Committee on Land Use

The webinar has started. Okay, good afternoon and welcome to the New York City hybrid hearing in the Committee on Land Use. Please silence all electronic devices at this time. If you have not yet filled out an appearance slip, please do that with the sergeant-at-arms in the back of the room. Also, please do not approach the dais. Thank you very much for your kind cooperation.

Chair. We are ready to begin.

Good afternoon everyone and welcome to a meeting of the Committee on Land Use. I am Council Member Kevin Riley, chair of this committee. I would like to welcome my esteemed colleagues. Today I'm joined by Chair Marte, Chair Lewis, Council Member Caban, Brewer, Perina Sanchez, Justin Sanchez, Encarnacion, Thomas Henry, Minority Leader Carr, Council Member Narcisse, and Councilmember Mikaela Santi-Suoso.

Excuse me, I got it right. All right. Yeah. At today's meeting, in about 10 minutes, for those of you waiting, we will open up an oversight hearing regarding Mayor Momdani's block-by-block housing plan, which was released earlier this year. As many of you know, the administration's ambitious plan targets 200,000 new construction affordable housing units and 200,000 preservation units, for a total of 400,000 affordable housing units in New York City over the next decade.

We look forward to a robust discussion of the mayor's plan with members of his administration who have joined us today. And we also look forward to hearing feedback from the public related to this plan. Right after we hear from the agencies in a few minutes, I will go over some procedural announcements regarding how members of the public may sign up to testify.

But before we get to our oversight hearing, the committee will take up some other business in the form of handling land use votes. Today we are voting on 3 proposals on the recommendations of our 2 subcommittees, and thank you always to Chair Martin and Chair Lewis for your leadership there. Today we will vote to approve LUs 129 and 130 related to the 48-50 Convent Avenue Cluster A and ANCP proposal in Minority Leader Abreu's district in Manhattan for UDAP approval and Article 11 tax exemption to facilitate the preservation of 4 buildings, including approximately 77 homeownership units.

We will also vote to approve LUs 142 and 143 related to the 1455 Coney Island Avenue rezoning proposal in Councilmember Felder's district in Brooklyn. for a zoning map and zoning text amendment to facilitate the development of a long-term care facility for seniors. And we will also vote to approve LUs 144 and 145 related to the 135-27 Sapphire Street rezoning proposal in Councilmember Areola's district in Queens for a zoning map amendment— excuse me, for a zoning map and zoning text amendment to facilitate the development of a new residential project including approximately 268 apartments in total, of which up to 80 will be permanently affordable with MIH.

I will now call for a vote with the support of the local members to approve LUs 129 and 130 for the Convent Avenue proposal, LUs 142 and 143 for the 1455 Coney Island Avenue rezoning, and LUs 144 and 145 for the 135- 27 Sapphire Street rezoning. Would the clerk please call the roll? Good after— excuse me. Good afternoon, William Martin, committee clerk.

Roll call vote, Committee on Land Use. All items are coupled. Chair Riley? Aye. Caban? Aye. Thank you. Lewis? Aye. Brooks Powers? I vote aye. Thank you. Abreu. Osei. Salam. Vou lá. Councilmember Banks. Oi. Thank you. Zhuang. Encarnacion. Aye. Justin Sanchez. Aye. Thomas Henry. Aye. Councilmember Carr. Aye. With a vote of 10 in the affirmative, 0 in the negative, no abstentions, all items have been approved by the committee as described by the chair.

Thank you. Just want to state for record, we've been joined by Councilmember Banks, Councilmember Salaam, and Majority Whip Hanks. Thank you to my committee colleagues, and thank you to the committee clerk. And now we'll open up our oversight hearing on today's agenda to address the administration's block-by-block housing plan. At the start, I will remind everyone that this meeting is being held in hybrid format, and members of the public may view a live stream broadcast of this meeting at the council's website.

Members of the public who wish to testify may do so either through Zoom or in person. Those wishing to testify by Zoom must register online at New York City Council's website at www.council.nyc.gov/landuse to sign up. For those of you here with us in person, if you registered online in advance, please be sure to see one of the sergeants-at-arms to prepare and submit a speaker's card.

We will limit public testimony to 2 minutes per witness. If you have additional testimony, or if you have written testimony you would like to submit, we ask you to please email it to landuse testimony at council.nyc.gov, and please include the phrase oversight mayor's housing plan in the subject line of your email. Lastly, I want to remind everyone that this is a government proceeding, and decorum must be observed at all times.

Members of the public are asked not to speak during the meeting unless you are testifying. The witness table is reserved for people who are called to testify, and no video recording or photography is allowed from the witness table. Members of the public may not present audio or video recordings as testimony, but you may submit transcripts of such recordings to the sergeant-at-arms for inclusion in the hearing record.

We are joined today by the administration officials, including Chair Cydnea Sherman from the City Planning Commission, who is the director of the Department of City Planning, and Michael Sandler, the Deputy Commissioner for the Office of Neighborhood Strategies from the Department of Housing Preservation and Development. We also have the Executive Director of Department of City Planning, Edith Su Chen.

Thank you again to all of you for participating in today's hearing. We've also been joined by Councilmember Zhuang. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We're going to pause just to take a vote real quick. Continuation roll call vote, Committee on Land Use. Council Member Juang. Aye. Thank you. Vote is now at 11. Thank you.

Across government and private sector, we all agree that New York City must aggressively increase the production of housing and affordable housing. The goal of the block-by-block plan are bold and extremely ambitious. 200,000 new affordable units as a part of 700,000 total new units over the next decade. This represents more housing at a faster rate than New York City has produced in over 100 years.

The administration alone cannot achieve this rate of housing production, and I want to remind you today, despite a narrative that too often pits the council against the administration, we are your partners, And the group of elected officials who best know the communities we were elected to represent. And we can effectively help you to achieve the goals laid out in this plan.

Details on how HPD and DCP intend to realistically achieve these numbers remain absent. We're ready to roll up our sleeves, engage on specifics, and do what government does best, which is set the stage for sustainable community development. that meets the larger needs of the city while remaining respectful and inclusive of everyone who calls New York City home.

So far in the press and at events, we've heard more about the efforts to fast-track developer applications than we've heard about the planning needed to support new housing. Housing cannot be thought of just in isolation. Successful housing is supported by access to jobs, Transportation, open space, schools, libraries, grocery stores, and other needed physical infrastructure. The data shows that from 2010 to 2020, city-led neighborhood rezonings were responsible for nearly 3 times more new housing units than private development applications.

This council, with leadership from Speaker Mendez and myself, has been loud and clear about the benefits of proactive planning Engaging with communities on the ground, and doing the hard work of understanding their needs and identifying the investments to support good growth and quality development. We are doing the work as shown by the council's initiative in Bay Ridge, Staten Island's North Shore, and in Park Webster section of the Bronx.

We know that DCP understands the value of community engagement and neighborhood rezoning provided the needed local investment along with new housing. Recently, DCPS promoted the example of the East New York Neighborhood Plan. In the 10 years since the plan was approved, over 6,000 units of housing has been built, more than 50% affordable, alongside hundreds of millions of dollars of city investments for neighborhood improvements, including new school seats, improved parks, and open space facilities, And other critical infrastructure needed.

The council is proud to partner on this neighborhood rezoning, which represents the success that can be achieved through proactive neighborhood planning. We all want to move fast, but the housing our constituents need will not be created unless we move together and in the same direction. Creating healthy, diverse communities takes time, investment, and meaningful engagement. And so while I applaud the vision and the goals of the mayor's block-by-block plan and want the administration to be successful, there are a lot of questions that remain.

When will we start seeing the details of how DCP and HPD intend to build more affordable housing in the fast-track districts? How can communities in targeted fast-track areas learn about and participate in any of these efforts? Is there a vision for planning with communities for an affordable and most importantly, livable New York City. What is the role of neighborhood planning in this administration?

Will HPD work to build the kind of housing that New Yorkers tell us they want, like opportunities for homeownership and family-sized units, or simply prioritize the bottom line total count of affordable units? What will the administration do to work with partners at the state and federal level to secure sustained funding for infrastructure and housing? We cannot focus only on taxing the rich or building over rail yards.

The most populous city in the country needs all hands on deck, approach to solving the affordability crisis. Beyond these larger questions, I have specific questions about the initiatives in the mayor's plan, and I hope we can start to fill some of those information gaps today. There have been no updates on many of the block-by-block proposals since the plan released in May.

DCP has not been forthcoming with the microplans, and HPD has not told us how they plan to expand their financial tools. The details matter, and we are here to tease them out. And I want to do sure— do— excuse me. And I want to be sure that the recently adopted procedural tools don't paper over the needed for planning and community engagement to ensure local needs are met and that all agencies that contribute to the development of our city can be held accountable by future generations.

For the way in which we set out to transform New York City. So the objective is clear today, is to start the conversation about how to expedite the construction of housing while supporting our existing communities. We cannot lose sight of the fact that building new affordable housing is critical for New York City to thrive, but is not sufficient by itself.

How we build, what we build, and where we build will determine the future success of our communities and of the city.

And with that, I will ask the committee counsel to administer oath and invite our administration to— our speakers to begin. Would you please raise your right hand? I'll ask you, uh, each in turn to answer the following. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in your testimony before this committee and in answer to all council member questions?

Chair, uh, Sherman? I do. Deputy Commissioner Sandler? I do. Thank you. You probably want to swear either thing. Sorry. Executive Director Su Chen. I do. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Riley, and distinguished members of the Land Use Committee. I'm Sadia Sherman, Chair of the City Planning Commission and Director of the New York City Department of Planning. I'm joined here today by Michael Sandler, Deputy Commissioner for the Office of Neighborhood Strategies at HPD, as well as my colleagues from DCP, including Executive Director Edith Su Chen.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak with you today. When I last testified before you, I was 6 days into my role at the Department of City Planning. At that time in March, I spoke about the urgency of our city's housing crisis and what it requires of us at DCP— unlocking significantly more housing across neighborhoods, streamlining how we work to deliver homes faster, sector, and planning for a fairer, more equitable city. 7 months later, I can confirm that this has remained the focus of our work.

Earlier this year, Mayor Mondani released block-by-block— the block-by-block housing plan, which takes an all-of-the-above approach to tackling our housing crisis, combining ambitious affordable housing production goals with investments in public housing, new tools to protect tenants, support for homeownership, and much more. At City Planning, along with our partners at HPD, we are translating that vision into action on many fronts.

First, we are working to create more housing choices in more parts of the city. We have rapidly advanced neighborhood planning efforts along White Plains Road in the Bronx and McDonald's Avenue and Coney Island Avenue in Brooklyn, working closely with community and City Council partners like Chair Riley to develop comprehensive plans that update outdated zoning create more housing, require permanent affordability, support local businesses, and deliver needed investments.

We greatly appreciate the council's collaboration and partnership in these efforts. We are also developing a citywide transit-oriented development initiative. We have one of the world's most expensive— extensive subway systems, and it is the lifeblood of our city. But in too many places, restrictive zoning limits housing even directly next subway stations. That means fewer homes near transit, longer commutes, and less access to jobs, schools, services, and opportunity.

Through this initiative, we can fix outdated rules, expand housing opportunity, and require affordability so more New Yorkers across all income levels can live close to the transit system they rely on. As the proposal takes shape, we look forward to engaging closely with the council and working together to build the support needed to move forward. Second, we're focused on streamlining how we work to deliver housing at speed.

As I know our council colleagues agree, government must work deliberately and rigorously, but added processes and unnecessary delay— unnecessary delay has real consequences. When an affordable apartment is delayed, it means a family spends another year doubled up with relatives, another year commuting long distances, another year without a stable home. When a project becomes more expensive to build, it means tenants pay more in rent.

And this doesn't even account for housing projects that never materialize to begin with. Through Mayor Mondani's SPEED initiative, we are streamlining how housing proposals move through city government. Recent state reforms to CEQA created a window for significant improvements, and we are taking additional steps this fall to bring qualified housing projects through precertification in approximately 6 months, down from roughly 2 years.

We have already worked hard to identify projects in our pipeline that meet the SEQR exemption and can reach public review faster. One recent project on Linden Place in Flushing, Queens, reached nearly— reached review nearly an entire year earlier. These time savings don't simply affect project timelines. They improve people's lives. Every home we can deliver faster is a New Yorker who gets in that home sooner.

Third, we are working to make housing growth fairer and more equitable. This month, together with HPD, we released the inaugural Fair Housing Growth Strategy, a council-mandated assessment of our housing shortage and framework for meeting that need in a fair and equitable way. Fundamentally, the goal is for New Yorkers of all incomes and backgrounds to have more choices about where they live in the city.

And we're grateful to the council for its leadership in establishing this important framework. That same vision underlies the Affordable Housing Fast Track, one of the new tools voters approved last November. The 12 Fast Track districts we announced earlier this month represent roughly 20% of the city's districts, but produce just 1% of the city's affordable housing over the last 5 years.

We cannot solve a citywide housing crisis by relying on the same handful of neighborhoods. By helping affordable housing move forward where production has lagged, the fast track will expand housing choices, address entrenched patterns of unbalanced growth, and help create a fairer, more affordable city. But housing is only one part of city planning's agenda. Our team remains focused on supporting the 2030 census, modernizing the city map and address assignment system, planning for resilient waterfronts and thriving industrial and commercial areas, improving how we engage and support community boards, and providing data and insight that helps— that can help guide decisions across city government.

And of course, none of this work happens in isolation. When I appeared before you in March, I said that I looked forward to a strong and collaborative relationship with the council. And we know that meeting the needs of New Yorkers will require all of us working together. The affordability crisis remains profound. But over the last several months, we have put new tools in place, launched ambitious planning efforts, and begun changing the way government works so that we can deliver more effectively.

There is so much more work ahead, and we look forward to continuing it all in partnership with you. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to start with a first round of questions, then I'm going to allow my colleagues to jump in. Okay. So the block-by-block states that DCP and HPD will seek to use the Affordable Housing Fast Track proactively, exploring city-sponsored land use actions in these districts. Is DCP currently studying conditions in the 12 affected community districts to identify opportunities for upzoning that will produce new construction affordable housing?

Thank you for your question. So as noted earlier this month, we released the 12 affordable housing fast-track communities. These are the communities where we've seen affordable housing production lagging. We, along with our agency partners, are certainly assessing opportunities in those neighborhoods, whether we see opportunities for growth or well as opportunities for city-led housing initiatives such as housing that can be subsidized as well as some of our LIFT initiatives.

And so we're taking that look. The list was just produced earlier this month. The fast track goes into effect in January, and one of the things that we would like to do is also ensure that we are in conversation with those members so that we can be strategic about the opportunities that are before us. Will DCP be releasing any public analysis on the fast track?

So the analysis that we released really is the housing production level. As you know, we— and I know that we have had conversations with councilmembers recently around the fast track. We have no specific plans at this time for actions in those neighborhoods. We are literally assessing that as we And anything that we would move forward with, we want to make sure that we're having conversations with councilmembers in those affected districts first.

And so we've started some of that review. I know I've had conversations with also coming out to certain districts to walk the communities, make sure that we understand what those opportunities are. But there's no additional analysis other than the methodology that we use to determine the fast-track neighborhoods. So the administration plans to connect with councilmembers, as you stated, you already have been doing, and the community board.

Sure. So when we announced the fast track, we also— as we gave notice to councilmembers, we also reached out to every community board in the city, including those that were unaffected. We have community board trainings happening right now going through the fall on a number of reforms, including the fast track. And we also have a public information session in December to make sure that community boards, the public, are aware of the fast track.

I've also, as I've reached out to councilmembers individually, have offered to also come out to districts and understand what the opportunities are there. So with doing the rezoning in these specific districts, do you guys plan on partnering with sister agencies like DOT, New York City Public Schools, Parks to address the development or the upzoning that you're trying to do in these communities?

Sure. So I would say that there's a question about scale, right? So every fast-track neighborhood is different. We have high-density districts, mid-density, low-density districts, the types of city-led actions that can happen in these districts also range. Some offer opportunities for rezoning. Some may be more appropriate for HPD affordable housing tools. Some may be appropriate for some of the other city-led housing initiatives that we're looking to promote.

And so I think we're looking at every neighborhood unique and in a unique way, and any city-led action that we have would certainly happen in concert with conversations with council members, affected community members, and where we— if we were to pursue larger-scale rezonings, for instance, in any of those neighborhoods, those would typically come paired with the types of investments that go with large-scale rezonings.

But I would just note that many of the fast-track neighborhoods are very unique, right? So we have very, very— some very low-density districts as well as high-density districts. We really want to be thoughtful in the way that we're approaching those opportunities. Glad to hear that. I just feel like a lot of members feel like the investment aspect is not really being talked about a lot.

The focus is really on we need to upzone, we need units, and a lot of members have specific concerns within those communities that need investment. Mm-hmm. So what can DCP, I guess, do better with communicating that with members that you guys will be prioritizing doing a full planning in those areas that you guys are focusing on instead of just looking at just, Absolutely.

So I'll just take a step back. Capital planning is an exercise that happens across the city routinely, right? The vast majority of housing that's being developed in our city is happening as of right. Neighborhoods are constantly changing. It's important that the city is constantly understanding its capital needs, status of good repair, and that's ongoing. As we start to pursue any city-led actions in these communities, we are also in conversation with our capital agencies to understand the infrastructure needs, planned investments, as well as making sure that they understand these communities are prioritized for affordable housing as we start to assess those opportunities.

If we were to pursue a larger-scale rezoning, for instance, in one of those communities, we would certainly pair that with any investment that's needed to mitigate issues that may have emerged during our environmental impact study, the types of investments— What is a large scale? Say for the record, what would that be considered? There's a range. I mean, in the last administration, a typical neighborhood rezoning was anywhere from 10,000 to 14,000 new units of housing, but we also have examples like Bronx Metro North, which was 7,000 units, right, along the corridor, so— or Atlantic Avenue, which was around 5,000.

So there's a range depending on the study area, but each of those projects came with investments that were aligned with the level of growth. Okay. The City Council Planning and Land Use Division has been begun working with councilmembers in the fast-track areas to understand development potential. In some cases, councilmembers and community boards may decide to propose ideas for neighborhood rezonance as a preferred way to add new development alongside community engagement and city investment in infrastructure and services.

Is DCP open to working collaboratively with councilmembers and communities on this approach? Yes, we welcome that, and I know that Councilmember Santos-Oso and a number of other councilmembers have started to look at those types of opportunities, Councilmember Hanks, as well as opportunities in their communities. So we look forward to that. We look forward to learning more details.

And we're happy to work proactively together. In addition to potential DCP-led rezoning, is it— it is also expected that the affordable housing fast track will lead to many private developer applications for which the City Planning Commission will now be the final vote. In the ULURP process, tough issues are usually resolved by the City Council's negotiation with the applicant on a final agreement.

These agreements might include modifications and commitments for local investment or other community benefits. For fast-track applications, will DCP provide the City Plan Commission the capacity and resources to engage on these issues? Absolutely. So when an application is moving through ULURP, Long before it reaches the City Planning Commission, at the department level, we also are ensuring, to the extent that environmental impact review is required, we are ensuring that that's completed.

We're identifying whether there's a need for mitigation. The City Planning Commission has that information available as they start to research the proposal. There's certainly times in City Planning Commission hearings where we've brought up mitigation that has been identified in an EIS to ensure that the developer is committed to committing to that. The City Planning Commission also has the ability to recommend modifications to the MIH options, for instance.

