Zoom hosts, please start the webinar.

Webinar started.

Good morning.

Welcome to the New York City Council hearing for the Committee on Landmarks, Public Sightings, Resiliency and Deposition at this time, please sign all self-electronic devices.

Moving forward, no one is to proach today's chair Marty.

We are ready to begin.

Good morning and welcome to the meeting of the subcommittee on landmarks, public siding resiliency and dispositions.

I am Councilmember Christopher Marte.

I'm the chair of the subcommittee.

I'm joined today by my colleagues, Councilmember Thomas Henry, who's with us virtually.

Before we begin today's agenda, I will remind everyone that this meeting is being held in a hybrid format.

For members of the public who wish to testify remotely, we ask that you first register online, and you may do so now by visiting www.countu.nyc.gov slash land use to sign up and then sign into the Zoom and remain signed in until you have testify.

We also have Councilmember Hanks, who's online, and we've been joined in person by Councilmember OSA.

For anyone with us today in person and wish to testify, if you have not already done so, please see one of the sergeants to fill out a speaker card and we'll call your name at the appropriate time.

For anyone wishing to submit written testimony on the items being heard today, we ask that you please send it via email to land use testimony at council.nyc dot g-ov, including the LU number and or project name in the subject line of your email.

Video and audio testimonies will not be accepted.

I remind I remind members of the public that this is a governmental proceeding and that the quorum shall be observed at all times.

As such, members of the public shall remain silent unless and until called to testify.

The witness table is reserved for people who wish to testify.

No video recording or photography is allowed from the witness table.

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

I now open a public hearing on LU 114 for Queens CD2 walk to park site selection.

An application by Department of Parks and Recreation for approval of city acquisition and site selection of 21 privately owned sites for future park development in Queens Community District 2.

This proposal seeks to create a new park land and to increase access to open space resources for the neighborhoods of Long Island City, Sunny Side, Woodside, Blessville, and West Masbeth, located at Councilmember Juan and Krishna's district.

Appearing today on the panel are Conleen Alderson, Gabriella Capo, and Julia Dowling.

Those wish to testify remotely must register online by visiting the council website at council.nyc.gov slash land use.

Panelists, please ensure that your microphone is on.

Council, would you please administer the affirmation?

Um panelists, could you please raise your right hand and state your name for the record?

Gabriela Capo.

Julia Dowling.

Colleen Alderson, do you affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in your testimony before the subcommittee and an answer to all council member questions?

I do.

I do.

I do.

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 now begin.

Hello, good morning.

Uh my name is Colleen Alderson, Chief of Parklands and Real Estate for New York City Parks.

Um we're happy to be here to present this ULERP application before the committee.

Um we're here to present uh the neighborhood walk to a park uh Ulurp application uh covering Queen's Community District 2.

Uh next slide.

Um this is a map showing the gap areas um in terms of people residents that live not in walking distance to a public open space, and that is the purpose of this application to close those gaps for the applicants for this ULERP application uh along with the New York City Parks Department.

The co-application co-applicant is also the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services as they play a role in the acquisition process.

Again, our goal is to um increase the flexibility and likelihood of potential new park sites in an underserved district.

Next slide um uh you you all are aware of this, but urban parks are very important to the city's um urban population.

Um they have multifaceted benefits, uh, respite for residents.

It also provides for physical and mental health benefits.

New York City parks are also many environmental benefits.

They help with stormwater capture.

They also aid in the preservation of the city's tree canopy and provide opportunities for new trees.

And they also for the mental health and well-being of residents.

They also provide spaces for community cohesion.

And we also know that proximity to public open spaces is key for residents getting the benefits out of these spaces.

Next slide.

This is one part of our effort to increase the amount of public open space in underserved areas.

This is our walk to a park initiative.

There are other ways that we try to close the walk gap.

We work with the Department of Education to open up more schoolyards for larger community use.

We opened up a set of new schoolyards last year.

We also have worked over recent years with the New York City Housing Authority to focus on edge open space properties so that they can be open to the public, serving gap areas and also providing enhanced and improved amenities for the NYCHA residents.

Next slide.

That being said, we face many challenges to acquiring private open space to create new urban parks.

There's limited vacant available land, and the property owners are usually typically not able to wait the duration for the ULERP process to proceed through its important course.

And so therefore we've envisioned a new idea to get the ULERP approval in hand for an underserved district.

And so the ULERP process is in place so that if there is an opportunity for a given piece of property, a willing seller, we're past the Ulurp phase and can immediately work on the acquisition part of the process to realize a new park.

