The Manhattan Borough Board

March 2, 2017

>> Good morning, everyone. Thank you for

joining me. I'm Gale Brewer, President, and soon

we'll be joined by the very special Dan Garodnick

in this effort and he is a council member. Thank

everyone for being here. We're holding this

hearing to discuss the greater East Midtown

rezoning proposal which is now going through the

universal land review procedure. We know what

loop is. And launched under the department of city

planning on January 3rd and it involves review by

the affected community boards, the borough board,

separately as Borough President just us, the city

planning commission and the council. And we know

that Manhattan Councils 5 and 6 will be voting on

this. This is not normal. I don't know if anything

in New York is normal.

It went through a vigorous and successful

pre-planning process thanks to many of you in this

room. Dan Garodnick and us led the steering

committee that you were on. And it was

representative of all the stakeholders in Midtown

along with the community boards and I want to thank

all of them. And we developed principles that

guided the city's work on the Vanderbilt corridor

zoning and now it's called greater Midtown

proposal. Worked together through months of

conversation, meeting with different people. We

had more than 20 meetings, steering committee

meetings, and we tried to review every issue from

transit to landmarks to air rights to green

building standards, open space and much more. It

was a big undertaking, but very necessary. There

are approximately 475 buildings in the rezoning

area. With 90 million square feet of space. 300

of the buildings are more than 50 years old. The

average age of an East Midtown office building is

75 years, and only 500 buildings been built in the

area since 2001. So the office space is old. And

action to spur new state of the art construction

is justified.

Because the continuous success of this

district is crucial to our city and my friend, when

he was chair of the city planning commission

pointed out over and over that 10% of all the

property taxes in the five boroughs comes from East

Midtown. This area. It's huge. Downtown

Manhattan has a lot of discounts. So this area is

a real generator. Consider this. Roughly 10%, as

I said, of all the property tax revenue are -- we

are going through this discussion. But at the same

time rezoning provides an opportunity we cannot

pass up to use the element to improve this

neighborhood and this district in ways it wouldn't

be easy to do otherwise.

With One Tower going up now is a model for this.

In exchange for more density we are getting more

than $200 million worth of improvement to Grand

Central transit infrastructure. And instead of

contributions to a fund that may or may not be spent

right away or the right way we are getting hard

commitments to get the actual transit improvements

we need built. I think you all know that.

So the steering committee determined that

using this rezoning to generate guaranteed

improvements to transit and the public rail was the

baseline for any agreement for the development.

And critically important we also determined that

we should use this rezoning to support this area's

landmark properties by ensuring that they have the

opportunity to sell their unused development

rights

There are some amazing landmarks in this area,

including 12 new ones that were designated by the

landmarks preservation commission as a result of

the steering committee's work. And I want to thank

the commission. Now the plan in front of us we put

together at the department of city planning in

response to the principles that we came up with.

Now it is in front of all of us for review. I want

to hear from all of you, from inquiries and

advocates and what deserves praise and what needs

to be fixed. I've never met a plan, even one that

I helped put together, that wasn't improved by a

thorough public review.

I want to thank particularly Scott Evenbeck

the President of Guttman Community College, and

Katrina who helped put this together. And now over

to Jim Caras, deputy director of land use. They're

advocates. Thank you all very much.

[ Applause ]

>> I snuck in. Hello, everybody. I'm Dan

Garodnick, local councilman and I wanted to be here

tonight at least at the beginning. And I

apologize, I will not be able to stay for the

entirety of the evening. Though I will be ably

represented by my staff. With a great

appreciation of the borough President for

convening this hearing and for her now well over

a year of -- or two of partnership in trying to

bring this complicated proposal to a thoughtful

conclusion.

We know that many of you have been following

this process along. Some of you even have been

engaged with us as part of the steering committee

to think through the possible ways to animate this

plan. For that we have a lot of appreciation. We

are in a much different position than we were four

years ago. We have a much higher degree of

certainty for the public on potential

improvements. We have a much higher level of

certainty for landmark protections. We have a

much more thoughtful plan that was the result of

so many months of consideration by stakeholders in

East Midtown, but it's officially just the

beginning of the process. So that's why this

conversation is so important. Gale and I have been

deep in this for so long, but we also both

recognize, as the Borough President just said, that

these plans tend to get better with public

contribution.

We both have seen this before. It is a -- it's

a very good thing. It's a positive thing.

Whether it's questions about the boundaries or

questions about light and air or questions about

minimum contributions or what the MTA benefits

should be precisely. There's -- this is

a -- there's -- this is a complicated proposal, and

there's a lot to think about here. So we

appreciate that you're willing to come and spend

an evening and think about this. And I can tell

you, for myself, and I know this is certainly the

case with the Borough President, that we take your

commentary very, very seriously.

So we look forward to hearing tonight. And

then, of course, also when this plan comes to the

City Council, we'll look forward to welcoming you

to City Hall to do this one more time. But with

that I say thank you, again, the Borough President,

for convening this. Thank you.

>> Thank you very much. I would like to thank

the Manhattan member of the city planning

commission. Stand up and we will recognize you.

And thank you very much for all your hard work.

>> Okay. So we're going to start calling

people up. If you could just keep your testimony

to three minutes and be conscious of speaking

slowly enough for the sign language interpreter who

will be signing. Thank you. Oh! And a written

record will remain open until the Borough Board

meeting on March 16th. So if anyone wants to

submit comments they can submit comments through

our Website. And if you have written testimony you

can bring up copies for the people and that's fine

before you start speaking bring your copies up

here.

So Duane Roggendorff from the Grand Central

park improvement district and -- Parks from the

East Midtown [inaudible].

>> For nearly three decades Grand Central

partnership has been in the business of --

>> Hold on one second.

>> Okay.

>> Once again. Can you hear now?

>> Is it on?

>> It is on.

>> Speak right into it.

>> All right. For nearly three decades the

Grand Central partnership of Midtown Manhattan

improvement district has served a seven square

block area surrounding Grand Central terminal,

providing an array of supplemental services

supporting property and business owners and

helping to make this neighborhood a bustling global

and urban center. The proposal to rezone what is

essentially the footprint is the most

comprehensive urban planning proposal to come

along in years and we are pleased to have been a

participant on the East Midtown steering committee

as an advocate for not on our jurisdiction, but our

city. And we thank our Borough President and

councilmember for giving us the opportunity to

participate in this critical effort. In our

support of the greater East Midtown plan question

will highlight three very important issues for your

consideration. Because of time constraints this

evening we will submit a more comprehensive

statement for your review and consideration.

One, is the neighborhood's keeper of the

public [inaudible] we plan to totally or partially

close Streets be scrutinized with property and

business owners. Stakeholders familiar with the

plan have voiced concerns about traffic

congestion, noise pollution, lack of entry to

businesses, limited access to freight elevators

and loading docks, illegal vending, and most

critically first responder and emergency vehicle

access to these Streets. It is crucial that any

plan or plans in the area fully evaluate the

potential negative impacts that may occur not just

describe the potential benefits of such a plan.