Typically, we have deferred to the City Council in those types of decisions, but when we are the final vote in some of the fast-track districts, those are the types of modifications we certainly can discuss and recommend and make as part of our final report. I envision that we, you know, in my role as department director in particular, that we remain in close conversation with the council.

And as you are well aware, a lot of the engagement around projects happens well before the formal public review process, where developers are already engaging community council members and stakeholders around priorities so that by the time they've reached the commission, there's been lots of modifications to applications, usually before they get to the commission level. So you still commit on engaging with council members through CPC Sure, absolutely.

And again, at the department level as well too. We certainly will ensure that we continue to engage with you all.

With the changes to SEQR, many private applications will skip environmental review. Without environmental review, how would DCP be informed on whether there is sufficient open space, sewer capacity, school seats, pre-K availability, public transportation access, and other infrastructure to support development? Thank you for your question. So there are a subset of projects now that are exempt from CEQA based on recent passage at the state level, which really is exempting projects that are relatively modest, 250 units to low to mid-density districts, 500 in higher density districts.

This exemption really came from a 10-year analysis that showed us that across all of these projects, less than 1% produce an environmental impact. And so these were projects that were previously really held in about 2 years of review where there was no impact produced, and which obviously is adding time and cost. Based on our analysis, we saw that it added over $80,000 in additional cost per unit.

And so we will certainly continue to move those projects forward as they are CEQA exempt, but they are still subject to land use review. review, right? That does not change. The ULURP process doesn't change either. And so questions about height, density, bulk, all of the relation to the neighborhood, public realm, those questions will still come up and are part of our land use review process.

What has changed, however, is the EIS process, which again, based on 10 years of analysis, was not producing an impact or requiring mitigation. But on average, Chair, we don't really see those type of projects come to the committee. You don't really see the 250, 500, unit projects a lot. You really see smaller projects coming to the committee.

So just wanted to confirm that even though it is going through SEQR, you are still going to have that same conversation with members to figure out what type of commitments, because these are technically kind of larger projects than we're, we're used to seeing within the Land Use Committee. Absolutely. And I will note that there are projects that will be— that are exempt from CCRA but are still subject to the traditional ULURP process.

So if those projects are in districts outside of the 12 fast-track districts, they are still going to City Council for final approval. The projects that are in the fast-track districts would be the ones that are going through this expedited process. Okay.

I'm going to go into the next question. Another set of questions. So since 2016, neighborhood plan rezonings have been one of DCP's primary tools. We're doing one in my district right now to add housing development capacity alongside infrastructure and community investment to support growth. Over the last decade, neighborhood rezonings have enabled nearly 80,000 projected additional housing units.

DCP is currently only undertaking 2 neighborhood plans, one in my district, And one south of Prospect as compared to the 5 neighborhood rezonings during the prior term. Is DCP actively looking to add more neighborhood rezonings to the pipeline, and does the administration have a goal as to the number of neighborhood rezonings it is seeking to accomplish? And within that, has OMB set aside capital funding for those rezonings?

Thank you for your question, and again, thank you for your partnership on White Plains Road. I know that there's been a lot of work that's going into that plan in particular. So we announced our first 2 neighborhood plans early in this administration. They are the first 2, but certainly not the last. We will continue to move forward neighborhood plans.

We are also looking at other opportunities relative to the fast-track neighborhoods that may be more modest than our traditional neighborhood plans based on the scale of those communities, but we know neighborhood plans are essential to really unlocking housing opportunity, but also Ensuring that we're bringing economic investment, supporting job creation, making sure that we have livable neighborhoods that have been informed by community input.

So there is a commitment to neighborhood planning, absolutely, in this administration, and as we refine our plans, we would, you know, be excited to share more neighborhoods that we would like to focus on. With regard to your question regarding OMB investing in capital improvement, So all of our neighborhood plans, whether it's been the last administration or this administration, have been paired with significant investment.

And that is typically investment that emerges through, again, our environmental impact study where we're identifying where there's a need for capital or other investment to mitigate issues or to, for instance, bring about new school seats. There's also a world in which we're looking to accelerate existing planned work based on the housing growth that we project. As well as investments tied to what we heard from community, whether it's street improvement or public realm, as well as services and opportunities.

And so that will certainly be part of the White Plains Road plan, south of Prospect, and any other neighborhood plan that we move forward. The Block by Block report also proposes microplans, a new concept of publicly led planning actions that are smaller than neighborhood rezoning. What exactly is a microplan, and would it involve community engagement and planning investments like a neighborhood rezoning?

Thank you for your question. So what we're really talking about is just a difference in planning approach. Typically, as I mentioned earlier, we pursued large-scale neighborhood plans, which we will continue to do. We have new tools at our disposal such as ELURP, which is an expedited land use review process. We have CEQA reform, which can allow the agency to potentially move in a way that's more flexible and more nimble for small-scale rezoning opportunities that may be a catalyst for a community that can help activate and unlock sites that can be suitable for housing.

Any city-led action will absolutely include engagement with communities and investment that's appropriate to the scale of the action. But what if there's multiple small projects in a single area? What is the approach DCP is going to take for that? So we have not identified plans right now. We've been focused on larger plans. I think if we, you know, as we get to a place where we're looking at smaller-scale plans, We would certainly see what those plans mean in the aggregate and whether they are actually a larger plan.

But in all of those scenarios, we would still, again, identify opportunity for investment, make sure that we're engaging the local councilmember and the community. Do you foresee the micro plans taking advantage of the CEQA exemptions? So, yeah, and I would just— again, a plan is a plan regardless of the size. If we have a plan that is at the scale of SEQR exemption, that would allow us to move it along more quickly.

But again, it doesn't change the land use review process. We would still need to go through all the steps of ULURP. Okay. I'm going to pause there. I'm just going to allow my colleagues to ask some questions. One second. So we're going to do rounds. We're going to allow members to have 3 minutes for the first round, and then we'll go into a second round, okay?

We're going to begin first with Chair Lewis, followed by Chair Marte, then, uh, Perina Sanchez.

Thank you, Chair Riley, and it's good to see you, uh, Chair Sherman. Um, 3 quick questions. You mentioned in your testimony development of the citywide transit-oriented development initiative, and I wanted to ask you a question around Interborough Express. Given that Interborough Express is still years away from operation. How is DCP planning for communities in Central Brooklyn, including districts like mine, the 45th, that will be affected by the arrival of this new transit line?

Thank you for your question, Councilmember, and thank you for your partnership on the South of Prospect Plan. Transit-oriented development is certainly a cornerstone of Block by Block. It offers a tremendous opportunity for us to focus on developing housing, developing affordable housing, and bringing New Yorkers closer to transit. We have over 650 miles of transit in our city.

Believe it or not, some areas of our city, we still see outdated zoning where the zoning is really not matching the potential that the transit offers. So with respect to the IBX, one of our first neighborhood plans is South of Prospect, which we know will intersect with the future IBX line. Mm-hmm. We have factored that into how we're planning in that community, and by design, the IBX line, the nodes, right, connect to our existing transit system.

And so there's a lot of opportunity for us to think about as we plan for growth around our existing transit system, how that also can set the stage for future IBX as well as other lines. In the last administration, there was planning around the future stations of the Bronx Metro-North, and we know that the timeline for that has shifted, but planning is for the long term.

And so, you know, we're looking at this work much, you know, very much in the long term and making sure that we're at least unlocking the zoning tools that we need to ensure that as those stations emerge, we've planned for the growth and neighborhood vitality that's needed starting in South of Prospect. Got it. Public engagement has begun on the South of Prospect neighborhood plan, thanks to your team, which is close to the IBX alignment.

In the context of this plan, has DCP begun thinking about where housing would go around projected stations? So we're still in the very early stages, particularly with developing our overall transit-oriented development proposal, but also with South of Prospect. So as you know, we had our kickoff meeting last month. We had a really great turnout. We've had over 1,000 residents participate in our survey.

We have some walkshops coming up this week as well too. And so we've not yet started to project where housing will go, what potential zoning framework is in that district. We want to make sure that we're hearing from community. We certainly are hearing housing is a priority, street safety is a priority, public space is a priority. And so we're factoring all of that into the plans moving forward.

Thank you. And how will DCP— and I think Chair Riley alluded to this earlier— but how will DCP approach private developers' applications who will use the future IBX as a rationale for That's a great question. I think every time we receive a private application, we're looking at the land use rationale relative to the surrounding context. We know that certainly locating housing near transit is essential.

It's climate-friendly development. It supports fair housing. And so to the extent that applicants are looking to maximize transit opportunities, we certainly welcome that, right? Obviously treat any application with the same scrutiny and respect to environmental review and land use review, but those are certainly factors, right, where there's connectivity to transit is important. Right. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Chair Riley. Thank you.

Chair Monte. Thank you for being here, and thank you, Chair Riley, for hosting this hearing. In the block-by-block plan, 100 Gold is mentioned. However, what's not mentioned, a part of the plan, is the zoning tax amendment that's associated with the ULURP, which will allow 30 FAR in the whole special Lower Manhattan District. My fear is that you guys are allowing unprecedented development, and I'll give my colleagues here— most people don't even have R-8 in their district, but a 30 FAR will allow, like what's being proposed at 100 Gold, which will allow 4,000 units. in probably the biggest building in Lower Manhattan.

And so allowing that to be mapped all throughout Lower Manhattan without having a proper discourse with other stakeholders in the community makes it seem like 2 things. One, you're using 100 Gold as a Trojan horse to map the rest of the neighborhood. And B, there's not going to be an adequate discussion of infrastructure, school seats, or anything else Because you're using it as a segmentation.

You're trying to do one thing at a time, so then it doesn't seem like a big proposal. I know the response is going to say, well, the developers, whether it's the city or private, will still have to go individual rezoning because nothing is mapped R-12 in this community. But if you put the cart before the horse, then it might allow you to say, oh, there's not going to be adverse damage to this community because you're going to be looking at it as isolated individuals.

One, my recommendation is to separate that whole text amendment from 100 Gold. We can have that discussion and figure out a plan for that site. But what I fear is that you guys are actually not doing planning for my community. You're not thinking about the infrastructure for my community by going down this route. So I can jump in there, and thank you, Councilmember.

And, and I know I recognize your concerns. Obviously, with the lifting of the FAR cap, It is certainly creating a new Manhattan skyline, a new city skyline, right? Creating an opportunity to build in ways that we haven't before to really meet our housing crisis. There's a really tremendous opportunity at 100 Gold to create affordable housing in a neighborhood that, as you know, is very well connected to transit and other resources.

I think we certainly take your note regarding the text amendment and the actual action, both of which would require public review. I don't have before me the text amendment. for me actually where the status of both of those. I don't know if we have that, but we can certainly follow up with you on that. But we want to make sure that as that project moves forward or any project, right, in a future RF-1230, any future district, particularly as we start to see these new districts emerge, that we're completing a study and we're understanding the community needs.

And I would ask that you just do it as a separate application. There's going to be a lot of stakeholders that aren't aware that you're even mapping a 30 FAR in their neighborhood, and I feel like that's really disrespectful to our community. I understand, Councilmember Brewer, and my colleague Edith Su Chen also may be able to provide more detail.

Yes, sure. Any future application of the— any future application of a 30 FAR would have to go through a separate rezoning. before this body, before City Council. And then with respect to where we are in the public process for 100 Gold, a scoping hearing will be held on the 29th, October 29th, very soon. I completely understand that, but any future rezoning can be a spot rezoning, right?

It doesn't have to take that adverse impact that allowing a mapping of a whole district that even includes this building and includes parts of the seaport parts of lower Faidai, I think, is a way to get away from actually thinking about what are some of the worst-case scenarios and how it's going to have adverse impact to our community, to our commercial businesses, and to our infrastructure.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Next, we're going to hear from Councilmember Perina Sanchez. Thank you so much, Chair Riley. And this is a moment where I appreciate that housing is split among so many committees because it's just so much to talk about. So I'm going to ask all my questions in succession. First, thank you for meeting with us, the land use team and our committee, taking some of our recommendations into consideration between the draft and final reports of the fair housing growth strategies.

Strategy, I was glad to see that access to transit and tidal flooding vulnerability have now been factored into the community district targets. but other factors specified in our local laws were not included. Why did the administration not include specific long-term needs for affordable, deeply affordable, and formerly homeless units? The draft and final plan speak only to the administration's commitments, but does not fully encompass the housing needs of New Yorkers.

And establishing the long-term need disaggregated by housing type is a clear requirement in local law. Second, in some neighborhoods, channeling Councilmember Gale Brewer, Generating new construction of affordable housing at scale may only be possible with demolition of existing rent-stabilized units or other existing properties. Has DCP and HPD considered this in setting new construction targets? Third, how did the administration arrive at a citywide target of 25% affordable housing with only 7.3% at a deeply affordable level?

And finally, the block-by-block housing plan proposes new planning— a new planning initiative for HPD called the Spotlight on the Bronx. An intensive planning process to coordinate proactive government actions in Community Districts 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8, where HPD has financed tens of thousands of units of affordable housing, but planning for complete neighborhoods has lagged behind.

Can you provide us with a status update on whether the process has started? How are you planning to engage community boards and local elected officials? And do you have specific areas of the Bronx where you are going to be addressing quality of life barriers like improved sanitation and public space? And finally, is HPD going to be coordinating a package of capital improvements for these areas and engaging partner agencies?

Thank you. Chair, I'm just going to ask— some people can't hear you online, so if you could just talk a little bit more into the mic. Sure. Okay. So thank you for your questions, Councilmember. I'll kick things off and then I'll turn it over to my colleague. You know, I want to thank the council for your leadership in creating the fair housing growth strategy and requiring it.

It really requires the city to be able to complete an assessment of the housing need that we have and really sets a goal for us to achieve. A lot of the work that we plan to accomplish through Block by Block starts to get us there, but with a commitment of building over 200,000 new affordable units and a number of the strategies that we've outlined in the plan sort of speak to that level of implementation.

Before I turn to my colleagues to speak a little bit more about the methodology, I do want to address your question regarding rezonings and the potential for displacement. This is a very important question. As we are looking for opportunities for rezoning, we are certainly very sensitive to ensuring that we're not disrupting existing housing, and particularly rent-stabilized housing and our deeply affordable housing that exists.

We know that there are a number of laws at the state level that make it very difficult to demolish— unilaterally demolish rent-stabilized housing in our city, in addition to tenant protections. And a lot of the tenant protection work that's been happening in this administration has also been built to ensure that we're bolstering that. And so as we're looking at opportunities, particularly in neighborhoods that are dense, where we know development is happening, right, we're trying to find opportunities to use tools such as MIH to really pair affordable housing requirements with development activity that's happening.

There's also opportunities for office-to-residential conversion. as well as tools that the city has through its LIHTC task force and other sort of subsidy tools that can be utilized in some of the development that's happening. And so ensuring that we are approaching our planning and our rezoning efforts with a clear eye towards tenant protection is important, and that's sort of certainly captured in the block-by-block plan as 2 very important strategies that go hand in hand.

I will turn it over to you, Michael, on the methodology.

Thank you. Sure, thank you. So just on the affordable need, I think the HPD and the DCP team really dug in on the methodology that was outlined in the legislation and tried to meet the letter and the spirit of this bill to create a citywide framework for how— what is the city's need in terms of creating housing and how should that need be distributed across the 59 community districts.

When projecting out in 10 years, we sought to have methodological rigor and numbers that we could stand behind and that felt like they were defensible. You'll see in the needs analysis, we use population data. We looked at who is already here in our city that doesn't have housing and what type of housing is near, how much housing is needed to meet that need.

Then also, what type of population growth are we expecting from births, deaths, in-migration, out-migration? And in terms of looking at the affordable need, it's very difficult to predict affordable need given the incredibly constrained environment that we have right now in New York City. We see that the city's, you know, the AMI, which is how affordable levels are determined in affordable housing in New York City, is based around market rent.

And so eligibility for affordable housing is based around the city's fair market rent and who needs and who qualifies for affordable housing is very kind of circularly dependent on that availability of housing generally and what housing costs in the open market. And so we felt that it's very hard to know what the affordable housing need would be in 10 years if the broader housing growth has been met.

It's very difficult to predict. And so we felt that what was kind of made the most sense to share with New Yorkers is what we're committed to do on affordable housing and that We know that there's a very incredible need right now, and the mayor's block-by-block housing plan has incredibly ambitious targets for affordable housing, greater than we've ever done before.

And so we're sort of basing around what's our North Star for affordable housing is based around those targets in the housing plan. On the— I guess sticking with that for a second, your question about why was the citywide target for affordable housing 25%. Again, that goes back to the affordable targets for the growth— for the fair housing growth strategy come directly from the mayor's housing plan.

So unlike the broader kind of overall housing growth projections, the affordable targets are what we're budgeting for and what we're planning for and what we want to hit. So those are the targets that come directly from the housing plan. And the 25% is really a function of— that's just what percent those targets are of that overall housing production that we're targeting for the city.

And then in terms of the deeply affordable target, again, those come from our budgeted projections through the housing plan. We create affordable housing through a mix of as-of-right programs that have affordability levels that are set by those programs. And then on the housing that we finance, 50% of that housing is for extremely low and very low incomes.

And then spotlight on the Bronx. We're very excited to be kicking this off and focusing on quality of life. and health in the South Bronx and the Northwest Bronx. I'm happy to also note that we're going to add Community District 2 to that list of many community districts, which shares many of the characteristics of the other communities there.

We've started conversations with our interagency partners. We do see core partners at the Department of Health. We're really focusing on healthy homes and how the housing stock in this community is impacting economic outcomes and health. We're also working closely with the Mayor's Office to Protect Tenants, the Mayor's Office of Community Safety, and the New York City Housing Authority.

We've started scoping out what this looks like, but really what we want to do is focus on not creating new units but creating quality of life. And so we're going to be focused on conditions inside of homes, combining enforcement and investments in healthy homes, and then we're going to be focused on public spaces, especially focused around the public spaces around existing affordable housing.

We'll say that broadly as HPD-supported affordable housing, NYCHA, or rent-stabilized housing. There's large concentrations of this housing stock in these community districts, and what we hear from residents of these buildings that we've supported through our programs is that the quality of life that they're receiving after moving into affordable housing is lagging. And so we want to focus on public space maintenance, public space cleanliness, safety around affordable housing assets, and we will be working with the various agencies, community partners, and landlords to achieve that and want to start kicking off community board conversations, councilmember conversations, hopefully later this year.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember.

I'm going to go into Councilmember Carr, followed by Thomas Henry and Selvina Brooks-Powell. Just one second, Councilmember Carr. Just to add on to Chair Marte's question. I think what he's alluding to is, how much is projected for 100 Gold Street? 4,000? 4,000. Now, before 2021, I think besides Gowanus, we haven't achieved 4,000 units in a neighborhood plan.

And I think that's just a— he's alluding to that's a spot zoning and wants to talk about a more comprehensive plan in the area. And I think that kind of alludes to what we're trying to get at today, is that the focus should not just be on the unit count within the area, but a more comprehensive plan in the area, because putting 4,000 people there and not making sure that you're investing in the total community and listening to all stakeholders in community is doing a tremendous disservice to, you know, New Yorkers.

So just wanted to pinpoint that, um, Chair, to you.

Um, next we're going to hear from Minority Leader Carr, followed by Thomas Henry, um, and Selvina Brooks-Powers, then Banks. And we've been joined by Councilmember Lee. Thank you, Chair Riley, for hosting this very important hearing. Madam Chair, thank you for being with us today. I'm very concerned, and so are the many people I represent, with respect to the new approach under ELURP, where now the council no longer has a role in negotiating the final details of a plan, and it's, you know, selectively applied, right?

