May 2002
From Executive Committee
Item 1: Indian Point Nuclear Plant (WITHDRAWN)
From Business Licenses & Permits
Committee
Item 2: Letter to NYSLA, re: 530 West 28th Street LP, d/b/a
Crobar, 530 West 28th Street
Item 3: Letter to NYSLA, re: River Watch Corp., d/b/a Copacabana,
558-570 W. 34th St.
Item 4: Letter to NYSLA, re: Bar Nocturno Inc., 111 West 17th Street (RATIFIED)
Item 5: Letter to NYSLA, re: Ariana Kebab House, 787 9th
Avenue (b. 52nd/53rd)
Item 5ai: Variation i. of denial letter
Item 5aii: Variation ii of denial letter
Item 5aiii: Variation iii of denial letter (WITHDRAWN)
From Chelsea Preservation &
Planning Committee
Item 6: Letter to Elected Officials, re: Fleming House
Transfer
From Clinton Land Use & Zoning
Committee
Item 7: Letter to BSA, re: Alvin Ailey Dance Foundation,
841-849 9th Ave. (b. 55th/56th) & 401-409 West 55th Street
Item 8: Letter to BSA, re: Amoco Gas Station, 436 10th
Ave. at West 34th St.
Item 9: Letter to DCP, re: ULURP for 475 9th Ave. at West
37th Street
Item 10: Statement of position, re: Studio City
Item 11: Letter to HPD, re: Macklowe Funds for CHDC at
500 West 42nd Street
From Health & Human Services
Committee
Item 12: Letter of Support for Hudson Guild Safe Streets
Program
From Housing Committee
Item 13: Letter to Holland House, re: Holland House Tenants
Association
From Transportation Planning Committee
Item 14: Street Activity Permit: London Terrace Association,
West 24th Street (b. 9th/10th)
Item 15: Letter to DCA, re: SMJ Café Inc., d/b/a
Clinton Grille, 637 10th Ave. (b. 45th/46th)
Item 16: Letter to DCA, re: 160 Bistro Inc., d/b/a Le
Singe Verte, 160 7th Ave. (b. 19th/20th)
Item 17: Letter to DCA, re: Newspaper Stand installation,
SE Corner, W. 58th St./10th Ave.
Item 18: Letter to DOT, re: Response to Muni-meter expansion
From Waterfront & Parks Committee
Item 19: Letter to HRPT, re: Water Taxis
Item 20: Letter to HRPT, re: Segment 7 design
Item 21: Letter to HRPT, re: Segment 5 design
From 14th Street Special Committee
Item 22: Letter to DOS, re: Garbage on 14th Street
(top)
Item 2: Letter to NYSLA, re: 530 West 28th Street LP, d/b/a Crobar, 530 West 28th Street
May 8, 2002
Hon. Edward Kelly
Commissioner
NYS Liquor Authority
84 Holland Avenue
2nd floor, A-Wing
Albany, NY 12208
Dear Commissioner Kelly:
The Business Licenses & Permits Committee of Manhattan Community Board No. 4 has reviewed the application for an on-premises liquor license for 530 West 28th Street L.P., d/b/a Crobar to be located at 530 West 28th Street. The committee has reviewed the following:
At its May 1, 2002 full board meeting, this Board voted to recommend approval of the full, on-premises liquor license for Crobar with the following stipulations, reviewed and agreed to by Crobar:
1. Crobar will meet with the Quality of Life Committee of Manhattan Community Board No. 4 for a period of at least one year at intervals to be determined by the Quality of Life Committee. A decision capable person responsible for operations at Crobar, to speak on behalf of Crobar, must be present.
2. Cabs, limousines or other modes of transportation used to attend or leave Crobar will not be allowed to queue outside Crobar, on the block or at other areas nearby Crobar.
3. Security, to consist of live personnel, will be used to patrol the block and areas around Crobar prone to problems or congregations of people.
4. Crobar will improve the appearance of the block by planting or installing trees or light fixtures.
5. Crobar will employ, at it's own expense, workers to provide, on a regular basis, additional street and sidewalk cleaning services outside Crobar in addition to those required by the Department of Sanitation with the intent of improving the appearance of the neighborhood.
6. Crobar will make reasonable efforts to employ people from the local community in its establishment in areas including, but not limited to, cleaners, security, bartenders, entertainment, and management.
7. Crobar agrees to soundproof the ceiling and exterior walls of its premises recognizing that there exist no residential buildings on the block upon which such premises are situated.
8. If Crobar wishes to amend its original liquor license application, it shall meet with and notify Manhattan Community Board No. 4, in writing, of its intention to do so no less than 30 days prior to filing such amendment or application with the State Liquor Authority.
9. Crobar aggress that final drawings submitted to the Department of Buildings will substantially reflect the schematic drawings presented to Manhattan Community Board No. 4 for approval.
Crobar further confirms and attests that neither Peter Gatien, nor his assignees or designees, nor any entity in which he had, now has, or may in the future acquire, any controlling interest (nor any company affiliated with him) shall ever have any involvement whatsoever in the management, operation, or promotion of the establishment in any manner whatsoever, nor will Peter Gatien ever be an employee of or consultant to Crobar.
