of which would be provided at affordable rates through the mandatory inclusionary housing program.

The project site is located within the St.

George neighborhood of Staten Island with close proximity to the Staten Island Ferry, SIR, and various bus lanes.

The project has the potential to deliver much needed housing to the area while also offering public benefits like community facility space.

I have general support for efforts to develop St.

George into a more vibrant downtown thorough and encouraging through encouraging miss mixed use development with the intention to foster a lively and enriched community.

I look forward to learning more today from the applicant, my colleagues, and my constituents as we move forward in the public process to ensure outcomes that reflect the needs of the community.

Thank you all for attending and taking part in today's hearing.

I will now call the applicant panel for this proposal, which consists of Eric Palatnik.

Could you please uh raise your right hand and state your name for record?

You certainly didn't have a truth and nothing but the truth in your testimony this morning in response to council member questions.

I do.

Thank you.

You may begin your testimony, which is limited to 10 minutes.

You should start to conclude your presentation after eight minutes.

You may begin.

Hopefully, I won't take all that time.

And thank you, Chair Lewis, and thank you, Councilman Felder, for making the time to be here today.

My name is Eric Palatnik, as you just said, and I am here on behalf of 198 to 208 Richmond Terrace, which is a proposed rezoning from an R6 district with a C two two overlay to an R 7 3 district with a C two four-overlay.

Next slide, please.

This slide shows you what the proposal is all about.

On the right hand side of the screen, it describes what we are proposing, which is a 14-story, 97,000 square foot building, which will have 91,000 square feet of residential area and 10,000 square feet of community facility space, 118 apartments, 30 to 36 of which will be permanently affordable.

There are only four parking spaces at the ground floor.

That was the reason why the community board objected to it.

If you look at your record, you'll see an objection from the community board.

They actually supported the development.

They want to see housing being built, but they have a philosophy on parking that they would like to see, and that is why they voted against it.

But having said that, we are in the outer transit zone.

We are in downtown St.

George.

We've spoken with the council member about it.

We've spoken with the chair Sedea Sherman about it in city planning, and everybody agrees, and she's from the North Shore.

And everybody agrees that uh even without parking, it's a good application.

And there is no parking required as a result of City of Yes.

Uh next slide, please.

This slide shows you where our site is, and you can see it's surrounded by taller buildings, and the site until recently had a couple smaller, old, very old structures on it.

The site to the left is located, it's all dirt in that image.

It's located in an R7-3 rezoning.

Uh that was done a few years ago.

We are simply asking to extend that R 7-3 rezoning over our property.

Uh next slide.

And the next slide shows you actually that there's a proposed seventeen-story building on that property.

Next slide, please.

Uh the next slide is shows you mass transit, which is somewhat limited on the island, but it does show you the bus routes.

Um, you could skip ahead if you can, please.

A few slides uh till you get to the plans, if you can.

One more, one more, actually.

Oh, we can stop here for a second.

Okay, we can go back one slide.

I apologize.

This is what we're here for today.

This is the zoning map change.

This is what I was speaking to a moment ago that we're simply extending the adjacent R73 district to the left and carrying it over our property.

So uh that R73 was also previously an R6.

So we think this makes good logical sense.

Next slide.

The next slide gives you an idea of what the building will look like.

Uh that image is uh, of course, a little cut off, but you can you can start to get a perception.

If you go to the next slide, maybe that comes through clearer.

This is the rooftop terrace, which is going to be landscaped.

Next slide, please.

The remainder of the slides simply show you the plans.

You can go one more page, please, on the slides.

Uh I don't know why the it's coming out awkwardly here.

It doesn't show you the whole thing, but I think you get the gist of what we're trying to do here.

Uh I'd be surprised if anybody is on the call in opposition.

Uh, it was very well supported, like I said, other than the issue relating to parking.

So thank you very much for your time.

Thank you for your testimony.

Um, I have a couple of questions.

Can you s can you speak to how the requested land use changes related to the previous River North project adjacent to the Richmond Terrace Project site?

Sure.

That's uh the the property that was that I showed you the dirt site and the images I just showed you a few minutes.

It's exactly analogous to what's next door to it, which is why it makes good sense for the rezoning.

It's the same zoning district we're asking.

Perfect.

Please explain the benefit of this site being in the special St.

George district over the special hillsides preservation district.

Oh, there's a lot of different benefits to it, especially with the special St.

George district.

Uh, the Hillside District's easy to answer.

The building has been designed.

The slide you couldn't see shows the building being designed cut around the hillside.

So we're not actually cutting into the hillside itself.

As far as the special St.

George District, uh, there's been years and years and years of people trying to get traction to gain new developments in in St.

George area of Staten Island.

And the community board is eager to see that happen when I was there.

Like I said, uh, they were very supportive of seeing something be built here, and you just heard council member Hanks's request to create uh an advisory committee for the future and beautify the streets and create a very nice uh atmosphere as opposed to now, which is rather old uh from 50, 60, 70 years ago.

So it's due for a fresh and up on in the St.

George area.