GCP staff, along with representatives from the

Mayor's office, Department of transportation and

city planning have been meeting with affected

property owners to hear their concerns on these

issues and will continue to do so. Today every

property owner directly impacted by the closure and

shared Street concept has opposed these ideas or

expressed grave concerns. They cannot be

overlooked or ignored. We -- any concept be

envisioned from the ground up with stakeholder and

business participation and direct involvement.

They should be partners, not reactors.

Two, the proposed price of 393 per square foot

is overstated and will penalize landmark

institutions which may [inaudible] which in turn

may translate into less money for improvements.

It should be moved and let the market determine it.

Three, the rezoning should encourage as many

qualified sites as possible to encourage

development. Therefore every effort should be

made to make all the properties with proposal,

including inside of Third Avenue. It's

counterproductive to the overall objectives of the

proposal. Thank you, again, for allowing us to

share some of our concerns tonight and we will be

submitting a more detailed statement to you

shortly.

>> Any questions?

>> No, I do not.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Thank you.

>> I'm going to thank you for having me here.

I'm Ron Burns, President of East Midtown

partnership who many of you are familiar with us.

So I'm actually going to skip my introduction and

move quickly along. The East Midtown partnership

is the business improvement district representing

the northern most part of the proposed East Midtown

sub district. And first of all, great process.

So thank you so much, Gale, Dan, getting everyone

at the table I think finally makes a workable plan.

We are supportive of the plan as it is going through

now, but we have two major concerns that we still

would like to -- and fortunately these will not

require an amendment. But first we consider it

imperative to keep the east side Third Avenue in

the sub district. We do, and I need to make this

clear because I work with members of community

board 6 on a regular basis and also other residents

of the community groups in the neighborhood -- in

the area.

They are our neighbors. We are on the east

side of Third Avenue. So we are in constant

contact. But we do consider it to be imperative.

We do respect their concerns, but we -- which

largely focused on potential encroachment and more

commercial activity. As I had pointed out in the

past, we also feel that shipped sailed 40 years ago,

largely. Many of the buildings on the east side

of Third Avenue right now are already built up to

over a million square feet. Or several of them,

that is. The FAR in that area right now, with the

exception of two properties, is set for 18. Which

compared to the Park Avenue corridor and the areas

immediately around Grand Central terminal, still

relatively small.

And also those properties are zoned

for -- would be zoned for a higher FAR, are sitting

right on top one of the most -- one of the busiest

subway stations in the city of New York. And one

also in dire need of improvements.

The other -- excuse me -- the other concern we

had is -- and I'm going echo what my colleague at

Grand Central partnership said. We do think there

needs to be substantial outreach as the public

realm improvements come to the fore. There should

be no surprises in this process. A lot of the

property owners, business owners, and, yes,

residential building owners also, have unique

knowledge of their properties and special concerns

that people -- people representing government

agencies, no matter how well-intentions they are

might not necessarily recognize. And with that I

want to thank you. Again, a great process. We are

looking forward to a bigger, stronger and better

East Midtown Manhattan. Thank you.

>> You can clap.

>> Michael Slattery from the Real Estate Board

of New York City and Andrea Baldwin from The New

York Landmarks Conservancy.

>> Thank you. Michael Slattery representing

the Real Estate Board of New York. The East

Midtown business district is a relentless driver

of economy and employment. The zoning plan to

reintegrate East Midtown, and provide benefits to

the landmark properties. We think there are

aspects of the plan, serious impediments to the

plan's goal. The concept of a floor price to

establish a minimum contribution is an obstacle.

In a market with the prices coming down, a minimum

contribution will rise above the proposed 20%.

This will discourage sellers from conveying

development rights as their return is diminished

by the fixed minimum contribution. And

the -- land sales involve the square foot at low

end. However, land isn't being conveyed. Only

development rights. In the survey, the

development rights, close to $250 a square foot.

Seems more like a floor price to determine

contribution for the floor area. However, there

are a number of other members who noted that high

costs for development in the area. The cost for

a new office building, even after the higher FARs

is prohibitively expense for a number of reasons.

High acquisition costs, lost opportunity costs

from demolishing existing buildings generating

revenue. Cost for error rights to get to the my

FARs. And financing of the rebuilding costs.

Question estimate the total development costs to

be around $2300 a square foot to make such projects

economically feasible. And requiring $204. East

Midtown right now is around $115.

To address the economic concerns we have

recommended that development in the mid blocks

based on qualifying site conditions to produce a

new type of development that the city envisions for

the area and enlargements on existing build that

is effectively be a new building both be permitted

as a right. One location where new development is

more feasible is along Third Avenue where site

acquisition costs and lost revenue costs would be

lower than Park Avenue. There's no planning

rationale for exuding the east side of Third

Avenue. It's transit connectivity is one of the

most well-connected corridors in New York City.

Seven subway lines, a commuter railroad, and two

subway stations, and the most well-connected

stations in the city. Taking Third Avenue out

would be a lost opportunity to revitalize East

Midtown, and niche the contribution to the

improvement fund. The reason the proposal is

needed to provide the opportunity for office space

to attract companies and employees who fund needed

transit improvement. And hope the board will look

at [inaudible] and make sure that East Midtown

remains the premier office district.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Good evening, I'm Andrea Goldwyn, speaking

on behalf of the New York Landmarks Conservancy.

Nearly four years ago we testified in the public

review of the previous rezoning plan which almost

completely ignored the significant historic

architecture in the section of the city. Since

that was withdrawn landmarks have taken a more

central role in planning this new proposal.

Designated 12 individual landmarks last year. The

proposal currently significantly expands the

ability of landmarks to transfer their unused

development rights opinion on the first issue we

applaud LPC, but there's more to do. In 2013 the

conservancy municipal arts society and the council

released 16 sites for designation. Be the recent

had half of those. But the commission is not

hearing the rest. We urge a public hearing,

otherwise we're likely to lose them. Of those

eight the hotel intercontinental, and [inaudible]

building eligible for the national register of

historic places are now labeled development sites.

The council was instrumental in ensuring the

designations and hope they continue to advocate for

more landmarks. Regarding the TDR program, we

appreciate the approached 20% on transfers is at

the low end of the recommended range, ensuring the

[inaudible] will be realized. To provide

significant relief from maintaining landmark

buildings and assist in their overall

preservation. However, we have questions on

several aspects. We oppose the spice,

disadvantages landmarks. The market is

unpredictable and the three to five years is

insufficient. As we have seen, a lot can change

in a few years. With the floor price the city

creates it for itself, landmark ours have no

guarantee. If -- and transactions, we hope that

the city President and council can do it better.

