THE CITY OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE MAYOR NEW YORK, NY 10007      TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 001    INWOOD REZONING PROPOSAL  CEQR No. 17DME007M  ULURP Nos.: 180073MMM, 180204 [A] ZMM, N180205 [A] ZRM 180206PPM, 180207PQM, and 180208HAM      April 17, 2018      A. INTRODUCTION  The  New  York  City  Economic  Development  Corporation  (NYCEDC),  together  with  the  Department  of  Housing Preservation and Development (NYCHPD), the Department of Citywide Administrative Services  (NYCDCAS), the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYC Parks), and the New York City  Department of Small Business Services (NYCSBS), is proposing a series of land use actions (180073MMM,  180204[A]ZMM,  N180205[A]ZRM,  180206PPM,  180207PQM,  and  180208HAM)  to  implement  a  comprehensive rezoning plan for the Inwood neighborhood in Manhattan Community District (CD) 12.  The  proposed  land  use  actions  include  zoning  map  amendments,  zoning  text  amendments,  City  Map  changes,  site  acquisition  and/or  site  disposition  by  the  City,  and  an  Urban  Development  Action  Area  (UDAA)  designation  and  Urban  Development  Action  Area  Project  (UDAAP)  approval  (collectively,  “Proposed Actions”). The Proposed Actions would work in unison with other components of the Inwood  NYC Action Plan to preserve existing affordable housing and protect tenants, support small businesses  and  entrepreneurs,  and  provide  targeted  public  realm  investments  and  increased  programming  and  services to enhance overall quality of life for residents.  The  Office  of  the  Deputy  Mayor  for  Housing  and  Economic  Development  (ODMHED),  serving  as  lead  agency, oversaw the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in conformance with  2014 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual guidance. The lead agency conducted  ‐1‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  a coordinated review of the Proposed Actions with Involved Agencies, which include the NYC Department  of  City  Planning  (NYCDCP),  NYCHPD,  NYCDCAS,  NYC  Parks,  NYCSBS,  New  York  State  Department  of  Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and the New York City Housing Development Corporation (HDC).  In addition, several agencies have participated in the environmental review as Interested Agencies under  CEQR,  including  the  NYC  Department  of  Transportation  (NYCDOT),  the  Landmarks  Preservation  Commission (NYCLPC), the NYC Department of Sanitation (DSNY), the NYC Department of Environmental  Protection (NYCDEP), and NYC Transit (NYCT). Finally, New York Public Library and Consolidated Edison  also participated in the environmental review as interested parties. The DEIS for the Proposed Actions  was accepted as complete on January 12th, 2018. The corresponding Uniform Land Use Review Procedure  (ULURP) application was certified on January 16, 2018.  In  conjunction  with  this  technical  memorandum,  NYCEDC  has  prepared  and  filed  an  amended  ULURP  application  (N180204  [A]  ZRM  and  180204  [A]  ZMM,  referred  to  collectively  hereafter  as  the  “A‐ Application”)  that  addresses  issues  raised  just  before  or  shortly  after  issuance  of  the  DEIS,  including  community feedback. The A‐Application consists of a series of modifications to the Proposed Actions that  require additional environmental analysis, which is the focus of this technical memorandum, including  zoning map and zoning text amendments.   The zoning map modifications, described in detail in Section “D” below and illustrated in Figure 1, include:  (1) modifying the proposed zoning along portions of two blocks in the Sherman Creek sub‐district from  R7A and R9A to M1‐4/R7A and M1‐4/R9A; (2) modifying the proposed zoning for one block in the upland  wedge sub‐district from C4‐4D to C6‐2A; (3) modifying the proposed zoning along Broadway and West  207th  Street  in  the  Commercial  “U”  sub‐district  from  R7D  to  C4‐5D  and  from  R8A  to  C4‐4D;  and  (4)  modifying the proposed zoning along the south side of Dyckman Street west of Broadway from R7A/C2‐4  to C4‐4A. In addition, the A‐Application would modify the Special Inwood District (SID) regulations related  to: (1) the maximum allowable building height for non‐residential buildings in certain commercial districts  mapped within the proposed Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) Area within the proposed rezoning  area; (2) ensuring that waterfront regulations pertaining to height, setback, and bulk would apply to future  private waterfront development sites even if the City were to retain ownership of a portion of its property  between  the  future  development  site  and  the  shoreline;  (3)  allowing  additional  bulk  flexibility  on  two  large  development  sites  mapped  within  both  R9A  and  R8A  zoning  districts  in  the  Sherman  Creek  sub‐ district at the intersection of West 207th Street and Ninth Avenue to facilitate better urban design on these  sites; (4) facilitating future improvements to subway stations, including the West 215th Street (1) station,  the West 207th Street (1) station, and the Dyckman Street (A) station, that would improve access for the  disabled and circulation for all riders; (5) requiring a five‐foot sidewalk widening on the western side of  Ninth Avenue between West 218th and West 219th streets to improve circulation and mitigate significant  adverse  pedestrian  impacts  identified  in  the  DEIS;  and  (6)  requiring  that  local  retail  and  service  establishments occupy at least 50 percent of ground‐floor building frontage and limiting banks and loan  offices to a maximum of 25 feet of ground frontage along certain portions of the Commercial U to ensure  that  future  ground‐floor  commercial  development  reinforces  the  existing  smaller‐scale  local  retail  character  that  defines  these  streets.  The  A‐Application  would  also  modify  the  Waterfront  Action  Plan  (WAP) by moving a required Upland Connection from just south of West 219th Street to West 218th Street.  In addition, the A‐Application would also extend the proposed SID boundary to include the south side of  Dyckman Street between Broadway and Staff Street, and encompass the entirety of the future West 218th  Street Upland Connection in the Tip of Manhattan sub‐district (see Figure 1a).  In addition to the above modifications to the Proposed Actions, this technical memorandum also reflects  an update to the assumptions for one of the 33 projected development sites identified in the Reasonable  Worst  Case  Development  Scenario  (RWCDS).  Shortly  before  publication  of  the  DEIS,  NYCEDC  became  ‐2‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal ° 0 500 Figure 1 A - Application Amended Rezoning Actions 1,000 Feet 2,000 1,500 Spu tyen Duyv W2 il Creek 25 ST O BR 21 21 7S T PA R W RS W W R AV SH C4 -4D 21 5S T From C4-4D to C6-2A T MTA Rail Yard From R8A to C4-4D 20 4S NP L T 20 T YS R8A V TA ST V EA W M1 NYCHA Dyckman Houses R -4/ 9A 3S 1S T T W R8 20 6S UN I VE T RS IT YH GH TB R From R7A and R9A/C2-4 to M1-4/R7A and M1-4/R9A M2-4 9A V 20 6S T W W 5S R7A 20 M1 R7 4 / A 20 R9A 20 9A V AN GL NA W T R8 A KM T C DY NS -4D C4 7S W 10 AV TR EM FT AD YO AC -5D C4 E AY DE A R7 R ST TH PL AR DO NG AN P T V NA W OS 6S MA W R7A ER W 21 er ST VE A YE M IL W T 10 ST NG C4-5D C4-4D AY C6-2 T ST AV T AM 7S C4-5D MI O T ISH 20 M CU YS R7A PA 2S W 8S T Riv ST 21 1S 21 13 9S m AK C4-4D 4S C6-2A 2 W O AD 21 T rle PE 21 C4 -4D RY HU DS HE N BE O CO W 21 0S M1-5 Ha ON ST A W R7 D 4 PY 21 AM W T K 5 T BR ISHAM PARK R7A V NA 8S 22 9A V W 21 E K W TE W R PA TE W -4 M1 W R7A From R8A to C4-4D ST C4-4A N AV AW SH NY-Presbyterian's Allen Hospital D W SE ST N HE R From R7D to C4-5D From R7A/C2-4 to C4-4A F AF ST N ST INWOOD HILL PARK IA BR V 9A D IN AD AY W 20 2S T T Legend Proposed Rezoning Area C4-5D M1-4/R9A R7A R9A C6-2 M1-4 R7D C4-4A C6-2A M1-5 R8 C2-4 Commercial Overlay C4-4D M1-4/R7A M2-4 R8A Proposed Zoning Districts Inwood Rezoning Proposal N IA AY BR AR M ST O B O LE AD W H BU IL S L PL AV R AD AY W AD W 22 5 ST A D W AY B R ID G E O O NY-Presbyterian's Allen Hospital D R N IA IN D RS W ST F ST AF 20 ISH W ST T AM 7S ILY SH AN EX W Y T T T UPLAND WEDGE T MTA Rail Yard AV er E AN 5S 6S T Ha rle m RM M ER T 21 21 8S Riv ST VE V AA 2S W 21 1S T NG R 21 W 21 DE E G W T 3S 4S W OR PE 21 21 O AD EX T O CO W AY T MAJ W AV R E T RS T ST AN TE T 9S 0S E R IO 5 T AM K 7S 21 22 9A V 21 14 S SE 21 W N AV MI D 25 BR W BR ISHAM PARK M CU E W2 BR HE N RY HUD S ON PA R HE KW NR AY YH GR UD EE N SO WA NP Y KW Y HE NR YH UD SO NP KW Y W UPLAND CORE R PA W R TE W K R PA ST D il Creek W W2 INWOOD HILL PARK AK SI Duyv TIP OF MANHATTAN BE ER tyen JA C Spu SO PAY RI V AV Feet 1,000 1,500 2,000 500 10 AV ° 0 Figure 1a A-Application Amended Special District W N PL T NG PL AM ET ER Proposed Rezoning Area SHERMAN CREEK Project Area Special District FA " Metro-North Station 'A' Subway Station 1 Source: DoITT; DCP; EDC; CUNY Center for Urban Research; Baruch College, CUNY '1 ' Subway Station E FF S CT AV LO Y Legend G ED HA L DU V KA LE E IT EX EN 9 C WI Y WA HIGHBRIDGE PARK D B M HA PD UE M N A AV AL 2S D R AQ IL H E G R O E G T VE FT 1S I DR ST L 20 20 D IN G R N W AV L E P LAN D AN IR VIEW AV SP RA M T KM BO GA U RD RI DG E E C C DY ST HI SB T W ID HT T RI ST OD AV LE S LL E IG PL 10 ES AV KL O LW G NA 3S VH NYCHA Dyckman Houses EL W 1 T 20 4S UN I T NG SIC COMMERCIAL 'U' S 96 W 20 5S 6S T 9A V T NS W 20 20 7S LO T W T DE RS YS E AY EM W 20 RI AD PO LO AC TH AR DO A NG L NP AV ST Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  aware  that  the  owner  of  projected  development  site  13  (Block  2199,  lots  1  and  11)  was  seeking  to  purchase an adjacent lot, which was identified in the RWCDS as potential development site P (lot 34).  Given that the two sites could be in common ownership in the future, the RWCDS is being updated to  reflect the potential future merger of projected development site 13 and potential development site P  into a single larger projected development site 13 (Block 2199, Lots 1, 11, and 34), thereby resulting in a  greater  With‐Action  increment  for  all  density‐based  analyses,  which  is  more  conservative  for  analysis  purposes.  This  technical  memorandum  presents  revised  analyses  of  the  Proposed  Actions  based  on  the  A‐ Application  (see  Appendix  A  for  the  full  revised  Special  District  text).  It  considers  whether  the  A‐ Application would result in any new, not previously identified in the DEIS, significant adverse impacts. As  set forth below, this technical memorandum concludes that the Proposed Actions with the modifications  described in the A‐Application would not result in any new, not previously identified in the DEIS, significant  adverse  impacts.  While  there  would  be  no  intersections  newly  impacted  by  traffic  under  the  A‐ Application, at some intersections, one or more individual lane groups would become newly impacted or  would  no  longer  be  impacted  due  to  changes  in  incremental  traffic  flow.  The  Amended  With‐Action  Condition would also result in lesser significant adverse open space impacts than were identified in the  DEIS. To provide a complete consideration of the proposed modifications described in the A‐Application  and  the  likely  effects  resulting  from  it,  each  DEIS  technical  analysis  area  is  considered.  The  analysis  conducted  in  this  technical  memorandum  will  also  be  incorporated  in  the  Final  EIS  (FEIS).  As  the  City  designated a developer for the library site (projected development site 25) in March 2018, the Inwood  Rezoning Proposal’s FEIS will also reflect the selected developer’s project program for this site.  Finally, in addition to the modifications to the zoning text and map amendments described above, the A‐ Application notes further potential modifications to proposed maximum allowable FARs for specific uses  in certain portions of the rezoning area, including portions of the Upland Wedge, Commercial “U”, and  Sherman  Creek  sub‐districts  of  the  SID.  These  modifications  are  included  in  response  to  concerns  regarding  building  scale  raised  during  the  public  review  process  and  feedback  from  Council  Member  Rodríguez, and in order to provide flexibility for additional commercial development and associated jobs  on the West 207th Street commercial corridor. The modifications are included to allow for the modified  FAR  to  be  within  scope  for  consideration  by  the  public  and  the  City  Planning  Commission  (CPC).  The  original zoning text, the modified text in the A‐Application, or portions of each proposal may be adopted  as the final approved project. Should any part of these additional possible zoning text modifications— related  to  maximum  allowable  FARs  for  specific  uses  in  portions  of  the  rezoning  area—be  selected  to  become  part  of  the  project  proposal,  the  Inwood  Rezoning  Proposal’s  FEIS,  or  a  future  subsequent  technical memorandum will provide an assessment of the additional modifications as they relate to the  Inwood rezoning area.  B. DESCRIPTION OF THE AMENDED APPLICATION  The  A‐Application  includes  a  number  of  modifications  to  the  proposed  zoning  text  amendments  and  zoning map amendments described and analyzed in the DEIS. The modified SID zoning text amendments  would allow non‐residential buildings in certain commercial zoning districts mapped in the proposed MIH  Area to utilize the maximum height allowed for MIH buildings, to encourage the potential development  of  additional  commercial  space  as  well  as  residential  use.  In  addition,  the  modified  SID  zoning  text  amendments  would  ensure  that  waterfront  regulations  pertaining  to  height,  setback,  and  bulk  would  apply to the future private waterfront development sites even if the City were to retain ownership of a  portion of its property between the future development site and the shoreline. The modified SID text  ‐3‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  amendments would also allow additional bulk flexibility on two large development sites at the intersection  of West 207th Street and Ninth Avenue by permitting the transfer of residential floor area from R8A to the  R9A districts. Furthermore, the modified SID would facilitate future improvements to subway stations that  would improve access for the disabled and circulation for all riders by requiring certain property owners  to coordinate with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the City Planning Commission  (CPC) Chairperson prior to development to determine if a portion of the lot would be needed for station  improvements such as an elevator. Any floor area utilized by MTA for station circulation improvements  would be exempted from FAR calculations. The modified SID zoning text amendments would require a  five‐foot sidewalk widening on the western side of Ninth Avenue between West 218th and West 219th  streets to improve circulation and mitigate significant adverse pedestrian impacts identified in the DEIS.  Finally, along certain portions of the Commercial U sub‐district, the modified SID zoning text would require  that local retail and service establishments occupy at least 50 percent of ground‐floor building frontage  and limit banks and loan offices to a maximum of 25 feet of ground‐floor frontage.  In  addition,  the  A‐Application  would  modify  the  WAP  text  by  moving  the  proposed  required  Upland  Connection from the easterly prolongation of West 219th Street to West 218th Street. The A‐Application  also  would  extend  the  proposed  SID  boundary  to  include  the  south  side  of  Dyckman  Street  between  Broadway and Staff Street, and encompass the entirety of the future West 218th Street Upland Connection  in the Tip of Manhattan sub‐district (see Figure 1a).  