Community Board Calls for Numerous Carveouts in Adams Plan for Economic Growth
As the year-long campaign by the administration of Mayor Eric Adams to ratify its City of Yes for Economic Opportunity initiative nears conclusion (with a City Council vote likely in early June), its possible impact on Lower Manhattan is worth considering. The City of Yes for Economic Opportunity program runs to more than 1,200 pages and consists of 18 proposals that seek to make doing business in New York easier, especially for small firms. (Apart from aiding businesses, there are two other broad components to the City of Yes initiative—housing and carbon reduction—that have yet to begin the formal review process.)
Representatives of the Department of City Planning (DCP) made multiple presentations to the Land Use, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee of Community Board 1 (CB1) last fall, which culminated in a January resolution that took issue with ten of the 18 proposals contained in the City of Yes for Economic Opportunity package.
CB1 objected to a proposal to “modernize loading dock rules so businesses can adapt over time,” arguing that it should be modified so that it would not apply in buildings that contain apartments (as is the case in many former industrial buildings in Tribeca, which were subsequently converted to residential use), and that such modifications should be subject to review by local community boards.
Also garnering a thumbs down was a proposal to “enable commercial activity on upper floors” of residential buildings.
CB1 took a dim view of the plan to “clarify rules to permit indoor agriculture,” chiefly due to concerns that it would encourage local marijuana cultivation.
A program to “give life sciences companies more certainty to grow” got a qualified endorsement, with the caveat that “because of the risks such laboratories pose to their neighbors,” such firms not be allowed in any building that also houses residential units.
A package of ideas to “support nightlife with common-sense rules for dancing and live entertainment” was rejected outright, primarily because it meant that “venues [hosting] over 200 people would be newly allowed… throughout Lower Manhattan.”
The City of Yes roadmap to “create more opportunities for amusements to locate” was rejected by CB1 unless modified “so that indoor amusement facilities should conform to existing height and bulk regulations,” and “to exclude Governors Island… to preserve the intentions of the special district.”
A series of zoning changes to “enable entrepreneurship with modern rules for home-based businesses” was similarly disapproved unless modified to incorporate a cap on how many such firms could locate within a residential building, and a requirement that neighbors be notified of its presence.
A scheme to introduce design rules for commercial corridors to “ensure buildings contribute to surroundings” got conditional support, with the admonition that “CB1 notes that this proposal does not explain how, if at all, it might apply in the special district of Battery Park City.”
City Hall’s strategy to “facilitate local commercial space on residential campuses” aroused concern that “this proposal should be modified to require Community Board review and a vote on application of nonresidential uses on residential campuses.”
And finally, the Adams administration’s plan to “rationalize [the] waiver process for business adaptation and growth” by allowing the City’s Board of Standards and Appeals “to modify the size, enclosure, and other requirements for permitted uses” of retail, service, amusement, and manufacturing firms drew a flat rejection from CB1.
It would be great if the Broadsheet posted when the next opportunity for public comment when the City of Yes for Economics comes up before this is made into law. It should be some time over the summer (July) but DCP date hasn’t been scheduled yet. It would give another opportunity for people to speak up as many of the proposals do not meet any needs for Lower Manhattan with the largest commercial vacancy rates in NYC.