Uh, we're committed to encouraging that, and we've joined with Council Member Hanks to do that.

And Councilmember Hanks has uh some quick questions.

The application material speaks to public realm improvements, such as widened sidewalks.

Can you please describe these improvements in further detail?

Sure.

This goes to what we were just talking about.

We've been speaking with council member Hanks about creating an advisory committee and working with her for street beautification.

So what we've already committed to is, of course, we were required to, but planting street trees up to asking Department of Transportation when we make our builders' pavement plan application to make the sidewalks as wide as they can be, and to work with the council member to try to come up with some consistent uh street furniture improvements, maybe benches, uh maybe some uh ornamental uh uh ironwork around the base of trees and perhaps some street lighting that is contiguous around all St.

George that is more than just the normal what we've seen in the past, the steel poles lighting, but maybe something a little more ornamental.

Okay, and does the applicant have interest in being involved in a community initiative to improve streetscape conditions and beautification of the area?

A thousand percent, and we've spoken with council member Hanks about that and submitted an affidavit and indicating from our clients stating that they will be a part of that with her.

And will the applicant commit to working with the council member and her office to tenant the community facility space to ensure it is filled with a use that fits the community?

Yes, we've spoken about that with her as well, and we agree to that.

Okay, so this applicant is now excused.

Thank you for making time to be here today.

Thank you.

Council, are there any members of the public who wish to testify remotely or in person regarding your questions?

Oh, sorry.

Councilmember Felder.

Want to swim in.

No, I was just curious.

Uh, that in the background of the proposed property, there, you know, I I don't know how tall the other buildings are.

Uh do you know whether the other buildings have any parking?

Yes, they do, they have underground parking under those buildings.

Uh do you have any idea how much parking?

I don't know.

I haven't been in those parking lots, but they were built with parking.

Right.

Uh now I heard you said that there's no requirement that you have any parking at all.

So even if you're not required, I'm just curious.

I'm sure you assume that there's going to be uh uh uh some percentage of the tenants that are gonna have cars.

Where where are they gonna put the cars?

Well, you what's the plan?

You raise a good point, and what I wasn't able to show you because this it didn't come up on the screen the right way is what I mentioned earlier, though, is the building is the property is a hill part of the property, the back of it is a very steep hillside, which those buildings rest upon.

That hillside juts into the property.

So what you didn't see is the the first few floors of the building jut around the rock, they don't go all the way to the back of the property.

So there's nowhere to put parking at the lower floors because there's a rock outcropping coming in.

So we'd have to blow up the rock outcropping, which is very difficult to do and would cause instability to the buildings above.

So that's why we're not doing it.

We're not not providing parking to recapture the space for something else.

No, no, I I think you misunderstood my question.

I'm not suggesting that you're obligated or any in any way to provide.

I understood that.

I'm I'm just asking, you don't have to answer it.

No, no, I know you're I know what you're asking.

I'm a general question.

You're right.

Your question is would we have wanted to provide parking?

What are we what are we planning on doing?

At the end of the day, my question is the following that you're not obligated, and we you could end right here, finish.

But we don't have to because we wanted to provide parking.

I know, I understand.

But it's physically important.

No, all I'm all I'm saying is practically wise, and you don't have to answer this.

I'm just trying to figure out what are people going to do.

Some people are gonna have cars.

It is there, what are they gonna do, you know, with their cars?

That's all.

You you raise a very good point.

The same condition exists up and down Richmond Terrace.

There are pre-61 apartment buildings.

We park on the street.

One of the one of the issues that came up, which is if if the screen can come back up, in front of our building was the parking lot for the wheel, which EDC has terminated the wheel.

Right.

So the parking lot that was built, the community board is trying to get them to maintain it.

It's built, it's completed, it's boarded up.

Right.

So that's been a big discussion in the community about parking.

Having said that, they'll be parking on the street, people that come there.

It we're not, as I said, we want to provide it, we just can't.

The counter discussion to this came up at city planning with Chair Sherman, uh, where she called out.

She's from the North Shore of the Island saying that you're you're in St.

George, like we spoke about before.

If there's any spot on the island that could do without parking, this is it.

And uh that's that's the idea.

You raised that's exactly the conversation that came up with the community board, and that was why they voted against it.

Only on that one issue, because they had the same concerns that you raised.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

This applicant is now excused.

Thank you.

Thank you for coming today.

Council, are there members of the public who wish to testify remotely or in person regarding this proposal?

No, we don't have anyone signed up uh online or in person to testify.

If there are any members of the public who wish to testify regarding this proposal remotely, please press the raise hand button now.

Or if you are in person, please identify yourself to one of the sergeant at arms.

This is the last call.

Being that there are no members of the public who wish to testify regarding LU's ninety-eight and ninety-nine relating to the one ninety-eight-208 Richmond Terrace mixed use residential rezoning proposal.

The public hearing is now closed and items are now laid over.

That concludes today's business.

I would like to thank the members of the public, my colleagues, subcommittee council Lanyus and the council staff and the sergeant at arms for participating in today's meeting.

This meeting is hereby adjourned.