And that was the intention of the revision. And so now some members continue to have this role and others don't. In my own district, there's actually, you know, 5 community districts, and 3 of them are going to be subject to the Bottom 12 fast-tracking, and the other 2 aren't. And so I'm just curious to know from your perspective, with this new responsibility where you're going to be negotiating the final details of these projects as they come, what is going to be the approach to infrastructure?

The Chair was talking about this earlier. How are you going to make that assessment? You were asked earlier about, you know, what are you looking at in terms of these 12 community districts in terms of housing opportunities? Alongside that, are you doing infrastructure studies to determine what is needed based on the anticipated growth of the rezonings that you're going to be pursuing in conjunction with private parties?

Who are you going to be essentially giving this task to within the department? Is it going to be the Board of Directors? Is it going to be held more centrally at the department with the commission? Is it going to be certain commissioners who kind of take a more forward role in this? Like, we'd love to know what the structure is going to be as that happens.

And then how are you going to incorporate local input, whether that's from a member, a community board, members of the public? Because I think the concern is, is that once this system is really put into effect, that any consultation is just going to be pro forma. And I think that that would be, you know, again, disservice was used earlier, to be disservice to the communities we represent if that turned out to be the case.

Thank you, Councilmember. So, you know, I would note that we, as projects are potentially proposed in the fast-track districts, we will treat them the same way we do projects today, where we are, if an environmental review is If they are subject to one, right, we are ensuring that happens. If there's a need for mitigation, we're making sure that that's happening.

There is still community board review, borough president review, as well as public testimony at the City Planning Commission. There's also department-level work that happens during the precertification process as well, which leads to lots of proposal refinement. And developers typically are refining proposals long before they reach the City Planning Commission. With respect to capital planning and capital needs, As I shared before, that really is an ongoing process, right?

There is the overarching need for the city to ensure that we are strategically planning our capital resources. One priority that I've had since being in this role is ensuring that DCP has even a stronger role in the capital planning process so that we're aligning our resources along with where we see growth opportunity happening, and that's certainly in these fast-track districts.

But there's also capital investment that can be tied to certain city-led actions, larger-scale planning initiatives, to the extent that those would be pursued in your district. And so I want to ensure you that as these projects move through, there is close attention to community feedback, to capital needs, to infrastructure needs, and certainly ongoing conversation with the council so that we can make sure we understand your priorities.

The last point that I would flag is, as I shared earlier, at the City Planning Commission We do have the ability to certainly recommend modifications to applications before we approve them, such as changes to the MIH levels, for instance. And typically when we receive changes back at the City Planning Commission, right, for final scope approval from the City Council, we see those changes as well too.

We often are not getting infrastructure changes back necessarily, but certainly changes around land use, Affordability levels. And those are all things that the City Planning Commission can consider as well, too. And so I want to assure you that we will give the time, the attention, and the thought that is necessary to ensure that these projects are a net benefit to the community.

I have to turn this back to the Chair, but I would just say that you talked about the refinements that DCP and CPC already do in the EULAR process, but typically speaking, what I'm talking about isn't part of that. It comes back to us to kind of add that to the tab, because the administration of the day, whoever it may be, has not put that forward, generally speaking.

We've— members have forced the administration of the day to do that through the leverage that we've had in the EULA process, a leverage many of us will no longer have. So, I'm glad that you're kind of envisioning a greater role for CPC in the capital planning process, because traditionally your role has just been You're really more of a Department of Zoning than a Department of Planning, respectfully.

So I just think— I just feel like there's no one in this process that will now have the tools to bring the investment that's needed to go along with the project. Chair, thank you. I would just add briefly, Councilmember Carr, you also asked where this sits in DCP. So within DCP, we certainly have our borough teams who are excellent, right, and work with developers, partners, community groups every day around planning needs across their boroughs.

We also do have a centralized team that's focused on capital. We also have a centralized team that's focused on climate and resiliency that works across in coordination with our capital planning agencies. And so all of these agencies and departments will certainly have a role in how we consider these applications, as well as making sure the interagency coordination is happening.

Okay. Thank you. I hope you're proactive with this new responsibility. Thank you, Chair. We absolutely will be. Thank you, Majority Leader.

Next, Councilmember Thomas-Henry, followed by Brooks Powers. Thank you. And thank you, you have been very responsive and very receptive to ideas, especially as it relates to projects in my area. So I'm very thankful for that. Kind of piggybacking off of the minority leaders, is there a way for you to put something, be it a checklist, again, going back to some of the things that we as councilmembers on the floor identified during certain projects?

I've had roadworks world experience where no matter how many agencies you have look at something on paper, it's different when you're on the ground. I've had land use experts come in and see a project that was zoned for one thing and get there and it's like, oh my God, this cannot happen here. So it's very different when you're live and in person.

And although you've been great, the next person after you may not be so amenable to the ideas of the councilmember. So is there a way for DCP to make as part of this process a checklist of things? So even when we're looking at MIH, MIH in 1 and 2 don't necessarily fit the income requirements of my particular district?

And that's one of the things that we look at when we're reviewing ULURPs. I'm going to do it all at once. Homeownership opportunities. I have a high homeowner population wanting single-family homes as well as co-ops. Will that be taken into consideration so that we're not just building more and more affordable units in these communities, but keeping the continuity of community in place where you have long-term growth and opportunity.

And we're looking at 200,000 affordable units towards 700,000 units with over the— in the decade. How many units are currently approved in the pipeline? So we're continuing to approve. How many are in the pipeline to be built against this 200,000 to 700,000 units? And last but not least, if you're looking for opportunities, we have Willards Point an additional 40 acres that are available for affordable housing.

Thank you, Councilmember, and thank you for your partnership and many ideas as well that you shared for your community, including Willets Point. So to your first point, I appreciate that recommendation. We'll certainly take it for consideration. I want to make sure that we're listening to councilmembers. We can think about a way to make that more routine or more systematized, but certainly So appreciate that recommendation.

With respect to homeownership, absolutely. So when we're talking about creating affordable housing opportunities in the fast-track districts, we're talking about everything, right? Whether it's through zoning, whether it's through HPD affordable housing tools, which include in Block by Block an expansion of the city's affordable homeownership programs, as well as other opportunities that can be leveraged to facilitate affordable housing.

We're looking to deploy all those tools in ways that they make sense in those fast-track districts. And so, again, appreciate your insight and your recommendations around that. And then to your last question, I know that there are ongoing conversations and efforts around Woolwich Point, and, you know, certainly look forward to continuing those discussions. And do you guys know how many approved projects are in the pipeline?

So I don't have offhand everything that's in at least the DCP pipeline for approval. We certainly can get that for you. But I would just note that, as I shared earlier, right, the vast majority of housing that's being produced in the city is also happening as of right. There's housing that never comes before DCP or the commission.

And this is why the point that I raised around us also as a planning agency that also has a demography team, right, that's focused on New York City's growth overall, working more closely with our capital agencies to anticipate needs even for growth that is not necessarily being facilitated through zoning. But we can certainly get that for you.

I know in our analysis of the fast-track neighborhoods, we certainly have what was produced in the last year. We can share that and then give you a sense of what we understand right now from DOB-permitted housing approvals. Thank you. Thank you.

We're going to hear from Brooks Powers. But just to add on to what Councilmember Thomas-Henry was saying about Willets Point, I did do a tour with her at Willets Point. I think in probably 2008, when this was first spoken about, I think they projected roughly about 5,000 to 6,000 units of housing. And then the last administration said about 2,500 units of housing.

You have a councilmember here that will want to activate the other side of Willard's Point, but it took us so many years to get to that point. Right. So I would just encourage having that conversation with Councilmember Thomas-Henry, because she is very adamant on addressing the housing need. and revitalizing that area within her district. Okay?

Next, we'll hear from Councilmember Savina Brooks-Powers, followed by Banks and Carnacion, and then our majority whip. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Chair Sherman, for, as my colleagues have said, your openness and willingness to communicate with this body. I've had the opportunity to talk to you in advance of that recent announcement, as well as our more recent Zoom meeting, but I wanted to ask some questions on record just to have them here in a public space.

Right. So starting in January, housing applications in Queens Community District 13 will no longer come before this council. Rosedale, Laurelton, and Springfield Gardens are some of the lowest-lying parts of the city, surrounded by wetlands, and residents are routinely faced with the threat of flooding. How will the fast-track review consider these needs in a flood-prone community? And I know I mentioned this when we last spoke, but I just wanted to have it on the record in terms of response.

And what if It is found that the construction taking place creates additional flooding to neighboring homes. What say will the community at that point have? And then also, the fast-track list is drawn on community district lines, and Southeast Queens, as I often say, is made up of communities across multiple districts, and together we've built a significant amount of affordable housing.

Thank you. When DCP plans city-led actions in the 13th Community District, will it account for what the surrounding neighborhoods have already absorbed, even though it may fall in another community district? So, for example, Community District 14 did a significant amount, but it is abutting Community District 13, and on the other side is Community Board 12. Which just did the Jamaica upzoning in downtown Jamaica.

And so, with all of that taken into place, it will just create an overwhelming increase in population in a community that has infrastructure resiliency issues and challenges. So, recognizing that the environmental review plan won't be the environmental view plan that we are accustomed to, and that council members won't have as much of a say in terms of shaping it based on our local knowledge of the community.

That's where the concern is. So obviously, I'm not opposed to development, but it has to be responsible in communities like this that have other underlying issues that could impact what that looks like in terms of the health and well-being of the community. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember, and thank you for raising these issues. And I have familiarity with your district and particularly the flooding issues that you've shared.

And so this— we already are well aware of this. And again, it's a priority as we start to have conversations with DEP, our other capital agencies, about growth in these neighborhoods, right? So that as we are leading any city-led actions, we're being attentive to the underlying infrastructure needs in the most appropriate places for that within your district.

I would also just note that the Affordable Housing Fast Track, again, was created through a rate of housing production, not a pure or raw number. And so production may look relatively modest in certain parts of your district relative to the overall rate that's being produced, but— you know, it still may ultimately create a higher rate of production based on the housing dynamics in your neighborhood.

And so while, you know, this is a uniform methodology, it does account for the fact that every community is different, and that's built into the way it was calculated. And so again, I know that will be out to your district soon, but certainly want to take a nuanced look with you. about where there could be opportunities, and again, the types of tools, affordable housing tools, that make sense for that part of Queens.

We also recognize that at the end of the last administration, we completed a really large neighborhood plan in Jamaica. We're really excited about that and excited to see the impact of that. And so there's a lot of opportunity already through that, and we want to figure out how we pair that with growth in other parts of your district.

And I will turn it over to my colleague at HPD. All right. I'm sorry, go ahead. Oh, yeah, I just wanted to add that in many cases, new construction housing can be a positive contributor to neighborhood resiliency needs. And new housing that gets constructed has to meet much higher standards for resiliency. It has to be built up above the city's flood elevation.

And then through the unified stormwater review, new housing construction typically comes with onsite retention of all stormwater that falls on that site. in a lot of neighborhoods where you might have a surface parking lot, when it rains today, that water is flowing out into all of the neighboring sites. And with new housing, that's an opportunity to retain that stormwater onsite.

So these are important conversations to think about how they fit together. I appreciate that. But that has not been the case in some of the construction, not only just housing, but just infrastructure, just new developments. So like we have a new Amazon facility, it's been there about 4 years now in Rose Yeah. Where it did not flood before, significant flooding.

But then there are other housing developments in the community and infrastructure projects that have happened even in Rockaway and the Arverne area that have pitched the streets wrong. And while the infrastructure has been intended to, to your point, pull the stormwater and what have you to reduce what previously existed, it has created flooding in areas where it didn't exist before.

So it's kind of shifted the problem now. And then my last 2 questions before I run out of time. For DCP, barring our vote, will this commission respond in writing to the community board and councilmember recommendations on an application? And for HPD, how many affordable units in Community District 13 were approved over the last 5 years but are still waiting on financing or construction start?

Because I'm wondering if it also counts or doesn't count towards this list. Councilmember, you could come back for a round 2 of questions. Okay. I didn't know if the— I didn't hear the buzzer, so thank you. But you can answer her questions right now. Sure. So I certainly can follow back on— follow up on how we will follow up with community board, BP, city council recommendations.

In some ways, this is also codified in our CPC report, but we can follow up on that for sure. And I think the second question was— Yeah, there are certainly a number of projects citywide that are waiting for financing. We have more projects that we're working in our pipeline than we have resources to finance in any given year.

Very excited about new resources that have been added to our budget through the housing plan. And I don't have the data in front of me about Community District 13, but I'm happy to follow up. Thank you.

Next, we'll hear from Banks, then Encarnacion, then Hicks. Thank you, Chair. The block-by-block housing plan references partnerships with NYCHA to expand housing opportunities and to generate revenue for public housing residents. However, the plan provides few details about how these goals will be achieved. Can the administration clarify what specific strategies are under consideration, including infill development, utilization of NYCHA land and the transfer of development rights, public-private partnerships, or any mechanisms that have not yet been disclosed to the council?

Sure, I can speak to this at a high level. I know in the block-by-block plan, Mayor Mondani has made One of the most significant, I think the largest capital investment into NYCHA that we've seen from the city, which is really exciting. And NYCHA obviously is continuing to pursue a number of development opportunities that are meant to bring capital dollars in to shore up their existing housing stock as well as contribute to our housing crisis.

To the extent that NYCHA is pursuing transferable development rights, we stand ready to partner with NYCHA to achieve their goals. There's not an active proposal at this time. Right. We work very closely with NYCHA. Our housing team is in regular communication with the authority, and so if, as proposals or ideas move forward, we certainly stand ready to partner with them.

Well, specifically when it comes to infills, the city has previously pursued infill development on NYCHA-owned properties and other underutilized sites. Can the administration provide a breakdown of how many infill developments currently exist? on NYCHA property, how much revenue those developments have generated to date, and how those funds have been used to benefit NYCHA residents? Thank you for that question.

That's information we would certainly have to get back to you from NYCHA, and we're happy to follow up on that. Typically, the actions that NYCHA pursues within their campus typically don't come before the CPC for approval, for instance. And so we can certainly make sure that we follow up with you, Councilmember, with the committee, with those details.

And I want to cover a topic on transit-oriented development. The administration believes that transit-oriented development is a key component of the block-by-block housing plan. What criteria is the administration using to determine where additional density should be allowed near transit, and how can residents be assured that the transit-oriented development will not result in overdevelopment of outer borough neighborhoods or place a disproportionate burden on those communities?

Great question. Thank you, Councilmember. So we are taking really a citywide look at transit-oriented development. This is essential to how we grow as a city and also grow in a way that's climate-friendly. It also is essential to our fair housing goals to create more opportunity for New Yorkers to live near transit. We are assessing the opportunity across our transit corridor, all 600-plus miles of it, relative to the zoning that currently exists along those corridors to really understand the potential and look forward to sharing a more robust proposal.

But we're in the early days of that exploration. We know in City of Yes, we created the qualifying residential areas which allowed for— really relegalized some of the missing middle housing near transit. And so that was an approach to maximize transit in some of our low and mid-density districts. And so we're looking at a similar approach potentially in larger density areas, but we're still in the early days.

And we'll make sure to have conversations with the council as we start to move that forward. All right. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you.

Councilwoman Carl-Narcion. Thank you. And thank you for working on my last name, Chair. I'm getting good. I'm getting good. And I'm going to apologize in advance. You have 2 public housing people back to back. So I know that most of those questions I will ask in the Public Housing Committee. But I did want to know when a development is identified for infill or any kind of revenue that comes from selling of that development land or air, or I don't know what is being sold, how and who determines the value of that?

Is that NYCHA determining the value of that? Does anyone in the city play a role in the value of that land and what revenue we get from that? Sure. I can speak to this at a high level. DCP does not have a direct role in that. Obviously, NYCHA is core to providing affordable housing in our city. And I spent over a decade of my career at NYCHA, very, very close to my heart and the work that we do.

I understand that when NYCHA pursues those projects, they work to negotiate the best deal possible to ensure that residents have permanent affordability and that their buildings are brought to a state of good repair. We're certainly happy to bring responses back to you. Yeah, but you think it mostly is with NYCHA? Meaning that you guys don't have— I just want to make sure that I've asked the question correctly.

We will make sure that we can get a response to you. And then, so are you— when you talk about this partnership, are you in partnership with how and when that revenue will be spent or where it will be spent, or is that also solely— So there's not a role for DCP in that process. And I think, you know, to the extent that there are mixed-use projects, sometimes there's HPD partnership, but we can certainly coordinate with our colleagues at NYCHA and make sure to get a response.

And then I just have really 2 statements. One, I have some really serious concerns about the quality of the buildings and the developments that are happening at this fast pace. It seems like we're in a race to build fast and sometimes cheaply. Often we're the ones here in the council that are fighting for wage standards, union standards when we're looking at building and developments coming into our district.

And without those, we face, quite frankly, some developments that we're already receiving complaints from in brand-new buildings, right? Leaks, elevators that are not working. These are brand-new developments that have come into the District, and we're fielding real conversations with our constituents about the quality of the buildings that were built in this fast pace when they do not have all of these other standards attached to them.

So I just— you know, want to make a real plug for the fact that if our voices are out of that conversation when we're really fighting for those standards, that we have a commitment from the administration that you will also be fighting for those wage standards and that union-built construction that will allow us to not have to field those questions in the future.

And then, you know, warehousing is a big deal in my district. Mm-hmm. We went through an East Harlem rezoning to specifically try to make it more attractive for developers to build that had been warehousing and sitting on developments for a really long time. We went through that rezoning, we utilized and threw everything in the book at them, and they still have not built.

We are still sitting on those 10, 15 years later. I mean, from some of those developments, my whole life. And I'm just wondering if you had, uh, put any thought into how do we really incentivize these warehoused apartments that are just sitting vacant and in the face of people who are really in need of housing. And that's all.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Just for clarification, are you speaking about vacant sites? Vacant sites that are not HPD. They are privately owned, but we use the rezoning as a tool to incentivize that building. We said maybe if we let them go higher, it would help incentivize the building. That has not been the case. And so we just, you know, outside of letting them build the Empire State Building in the district.

I don't really know what would incentivize them to build there, but something really does have to be done about the warehousing in the district. I mean, there's just empty apartments sitting there, and it's quite frustrating. So thank you for bringing that to our attention, and I'm happy to also just have offline with you further about your district.

I know that the East Harlem rezoning was significant and was around when that was completed. There's always an opportunity for us to take another look at the— right, there are a number of new zoning tools available today. There are different types of affordable housing incentives that exist. There could be an opportunity for us to take a new look at what was achieved and, right, what may need to be other strategies that we can use to make sure that we realize the goals of that plan.

So certainly happy to follow up with you on that.

And then I'll turn it to my colleague to speak a little bit more about Sure, and I'm definitely familiar with some of these Third Avenue buildings. I was involved in the East Harlem rezoning as well and remember a lot of these conversations, and it's frustrating to hear that after all of these years they're still sitting there not filled.

I think on the HPD side, we're definitely eager to find solutions to bring— if units are being held offline, to really understand why that's happening and find both enforcement tools and financial tools to kind of facilitate that to happen. So we'd be really happy to follow up on that. In terms of building quality and wage standards, for projects that are financed by the city, we have very robust design standards to ensure high-quality housing.

And I think we've definitely heard about kind of as-of-right development and lower quality that's there. And so I think I hear you on that issue. I'd like to follow up and continue discussing that. On wage standards, there are wage standards through the recently passed Construction Justice Act, and sort of the projects that are being financed by HPD are coming with, I think, both that high quality that you want to see.