Once it's collected, the proposal should provide

better guidance on how to be used to ensure it truly

benefits the Midtown use community. A list of

non-transit public realm improvements should be

localized and beyond standard upgrades such as left

turn lanes that the D.O.T. does in other areas in

the city. The list is extensive, and two-thirds

outside of the rezoning area, one could conclude

the MTA could add to the list before any underground

work is taken. It will bring substantial new

development to Midtown east. It's successful in

creating certainty for developments and surpassed

their predecessor to the public. But that job is

not complete. Thank you.

>> Next, we'll hear from Michael Greeley, ward

5, and -- from the municipal arts society.

>> I'm Michael Greeley, a member of Board Five

and the Land Use, Housing & Zoning Committee. We

have strong issues with the proposed rezoning areas

where [inaudible] is on the steering committee's

recommendation. Mainly in maximizing the

potential for open public space and being part of

the district. We believe there should be no

prohibition on open public space on private

property in the Grand Central core area.

Secondly, we would like to see the character of the

commercial and do not see why there is a prohibition

against existing commercial buildings from

converting to residential. Besides the

neighborhood character -- besides the

neighborhood character there would be a need for

more schools with more residents. Currently the

proposal does not assess school impact at all.

Also in promoting a world class district we

should encourage class B and class C office space

to exist alongside class A. It shouldn't be one

or the other. We also have several additional

concerns. CB5 would like to propose a governing

group to act only with a super majority. Meaning

the Mayor's appointees plus one meaning the Borough

President's appointee or the council members

appointee or the Borough President -- community

board representative. To guarantee more

consensus in negotiations.

We also are disappointed that there is nothing

more done with greater access in design or a

transfer between the four, five, six platforms and

the seven train into Grand Central station. And

we would like to see ADA subway access not broken

up like the current proposal has -- would allow.

A developer could build one elevator to the

mezzanine but not another to the platform. We

think there should be complete ADA access and not

just after measures. We are disappointed in the

lack of shadow study and the lack of shadow

authentication mechanism. And there is a fear of

a shadow impact on central park and other existing

open space.

Finally, the TDR. We believe that there

should be [inaudible]. But it should be

reassessed on a, for example, every three years,

not every three to five years which is too open

ended. It should be based on market price for

[inaudible] not residential market value. We

believe in a -- we believe that because that there

are no cash transfer of the rights like with 1

Vanderbilt and [inaudible], this is another reason

why we believe it must be a [inaudible]. We would

also like to see the contribution rate [inaudible]

not 20% for all [inaudible] landmark transfer to

make sure there is adequate funds for more public

space improvements. Thank you.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Good evening. I'm the senior director of

[inaudible] planning at Greenacre Park. As a

member of the steering committee with a long

history of involvement in the rezoning of East

Midtown, we support president proposal but remain

concerned about issues to incorporate

recommendations in the following areas in terms of

the public realm, public realm concept plan. The

current plan has over 300,000 square feet of

right-of-way improvements included and not only

pedestrian along Park Avenue median and shared

Streets in the district. These are not codified

into the text amendment as the proposed transit

infrastructure improvements have been.

MES urges that the improvements and the

inclusion in the text to be ensure that they would

be implemented. MES strongly urges the city to

work with the steering committee to establish firm

criteria for a floor price that is sufficiently

flexible to adjust to potential fluctuations in the

real estate market and ensures the availability of

funds for necessary public realm improvements on

the proposal. In terms of privately owned public

space, also knowns a POPS, they are approximately

39 acres of public open space. And they serve as

important retreats for area workers and visitors.

Yet POPS are not considered in the current

proposal. MES remain steadfast in the few that

they are vital for increasing open space in the

project area. We ask the city to develop the

necessary tools to incentivize the creation and

improvement of POPS. In terms of preservation,

the preservation 16 buildings prior to the

certification, eight additional buildings

recommended by MES. In addition, certain proposed

new developments would result in adverse impacts

on main two corridors of [inaudible] buildings.

Particularly the Chrysler building, Chandler

building and Waldorf Astoria hotel. And the

[inaudible] and [inaudible]. Some additional

issues. The proposal should require new

developments to achieve the gold standard for the

buildings as outlined by the steering committee.

MAS is concerned about adverse shadow impacts

on Greenacre Park. MAS believes that mitt

indication measures should be [inaudible] to

reduce development sites 7, 10, 11, J and D. And

questions, the precedent by which the fund

Governing group framework was conceived.

Particularly with regard to the accuracy in

executing and allocating funds. MAS is also

concerned that the public realm improvement fund

will not have sufficient funds to address the

improvements identified by the MTA. MAS says that

proposed [inaudible] to daylight methodology will

be detrimental to the light and air in the project

area and recommend the revision of the boundaries

of the proposed sub district on the eastern

boundary. Exclude 13 properties adjacent to the

low scale residential communities [inaudible] and

2C to the east because less than 50% of the area

is in the proposed subdivision.

And finally, there are key areas in the DEIS

that are sufficient and require specific analysis.

Specifically shadows or resources, open space and

transit impacts. We will be submitting a more

comprehensive -- more comprehensive comments.

And thank you for the opportunity to come and

comment on this important topic.

>> We have a question.

>> One question. What kind of mitigation?

Do you have suggestions or ideas for the division

measures for the park?

>> We were thinking of potential -- height

regulations for some of these buildings. And

there are other potential issues that we'd love to

discuss with you. But that's one of the issues.

And also [inaudible] and height in terms of the

corridors as well. Because if you look at DIS on

the view corridors of these important buildings,

they are completely blocked or almost completely

obscured. Yet the DIS concludes that there are no

significant adverse impacts. So we would like to

see some potential bulk and height regulations be

used in some of the proposed development sites to

mitigate some of those potential impacts.

>> Thank you.

>> Ian Dunford of the Hotel Trades Council.

Followed by Joseph Rosenberg, Catholic Community

Relations.

>> Good evening. My name is Ian Dunford and

I'm -- sorry -- my name is Ian Dunford and I'm here

from the New York Hotel Trades Council.

Representing 35,000 hotels across New York City.

We are the heart of the city, one of the city's key.

From the initial plan proposed by the previous

administration to this administration the hotel

council has been engaged in the efforts to rezone

the counties. We understand and appreciate the

need to revitalize Midtown to maintain the city's

status as a leader and transit leader to attract

the workforce. The critical improvements made

this rezoning important. That's why we endeavored

to work with the committee and the steering

committee on balance. We were especially

concerned that rezoning a large swath of commercial

lots in Midtown Manhattan would lead to

irresponsible, out of context hotel development.

This is why we strongly support the hotel special

permit in the proposal. While a special permit

could potentially limit the hotels in Midtown east,

it is the most sensible means of ensuring any new

hotel development in Midtown ultimately fits in the

state of rezoning. It also guaranties when

developers seek to build hotels in Midtown east

that all stakeholders have a seat at the table.

Thank you for your time.

>> Good evening, I'm Joe Rosenberg, director

of the -- relations council. The -- of New York.