Sincerely,
Simone Sindin
Chair
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
Cheryl Kupper & Pat Rogers
Co-Chairs
Business Licenses & Permits Committee
(top)
Item 3: Letter to NYSLA, re: River Watch Corp., d/b/a Copacabana, 558-570 W. 34th St.
May 6, 2002
Hon. Edward Kelly
Commissioner
NYS Liquor Authority
84 Holland Avenue, 2nd floor, A-Wing
Albany, NY 12208
Dear Chair Kelly:
Manhattan Community Board No. 4 approves the liquor license application for River Watch Corp., d/b/a Copacabana, to be located at 558-70 W 34th Street. With an international reputation, the Copacabana is an institution that has serviced New York City for decades. This business moved from the east side to West 57th Street, located in our community board area, several years ago.
There have been no problems with the operation, nor have there been any complaints registered with the board. Their design allows for generous access and egress and contains a well thought out plan for handling flow within the club.
Therefore, this Board supports the liquor license transfer for Copacabana.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Simone Sindin
Chair
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
Cheryl Kupper & Pat Rogers
Co-Chairs
Business Licenses & Permits Committee
(top)
Item 5: Letter to NYSLA, re: Ariana Kebab House, 787 9th Avenue (b. 52nd/53rd)
May 7, 2002
Hon. Edward Kelly
Commissioner
New York State Liquor Authority
84 Holland Avenue
2nd floor, A-Wing
Albany, NY 12208
Dear Commissioner Kelly:
The applicant referenced above was scheduled to attend the Business Licenses & Permits Committee on April 9, 2002, but did not appear to discuss plans or explain the intentions regarding the proposed business.
Without sufficient information to determine the merits of this liquor license application, Manhattan Community Board No. 4 must deny approval to the applicant.
Thank you for you time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Simone Sindin
Chair
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
Cheryl Kupper & Pat Rogers
Co-Chairs
Business Licecnses & Permits Committee
(top)
Item 5ai: Variation of denial letter
June XX, 2002
Hon. Edward Kelly
Commissioner
New York State Liquor Authority
84 Holland Avenue
2nd floor, A-Wing
Albany, NY 12208
Re: Establishment X
Dear Commissioner Kelly:
Manhattan Community Board No. 4 cannot approve the referenced application by XXX because the applicant failed to appear before this Board's Business Licenses & Permits Committee to discuss the application and explain his/her intentions regarding the proposed establishment.
The applicant was invited to attend the Committee's regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, May 14th 2002. The invitation was mailed on May 29th in order to provide ample time for response.
Without sufficient information to determine the merits of this liquor license application, Manhattan Community Board No. 4 must deny approval to the applicant.
Thank you for you time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Simone Sindin
Chair
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
Cheryl Kupper & Pat Rogers
Co-Chairs
Business Licenses & Permits Committee
(top)
Item 5aii: Variation of denial letter
June XX, 2002
Hon. Edward Kelly
Commissioner
New York State Liquor Authority
84 Holland Avenue
2nd floor, A-Wing
Albany, NY 12208
Re: Application by Establishment X/or Applicant for OP Liquor License at &th Ave b. &th/&th sts.
Dear Commissioner Kelly:
Manhattan Community Board No. 4 cannot approve the referenced application because the applicant failed to provide this Board's Business Licenses & Permits Committee with sufficient information as requested in writing. The request was made in order to enable the Committee to discuss the plans and fully understand the applicant's intentions regarding the proposed establishment.
The following requested information was not provided to the Committee and, as a result, the Committee was unable to make an informed decision on the application.
Without sufficient information to determine the merits of this liquor license application, Manhattan Community Board No. 4 must deny approval to the applicant.
Sincerely,
Simone Sindin
Chair
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
Cheryl Kupper & Pat Rogers
Co-Chairs
Business Licenses & Permits Committee
(top)
Item 6: Letter to Elected Officials, re: Fleming House Transfer
May 6, 2002
Hon. Richard Gottfried
Assemblymember
Hon. Thomas Duane
State Senator
Dear Assemblymember/Senator:
Manhattan Community Board No. 4 is writing in support of the transfer of the title of Fleming House, a residence for mentally ill seniors located at 443 West 22nd Street in Chelsea, to its operator, the West Side Federation for Senior Supportive Housing. It is our understanding that transfer of the title of such facilities to the organizations operating them has become a part of state policy and that the operator, generally known as WSFSSH, is agreeable to such transfer.
Frederic Fleming House has been one of the success stories of the neighborhood. Some years ago the community, which has become concerned about uses proposed for the building - long the location of various social services - was much relieved by the proposal of Trinity Church to remodel the structure for permanent housing for mentally-ill seniors and to use WSFSSH as the operator. The facility that has resulted has maintained excellent relations with the community, even become the last home of some well-loved community members, and successfully provided outstanding services to its residents.
This Board and the community can imagine nothing better than assurance of the continuation of this facility by transferring title to its operator. We ask you to support this action.
Sincerely,
Simone Sindin
Chair
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
Edward S. Kirkland
Chair
Chelsea Preservation & Planning Committee
(top)
Item 7: Letter to BSA, re: Alvin Ailey Dance Foundation, 841-849 9th Ave. (b. 55th/56th) & 401-409 West 55th Street. BSA Application No.: 92-02 BZ for waiver of lot coverage and height and setback regulations.