And I'll just say that you know, for the walk to park gap, we currently are almost at 85% of New York City residents served, which sounds pretty good, but there's still over a million people that are unserved, such as about 26,000 people in community district two in Queens.

So the next slide.

So we believe this new idea to have a ULERP selecting a given amount of private property will give the city an opportunity to realize new parks, should there be a willing seller.

So we also believe this will create awareness to property owners that the city is interested in pursuing a new public park site.

And with this, as I said, with the ULIP approval in hand, it's easier for the city to work more efficiently and carry out the acquisition process.

Next slide.

The next set of slides are about the criteria in which we selected the properties and the districts in need for we looked citywide, applying the same criteria to community districts, looking at the density of unserved in a given community district.

We also looked at the open space ratio, the amount of open space per thousand residents, and we also looked at the poverty rate to select 19 districts across the city that met this criteria.

Late last year, the two first ULERP applications were approved, Brooklyn Community District 5 and Queens Community District 3, and we're currently with Queens Community District 2 with this application.

Next slide.

Just some more context on Queens Community District 2, as you all are aware.

There was recently the neighborhood plan, the rezoning for Long Island City.

There has been a lot of development in Long Island City over recent years, and with the rezoning plan, there will be additional new housing units, and there are we know facets of that plan that will realize improved and accessible open space.

So and we also in engagement with the community board.

Next slide.

This is just some basics about Queen's Community District 2.

The pink areas are those unserved areas in the district.

It's a very dense community district, as you're aware, and we know that the population is greatly increased over the past 20 years or so.

There's a very little open space.

The open space ratio is 0.38.

It's one of the lowest ones we see across the city.

And again, there are about 26,000 residents that are not in walking distance of a park, so they don't get to realize all the benefits that I spoke about at the beginning.

Next slide, the primary sites, the criteria.

They're the vacant sites.

Again, these are all privately owned sites, at least 5,000 square feet, no active permits from our check for development of the sites, and that we have checked them for suitability for park development.

Next slide.

Shows seven sites in the community district that met this criteria.

This shows the location of those sites.

Next slide.

Because there were not a sites that met that criteria, we have secondary sites.

These are built upon sites, but we do have some parameters for their selection.

We did not choose any sites that current are developed as residential uses.

They're built to 50% or less of what the zoning allows.

They also are at least again 5,000 square feet, no active DOB permits, and also criteria that buildings would have to have not been built, uh, would it have to have been improved for some time before the state of this application?

Next slide.

This map shows 30 sites that met that criteria off the district across the district.

And one last uh next slide is just uh a note that this application um has a sunset clause, so should it be approved?

We have 10 years with the acquisition approval to carry out acquisitions.

It should there be willing sellers after that time.

We could do another U-LERP, refresh the sites, um, but hopefully in this time period will give us an opportunity to realize new parks in community district two.

And that's that's the end of our slides.

Thank you for the presentation.

I have a few questions, and then I'm gonna ask a few questions from the local council member, council member Juan.

Uh first, uh, just to reaffirm this, the proposed acquisition can only be voluntary for the property owners, correct?

That is correct.

Um, we've stated throughout the the process and before the city planning commission that we're looking for willing sellers.

I also should note that should the criteria for the properties change and not meet the criteria laid out, they're ineligible for our ability to acquire the sites.

But yes, we are looking for willing sellers.

Um, and we see this as an opportunity for a property owner to just consider you know another avenue should they be looking to change the status of their property.

Do you have a target number of acquisitions per year for this community district over the 10-year time horizon?

Um we don't, you know, we're not sure what this will foretold, but you know, if this district could see a handful of new park sites, I think that would be a success.

Um, the last park in this community district was Huntress Point South, uh, a little more than 10 years ago.

So it's been some time, but um there are various gap areas across the district, and I think if we could, if there are willing sellers, I think that would help tamp down on the number unserved in terms of residents not within a walk gap, and also help on that very low open space ratio that exists in the district.

So there's no set number.

We're not sure which owners would be interested, um, but we do believe this this application will help in in meeting the needs of the community in terms of public open space.

Thank you.

I also want to note that we've been joined by Councilmember Juan, who's online as well.

Um, if for some reason very few selected sites are able to be acquired within 10 years, is there a plan to continue to extend potentially uh the amount of years for new site selections or what what's your plan and what have you done in the past?

Well, we know with our engagement with the community board that they're you know very interested in seeing new public open space.

Um we would have to do a new U-LERP application and working with city planning.

Um we could refresh the sites, look for new opportunities.

You know, meanwhile, you know, perhaps other um opportunities may come to fruition.

We know with the Long Island City rezoning, there's a possibility of a new school with the schoolyard that could be open to the community.