Mayor Brewer, thank you for your leadership --

>> Can you please --

>> I'm sorry. Okay. This rezoning is not

only essential for the future of Midtown east, but

also to provide landmark houses of worship with the

means to preserve their properties for future

generations. This is a rare opportunity and we're

grateful for your focus and commitment. As

everyone in this room knows, St. Patrick's

cathedral is one of the most prominent landmarks

in New York City. A religious sanctuary and an

icon for visitors throughout the world regardless

of their religion. As the guardian of this

landmark with the ongoing maintenance and

rehabilitation costs, the afternoon diocese

appreciates the opportunities to transfer the

cathedral's long-held development rights. As

this plan proceeds, we ask you do not forget the

urgent need of landmarks, and especially houses of

worship, to restore the properties. In order to

transfer development rights, there must be

sufficient receiving rights, sites available for

transfer, and sufficient funds available for such

transfers.

With respect to receiving sites, the proposed

rezoning area, including the Third Avenue

corridor, along with the proposed FARs and bulk

rules are essential to [inaudible] the district's

landmarks. We support the city's framework.

Consideration should be given to providing certain

types of mid-block development with the rezoning

objectives in terms of funding, [inaudible] a

portion was payment at a rate greater of 20% of the

transaction price or a fixed amount for the

transaction but above a specified floor price. As

the contribution will reduce the [inaudible] we ask

it's set at no more than 20%. It's for

religious -- that do not get money from landmark

houses of worship. It will face great challenges

in maintaining properties which include stained

glass, carved stone work, statues and many other

unique architectural features. The concern to us

is the floor price. Which requires a fixed minimum

contribution regardless of the amount actually

paid to the landmark owner.

The most obvious result of a fixed minimum

contribution is that it will further limit the

resources available for landmark upkeep. Less

obvious is the potential of the [inaudible] to

discourage transfers which could decrease funding

available for improvements. An underlying

rationale for the floor price is they will have the

recording in the consideration received for

transfer. This fails to look at well-established

recording systems with well-established value,

such as the transfer tax system at the department

of finance. And in the religious owners, the

requirement that New York must approve all real

estate sales. The floor price is not working for

an assumed sales price. It will stifle

development rights and leaving both landmarks and

the hope for public improvements underfunded. So

safeguard the policy goals of supporting both

landmarks and public realm improvements, we

therefore strongly urge you to ensure the

contribution price is no larger than currently

proposed and no floor price for those transferred

from landmarks. Thank you.

>> Now hear from Kathy Thompson from the

[inaudible] association. And Lois Clemens

(spelling) from Greenacre Park and then a few

minutes’ break after these two.

>> It's actually not the Turtle Bay

Association. It's the Turtle Bay Neighborhood.

Just to be clear.

>> Speak right into the mic.

>> Can you guys hear me now? I'm going to talk

a little bit slower.

>> Thank you.

>> So thank you to both President Brewer and

to Councilmen Gardonick for the opportunity to

speak.

>> Speak right in there.

>> Right in there? There we go. Is that

better? Okay. Again, thank you, guys for the

opportunity to speak today. And I want to thank

Bob Tuttle and his associates. I'm speaking

tonight as a member of Ward 6, and the Turtle Bay

Committee. But as a member of the Turtle Bay

Neighborhood which will be severely impacted by the

rezoning of the east side of Third Avenue to

commercial as of right. Yes, this is one of the

residents against the rezoning of the east side.

The rezoning maps presented to the public and the

community board have mischaracterized some

residential buildings and residential pockets as

commercial.

This shows the neighborhood to be made up of

more commercial buildings than it actually has, and

look less like the neighborhood that it really is

and more like a primarily commercial area with some

mixed residential thrown in. This demonstrates

that those working on this rezoning proposal have

been doing so from a remote viewpoint, not really

seeing and understanding the neighborhood

firsthand that they're about to destroy. The

department of city planning has repeatedly

responded to requests that the east side of Third

Avenue be excluded from the proposal by saying that

they view it as a commercial strip. They have

pointedly ignored that it is the western-most

border of the Turtle Bay residential neighborhood.

Any resident of the neighborhood will

enthusiastically refute the commercial strip

position and can point out the many types of

residential buildings, both large and small, that

run right up to Third Avenue and that make our

enclave so unique.

The voices of neighborhood residents should

carry the same weight, if not more, as the voices

of the multitude of real estate developers, hotel

unions, attorneys and lobbyists who aim to profit

from the rezoning and do not live in the

neighborhood. While the draft environmental

impact statement did offer an adjustment on the

east side of Third Avenue mid block 47th Street

going north, 43rd to mid block 47th Street were not

included. And they contain residential housing

just off Third Avenue. When questioned about

this, it was explained that buildings targeted for

redevelopment were located within those blocks.

Creating the need for them to be rezoned further

into the block.

I'm astounded to think that the rezoning of

specific Streets relies on buildings already

identified for redevelopment. It's a thriving

residential community which extends to Third

Avenue. It just so happens that office buildings

populate third aver as well. The neighborhood

has managed to survive the construction of the

current allotment of office buildings. However,

with the extraordinary heights being granted to new

development casting even more shadows over our

homes, the egregious quality of life problems that

arise during large construction projects and

essentially turning our neighborhood into a full

on commercial district, even down the side Streets,

the Turtle Bay neighborhood will not survive this.

The most practical solution to protect the

neighborhood, while still allowing for generous

redevelopment is to move the dividing line to the

middle of Third Avenue from east 43rd Street to east

56th Street and I strongly urge our elected

officials to insist upon this. Anything less than

this is the willful destruction of a neighborhood

by the city of New York. Thank you.

>> Good evening, my name is Lois C remans --

>> Move in.

>> My name is Lois Cremans (spelling) is I'm

the executive director of the Greenacre

Foundation. I would like that thank President

Brewer and the Manhattan Board for holding this

important hearing on the proposal put forth by the

city of New York. Abby Rockefeller Mauze created

the -- foundation in 1968 with the intent to build

the best -- on east 53rd Street between second and

third avers as a gift to the citizens of New York

City. The park opened in 1971. Miss Mauze gifted

an endowment to make sure that the park would be

continued in perpetuity. Her descendents are part

of the green acre board. In addition to the park,

the foundation has monetarily supported over a

hundred parks, community parks and organizations

involved in green space in Manhattan. The park

provides a small but important open space for a

community with a scarce amount of parkland. The

park sits in council district four. According to

New Yorkers for park city council district

profiles, the district only has 2% of its total

acreage dedicated to parkland. The city averages

19%. District 4 is 49th out of 50 council

districts for parks and playgrounds per 1,000

residents. According to recent shadow models

commissioned by the foundation, the proposed

rezoning will result in six development sites

placing additional shade on the park and thus

causing significant adverse impacts to the park.

Specifically, the honey locust trees will be

severely impaired, the variety of plantings will

be limited and we could see a reduction of park use.

Greenacre Park argues that the DEIS incorrectly

assumes the height. New buildings are

significantly higher than the development near us.