May 3, 2002
Hon. James Chin
Chair
Board of Standards and Appeals
40 Rector Street
New York, NY 10007
Dear Chair Chin:
At the recommendation of its Clinton Land Use and Zoning Committee, Manhattan Community Board No. 4, having held a duly noticed public hearing on BSA Application No. 92-02 BZ, voted unanimously to recommend approval of this application, subject to the conditions indicated below (roll call vote of (41) in favor, (0) opposed, (0) abstentions and (0) present but not eligible to vote).
This application seeks a variance for a waiver of the applicable height and setback regulations governing lot coverage and height and setback to facilitate the development of a new building for the Alvin Ailey Dance Foundation at the northwest corner of Ninth Avenue and West 55th Street. The building will include dance studios, informal performance space, "back of the house" facilities, administrative offices and other facilities for Alvin Ailey's dance companies and the Ailey School.
The site is within the Preservation Area of the Special Clinton District and consists of two zoning lots, a corner lot within an R8(C1-5) zoning district and an adjacent midblock lot within a C6-2 zoning district. The applicable lot coverage regulations allow a maximum lot coverage of 70% on the corner lot and 60% on the midblock lot. The applicant's proposed lot coverage is 83% on the corner lot and 67% on the midblock lot. The site has for many years been occupied by a theater building with approximately 90% lot coverage. The applicable height and setback regulations require setbacks at 85 feet above curb level or six stories, whichever is less. The applicant's proposed building has a 98 foot streetwall, without setbacks.
The applicant's request for these variances is attributable to the trapezoidal shape of the corner lot and fact that the site's grade decreases from 53 feet at the northeast corner to 44 feet at its southwestern corner. The new building has been designed to include 14dance studios (two of which will be built at a later date). It is planned to be seven stories above grade and two below grade. The proposed studios have widths from 32 to 43 feet and ceiling heights from 14 to 20 feet. If the building were designed to accommodate these studios without the requested variance, the building would be approximately 30 feet taller along Ninth Avenue and would much more significantly alter the character of the neighborhood than the proposed building.
Therefore, having reviewed and considered the statement of findings in the application, this Board concurs that this application meets the requirements for variance pursuant to section 72-21 of the Zoning Resolution.
The Board is pleased that the applicant has selected this site for its new building, and looks forward to working with the applicant to further the many benefits that the proposed project will bring to the neighborhood.
However, the Board does have several concerns about the effect that the building's design, which is essentially a large glass box, and the applicant's programs will have on this largely residential neighborhood. The applicant has addressed most of these concerns in a letter dated April 29, 2002 (copy attached), and has expressed a willingness to continue to consult with the Board throughout the design and construction phases of the project.
This Board therefore recommends approval of the application, provided the applicant adheres to the limitations stated in its letter to the Board, namely:
1. The hours of operation will generally
be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
2. Light emanating from the building will be minimized through use of a partially
fritted, insulated glass façade and light-reducing shades.
3. All exterior mechanical systems will include noise abatement features to
ensure that permitted noise levels are not exceeded.
Sincerely,
Simone Sindin
Chair
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
Anna Hayes Levin
Chair
Clinton Land Use and Zoning Committee
(top)
Item 8: Letter to BSA, re: Amoco Gas Station, 436 10th Ave. at West 34th St. BSA Cal. No.: 1263-80 BZ. Application to extend term of variance for service station.
May 3, 2002
Hon. James Chin
Chair
Board of Standards and Appeals
40 Rector Street
New York, NY 10007
Dear Chair Chin:
At the recommendation of its Clinton Land Use and Zoning Committee, Manhattan Community Board No. 4, having held a duly noticed public hearing on BSA Calendar No. 1265-80 BZ, voted to recommend approval of this application, subject to the conditions indicated below (41 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstentions and 0 present but not eligible to vote).
This application requests the extension of the term of an existing variance for an additional ten years beyond May 12, 2001 and waiver of the rules of procedure to allow for late filing of the application. No changes are proposed.
The variance was first granted in 1981 and permitted the enlargement in lot area and reconstruction of an existing auto service station with a projecting accessory business sign for a term of 10 years. The variance was extended in 1992 for an additional 10 years on condition that the planting be maintained and replaced when needed, that the premises be kept grafitti free and that the premises conform to the approved drawings.
This Board has previously received complaints from residents of the area that the fence surrounding the service station and the required planting had not been properly maintained. Both of these conditions were corrected shortly before this application was filed. The attorney for the applicant has assured this Board that he will remain available to the Board to ensure that any future lack of maintenance is immediately addressed.
This Board therefore recommends approval of the application for a 10-year period, subject to continuation of the conditions that were imposed by the Board of Standards and Appeals when the variance was last extended.
Sincerely,
Simone Sindin
Chair
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
Anna Hayes Levin
Chair
Clinton Land Use & Zoning Committee
(top)
Item 9: Letter to DCP, re: ULURP for 475 9th Ave. at West 37th Street. ULURP No.: 020365ZSM. Proposed Special Permit for a Public Parking Garage and Request for Floor Area Exemption.