Thank you. Next, we're going to hear from Majority Whip Hanks, followed by Narceats, Zhuang, Brewer, Santos-Suoso, and Lee. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Sherman. And committee staff, as I said before, we need to think about, you know, developing with a scalpel carefully, targeting developments with all our district needs. And you can hear that that's mainly what, you know, my colleagues are saying.

However, through the North Shore NYC, we're working to turn, you know, vacant and underused sites into better housing, to better access our waterfront, and we want to understand the tools to expedite this process to build homes and our residents that, you know, can afford it and have the infrastructure to support them for generations. So many of the projects in my district benefit from EDC stewardship, and I am really proud of that partnership we've implemented to advance, you know, stalled projects and begin new ones.

To this point, we've recently launched a community engagement and neighborhood planning effort to identify the next round of viable projects, to continue growing our pipeline for new housing. We want this pipeline to be, you know, executable. We want it to be real. How are HPD and DCP prepared to support these efforts, my efforts, and put specific, you know, actions in place to move these plans forward?

I mean, I was going to ask the question about the pipeline. and staying in, in the queue because we're now like a decade out on many of those, those projects that we were really proud to do last term or my predecessor did, and we're just now doing these. So I think like that's a really important part of— but it's been asked already and you answered it, so thank you.

But I do want to understand how we can work together. Like, what are the tools we need? How could we expedite this. You know, how do we get the ELURP process when we actually want to build and we have set up this, you know, this relationship with the city and the administration, city council is taking this big step forward, and how are— what does that reciprocity look like?

How are we working together? I'll start and then I'll turn to my colleagues. So thank you, Councilmember, and thank you for your leadership in really thinking through planning opportunities and growth opportunities along the North Shore of Staten Island. I know that our Staten Island office met with your team just this week, and we are excited to learn more about the planning effort that you have underway.

And I know EDC is a critical partner on the North Shore, and so to the extent that there are zoning tools or other tools that we can use to help realize the community vision, we stand ready to partner with you. And I know that those conversations started. I'm new here as well too and look forward to digging more into the vision that you all have for the North Shore.

Your district is the one district in Staten Island that is actually not in the Affordable Housing Fast Track. But there are tools such as ELURP, right, that are certainly available to your district, which expedite land use review. There are projects in your district just based on the density which may qualify for the SEQR exemption as well that would allow us to move projects a little bit more quickly, but also still go through a robust land review, land use review.

So there are tools available that particularly came about in the last election that will allow us to potentially speed up work or projects that are in the pipeline. And so we're happy to sit down and just have a little bit more of assessment of what's already even in the pipeline in the North Shore and get a little bit more into the vision that you and the community are developing there.

I appreciate that. Thank you for the clarity, and we'll definitely be calling you on that, and that would be great. Thank you. Yeah, I would add, we're excited to partner as well, and we work very closely with EDC, and we do a lot of projects that are joint projects, and we're working together on the Stapleton Waterfront. We've had some setbacks on the HPD project there, but I do think that we're in a place that we're hopefully going to be able to move forward soon. kind of have figured things out with our state waterfront approvals such that we think that we can actually be closing that project soon.

And excited, I think we're going to be meeting about the Castleton site with your office in the coming weeks and excited to talk about that as well. And any potential role for HPD on the various waterfront sites, I think we're happy to discuss. And I think we want to do more work in Staten Island. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Next we'll hear from Councilmember Narcisse, followed by Zhuang, then Brewer.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair. Let me clear it. I'm not against development at all. Block by block plan is a very ambitious plan. But I'm not seeing a plan to address the infrastructure. If you watch even TikTok now, every rain, after every rain, you're going to see the flood, cars are sinking. All those things need to be addressed.

Thank you. And I believe that we council members were elected for a reason. And for you, you're very nice, you want to collaborate, but I'm concerned about the futures— I mean, the future generation, if people don't want to be like you. So how we fit into the equation, because people hire us, elected us for a reason. Canarsie, my area, we built on marshland, and we've been streets, homes, and you have seen it, I'm sure.

You have heard about it. Mm-hmm. We live in a transportation desert. But I can be honest, we can assess to see which, you know, way we can go. There is area probably we can explore. But before Community Board 18 was placed on the fast-track list, did DCP consult with DEP, DOB, or DOE about whether the district could support new development?

So thank you for your question and also for sharing the concerns that you have in your district. So the fast-track list was determined really through a straightforward methodology that's consistent with what we're called to do in the charter. So we are called to develop a methodology that determines a rate of affordable housing production and identify the communities that would be in the fast track.

We've done that. We did that on October 1st. And now the work begins, right, to begin to assess what the opportunities are in those districts relative to the existing conditions, relative to the need, and all of the neighborhood context. I know that capital planning and infrastructure has come up quite a bit in this hearing. And trust me, I understand that that's a priority.

It's one of my first priorities in this role. It's not— as exciting necessarily as launching a new neighborhood plan, but it is critical to the work that we do at DCP if we're planning for a city that is growing and needs to continue to grow. And so as I've shared before, we are— there are some new tools that— roles that DCP has in the capital planning process based on the last election where we have a role now to assess and score certain city facilities.

We also already have a role in the 10-year capital process. We also have a role in working with community boards around their district needs statements. And so we are ensuring that we're leveraging the roles that we have in the capital planning process to put growth at the front of it. I don't want to take up your time.

So I consider it— so the city designated this area where most of the land is in the 2080 flood plan, where we have homes that routinely flood after storms, and we are even sinking without asking DEP about DOB about feasibility, or DOE about the school seat and everything else I include. That's one. In the last 5 years, how many affordable housing applications in CB 18 did the council vote down?

And it's zero. I can answer that, but you can continue, you know, answering it. So I want to know what's the problem. How many affordable housing projects were proposed in CB-18 in the last 5 years that's HPD or private developers? I think nothing has been filed because I want to know if it's because finances, if it was for the land desire, because we have not received any really.

So you can answer it. Thank you. Sure. I'll jump in. So I don't know the number of applications, prior to my tenure. We certainly can follow up with you on that. I anticipate that there will be activity in those districts. We're confident that there will be affordable housing development in all the fast-track districts. And again, we want to be sensitive to the needs.

I will just note that we have developed the list based on exactly what the charter is calling for us to do, developing a rate affordable housing production, producing the list without exception. And so that is the list. As projects are pursued, That's where there's an opportunity for us to really assess the environmental impact, assess the infrastructure need, figure out the right mix and tools for affordability within your district, and customize the implementation.

But the affordable fast-track list is developed strictly from the methodology that is defined by the charter. It is a list that accelerates the approval of affordable housing projects, the potential approval of affordable housing projects. But it does not take away our responsibility to complete land use review. So it's one size fits all, and it's not going to work, and it's not a blanket for all New York City.

Like I said, we build on marshland, and I love— appreciate you. I'm looking forward to see what spot that we can build, and if not, we have to be sensitive to folks because they cannot even pay to repair their basement. So thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Zwing, followed by Brewer, Santos-Suoso, and Lee. Thank you, thank you, Chair, and also thank you for coming here today. And I give you some background in my district. I have Community Board 11. The cost of one bedroom for 2 people in my district is lower than $2,400, but while affordable housing for 2 people, couple, at 80% AMI costs $2,430.

Actually, it's higher than our market rate. So for this type of situation, we need to build more affordable housing. Yes, I agree we need to build more affordable housing. That actually drives my market rate up. People not able to afford it. We are not Manhattan. Our rent originally not that high because we need to build more market— more affordable housing, our rates actually drive up.

How do you deal with this type of issue? Yeah, so we are defining affordable with MAH levels as the floor, and any other types of affordable tools, right, that are above that, meeting the requirements. And so we know that in certain parts of the city, Because the MIH levels are developed based on the AMI, right, certain parts of the city, there's— it's close to what you may see in the market for existing housing stock, but it's still often we see as more affordable than what may exist in brand new construction.

And what's important to note is that when we've been able to include mandatory inclusionary housing in projects, we know that the cost of that housing, the rent, will certainly not accelerate over time the way rent in the private market does. And so these are all— it's a very certainly careful analysis and calibration to how we would approach this in different districts.

I would note that that certainly is in reference to the affordable tools that are created through the MIH program, but there are other tools as well to create affordable housing that our colleagues utilize at HPD. Why does Why doesn't the EULAR section process take into account population density? Higher density districts have less open space available to use, so the burden on them is higher.

So the EULAR process does take into account existing context, land use rationale, as well as to the extent that a project is subject to environmental review, it does certainly take into account open space. And typically in our high-density districts, we would see that because people are building much bigger projects. And so all of that is certainly factored into how we would make planning and land use decisions.

And the zero district in Bronx— sorry— was selected for Euler. Are we to believe there's no district in the entire borough needs more affordable housing? No, actually, no one of the districts in the Bronx has more housing units than our Brooklyn CB11? So we recognize— every neighborhood in New York City is an appropriate neighborhood for affordable housing, right, and can benefit from affordable housing.

The neighborhoods that are in the fast track are the neighborhoods where we have seen the production of affordable housing lagging, and the goal is to be able to fast-track affordable housing in those communities. It still does not take our focus away from building, facilitating, supporting the creation of affordable housing and community districts citywide, including the Bronx, which we see is leading the city in affordable housing production, but where we still are promoting and advancing affordable housing projects in the borough.

And I'll turn it over to you, Phoebe. I just wanted to respond to your first question about AMI and its relationship to market rents. AMI in New York City is very high. The area median income name is actually a bit of a misnomer, and in New York City, it's based around market rents. And so because market rents keep going up in New York City, AMI has gone up every year quite significantly.

So there are many parts of the city, including your district, it sounds like, where 100% of AMI is above market. And HPD does not finance affordable housing that is above market. So in all of our projects that we're financing, we work to ensure that the highest AMI tier in our project is at least 20% below market. So for projects that we have financed in a neighborhood where AMI is lower than market, we're making sure that the highest AMI tier is, you know, maybe 60% of AMI instead of 80% AMI in those neighborhoods.

And for projects that are utilizing our as-of-right tools, we also encourage them to have the highest AMI tier be below market, because if the highest AMI tier in a project is at market or above market, those units are not going to fill. And they're going to sit vacant on Housing Connect, and that's going to be bad for sort of everyone involved.

Thank you, Councilmember Zhuang. Just want to indicate the Bronx has been doing their fair share in the affordability crisis. That's why we weren't in that list. But as you said, Chair, every district in New York City can do their role with producing more affordable housing units. I wanted to touch really quick on that AMI issue. We do even see places like in the Bronx where the AMI is being mixed with, you know, parts of Westchester.

I know the mayor has been having several conversations with the president, and just wanted to know if there's any energy with addressing that AMI issue that a lot of people in the city are seeing. Well, I certainly can't speak to the mayor's conversations with the president. Well, you clearly don't. I can say on the topic of AMI, I think that really the most— AMI is— it's all relative, right?

So I think the most important thing is that the projects that we're creating are serving the right incomes. And so when we're looking to finance affordable housing, our goal is, and what we're committed to in the housing plan, is that 50% of the housing we finance will be for extremely low and very low incomes. And we're always open to having conversations about what are the right incomes for each project that we should be serving.

The deeper affordability, the more subsidy, but we're committed to providing deep affordability in our projects. And again, don't want to be providing affordable housing that's above market. That's not the point here. I think some more conversation needs to happen around that. We're partnering with everyone in government, local, state, and federal, but that conversation could happen all day.

So I'll move on to Councilmember Brewer, followed by Santos-Suoso, then Lee. Okay. You can imagine I am really pissed And I find that this conversation— Councilmember Brewer, can you just speak into the mic a little bit more? Sorry. I am. This thing doesn't— I can't move it. No, it doesn't move. So my question is, in the Upper West Side, we want affordable housing.

We always have. But you don't count conversions of SROs, which is what's happening now, because that's not an immediate from bottom up. Also, I want to pick up on the chair. I've done over 200 ULURPs, more than anybody else. And I will say, I always say in Manhattan, we'd like to have some affordable housing. And he said, no, no, no, Gail, we're going to the Bronx because the land is cheaper.

So screw you. You're not getting affordable housing. You're not getting vouchers. We're just going to do market and then hopefully some MI-8. That's it. So I don't understand why is the Upper West Side on this list when there is not one vacant lot available? How can it be on the list if it's not possible to conform? Can you answer that question?

Sure. So, Councilmember, thank you for— and I know your frustration. I am beyond pissed. I understand that. As I noted before, we developed a list based on a methodology that's consistent with the charter. It is applied without exception across all community districts. So where are you— how are you going to implement on the West Side when there's no land?

So I will note that development is happening on the Upper West Side. Where? Give me an example. There are development projects happening on the Upper West Side. And Edith is not helping us with the ABC land. You want 2.4 acres, no help from HPD or the city to get it to be affordable at a reasonable rent, and he wants to build bigger than the Empire State Building.

So again, I just want to note that where development is happening, there are tools that we can use like mapping, mandatory inclusionary housing, so that new development activity is subject to a requirement for affordability. We can also, again, explore where the HPD financing tools, for instance, could potentially be utilized. I've heard it all before and I never get any help.

I'm just telling you, you haven't been around that long and I have. I recognize that. And I recognize your commitment to your district and commitment to affordable housing. We have an opportunity now to figure out how we fast-track affordable housing development. Okay. I understand that in what we're going to vote on November 3rd, I'm voting against all of them, just so you know.

But the 7— understand that the 7% is even an increased amount of projected wanted housing on the Upper West Side. How the hell are you going to get what you had before? I'm sorry, I— Okay, they were voting for— on the ballot initiatives. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Okay. I hate them, just so you know. And so the question is, understanding that in that ballot there will be a projected even more required housing on the Upper West Side than there was in the past.

You're trying to get 12,000 units or some crazy amount out of the Upper West Side. Where are you going to get that? So the— with respect to the Affordable Housing Fast Track voted in the last election, there is not a numeric target that's required, right? We are— Yeah, but whatever's on the bottom 12 is where it ends up.

But we've created a rate, and the rate is relative to your overall housing production. We have housing production. You just don't count it because it's conversion and not new. I have 3 conversions and you don't count them because they're not new. So it does have to be new affordable housing. I know. Yes. And so it is a rate, though.

So there's not a raw number. There's a way in which in the next 5-year calculation, the Upper West Side may look a little bit different based on the rate. I don't care about 5 years. I don't care about 5 years. I only care about now. Okay. Well, the next 5 years is when the calculation will actually happen.

So the only way to change it is to go to court. Is that correct? The only way to change this is to go to court. So we're focused on implementation. I'm focused on changing it and going to court. Thank you very much. Understood, understood. I almost did not want to stop Councilmember Brewer. I was scared. She's extremely, extremely frustrated at this process.

So thank you, Councilmember Brewer. Councilmember Santi-Suoso, followed by Councilmember Lee.

Thank you, Chair. And as someone who is also frustrated— Thank you, Chair. And as someone who is also on the list and also frustrated, I nonetheless appreciate the ongoing conversation with your office. And thank you for acknowledging, you know, our efforts around the Bay Ridge Triangle rezoning. I think one of the reasons I'm frustrated is because sort of as Councilmember Juang was saying, Relative to the rest of the city, Bay Ridge rents are relatively affordable, which includes a lot of rent-stabilized units.

Mm-hmm. And so while I still have ULURP power, I've approved 400 units on my old block alone. Both the market rates and the MIH apartments in both of those buildings are more expensive than the average Bay Ridge rent, which includes rent-stabilized units. Mm-hmm. And notably, as they passed through city planning review, I did not see City Planning specifically argue for a deeper level of affordability.

And so I'm just concerned that if there is— now that I can no longer use my power as a councilmember to negotiate for deeper affordability, I'm concerned that that need will not be acknowledged or pushed seriously through the City Planning review. So I guess my question is, now that we're losing this power, What will you do to make sure that the rents that are coming in are not merely inflationary to Bay Ridge, existing Bay Ridge residents, while it purports to solve an affordability crisis elsewhere?

Thank you for your question. And again, thank you for your efforts and planning work that's happening in Bay Ridge. I recognize that in certain parts of the city there is that tension based on the AMI and the MIH rent calculations where the affordable rents are very much in line or sometimes a little bit higher than what we're seeing in the existing housing stock.

We are seeing, though, that the MIH rents are still comparable to what would be new housing that's built, or sometimes much more affordable, and they also carry that permanent affordability. That being said, as I noted, at the commission we certainly have the ability to make modifications and recommendations around the MIH levels that are selected. I think also in your proactive planning process, I think that's also where there's an opportunity to lay out the intentions, but also the tools that may need to be at the table outside of MIH to get the deeper affordability.

And that was my next question, was, is there a tool available in the arsenal if my proactive planning effort were to be successful where we could essentially, you know, through the rezoning, strongly advise or force a deeper level of affordability? Yeah, I think that there's— I think there's opportunity for that. There's also, again, and I defer to my colleague at HPD, other housing financing tools, right, that can be utilized.

I think the East New York example was shared earlier today where we've achieved over 6,000 units, but really, really deep affordability. That's a combination of MIH but also city affordable housing tools, right? There's a mix. And so I think taking this proactive approach is helpful so that we could figure out the right mix in your community. And then my last question is around sort of transit-oriented development.

One of the reasons I'm trying to pursue the Triangle rezoning is because it's so perfectly situated between 2 train stops, right? 86th Street and 95th Street. The trouble is that if you've ever taken the R train before, you will never want to take the R train again. And so my thinking is, you know, it's one thing to talk about capital planning as far as city infrastructure that we fund and that we have control over.

But it's quite another to talk about largely state-funded capital improvements, which in this case would be the R train and everything that it would take to get it to be a train that is a dignified option for everybody in Southern Brooklyn. So what capital investments and planning are you thinking about specifically in transit-oriented developments, particularly if we're thinking about adding thousands of new residents within 1 to 2 train stops?

And thank you for your time. Thank you for that question. So as we are assessing and sort of developing a citywide transit oriented development proposal. We've also started early conversations with the MTA as well to understand— I know that they just released their capital plan, a plan to bring MTA assets to a state of good repair, which is really exciting.

And so we are in those conversations to also figure out where there's alignment between housing growth and investment. We have tools like zoning for accessibility as well too, although I know the 86th Street station is accessible, which is great. And some of the other— Exactly. I know your district very well and also that you have accessible stations, which is really fantastic.

But we also are looking at other ways that we can utilize that program to support other types of infrastructure investment in transit that is as substantive and critical to what riders experience. And I would just say, if there's a role for the council to play or those of us in the bottom 12 to play where we are advocating with our state partners to get some kind of coordinated focus on these transit-oriented areas and developments, then I would love to play a part in that.

And we welcome your partnership. And again, we're still in early days, but we look forward to those conversations. Absolutely. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Lee? All right. So now moving over to Eastern Queens. I'm almost visualizing hearing everyone's questions, what their districts are like. But I have a very interesting and challenging district in the sense that I think we're only one of two that Has no subways and no railroads within my district. It's outside, north and south. So when folks say, hey, we'll come meet you in your district office, I'm like, I think you might want to rethink that one because it is quite far.

And so it's interesting. I just want to emphasize, I know I sound like a broken record at this point when I talk about infrastructure, but I have parts of my district. I have 4 community districts, actually. I have 8, 11, 12, and 13 in my council district. And so myself, Deputy Speaker Williams, as well as Selvina Brooks-Powers, we share CB 13.

And there have been some significant infrastructure challenges there. One thing I will say is that for CB 12, that's where Hollis is. That's where the flooding happened, where, as you know, we recently had to Vacate 2 homes because one of them was literally falling off its foundation from all the flooding damage and had to be demolished, right?