So there's things that might also happen in the background, but yeah, we would have to do another U-LERP application, and we we would consider doing that, you know, if if there's still a very an outstanding need in the district.

All right.

Um in this community district, a number of these sites are within IBZ industrial business zones.

Uh, do parks directly benefit industrial areas?

Um, we believe so.

There are workers there and there are also some residents located in those areas, um, just due to how the area developed.

So there are sites included and um we do believe they serve a need again for the workers and some of the residents that actually live in those areas.

Great.

Um and now I'm gonna ask you some of the questions from Councilmember Wan.

Um I would like to clarify the purpose of this application.

I understand that this application simply authorizes the city to make acquisition of the listed sites within the next 10 years, but does not itself trigger the acquisition or development of new parks.

Can you confirm that this is correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Um, the city would have to actually acquire a site in order to then develop it following our typical capital process where we engage with the community about what kind of amenities they'd like to see.

But this U-LERP is just giving the authority to acquire, again, if there's a willing seller, it does not automatically um lead to you know, tomorrow the properties being acquired by the city.

There's a process where the city would engage with the property owner and negotiate, and if they come to an agreed upon price that would go to contract and closing and then be assigned to the parks department.

And uh to what extent has New York City Parks engaged property owners of these sites as part of the development of this proposal?

Um we have been required to send loader letters to each property owner uh based on community um city records before every hearing for the ULERP process.

We have gotten some feedback, um, not too much, but some uh one property owner potentially interested, another property owner not interested.

Um, so we've had a little bit of feedback, but we have done that um those uh required letters to the owners, and then should the ULERP be approved, we have um plans to reach out to the owners to gauge whether they might be interested and uh will follow up, and we've laid out a process with the city planning commission how to do that outreach.

Okay, and so I think you kind of answer my next question.

Is New York City Parks in discussion with any of these property owners to acquire their sites in the immediate future?

You mentioned one that's interested.

Um can you tell us a little bit about that conversation as much as you can?

Uh yeah, for this property owner, um, I don't want to give specifics, but it's on Queen's Boulevard, and um they are potentially interested, their properties up for sale.

Um they're not really familiar with the city's um acquisition process, so that was part of the conversation.

Um, but they wanted to just uh you know keep in touch with how the process unfolds.

We can't really engage with a property owner until after the U-LERP is approved, and you know, for the city to make an offer, that kind of thing.

So um there was that that was the conversation with that particular property owner.

Okay, that makes sense.

Uh while we appreciate New York City Park's effort to expedite the site acquisition process through this proposal, our district needs parks now.

As the neighborhoods of CD2 continues to grow, the existing park deficit will only deepen.

What is the plan to actually acquire and convert the identified sites into new parks?

What is the timeline to bring these new parks online?

And does the parks department have the funding allocated to support the acquisition of new parks in CD2 for fiscal year 2027?

So in terms of timeline, should the ULERP be approved?

Um, the way that the engagement with an interested seller works, we see the acquisition process taking about six to twelve months.

It depends on various factors, but that's about the time frame.

Um we do then follow, want to follow through with capital improvements.

That's a sort of standard uh three years between design, procurement, and actual construction.

So that's like the timeline.

So it'll be a few years if a willing seller steps forward when we want to advance an acquisition.

We'll take time between the acquisition and then our design process and then the build-out.

In terms of capital funds, we do have some capital funds for this effort.

Um, and um we think you know, with the two districts approved last year, and should this one be approved?

Um we foresee that more funds will be needed based on willing sellers.

Um, and we hope that with the approval of the ULERP in place, we can work with um OMB and we can apply for grants.

We do apply for grants from the state uh for park acquisition efforts, and so we would you know focus on securing the funds based on the available sites, but we do have some funds right now.

Do you do you know the amount that you have set aside?

We have about 30 million dollars.

Okay, thanks.

Uh Sunnyside and Woodside have the deepest park deficit in CD2.

Out of the 37 identified sites, three are in Sunnyside and 15 are in Woodside.

As the neighborhood with the most severe lack of public access in C D2, it is deeply concerning to see that only three sites, all of which categorize as secondary sites have been identified in Sunnyside.

How will parks address this persistent open space inequity for sunny side residents, especially those in South Sunnyside who have only 1.84 acres of open space.

Um my add on question to that is while Woodside has a total of 15 sites identified in this proposal, 12 of these are secondary sites, which seem less likely to be acquired because they already have buildings on the property.

How will New York City parks prioritize making sure that these acquisitions move forward in Woodside?

So I guess you can answer the Sunnyside question first and then go to the Woodside question.