May 3, 2002
Hon. Amanda M. Burden
Chair
City Planning Commission
22 Reade Street
New York, NY 10007
Dear Chair Burden:
At its regularly scheduled monthly full board meeting held on May 1, 2002, Manhattan Community Board No. 4 held a duly noticed public hearing on ULURP application number 020365ZSM and adopted the following resolutions (by roll call vote 40 in favor, 1 opposed, 0 present but not eligible to vote and 0 abstentions.)
PROPOSED ACTION
Whereas, the Applicant seeks a special permit to (a) permit a 166-space public parking garage to be incorporated into a new development under construction at the southwest corner of West 37th Street and Ninth Avenue, and (b) allow 11,783 square feet of ground floor space used for parking to be exempt from the definition of floor area; and
BACKGROUND
Whereas, the development, a 13-story building, will contain approximately 259 units of 80-20 housing (approximately 207 market rate and 52 low-to-moderate residential units) and approximately 5,000 square feet of local retail use along the Ninth Avenue and West 37th Street frontages of the building, all of which are consistent with the underlying zoning and may be built as-of-right; and
Whereas, the development replaces a 109-space open public parking lot that was authorized in 1995 as an interim use pending development consistent with the goals of the rezoning of the area that took place in 1993 and 1994 to encourage residential and commercial development along Ninth Avenue from West 35th to West 41st Streets; and
Site Considerations and Findings
Whereas, the proposed public parking garage would be located on the ground and cellar levels of the development; and
Whereas, the number of proposed parking spaces (166) is approximately the same as the number of spaces in the lot that was on the site (109) plus the number of accessory parking spaces that could be constructed as-of-right (54); and
Whereas, the site has a layer of 80-ton rock approximately 10 feet below grade, the excavation of which, in addition to being costly, is complicated by the site's location adjacent to a ramp leading to the Lincoln Tunnel; and
Whereas, the deed to the property includes a restriction running in favor of the Port Authority that limits the owner's right to make changes to the property that would affect the integrity or stability of the access ramp walls, and requires the Port Authority's approval of the methods and means of construction of improvements on the site; and
Whereas, the construction, monitoring and protection plan that has been established by the developer and approved by the Port Authority does not permit the excavation or blasting of rock adjacent to the retaining wall that would be required to locate the proposed garage entirely below grade; and
Whereas, this Board has reviewed the statement of findings in the application and concurs that the proposed public parking garage and requested exemption meet the requirements for the requested special permit pursuant to Sections 13-562 and 74-52 of the Zoning Resolution; and
Design Considerations
Whereas, this Board has requested that the massing and façade treatment of the building be modified in an effort for the project to better fit into the existing urban landscape; and
Whereas, in response, the building's base has been redesigned to be weightier to reflect the character of nearby buildings, and the applicant has demonstrated a willingness to continue to allow the Board an advisory role in the evolving design of the building (by considering, among other things, redistribution of brick color to emphasize the building's mass and minimize its verticality, design of storefronts to maintain light and activity at the street level, and design of signage to enhance the building's clean lines); and
Whereas, the applicant has committed in writing (see attached letter) to locating trees along the Ninth Avenue and 37th Street frontages of the new building.
Therefore Be It Resolved, that, solely because of the site's location adjacent to the Lincoln Tunnel access ramp on two sides, the site's rock conditions and the Port Authority's deed restrictions, Manhattan Community Board 4 recommends approval of this ULURP application to (i) allow a 166-space public parking garage and (ii) exempt 11,783 square feet of ground floor space used for parking from the definition of floor area, provided the applicant abides by its commitment to locate seven trees on city streets adjacent to the project site and two trees on the project site.
Sincerely,
Simone Sindin
Chair
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
Anna Hayes Levin
Chair
Clinton Land Use & Zoning Committee
(top)
Item 10: Statement of position, re: Studio City
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
Statement of Position Regarding Studio City New York
At its regularly scheduled monthly full board meeting held on May 1, 2002, Manhattan Community Board No. 4 adopted the following resolution (39 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstentions and 0 present but not eligible to vote):
WHEREAS, representatives of the New York City Economic Development Corporation and West Side Studios LLC made a presentation to the Clinton Land Use and Zoning Committee at its meeting on April 10, 2002 concerning EDC's proposed disposition of city-owned property and development rights at 550 West 45th Street between 10th and 11th Avenues to West Side Studios LLC for construction of a multi-purpose media creation facility to be called Studio City New York; and
WHEREAS, the disposition was approved under the Uniform Land Use Review Process (ULURP) by the City Planning Commission on February 14, 2001 and the City Council in March 2001; and
WHEREAS, representatives of EDC and West Side Studios LLC assured the Committee that the project remains unchanged since its presentation to the Board during the ULURP process, and that it continues to consist of a 14-story building containing approximately 540,000 square feet of zoning floor area containing 250,000 square feet of studio space (with five studios ranging from 10,000 to 17,000 square feet each); 100,000 square feet of common areas and storage space; 210,000 square feet of production support space including space for set construction; 45,000 square feet of commercial office space ancillary to the studio operations; and an accessory parking garage for approximately 50 vehicles; and
WHEREAS, EDC now seeks approval of the disposition by the Manhattan Borough Board pursuant to Section 384(b)(4) of the New York City Charter; and
WHEREAS, Manhattan Community Board No. 4 wishes to state its current position with respect to the Studio City project, for presentation by its Chair as a member of the Manhattan Borough Board; and
WHEREAS, in December 2000 the Board resolved to disapprove the ULURP applications for the project unless, among other things, prior to construction of the proposed development, West Side Studios LLC builds/installs improvements to the neighboring school, I.S./P.S. 51 primarily including a new HVAC ventilation system and double glazed insulated windows for the existing school building, and the construction of a new 2-story building addition containing a gymnasium, additional classrooms and a rooftop play space (see attached letter from the Board to the City Planning Commission dated December 7, 2000); and
WHEREAS, in consultation with the Board of Education and Manhattan Community Board No. 4, a scope of work for the school improvements has been established and agreed to by West Side Studios LLC; this scope of work is memorialized in the memo dated November 12, 2001 from Jesse Masyr to representatives of the Board of Education and Manhattan Community Board No. 4 and the documents referred to in that memo (the "Scope of Work").