Incorrectly assumes that the park will receive

sufficient sun for the honey locust trees and the

plants to flourish, and underestimates the shadows

across from the new buildings. We have submitted

a detailed letter outlining our concerns and asking

for specific actions by the city. I can summarize

those comments and requests now as follows. The

FEIS and rezoning must address the shadows cast on

at least six identified sites by the green acre

shadow study. A, limit the height of the six

proposed sites, or B, require further study or

mitigation at the time of development similar to

the way that the city addresses future air, noise

and hazardous substance impacts with an E

designation. In conclusion I would like to thank

the President and board for hosting this important

hearing. Greenacre Park will submit more

information about the park as well as to President

Brewer.

>> We're going to take a few minute break.

We're over the time on the interpreter. And we'll

be back in ten minutes.

[Break]

>> The next two speakers, Marcia Caban from the

Central Synagogue. And John West from the BFJ

Group.

>> Hi. How are you? I am Marcia Caban,

executive director of central synagogue. Central

synagogue is the oldest house of worship. Is it

on?

>> It's on.

>> Is that better? I'm very close. I think.

Good evening. I am Marcia Caban, executive

direct of central synagogue. Central synagogue

is the oldest Jewish house of worship, continuous

worship, in the state of New York. We are at the

heart of the east mid tune community since 1870.

Our congregation compromises over 2,000 households

and more than 6,000 individuals. We treasure the

landmark status of our sanctuary at east 55th and

Lexington avenue. Our sanctuary was one of the

earliest designated landmarks in 1966. While L

missions will forever be how first priorities, we

are immensely proud of our landmark building. But

the cost to maintaining it is high. Our sanctuary

has 150,000 square feet of unused development

rights. The proceeds from these development

rights would help us advance our mission and

maintain the upkeep of our landmark building.

However, current zoning provisions do not provide

adequate opportunities for us to transfer and sell

these development rights. In particular, our

community house, which is located directly north

of our sanctuary across east 55th Street sits on

a merged zoning lot that is overbuilt by over 20%,

the limit for a receiving site in our zoning

district. As a result, even our own community

house is incredible to receive a transfer of unused

[inaudible]. We appreciate the leadership from

Manhattan President Brewer on the steering

committee for -- this critical zoning proposal.

It addresses many of the challenging issues facing

East Midtown, including the derth of receiving

sites that preclude landmark transfers in East

Midtown. We therefore urge your support in the

rezoning area, including the Third Avenue area the

[inaudible] which will help us ensure the sites for

the unused floor area of the landmark properties.

In addition to the supply of available

receiving sites, there must be sufficient funds

generated by the transfers to help compensate

landmark owners for the economic burden of the

ongoing maintenance and rehabilitation costs.

Not for profit and religious organizations like us

do not receive funds from their landmark building.

Nor do they receive public funding. Like other

religious institutions with property in East

Midtown, we are concerned about the proposal to

divert a portion of the payment received by

landmarks to a city fund. The city's current

proposal would require a contribution amount equal

to the greater of 20% of the transaction amount or

fixed amount for transactions that are above a

specific floor price. It is essential that the

proposal for 20% of the transaction price not be

increased as it would further reduce the funds for

landmark maintenance. Of greater concern is the

floor price which requires a fixed minimum

contribution regardless of the price paid to the

landmark owner. The floor price is an unrealistic

amount for an assumed sale price and hinders the

area. Because it may not be worthwhile to transfer

floor area when a disproportionate amount of the

sale price is not actually received. The

transactions would have the unintended effect of

decreasing funding for public realm improvements.

To ensure that the rezoning continues to support

both landmark and infrastructure improvements, we

recommend that the contribution not be increased

to an amount higher than currently proposed and the

floor price for development rights transfer for

land marks be eliminated. We appreciate you

listening to the views of these stakeholders as we

did in our prior testimony. On behalf of the

testimony, we wish you the wisdom to continue this

exercise. Thank you.

>> I'm John west and I'm speaking for the city

club. City club of New York has been carefully

examining and commenting on the series of proposals

to Midtown during the last several years. We

agreed that the stated goal of maintaining East

Midtown as the premier business address and our

cautions and recommendations have been intended to

help achieve that vision. We regret that we

disagree with the means the city has chosen to

achieve its goals.

Let me start by thanking the East Midtown

steering committee for its efforts to understand

East Midtown and to address its problems. Let met

also thank the city for its efforts to craft

solutions and to explain them. My general

criticism is and has been that the proposals for

East Midtown are not founded on a well-considered

plan. Let me list some of our specific concerns.

I'm reading the abbreviated version here. You

have the longer version in front of you. Nexus.

We believe there should be a geographic proximity

such that the same community enjoys the benefit and

carries the burden of an action such as transfers

of development rights from landmarks and bonus

floor area from ameliorating amenities.

Proportionality. We believe there should be

a proportional relationship between the impact of

increased density on a site and the amenity that

it is intended to ameliorate, the amenity that's

meant to ameliorate that density.

Proportionality both grow out of Supreme Court

decisions. Conflict of interest. Also known as

zoning for dollars.

We are concerned that there is a conflict of

interest when the city gives the zoning to raise

revenues rather than for the authorized purposes

of zoning to regulate land use, light and air, and

density in conformance with a well-considered

plan. Steering committee recommendations.

There are two recommendations of the East Midtown

steering committee that the city's proposed zoning

contradicts. One is the addition of public open

space to the public realm through the encouragement

of POPS. And the other is the maintenance of the

special Midtown height and setback rate

regulations.

And finally, alternatives. We believe that

the unprejudiced consideration of alternatives to

the proposed action as is intended by seeker, is

the proper way, or a proper way, to approve a

proposed project. Two such alternatives are the

elimination of the area east of Third Avenue from

the proposal as requested by community ward 6. And

the examination -- examination of tax increment

financing as suggested by the city club. Neither

seems to be being considered.

As I said, there's more discussion of these

concerns in the written version of our testimony.

And I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Moving on. Charra Harry. And Kathleen

Kelly.

>> Good evening. I'm Charra Harry I

[inaudible] in New York City. And my testimony is

about the impact to us and the importance of

considering this major publisher issue in the

rezoning. [inaudible] is an urban area with

perceived air temperature to 14 degree Fahrenheit

higher than its surrounding areas. Due to local

air venting discharged by air-conditioners,

[inaudible] and chimneys, and radiated by

[inaudible] and Streets and parking lots. There

are too many factors associated with urban

development. One is large land like asphalt,

concrete and [inaudible]. The other is a sky view

factor. Sky view factor is the reasonable portion

of the sky from the ground up. Every new island

is a significant [inaudible] issue in the city

which causes more [inaudible] to radiate during

extreme events. Based on the research by

Rosenbaum, the impact of the air vent is published.

I have to [inaudible]. The surface temperature in

East Midtown is the highest in New York City.

And consequently you get extra heat events in

Midtown and it's the highest in New York City.