The modifications to the proposed zoning map amendments would allow for the development of projects  that further the purpose and need for the Proposed Actions. As described in detail below, the modified  zoning map amendments would allow for additional flexibility for future commercial development and  conversion within portions of the Sherman Creek sub‐district to enable the relocation and consolidation  of existing wholesale businesses. Additionally, the modified zoning map amendments would map a C6‐2A  district  on  Block  2231,  Lot  1  to  allow  for  the  existing  building’s  commercial  floor  area  to  comply  with  zoning, and allow for future conversion of self‐storage use to office space within the building.  The modified zoning map amendments would also change the proposed zoning along the southern side  of Dyckman Street between Seaman Avenue and Staff Street, and along Broadway and West 207th Street  in  the  Commercial  “U”  sub‐district  from  residential  districts  with  commercial  overlays  to  commercial  districts.  These  changes  would  allow  greater  flexibility  for  additional  commercial  development  and  associated jobs in these portions of the proposed rezoning area where commercial uses exist today. MIH  program requirements would remain applicable for residential developments.   Zoning Text Amendments  MIH Height in Commercial Districts (ZED)  In order to encourage the potential development of additional commercial space as well as residential  use,  the  modified  zoning  text  would  allow  non‐residential  buildings  in  certain  commercial  districts  mapped in the proposed MIH Area to utilize the maximum height allowed for MIH buildings. This change  would  accommodate  the  higher  floor‐to‐floor  heights  associated  with  commercial  buildings,  thereby  removing  a  disincentive  to  develop  additional  commercial  space  and  facilitating  an  objective  of  the  Inwood NYC Action Plan. This proposed modification would not increase density or otherwise affect the  amount, type, or location of future development beyond what was analyzed in the DEIS. It would also not  alter the maximum building heights or building envelopes conservatively assumed for analysis purposes  in the DEIS. Therefore, this modification would not result in significantly more or less development, and  would not alter the conclusions of the DEIS.  ‐4‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  Waterfront Zoning Applicability  As modified, the SID would allow the City to retain a strip of land between projected development site 33  and the Harlem River in the Tip of Manhattan sub‐district. As the City would potentially retain a portion  of  waterfront  property  along  this  development  site,  this  site  would  not  typically  be  considered  a  waterfront site under zoning, since it would not have 100 feet of frontage adjacent to the shoreline. The  proposed changes to the Inwood SID would ensure that the height, setback, and bulk regulations required  under waterfront zoning would apply to this future site, including a Shore Public Walkway and Upland  Connection at West 218th Street, even if it does not have 100 feet of shoreline. Additionally, the proposed  change to the WAP would move the required Upland Connection from the easterly prolongation of West  219th Street to West 218th Street, to ensure more consistently spaced public connections to the waterfront  from the upland neighborhood and to allow for greater flexibility and better site planning on the future  City‐owned property (projected development site 4). These proposed modifications would not increase  density  or  otherwise  affect  the  amount,  type,  or  location  of  future  development  beyond  what  was  analyzed in the DEIS for projected development sites 4 and 33 in the Tip of Manhattan sub‐district, nor  would  it  alter  the  maximum  building  heights  or  massing  assumed  for  analysis  purposes  in  the  DEIS.  Therefore, these modifications would not result in significantly more or less development and would not  alter the conclusions of the DEIS.  Additional Bulk Flexibility for Sites in R8A and R9A Districts in the Sherman Creek Sub‐District  In  the  Sherman  Creek  sub‐district,  the  modified  zoning  text  for  the  SID  would  allow  additional  bulk  flexibility on two large development sites (projected development site 7 and potential development site  M) at the intersection of West 207th Street and Ninth Avenue, in order to facilitate better urban design.  The modified zoning  text  amendments would allow lots  mapped within both  R8A and  R9A districts  to  transfer residential floor area from the R8A to the R9A district. The overall proposed FAR, bulk envelope,  and height restrictions would remain unchanged. The proposed changes would allow a modest amount  of design flexibility to ensure that buildings on large sites can provide a more varied and contextual design,  encouraging bulk to be concentrated on the corners and allowing for a more differentiated massing on  the midblock. This  proposed  modification would not increase density or otherwise affect  the amount,  type, or location of future development beyond what was analyzed in the DEIS for projected development  site 7 and potential development site M in the Sherman Creek sub‐district, nor would it alter the maximum  building heights or massing assumed for analysis purposes in the DEIS. Therefore, this modification would  not result in significantly more or less development and would not alter the conclusions of the DEIS.  Subway Station Improvements  The modified SID zoning text amendments would also facilitate future improvements to subway stations  that would improve access for the disabled and circulation for all riders. For lots adjacent to the West  215th  Street  (1),  West  207th  Street  (1),  and  Dyckman  Street  (A)  stations,  property  owners  would  be  required  to  coordinate  with  MTA  and  the  CPC  Chairperson  prior  to  development  to  determine  if  an  easement  or  sidewalk  widening  within  the  lot  would  be  needed  for  station  improvements  such  as  an  elevator. Any floor area utilized by MTA for station circulation improvements would be exempted from  FAR calculations, and any development required to provide an easement for an improvement would be  allowed  to  rise  an  additional  story  (ten  feet).  Developments  allowed  an  additional  story  under  other  proposed zoning mechanisms (e.g., for providing an open area adjacent to lot line windows or for setting  back  from  elevated  rail)  would  not  be  allowed  an  additional  story  for  subway  station  improvements.  Therefore,  this  proposed  modification  would  only  affect  the  RWCDS  assumptions  for  projected  development site 24 and potential development site A, which would be allowed to rise an additional story  ‐5‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  (ten feet) as compared to the RWCDS analyzed in the DEIS. Under the Amended With‐Action condition,  the maximum height and massing assumed for projected development site 24 and potential development  site A would increase to 155 feet from 145 feet assumed in the DEIS. Other sites adjacent to the West  215th Street (1), West 207th Street (1), or Dyckman Street (A) stations would not result in any additional  height increases beyond what had been analyzed in the DEIS.   Pedestrian Circulation Improvements in the Tip of Manhattan Sub‐district  In the Tip of Manhattan sub‐district, the modified SID zoning text amendments would require a five‐foot  sidewalk widening on the western side of Ninth Avenue between West 218th and West 219th Streets, to  improve  circulation  and  mitigate  significant  adverse  pedestrian  impacts  identified  in  the  DEIS.  This  sidewalk widening, combined with the previously proposed widening on West 218th Street between Ninth  and  Tenth  Avenues,  would  ensure  better  pedestrian  circulation  in  this  part  of  Inwood.  This  proposed  modification would only affect the RWCDS assumed for projected development site 1, as the proposed  development on this site would be required to setback an additional five‐feet from Ninth Avenue between  West 218th and West 219th street. This change to the massing of projected development site 1 would not  increase density, or otherwise affect the amount, type, or location of future development beyond what  was analyzed in the DEIS for this site, nor would it result in increases to the maximum building height or  massing assumed for analysis purposes in the DEIS.   Ground Floor Design Regulations  The  modified  zoning  text  amendments  would  introduce  restrictions  on  ground  floor  commercial  development in portions of the Commercial U sub‐district. Specifically, along Dyckman and West 207th  Streets, except within 100 feet of Broadway, the SID would mandate that individual local retail and local  service establishments occupy at least 50 percent of ground‐floor building frontage. Banks and loan offices  would  be  limited  to  a  maximum  25  feet  of  ground  floor  frontage.  Responding  to  feedback  from  the  community and Council Member Rodríguez, the intent of these proposed regulations is to ensure that  future  ground‐floor  commercial  development  in  these  areas  reinforces  the  existing  smaller‐scale  local  retail  character  that  defines  these  streets.  The  implementation  of  these  additional  ground  floor  regulations  along  portions  of  Dyckman  and  West  207th  Streets  would  not  result  in  changes  to  RWCDS  assumptions and would not alter the conclusions of the DEIS.   Zoning Map Amendments  Sherman Creek Sub‐District  The proposed zoning along portions of two blocks in the Sherman Creek sub‐district is being modified in  order to allow for the relocation of several wholesale tenants in the Sherman Creek area and to facilitate  consolidation of wholesale operations. Under the Proposed Actions analyzed in the DEIS, portions of Block  2198 (lots 1, 5) and Block 2199 (lots 1, 11, 34), which are generally located along the east side of Tenth  Avenue between West 201st and West 203rd streets, were proposed to be zoned R7A and R9A/C2‐4. With  the  proposed  A‐Application  modifications,  these  portions  of  Blocks  2198  and  2199  would  instead  be  rezoned  to  M1‐4/R7A  and  M1‐4/R9A,  as  shown  in  Figure  1.  The  proposed  M1‐4/R7A  and  M1‐4/R9A  districts combine an M1 district with a residential district, allowing a fine‐tuned mixture of uses. These  districts are appropriate for areas that are gradually changing from primarily industrial uses, as they allow  a greater mix of uses including light‐industrial uses that are compatible with residential use.  ‐6‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  This A‐Application modification would affect the RWCDS assumed for projected development sites 13 and  14, which are projected to accommodate more wholesale uses under the A‐Application compared to the  RWCDS analyzed in the DEIS. In addition, as discussed above, the RWCDS is being updated to reflect the  expected merger of projected development site 13 and adjacent potential development site P into a single  larger projected development site 13 (Block 2199, lots 1, 11, and 34). Tables 1 and 2 below summarize the  RWCDS  changes  resulting  from  this  A‐Application  modification  and  the  adjustment  to  projected  development sites 13 and P (referred to hereafter as the “Amended With‐Action Condition” or “Amended  RWCDS”).  There  would  be  no  changes  to  the  RWCDS  maximum  building  height  as  a  result  of  this  modification; however, the merger of sites 13 and P would result in a different massing on the larger site  13 under the Amended With‐Action Condition.  TABLE 1  Difference in DEIS Proposed Actions vs. A‐Application Amended RWCDS for Projected Site 13*  Use  Residential Units (DUs)  Commercial (excluding storage/  wholesale/warehousing) (SF)  Commercial – storage/  wholesale/warehousing (SF)  Community Facilities (SF)  Proposed  Actions  (DEIS)  307  Proposed  Actions  Increment  (DEIS)  +307  A‐ Application  Amended  With‐Action  312  A‐Application  Amended  Increment  +312  Difference  in  Increment  +5  14,925  ‐27,046  10,000  ‐46,899  ‐19,853  0  ‐4,995  69,600  +64,605  +69,600  0  0  0  0  0  * Under the Amended With‐Action Condition, projected site 13 is merged with what was identified as potential site P in the  DEIS RWCDS.      TABLE 2  Difference in DEIS Proposed Actions vs. A‐Application Amended RWCDS for Projected Site 14  Use  Residential Units (DUs)  Commercial (excluding storage/  wholesale/warehousing) (SF)  Commercial – storage/wholesale/  warehousing (SF)  Community Facilities (SF)  Proposed  Actions  (DEIS)  222  Proposed  Actions  Increment  (DEIS)  +222  A‐ Application  Amended   With‐Action  209  A‐Application  Amended  Increment  +209  Difference  in  Increment  ‐13  20,783  +10,523  5,000  ‐5,260  ‐15,783  0  0  47,649  +47649  +47,649  20,783  +20,783  0  0  ‐20,783  Upland Wedge Sub‐District  The proposed zoning for one block in the Upland Wedge sub‐district would be modified. Block 2231, lot  1,  which  is  generally  bounded  by  Broadway,  Tenth  Avenue,  and  West  213th  and  West  214th  streets,  is  currently occupied by a multistory, mixed‐use building at 5030 Broadway (Inwood Center) containing a  variety  of  uses,  including  commercial  office,  community  facility,  and  self‐storage  uses.  The  building  at  5030 Broadway is currently overbuilt with an FAR of 6.56 relative to the maximum permitted commercial  FAR of 5.0 under the site’s existing C8‐4 zoning. Under the Proposed Actions analyzed in the DEIS, this  block was proposed to be zoned C4‐4D. However, given the existing commercial building on the site, the  C4‐4D zoning would have resulted in the building becoming noncomplying, as it would have exceeded the  ‐7‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  maximum  allowable  commercial  FAR  of  3.4  in  C4‐4D  districts.  With  the  proposed  A‐Application  modifications,  this  block  would  instead  be  rezoned  C6‐2A  (refer  to  Figure  1),  which  has  a  maximum  allowable commercial FAR of 6.0.  This  proposed  A‐Application  modification  would  allow  for  the  existing  building  at  5030  Broadway  to  continue to be in conformance and compliance with zoning, and to allow for future conversion of self‐ storage to office space within the existing building. As this site was not considered a projected or potential  development  site  in  the  RWCDS,  this  modification  would  not  increase  density  or  otherwise  affect  the  amount, type, or location of future development beyond what was analyzed in the DEIS, nor would the  new proposed zoning district result in this site being classified as a new development site pursuant to  CEQR Technical Manual guidance.  Commercial “U” Sub‐District  The proposed zoning along portions of the Commercial “U” sub‐district is being modified in order to create  flexibility for additional commercial development along the Broadway and West 207th Street portions of  the sub‐district, similar to what would be allowed in the Dyckman Street portion of the sub‐district. Under  the Proposed Actions analyzed in the DEIS, the Broadway and West 207th Street portions of the sub‐district  were  proposed  to  be  zoned  R7D/C2‐4  and  R8A/C2‐4.  With  the  proposed  A‐Application  modifications,  these areas would instead be rezoned C4‐5D and C4‐4D (refer to Figure 1).  This  A‐Application  modification  would  not  affect  the  RWCDS  assumed  for  any  projected  development  sites in this portion of the Commercial “U”. However, it is anticipated that this modification could result  in a change in the RWCDS for potential development site AJ, which, with this change, would be assumed  to accommodate more commercial uses and no residential units under the A‐Application compared to the  DEIS.  There  would  be  no  changes  to  the  RWCDS  maximum  building  height  or  bulk  as  a  result  of  this  modification.  