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board's position with respect to the Studio City project is as follows:
1. The Board's position stated in its letter to the City Planning Commission dated December 7, 2000 is confirmed.
2. Any agreement between EDC and West Side Studios LLC for sale of the property and development rights must obligate West Side Studios LLC to complete the school improvements substantially in accordance with the Scope of Work.
3. The improvements to the existing school building must be completed before construction of the school addition and/or work on the Studio City project begins.
4. The agreement must include provisions designed to ensure that all school improvements will be completed before a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Studio City project is issued.
5. If West Side Studios LLC is prevented from carrying out the school improvements and is permitted under the agreement to convert its obligation to a monetary payment, that payment must be held in an escrow or blocked account by EDC subject to restrictions that will ensure that it will be used for the required improvements to I.S./P.S. 51 and for no other purpose.
6. West Side Studios LLC must provide to this Board copies of all notices given to the Board of Education or its affiliated agencies (and their successors) relating to West Side Studios LLC's obligation to complete the school improvements, at the same time that such notices are given to the Board of Education or its affiliated agencies (and their successors).
7. This Board encourages and endorses
any request by the Board of Education for the zoning override necessary to permit
construction of the school improvements, since the existing school building
does not have a Certificate of Occupancy and is a non-conforming use located
in a manufacturing zone.
(top)
Item 11: Letter to HPD, re: Macklowe Funds for CHDC at 500 West 42nd Street
May 3, 2002
Timothy O'Hanlon
Director
Supportive Housing Loan Program
Department of Housing Preservation and Development
100 Gold Street
New York, New York 10038
Dear Mr. O'Hanlon:
After a presentation by Clinton Housing Development Company (CHDC) to the Clinton Land Use and Zoning Committee of Manhattan Community Board No. 4 regarding the project at 500-506 West 42nd Street, which includes the construction of 67 supportive SRO rooms and studio aprtmants, and a review of CHDC's proposal for the project dated April 10, 2002, this Board is glad to advise you of its judgment that this project is one that is appropriate for support from the moneys remaining in the Macklowe Fund.
The type and location of this project are of the kind for which the Macklowe Fund was designed. The Fund was created as the eventual outcome of conditions placed on a rezoning devised some years ago to allow construction of a large building on a property in the neighborhood that had very recently contained occupied SROs. It was the concern of the Board and the other reviewing agencies that some mitigation must be required for the resulting displacement pressures on the area, which had historically been the location of many examples of this rapidly vanishing and badly needed facility.
On the basis of CHDC's presentation and proposal, this Board approves the expenditure of not more than $1 million from the Fund for this project. If any significant additional moneys are to be used from the Fund for this project, CHDC must return to the Board for renewal of its approval.
Sincerely,
Simone Sindin
Chair
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
Anna Hayes Levin
Chair
Clinton Land Use & Zoning Committee
(top)
Item 12: Letter of Support for Hudson Guild Safe Streets Program
May 7, 2002
Hon. Edwin Méndez-Santiago
Commissioner
Department for the Aging
2 Lafayette Street
New York, NY 10007
Dear Commissioner Méndez-Santiago:
Manhattan Community Board No. 4 recognizes the essential value of the preventative and direct services provided by Hudson Guild's Adult Services Program to local seniors. We wish to express our enthusiastic support of Hudson Guild's proposal to continue providing a Safe Street Program.
The Hudson Guild's Safe Streets Program offers both crime prevention services and victim services for community seniors. Crime prevention services for seniors include lectures about avoiding crime, safe streets corridors with local merchants and police enabling senior to go shopping or to the bank, escort services, elder abuse discussion groups, and community outreach. For crime victims, Safe Streets provides counseling services, emergency financial assistance, and referrals. Safe Streets also supplies seniors with security devices, such as locks, for their apartments.
Hudson Guild is a well-established settlement house, with deep roots in the Chelsea community since 1895. It is a pioneer in the field of services to seniors, providing formal programs for the aging population since 1947. The activities and services currently provided by Hudson Guild under their Safe Streets Program significantly support the safety and security of our older neighbors.
This Board is deeply committed to ensuring that all seniors, especially our low and moderate income residents, maintain secure and active lives in our community, and we believe that Guild's services support this goal.
Therefore, we urge the Department for the Aging to approve Hudson Guild's application to continue providing a Safe Streets Program.