Um, yeah, so I'll just speak a little bit to our process for identifying the secondary sites.

Um for uh Sunnyside, we we really included all the sites that we could.

Um we did a GIS analysis where we looked at all of the lots that um met all of our criteria.

Um and unfortunately, it in Sunnyside there weren't as many sites that met those criteria.

Um, and then as well, I'll I'll just add that we engaged a lot with the community board throughout this process.

Um, we are really responsive to what they wanted to see.

Um, so the sites that you see included in the application are also a reflection of all of that um all of that uh outreach to the community board as well.

And I'll just add one thing is that in envisioning this is a very much a new approach by the city in terms of acquiring property for park purposes.

I think in working with city planning, we wanted to apply consistent criteria.

Um, so um that is what you know, we're pretty strict about that.

We did actually work in some flexibility to capture in the community board's needs that the secondary sites may not exactly be in a gap area, but they their walk shed could cover a gapped area, and that's how we were able to capture in some additional sites in response to the community board.

Um, but we it you know it was strictly applying their criteria that led to the sites that are part of the application, but we're open to continuing the dialogue with the community board should other opportunities come up.

We just are required to get the ULERP approval though in order to advance the acquisition um process if they're not included in this application.

Okay, thank you.

Um there not being any in-person uh council members.

I don't think we have any additional questions.

So thank you to the panel, and now you are excused.

Council, are there any members of the public who wish to testify in this item?

Um, yes, we have council member one online.

Councilmember Juan, can you hear us?

Yes.

Sorry, I thought I wasn't able to speak because there's no quorum.

Uh you can say a statement.

I don't I don't think you can say questions.

You have uh two minutes.

Okay.

You go for it.

Uh good morning.

My name is Julie One, and I'm a council member representing council district 26, which includes a majority of Queens Community District 2, including Long Island City, Sunnyside, Woodside, and Community District 2 faces a deep shortage of park and open space, ranking 57 out of 59 community districts in terms of means uh in terms of percent of parkland with only 0.38 acres of park space per 1,000 people.

Cd2 is 275 acres short of reaching city's stated goals of 2.50 acres per 1,000 people.

Sorry.

Not feeling well today.

Sunnyside.

Sunnyside and Woodside have the deepest park deficits in C D2 and with uh 128 and 122 acres of need, respectively, to meet the city's 2.5 acre goal.

Simultaneously, C2 is growing rapidly with nearly 40,000 new residents expected over the next 10 years because of our neighborhood rezonings.

While we have several parks under construction in the pipeline throughout the district, a majority are in Long Island City, failing to fully address the current need for the district in and continuing to exist inequities, other parts of CD2.

While I'm heartened to see New York City taking proactive steps to expediate expedite the process of acquisition of private land for future new parks, this initiative will have limited impact without the appropriate neighborhoods that need the new park now, especially in Sunnyside in south of Sunnyside and Woodside.

And this is in need now, not in five to ten years.

We can only expect these parks deficits to deepen as our community continues to grow.

And committee board two shares these same exact concerns in their recommendations for this project.

The board recognizes the initiative's importance as a step towards improving equitable access to open space, while noting that it does not on its own fully address the district's long-standing park shortages.

The board recommends the city commit to baseline capital funding for park acquisition and development and acknowledged that significant understanding underserved areas will remain and that additional actions will be required.

Continue to expand and initiate the initiative with the updated data and identification and to create park planning with broader land use changes such as rezonings, housing growth, infrastructure capacity, and maintain transparency and ongoing engagement with community boards through regular updates on progress funding and implementation.

I look forward to hearing from New York City Parks today to understand the full scope of their approach to address the park inequities in community council two.

I'm still very concerned.

Thank you for asking my questions on my behalf since there wasn't quorum.

That Sunnyside and Woodside have the deepest park deficits, and out of the 37 sites, three are in Sunnyside and 15 are in Woodside, which is uh still not enough.

And we have to focus on South Sunnyside because that's where there are zero parks.

Thank you so much, Chair Marquet.

Of course, thank you, Councilmember Juan, and I hope you feel better soon.

Um, we've been joined uh by councilmember Avilas as well.

If there are any remote public participants who wish to testify and have not already done so, please press the raise hand button now.

And if you are here with us in person, please see one of the sergeant at arms to first fill out a speaker card.

There being no other members of the public who wish to testify regarding LU 114 for Queen's Community District 2 walk to park site selection.

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

That concludes today's business.

I would like to thank the members of the public, my colleagues, subcommittee council, land use staff, and the sergeant at arms for your participation today.

This meeting is hereby adjourned.

Yeah, just in time.