Almost as high as south Bronx and west [inaudible].

And the authority due to the air venting during

extreme events, it could be increased by the

proposed rezoning of Midtown. The environmental

impact statement should include a discussion of

this issue. Perhaps in the chapter on [inaudible]

to minimize and mitigate problems. This might

include solutions such as [inaudible] or land

improvements, more vegetative color and Street

trees. It should also address the intensification

to the [inaudible] and the face of the proposed

height and setback relations on the --

>> Thank you, very helpful.

>> Thank you.

>> Hi. Kathleen Kelly. I'm a community ward

6.

>> Right up.

>> I'm here as a private citizen. I'm also an

LCSW and Local 3 electrician. I'd like to start

with initial framework of the multi-board task

force and East Midtown as a starting point for an

area of concern. They started with infrastructure

to perceived development. Citing the work of

global strategists, it's why cities thrive in

connection to their GDP. In the 21st century, the

ability to move knowledge workers from where they

live to where they work. In Manhattan the

transportation system is already over capacity by

115%. With are zoning 70 to 80,000 more people in

and out of the city each day. The infrastructure

for 1961 were predicated on the building of the

Second Avenue subway which did not happen. Yet

more new zoning will allow the density to grow and

the problem. The city celebrated the successful

opening of the Second Avenue from 96th. Having

witnessed the success, it doesn't mean to make

sense that the city would want to stop and lose the

momentum of the interagency coordination they have

developed to make this achievable. Goals for the

21st century are cities that are an intercity

network, sustainable organization, reduce the

carbon intensity, zero emissions building, how to

deploy electric car sharing system, focus on the

number of cars on the Streets and alternative

transportation such as bikes. Sufficient truly

affordable housing and investing in transportation

networks to connect physically and digitally make

a city whole. Infrastructure has been included in

the United States stainable environmental goals

because it enables all the others. Connectivity

is not charity. It is the opportunity and the most

important asset class of the 21st century.

Functional geography means success. It used to be

that geography was destiny. But in the 21st

century connectivity is destiny. A perfectly

walkable city, narrower Streets mean a better

transportation system or people need to drive cars.

With or without drivers, parking is needed. Every

trend and trip begins with a walk. Presently

lacking are pedestrian circulation maps. To

provide developers with a clear understanding of

what each public realm benefit would provide the

building and in need of public open space. The

funding of the public infrastructure, MTA public

realm improvements fully by developers is a major

concern. Transparency of the funding process is

not yet there. Further, the funding process

appears to pit MTA public realm the development

improvement bonuses over and against investments

in open space. Expansion and construction does

not happen in a vacuum. The city needs to continue

a run and expand as construction happens daily.

Rigorous safety standards are needed. Requiring

state-sanctioned apprenticeships and programs

focused on inclusivity focused on technology

training and paid construction workers and paying

them a middle class wage are key to a flexible

economy and preventing homelessness. According

to the Mayor's affordable housing crisis, when more

than 50,000 workers sleep in homeless shelters, the

city fails to live up to its promise of opportunity.

As we examine the important details mean, please

do not exclude what a prevailing wage job means to

those who help maintain the city and what it means

to the city. The Mayor's plan is a vision, and

there are many more. And look at the rate jobs or

the necessary solution for preventing homelessness

and focusing on growth and opportunity instead of

crisis.

And I also focused on the many organizations

that question and look for more analysis in the DIS

on the conversion of new commercial buildings to

residential and future infrastructure transit

improvements in the transparency and maintenance

of the public infrastructure funding system.

Shadow evaluation, acceptable levels, and visual

resources, open space, pedestrian circulation

maps, the TDR landmarks, and how we measure the

successful DNA that exists in our community now so

we can bring this to future development including

building types and their components.

And I also wanted to mention that I received

a lot of help from urban planner John west. And

he's a fantastic mentor. And help to anyone who

is in urban planning and is new to the big apple.

>> John west helps everyone. But I have a

question. We had spent a lot of time in the

steering committee trying to focus on commercial.

So we want this to be a commercial area and not

supporting increase in residential for all the

obvious reasons. Jobs and so on. One of the

questions that came up is, were we

being -- throwing the baby out with the bath water

in the sense that we support the commercial, but

do some developers manage to have a way of doing

commercial and residential in one building? There

was a lot of discussion that the infrastructure of

that building doesn't necessarily work if you put

the two together. For some obvious reasons. And

I'm just wondering from your

electrical/construction background, is this

something that hopefully as we focus more on the

commercial we will not end up with a residential,

we can't put it into the building, or could they

do both in one building?

>> We see mixed use buildings in New York City.

And even downtown the conversion from office space

to residential happened in older buildings also

downtown. Not just new structures. So you can

wire and you can make anything happen. It's just

looking at this plan and saying I think it says not

more -- is it 20%? Can become residential. And

that's even -- as someone who works in construction

and saying, but, hey, we already converted all this

office space to residential downtown, so then the

high price on commercial/residential, it becomes

more luxury. And we don't have any input on how

we develop a neighborhood. Or saying what is the

DNA that works to keep Turtle Bay Turtle Bay. That

will disappear. Structurally you can create

anything. You have zoning, building, electrical

codes. It's just in terms of speaking up and

saying can the MIH come on the back burner with this

development if they do go from commercial instead

of office space? Because in the 21st century

perhaps we're going to use office space

differently. That if they do convert it is there

any way we can have in the back, if it does convert

from commercial to residential, do any of those

percentages go into affordability?

>> Okay. Thank you.

>> Simeon Bankoff from the Historic Districts

Council and Neil Hohmann from the Yale club.

>> Good evening, Simeon Bankoff, we will be

submitting a more complete testimony why writing

after this. We would like first to thank our

President Brewer and councilman Garodnick for

their extreme work on the project. And we're

pleased to be part of the planning process. I'm

going address two issues that we have overreaching.

One is the paucity of actual landmark buildings we

are getting if this enormous rezoning of the area.

There were many lists, and I won't bore everybody

by going through them. But even in the

environmental review the landmarks commission had

identified about 33 buildings and sites that were

potential landmarks.

And of those we have actually gotten 12, we got

30% of them. We are concerned about potential

landmark sites singled out in the plan as potential

or possible development sites. Cross of the

cross, right behind Grand Central, the Girl Scouts

building on Fifth Avenue, and the pictures building

also on Park Avenue. In fact, we felt that many

of the post-World War II buildings, the mid-century

modern buildings were ignored in the landmark

commission's initiative and we think it was a great

oversight.

The other issue that we would love to bring up

is our concern as our President said, every plan

benefits from public oversight and public

discussion. And we feel that the -- as of right

landmark transfers we understand that not many of

them have happened. And they just [inaudible] by

our colleagues in the real estate business that

transfers will make the process of TDRs happen fast

perp we do feel there should be some level of public

review that's incorporated in those just we think

that makes for better buildings. Thank you.