And so there are really significant challenges where— and the city, by the way, put in $20 million underneath the ground to sort of help with the water, and it did nothing to alleviate the flooding that's happening. So in all honesty, it probably would have been better in a buyout program, but that's just, you know, I think what some of the residents have been asking about.

But You know, when it comes to infrastructure, I guess I'm just wondering, and I'll ask my questions first and go through it. What standards— I know a lot of folks have been asking, but what specific standards or metrics are you going to use to evaluate sewer capacity, drainage, transportation, and other needs? And what happens if those systems cannot support the proposed housing?

So that's the first part of my question. And then sort of piggybacking off Councilmember Santos-Suazo, With the community input piece and now that being taken away, when it comes to accountability, who will secure and follow through on infrastructure and community commitments, and how will residents know whether those commitments are being met? Like, how is that going to actually play out?

And also, lastly, I just want to really emphasize the community input piece of it because Creedmoor, you know, if you look at my district, I think it's about over 90% is homeownership. And the question I've always been asking is, we're not against building housing, but number one, it has to make sense. And number two, it has to be in places where, you know, like, we don't have that much land available because it's either parks or one or two-family homes.

I rarely have any zoning that's above R-3 in my district, right? Mm-hmm. I think the place that could be looked at are the corridors where you could maybe build some units on top, but then there are challenges there because it's literally block and lot versus looking at how do we change maybe some of those areas. But, you know, the community in Papese, when it came to Creedmoor, we got the community there with the civics, the community boards, our borough president, state senate, you know, assembly, as well as myself.

Because Creedmoor, we successfully got the community on board with— 50 acres. So there's more than 50 acres. That is one place that's state-owned. So I know it's not city, but that project is going to bring about 2,000 units as well as veterans housing, senior affordable housing, a school, firehouse, all of those things, right? And that was done and was so successful because of the community input piece.

And so I just lastly wanted to ensure how, you know, we're going to make sure that their voices are still part of that process, because I do ultimately think that will lead to a successful project. Thank you. And thank you for sharing the Creedmoor example. So, we've heard loud and clear today, certainly, that capital investment and understanding capital needs is critical.

And that will be front and center in the way that we approach all of our work, but certainly the ways in which we assess opportunities, within these affordable housing fast-track districts. Public engagement as well will be critical. I would just note that the fast-track does not remove community board review, borough president review, public hearings. Those processes are still in place and part of our ULURP process, and any engagement that happens pre-certification, including engagement with council members, and right, that a lot of that happens informally, that that would still continue, and we would certainly encourage that as those projects start to move into public review.

In terms of metrics, I think we can get back to you with that. There are certainly certain measures of analysis that are part of environmental impact studies, right, that we would use to have an assessment. There's also the metrics that our capital agencies use overall to understand state of good repair and capacity. And so I wouldn't want to give that to you just offhand, but we can certainly share that with you.

And I don't know if there were any additional questions that I may have missed. The one thing I would note is that Affordable housing projects that are in flight, like some of the work that you've mentioned, those will be part of the calculation in the next time we refresh this analysis and this methodology. And so we know that there are affordable housing projects that may be permitted during this period and start to move forward, which also may change the rate across the affordable housing fast-track neighborhoods as we go into the next 5-year cycle.

Okay. Sorry, Chair, I just have one last question, if that's okay. Do you guys factor in when you're looking at the proposals that you get if there's history of bad landlords that are proposing these projects? Because I actually have examples of that in my district where there are proposals being made, but the folks that are proposing it haven't been good landlords with what they have now.

Right? And so I don't necessarily want to be in a position to say, yes, we need housing, but I don't want to reward bad behavior. behavior as well. And so what are some of the stopgap measures that are there in terms of how we can, you know, prevent that? Thank you for your question. So typically at the City Planning Commission, when we're reviewing an application, we are primarily making sure that the underlying zoning is appropriate for the community should the owner, landlord, anybody change over time, for instance, right?

We need to make sure that it's a solid rationale for the community. That being said, we certainly have testimony from the public and are able to ensure that we're asking questions when it comes to who the potential operators are, but we also recognize that sometimes operators change over time, and so what's most important is making sure that the underlying zoning makes sense for that neighborhood.

That being said, there are certainly other tools in the city to ensure that landlords are good actors, as well as taking action against those landlords who are not, and so I'll certainly turn it to to my colleagues at HPD to speak to that. Yeah, I think that we take enforcement of tenants' rights and tenant conditions really seriously, and I think we're rolling out a lot of new programs in this administration.

I think my commissioner, Commissioner Levy, talks about putting bad landlords out of business, and I think she's serious when she says that. And we're recently launching the Fix the City initiative, which is really supposed to tackle these longstanding bad landlords. Recognizing there are good landlords out there, that not all landlords are bad actors, but for those that are bad actors, we do want to enforce against them.

And if there are folks in your community that we should know about, we should connect. Actually, Commissioner Levy was very helpful, and she knew exactly who I was talking about whenever I— She knows all of them. Yes. Yeah. Thank you, Councilmember.

And just kind of piggybacking off the TODs. Is there a specific deadline that we can anticipate now that we'll see that plan? Thank you for your question. So we are in the early stages. We hope to, you know, early next year start to have conversations with the council about our approach, but we're still in the very early days of that planning.

All right. And I just— kind of the same thing as Councilmember Santos also was saying, like the community-based train control, the issue that we're seeing in my district, I know like on the weekends the 5 train is extremely spotty. So we might be considered as a vibrant TOD district, but the people that live there on the day-to-day, similar to what Councilmember Thomas Henry stated, since I've been living in that district, every single weekend it's been a challenge with the 5 train.

So just wanted to kind of understand the metrics behind the TOD design, and for you to have that at your mind when you are completing this project, or when you're going to— Appreciate that. Thank you. Okay.

Can you expand on what DCP role is in the capital planning process, given that the department does not have their own capital budget? I know you spoke about different partners with DOT, Parks Department, but it kind of felt like you was kind of pushing the capital projects on those other agencies. Is there any planning with DCP with those agencies as you're developing this plan?

Sure. So when we complete neighborhood plans, for instance, and there are a suite of capital commitments and other infrastructure commitments, those agencies who are the experts who are in charge of implementation lead and fund that work. DCP has a role, though, in coordinating and making sure that those projects are moving forward, particularly if they're connected to a neighborhood plan, and publicly reporting that and making sure that that's happening.

Big picture, DCP has a role in our city's overall 10-year capital planning process And I know we're going into an upcoming cycle. And as we do that, we are factoring in all the things that are new, right? We have a fair housing growth strategy. We have neighborhood plans underway. We have new tools in priority neighborhoods through the fast track.

And so we're bringing all of that into our upcoming planning process so that we can really ensure that our agencies who are planning for climate and resiliency and infrastructure needs are also attuned to where we see the potential for growth. The other note that I would add is— What makes the 10-year plan relevant to DCP? So it's relevant, and DCP has duties outlined in the charter with respect to the 10-year plan because we are the agency that's planning for the future, right?

We should be able to— So shouldn't your role in capital investments be a little bit more than letting that go to the sister agencies, being that you guys are in charge and planning the future? Sure. I mean, I think that our role is really being able to plan for the future, plan for growth in the future, but not necessarily— I don't see DCP as an implementation agency in implementing complex capital projects necessarily.

We do also have a role now based on the last charter— the last ballot measures of also assessing some of the city's capital assets and city facilities and making that information publicly available. So we've been taking that on. But, you know, our role as a planning agency is to really make sure that whether it's through zoning, through our demographic work, really that we understand and help plan the future of the city and that we're ensuring the many agencies that play a role, whether it's developing school seats, whether it's dealing with our sewers and our infrastructure, parks planning, et cetera, that those agencies are armed with that information and that approach so that we're planning in concert.

The last thing I would also add is that we obviously also have a role in working with community boards and their district needs statements. And, you know, we want to make sure that as we go into our upcoming planning process that the priorities that are coming from our community boards are also factored into how we're considering city investment.

I just want to emphasize, I hear you, Chair, and I thank you for that answer. I just feel like, you know, being that we're planning specific neighborhoods and we're developing, I just think the role of DC PLEA when it comes to infrastructure investment, I think within a lot of the members here today, you didn't hear that there was a hesitance of them actually wanting development in their district.

It was just the planning aspect of the infrastructure, of the investment in certain communities. And I don't want to beat a dead drum, but that's what you're going to hear because a lot of these communities— it's a tremendous disservice to add people to a community that hasn't had that investment. So just thinking about the structure of how DCP has any influence on those capital improvements, I just think you guys need a little bit more influence on that when we're talking about comprehensive planning in communities.

We're in alignment for sure. And I will say, as I mentioned earlier, coming into this role, that was certainly one of my first priorities. We do have a centralized team that coordinates across the capital agencies, and so we're making sure that we're taking a stronger role in that process. Okay.

DCP added 41 new staff in the FY27 executive budget, which I've advocated for strongly as the Mr. Chair, and I really appreciate the administration doing that, but it seems like those staff lines were either for managing the city map or for the speed task force. Did DCP add any new staff to work on neighborhood planning? So we added about 46 new lines for all of our new responsibilities that are outlined in Block by Block.

So that includes a number of folks who will be working on our SEQR exempt applications, which will pull some burden off of our borough offices so that they can better focus their time on neighborhood plans and some of our larger-scale planning projects, in addition to teams that support our work around census, city map, address map, and a number of new charter-mandated duties.

Okay. Do you have a breakdown of borough staffing and vacancy rates currently? So we have an overall vacancy rate of 24%, which is largely driven by the fact We have 46 new vacancies that we're working to fill. Right now we have 28 positions posted. We recently filled— we have 9 people in the pipeline for some of our other vacancies, so hiring is a priority.

We also are completing— a lot of our positions at the borough offices are city planning positions that are subject to civil service appointment. We created— we completed a city civil service call-in this summer. We have another one coming up in the fall so that we can start to to identify candidates from the civil service list and fill those roles as well.

Okay.

The administration released the report on Speed Task Force in May of 2026. The first recommendation of the report was to reduce the time many zoning applications spend in precertification from 2 years to 6 months. Highly qualified, well-designed development is essential to success in community support. Is DCP still able to engage in its work to shape good urban design and quality development on such an accelerated track?

Absolutely. So our work to speed up housing is about improving process. It's not about supplementing good planning judgment, quality, and/or, right, thoughtful review. We have been working to stand up a new team that will be focused on those SEQR-exempt applications, and again, these are largely applications based on 10 years of analysis that show us less than 1% have an environmental impact, but they've really been sort of held in 2 years of review.

We're working to accelerate them to 6 months of precertification process, but they will still go through land use review. That's where there's an opportunity for us to make sure that we're using sound planning and judgment to evaluate those projects. And so the thoughtful planning work that is essential to the work that we do at DCP, that will continue even as we're working to improve process.

And a part of the fast-tracking work at DCP was the creation of the Sprint team. Can you describe the planning goals of that team? And yeah, can you describe the goals of that team, please? Sure. So I'm excited about our Sprint team. We've been hiring for that team, and I would just note that there's been a lot of internal and external interest in the roles that we've created for Sprint.

This is the team that will specifically focus on the pipeline of applications that are exempt from the SEQR, the 2-year-plus SEQR review process. That team will work in close coordination with other areas of our agency, including with our borough office, so we make sure that they're tapping into that local knowledge and expertise. We're pulling in folks who have planning experience, planning expertise.

Again, we want to make sure that we're improving process. But we're not— but we're keeping sound planning judgment front and center in the work that we're doing. And so that team is standing up. We've already started to identify applications that are exempt in our pipeline today. So we have about 13 applications that are already exempt. And in the fall, with our sprint team fully staffed, we will start to move folks towards the 6-month precertification process.

Okay. Will the planners at the urban— and the urban designers at the DCP borough borough offices have any role in reviewing private applications going forward? I'm concerned that centralizing this part of DCP's work will reduce consideration for local neighborhood conditions and priorities. Absolutely. So I just would note that in creating our sprint team, we went through a pretty extensive process review and reform process.

We didn't hire outside consultants. We worked internally, bringing in folks from all disciplines and all boroughs across the team to really design this process. We have a segment of applications that will potentially be exempt from SEQR review. These applications will be led by our sprint team, who again will work in coordination and have direct lines of communication to our— So what role will the borough office play then now?

Sure. So they will have direct lines of communication to our borough offices around applications. I will note that there's also folks from our borough offices who expressed interest in joining this team. So there's a normal exchange between the work that we do in central office and our borough offices. Our borough offices also have the vast majority of applications that are large-scale, that have SEQR review, as well as our neighborhood plans, our work with community boards, and all of the work that we need to do to push our planning agenda forward.

Okay.

With the administration's recently released final Fair Housing Growth Strategy, a plan completed pursuant to the council's 2023 framework, the goal of 700,000 new housing, that's a very, very ambitious goal. The last time the city achieved something like that was in the 1920s. Has HPD and DCP considered the additional resources in staffing, overall budget necessary to achieve the goals of nearly tripling our housing rate?

Just notice the last few years, I think we approved roughly about 80,000 units of housing, so to get to 700,000 is extremely ambitious. So have you guys took all that into consideration? Sure. We have our work cut out for us for sure. I know as part of the Fair Housing Growth Strategy, our first step is really being able to realize the commitment of 200,000 affordable units as outlined in Block by Block.

As noted, we've had an increase in headcount in this last fiscal year in order to achieve that goal, and we will continue to assess our need as we move into the next budget cycle. Okay. Does DCP— has DCP done an analysis of zoning changes and scales of new development necessary to actually meet these targets? Sure. So some of the zoning Some of the strategies that we're pursuing, right, are really focused on operating at speed and scale.

So citywide TOD approach, which can potentially create a lot of opportunity for housing and affordable housing, but also the sprint— speed reforms that we just talked about and standing up a sprint team, which would also help us move projects along more quickly, as well as utilizing tools like the Affordable Housing Fast Track, which help us build in places where we haven't seen housing production, affordable housing production in a long time.

And so some of these tools, whether they're also making sure we're maximizing the opportunities through City of Yes as well, all of these tools are at play to make sure that we can reach that goal, at least through the work of DCP. There's also all of the incredible work that HPD is doing and all the other housing agencies in order to reach that goal.

Okay.

I want to talk about an initiative that the council has presented, which is libraries. So the council has identified 3 additional library sites, one of each in New York, Brooklyn, and Queens public libraries, Port Chester, Marcy, and Sunnyside. Where the conditions are right, the sites are largely enough to accommodate HPD's development and the new library. The existing library needs updates, and the surrounding neighborhood has the right conditions to support density.

Is HPD ready to add these sites to the pipeline and make them a priority? Yeah, thank you, Councilmember, and thank you to the council for the leadership on identifying these sites and expressing that community support up front. That's really important to being able to move these projects forward. We share the goal of advancing projects that co-locate libraries with affordable housing.

We have 3 projects right now that we're advancing through our kind of libraries initiative. We have the Grand Concourse Library in the Bronx, the new Utrecht Library in Brooklyn, and the Bloomingdale Library on the Upper West Side. And these projects are important, and they're also, you know, as part of the housing plan, we're looking at other public facilities that are aging in similar ways and need similar investment.

We got 3 for you. Yeah, so we're evaluating these sites, we're speaking with the public library systems, and we're eager to continue talking through these opportunities. We have to balance in our pipeline. So we've been talking about these opportunities, I believe, started early, as soon as Speaker Manning came in, when she told— she said she wanted to potentially look at library sites.

We just haven't heard anything back from the administration. So I understand that you're reviewing the library sites that you're looking at now, but there are council members who want to not only upgrade the libraries within their communities, but also add some density. So I would just ask that on the record, if you guys could actually look at the sites that we're putting to you now to see if we could come up with some form of partnership.

We are looking at the sites. We've spoken with Council Landis about these specific sites. We've spoken with the library systems about these specific sites. We have a long pipeline of sites that we've already committed to communities to develop. Like this year, we're working on sites that we've committed to council members to move forward, and we're excited to move those forward and want to figure out how we can fit these into our pipeline.

Okay. We need to talk about that some more, but all right. Thank you.

I'm going to go into a question on homeownership, then I'm going to go into second round. Chair, you know how I feel about homeownership. Homeownership is extremely important. We want to keep New Yorkers in New York City, but I think we focus a lot on rental units, which is extremely important to address the affordability crisis. But there are families out there who want to purchase property and actually keep property here to pass down to their families.

What is the administration's plan on addressing homeownership? And that could be HPD and DCPD. Sure, I can start. HPD is expanding and adding new funding to all of our homeownership programs as part of the Block by Block Plan. We have a multi-pronged strategy for addressing homeownership. First is to retain and stabilize existing homeowners. So that looks like our investments through the Office of the Homeowner Advocate, the Homeowner Help Desk, preservation programs to support HDFC and Mitchell-Lama co-ops. support for homeowners like Home Fix, which provides loans to keep people in their home and keep existing homeowners there in their homes today that might face displacement pressure.

We're also looking at increasing access to homeownership, primarily through our down payment assistance program, and we're doubling our commitment to that program as well to try to reach— What's the number you're trying to reach? I think it's 300 homeowners a year, up from around 100. And we've also increased the eligibility from 80% of the area median income to 120% AMI to also have broader reach through that program.

And then on the last side is creating new opportunities. We do that primarily through our Open Door program, which funds the construction of new construction affordable co-ops. We're doubling our production goals on that program from 150 to 300 units a year. And we're also going to be rolling out a new program soon called Our Home. We spoke about it in the housing plan.

This would fund the creation or the preservation of existing buildings that are rental now and converting them into co-ops. Okay. Just to think about it, in the Bronx, it's less than 10% of homeownership. Is there a target area that you guys are looking for when you're going to be implementing a lot of these programs? We do want to focus our homeownership investments in the areas with the lowest rates of homeownership.

So the Bronx is on that list? Yes. Okay. I'll stop right there.

I'll go into second rounds of questions. Councilmember Lewis had to leave, so I'm going to ask this question on behalf of her. And then next we're going to go into Councilmember Wong, who's here, and then Councilmember Brewer. So given that City Planning Commission rarely, if ever, recommends rejecting or modifying a proposal based on concerns raised by community boards, and the borough president, there's a significant concern that the perspective of the communities most directly affected by the land use decision may be disregarded.

What specific mechanism does the Department of City Planning have in place to ensure that community boards and the borough president's recommendations meaningfully influence the commission's decision? And will the department commit to great transparency by clearly documenting how these recommendations are considered, addressed, and incorporated into final determinations, particularly when the Commission ultimately disagrees with the recommendation of these local bodies?

Thank you for the question. So, as you know, the City Planning Commission is an independent commission. Obviously, we are focused on making sure that we're meeting the needs of New Yorkers and obviously addressing the cities' affordable housing crisis. By the time an application reaches the City Planning Commission, it has gone through pretty extensive review at the borough president and community board level, as well as the department level for precertification.

As I mentioned earlier in this hearing, there's certainly lots of modifications we see on applications before they reach the CPC, but there still is the ability of the CPC to recommend and make modifications before approval. Most of the vast majority of affordable housing that we're creating in the city, at least through zoning actions is done in partnership with the City Council.

And so we're certainly seeing that the projects that we are approving at the city CPC level are also being approved at the council level. And to the extent that the council seeks modifications, right, they're coming back to the CPC for final scope determination. And so I think that that exchange will continue as we start to see projects across the city, including in the fast-track districts.

We take every piece of testimony. seriously. We want to make sure that we're listening to community boards and borough presidents, and our CPC Commission reports typically will outline how we arrived at our decision based on all the varying factors. Thank you.