As  potential  development  sites  are  not  evaluated  for  density‐based  analyses  such  as  community facilities, open space, transportation, etc. (i.e., non site‐specific analyses) as they are typically  considered less likely to be developed in the foreseeable future, and as there would be no changes to any  building height or massing, this modification would not alter any of the analyses provided in the DEIS.  Dyckman Street West of Broadway  The proposed zoning along the south side of Dyckman Street to the west of Broadway is being modified  in order to create greater flexibility for additional commercial development and potential adaptive reuse  along this portion of Dyckman Street, where commercial buildings exist currently. Under the Proposed  Actions  analyzed  in  the  DEIS,  this  area  was  proposed  to  be  zoned  R7A/C2‐4.  With  the  proposed  A‐ Application modifications, this portion of Dyckman Street would instead be rezoned to a C4‐4A district  (refer  to  Figure  1).  As  this  portion  of  Dyckman  already  includes  commercial  uses,  the  proposed  A‐ Application modifications would be appropriate for area.  This A‐Application modification would not affect the RWCDS assumed for any of the projected or potential  development sites in this area, nor would it result in any changes to the RWCDS maximum building height  or bulk. As such, this modification would not alter any of the analyses provided in the DEIS.   C. A‐APPLICATION REASONABLE WORST‐CASE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO (RWCDS)  The A‐Application would result in some changes to the RWCDS presented in the DEIS and, accordingly, a  modified  Future  with  the  Proposed  Actions  Condition  was  created.  With  the  proposed  A‐Application  ‐8‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  modifications,  there  would  not  be  any  new  projected  development  sites  in  the  RWCDS;  however,  as  discussed above, one of the projected development sites (site 13) would become larger as a result of a  potential  merger  with  an  adjacent  lot  that  was  formerly  assumed  to  be  a  potential  development  site.  Figure  2  illustrates  the  RWCDS  projected  and  potential  development  sites  under  the  Amended  With‐ Action Condition.  As compared to the RWCDS presented in the DEIS, the Amended With‐Action Condition would result in a  decrease of eight dwelling units (DUs), an increase of 117,249 sf in the storage/wholesale/warehousing  uses  increment,  a  35,636‐sf  decrease  in  the  increment  for  other  commercial  uses,  and  a  20,783‐sf  decrease  in  the  community  facilities  increment.  Table  3  summarizes  the  Amended  RWCDS  program  assumptions  that  are  used  to  study  the  potential  effects  of  the  A‐Application  in  this  technical  memorandum. Detailed Amended RWCDS tables are provided in Appendix B.  TABLE 3  Difference in Overall RWCDS – DEIS Proposed Actions vs. A‐Application   Use  Residential Units (DUs)  Commercial (excluding storage/  wholesale/warehousing) (SF)  Commercial – storage/wholesale/  warehousing (SF)  Community Facilities (SF)  Proposed  Actions  (DEIS)  5,146 Proposed  Actions  Increment  (DEIS)  +4,348 1,456,215  +1,143,477  A‐ Application  With‐Action  5,138 A‐Application  Amended  Increment  +4,340  Difference  in  Increment ‐8 1,435,507  +1,107,841  ‐35,636  10,100  ‐8,445  127,349  +108,804  +117,249  537,127  +472,685  516,344  +451,902  ‐20,783  As noted above, the proposed zoning text amendment for subway station improvements would affect the  maximum building height and massing assumptions for two development sites (projected development  site 24 and potential development site A), which would increase by 10 feet to a maximum height of 155  feet under the Amended With‐Action Condition, as compared to the DEIS analyses. In addition, the merger  of sites 13 and P would result in a different massing on the larger site 13 under the Amended With‐Action  Condition.  D.   REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES DUE TO THE AMENDED APPLICATION  This  section  presents  revised  analyses  based  on  the  Amended  RWCDS,  and  considers  whether  the  A‐ Application would result in any new, not previously identified in the DEIS, significant adverse impacts. The  analyses found that the A‐Application would not result in any new, not previously identified in the DEIS,  significant adverse impacts in the DEIS.  Probable Impacts of the A‐Application  The  probable  impacts  of  the  A‐Application  are  assessed  separately  below  for  each  CEQR  category,  as  appropriate.        ‐9‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal 1,000 Feet 2,000 1,500 tyen Du yv il Creek BR 500 Spu W AY ° 0 Figure 2 A-Application Projected and Potential Development Sites BR O AD NY-Presbyterian's Allen Hospital R N D W W 21 21 W 5 7S T PA R K ST W AM A W V NA BE CO ER OP ST W AK 30 ST 22 AJ 29 AK AHAI 21 1S EM YS T MA CK T W U 16 T 204 20 5 ConEd W 20 1S T 9 T DSNY BR O MTA Rail Yard W W 20 2 6S T R 6 ST I UN IV E RS IT Y HG HT DEIS RWCDS BR ST 13 S P 14 Legend Acquisition Sites Potential Development Site Disposition Sites Acquisition/Disposition Sites Potential Future Lot Boundary * NOTE: City would maintain ownership of strip of land between site 33 and the waterfront 'A' Subway Station '1' Subway Station 8 8 ConEdT HIGHBRIDGE PARK Projected Development Sites T V ConEd Substation Proposed Rezoning Area U 12 20 3 12 M 207 10 8 Con Ed 14 20 Q O ST ST V 13 10 AV NYCHA Dyckman Houses ST Riv 7 W T NS W NA V EA GL T m W 11 W MTA Bus Depot 6S ST 10 AV N V TA V AD DY RS E AY T 17 33 ST rle T AC TH NS DE X 4 1 K V NA A Y 21 5 32 AD S PO T AM 4S RM MA ER W 4S 21 T Ha E I LY SH 20 VE AC AP 18 AB AN AA Z AR PL 25 V AA W 19 23 24 AG 9A ST E DR ST G RIVE RSID BR 31 AL Y WA W DSNY G J AM IN 26 AE D OA 15 9S E T ISH M 27 ST M 20 7 20 28 CU 21 MTA Bus Depot 2 ST 5 2S W AF DO NGAN W 21 21 3 21 21 8 2 er SE W W AY ST ISHAM PARK 3 21 C W AD 4 21 PAY H D F AV SO N L E K TE R PA W INWOOD HILL PARK B W TE 22 0 9A V IA V 9A D IN Metro-North Station Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy  Neither the Proposed Actions under the DEIS nor the A‐Application would result in significant adverse  impacts  on  land  use,  zoning,  and  public  policy.  Like  the  Proposed  Actions,  the  A‐Application  would  generally result in the same effects to land use, zoning, and public policy. The A‐Application would not  adversely affect surrounding land uses, nor would it generate land uses that would be incompatible with  existing zoning and land uses in the secondary study area. Furthermore, the A‐Application would not result  in development that conflicts with adopted public policies. The A‐Application would continue to provide  opportunities  for  new  housing,  including  affordable  housing,  and  expand  housing  opportunities  for  current and future residents. Like the Proposed Actions, the A‐Application would also create new areas of  commercial  activity  to  expand  the  variety  and  types  of  retail,  other  commercial  uses,  and  community  facilities found today, to bring jobs and new neighborhood services to the area.  Both  the  Proposed  Actions  and  the  A‐Application  would  result  in  an  overall  increase  in  residential,  commercial, and community facility uses, when compared to the No‐Action condition. As noted in Table  3,  above,  compared  to  the  Proposed  Actions,  the  A‐Application  would  generate  a  greater  amount  of  commercial  floor  area,  with  an  eight  DU  reduction  in  the  amount  of  housing  and  a  reduction  of  approximately 20,783 sf of community facility space introduced on the projected development sites.  The Amended With‐Action Condition would include similar zoning actions as the Proposed Actions (zoning  map amendments and zoning text amendments) that would affect the same geographic area. Like the  Proposed Actions, the A‐Application would direct higher densities to areas that can accommodate future  growth, including locations close to public transit and underbuilt waterfront lots. As noted above, under  the A‐Application, the modified zoning map amendments affecting portions of two blocks in the Sherman  Creek  sub‐district  would  affect  the  RWCDS  program  assumptions  for  only  two  of  the  33  identified  projected  development  sites  (sites  13  and  14)  under  the  Amended  RWCDS.  In  addition,  the  modified  zoning  text  amendment  related  to  subway  station  improvements  would  affect  the  RWCDS  maximum  building height assumptions for two development sites, including projected development site 24 located  adjacent to the Dyckman Street (A) station, and potential development site A located adjacent to the West  207th Street (1) station under the Amended RWCDS. No other changes would occur to the RWCDS program  or maximum building height assumptions for the 29 remaining projected development sites under the A‐ Application, as compared to the Proposed Actions.   The A‐Application would support the land use goals of the Proposed Actions. Like the Proposed Actions,  the A‐Application would change zoning designations within the proposed rezoning area in a manner that  is intended to facilitate development patterns that meet the long‐term community vision for Inwood by  extending  the  mixed‐use  character  of  Inwood  east  to  the  Harlem  River,  preserving  the  strong  existing  fabric in areas west of Tenth Avenue. Compared to the Proposed Actions, the M1‐4/R7A and M1‐4/R9A  districts  proposed  in  the  Sherman  Creek  sub‐district  under  the  A‐Application  would  allow  for  the  relocation of several wholesale tenants and facilitate consolidating their operations. This zoning change  is expected to support and encourage both the retention and expansion of existing commercial, semi‐ industrial,  and  light  manufacturing  uses,  including  wholesale,  warehousing,  and  distribution  establishments,  while  also  allowing  street‐enlivening  retail  uses  and  residential  growth  to  occur.  The  proposed  A‐Application  M1‐4/R7A  and  M1‐4/R9A  districts  would  increase  density  and  allow  for  more  flexibility to facilitate mixed‐use development supporting a wide range of uses and activities, including  retail,  offices,  semi‐  industrial,  and  light  industrial  uses,  as  well  as  residential.  Residential  and  non‐ residential uses including commercial, community facility, semi‐industrial, and light industrial uses would  be allowed as‐of‐right, and could be constructed side by side or within the same building. Commercial and  industrial uses would be permitted up to an FAR of 2.0, and residential uses up to FAR of 8.5 in the M1‐ ‐10‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  4/R9A district and up to FAR of 4.6 in the M1‐4/R7A district.   The C6‐2A zoning district proposed in the Upland Wedge sub‐district under the A‐Application would allow  the existing building at 5030 Broadway on Block 2231, Lot 1 to be zoning conformant and compliant, as  well as allow for future conversion of self‐storage to office space within the existing building. In addition,  the proposed changes to commercial zoning districts in portions of the Upland Core and Commercial “U”  sub‐districts  would  allow  for  additional  commercial  development  in  locations  where  commercial  uses  exist today.  The proposed change to the WAP would move the required Upland Connection from West 219th Street to  West 218th Street, to ensure more consistently spaced connections from the upland area and to allow for  greater  flexibility  on  the  future  City‐owned  property  (projected  development  site  4).  The  proposed  changes to the SID would also apply to the future privately‐owned waterfront development site in the Tip  of  Manhattan  (projected  development  site  33).  Since  the  City  would  potentially  retain  a  portion  of  waterfront property along this development site, this site would not typically be considered a waterfront  site under zoning, since it would not have 100 feet of frontage adjacent to the shoreline. The proposed  changes to the Inwood SID would ensure that the height, setback, and bulk regulations required under  waterfront zoning would apply to this future site, even if it does not have 100 feet of shoreline. These  proposed  modifications  would  support  Waterfront  Revitalization  Program  (WRP)  policies,  including  encouraging design features that enliven the waterfront and attract the public and providing public access  to, from, and along New York City’s coastal waters.  Similar to the Proposed Actions, the A‐Application would be consistent with the public policies that affect  the  study  areas,  including  the  City’s  WRP  and  would  further  support  the  goals  of  Housing  New  York,  OneNYC,  and  PlaNYC.  The  A‐Application,  like  the  Proposed  Actions,  directly  support  the  goals  and  principles  outlined  in  Housing  New  York:  A  Five‐Borough,  Ten‐Year  Plan  (“Housing  New  York”)  by  promoting  affordable  housing  development,  encouraging  economic  development,  creating  pedestrian  friendly  streets,  and  introducing  new  community  resources  to  foster  a  more  equitable  neighborhood.  Although the Amended With‐Action Condition would result in slightly fewer DUs, this modification would  still  increase  the  supply  of  housing  available  over  the  No‐Action  Condition  and  increase  the  supply  of  affordable housing in Inwood. Like the Proposed Actions, the Amended With‐Action Condition would also  promote the policies outlined in the WRP, facilitating new residential, commercial, and community facility  development  in  an  appropriate  waterfront  location  and  substantially  improving  waterfront  access.  Additionally,  similar  to  the  Proposed  Actions,  the  Amended  With‐Action  Condition  would  also  be  consistent  with  the  public  policies  outlined  in  OneNYC  and  PlaNYC,  the  New  York  City  Food  Retail  Expansion to Support Health (FRESH) Program, the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone, the Sherman  Creek  Waterfront  and  Northern  Manhattan  Parks  2030  Master  Plans,  the  Landmarks  Law,  Targeted  Employment Areas, and the Industrial Action Plan.  Socioeconomic Conditions  Neither the Proposed Actions nor the Amended With‐Action Condition would result in significant adverse  impacts  to  any  of  the  five  areas  of  socioeconomic  concern:  direct  residential  displacement;  indirect  residential  displacement;  direct  business  displacement;  indirect  business  displacement;  and  adverse  effects on specific industries. As noted above, compared to the Proposed Actions, the A‐Application would  affect  the  RWCDS  assumed  for  projected  development  sites  13  and  14,  which  are  projected  to  accommodate more wholesale uses under the Amended With‐Action Condition as compared to the DEIS.  The Amended With‐Action Condition would generate a greater amount of commercial development, with  a  reduction  of  eight  DUs  and  approximately  20,783  sf  of  community  facility  space  on  the  projected  development sites.   ‐11‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  DIRECT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT  Neither the Proposed Actions nor the A‐Application are expected to result in significant adverse impacts  due to direct residential displacement. None of the 33 projected development sites include any existing  residential DUs that could be potentially directly displaced under either the Proposed Actions or under  the Amended RWCDS. Therefore, no residential DUs would be directly displaced.   INDIRECT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT  Like the Proposed Actions, the A‐Application would not result in significant adverse impacts due to indirect  residential displacement. Under the Amended With‐Action Condition, there would be a slight reduction  (less than a 0.2 percent decrease as compared to the Proposed Actions) in the number of housing units  that  would  be  added  to  the  proposed  rezoning  area  (see  Table  3).  