>> Good evening. I'm Neil Hohmann, Vice

President of Yale Club, New York City. Thank you

for the opportunity to speak to you this evening.

The Yale Club is a not for profit membership club

that owns and occupies the land and building

located at 50 Vanderbilt Avenue between east 44th

and 45th Streets in Manhattan. We respectfully

express the club's opposition to the

implementation of the shared Streets program on

Vanderbilt Avenue as proposed by the Department of

transportation in connection with the zoning

proposal.

The club is the largest university club in the

world with over 11,000 members. It's a thriving

and bustling home for its members in Midtown. The

22-story club includes 100 guest rooms, three

restaurants, athletic facilities, banquet rooms

that can accommodate up to 350 guests. It

employees more than 250 people. And on a given day

over a thousand people come in and out of the club,

including many elderly and people with

disabilities.

The club was designated a New York City

landmark in November of last year. One of 12, as

mentioned by President Brewer and the prior

speaker. The East Midtown proposal provides for

public realm improvement fund. One such

improvement identified by the Department of

transportation in its presentations, without

consultation with the club, is the implementation

of its shared Streets program along Vanderbilt

Avenue, which would make pedestrians the primary

users of the Street. Such a restriction of

vehicular access would have a very significant

adverse impact on the club by impeding access by

emergency vehicles and club guests, including many

seniors and people with disabilities.

So details of the shared Streets program are

included in the Department of transportation's

presentation materials. Applying it to

Vanderbilt Avenue could essentially landlock the

club by severely limiting or impeding vehicular

access toes only public entrance on Vanderbilt

Avenue between 44th and 45th Streets. This could

result in unacceptable increased response times

for first responders and other emergency vehicles

which require immediate access with as few

obstructions as possible. In addition, requiring

club members arriving or departing by private car

or taxi to be dropped off or picked up on 45th Street

west of Vanderbilt or 44th and Madison, would

impose a hardship to many of the guests, including

the sizable elderly and disabled population. It's

the main entrance on Vanderbilt Avenue. The

club's business model and its employment relies on

revenue from the rooms, food, and member dues. All

which would be affected by the access. In

addition, the club, Grand Central terminal, all on

Vanderbilt, would be severely impacted by these

proposals. The club has been in continuous

operation with the entrance on Vanderbilt Avenue

for more than 100 years. And the services the club

provides are uniquely dependent on maintaining

unimpeded access to the entrance. We strongly

encourage any curtailment of vehicular access on

Vanderbilt to ensure the safety and vitality of the

club. Thank you.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Richard Bass of the American Jewish

committee. Joan Boyle, city resident.

>> Ma dad Borough President, thank you for

holding this hearing. I'm Richard Bass. Tonight

I represent the American Jewish Committee, AJC.

Our site is on the northwest corner of 56th Street

and Third Avenue. The AJC supports the public

policy that's articulated by this proposed

rezoning that would support the redevelopment of

older, obsolete buildings. Our small ask is that

the current closed boundary which stops on the

south side of 56th and third be extended 100 feet

north to the northwest corner. The AJC building

is 60 years old. It is built to FAR. It's

underbuilt, it's obsolete. The building

contiguous is almost 100 years old and built to a

5.8FAR. Together these two buildings would be

almost the poster child for this proposed rezoning.

We believe it should be included in this action.

So we ask you to support the moving of the district

boundary 100 feet. Also it could make the proposed

sub district co-terminus with the C66 zoning.

When you look at the map I presented, it's kind of

strange that this little corner is left out. Thank

you very much.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Is miss Boyle here?

>> Sorry. I'm a citizen. And I'm not used to

this.

>> That's okay.

>> I live in tutor city at 320 43rd. Catty

corner to the extension of this zone to block 1516.

So I was quite motivated when I saw that change in

addition to my having followed everything that's

been going on over this past period of hearings.

I've lived in tutor City for 25 years. I'm very

active in the neighborhood. I'm very active in the

parks that we have which are the most green space

in all of that zone. Heavily used by the

existing -- the existing number of office workers

so that those of us that must support these

publicly-available parks with our private funds do

fundraising in order to support them. We can't use

them during the day. It's weekend-only for us.

So I just want to point out that's one thing that

hasn't been brought up.

I submitted a number of other things in writing

to my community board. I went to the land use

committee meeting in order to see exactly what they

were planning on doing. And it's quite appalling.

And the idea not only of having east side of Third

Avenue, but having it just run all the way down 42nd

Street to Second Avenue. The other issue I want

to bring up, just as somebody that is very concerned

about the neighborhood.

We have a large number of luxury residential

buildings going up right around the area that

you're talking about. So we're talking about a

density of people, traffic, vehicles, and

everything else that goes with it that's not even

included in your extension of the office area. So

any of the too talls do a really -- a bad job for

us in the neighborhood. And there are about four

of them that come into being in just the last year.

So I want to thank my friends from the

municipal arts and point out that in January the

real estate excerpts in the New York Times spoke

of how Midtown east rezoning becomes a reality.

Which is kind of scary for those of us that actually

live there.

And then showed us a picture. A picture that

we may never see in the future of the Chrysler

building. It is already obscured on three sides.

All or in part. With residential buildings going

up between Second and Third. When this is

completed, and solo buildings to the east of tutor

City are completed, you won't see it. You won't

be able to see it from the highway, from the other

buildings across in Queens. Won't be able to see

it at all.

I just brought an illustration because it's

heartbreaking to me to live there for 25 years and

love building and know how many people also love

it. I just wanted to bring that up. My last

point. This whole thing the D.O.T. always does to

turn Street space into, you know, sit around space

would not work on 43rd Street. I saw that thing

they're going to put in one of those little parks.

It's a disaster. 43rd Street functions now as an

alley way to tall, tall buildings along 42nd

Street. You want delivery, take out the trash, you

must use that space. Streets are there for a

reason. In addition, there is a landmark church

Dechen block, and a number of small businesses.

All would be impacted. Just ludicrous. And, of

course, the homeless population in our area is

tremendous.

But the main thing I just call upon you to think

about what you are doing when you say, oh, let's

have greater density. You know, we have a very

successful area in East Midtown right now. And

it's already pushing our services and going to have

impacts on our open space. So I just thank you for

letting me talk. I'm just a person, but I really

care about this stuff. And I'd like to speak.

>> Thank you.

>> Barry Shapiro and Karina Sanchez from the

regional plan association.

>> Hello. I'm just speaking as a concerned

citizen. And about a month ago I printed up a

report which was I believe from your site, created

by your environmental impact group, BHB? And I'm

just reading from the end of the report which says,

unavoidable adverse impacts. The first that's

talked about is open space. And it says, the

proposed action would result in significant

adverse indirect open space impacts. And I'm

going to kind of like skip around. So forgive me

if it sounds a little disjointed. Mitigation

options are not available and therefore could not

be applied to reduce the indirect open space

impacts of the proposed action.