Sincerely,
Simone Sindin
Chair
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
Joe Catrambone
Co-Chair
Health & Human Services Committee
(top)
Item 13: Letter to Holland House, re: Holland House Tenants Association
May 7, 2002
Kilty Bedford
Director
Holland House
351 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Dear Ms. Bedford:
Manhattan Community Board No. 4 is pleased that a representative of this Board, Howard Smith, was present and participated in the recent meeting of Holland House's Community Advisory Board. We look forward to a long, positive and productive association with the Holland House.
We recall that at an earlier meeting you were understandably reluctant to meet with tenant representatives prior to a building-wide election to select such representatives. Since then, elections have been held and representatives of the Holland House Tenants Association have been elected. In a letter dated April 2, 2002, the Tenants Association requested a meeting with management.
We strongly urge that such a meeting be scheduled as quickly as possible so that problems can be discussed and resolved, and so that an ongoing dialogue is established between management and the Tenants Association.
As before, if this Board or its Housing Committee can be helpful, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Simone Sindin
Chair
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
Gene Glaberman
Chair
Housing Committee
(top)
Item 14: Street Activity Permit: London Terrace Association, West 24th Street (b. 9th/10th)
May 7, 2002
Mildred Duran
Director
Street Activity Permit Office
51 Chambers Street
New York, NY 10007
At its April 17, 2002 meeting, the Transportation Planning Committee of Manhattan Community Board No. 4 heard and approved the following Street Activity Permit application.
Applicant: London Terrace Tenants
Association
Location: W 24th Street, b. Ninth and Tenth Aves.
Date: Saturday, September 28, 2002
Time: 9:00 am - 7:00 pm
At its meeing on May 1, 2002, the full Board approved this application.
Sincerely,
Simone Sindin
Chair
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
Walter Mankoff & Ken Stewart
Co-Chairs
Transportation Planning Committee
(top)
Item 15: Letter to DCA, re: SMJ Café Inc., d/b/a Clinton Grille, 637 10th Ave. (b. 45th/46th)
May 7, 2002
Beverly Gotay
Assistant Director - Licensing Center
Department of Consumer Affairs
42 Broadway, 8th floor
New York, NY 10004
Re: SIDEWALK CAFÉ APPLICATION
Applicant: SMJ Café Inc.,
d/b/a Clinton Grille
Location: 637 10th Av (b. 45th/46th sts.)
DCA License No.: 1104384
Type: New Application - Unenclosed Sidewalk Café
Tables/Chairs: 17 tables / 37 chairs
At its April 17, 2002 meeting, the Transportation Planning Committee of Manhattan Community Board No. 4 heard from the above applicant and reviewed plans for an unenclosed sidewalk café. No one appeared in opposition to the plans. In fact, several favorable comments were submitted to the Board regarding this establishment, including written support from the local block association.
At its meeting on May 1, 2002 the full Board approved this application.
Sincerely,
Simone Sindin
Chair
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
Walter Mankoff & Ken Stewart
Co-Chairs
Transportation Planning Committee
(top)
Item 16: Letter to DCA, re: 160 Bistro Inc., d/b/a Le Singe Verte, 160 7th Ave. (b. 19th/20th)
May 7, 2002
Beverly Gotay
Assistant Director - Licensing Center
Department of Consumer Affairs
42 Broadway, 8th floor
New York, NY 10004
Applicant: 160 Bistro Inc., d/b/a
Le Singe Verte
DCA License No.: 1104424
Type: New Application - Unenclosed Sidewalk Café
Tables/Chairs: 17 tables / 36 chairs
At its April 17, 2002 meeting, the Transportation Planning Committee of Manhattan Community Board No. 4 heard from the above applicant and reviewed plans for an unenclosed sidewalk café. No one appeared in opposition to the plans.
At its meeting on May 1, 2002 the full Board approved this application.
Sincerely,
Simone Sindin
Chair
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
Walter Mankoff & Ken Stewart
Co -Chairs
Transportation Planning Committee
(top)
Item 17: Letter to DCA, re: Proposed Newspaper Stand installation, SE Corner, W. 58th St./10th Ave.
May 7, 2002
Beverly Gotay
Assistant Director - Licensing Center
Department of Consumer Affairs
42 Broadway, 8th floor
New York, NY 10004
Re: Proposed Newspaper Stand at SE Corner of 58th St and 10th Ave.
Applicant: Earl Thomas
DCA License No.: 1105445
Type: New Application - Newspaper Stand
At its April 17, 2002 meeting, the Transportation Planning Committee of Manhattan Community Board No. 4 heard from the above applicant and reviewed plans for a newspaper stand. No one appeared in opposition to the plan.
At its meeting on May 1, 2002 the full Board approved this application.
Sincerely,
Simone Sindin
Chair
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
Walter Mankoff & Ken Stewart
Co-Chairs
Transportation Planning Committee
Item 18: Letter to DOT, re: Response to Muni-meter expansion
May 8, 2002
Hon. Margaret Forgione
Manhattan Borough Commissioner
Department of Transportation
40 Worth Street
New York, NY 10007
Dear Commissioner Forgione:
Manhattan Community Board No. 4 is writing to express its alarm regarding the content of your March 25, 2002 letter addressed to Community Board District Managers. This letter announced plans to add many more muni-meters in midtown, but failed to acknowledge either of the concerns the Board had communicated to Commissioner Weinshall about the design and positioning of these collection devices.