Councilmember Wong, followed by Brewer. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, yes. I live in my district for 50 years. I moved there in 1976, and I learned 2 things. One, the power cable in front of my house hasn't been changed. It's the same cable every morning I looked outside. So that's one. And those lines have been suspended.

They're not buried. And to this day, most of my district, which covers 2 community boards that your fast-track plan covers, Community Board 4 and 5, right? The issue is that we're dealing with the same power lines. And worse, we're dealing with the same sewer grid that's been put there for close to 100 years. So with that, and that there are flood zones in my district, and that the Juniper Valley Park area is low land, is in low ground.

Mm-hmm. What we used to see is that there's flooding every once every 3 or 4 years. Now is that we Thank you. I see flooding every single time it rains. And that's serious because, one, the rainwater has nowhere to go, and two, it causes sewer backflows. And sewer backflows is serious because I see raw sewage literally floating on the streets.

And it— and when the water recedes, you smell it for the next couple of days. Those are serious issues. 12 years ago, I got Scott Stringer, he was comptroller back then, to come look at this. And he says, oh yes, we gotta build more basins, we gotta upgrade the sewer lines. And then we got community boards involved, ConEd came, oh yes, the power lines needs to be upgraded.

Nobody mentioned the 2 words fast tracking. Oh, we're gonna fast track the sewer line upgrades. Oh, we're gonna fast track the power lines. All of a sudden, boom, we have fast-track building. Build, build, and build. Where are you going to find the electricity and where are you going to find the sewer lines that really should be there?

So I even spoke to the mayor. Upgrade the infrastructure, then come to tell me about building. Because we are dealing with these 2 issues right now with one, two-family homes and they've been there 50, 60, 70 years, okay, that we can't even handle those power requirements or those sewer problems. Every time there's a windy day, my district lose power because of those power lines that's flapping, flapping in the breeze.

Boom, we lose power. It's the truth. It's the truth, okay? And those are— all right, so here's my question, okay? So I hear all the time from my constituents, even when I worked for Robert Holden, right, constituents called that water and electric infrastructures in the area is straining to support the housing that exists today. How will DCP ensure that our local water and electric grids can handle the influx of 10-story buildings?

Shouldn't we be improving infrastructure before allowing new development? Thank you. Please answer that. Thank you for your question, and thank you for bringing those issues to— I'm sorry that your district is experiencing that and certainly want to make sure that we have a better handle on what's happening there. As I noted throughout this hearing, we want to make sure that as we're considering housing opportunities in communities, we're also looking at the environmental impact, needed capital infrastructure.

I would just also note that We're planning for growth of housing, but we are way behind in terms of the housing we need for the growth in population that we've already seen. The city has grown. People are here. They're living in homeless shelters. They are underhoused. They are doubled up in apartments. What we also need to do is ensure that we're building the housing that people need today while we're also planning for the housing that people need in the future, including folks who may be in your district but not in the housing that they need.

And so through the fast track, we have an opportunity to be able to accelerate the production of affordable housing in your district while also still ensuring public review, community board review, an assessment of your physical and capital infrastructure, and we certainly will be attentive to those needs as we start to plan forward. And I would just note that we are also looking at opportunities, again, relative to your communities.

We don't have an expectation that the South Shore of Staten Island looks like Midtown Manhattan, right? We want to make sure that growth makes sense in that community and that the community is able to accommodate it. Yeah, growth makes sense when the infrastructure could accommodate it. Without talking the infrastructure and you just keep telling people to come in and build, you're putting the carriage in front of the horse.

And that's the message I want to relay today. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

Councilmember Brewer. Thank you. Are you committing to saying you're not going to tear down rent-stabilized buildings? Let me tell you what happens. Excel just emptied 96th Street and Broadway. So they didn't have any discussion. They just paid money. 84th Street and Columbus, they just paid money. So when you say nobody's ever going to tear down rent-stabilized buildings that are occupied, sure, because they'll pay— they'll buy everybody out.

How would you handle that? Would you then go ahead and say, go ahead and build after everybody's been bought out of a rent-stabilized building? Thank you, Councilmember. So we want to make sure that we're protecting rent-stabilized apartments and buildings. And again, I know that there are laws at the state level. There's also— They don't mean anything. I'm just telling you, I do this all day long.

They do not mean anything. So there are laws that do prohibit— Not when you're going to get $23 million for a condo. Understood. I will say that there are those protections, but there's also the work that we're doing to make sure that we protect tenants as an administration. I would just note that includes expanding investment in right to counsel, baselining it for $40 million over 2 years.

I've heard it all. It doesn't work. I'm telling you, not when $23 million is standing for one unit. I hear you, Councilmember. I will just say that it is a priority to us that we are preserving existing affordable housing as we pursue the development of new housing. Historic districts. I want to keep them. I don't know that this administration cares about historic So I want to know, are you also going to be building and tearing down historic districts?

So whether it's a fast track or any other land use action, any proposals that impact historic districts will still go through the existing LPC review process. It does not change. You know how I feel about that process right now with West Park Presbyterian Church being torn down, proposed. I hate LPC right now. Bloomingdale Library. Yes, Michael, but why is it only partially going to be affordable?

Are the other 2 libraries 100%? Are we the only one that is Partially. The other 2 libraries are 100% affordable. Oh, how did I guess? On sites that can accommodate really significant density and that have the opportunity for the non-affordable units to cross-subsidize the creation of the new capital needs of that facility. Then why do you say we want to build in areas like Ward 7 but not really to the max?

Because that's what you're saying. You're saying we're on city-owned land. But we're not going to take advantage. We're going to the Bronx like you always do. We don't want to build affordable really in Manhattan. That's what you're saying when you're only doing MIH at 25%. We're not only doing MIH at 25% in Manhattan. We do have 100% affordable projects.

Well, you're doing it at the library, at the library. We have Whistfish Project in your community, and we do want to finance 100% affordable housing in Manhattan. But it's not. It's only 25%. So the city has a lot of aging facilities across the city. We do not have the capital resources to maintain all of the city's resources and amenities.

And we need to use creative strategies that can finance replacement of these facilities efficiently and with limited strain on the city's resources. I just want to be clear that I want 100% at that library and the city is saying no. Just so we're on the record. Also, NYCHA. I have lots of NYCHA. We don't want to be building— Harborview has been waiting since the Hudson Yards decision. 124 units.

Everybody at HPD knows about it. Nobody's done a damn thing about it. But at other locations, what's going on with HPD at NYCHA Harborview since Hudson Yards when I signed off for that? And I want a commitment that we're not going to tear down trees and get rid of all the open space that NYCHA buildings have. Those are my questions.

Certainly I can't speak for NYCHA. I will say that our collaborations with NYCHA, and I think the city's focus on NYCHA, has been protecting the existing units that exist. We've been focused on our NYCHA preservation projects, on infill that supports the preservation of existing NYCHA, and so Harborview has not moved forward as a result of that. What about Harborview?

You just finished by saying what? It hasn't moved forward because we're focusing on these other initiatives that are preserving existing affordable housing units. So you're not going to build the new units at NYCHA even though it's mandated by Hudson Yards agreement? We'll have to speak with NYCHA about that. They blame it on HPD. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Perro. I have a statement by Councilmember Farias that I'm going to read and then ask you guys a question. The Block by Block report states that one of its goals is to maximize the potential of city-owned land, including school properties, as sites that can support new housing. My question concerns 1880 East Tremont Avenue in the Bronx. located near White Plains Road.

As a part of the Bronx— excuse me, as a part of the Bronx Metro North rezoning, this site was expected to be developed with over 500 units of new housing, with at least 125 affordable units, along with publicly accessible open space and neighborhood-serving retail. However, the majority of the site is now slated for development as a school.

When the city plans new schools on city-owned property, What process is used to assess opportunities for co-locating housing? Is there a formal framework or set of criteria used to evaluate whether a site can accommodate both educational and residential uses? And how would the city ensure that publicly owned sites are being evaluated comprehensively so that opportunities to produce housing are not missed while other public facilities are plan?

And once again, this is Councilmember Amanda Farias from Council District 18 asking this question. Okay, thank you. I can speak a little bit to the mayor's LIFT initiative, the Land Inventory Fast Track. This was an executive order issued on day 1 of the administration. The executive order tasked us with looking comprehensively at the city's assets to evaluate which assets can be used to develop affordable housing or housing generally.

And as part of that executive order, it also ordered that agencies pursuing capital projects on city-owned assets have to coordinate with the LIST Task Force to evaluate the opportunity for housing. So that coordination is happening now as a result of this task force. And we have DCAS and a number of different agencies, including HPD, EDC, Department of City Planning, who are all looking at city-owned sites.

And then as different capital projects are coming through on— or proposed capital projects on city-owned sites, we're looking at— should this project move forward, or should we be looking at housing and co-location in addition to that facility? Well, originally, the site was supposed to be housing, and now they're talking about a majority of— Yeah, I'm not familiar with the exact site, so I'll have to follow up and look into that.

Okay. All right. I'm not familiar either. Okay, if you guys could look into it, because this— we held the process, community input. Many community members thought that this was going to be housing opportunities, and now it's going to be a school. which we embrace and welcome new schools, of course. Talking to any other councilmembers, you could tell them that they are trying to get as much new schools in the district as possible.

But specifically for Councilmember Farias, this was something that was supposed to happen in her district. So if you could just follow up with her, because it's a concern to that community. Yeah, we'll follow up with Councilmember Farias.

In December 2025, DCP released the New York City Industrial Plan. as required by Local Law 172 of 2023. The plan includes, for the first time, a citywide land use framework for industrial areas, as well as numerous important recommendations for economic development policy and infrastructure investment. Is DCP continuing to work on implementing the recommendation of the New York City Industrial Plan?

Yes, we are. So we've been utilizing the land use framework in the Industrial plan to help guide our planning activities as well as decisions that we make, including at the CPC. And so there's a framework in the industrial plan that outlines primary, secondary, and neighborhood industrial areas, primary being our most intensive manufacturing uses, neighborhood industrial areas serving as the areas where we already see sort of mixed-use activity between residential, commercial, light manufacturing, for instance.

And so we've seen and certainly have pursued housing opportunities opportunities in some of the neighborhood industrial areas, while we have certainly been working to ensure, right, that we are keeping our heavy industrial areas intact. That framework has been really important and helpful to how we are considering the work that we do. We know there are a number of other recommendations in the industrial plan, particularly recommendations that are more programmatic policy, and so we certainly have been in conversations with our other city agency partners in the economic development and justice world who are also looking at those proposals.

And how will the initiatives in Block by Block be balanced with the goals of the New York City Industrial Plan and the preservation of dedicated manufacturing zone land? Yeah, I think the industrial plan for the first time in a while gives us a framework to utilize as we start to reach this goal towards 200,000 new units, right, by sort of designating what we see as primary and secondary industrial where we And versus what we see as neighborhood industrial, which are areas that are more appropriate for including housing closer to transit, have much more walkability.

We're able to factor those neighborhoods in more appropriately to our housing planning opportunities while still making sure that we are securing the jobs, right, and the protections that we need in our industrial sector. Okay. And within the Fair Housing Growth Strategy Plan, I know we talked about homeownership. and other kinds of housing. Activating waterfronts. Is DCP, HPD looking at possibly activating more waterfronts?

I only ask this because I know I get a ton of requests from people who are coming into my office who don't want to go to New Jersey because New Jersey has put a lot of development on waterfront. And typically, a lot more people would like those amenities to live by waterfront. and have that open space. So is there any mindset on creating more residential areas around waterfront?

I know, uh, the majority of UWP is focused on North Shore, but is there any other plans to activate any waterfronts? Yeah, I mean, I think it's— there, there's, um, some level of tension, right? A lot of our industrials traditionally along the waterfront, um, in addition to housing opportunity. And so we see a mix of waterfront communities where there's heavy industrial as well as communities that significant housing has been built along the waterfront, including in the Bronx waterfront, where we see a lot more projects emerging along the Harlem River.

At DCP, it's been important for us to ensure that we're evaluating those proposals appropriately relative to the need, that we're making sure that public access along the waterfront remains with private development, and that we have also recently conducted a survey of New Yorkers to also We'll get their input on the waterfront so we can think about ways to activate that beyond housing.

Thank you.

All right. My last set of questions, White Plains Road. I wasn't going to leave without that, right? All right. So Councilmember Dinowitz and myself have been engaging with DCP regarding White Plains Road. How will City Planning and HPD collaborate to develop a plan that promotes senior housing, affordable rental housing, and affordable homeownership opportunities We have the Ebenezer location— HPD, that's for you— that we've been seeing a lot of challenges with.

But how will City Planning and HPD collaborate to develop a plan that promotes senior housing, affordable rental housing, and affordable homeownership opportunities tailored to the area's needs, particularly given that our local median household income is below the citywide median household income? Thank you. And I know I mentioned this earlier in our hearing, but really appreciate your partnership partnership on White Plains Road and all the attention and detail that you've given as we started that planning process.

We will work very closely with HPD on our approach to White Plains Road. We know the AMI in that community. We also have started to hear from community members the types of housing needs that they have. Right now we have been focused on figuring out what the potential is along the corridor, as you know, just in terms of growth, right?

And then we can start to figure out what are the mix of housing programs that can be activated when we have a zoning that aligns with the corridor's needs. And so as part of any neighborhood plan, all of our agency partners at the table, HPD in particular, and they certainly will be at the table in the work that we do in White Plains Road.

And I'll turn it over to you. Well, typically with the Ebenezer plan, because we have a plan on White Plains Road that wants to put homeownership, we are having a challenge speaking to HPD regarding the issues that Ebenezer is seeing. So I would just on the record ask you guys for probably the 20th time if you guys could come to the table and sit down with the organization to address that cause with the Ebenezer Church location.

Sorry if I'm personally not familiar. Ebenezer, this is a faith-based organization that wants to develop on their land? Correct. Oh, we would be happy to meet. I would say on the record, yes, we would love to meet with them. We've done a lot of work to support We support faith-based organizations in developing affordable housing. We recently launched— Well, this one is affordable homeownership.

Okay. I'm happy to speak with them about that. And we've recently launched a technical assistance program with it, or we're going to be funding a new technical assistance program with Enterprise. And we launched a series of classes for faith-based organizations and are happy to meet with them. Okay. Councilmember Dinowitz and I have consistently emphasized the need for greater ratio of family size housing units.

If proposed rezoning is approved, how will HPD work with developers to encourage and prioritize the inclusion of units that could accommodate families and support the long-term needs of the community? HPD has design standards for new construction projects that are based on population data. We require a minimum of 30%, 2 to 3 bedrooms, a maximum of 25%, studios.

We typically exceed these. Looking at data about our projects, we're closer to 41% financing 2 or more bedrooms, and as part of the rezoning and as part of our conversations about future projects, we're happy to keep discussing what's the right bedroom mix for an individual project. Okay. As we approach the conclusion of the community engagement phase, how is the city planning incorporate the community's shared vision into the zoning framework that facilitates much-needed affordable housing while balancing the community's input on size and scale of buildings?

So although we've been engaging community for quite some time, that will continue significantly. So right now we are at the stage, as you know, Councilmember, of starting to really pull together a draft zoning framework. We have not moved into public review yet with that project. and taking your feedback, Councilmember Dinowitz, as well as the working group and community before we can even really move forward with a study.

And so we are incorporating what we heard from community members around the need for growth. As you know, I joined you and members of the community on our walk shop when we walked through the neighborhood to really figure out the different nodes and connections within White Plains Road where we can accommodate much more growth but also places where we know there's sensitivity based on homeowners and other sorts of low-scale characteristics of the neighborhood.

So that work is underway. We have been in conversation, right, to make sure that we're figuring out a draft zoning that really makes sense, but we really need to have conversation with community members first to really get to where we need. We will then move that into public review and start studying the zoning while we also talk about all of the other components of the project— jobs, commercial revitalization, street safety, public realm, all of the things that are critical to a neighborhood plan.

We have a long road ahead of continued conversations with you as well as with the community.

Thank you, Chair, um, and thank you for, um, answering our questions here today. I think the essence of today's conversation was focused on collaboration, um, and planning. Uh, we understand the crisis. Uh, we are not the council that are the NIMBYs. We want to actually to work with the administration, but there has to be some sense of urban or comprehensive planning that's coming into effect.

It's unfair to just focus on units and building and just putting people in a location where there's no true investment on infrastructure, on the schools, and so on and so forth. I think everyone in this room would like to live in a vibrant community. We talk a lot about affordable New York City, but we need a livable New York City.

We could be extremely affordable, but if we don't put people in a community that they can actually live in and thrive in, that's where we're going to lose a lot more New Yorkers to other states, and we don't want to do that. We are in a very important time. We understand the work that we have to do in the council. 700,000 units is extremely ambitious.

We want to work with you guys. So that's just what we want to emphasize with this conversation today. We do want to hear something more. with the plans that you guys put out. How do you guys plan to achieve these goals? Because these are very ambitious goals, and you're going to need a partner to achieve these goals.

So please utilize, utilize us as a partner. We have council members that are trying to do their fair share, but they need the collaboration and cooperation with the administration. Thank you. All right, all right. Uh, Councilmember Brewer, are you good? All right, all right, all right. Wrong question. Do you have any more questions? No. Okay, good. All right, uh, uh, we'll excuse you guys.

Thank you so much for taking the time.

Now we're gonna go into the first panel. Okay, so I'm not gonna take a break. We're gonna go right into public testimony. Okay, so our first panel is going to consist of Chris Walters, Brendan Shaney, Kevin Wolfe, and Lacey Torber. I'm sorry if I butchered your name. Sergeant, can we put one more chair up there, please? Members of the public, we're going to give you 2 minutes to testify.

If you hear the clock, please utilize the next 5 to 10 seconds to wrap it up, okay? Good to go. Okay. You may begin. Just state your name for the record and you may begin.

Great. Thank you, Chair and committee members. My name is Chris Walters. I'm the Associate Director for Policy and Research at the Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development, ANHD. I'll just give a top-line summary of our more detailed written testimony, which we'll submit to you. We believe Block by Block is an ambitious plan that needs to be supported by comprehensive planning.

We support its goals of both creating and preserving 200,000 affordable homes and its recognition of the need for a more equitable distribution of affordable housing. However, building more affordable housing, while essential, is not enough on its own. As you all have raised today, New Yorkers need affordable homes in neighborhoods with the infrastructure, services, jobs, and amenities that allow communities to thrive, and they deserve a meaningful role in deciding how their neighborhoods grow.

We believe that comprehensive planning is the missing tool that can connect these goals. I failed to mention as well, we also convened the Thriving Communities Coalition which is a citywide coalition working to advance land use justice and comprehensive planning. We urge the Mamdani administration to fulfill his campaign commitment to comprehensive planning and build on the strengths of Block by Block by addressing 3 critical gaps.

First, planning must begin with an accurate assessment of housing needs. We believe the administration's recently released fair housing growth strategy falls short of providing that assessment, particularly for the needs of low-income households. Second, housing growth must be coordinated with neighborhood investment. And third, communities must be empowered as equal partners in planning with meaningful opportunities to put forward their proactive plans to shape local development that meets citywide needs.

To help advance these goals, we would make the following call to City Council. We would love to work with you alongside the Thriving Communities Coalition to advance legislation establishing a meaningful community-based neighborhood planning process. and establish a clear pathway for their consideration and implementation. And second, we would like to work with you all to help develop neighborhood plans in your district, as many of you are doing already.