The  A‐Application  would  introduce  approximately eight fewer DUs as compared to the Proposed Actions (4,340 DUs as compared to 4,348  with Proposed Actions), with the same proportion of affordable DUs to market‐rate DUs.   Similar to the Proposed Actions, the A‐Application would expand the opportunities for additional housing  and promote the development of permanently affordable housing within the proposed rezoning area,  although the total number of housing units as compared with the Proposed Actions would be slightly less.  Additionally,  like  the  Proposed  Actions,  the  A‐Application  would  serve  to  support  housing  growth  and  affordable housing in Inwood by creating the opportunity to build residential housing units in areas that  largely do not permit residential development to meet the existing gap in housing supply. The additional  housing units would provide added supply to meet increasing housing demand in an area well served by  transit to help relieve demand pressures and stabilize the rental market. Like the Proposed Actions, the  A‐Application  would  provide  additional  housing  in  an  area  where  demand  is  high,  and  help  to  absorb  housing demand that might otherwise be expressed through increases in rents in the ½‐mile secondary  study area.   DIRECT BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT  Neither the Proposed Actions nor the A‐Application are expected to result in significant adverse impacts  due  to  direct  business  displacement.  Projected  development  under  the  Proposed  Actions  would  potentially directly displace 26 businesses and an estimated 271 jobs associated with those businesses on  12 of the projected development sites. In addition to the 26 businesses that would be potentially directly  displaced by the Proposed Actions, the A‐Application could potentially directly displace an additional five  businesses  and  an  estimated  48  jobs  associated  with  these  businesses  from  the  enlarged  projected  development  site  13  (including  lots  1,  11,  and  34  on  Block  2199).  All  five  businesses  are  food  service  establishments, including four sit‐down restaurants and lounges with bars, and one limited‐service take‐ out food‐service establishment. Combined, these five firms occupy a total of approximately 14,925 sf of  commercial  space  that  has  been  retrofitted  from  former  automotive  service/garage  space.  Thus,  the  Amended  With‐Action  Condition  would  potentially  directly  displace  a  total  of  31  businesses  and  an  estimated 319 jobs associated with those businesses (see Table 4), which represents an approximately 19  percent increase in the amount of potentially directly displaced firms and nearly 18 percent increase in  potentially directly displaced jobs as compared to the Proposed Actions.         ‐12‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  TABLE 4  Estimates  of  Private  Businesses  and  their  Associated  Employment  that  could  be  Potentially  Directly  Displaced in the Amended With‐Action Condition   NAICS Business/Economic Sector  Number of Firms  Retail Trade  6  Food Service & Drinking Establishments  9  Health Care & Social Assistance  1  Transportation & Warehousing   1  Other Services  14  Public Parking  7  Automotive Service and Repair  7  Total  31  Estimated Employment  Displaced  149  100  2  3  65  37  28  319  Estimate of Building Square  Footage Occupied  52,423 sf  25,888 sf  3,050 sf  4,995 sf  90,179 sf  68,923 sf  21,256 sf  176,535 sf  Similar  to  the  Proposed  Actions,  the  industry  sector  with  the  greatest  number  of  potentially  directly  displaced employees is Retail Trade, with 149 displaced workers, and the industry sector with the greatest  number  of  firms  is  Other  Services,  with  14  displaced  establishments  (refer  to  Table  4).  A  listing  of  all  businesses considered to be potentially directly displaced for analysis purposes is included in Appendix C.  As described in the DEIS, while all the potentially displaced businesses create value to the local economy,  their products and services are not essential to the local economy as defined by CEQR, and would continue  to be available within a particular product’s or service’s respective trade area. With respect to the five  additional food service businesses that could be potentially directly displaced under the Amended With‐ Action  Condition,  as  described  in  the  DEIS,  there  are  more  than  100  food  service  establishments,  employing nearly 850 workers, in the ½‐mile secondary study area. Both limited‐service and full‐service  sit‐down restaurants (Use Group 6) are able to locate within any commercial or manufacturing zoning  district.  The  A‐Application  would  map  M1‐4/R7A  and  M1‐4/R9A  zoning  districts  on  projected  development site 13, which would permit both commercial and manufacturing uses up to 2.0 FAR.   INDIRECT BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT  Similar to the Proposed Actions, the A‐Application would not result in significant adverse impacts due to  indirect  business  displacement.  The  study  area  has  well‐established  residential,  commercial,  and  institutional  uses  and  markets;  the  Amended  With‐Action  Condition  would  not  add  a  new  economic  activity or add to a concentration of a particular sector of the local economy enough to significantly alter  or accelerate existing economic patterns. The Amended With‐Action Condition is expected to result in an  increase of 117,249 sf in the storage/wholesale/warehousing uses increment, a 35,636‐sf decrease in the  increment for other commercial uses, and a 20,783‐sf decrease in the community facilities increment as  compared to the Proposed Actions.  Like  the Proposed Actions, the A‐Application is expected to facilitate change in the neighborhood and  permit mixed‐use development to a greater extent than would occur in the No‐Action condition. Similar  to the Proposed Actions, the A‐Application would reinforce and expand the opportunities for residential,  commercial, and community facility development in Inwood, enlivening the area and promoting economic  growth. The A‐Application would modify the proposed zoning changes along portions of the Commercial  U sub‐district, requiring that local retail and service establishments occupy at least 50 percent of ground‐ floor  building  frontage  and  limiting  banks  and  loan  offices  to  a  maximum  of  25  feet  of  ground‐floor  frontage, to ensure that future development includes the type of local‐serving retail and services that are  found in the Commercial U. In addition, the A‐Application would modify the proposed zoning changes on  portions  of  two  blocks  (Block  2199  and  2189)  along  Ninth  Avenue  between  Academy  and  West  203rd  ‐13‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  streets in the Sherman Creek sub‐district by mapping M1‐4/R9A and M1‐4/R7A districts, which under the  Proposed Actions had been envisioned to be R9A and R7A districts. This area is currently zoned for high‐ performance manufacturing (M1‐1) and supports a mix of land uses including restaurants, automotive,  retail, warehousing, and public parking uses.   The proposed M1‐4/R7A and M1‐4/R9A districts on portions of two blocks in the Sherman Creek sub‐ district  are  intended  to  allow  for  the  relocation  of  several  wholesale  tenants  and  facilitate  the  consolidation  of  their  operations  under  the  Amended  With‐Action  Condition.  As  described  above,  this  zoning  change  is  expected  to  support  and  encourage  both  the  retention  and  expansion  of  existing  commercial,  semi‐industrial,  and  light  manufacturing  uses,  including  wholesale,  warehousing,  and  distribution  establishments,  while  also  allowing  street‐enlivening  retail  uses  and  residential  growth  to  occur. The DEIS determined wholesale, warehousing, light industrial, and automotive businesses located  primarily  in  the  proposed  rezoning  area’s  Sherman  Creek,  Upland  Wedge,  and  Tip  of  Manhattan  sub‐ districts as most vulnerable to potential indirect displacement. Many of these existing businesses, such as  wholesale establishments with more than 2,500 sf of storage (Use Group 16), warehouses (Use Group 16),  automotive repair and maintenance shops (Use Group 16) and car washes (Use Group 16), would become  non‐conforming  uses  under  the  Proposed  Actions,  as  they  are  only  permitted  as‐of‐right  in  C8  and  M  zoning districts. However, under the A‐Application, the eastern portions of two blocks in the Sherman  Creek sub‐district would allow as‐of‐right semi‐industrial and light industrial uses, as well as commercial,  community facility, and residential uses.   ADVERSE EFFECTS ON SPECIFIC INDUSTRIES  Similar  to  the  Proposed  Actions,  the  A‐Application  would  not  result  in  significant  adverse  impacts  on  specific industries. Business conditions in any particular industry or any particular category of businesses  within or outside the secondary study area would not be significantly affected. The Amended With‐Action  Condition could result in the direct displacement of an additional five businesses and 48 workers from  projected  development  site  13;  throughout  the  proposed  rezoning  area,  the  Amended  With‐Action  Condition could directly displace an estimated 31 firms employing approximately 319 workers (refer to  Table  4).  The  31  businesses  that  could  be  potentially  directly  displaced  from  12  of  the  33  projected  development sites by 2032 conduct a variety of business activities, vary in size, and are not concentrated  within a specific business sector. Nor are any of the businesses subject to direct displacement essential to  the  survival  of  other  industries  outside  of  the  secondary  study  area,  as  they  do  not  serve  as  the  sole  provider of goods and services to an entire industry or category of business in the City. Collectively, these  31 businesses account for a fraction of the total employment and economic activities in the secondary  study  area,  and  their  products  and  services  would  continue  to  be  available  in  the  trade  area  to  local  residents and businesses. Furthermore, similar to the Proposed Actions, the A‐Application is not expected  to cause significant indirect displacement due to increased rents, and any indirect displacement that may  occur would not be concentrated in a particular industry. Moreover, under the A‐Application, the mapping  of  M1‐4/R7A  and  M1‐4/R9A  districts  on  portions  of  two  blocks  in  the  Sherman  Creek  sub‐district  is  expected to expand development opportunities by providing flexibility to allow a wider range of uses and  activities,  and  increasing  the  allowable  density.  The  proposed  M1‐4/R7A  and  M1‐4/R9A  districts  are  intended  to  support  the  relocation,  consolidation,  and  growth  of  existing  warehouse  and  wholesale  establishments in the Sherman Creek sub‐district.   Community Facilities and Services  Chapter 4, “Community Facilities,” of the DEIS determined that no significant adverse direct or indirect  impacts to community facilities would occur in the future with the Proposed Actions. As the A‐Application  would not result in development on any new sites, it would not have the potential to result in new direct  ‐14‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  impacts  on  community  facilities.  In  addition,  as  the  Amended  RWCDS  would  comprise  eight  fewer  residential units, demand for school seats, public child care slots, and libraries would be slightly less than  projected in the DEIS, and no significant adverse indirect community facilities impacts would result.  Open Space   Chapter  5,  “Open  Space,”  of  the  DEIS  determined  that,  while  no  significant  adverse  impacts  were  identified for the larger non‐residential and residential study areas or the Tip of Manhattan sub‐district  study areas, the Proposed Actions would result in a significant adverse impact on total and active open  space resources in the Sherman Creek sub‐district residential study area. As the Amended RWCDS would  reduce the number of incremental residential units in the Sherman Creek sub‐district by eight to 2,569,  the A‐Application would similarly result in a significant adverse impact on total and active open space  resources  in  the  Sherman  Creek  sub‐district  residential  study  area.  However,  slightly  lesser  mitigation  would  be  needed  to  mitigate  the  impact;  specifically,  to  fully  mitigate  the  significant  adverse  impact  anticipated under the A‐Application, 5.98 acres of open space would need to be added to the study area,  compared to the 6.02 acres required to mitigate impacts under the Proposed Actions analyzed in the DEIS.  The A‐Application would not result in development on any new sites in the proposed rezoning area, and,  as presented in the “Shadows,” section, below, the A‐Application would not result in any new shadow  impacts on open space resources beyond those identified in the DEIS. Therefore, the conclusions of the  direct  open  space  impact  analysis  provided  in  the  DEIS  would  not  change,  and  no  significant  adverse  impacts would result.   Shadows  Chapter  6,  “Shadows,”  of  the  DEIS  concluded  that  development  resulting  from  the  Proposed  Actions  would result in significant adverse shadow impacts on four sunlight‐sensitive resources: three open space  resources (P.S. 18 Schoolyard, Broadway/West 215th Street Greenstreet, and the Sherman Creek Street  End Park at West 205th Street) and one historic resource (Good Shepherd RC Church).  As illustrated in Figure 2 and described above, in the Amended With‐Action Condition one of the projected  development sites (site 13) would become larger as a result of a projected merger with an adjacent lot  that  was  formerly  assumed  to  be  a  potential  development  site.  Projected  development  site  13  would  maintain a maximum height of approximately 175 feet, but the A‐Application would result in changes to  bulk, including increases of up to approximately 60 feet in height on portions of the building along West  202nd and West 203rd streets. In addition, the maximum building heights assumed for two development  sites (projected development site 24 and potential development site A) would increase by 10 feet from  145 feet under the Proposed Actions to 155 feet in the Amended With‐Action Condition, as a result of the  modified zoning text amendments related to subway stations improvements.   The shadow assessment for the Amended With‐Action Condition finds that incremental shadow coverage  would  increase  at  two  sunlight‐sensitive  resources  as  a  result  of  the  proposed  changes  to  projected  development site 13. The proposed changes in the maximum building height at projected development  site 24 and potential development site A under the Amended With‐Action Condition would not result in  any changes in incremental shadow coverage. Neither of the RWCDS buildings at projected development  site 24 nor potential development site A under the Amended With‐Action Condition would cast shadows  on any sunlight sensitive resources.    ‐15‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  The Amended With‐Action Condition  would result  in  new incremental shadow coverage at  Monsignor  Kett Playground on December 21 and the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) Dyckman Houses  campus on March 21, May 6, and June 21. As shown in Figures 3 through 10, increases in incremental  shadow coverage would generally be limited to small areas and would be limited to early morning periods.  