Absent additional measures that can be

implemented to mitigate these impacts, the

proposed actions, significant adverse open space

impacts would remain unmitigated. The next

section talks about shadows in particular.

Shadows that would fall on Saint Bart's church.

But I think other people have talked about the

impacts of shadows on parks and different places.

Historic and cultural resources. The proposed

action could result in significant adverse impacts

due to potential, partial, or complete demolition

of -- this says six historic sites. I don't know

at this point it might be more. I always think back

on what happened to Penn Station and so I'm a little

concerned about when I see the word "Demolition."

Mitigation would be inconsistent with the

overall purpose and need of the proposed action and

is considered infeasible and impractical. In

other words, these places got to go. All right?

Under transportation. Traffic. The report says,

as described in chapter 12, transportation of the

proposed action would result in significant

adverse traffic impacts at 116 intersections.

That's a lot of intersections. And without

detailing exactly what those impacts are, you know,

if you were asking me to make a decision on this

I'd say, you know, I don't know. I'd have to see

more detail.

Between the draft and final EIS, other

mitigation measures will be explored where

feasible. To further address the identified

impacts in the absence of the application of

mitigation measures. The impacts would remain

unmitigated. With respect to transit the report

identifies three areas in particular. That would

show -- result in significant adverse impacts at

three subway station complexes in the weekday a.m.

and p.m. commuter peak hours there at Grand

Central.

There at Lexington and 53rd. And they are at

42nd and Bryant Park. What are the impacts? I

don't know. I only have the summary here. So how

bad is it going to be? All I know is it says

"significant." So all of these from what I think

is your own report raise serious questions for me

as -- no? Did I say that wrong? I am right.

>> A plan clarification. The office of the

Borough President did not produce a report on the

environmental impacts. Those are things that are

provided as part of the public review process from

the Department of city planning. That is

available. There are links available to our

Website for those documents and on the Department

of city planning site.

>> I guess I spoke too generally from the city.

That's all I got say. Thank you.

>> [inaudible] Sanchez.

>> A lot shorter.

>> You could just hold it if that's

comfortable.

>> Let's see if I can move it. Hi, Good

evening, my name is [inaudible] Sanchez and I'm at

the regional plan association. Thank you for

hosting this meeting and for having us all here.

I'm very glad to hear some -- some of your remarks

tonight. So for anyone who might not be familiar

with RPA, we are a regional planning organization.

We have been around for about a hundred years. And

we do regional plans. We are in the process of

producing our fourth regional plan and we're

excited about the Midtown process. I guess I don't

have to -- so many other things that can be done

right in the urban planning and local planning.

So with respect to the rezoning, we were on the

steering committee that proposed a lot of the ideas

that you see in the current proposal. And so we,

again, thank you for your [inaudible] President and

council member Garodnick. I want to voice a few

concerns. First of all with respect to the transit

improvements that have been proposed by the MSA,

we are happy to see them. We recognize that ADA

accessibility is important. But we also are

hoping to see more efforts, more ideas come out in

both the course of the process perhaps to be allowed

to happen.

Second, related to transit improvements, but

related to the boundaries that have been proposed.

There is this idea of transit improvement zones.

Transit improvement zones state that you are within

a certain distance of a station then you are allowed

to contribute -- you are allowed to earn your FAR

by contributing in specific ways to improve the

transit network beneath you. So we would advocate

for the expansion of these transit improvement

zones. Specifically, the Grand Central

improvement zone up to 47th Street, why not go to

49th Street? Also with respect to boundaries, and

I'm kind of afraid of what I'm about to say, because

I really am. But Grand Central really is the

region's premier central business district. This

is one of the largest generators of prosperity in

the country, right? And recognizing that we want

to make sure that we emphasize this is a commercial

district and it should remain that way.

With respect to the boundaries if you left it

up to us, we should say you should go as far as

Second Avenue because of the Second Avenue subway

and all the improvements that are possible because

of that additional transit capacity, right? And

we hope at RPA in the future we will see the Second

Avenue extended northwards, maybe to the Bronx.

But it can serve so many more people.

With respect to public realm, we would push for

the identification of some mechanism to achieve the

public realm improvements. Because the special

permit process leaves it kind of up in the air. We

know that special permits have not been very

successful. We have had ten applications over the

last 30 years in existence for the additional FAR.

So we want that mechanism. And in general our

feeling is that we're happy to see the transit for

people maybe someday will be a consideration of

[inaudible] in the area. And we're happy with what

the D.O.T. has proposed. So I'm going to speed

this up because I know we're short on time.

But, you know, finally two things. One with

respect to residential conversions, as I said, this

is a commercial area. This is a commercial hub.

So we would advocate that in any residential state

that's enabled, why can't [inaudible] apply? We

don't quite understand the arguments that have been

put forward. And we would like to hear more about

that. And you should be enabling mixing of housing

where we can.

But really this isn't about housing at all.

And so we would -- in the buildings that are

currently able to convert fully to as of

ready -- fully as of ready to convert to

residential, we would suggest that this -- that

this would be reduced. My phone started buzzing.

And that's very distracting in the middle of the

thing. But in any case, we do not allow

conversion. So finding a way.

And finally, about the transit, the public

realm improvements fund. We would advocate for

that not to be fully controlled by the Mayor's

office. The mayoral agencies, no matter how you

may feel about today's Mayor, we really don't know

what the future holds and want to make sure that

the Borough President, the community boards and the

council member have a very strong voice in those

ones. Thank you.

>> I have a question. I have a question.

Thank you. But as you have been testifying all

over time. And you do a great job representing us.

So the issue of commercial and residential I asked

is a real challenge. So what would be some

suggestions maybe from other parts of the region

or other parts of your study areas that we would

be able to really focus on commercial? Because

obviously some want to make more money with

residential. We need the jobs. We need the area

to retain its commercial emphasis. Would you have

any ideas along those lines?

>> Well, there are better and worse places for

meeting some of these challenges. We do recognize

that at the regional scale we have a housing crisis

and affordable housing crisis. Talking about how

much displacement is a concern for the region's

residents. That said, East Midtown we really

emphasize should be commercial. And we should

really be thinking about other places.

I know you're very Manhattan-focused and love

your Borough.

>> I [inaudible] in the Borough.

>> But there's other Boroughs, our friends at

Jersey City. There's a lot of space in this region

to accommodate housing. And so we want to

emphasize that and really focus on East Midtown as

being a commercial area.

>> Okay. Staff will be here until 8:00. So

anyone who comes in up until 8:00 will be given the

opportunity to testify, otherwise the hearing will

be closed. This topic will be the topic of

discussion at the Manhattan Borough Ward's March

16th public meeting which is, as I said, public,

and is live streamed. The meeting will be at 1

Center Street, 19th floor, at 8:30 a.m. and we

expect the Borough Board to be adopting a

resolution on this measure.

So thank you, everyone, for attending. And we

will be here until a couple minutes after 8:00 for

anyone -- thank you, Simon.

[ Applause ]