The Board has agreed that centralized parking fee collection has several potential advantages, but the units observed thus far are bulky, as they unnecessarily intrude into pedestrian circulation space. In addition, they are so boxy that they present a platform for abandoned food wrappers and coffee cups. The Board is certain that the volume purchasing power wielded by New York City affords an opportunity to dictate more enlightened design specifications to a vendor instead of simply accepting any product that is already available.
In addition, the devices are typically mounted too high to be conveniently used by people of short stature or who are in wheelchairs. Also, during the time this letter was written, the two West 55th Street muni-meters, which have been called to the attention of your department by Manhattan Community Board No. 5, remain in place, severely obstructing pedestrian movement.
Manhattan Community Board No. 4 will oppose the installation of any muni-meters on our narrow sidewalks until the Department of Transportation gives the Board some indication that a well-designed unit can be used, and in all instances, can be positioned with maximum consideration for all users of the sidewalks.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Simone Sindin
Chair
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
Walter Mankoff & Ken Stewart
Co-Chairs
Transportation Planning Committee
(top)
Item 19: Letter to HRPT, re: Water Taxis Proposal
May 7, 2002
Hon. Daniel Doctoroff
Deputy Mayor
Economic Development and Rebuilding
City Hall
New York, NY 10007
Dear Deputy Mayor Doctoroff:
At the last meeting for Manhattan Community Board No. 4's Waterfront & Parks Committee, New York Water Taxi presented a proposal for a water taxi service that connects various New York City waterfront locations, including at least one stop within Manhattan District No. 4. As we understand, during rush hours, the service would act as a feeder connecting several downtown locations with cross-Hudson ferry landings near the tip of Manhattan. During low peak hours, it would connect various park locations, both for park users as well as tourists. Future expansion plans also indicated possible connections in park areas further north.
As such, a water taxi has long been part of the overall Hudson River Park concept, and as this Board has generally supported water-borne transportation alternatives, we wholeheartedly endorse the concept of this new venture and look forward to its success. We likewise endorse the concept of a water taxi landing at Pier 84 (one of the proposed stops) provided that, as New York Water Taxi has promised, it is available to other water taxi services that may emerge in the future, and not be restricted for the use of any single company.
Finally, in our discussion with New York Water Taxi, we emphasized that this service should not ignore everyday park users (as it seems to be primarily aimed at tourists and commuters) and the company has assured us that this will not be the case, and that special pricing options for park visitors will be considered.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Simone Sindin
Chair
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
John Doswell & Pam Frederick
Co-Chairs
Waterfront & Parks Committee
(top)
Item 20: Letter to HRPT, re: Segment 7 Design Issues
May 13, 2002
Robert Balachandran
President & CEO
Hudson River Park Trust
Pier 40 @ West Houston & West St.
2nd Floor
New York City, NY 10014
Dear Mr. Balachandran:
As the design for Segment 7 of Hudson River Park moves into the design development phase, leading toward the start of construction as soon as the fall of this year, we are writing now about an element of the design that has been the subject of three prior letters: the over-development of active recreational facilities on Pier 97.
It is quite clear to us that, in spite of a long, active and generally successful design consultation among the Trust, the designers and the members of the community design team, Community Board No 4's Waterfront & Parks Committee and the Friends of Clinton Cove (as well as other organizations), there remains a significant difference of opinion regarding the programmatic design of this pier. From the beginning, the community design group and the Community Board have been consistent in their view that this Pier should favor an open flexible design that emphasized un-programmed open space, and the Trust and its designers have continually generated a design that was, and still is, the antithesis of this vision - a design that "chops" up the pier with dedicated sports facilities that are both costly as well as difficult to change over time. In the most recent iteration of the design, the most significant response from the Trust was a reduction in size of one basketball court from full to half size.
While we understand that our role in this process is advisory, we are troubled that we cannot seem to find common ground on the uses of Pier 97, and that the Trust has not, at the least, presented to us a rationale for this cluttered design, other than to defer to the input of both NYC and NYS parks departments.
We also noted in a design review of Segment 7 in March that the bridge over the bow notch just south of Pier 97 had been eliminated and we assumed at the time that this was a budgetary constraint. Based on that assumption, in our subsequent letter we asked that the bow notch be constructed with foundations such that, if additional monies could be identified in the future, the bridge could be added. We now understand that the decision may simply reflect a difference in opinion between our views and those of the Trust. While we believe that the bridge over the bow notch will provide a safer and better passage of traffic in a very constricted area of the park, what concerns us most is the lack of dialog between the Trust and Manhattan Community Board No. 4 (and the organizations represented on the Community Design Team) regarding this decision.
Accordingly, we now ask that as soon as possible and before there it becomes too expensive to reconsider this decision a meeting be set up that includes the Trust, its designers, this Board, Friends of Clinton Cove and, if possible, representatives of both NYC & NYS parks departments. This meeting should take place on site, including a walk-thru of the adjacent park facilities. The goal of this meeting will not only be the resolution of certain fundamental programmatic design issues cited above - it will also be to strengthen the positive relationship between the community and the Trust that has long been a hallmark of the Hudson River Park design process since the days of the Conservancy.