In conclusion, again, we believe comprehensive planning can help reconcile the urgency of housing production with the equally important goals of community participation, equitable investment, and neighborhood stability. Thank you very much for your consideration. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Lacey Tauber. I'm the Director of Legislative Affairs and Climate Initiatives for Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso. And I just want to echo what Chris just said. It was really exciting to hear you talk about the need for comprehensive planning because that's something that the BP has been advocating for for a really long time.

And we would also love to work with you on potentially developing some legislation to meet that need. And so I will summarize our comments. So Block by Block states that the housing shortage is worse for those who earn the least, which is true. However, according to what they're calling for, there would only be 25,500 new homes over the next 5 years available citywide, you know, assuming full implementation, for those with very low and extremely low incomes.

The median household income in Brooklyn is about $84,000, which is $7,600 less than the 60% AMI threshold for a family of 3. So we acknowledge that there are structural barriers to producing deeply affordable housing, but these numbers simply won't meet the needs in Brooklyn. On the fair housing growth strategy, we were happy to see that HPD significantly improved its methodology, but there are still some factors Required in the law that they haven't considered in getting to the numbers they put out, including displacement risk, access to employment opportunities, open space, and other neighbourhood amenities and public services.

And we're just concerned that the targets continue to call upon the highest growth neighbourhoods to add the most housing, while the lowest growth neighbourhoods will continue to do the least. So it calls for also local planning processes to meet these needs. Again, we're concerned about the absence of a coordinated citywide comprehensive plan that includes spatial guidance and an implementation framework.

And without that, you know, really the targets are just ideas and politics can drive decision-making. We want to really quickly just also want to mention that we want to make sure that housing development doesn't come at the expense of the worker. And we want to see our M zones preserved, creating access to job opportunities. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. My name is Brendan Cheney. I'm Director of Policy and Operations at the New York Housing Conference. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I've submitted our full testimony in writing. I will summarize in the interest of time. As we've heard today throughout the hearing, New York City is facing an ongoing housing crisis. Recent changes to increase housing supply are steps in the right direction, but we need to do more.

The City of Yes zoning changes, last year's ballot changes are all— will all generate additional housing in neighborhoods across the city, but these 2 efforts alone will not allow us to add all the housing we need to address the crisis. In the Fair Housing Growth Strategy, the mayor projected the city needs an additional 700,000 units over the next 10 years, including 200,000 units of new affordable housing.

There are massive unmet housing needs in every neighborhood across the city. There's not enough opportunities for homeownership or rental housing. Young adults starting out, families with children, older adults all don't have enough housing choice, facing limited options and high costs. No community board is immune from this. Housing affordability is a problem at every income level. We will not see the housing growth We need in all neighborhoods without further changes, and this is why we support the zoning changes and planning proposals in block by block.

Further neighborhood rezonings, including microplans, are necessary to expand development across the city. Neighborhood rezonings are a powerful way, powerful way to add housing supply in a way that meets neighborhood needs. Adding transit-oriented development to more neighborhoods is also necessary. The program passed as part of the City of Yes will be helpful, but it can go further. We look forward to working with the administration and City Council to support further changes and to support affordable housing and housing growth throughout the city.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Great. Thank you, Chair Riley, for having this hearing and the opportunity to testify. My name is Kevin Wolf, and I'm the Director of Policy and Research for the Center for New York City Neighborhoods. As one of the largest homeowner service nonprofit organizations, we do support the goals of the Block by Block Housing Plan. I do want to echo what my colleagues have said today.

We wanted to specifically focus on ADUs as a central part of the strategy. We've done a research report, and our research has identified that there are over 256,000 residential lots in the city that could feasibly accommodate an ADU under the new zoning provisions. These could include basement apartments, attics, garage apartments, backyard— and backyard cottages. Queens has the greatest potential.

Almost half of those eligible lots are in Queens, but there are significant opportunities in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Staten Island. From our research, ADUs can be less expensive to build than multifamily housing while also keeping the contextual architecture of the neighborhood, providing rental income that helps homeowners manage their maintenance costs, preserve homes, and help those age in place.

They can also create rental housing that is affordable within neighborhoods. So we believe that the city should look at high-potential neighborhoods but also look at areas that have lower displacement risk. ensuring that longtime homeowners can remain in their homes. One of the key issues that we find is that the homeowners are lacking the financing, the technical expertise, and the support to navigate the new construction around an ADU.

So we recommend expanding the ADU Plus program and also investing in community-based nonprofits to help guide homeowners through the process, as well as continuing the centralized city resources for technical assistance permitting and financing. And we've submitted our written testimony. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you so much.

There being no questions, thank you so much for your testimony here today. Next, we'll have Matt Thibodeau, Yvette Shen, Jack Connors, and Howard Slakin. Matt Thibodeau, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Riley and members of the committee. My name is Matt Thibodeau. I'm an urban planner with the municipality of Municipal Arts Society of New York. MAS has long advocated for comprehensive community-based planning that pairs housing growth with neighborhood services and climate-resilient infrastructure, both independently and as a longstanding member of the Thriving Communities Coalition. We support Mayor Mamdani's ambition to build more affordable homes, but have significant concerns about the lack of coordination, rigor, and strategy for community-based implementation.

Block by block, the Fair Housing Growth Strategy and the Affordable Housing Fast Track are advancing on separate paths. It is unclear how they fit together or how 700,000 new homes will be matched by the schools, parks, transit, or flood protection they require. Block by Block lays out an ambitious vision but offers few details on delivery. The report does not explain considerations that will guide future land use actions such as transit-oriented development or comprehensive neighborhood plans.

We urge the city to publish a clear plan that connects housing goals with capital commitments improvements to public infrastructure in communities that are expected to densify. Likewise, the Fair Housing Growth Strategy lacks detail on where and how communities will accommodate growth and what types of housing New Yorkers actually need. The report does not respond to the full intent of Local Law 167, which explicitly requires a detailed housing needs assessment and consideration of transit, public services, and climate impacts.

We urge HPD to deepen its housing needs analysis to quantify the levels of affordability needed by each community, as well as to outline district-level spatial plans to guide development to areas with the capacity to handle additional density. Finally, the 12 districts identified for the Affordable Housing Fast Track have no accompanying planning— have no accompanying planning strategy or spatial framework.

The city must thoughtfully determine where new housing will be sited in these 12 districts. We urge the city to establish dedicated funding for neighborhood planning with a clear pathway to implementation, as it has in the past with the Neighborhood Development Fund. MAS welcomes the opportunity to set up a time to discuss additional details. Thank you.

Thank you, Matt. Yvette? Good afternoon. My name is Yvette Chen, and I'm a policy associate at the Fair Housing Justice Center, a civil rights nonprofit organization serving the NYC area. Our mission is to eliminate housing discrimination promote accessible and inclusive communities, and strengthen the enforcement of fair housing laws. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We welcome the administration's initiative to address the city's deeply inequitable housing crisis.

However, building new affordable housing will not in itself produce housing equity or be effective without the enforcement of fair housing laws. I will focus on 3 priorities today. First, accessibility. The city must act urgently because disability discrimination is rampant. DOB and HPD must work together to review plans and inspect new developments rather than relying on self-certification, which lets violations go undetected.

The city should also enforce the 5% UFAS requirement, bar non-compliant developers from subsidies and approvals, and target retrofits to buildings with documented complaints. Second, discrimination will persist without the enforcement of the human rights law. We ask the council to urge the administration to fund and support CCHR to eliminate source of income discrimination and enforce the Fair Transfer Housing Act.

SOI discrimination has been illegal since 2008, yet it's CCHR's most common complaint. The Fair Transfer Housing Act took effect in January 2025, yet CCHR received no additional funding to enforce the law. Without adequate funding to enforce the law, vouchers will go unused and thwart the city's housing mobility strategy. Lastly, invest in fair housing education and coordinate growth with neighborhood investment and real community participation through comprehensive planning so that new housing is paired with the infrastructure and services neighborhoods need to thrive.

Thank you. Thank you, Jack.

Sorry. Good afternoon. I'm Jack Connors, City Legislative Manager at Open New York, a statewide grassroots advocacy group that fights for more homes of all kinds, protections for tenants, and an all-of-the-above approach to solving our housing affordability crisis. Thank you to Chair Riley and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify. Our housing crisis is rooted in the fact that we simply do not build enough homes.

Displacement, exclusion, tenant harassment, and homelessness are all exacerbated by our dire housing shortage. Homeownership is out of reach for everybody but the wealthiest, and tenants have far too few options, a fact borne out by data that landlords are well aware of. New York— our housing vacancy rate is at a historically low 1.4%, just 0.4% for our deepest, most deeply affordable housing, and the predictable result of this is is a city where an astounding 86% of New Yorkers making less than $50K are rent burdened, and 68% are severely rent burdened, spending more than half of their pretax income on rent alone.

This housing scarcity empowers landlords and exacerbates every other affordability challenge we face, disproportionately impacting lower-income populations. We also face a challenging financial atmosphere, with the federal government further retreating from its already limited role in making housing affordable, and the cost of borrowing continuing to climb. We applaud the goal of building 200,000 new affordable homes in the next decade, as well as the mayor and the council's historic capital funding for HPD, which will allow 8,000 more affordable units to be subsidized.

Yet this figure also highlights the challenges posed by relying on city funding alone. By cross-subsidizing MIH homes with market rate in the highest demand areas, the city can build more of the affordable housing New Yorkers need while reserving city subsidy for the places where it's needed most. This funding mechanism works. MIH tenants benefit from homes that remain affordable decades into the future, and market-rate homes reduce displacement pressure on our already limited stock of deeply affordable housing.

Looking forward, we look forward to the opportunity to engage with the council to help legalize TOD citywide. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you for testifying.

I think the message from the first panel and this panel I think no one's objected to the mayor's plan. I think we just focus on a more comprehensive plan on how we're going to get there. It's easy enough to give a projection of numbers, but actually obtaining those numbers is not truly easy if it's not some form of collaboration.

So I appreciate all of you coming here. Outside of here, you all have been a collaborative partner as well. So thank you so much for taking the time to testify today. Thank you.

The next panel we're going to hear from consists of Victoria Hofer, Josephine Beckman, Rochelle Thompson, and Stephanie Simone Mahoney. Thank you. She's next. Okay, we'll begin first with Stephanie. Good afternoon. Thank you. Okay. I'm Stephanie Simone Mahaney, and the chair of the Zoning and Land Use Committee of Brooklyn Community Board 10, representing Bay Ridge, Dyker Heights, and Fort Hamilton.

CB 10 has been identified as the lowest-producing district among the 12 designated for Affordable Housing Fast Track. We take serious exception to both the methodology used to reach that designation and the consequences it carries for our community. A 5-year measure of newly produced income-restricted housing divided by a district's existing housing units is not a meaningful measure of its development capacity.

Existing housing stock does not tell us how much land is available for— or appropriate for development. The formula does not adequately account for existing density, vacant land, contextual zoning, infrastructure constraints, or the feasibility of producing affordable housing in a largely built-out district like ours. Nor does it recognize the considerable value of preserving existing and rent-stabilized housing. We're particularly concerned that the pursuit of new affordable housing could come at the expense of the affordable housing we already have.

Upzoning creates development opportunities, but it can also place existing lower-cost and rent-stabilized housing under redevelopment pressure. The potential loss of existing affordability must be considered alongside anticipated gains in new production. Low affordable housing production does not necessarily necessarily indicate unmet affordable housing need, nor does it establish that additional development would deliver affordability to those who need it most.

The affordability crisis and the housing shortage should not be treated as synonyms. Increasing supply does not by itself guarantee affordability. Equally troubling for us is the loss of democratic accountability. Under the Affordable Housing Fast Track, final approval rests with the CPC, a body of appointed officials rather than the city council members elected to represent the affected communities.

While commissioners have citywide planning responsibilities, they cannot be expected to possess the same familiarity with our neighborhoods, infrastructure, or longstanding community concerns as those who represent and work within them. Just to say, community boards and borough presidents retain opportunity to comment, but their role is further diminished in a compressed process that removes final approval authority from locally elected representatives.

And I would just like to thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you. Thank you.

Victoria? Thank you. Hi, I'm Victoria Hoffmo. I'm a resident of Bay Ridge. I'm just going to talk about my neighborhood because that's— I feel like everyone's neighborhood is specific and unique, and I think that's how we have to look at it. And I don't feel this process as such. So about 20 years ago, I worked with Councilman Gentile to rezone Bay Ridge at the suggestion of the New York City Planning Department.

Volunteers went block by block, carefully creating a balance between the needs of residents, community facilities, and businesses. That has been revoked from us. At the same time, a representative's voice is being eliminated from the land use process. It's very undemocratic. My neighborhood also provides services to New Yorkers who live way beyond our boundaries through our plethora of schools, medical facilities, places of employment, senior services, and supportive housing for seniors and developmentally delayed adults.

We are lucky to have a mixed housing stock as a result of the immigrants who built it, believing in the social contract and in decent housing for all. As a result, our community is economically, ethnically, and age diverse and remains one of the most affordable and stable neighborhoods in the city. At the same time, we've retained many rent-controlled apartments, and there are a few empty lots on which to develop.

For our largesse, We had approximately 800 homes razed and 7,000 residents displaced with the Verrazano Bridge when they gutted the neighborhood. We were then amputated from the rest of our community, Sunset Park, through redlining. We are taxed 60% more for properties that are worth less than downtown Brooklyn, have been charged so for more than 4 decades, and now find ourselves one of the 12 neighborhoods tensely, and I would argue illegally, listed on the chopping block of communities that need to provide more affordable housing through new construction.

Thank you. I'd like to explain some of the current policies, how they're actually raising prices. The mandatory inclusion in housing— the studio goes for approximately $500 to $1,300 above our market rate. This in turn will further raise our property values and increase our unfair taxes, impacting both homeowners and renters. The definition of affordable housing— affordability is now being defined by how many new housing units have been constructed in the last 5 years.

This definition is ludicrous, and if you notice, mentions nothing about what housing actually costs and nothing about our actual housing reality, but everything about real estate interests. It is also biased against stable and already affordable communities. Thank you. I have some suggestions of what would help make our neighborhoods and other communities more affordable, but I'll put those— send those in online.

Thank you. Thank you. You could also give that to the sergeant, and I'll take a look at that, Victoria. Thank you.

Next, Josephine, followed by Rochelle. Thank you. Is this on? Yes, it's on. Thank you so much, Chair Riley. My name is Josephine Beckman, and I am the district manager of Community Board 10, encompassing the neighborhoods of Bay Ridge, Dyker Heights, and Fort Hamilton. We really appreciate the opportunity to be here today and really grateful to the New York City Council and under your leadership to hold this hearing and give us the ability to comment.

There are significant concerns that we have as one of the 12 fast-track communities. The change is an incredible shift in power and resting the Department of City Planning to have final say in review. We have enjoyed a good working relationship with our local city council members. We have 4 that represent the district and have worked very closely with Councilmember Kayla Santos-Suazo on a neighborhood plan.

Each community district is unique in density, square miles, buildable space, and CB 10 has a total of 14,909 rent-stabilized units. We are very concerned about displacement through future rezonings without proper planning. Recent interaction with developers during ULURP really highlighted Councilman Carr's concern about pro forma view, essentially developers feeling that we're no longer part of the process. Community District 10 should not be evaluated solely on one housing production metric without accounting for the realities of our existing built environment, infrastructure, utility and sewer loads, school seat deficits, and transportation inequities.

CB 10 has a tremendous school seat deficit, still about 4,000 while we've already constructed 5 new schools. Our sewer infrastructure is also antiquated. We are one district that has 14— one of the 14 wastewater treatment plants which covers 5 community districts and a conveyance system that is old. We recently had funding— maybe not recently, 7 years awaiting for new sewers in the district that was already adopted.

And we're just hoping that the City Council continues to work with the boards and really understand the new role of the City Planning Commission in this process. Thank you. Thank you, Josephine.

Rochelle? Oh, all right. Hi, my name is Rochelle Thompson, and I am known as the First Lady of Jazz in Harlem, USA, the continent that I love. I've lived in my rent-stabilized apartment for 41 years. They have tried to evict me 19 times. Every entity, 5 of them, that has come into the building, they have tried to take me to court.

Recently, they tried to do a holdover, and I was in HP Court. I did win my court battle, but in the HP Court, Judge Leslie A. Granger signed a warrant for my Eviction, so I reported her to the Judicial Oversight Committee. I'm here today to let the council know: as seniors, we are targeted. We are not listened to.

We're constantly in court. We cannot get counsel. I had to face three landlord attorneys alone, but I kicked their you know what. So I am hoping. That the council will take into consideration that our leases or recertification should be automatically done, and that we're— again, there's a cap on how many times they can take us to court.

I've been down here before and spoke about this 4 times. Please listen to the senior citizens. Please be proactive. Please, if we are in Class C violations mixing valves and scaffolding in front of the building. Please have the code enforcement from HPD just come into the building, go into the basement, and fix the mixing valves before there is a fire in the building.

Thank you for letting me speak. You're welcome, and thank you to this panel for testifying today.

Uh, the next panel will consist of Christina Weggs, uh, Zenib Turan, Andrea Goldwyn and Emma Bartley. And we'll begin first with Andrea Goldwyn. Take your time, Andrea. I'm not rushing you. No, not at all. I don't want you to trip. You can begin, Ms. Andrea.

Uh, good afternoon, Chair Riley and Chair— excuse me— and Councilmember Brewer. I'm Andrea Goldwyn speaking on behalf of the New York Landmarks Conservancy. The Conservancy has a long record of supporting existing housing that is affordable and the conversion of underutilized buildings into more affordable housing. Like others, we support comprehensive planning that creates certainty for New Yorkers. But we can't support the Affordable Housing Fast Track and the Fair Housing Growth Strategy as incorporated into Block by Block.

These plans will lead to the demolition of existing affordable housing in favor of unlimited new construction. And they remove public participation from the land use process. Most residents and council members welcome affordable housing but have questions about adding massive new development without any support for improving infrastructure. The plans that the administration proposes forget the lessons of the past when government czars such as Robert Moses had boundless power and neighborhoods were routinely demolished.

Many neighborhoods with historic districts are already the densest and most crowded. They are almost completely built out. The fair housing growth targets will put more development pressure on these historic districts and surrounding areas, especially the older, smaller buildings that often contain smaller, less expensive apartments. The report calls for enormous increases in the rate of housing unit growth in the Upper East and Upper West Sides, but as Councilmember Brewer has pointed out here and elsewhere, CD7 on the Upper West Side contains NYCHA units, temporary supportive housing, SROs, and subsidized housing.

It had a net loss of over 15,000 rent-stabilized units over 15 years, which the city and state did not stop. The Conservancy supports appropriate new construction in historic districts, and we've testified in favor of many such proposals at the Landmarks Commission. However, adding the equivalent of another borough across the entire city, or several hundred supertall towers in any neighborhood, will put untenable strains on infrastructure and services, and it will lead to the demolition of existing housing that defines New York's diverse neighborhoods and diverse— excuse me, unique identity.

Thank you for the opportunity to present the Conservancy's views. Thank you.

Next, we'll hear from Emma. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Emma Bartley, and I'm the policy manager from the Historic Districts Council, the citywide advocate for New York's historic neighborhoods. I'm here today to express HDC's comments and concerns about the fair housing growth strategy and aspects of the affordable housing fast track. HDC supports the goal of expanding the city's affordable housing opportunities. communities.

We have strongly supported housing growth through our advocacy, including testifying in support of large-scale affordable housing developments within historic districts, supporting the proposed South of Prospect neighborhood rezoning, and recently launching our new initiative Preserving Affordability, which seeks to unlock more historic tax credits to rehab historic affordable rental buildings. However, while we support the goals of the growth strategy, we have concerns about approach.