We look forward to your response to this letter.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Simone Sindin
Chair
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
John Doswell & Pam Frederick
Co-Chairs
Waterfront & Parks Committee
(top)
Item 21: Letter to HRPT, re: Segment 5 Design Comments
May 13, 2002
Robert Balachandran
President & CEO
Hudson River Park Trust
Pier 40 @ West Houston & West St.
New York, NY 10014
Dear Mr. Balachandran:
Manhattan Community Board No 4's Waterfront and Parks Committee has reviewed the initial concepts for Segment 5 of Hudson River Park on two recent occasions, and would like to take this opportunity to offer our initial comments and ideas. To begin, we are pleased to say that the concepts presented so far have been generally well received by the community, and we are pleased with the creativity and sensitivity of the designers. Following are several observations and suggestions that have emerged from out reviews.
1. Of the two options shown for the pedestrian path/esplanade in what the designers have called "Chelsea Cove", the option that shows a path closer to the water's edge was much preferred.
2. The water inlet and/or canal in Chelsea Cove is a feature that was liked by many. However, we appreciate the problems that may be associated with keeping this water feature free from trash and residue. We urge the Trust to seek a solution that keeps this concept in an environmentally clean manner.
3. Regarding Pier 62, we have two comments. First, the active recreation options shown on this pier are vague and need to be refined before we can comment further. Second, many believe that the "off-leash" dog area at the end of Pier 62 should be incorporated into the design as a permanent feature.
4. As you know, Community Board No 4 has long held the opinion that the shed on Pier 64 should be removed, and this sentiment was again stated by large numbers the last Segment 5 public review, although others have stated an opposite view. We generally agree, however, that Pier 64 needs a shade structure of some kind, whether its design uses or reflects the original pier shed or not. We are also in agreement that the overall design of Pier 64 should tend toward flatness and flexibility, although many liked the idea of viewing platforms at the ends of piers in general.
5. In general, we prefer fewer trees on piers, and we have consistently stated in the past that trees in Hudson River Park should not block the view corridors of adjacent streets.
6. The concept of extending the esplanade within Chelsea Piers is excellent
7. However, the plans to reduce the platforming south of Chelsea Piers in favor of the artificial over-water pathways from Chelsea Piers need to be rethought in our opinion. First of all, Assembly Member Gottfried, one of the authors of the Hudson River Park Act, has stated that the concepts proposed would not be legal. In addition, given the limited amount of open space available in Chelsea, emphasis should be placed on providing the maximum amount of platforming that is permissible under the law, regardless of cost.
8. The replica of the versa-boom should be eliminated. While legitimate restorations of historic artifacts on Pier 54, as well as other locations within the park, should be encouraged, Disney-style replications of historic features should be discouraged.
9. All piers in Segment 5, as well as elsewhere in the park, should be equipped with real cleats and/or bollards. Regardless of the concept for the surface or the intended uses alongside, any pier should be capable of vessel tie-up, both for future flexibility as well as for potential emergency use.
10. On Gansevoort Peninsula, an open, un-programmed lawn, as indicated by scheme A, is much preferred over a dedicated ball field.
11. A farmer's market along Bloomfield Street is a great idea. In addition, emphasis should be placed on recognition of the historic original 13th Avenue in the design.
12. We understand that the current garbage transfer pier must be rebuilt or replaced for technical reasons. We encourage the designers to create a structure that recreates both the simple beauty and utility of the existing structure, with one additional feature: a viewing area on the upper level.
13. Both the "beach" as indicated on the southern shore of Gansevoort and the small boating center along the northern shore are excellent as indicated in the concept plan.
14. Quite a few have indicated that they did not like the idea of a carousel in the park.
15. There is very strong sentiment that Pier 63 Maritime is a great facility and a means should be found for it to continue within Segment 5 or nearby in the park.
We look forward to working with the Trust and the designers of Segment 5 on a concept that, overall, was very favorably received. If it were possible to sum up our comments in nine words or less, we would say "keep it simple - keep it flexible - keep it real"
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Simone Sindin
Chair
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
John Doswell & Pam Frederick
Co-Chairs
Waterfront & Parks Committee
(top)
Item 22: Letter to DOS, re: Garbage on 14th Street
May 6, 2002
The Honorable John Doherty
Commissioner
NYC Department of Sanitation
125 Worth Street
New York, NY 10013
Dear Commissioner Doherty:
Congratulations on your reappointment as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Sanitation.
Several years ago, Manhattan Community Boards Nos. 2 and 4 formed a joint committee to address the concerns that businesses and residents have along our common border, West 14th Street. One concern that has been gaining popularity recently is the amount of garbage being disposed of along this street. As both Greenwich Village and Chelsea have experienced significant growth in tourism over the years, the garbage collection seems not to have kept pace.
Recently we learned that your agency has been replacing missing garbage cans along West 14th Street, between Ninth Avenue and the West Side Highway, only to have them disappear. This, coupled with the overflowing conditions of those cans that have not disappeared, leads us to request that your agency help us find a resolution to this garbage saturation issue. Specifically, we ask that a survey be done along West 14th Street between Sixth Avenue and the West Side Highway and along the adjoining avenues to determine what can be done to alleviate this situation.
Thank you for your assistance. We look forward to working with you to resolve this matter.
Sincerely,
Simone Sindin
Chair
Manhattan Community Board No. 4
Thomas Lunke
Chair
14th Street Special Committee