We are particularly concerned that high, largely market-rate housing production targets could incentivize demolitions across the city. This concern is compounded by the Affordable Housing Fast Track's inclusion of already densely developed neighborhoods like the Upper West Side, where vacant or developable land is limited. This is not just a preservation issue, but an affordability issue, as older buildings containing rent-regulated or naturally occurring affordable housing are particularly vulnerable to redevelopment.

A comprehensive housing strategy must better account for existing density and displacement risk when setting neighborhood targets, while also establishing a clear plan to preserve existing affordable housing. We also wish to echo a point recently made by Councilmember Brewer. The city's measure of housing growth appears to be flawed because it focuses on new construction while overlooking housing created or retained through rehab, adaptive reuse, and conversions.

The New York Times recently reported that since 2023, the city has permitted over 19,000 units to be created through conversion projects. The strategy should recognize these contributions when measuring housing growth and more actively promote rehab and adaptive reuse as alternatives to mass demolition and displacement. Thank you.

Uh, next we'll hear from Christina Farbaz-Zena. Thank you. Hi, thanks so much for having us today. My name's Christina Weggs. I'm an independent consultant, and I work on justice-focused urban policy, community co-design, and participatory governance of urban development. I live in Kensington Flatbush, which is part of the south of Prospect Plan area. And like we've heard from many of us here, me and my neighbors, we support Block to Block.

But we think it must be delivered through a comprehensive neighborhood plan, just as you've reiterated. I agree with many of the points that have been made, so maybe I'll add a few more on the table. I think as a resident and as a practitioner, my interest is to ensure that longtime residents and local businesses in my neighborhood can both shape the growth that's coming to our neighborhood and benefit from that growth rather than being displaced from it.

And I have 4 asks. One, and I think we heard very eloquently from others. We need deep and meaningful affordability. Every rezoned area and city-owned site should report on how many new homes are affordable at the 30% and 50% of area median income, and we should set targets for each community district. Also, as you reiterated yourself, we really need pathways to community ownership.

Ownership lets the community members stay and share in the value that growth is creating in their neighborhoods. And I'm asking, and we heard a little bit about this, for dedicated funds with technical support for community land trusts, co-ops, tenants in small buildings, and affordable ground floor space for local businesses on city sites. We need meaningful community engagement throughout the whole process.

I'm very grateful that in my area, council members Rita Joseph, Shahana Hanif, and Farrah Lewis, as well as the city department, the city planning department, have already started great engagement. I'm asking that that continue, not just through our 2027 plan, but throughout construction. And what I heard in a meeting yesterday was the critical importance of funding local groups who are able to continuously convene community members who might not be reached by the city.

A draft plan should show how it reflected and responded to what community members asked for, and there needs to be a public tracker and a local advisory group to track that commitments are followed through. The last point I'd like to make, and I'll add to this, is we need anti-displacement protections before rezoning and transit arrive. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Zeynep? Hi, Chair Riley. My name is Zeynep Turan, and I'm here on behalf of Friends of the Upper East Side, a leading voice for common-sense development since 1982. Friends supports housing equity and recognizes New York City's urgent need for affordable housing. We applaud Block by Block's ambitious 10-year target of adding 200,000 new affordable homes and the commitment to preserve more.

But we have 3 questions. First, how does Block by Block fit into the city's broader housing strategy? How will it coordinate with City of Yes Housing Opportunity and the fair housing strategy to avoid overlapping targets, measure combined results, and ensure accountability? Echoing Councilmember Brewer and her frustration, second, we ask, how will this plan work in the city's densest neighborhoods where underutilized land is scarce?

On the Upper East Side, particularly in Yorkville, low-rise multifamily buildings with rent-stabilized apartments are being replaced by luxury condominiums with zero affordable housing units. How will block-by-block plan address this loss. Success cannot be measured only by new homes built, but also must factor in affordable homes lost. And to that end, between 2008 and 2025, Community District 8, our district, lost 14,793 rent-stabilized apartments.

This makes preservation of existing affordable housing essential. Thank you. France calls on the city to require developers demolishing buildings with affordable apartments to replace every affordable unit demolished with an equivalent affordable unit built on-site. Third, how will the city preserve existing affordability, support landlords, and deliver deeper affordability on the Upper East Side? And what specific measures will bring deeper affordability to the Upper East Side, a neighborhood that is increasingly becoming high cost for the low-income residents.

In conclusion, we urge the city to make preservation, deep affordability, and neighborhood-specific solutions central to this plan with an adequate public review process. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony.

Our next panel will consist of Dan Fortini, Anthony Orlowski— sorry if I misspelled your name— Matthew Gugliotta, and Dave Pardee. We'll begin first with Dan, followed by Anthony, Matthew, then Dave.

Hello. All right, uh, Chair Riley and members of the committee, my name is Dan Fortini and I'm a proud member of Plumbers Local Union Number 1. I also serve on the Plumbing Technical Code Committee alongside Paul O'Connor. He's the business manager of Local 1, and today I have the privilege of presenting testimony on his behalf. For generations, our members have built and maintained the critical plumbing infrastructure that delivers safe drinking water, removes wastewater, and protects the health and safety of millions of New Yorkers.

Let me be unmistakably clear: Local 1 supports building more housing that working families can afford, but the housing crisis is not a blank check to weaken public safety. We reject the false choice between affordability and safety, and New Yorkers deserve both. We unequivocally oppose the use and expansion of plastic piping in all capacities, including PEX. This is not an opening bid for compromise.

Reducing construction costs cannot justify transferring risks to residents, building operators, or firefighters. The administration cannot use the block-by-block housing plan to bypass the established Construction Code Committee process. The Affordable and Efficient Code Reform Task Force cannot become a vehicle for reviving rejected proposals behind closed doors. New York City's density and building stock demand local scrutiny, not shortcuts dressed up as reform.

The council should demand public disclosure of the task force's membership, recommendations, supporting evidence, and dissenting views. FDNY participation is essential. Contemplating changes involving combustible materials without the firefighters to respond when systems fail is indefensible. Fire safety is not negotiable. Plastic piping systems can soften, melt, or burn, and the consequences of this extend beyond the failed pipe to residents and emergency responders.

Before expanding plastic piping, the city should submit subject fire performance and the integrity of affected fire stopping systems to independent technical review. Public health demands scrutiny. Concerns about plastic piping, biofilm, and safe disinfection require independent examination. That review needs to address Legionnaires' disease. The city has a responsibility to demonstrate that proposed systems can safely maintain— be maintained, excuse me, and remediated.

Testimony has been submitted in written. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Dan.

Anthony? Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Anthony Orlowski. I'm Executive Vice President of McWane Plumbing Group. McWane is a leading U.S. manufacturer of plumbing and water infrastructure products, including cast iron pipe and fittings that are used in New York City. I'm here today to express McWane's strong opposition to this plan's proposal to expand the use of plastic piping in buildings taller than 5 stories.

As this committee knows, building codes are established for the purpose of protecting the public, ultimately from health and safety hazards, but first and foremost from the bad decisions that otherwise might lead to them. It is always wrong to decide It's always a wrong decision to trade someone's safety for anything else, even if done with the best of intentions.

And no code should be changed so that it results in worse health and safety outcomes. Plastic piping is at its best inferior to cast iron and copper in health and safety performance. That's at its best. And while the high performance of cast iron and copper are inherent to the materials themselves, I'd like to remind the committee that the performance of plastic is dependent on the quality of the installation and its supporting systems.

Absent 100% inspection by a third party, someone installing plastic systems with the goal of cost reduction will be pressured to take shortcuts. This takes inferior performance and reduces it to unacceptable. New York City can advance affordable housing while maintaining the fire safety and public health standards that protect its residents. All New Yorkers deserve plumbing systems that are safe, reliable, and built to last.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Thank you, Matthew.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Matthew Gagliotta, president and business manager of Allied Building Inspectors Local 211, International Union of Operating Engineers. Local 211 represents New York City's building and housing inspectors employed at the 3 agencies that will play a significant role in implementing this housing plan: Department of Buildings, HPD, and NYCHA.

Our members— our members' workloads will be directly impacted and significantly increased by this plan across all agencies. While our members are certainly up to the challenge, and we support any housing plan that will address our city's housing crisis, will this plan and this council take into account the critical need to increase funding for inspector staffing levels across all inspector titles at all 3 agencies, address decades-long recruitment and retention issues of inspectors, provide adequate equipment to carry out our enforcement and development duties, In order for any housing plan to succeed, there must be robust housing maintenance code enforcement, construction safety compliance inspections, as well as construction development that is zoning resolution and code compliant.

Inspector staffing levels must be addressed for any plan to succeed. Our members take great pride and ensuring public safety and ensuring tenants have the dignified, safe housing that they deserve. We look forward to being on the front lines of the housing crisis and carrying out our duties, whether at DOB, HPD, or NYCHA. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dave.

Good afternoon, Chair Riley and members of the committee. My name is Dave Parney. I'm the Executive Vice President of the Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute, or CISPI. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Founded in 1949, CISPI represents U.S. manufacturers of cast iron soil pipe and fittings used in the building construction for drain, waste, and vent plumbing systems here in New York City.

I'm here to express CISPI's strong opposition to the proposal in the block-by-block plan to expand the use of plastic piping and buildings taller than 5 stories. On page 99 of this block-by-block program, the plan calls for a Department of Buildings task force to identify code changes that could reduce housing costs. One proposal is to permit plastic piping in taller buildings based on its lower material cost.

However, New York City has restricted plastic's use in these buildings for more than 20 years, and similar restrictions exist nationwide due to significant safety concerns. We support building more affordable housing, but affordable housing must never come at the expense of fire safety or public health. I'll explain some of these issues in brief. First, fire safety. Plastic piping will melt, burn, and produce smoke during a fire.

These systems systems also depend on firestop devices at wall and floor penetrations to prevent fire and smoke from spreading through the building and causing health and safety concerns to the residents. Once concealed, these devices can be difficult to inspect and maintain. Second, water safety. Research has raised concerns of biofilm growth, Legionella bacteria in plastic piping's inability to withstand disinfection.

Independent studies have found Legionella more frequently in systems using plastic piping than those using copper, raising serious public health concerns about expanded— expanding its use in larger residential buildings. Finally, CSPE urges the council to oppose any code changes that would expand plastic piping's use in buildings taller than 5 stories New Yorkers deserve safe, reliable plumbing, and affordable housing must never mean compromising the safety of the people who live in it.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much, uh, for your testimony today. We appreciate it. Thank you. This panel is excused.

Uh, next we're going to hear from Ron. And can you guys please submit those testimonies to us as well? Yeah, thank you. Um, Rhonda Wiss, John Biggers, and Patricia Legate. If there's anyone else that has signed up to testify, uh, please see the sergeant-at-arms. Uh, following this testimony, we're going to go into a virtual panel. That virtual panel is going to consist of Kyle Ems, Cheryl Mervin, and Dominic Dorisky.

That will be the virtual panel after this. Did you call me Patricia? Yes, I did call you Patricia. I'm sorry, maybe I mispronounced your name. I'm sorry. John, and is Rhonda here? Rhonda Wiss? Okay. We'll first start with Patricia, then followed by John.

Good afternoon. I'm here on a very important matter. My life almost was taken from me due to a fraud that I discovered in where I live, which is Rosedale. I lost my house. My house was taken from me, fraud did, in 2019. I went and I rent an apartment, a 3-bedroom, with me and my children. The landlord, when I rent the place, he mentioned to me that I will have to fix the property with my money to move in.

So I was so disturbed by it, but I needed a place to stay because I become homeless with my kids. I fixed the property and with my money, even appliances, I put all the appliances that was my house was taken into the apartment and I move in. As I move in, I was hurt by an individual and I have 20 screws in my back.

I am a nurse and I couldn't work anymore. I was given a voucher by Section 8 voucher by the Supreme Court. I spent 1 year in the hospital to recover and 2 years in a— on a chair. Now, being in this house, I find out that this landlord really is not the landlord. The property is The property is owned by the city, by NACHA.

The property been stolen since 1974. And come to find out, with my investigation, come to find out not only my property that I am in right now is stolen in Rosedale, there is 150 house to 200 house is taken by NACHA. And they're still in possession of the property? And the city does not know. What they're doing is put people with voucher, take people from a— that in hotel and put in those property to collect the rent, to get government money.

And NACHA employees own those property. And they're not paying rent. And I've been targeted. They tried to burn my house with me and my children in it 10 months ago. So, so, Miss Patricia, um, I don't want to make less of what you're saying here today, but this hearing is strictly focused on the block-by-block proposal that the mayor put out.

Yes. Um, if you want, you could, uh, just wait for me after, um, and we'll figure out a way to connect you to the appropriate council members for you to get some help. Regarding your issue? Yes. Okay. You know, as you said, uh, you know, affordable houses, and I asked them to transfer my voucher. They have so much affordable houses and none of them is affordable.

Okay. So when we're done with the hearing, we'll, we'll connect with you and see how we could connect you to our social assistance. All right. Thank you for listening to me. John? No, of course. Of course. I'm sorry you're going through that as well. Yes. Thank you. Go ahead, John.

That's tough to follow there. Chair Riley, thank you so much for allowing me to be here today. My name is John Biggers. I am president of Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company. During my 37 years at Charlotte Pipe, I've covered New York City for 20 years, and I'm intimately familiar with the plumbing systems in New York City. Matter of fact, we might be able to help the lady with her T&P valve before this is over with.

We'll have a conversation with her. Since 1901, Charlotte Pipe has been a family-owned American manufacturer of high-quality pipe and fittings. We're one of the nation's largest manufacturers of cast iron and plastic pipe and fittings, and we have extensive experience with both materials and an unwavering commitment to safety. I've traveled to New York City today to express our opposition to the block-by-block proposal to expand the use of plastic pipe in buildings taller than 5 stories.

These and similar restrictions exist nationwide due to the longstanding safety concerns. With more of a century of experience in manufacturing cast iron and plastic piping, Charlotte Pipe is in a unique position to speak on the risks of expanding plastic piping in large residential buildings. Fire safety is the primary concern. In buildings taller than 5 stories, evacuating residents can take more time, making fire protection especially critical.

Plastic piping can melt, burn, and generate harmful gases during a fire. As you heard earlier, these systems rely completely on fire stopping devices between wall and floor penetrations. Once concealed, these devices can be difficult to inspect, maintain, creating additional concerns for building safety. As well, these fire stopping manufacturers do not warranty the performance of these products for the life of their buildings.

So I think it's important for the council to understand that high-throughput They're not uncommon in the U.S. Lots of states have height restrictions, and we would urge the council to not expand the existing height restrictions in New York City. Thank you. Thank you so much for this panel. And my brother is a member of Local Union 1, so he's been expressing this issue to me as well.

So very familiar with it, and thank you so much for testifying. We'll keep in touch.

Into a notion, and Miss Patricia, if you could just give Camille all your information, and we'll follow up with you. Okay. If there's anyone still here that did not testify, please see one of the sergeant arms for a speaker's card. We are going to transition into virtual. We're going to hear from Kyle Ems, Cheryl Mervyn, and Dominic Derwiski.

Sorry if I mispronounce your name, Dominic. We'll begin. First, Wakao, you may begin. Uh, I'll do video. Yeah, sure.

All right, thank you for the opportunity to testify, uh, Chair Riley. I appreciate, uh, earlier you had voiced concern about the number of units of affordable housing seeming to be like the number one goal and actually being concerned about the effectiveness or implementation rather than just chasing a number. And that's why I want to raise directly to you— I've emailed your office about this— but over the summer, uh, HPD awarded the largest affordable housing preservation tax exemption in New York's history, nearly 1,100 units, uh, cost to the city of over a third of a billion dollars.

No tenants knew about it. No tenants want it. I'm in one of the buildings, and I actually have a tenant association with 100% participation rate. No one is— no one is dissenting. We do not want this agreement. No one told us about it. The landlords do not deserve it. It's a third of a billion dollars plus, and there's no news about it.

I've asked every city council member about it. No one has any answers. It's been 6 months. Where every day I've worked to find just even a simple answer, like, could you explain the cost? How'd you get to the $359 million cost calculation? Like, what's the numbers behind it? Because it's mathematically impossible according to the tax values and the disclosures and numbers given in HPO's term sheet.

Sorry if that's a little off topic, but that's what I got. I reached out to your office. Hope to help. Sure bet. Thank you, Kyle. Can you send that, uh, to, uh, my office again? I'm not sure what email you sent it to, but can you send it to Cynthia Prisco, please? Yes. Thank you. That's cprisco@council.nyc.gov. P-R-I-S-C-O, Prisco.

Thank you, Kyle.

Next, we'll hear from Cheryl. You may begin. Cheryl dropped off. Next, we'll hear from Dominic. You may begin.

Yes, good afternoon. For the record, this is my son's first name. So good afternoon, Chair Riley and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on Mayor Mamdani's block-by-block housing plan and the importance of removing barriers to affordable housing construction.

My name is Fabian Dereweski, and I'm here on behalf of Local 7080, Asbestos, Lead, and Hazardous Waste Laborers Union. Our members perform hazardous materials remediation, including asbestos, lead, and mold removal at the construction sites throughout New York City. We support efforts to accelerate affordable housing development. From our perspective, one critical obstacle must be addressed: delays in asbestos permitting.

Asbestos abatement is often among the first steps in construction project. When approvals are delayed, the entire project is delayed. The city has a strong regulatory framework throughout the Department of Environmental Protection asbestos control program, which is overseen by the Asbestos Technical Review Unit, ATRU. However, due to staffing shortages, approvals that once took weeks are now taking months.

This can leave office-to-residential conversions and other types of housing stalled before construction even begins. This increases costs and delays the delivery of desperately needed housing. The block-by-block housing plan mentions this specific issue on page 106. These delays also have serious safety implications. As a union, job site safety for our members and other trades is our priority. However, when asbestos remains in place on the job site, it puts workers at risk of exposure.

The slowness of DEP's approval is not making construction safer; it is making it more dangerous. Allowing professional certification or ProCert would speed up the removal of asbestos so fewer workers are at risk of exposure. Local 78 has been working with Council Member Riley on legislation to allow qualified professionals to use professional certification. certification in the asbestos permitting process.

We, uh, this would allow qualified professionals to certify compliant plans and proceed with abatement without waiting months for DEP approval. The block-by-block housing plan seeks to accelerate affordable housing development in a safe manner. To achieve this goal, the city must address the permitting delays that prevent projects from advancing. We urge the council to support the proposed legislation when introduced.

Thank you. and work toward its prompt passage. Our members are ready to work— to do work necessary— Your time expired. —and to bring affordable housing to New Yorkers. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Uh, there being no questions for this panel, this panel is excused. Uh, just stay at ease. If there are any members in the room who want to testify, or if there's anyone online that wants to testify, please use the raise hand function. We'll stand at ease for 15 seconds. Okay, seeing no one else waiting to testify, I will now close the oversight hearing on the mayor's plan, and that concludes today's business.

I would also like to close the vote from earlier as well. As a reminder for anyone wishing to submit written testimony on this topic, you may do so by emailing it to landuse testimony at council.nyc.gov. Thank you to Chair Sherman, Deputy Commissioner Sandler, for taking the time to meet with us today. Thank you to DCP Executive Director Edith Su Chen as well.

I would like to also thank the members of the public, everyone who testified today, my colleagues, council staff, and the sergeant-at-arms for participating in today's meeting. This meeting is hereby adjourned. Thank you.