While the Amended With‐Action Condition would result in new incremental shadow coverage compared  to  the  conclusions  presented  in  the  DEIS,  it  would  not  result  in  any  changes  to  incremental  shadow  duration at either open space resource. Therefore, the proposed modifications under the A‐Application  would  not  change  the  conclusion  presented  in  the  DEIS  shadows  analysis,  and  would  not  result  in  a  significant shadow impact on any sunlight‐sensitive resource.  Historic and Cultural Resources  As the A‐Application would not result in development on any new sites in the proposed rezoning area, the  conclusions of the direct and construction‐related historic and cultural resources analysis provided in the  DEIS  would  not  change.  As  under  the  Proposed  Actions,  the  A‐Application  would  result  in  significant  adverse archaeology impacts associated with potential prehistoric and/or historic archaeological remains  on projected development sites 1, 2, 4 (partial), 5, 6 (partial), 7 (partial), 8 (partial), 12, 13 (partial), and  33  (partial)  and  potential  development  sites  B  (partial),  E,  G  (partial),  I  (partial),  J,  and  Q  (partial).  In  addition, significant adverse construction‐related impacts could occur at the State and National Register  of Historic Places‐eligible (S/NR‐eligible) P.S. 98. While the consolidation of projected development sites  13 and potential development site P into a larger combined projected development site 13 would result  in minor changes to the massing on this site, no historic or cultural resources are located within 400 feet  of projected development site 13; therefore, the change would not alter the context of any study area  historic  or  cultural  resources.  Moreover,  the  increase  in  the  maximum  building  heights  on  projected  development site 24 and potential development site A by ten feet would also not alter the context of any  study area historic or cultural resources under the Amended With‐Action Condition, given that there are  no historic or cultural resources located within 400 feet of either of these development sites as well. As  under the Proposed Actions, no significant direct or contextual impacts on historic architectural resources  would occur under the Amended With‐Action Condition.  Urban Design and Visual Resources  The  A‐Application  would  not  result  in  development  on  any  new  sites  in  the  proposed  rezoning  area.  Changes to building bulk under the Amended RWCDS would be minor and would be limited to projected  development sites 13 and 24 and potential development site A. No other changes would occur to the  RWCDS  program  assumptions  for  the  32  remaining  projected  development  sites  under  the  Amended  With‐Action Condition, as compared to the Proposed Actions analyzed in the DEIS.   As  discussed  above,  as  a  result  of  the  consolidation  of  projected  development  site  13  and  potential  development site P, the massing of the development would be slightly altered. Projected development  site 13 would maintain a maximum height of approximately 175 feet, but the Amended RWCDS would  result in changes to bulk, including increases of up to approximately 60 feet in height on portions of the  building along West 202nd and West 203rd streets. In addition, the massing of developments on projected  development site 24 and potential development site A would slightly change. Under the Amended With‐ Action  Condition,  the  maximum  building  heights  on  projected  development  site  24  and  potential  development site A would increase by ten feet to 155 feet. This increase in height would not change the  conclusions  of  the  urban  design  analysis  provided  in  the  DEIS.  As  under  the  Proposed  Actions,  the  A‐ Application would not result in significant adverse impacts on urban design and visual resources.    ‐16‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal Figure 3 Monsignor Kett Playground, Sherman Creek, NYCHA Dyckman Houses, 10th Av Greenstreet Incremental Shadows on March 21 11 GL W T 204 U UE EN W 202 NYCHA Dyckman Houses Sherman Creek EET STR EET STR EET 10 AV 14 203 STR E W 13 EET NU 16 STR VE NA ET T RE W E ENU V EA 205 9A S AN CKM DY W Monsignor Kett Playground 8:00 AM 10th Av. Greenstreet 11 U 16 10 AV EN UE 13 NYCHA Dyckman Houses 204 Sherman Creek 14 W 202 W 203 STR EET STR EET STR EET EET NU E EET W NA W T STR VE STR GL E ENU V EA 205 9A AN CKM DY W Monsignor Kett Playground 9:30 AM 10th Av. Greenstreet Projected Development DEIS RWCDS - Incremental Shadow Potential Development A-Application - Additional Incremental Shadow Open Space Inwood Rezoning Proposal Figure 4 Monsignor Kett Playground, Sherman Creek, NYCHA Dyckman Houses, 10th Av Greenstreet Incremental Shadows on March 21 11 204 U 10 AV EN Sherman Creek 14 W 202 W 203 STR EET STR EET E UE 13 EET STR EET NU 16 NYCHA Dyckman Houses W T STR VE NA ET T RE W GL E ENU V EA 205 9A S AN CKM DY W Monsignor Kett Playground 11:00 AM 10th Av. Greenstreet Projected Development DEIS RWCDS - Incremental Shadow Potential Development A-Application - Additional Incremental Shadow Open Space Inwood Rezoning Proposal Figure 5 Monsignor Kett Playground, Sherman Creek, NYCHA Dyckman Houses, 10th Av Greenstreet Incremental Shadows on May 6 11 GL W T 204 U UE EN W 202 NYCHA Dyckman Houses Sherman Creek EET STR EET STR EET 10 AV 14 203 STR E W 13 EET NU 16 STR VE NA ET T RE W E ENU V EA 205 9A S AN CKM DY W Monsignor Kett Playground 6:30 AM 10th Av. Greenstreet 11 U 16 10 AV EN UE 13 NYCHA Dyckman Houses 204 Sherman Creek 14 W 202 W 203 STR EET STR EET STR EET EET NU E EET W NA W T STR VE STR GL E ENU V EA 205 9A AN CKM DY W Monsignor Kett Playground 8:00 AM 10th Av. Greenstreet Projected Development DEIS RWCDS - Incremental Shadow Potential Development A-Application - Additional Incremental Shadow Open Space Inwood Rezoning Proposal Figure 6 Monsignor Kett Playground, Sherman Creek, NYCHA Dyckman Houses, 10th Av Greenstreet Incremental Shadows on May 6 11 GL W T 204 U UE EN W 202 NYCHA Dyckman Houses Sherman Creek EET STR EET STR EET 10 AV 14 203 STR E W 13 EET NU 16 STR VE NA ET T RE W E ENU V EA 205 9A S AN CKM DY W Monsignor Kett Playground 9:30 AM 10th Av. Greenstreet 11 U 16 10 AV EN UE 13 NYCHA Dyckman Houses 204 Sherman Creek 14 W 202 W 203 STR EET STR EET STR EET EET NU E EET W NA W T STR VE STR GL E ENU V EA 205 9A AN CKM DY W Monsignor Kett Playground 5:15 PM 10th Av. Greenstreet Projected Development DEIS RWCDS - Incremental Shadow Potential Development A-Application - Additional Incremental Shadow Open Space Inwood Rezoning Proposal Figure 7 Monsignor Kett Playground, Sherman Creek, NYCHA Dyckman Houses, 10th Av Greenstreet Incremental Shadows on June 21 11 GL W T 204 U UE EN W 202 NYCHA Dyckman Houses Sherman Creek EET STR EET STR EET 10 AV 14 203 STR E W 13 EET NU 16 STR VE NA ET T RE W E ENU V EA 205 9A S AN CKM DY W Monsignor Kett Playground 6:00 AM 10th Av. Greenstreet 11 U 16 10 AV EN UE 13 NYCHA Dyckman Houses 204 Sherman Creek 14 W 202 W 203 STR EET STR EET STR EET EET NU E EET W NA W T STR VE STR GL E ENU V EA 205 9A AN CKM DY W Monsignor Kett Playground 8:00 AM 10th Av. Greenstreet Projected Development DEIS RWCDS - Incremental Shadow Potential Development A-Application - Additional Incremental Shadow Open Space Inwood Rezoning Proposal Figure 8 Monsignor Kett Playground, Sherman Creek, NYCHA Dyckman Houses, 10th Av Greenstreet Incremental Shadows on June 21 11 GL W T 204 U UE EN W 202 NYCHA Dyckman Houses Sherman Creek EET STR EET STR EET 10 AV 14 203 STR E W 13 EET NU 16 STR VE NA ET T RE W E ENU V EA 205 9A S AN CKM DY W Monsignor Kett Playground 10:00 AM 10th Av. Greenstreet 11 U 16 10 AV EN UE 13 NYCHA Dyckman Houses 204 Sherman Creek 14 W 202 W 203 STR EET STR EET STR EET EET NU E EET W NA W T STR VE STR GL E ENU V EA 205 9A AN CKM DY W Monsignor Kett Playground 6:00 PM 10th Av. Greenstreet Projected Development DEIS RWCDS - Incremental Shadow Potential Development A-Application - Additional Incremental Shadow Open Space Inwood Rezoning Proposal Figure 9 Monsignor Kett Playground, Sherman Creek, NYCHA Dyckman Houses, 10th Av Greenstreet Incremental Shadows on December 21 11 GL W T 204 U UE EN W 202 NYCHA Dyckman Houses Sherman Creek EET STR EET STR EET 10 AV 14 203 STR E W 13 EET NU 16 STR VE NA ET T RE W E ENU V EA 205 9A S AN CKM DY W Monsignor Kett Playground 9:00 AM 10th Av. Greenstreet 11 U 16 10 AV EN UE 13 NYCHA Dyckman Houses 204 Sherman Creek 14 W 202 W 203 STR EET STR EET STR EET EET NU E EET W NA W T STR VE STR GL E ENU V EA 205 9A AN CKM DY W Monsignor Kett Playground 11:00 AM 10th Av. Greenstreet Projected Development DEIS RWCDS - Incremental Shadow Potential Development A-Application - Additional Incremental Shadow Open Space Inwood Rezoning Proposal Figure 10 Monsignor Kett Playground, Sherman Creek, NYCHA Dyckman Houses, 10th Av Greenstreet Incremental Shadows on December 21 11 204 U 10 AV EN Sherman Creek 14 W 202 W 203 STR EET STR EET E UE 13 EET STR EET NU 16 NYCHA Dyckman Houses W T STR VE NA ET T RE W GL E ENU V EA 205 9A S AN CKM DY W Monsignor Kett Playground 12:50 PM 10th Av. Greenstreet Projected Development DEIS RWCDS - Incremental Shadow Potential Development A-Application - Additional Incremental Shadow Open Space Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  Natural Resources  As the A‐Application would not result in development on any new sites in the proposed rezoning area or  increases in the maximum building height on any sites, the conclusions of the natural resources analysis  provided in the DEIS would not change. As under the Proposed Actions, the A‐Application would not result  in significant adverse natural resources impacts.  Hazardous Materials  As the A‐Application would not result in development on any new sites in the proposed rezoning area, the  conclusions  of  the  hazardous  materials  analysis  provided  in  the  DEIS  would  not  change.  As  under  the  Proposed Actions, the A‐Application would not result in significant adverse hazardous materials impacts.  Water and Sewer Infrastructure  Chapter 11, “Water and Sewer Infrastructure,” of the DEIS determined that no significant adverse impacts  to  water  and  sewer  infrastructure  would  occur  in  the  future  with  the  Proposed  Actions.  As  the  A‐ Application would not result in development on any new sites in the proposed rezoning area or changes  to building footprint, no changes to the stormwater flows projected in the DEIS would result. In addition,  as presented in Table 5, below, the Amended RWCDS would result in slightly less wastewater generation  than would occur under the Proposed Actions, as analyzed in the DEIS. While, as shown in Table 5, the  Amended With‐Action Condition would result in a minor increase in overall water demand, as compared  to the Proposed Actions,  as analyzed in the DEIS, as under  the  Proposed Actions, the Amended With‐ Action Condition’s incremental water demand would represent approximately 0.16 percent of the City’s  average daily water supply of approximately one billion gallons per day (gpd). As such, the A‐Application  would not result in significant adverse impacts on water and sewer infrastructure.  TABLE 5  Water and Wastewater Generation (in gallons per day) – DEIS Proposed Actions vs. A‐Application  Land Use  Residential  Office  Storage/ Wholesale/ Warehouse  Retail/ Supermarket  School  Universal Pre‐K  Other Community Facility  Garage  Subtotals  Total Water Demand  Incremental Water Demand  (compared to No‐Action)  Total Wastewater Demand  Incremental Wastewater Demand  (compared to No‐Action)  Proposed Actions  Domestic Water  A/C Water  Consumption/Generation  Consumption  1,430,600  N/A  44,130  75,020  232  102,683  144,964  5,095  5,540  1,190  540  85,026  50,015  1,717  9,433  69,853  1,685,454  270,732  1,946,753  A‐Application  Domestic Water  A/C Water  Consumption/Generation  Consumption  1,428,400  N/A  44,130  75,020  2,924  21,649  139,994  99,163  5,540  5,096  540  1,190  47,937  81,493  9,433  69,853  1,678,898  283,611  1,953,076  +1,588,104  +1,594,426  1,676,021  1,669,465  +1,393,249  +1,386,693  Solid Waste and Sanitation Services  As  presented  in  Table  3,  above,  the  A‐Application  would  result  in  a  reduction  in  the  residential  and  community facility floor area, while increasing the commercial floor area. As a result, the amount of solid  waste that would be handled by private carters would increase under the Amended With‐Action Condition  ‐17‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  (from 73 incremental tons per week to 74.4 incremental tons per week), while the amount of solid waste  that would be handled by the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY) would decrease (from 96  incremental  tons  per  week  to  95.5  incremental  tons  per  week).  As  under  the  Proposed  Actions,  the  additional  solid  waste  resulting  from  the  A‐Application  would  be  a  negligible  increase  relative  to  the  approximately 9,000 tons of waste handled by commercial carters every day or the 12,260 tons per day  handled by DSNY, and it would also represent approximately 0.11 percent of the City’s anticipated future  weekly  commercial  and  DSNY‐managed  waste  generation  in  2025,  as  projected  in  the  Solid  Waste  Management Plan (SWMP).   Energy  Neither the Proposed Actions nor the A‐Application would result in significant adverse energy impacts.  While  the  Amended  With‐Action  Condition  would  have  a  higher  annual  energy  demand  (832.7  billion  British thermal units (BTU), compared to 818 BTU under the Proposed Actions), this would represent less  than  0.5  percent  of  the  City’s  forecasted  future  annual  energy  requirement  of  173  trillion  BTU  and,  therefore, is not expected to result in a significant adverse impact on energy systems.  Transportation  As noted above, compared to the  RWCDS presented in  the DEIS, the Amended With‐Action Condition  would result in a decrease of eight DUs, an increase of 117,249 sf in the storage/wholesale/warehousing  uses  increment,  a  35,636‐sf  decrease  in  the  increment  for  other  commercial  uses,  and  a  20,783‐sf  decrease  in  the  community  facilities  increment.  Based  on  the  trip  generation  assumptions  detailed  in  Chapter  14,  “Transportation,”  of  the  DEIS,  the  Amended  With‐Action  Condition  would  generate  approximately 20 more incremental person trips in the weekday AM peak hour and 934, 358, and 670  fewer trips in the weekday midday and PM and Saturday peak hours, respectively (see Table 6). Action‐ generated person trips under the Amended With‐Action Condition would, therefore, be comparable to  the Proposed Actions analyzed in the DEIS in the weekday AM peak hour (i.e., a difference of only 0.24  percent),  and  from  three  percent  to  seven  percent  less  in  other  peak  hours.  As  under  the  Proposed  Actions, it is anticipated that the A‐Application would result in significant adverse traffic, subway station,  bus,  and  pedestrian  impacts,  but  no  significant  subway  line  haul  impacts.  Although  parking  shortfalls  would occur under both scenarios, neither the Proposed Actions nor the A‐Application would result in  significant adverse parking impacts.  TRAFFIC  As presented in Table 7, compared to the Proposed Actions analyzed in the DEIS, the A‐Application would  generate approximately 61 and 45 more incremental vehicle trips during the weekday AM and PM peak  hours,  respectively,  and  approximately  14  and  23  fewer  incremental  vehicle  trips  during  the  weekday  midday  and  Saturday  peak  hours,  respectively.  Compared  to  the  Proposed  Actions,  this  represents  increases of four percent and three percent in the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively, and  decreases  of  one  percent  and  two  percent  during  the  weekday  midday  and  Saturday  peak  hours,  respectively. Study area intersections were therefore evaluated to determine if there would be additional  significant AM and PM peak hour traffic impacts as a result of the increased incremental traffic during  these periods, and whether the impacts that would occur under the Proposed Actions would still occur  with the reductions in incremental weekday midday and Saturday peak hour traffic.      ‐18‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  TABLE 6  Comparison of Incremental Peak Hour Person Trips by Mode—  DEIS Proposed Actions vs. A‐Application      Scenario    Auto    Taxi  Proposed Actions  Amended With‐Action  Net Difference  1,258  1,314  56  248  248  0  Proposed Actions  Amended With‐Action  808  783  Net Difference  ‐25  ‐7  1,438  1,490  303  300  52  ‐3  1,254  1,213  279  274  ‐41  ‐5  Proposed Actions  Amended With‐Action  Net Difference  Proposed Actions  Amended With‐Action  Net Difference    Bus    School  Bus  Walk/  Other  Total  679  702  23  257  257  0  2,388  2,275  ‐113  8,274  8,294  20  0  0  8,739  8,045  13,818  12,884  ‐38  0  ‐694  ‐934  906  915  0  0  4,849  4,437  11,801  11,443  9  0  ‐412  ‐358  1,074  1,018  0  0  4,832  4,397  11,176  10,506  ‐56  0  ‐435  ‐670  Subway/  Railroad  Weekday AM  3,444  3,498  54  Weekday Midday  425  3,062  784  418  2,892  746  ‐170  Weekday PM  4,305  4,301  ‐4  Saturday  3,737  3,604  ‐133  TABLE 7  Comparison of Incremental Peak Hour Vehicle Trips by Mode—  DEIS Proposed Actions vs. A‐Application      Scenario  Proposed Actions  Amended With‐Action  Net Difference      Auto  Taxi  Weekday AM  1,090  1,141  51  358  358  0  School  Bus    Truck  Total  16  16  0  128  138  10  1,592  1,653  61  Proposed Actions  Amended With‐Action  Weekday Midday  463  568  451  560  0  0  67  73  1,098  1,084  Net Difference  ‐12  0  6  ‐14  0  0  81  81  1,641  1,686  0  0  45  0  0  18  18  1,035  1,012  0  0  ‐23  Proposed Actions  Amended With‐Action  ‐8  Weekday PM  1,142  418  1,193  412  Net Difference  51  Proposed Actions  Amended With‐Action  709  692  Net Difference  ‐17  ‐6  Saturday  308  302  ‐6  Overall, the A‐Application would result in significant adverse traffic impacts at a total of 47 study area  intersections during one or more analyzed peak hours, unchanged from the Proposed Actions analyzed in  ‐19‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  the DEIS. Table 8 presents a comparison of the numbers of lane groups and intersections that would have  significant adverse impacts in each peak hour under the Proposed Actions and the Amended With‐Action  Condition.  As  shown  in  Table  8,  under  the  Amended  With‐Action  Condition,  73  lane  groups  at  41  intersections  would  be  impacted  (compared  to  72  lane  groups  at  41  intersections  with  the  Proposed  Actions) in the weekday AM peak hour, 50 lane groups at 31 intersections (compared to 52 lane groups  at  33  intersections  with  the  Proposed  Actions)  in  the  midday,  68  lane  groups  at  39  intersections  (compared to 67 lane groups at 40 intersections with the Proposed Actions) in the PM, and 53 lane groups  at 32 intersections (compared to 55 lane groups at 34 intersections with the Proposed Actions) in the  Saturday peak hour.  TABLE 8  Comparison of the Numbers of Lane Groups/Intersections  with Significant Adverse Impacts—  DEIS Proposed Actions vs. A‐Application  Peak  Hour  Lane Groups/  Intersections with  Significant Impacts  Mitigated  Lane Groups/  Intersections  Unmitigated  Lane Groups/  Intersections  Proposed Actions  72/41  18/15  54/26  Amended With‐Action  73/41  18/15  55/26  Proposed Actions  52/33  20/13  32/20  Amended With‐Action  50/31  20/13  30/18  Proposed Actions  67/40  18/15  49/25  Amended With‐Action  68/39  18/14  50/25  Proposed Actions  55/34  21/17  34/17  Amended With‐Action  53/32  19/15  34/17  Development  Scenario  AM  Midday  PM  Saturday  As  discussed  in  Chapter  21,  “Mitigation,”  in  the  DEIS,  many  of  the  traffic  impacts  under  the  Proposed  Actions would be mitigated through the implementation of standard traffic engineering improvements,  including:   Installation of new traffic signals at five intersections that are currently unsignalized;   Modification of traffic signal phasing and/or timing;   Elimination of on‐street parking within 100 feet of intersections to add a new travel lane; and   Channelization  and  lane  designation  changes  to  make  more  efficient  use  of  available  street  widths.  Many of the traffic impacts under the Amended With‐Action Condition would also be mitigated through  the  implementation  of  similar  traffic  engineering  improvements.  A  comparison  of  the  numbers  of  mitigated  and  unmitigated  lane  groups/intersections  in  each  peak  hour  under  the  Proposed  Actions  analyzed in the DEIS and the A‐Application is presented in Table 8. As shown in Table 8, in total there  would be one more lane group with an unmitigated impact in each of the AM and PM peak hours under  the  Amended  With‐Action  Condition,  two  fewer  lane  groups  and  two  fewer  intersections  with  unmitigated  impacts  in  the  midday,  and  no  change  in  the  overall  number  of  unmitigated  lane  groups/intersections in the Saturday peak hour. Summarized below are those intersections where there  would  be  changes  in  the  number  of  impacts,  the  number  of  unmitigated  impacts,  and/or  the  recommended mitigation measures in one or more peak hours under the Amended With‐Action Condition  ‐20‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  compared to the Proposed Actions. At all other intersections, the numbers of unmitigated impacts and  the recommended mitigation measures are expected to remain unchanged under the Amended With‐ Action Condition.  Weekday AM Peak Hour   Harlem  River  Drive/Dyckman  Street/Tenth  Avenue  –  one  new  lane  group  with  an  unmitigable  impact under the Amended With‐Action Condition; intersection would remain unmitigated.  Weekday Midday Peak Hour   Dyckman Street/Sherman Avenue – under Amended With‐Action Condition, intersection would  be  fully  mitigable  with  the  previously  recommended  mitigation  measures;  one  or  more  unmitigable impacts would remain under the Proposed Actions;   West 202nd Street/Tenth Avenue – intersection would no longer be impacted under the Amended  With‐Action Condition; intersection was impacted but fully mitigable under the Proposed Actions;  and   West 205th Street/Tenth Avenue – intersection would no longer be impacted under the Amended  With‐Action Condition; intersection previously unmitigable under the Proposed Actions.  PM Peak Hour   Vermilyea  Avenue/Dyckman  Street  –  measures  proposed  in  the  DEIS  would  fully  mitigate  all  impacts at this intersection under the Proposed Actions; with an additional signal timing change  the intersection would also be fully mitigable under the Amended With‐Action Condition;   Post Avenue/Dyckman Street – measures proposed in the DEIS would fully mitigate all impacts at  this  intersection  under  the  Proposed  Actions;  with  an  additional  signal  timing  change  the  intersection would also be fully mitigable under the Amended With‐Action Condition;   Harlem  River  Drive/Dyckman  Street/Tenth  Avenue  –  one  new  lane  group  with  an  unmitigable  impact under the Amended With‐Action Condition; intersection would remain unmitigated;   West 204th Street/Tenth Avenue – intersection would no longer be impacted under the Amended  With‐Action Condition; intersection was impacted but fully mitigable under the Proposed Actions;  and   Sherman Avenue/Tenth Avenue – under the Amended With‐Action Condition there would be one  new  impact  that  could  be  mitigated  through  a  signal  timing  change;  other  impacts  at  this  intersection would remain unmitigable under both the Proposed Actions and the Amended With‐ Action Condition.  Saturday Peak Hour   West 204th Street/Tenth Avenue – intersection would no longer be impacted under the Amended  With‐Action Condition; intersection was impacted but fully mitigable under the Proposed Actions;  and   West 204th Street/Nagle Avenue – intersection would no longer be impacted under the Amended  With‐Action Condition; intersection was impacted but fully mitigable under the Proposed Actions.    ‐21‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  TRANSIT  Subway  As presented in Table 6, compared with the Proposed Actions analyzed in the DEIS, the Amended With‐ Action  Condition  would  generate  approximately  54  more  incremental  subway  trips  (a  two  percent  increase)  during the analyzed weekday AM peak  hour and four fewer incremental trips (a 0.1 percent  decrease) during the analyzed weekday PM peak hour. Subway conditions were evaluated to determine  the potential for additional subway station and line haul impacts to occur under the Amended With‐Action  Condition in the AM peak hour when incremental demand would increase.  Subway Stations  The changes in peak hour subway demand under the Amended With‐Action Condition compared to the  Proposed Actions would result from changes to the development programs on projected development  sites 13 and 14. Incremental subway demand from these two sites is expected to primarily occur at two  of  the  six  analyzed  subway  stations—the  Dyckman  Street  (1)  and  207th  Street  (1)  stations  on  the  Broadway‐Seventh Avenue Line.  As  discussed  in  Chapter  14,  “Transportation,”  of  the  DEIS,  new  subway  demand  generated  by  the  Proposed Actions would result in a significant adverse PM peak hour impact to south‐facing street stair  S2 to the northbound platform at the 207th Street (1) station on the Broadway‐Seventh Avenue Line. This  significant PM peak hour stair impact would remain under the Amended With‐Action Condition, and there  would be no additional significant subway stair impacts at the 207th Street (1) station nor the Dyckman  Street  (1)  station  in  either  analyzed  peak  hour.  In  addition,  neither  the  Proposed  Actions  nor  the  A‐ Application would result in any significant fare array impacts at any analyzed subway station in the AM  and PM peak hours. Absent the identification and implementation of feasible mitigation measures, both  the Proposed Actions and the A‐Application would result in an unmitigated significant adverse subway  stair impact.  Subway Line Haul  Under  the  Proposed  Actions  analyzed  in  the  DEIS,  no  subway  route  would  be  considered  significantly  adversely impacted by projected demand in either the AM or PM peak hour. Line haul impacts are similarly  not expected to occur with the relatively small (54‐trip) increase in incremental AM peak hour subway  demand that would occur under the Amended With‐Action Condition.  Bus  As presented in Table 6, compared with the Proposed Actions analyzed in the DEIS, the Amended Wit‐ Action  Condition  would  generate  approximately  23  more  incremental  bus  trips  during  the  analyzed  weekday  AM  peak  hour  and  nine  more  in  the  PM  peak  hour.  This  would  represent  increases  of  approximately  three  percent  and  one  percent  during  these  periods,  respectively,  compared  with  the  incremental bus trips that would be generated under the Proposed Actions. The incremental increases in  peak  hour  bus  demand  under  the  Amended  With‐Action  Condition  would  result  from  changes  in  the  development programs on projected development sites 13 and 14. Incremental bus demand from these  two sites is expected to primarily occur on two of the three analyzed bus routes—the M100 and the Bx12  Select Bus Service (SBS)—with little if any demand on the third analyzed route—the Bx7.  As discussed in Chapter 14, “Transportation,” of the DEIS, the Proposed Actions would result in capacity  shortfalls on the northbound and southbound Bx7 services in the AM peak hour, and on the northbound  ‐22‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  Bx7  in  the  PM  peak  hour.  These  significant  adverse  impacts  to  Bx7  service  are  expected  to  remain  unchanged under the Amended With‐Action Condition, and the mitigation proposed for these impacts in  the DEIS—the addition of one northbound and one southbound Bx7 bus in the AM peak hour and one  northbound Bx7 bus in the PM peak hour—would also remain effective under the Amended With‐Action  Condition. No new significant impacts are expected to occur to the M100 and Bx12 bus services due to  the relatively small increase in incremental bus demand under the Amended With‐Action Condition.  The general policy of New York City Transit (NYCT) is to provide additional bus service where demand  warrants,  taking  into  account  financial  and  operational  constraints.  Absent  the  implementation  of  the  proposed  mitigation  measures  for  Bx7  service,  which  would  mitigate  the  bus  impacts  to  the  greatest  extent  practicable,  the  A‐Application,  like  the  Proposed  Actions  analyzed  in  the  DEIS,  would  result  in  unmitigated significant adverse bus impacts.  PEDESTRIANS  As shown in Table 9, the Amended With‐Action Condition is expected to generate 6,475, 11,683, and 9,653  incremental pedestrian trips (including walk‐only trips and pedestrian trips to/from area transit services)  in the weekday AM, midday, and PM peak hours, respectively. This is compared to the 6,511, 12,585, and  10,060 incremental pedestrian trips that would be generated during these same periods, respectively,  under  the  Proposed  Actions  analyzed  in  the  DEIS.  Overall,  the  Amended  With‐Action  Condition  would  generate approximately 0.6 percent fewer pedestrian trips in the weekday AM peak hour, seven percent  fewer in the weekday midday, and four percent fewer in the weekday PM peak hour compared to the  Proposed Actions.  Under the Proposed Actions, eight pedestrian elements would be significantly adversely impacted in one  or more peak hours, including three sidewalks, four crosswalks, and one corner area. As shown in Table  10, with the reduction in incremental pedestrian trips under the Amended With‐Action Condition and the  proposed  text  amendment  to  improve  pedestrian  circulation  in  the  Tip  of  Manhattan  sub‐district,  all  pedestrian elements impacted under the Proposed Actions would remain impacted in at least one peak  hour,  with  the  exception  of  the  west  sidewalk  on  Ninth  Avenue  between  West  218th  and  West  219th  streets,  which  would  no  longer  be  impacted  in  any  peak  period.  In  addition,  there  would  be  no  new  significant impacts. While the east crosswalk on West 207th Street at Tenth Avenue would no longer be  impacted in the PM peak hour, it would remain impacted in the midday. Similarly, the south crosswalk on  Tenth Avenue at West 204th Street would no longer be impacted in the midday but would remain impacted  in the AM. The northeast corner at Tenth Avenue and West 206th Street would no longer be impacted in  the midday, but would remain impacted in the AM and PM peak hours. With the exception of the west  sidewalk on Ninth Avenue between West 218th and West 219th streets as discussed above, impacts to  analyzed sidewalks would remain unchanged.   ‐23‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  TABLE 9  Comparison of Incremental Peak Hour Pedestrian Trips—  DEIS Proposed Actions vs. A‐Application  Peak  Hour  AM  Development Scenario  Proposed Actions  6,511  Amended With‐Action  6,475  Net Difference  Proposed Actions  Midday  ‐36  12,585  Amended With‐Action  11,683  Net Difference  Proposed Actions  PM  Total Trips  ‐902  10,060  Amended With‐Action  9,653  Net Difference  ‐407  TABLE 10  Comparison of Significant Adverse Pedestrian Impacts—  DEIS Proposed Actions vs. A‐Application  DEIS Proposed Actions  Corridor/Intersection  Impacted  Element  W.218th St between  Broadway & Ninth Ave  North  South  Broadway and W.218th St  Tenth Ave and W.207th St  Tenth Ave and W.204th St  Broadway and Dyckman Street  East  East   South  North  Tenth Ave and W.206th St  Northeast  Weekday  Weekday  AM  Midday  Peak Hour  Peak Hour  Sidewalks    X  X  X  Crosswalks    X    X  X  X  X  X  Corner Areas  X  X  Amended With‐Action Condition  Weekday  PM  Peak Hour  Weekday  AM  Peak Hour  Weekday  Midday  Peak Hour  Weekday  PM  Peak Hour  X  X    X  X  X  X  X    X    X      X  X  X  X    X        X  X  X    X  Under  the  Proposed  Actions,  the  pedestrian  mitigation  measures  recommended  in  the  DEIS—signal  timing changes and the widening of sidewalks and crosswalks—would mitigate all significant pedestrian  impacts with the exception of impacts to the east crosswalk on West 207th Street at Tenth Avenue in the  midday and PM peak hours. With the reduction in incremental pedestrian trips that would occur under  the Amended With‐Action Condition, the PM impact to the east crosswalk on West 207th Street at Tenth  Avenue would no longer occur, and the midday impact could be fully mitigated by widening this crosswalk  by a total of three feet (see Table 11, below). Therefore, under the Amended With‐Action Condition there  would be no unmitigated pedestrian impacts in any peak hour compared to one unmitigated crosswalk  impact in each of the midday and PM peak hours under the Proposed Actions.      ‐24‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  TABLE 11  Mitigation for the East Crosswalk on West 207th Street and Tenth Avenue  Under Amended With‐Action Conditions        Intersection  No‐Action  Amended With‐Action  Amended Action‐With‐Mitigation    Average  Average  Average                  Width  Space      Width  Space    Width  Space      (ft)  (ft2/ped)  LOS  (ft)  (ft2/ped)  LOS  (ft)  (ft2/ped)  LOS  Crosswalk  Mitigation Measures  Weekday Midday Peak Hour  Tenth Ave & W.207th St  X21  East   18.8  55.1  B  18.8  16.9  D*  21.8  19.8  D  Widen crosswalk by 3 feet.  Notes:  * denotes a significant adverse impact based on CEQR Technical Manual criteria.  VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY  A  review  of  NYCDOT  crash  data  for  the  three‐year  reporting  period  between  January  1,  2012,  and  December 31, 2014 identified five intersections in proximity to the proposed rezoning area as high crash  locations. NYCDOT has proposed or recently implemented improvements at four of these five high crash  locations.  Under  both  the  Proposed  Actions  analyzed  in  the  DEIS  and  the  A‐Application,  additional  improvements to increase pedestrian/bicyclist safety at high crash locations could include installation of  additional high visibility crosswalks where not already present, and improved street lighting.  PARKING  There are a total of 22 off‐street public parking lots and garages within the parking study area of which  eight are located on projected development sites. These eight facilities, with a combined capacity of 751  spaces, would be displaced by new development under both the Proposed Actions analyzed in the DEIS  and  the  Amended  With‐Action  Condition.  One  of  these  eight  parking  facilities,  with  a  capacity  of  30  spaces, would also be displaced under the No‐Action condition.  Under  the  Amended  With‐Action  Condition,  it  is  conservatively  assumed  that  1,197  accessory  parking  spaces would be provided on projected development sites compared to the 1,198 spaces assumed for the  Proposed Actions analyzed in the DEIS. (For both scenarios it is assumed that accessory parking would be  waived for every development site where the number of required spaces would fall below the minimum  number specified under zoning.) Therefore, there would be one less accessory parking space provided  under the Amended With‐Action Condition compared to the Proposed Actions.   As  shown  in  Table  12,  the  Amended  With‐Action  Condition  is  expected  to  generate  a  demand  for  approximately 1,750 parking spaces in the weekday 12‐1 PM midday period and 1,400 spaces during the  overnight period. By comparison, the Proposed Actions are expected to generate a demand for 1,664 and  1,402 parking spaces during these same periods, respectively. After accounting for the number of required  accessory spaces provided on a site‐by‐site basis, it is estimated that incremental parking demand from  new development associated with the Amended With‐Action Condition would total approximately 1,069  spaces at off‐street public parking facilities and on‐street in the weekday midday period, and 995 spaces  during the overnight period. By comparison, the Proposed Actions would generate an incremental parking  demand of 980 spaces and 996 spaces during these same periods, respectively.      ‐25‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                                                                                                                                        Technical Memorandum 001  TABLE 12  Amended RWCDS Net Incremental Weekday Hourly Parking Accumulation by Land Use  Community Facility  Local  Retail  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  1  5  18  16  17  17  18  20  16  16  11  7  0  0  0  0  Destination  Retail  0  0  0  0  0  0  2  3  8  21  33  41  43  49  46  43  40  36  36  38  27  8  3  0  Auto  Repair/ Related  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  ‐4  ‐22  ‐44  ‐44  ‐35  ‐19  ‐19  ‐22  ‐19  ‐6  ‐6  ‐1  0  0  0  0  0  Light  Industrial2  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  9  35  48  55  46  42  40  48  47  31  13  6  1  0  0  0  0  FRESH  Super‐  market3  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  0  0  0  3  2  0  0  0  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  Pre‐K &  PS/IS School  Staff4  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  15  15  15  15  15  15  15  15  15  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  Community  Center5  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  2  4  2  2  2  2  3  4  4  3  2  2  2  0  0  0  0  House of  Worship2  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  Medical  Office  Visitors5  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  34  102  188  262  283  281  283  271  240  182  155  97  39  13  0  0  0  Medical  Office  Staff5  0  0  0  0  6  17  30  51  218  232  246  252  252  252  252  242  203  37  0  0  0  0  0  0    Office  Residential1  Library6  12‐1 AM  0  1,376  0  1‐2  0  1,400  0  2‐3  0  1,400  0  3‐4  0  1,400  0  4‐5  0  1,400  0  5‐6  0  1,375  0  6‐7  0  1,253  0  7‐8  19  1,072  0  8‐9  259  780  0  9‐10  411  734  0  10‐11  421  713  0  11‐12  408  712  1  12‐1 PM  411  703  1  1‐2  408  703  0  2‐3  410  724  0  3‐4  394  776  0  4‐5  264  1,009  0  5‐6  43  1,170  0  6‐7  8  1,282  0  7‐8  0  1,333  0  8‐9  0  1,381  0  9‐10  0  1,388  0  10‐11  0  1,364  0  11‐12  0  1,352  0  Notes:  Parking accumulation patterns based on data from 2007 Jamaica Plan FEIS unless otherwise noted.  1  Based on 2011‐2015 five‐year ACS data on average vehicles per household for Manhattan census tracts 283, 285, 287, 291, 293, 295, 299, 303 and 307.  2  Light industrial and house of worship parking accumulation patterns based on data from the 2004 No. 7 Subway Extension – Hudson Yards Rezoning and Development Program FGEIS.  3  FRESH supermarket parking accumulation pattern based on data from The Food Retail Expansion to Support Health (FRESH) Food Store Program (2009).  4  Pre‐K and PS/IS school staff parking accumulation pattern based on data from the 2011 Brownsville Ascend Charter School Assessment.  5  Medical office parking patterns based on data from the 2014 New York Methodist Center for Community Health EAS.  6  Based on data from ITE Parking Generation, 3rd Edition, Land Use 590 (Library).       ‐26‐  April 17, 2018  Total  Demand  1,376  1,400  1,400  1,400  1,406  1,392  1,285  1,189  1,401  1,612  1,721  1,744  1,750  1,751  1,766  1,762  1,758  1,466  1,441  1,420  1,421  1,396  1,367  1,352  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001    Under the Proposed Actions, there would be deficits of approximately 948 spaces of on‐street and off‐ street public parking capacity within ¼‐mile of the proposed rezoning area in the weekday midday period,  and approximately 275 spaces during the overnight period. Under the Amended With‐Action Condition,  these deficits would total 1,037 spaces (an increase of 89) and 274 spaces (one fewer) during these same  periods,  respectively.  The  deficits  under  both  scenarios  would  reflect  project  demand  not  otherwise  accommodated  in  accessory  or  off‐street  public  parking  facilities  as  well  as  demand  displaced  from  existing parking facilities on projected development sites. As parking shortfalls in this area of Manhattan  are not considered significant under CEQR Technical Manual criteria, significant parking shortfalls are not  anticipated under either the Proposed Actions or the A‐Application.  Air Quality  STATIONARY SOURCE  A sensitivity analysis was prepared to determine whether the Amended RWCDS would either (a) have the  potential to result in new significant adverse stationary source air quality impacts; or (b) require changes  to the air quality (E) designations presented in the DEIS. The results of the sensitivity analysis determined  that no new significant adverse stationary source air quality impacts would occur, and no changes to the  air quality (E) designations outlined in the DEIS are warranted.  MOBILE SOURCE  A sensitivity analysis was prepared to determine whether the changes to the traffic volumes anticipated  under the Amended With‐Action Condition (presented in the “Transportation” section, above) would have  the  potential  to  result  in  new  significant  adverse  mobile  source  air  quality  impacts.  The  results  of  the  sensitivity  analysis  determined  that,  given  (1)  the  relatively  minor  increases  in  the  vehicle  volumes  anticipated at the three mobile source air quality analysis intersections; and (2) the results of the detailed  analysis provided in the DEIS, which were well below the de minimis impact criteria, no new significant  adverse mobile source air quality impacts would occur under the Amended With‐Action Condition.  Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change  Like the Proposed Actions, the Amended With‐Action Condition would not result in significant adverse  impacts associated with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and their effect on climate change. As discussed  below,  the  Amended  With‐Action  Condition  would  result  in  more  GHG  emissions  as  compared  to  the  Proposed Actions. In terms of energy efficiency and other measures to reduce emissions, the Amended  With‐Action  Condition  and  Proposed  Actions  would  be  the  same,  and  neither  would  implement  any  specific  reduction  measures.  In  addition,  similar  to  the  Proposed  Actions,  the  Amended  With‐Action  Condition would not implement any specific resilience measures beyond the building code which would  address potential future flooding conditions.  As discussed above, the Amended RWCDS assumptions for projected development sites 13 and 14 would  result in a net increase of building floor area resulting from the Proposed Actions. This net increase in  overall floor area would result in an increase in energy consumption and ensuing GHG emission associated  with the construction and operation of buildings in the Amended With‐Action Condition. Following the  methodology described in the DEIS and per the CEQR Technical Manual guidance, the Amended With‐ Action  Condition  would  result  in  GHG  emissions  from  annual  building  operations  which  would  be  approximately 2,269 annual metric tons more than the building operation emissions from the Proposed  Actions. The Amended With‐Action Condition would result in annual GHG emissions from mobile sources  that would be approximately 1,317 metric tons more than those expected from the Proposed Actions. As  ‐27‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  such,  the  Amended  With‐Action  Condition  would  result  in  annual  GHG  emissions  that  would  be  approximately 3,586 metric tons more than those expected from the Proposed Actions analyzed in the  DEIS. While the Amended With‐Action Condition would have higher annual GHG emissions (82,885 metric  tons, compared to 79,299 metric tons under the Proposed Actions), this would represent approximately  0.16 percent of the of the City’s overall 2015 GHG emissions of approximately 52.0 million metric tons,  and would therefore not result in significant adverse impacts associated with GHG emissions and their  effect on climate change.  Similar to the Proposed Actions, the A‐Application would be consistent with the City’s applicable emissions  reduction goals of transit‐oriented development and construction of new resource‐ and energy‐efficient  buildings. As with the Proposed Actions, some developments with the Amended With‐Action Condition  would be subject to current and/or future flood risks, with flood depth increasing in the future as sea  levels rise and flood hazard areas expand. The Amended With‐Action Condition, as with the Proposed  Actions, would not affect resilience in the area or other environmental effects as they may be affected by  climate change.   Noise  As presented in the “Transportation” section, above, the Amended With‐Action Condition would result in  greater  vehicle  volumes  than  projected  under  the  Proposed  Actions.  As  such,  a  revised  mobile  source  noise analysis was prepared to determine whether the higher vehicle volumes would either (a) result in  significant adverse noise impacts; or (b) require changes to the attenuation requirements presented in  the DEIS.   As outlined below, the Amended With‐Action Condition would result in similar noise levels compared to  the Proposed Actions, and the revised mobile source noise analysis determined that the higher vehicle  volumes projected in the Amended With‐Action Condition would neither result in significant adverse noise  impacts nor require changes to the attenuation requirements presented in the DEIS.  NOISE IMPACT IDENTIFICATION UNDER THE AMENDED WITH‐ACTION CONDITION  Using  the  methodologies  described  in  the  DEIS,  Amended  With‐Action  Condition  noise  levels  were  calculated at the 18 receptor locations for the 2032 analysis year. The Amended With‐Action Condition  noise levels for all receptors are shown in Table 13. As presented in Table 13, the maximum increase in  Leq  noise  levels  in  the  Amended  With‐Action  Condition  (compared  to  No‐Action  conditions)  for  all  receptors sites would be 2.0 dBA (at Receptor Location 2), as in the DEIS. Changes of this magnitude would  be barely perceptible and would not constitute a significant noise impact according to CEQR Technical  Manual impact criteria. In terms of CEQR noise exposure guidance, there would be no change in noise  exposure categories at any receptor locations in the Amended With‐Action Condition compared to the  Proposed  Actions  as  noise  levels  at  Receptor  Locations  6  and  18  would  remain  in  the  “Marginally  Acceptable” category, noise levels at Receptor Locations 2, 7, 16, and 17 would remain in the “Marginally  Unacceptable (I)” category, noise levels at Receptor Locations 3, 8, 12, 13, 14, and 15 would remain in the  “Marginally  Unacceptable  (II)”  category,  noise  levels  at  Receptor  Location  5  would  remain  in  the  “Marginally Unacceptable (III)” category, noise levels at Receptor Locations 1 and 11 would remain in the  “Marginally Unacceptable (IV)” category, and noise levels at Receptor Locations 4, 9, and 10 would remain  in the “Clearly Unacceptable” category.    ‐28‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  TABLE 13  2032 Amended With‐Action Condition Noise Levels (in dBA)  Receptor  Location  1  Southeast corner of Broadway  and Ninth Avenue  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Northwest corner of Ninth  Avenue  and West 218th Street  West side of Broadway  at West 215th Street  West side of Tenth Avenue  midway between West 214th  and West 215th streets  14  15  MD  PM  AM2  1918.1  2278.1  68.3  69.1  0.7  72.4  MD  1244.9  1495.9  68.1  68.9  0.8  70.1  PM  778.8  66.7  2.0  68.9  2734.3  1246.8  2912.3  64.6  AM  72.5  72.7  0.3  75.4  MD  2153.9  2285.9  69.1  69.4  0.3  72.2  PM  2544.6  71.2  0.3  73.3  1887.6  2726.6  2390.6  70.9  AM  78.1  79.1  1.0  83.3  MD  1793.4  2147.4  78.3  79.0  0.8  82.9  84.6  PM  1617.4  2112.4  78.5  79.6  1.2  Northeast corner of West 207th  Street and Ninth Avenue  AM  4101.4  4817.4  71.5  72.2  0.7  74.6  MD  4644.8  5081.8  71.4  71.8  0.4  73.9  PM  3451.5  73.6  74.4  0.8  76.9  West 205th Street at Harlem  River  (in Sherman Creek Park)  AM  81.5  4189.5  101.5  65.2  66.1  1.0  67.9  MD  30.5  31.5  64.1  64.2  0.1  65.4  64.8  Northwest corner of Ninth  Avenue  and West 203rd Street  Tenth Avenue  between West 203rd   and West 204th streets  Southwest corner of Tenth  Avenue  and West 212th Street  Southeast corner of Tenth  Avenue  and West 206th Street  Southwest corner of Dyckman  Street and Nagle Avenue  Northwest corner of West 207  Street and Post Avenue  th 13  Time  AM  With‐ CEQR Noise  Leq(  With‐Action  No‐Action  Action  No‐Action  With‐Action  Exposure  Leq  L101  Leq  Total PCEs Total PCEs  Change  Category  4381.2  4677.2  74.6  74.9  0.3  78.8  Marginally  4186.4  4493.4  74.6  74.9  0.3  78.6  Unacceptable (IV)  4083.7  4357.7  75.7  75.9  0.3  79.8  South side of West 207  Street  midway between Vermilyea  and Sherman avenues  East side of Broadway midway  between West 207th and West  208th streets  East side of Broadway midway  between Dyckman and  Academy streets  PM  76.9  96.9  63.4  64.4  1.0  AM  2250.9  2417.9  68.3  68.6  0.3  72.4  MD  792.3  831.3  67.6  67.8  0.2  69.5  PM  693.2  853.2  69.4  70.3  0.9  72.6  AM  1306.5  1488.5  69.5  70.0  0.6  74.2  MD  1177.8  1245.8  69.0  69.3  0.2  74.2  PM  889.7  1079.7  68.2  68.9  0.8  73.3  AM  1657.0  2186.0  80.3  81.5  1.2  83.7  MD  1793.7  2161.7  80.0  80.8  0.8  82.3  87.2  PM  1220.8  1750.8  81.0  82.5  1.6  AM  2180.8  2528.8  77.9  78.5  0.6  86.1  MD  1761.5  2077.5  76.3  77.0  0.7  84.3  PM  1642.1  2086.1  78.1  79.2  1.0  86.5  AM  5826.4  6006.4  74.7  74.9  0.1  78.0  MD  2873.1  3012.1  75.2  75.4  0.2  77.8  78.6  PM  2600.8  2783.8  75.3  75.6  0.3  AM  2099.9  2159.9  70.9  71.0  0.1  74.3  MD  1866.3  1892.3  71.8  71.8  0.1  74.3  75.4  PM  2319.1  2407.1  72.7  72.8  0.2  AM  1209.4  1276.4  70.9  71.1  0.2  73.3  MD  1641.3  1678.3  67.5  67.6  0.1  70.1  PM  1158.0  1220.0  71.1  71.3  0.2  73.9  AM  2545.9  2747.9  73.2  73.6  0.3  75.5  MD  2598.1  2718.1  70.4  70.6  0.2  72.0  72.3  PM  2441.2  2648.2  70.4  70.7  0.4  AM  2369.7  2588.7  69.3  69.7  0.4  72.8  MD  1854.7  1965.7  68.0  68.3  0.3  71.5  PM  2935.1  3081.1  71.8  72.0  0.2  74.0  Marginally  Unacceptable (I)  Marginally  Unacceptable (II)  Clearly  Unacceptable  Marginally  Unacceptable (III)  Marginally  Acceptable  Marginally  Unacceptable (I)  Marginally  Unacceptable (II)  Clearly  Unacceptable  Clearly  Unacceptable  Marginally  Unacceptable (IV)  Marginally  Unacceptable (II)  Marginally  Unacceptable (II)  Marginally  Unacceptable (II)  Marginally  Unacceptable (II)    ‐29‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  TABLE 13 (Continued)  2032 Amended With‐Action Condition Noise Levels (in dBA)  Re Location  16  North side of Dyckman Street  midway between Vermilyea  and Sherman avenues  17  18  Time  AM  No‐Action  With‐ 2158.3  1091.5  2285.3  1146.5  67.8  MD  70.6  Northwest corner of Thayer  Street and Sherman Avenue  South side of Dyckman Street  midway between Henshaw  Street and Payson Avenue  No‐Action  With‐Action  Leq(  With‐Action  68.0  0.2  70.6  70.8  0.2  70.2  69.4  PM  1103.5  1238.5  66.9  67.4  0.5  AM  1628.1  1657.1  68.3  68.4  0.1  70.4  MD  912.4  956.4  68.0  68.2  0.2  70.5  PM  846.8  66.5  0.2  68.6  662.8  878.8  736.8  66.4  AM  64.3  64.8  0.5  66.8  MD  380.2  428.2  65.9  66.4  0.5  68.3  PM  640.5  683.5  66.6  66.9  0.3  69.1  CEQR Noise  Marginally  Unacceptable (I)  Marginally  Unacceptable (I)  Marginally  Acceptable  Note:  1  The highest L10 at each receptor location is shown in bold.  2  As existing L10 noise levels during the Early AM period were greater than noise levels during the AM, midday, and PM peak periods, With‐Action  noise levels were calculated utilizing existing Early AM noise levels at Receptor Location 2.  AMENDED WITH‐ACTION CONDITION LDN NOISE LEVELS  The Ldn for Receptor Location 15 in the Amended With‐Action Condition was estimated according to the  methodology described in the “HUD Development Guidelines” section, and was determined to be 71.0  dBA. According to HUD criteria, the calculated Amended With‐Action Condition Ldn noise level at Receptor  Location 15 would remain in the “normally unacceptable” category, as in the DEIS.   AMENDED WITH‐ACTION CONDITION TRAIN NOISE LEVELS  Based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) noise prediction methodology presented in the DEIS,  as no significant changes in train operations are anticipated in the Amended With‐Action Condition, the  maximum  predicted  L10  noise  levels  would  remain  at  80.87  dBA  at  Receptor  Location  1,  84.13  dBA  at  Receptor Location 4, 85.61 dBA at Receptor Location 9, 82.43 dBA at Receptor Location 10, 79.58 dBA at  Receptor Location 11, and 77.32 dBA at Receptor Location 12, as under existing conditions (refer to Table  17‐10  of  the  DEIS).1  Using  this  methodology,  the  maximum  Amended  With‐Action  Condition  L10  noise  levels  at  Receptor  Locations  1,  10,  11,  and  12  would  be  higher  than  projected  noise  levels  using  the  proportional modeling technique presented in Table 12, whereas the maximum Amended With‐Action  Condition  L10  noise  levels  at  Receptor  Locations  4  and  9  predicted  using  the  proportional  modeling  technique would be higher than those estimated using the FTA noise prediction methodology.  NOISE ATTENUATION MEASURES  CEQR  As discussed in the DEIS, the CEQR Technical Manual has set noise attenuation requirements for buildings  based  on  exterior  noise  levels.  Recommended  noise  attenuation  values  for  buildings  are  designed  to                                                               1  As discussed in Chapter 17, Section E, “Existing Noise Levels,” of the DEIS, while one‐hour noise monitoring was  conducted  at  Receptor  Location  6,  in  order  to  capture  train  noise  emissions  from  the  Metro‐North  rail  tracks  located across the Harlem River from proposed rezoning area in the Bronx (refer to Figure 17‐1 of the DEIS), it was  observed during monitoring that train noise was not a significant source of noise in the area, and local traffic was  the main source of ambient noise at this receptor. As such, With‐Action train noise levels were not calculated for  Receptor Location 6.  ‐30‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  maintain interior noise levels of 45 dBA or lower for residential uses and 50 dBA or lower for commercial  uses, and are determined based on exterior L10 noise levels.  As there would be no changes in noise exposure categories at any receptor locations in the Amended  With‐Action  Condition  compared  to  the  Proposed  Actions,  the  attenuation  requirements  presented  in  Table 17‐14 of the DEIS shall determine the required attenuation levels for all projected and potential  development sites under the Amended With‐Action Condition. Required attenuation levels based on the  values shown in Table 17‐14 of the DEIS for each projected and potential development site, along with  the application of distance correction formulas to account for varying distances between the elevated No.  1  subway  line  tracks  and  several  projected  and  potential  development  sites  where  appropriate,  are  presented in Appendix H of the DEIS and shall apply to the projected and potential development sites in  the Amended With‐Action Condition.   As discussed in the DEIS, in order to implement the attenuation requirements shown in Appendix H of the  DEIS,  an  (E)  Designation  (E‐459)  or  comparable  measure  for  noise  will  be  placed  on  30  out  of  the  33  projected development sites and 38 of the 39 potential development sites2 specifying the appropriate  amount of window/wall attenuation. As there would be no changes in noise attenuation requirements  between the DEIS and the Amended With‐Action Condition, the text of Noise (E) Designation E‐459 for  window/wall attenuation would remain the same.  For City‐owned property at projected development site 25 (Block 2233, Lot 13 and part of Lot 20), as in  the DEIS, the requirement for façade attenuation as well as the requirement for an alternate means of  ventilation  will  be  required  through  the  Land  Disposition  Agreement  (LDA)  between  NYCHPD  and  the  future selected developer(s), with oversight provided through NYCHPD and NYCDEP.  With  the  requirement  of  the  (E)  designations  or  comparable  measures  (such  as  LDAs)  at  these  sites,  interior noise levels would meet CEQR Technical Manual guidance.  In addition, as the A‐Application would map new M1‐4/R7A and M1‐4/R9A districts (which would permit  the  development  of  mixed‐use  buildings  with  both  residential  and  light  industrial  uses),  supplemental  attenuation requirements (beyond those presented in Appendix H of the DEIS) would be required for any  new residential uses in these districts (projected development sites 13 and 14) pursuant to Section 123‐ 32 of the Zoning Resolution. Specifically, as outlined in Section 123‐32, “all new dwelling units shall be  provided with a minimum 35 dB(A) of window wall attenuation to maintain an interior noise level of 45  dB(A) or less, with windows closed, and shall provide an alternate means of ventilation.” With adherence  to  these  supplemental  attenuation  requirements  outlined  in  the  Zoning  Resolution,  industrial  noise  sources would not result in significant adverse impacts in the proposed M1‐4/R7A and M1‐4/R9A zoning  districts.  Public Health  Neither the Proposed Actions nor the A‐Application would result in significant adverse impacts on public  health.  The  Amended  With‐Action  Condition,  similar  to  the  Proposed  Actions,  would  not  result  in  unmitigated significant adverse impacts in the following technical areas that contribute to public health:  air quality, water quality, operational noise, or hazardous materials. As discussed in the “Construction”  section,  below,  significant  adverse  construction  noise  impacts  are  anticipated  under  both  scenarios.  However, although the CEQR Technical Manual thresholds for significant adverse impacts are predicted                                                               2  The DEIS cited “38 of the 40 potential development sites”; however, the number of potential development sites  was reduced as a result of the merger of former potential develop site P with projected development site 13.  ‐31‐  April 17, 2018  Inwood Rezoning Proposal                Technical Memorandum 001  to be exceeded at certain locations during construction, the magnitude and duration of these exceedances  would not constitute a significant adverse public health impact.   Neighborhood Character  Like  the  Proposed  Actions,  the  A‐Application  would  not  result  in  significant  adverse  impacts  to  neighborhood  character.  The  changes  resulting  from  the  Amended  With‐Action  Condition,  like  those  changes that would be seen under the Proposed Actions, would generally result in similar effects in the  following technical areas that are considered in the neighborhood character assessment pursuant to the  CEQR  Technical  Manual:  land  use,  zoning,  and  public  policy;  socioeconomic  conditions;  open  space;  historic and cultural resources; urban design and visual resources; shadows; transportation; and noise.  Although the same significant adverse impacts would occur with respect to open space, historic resources,  shadows, and transportation under the Amended With‐Action Condition, like the Proposed Actions, these  impacts would not result in a significant  change  to  one of  the  determining elements of  neighborhood  character.  Construction  As the Amended With‐Action Condition would not result in development on any new sites in the proposed  rezoning area, the conclusions of the construction analysis provided in the DEIS would not change. As  under  the  Proposed  Actions,  the  Amended  With‐Action  Condition  would  result  in  significant  adverse  construction noise impacts and construction‐related impacts on historic resources. Any significant adverse  traffic  impacts  expected  during  peak  construction  activity  in  2024  would  be  most  likely  to  occur  at  intersections  in  the  immediate  proximity  of  projected  development  sites  4  and  33  along  the  northern  segment of Ninth Avenue, and projected development sites 7 and 10 along the southern segment of Ninth  Avenue, all of which would be under construction at that time. It is expected that the mitigation measures  proposed for 2032 operational traffic impacts would also be effective at mitigating any potential impacts  from construction traffic during the 2024(Q4) peak construction period. In addition, incremental transit  and  pedestrian  demand  would  be  lower  than  with  full  build‐out  in  2032,  and  it  is  expected  that  the  proposed  mitigation  measures  identified  for  the  2032  operational  peak  would  also  be  effective  at  mitigating any potential impacts from peak construction period transit and pedestrian trips.      ____________________                 April 17, 2018  Hilary Semel      Assistant to the Mayor                      ‐32‐    Date  April 17, 2018  APPENDIX A A-App/ication Revised Special Inwood District Text PROPOSED SPECIAL INWOOD DISTRICT TEXT AMENDMENT Matter underlined is new, to be added; Matter struck out is to be deleted; Matter within # # is defined in Section 12-10; * * * indicates where unchanged text appears in the Zoning Resolution Article I: - General Provisions Chapter 1 - Title, Establishments of Controls and Interpretations of Regulations * * * * * * 11-122 Districts established Establishment of the Special Hunts Point District In order to carry out the special purposes of this Resolution as set forth in Article X, Chapter 8, the #Special Hunts Point District# is hereby established. Establishment of the Special Inwood District In order to carry out the special purposes of this Resolution as set forth in Article XIV, Chapter 2, the #Special Inwood District# is hereby established. Establishment of Special Limited Commercial District In order to carry out the special purposes of this Resolution as set forth in Article VIII, Chapter 3, the #Special Limited Commercial District# is hereby established. * * * Chapter 2 - Construction of Language and Definitions * * * 12-10 DEFINITIONS * * * Special Hunts Point District The “Special Hunts Point District” is a Special Purpose District designated by the letters “HP” in which special regulations set forth in Article X, Chapter 8, apply. Special Inwood District The “Special Inwood District” is a Special Purpose District designated by the letters “IN” in which special regulations set forth in Article XIV, Chapter 2, apply. Special Limited Commercial District The “Special Limited Commercial District” is a Special Purpose District designated by the letters “LC” in which special regulations set forth in Article VIII, Chapter 3, apply. * * * * * * Chapter 4 – Sidewalk Cafe Regulations 14-44 Special Zoning Districts Where Certain Sidewalk Cafes Are Permitted * * Manhattan #Enclosed Sidewalk Cafe# * Hudson Square District * * #Unenclosed Sidewalk Cafe# * Yes Yes Inwood District No Yes Limited Commercial District No No1 * * * Article II – RESIDENCE DISTRICT REGULATIONS Chapter 3 – Residential Bulk Regulations in Residence Districts 23-00 APPLICABILITY AND GENERAL PURPOSES 23-01 Applicability of This Chapter * * * Special regulations applying to #large-scale residential developments# or #residential uses# in #largescale community facility developments# are set forth in Article VII, Chapter 8. Special regulations applying only in Special Purpose Districts are set forth in Articles VIII, IX, X, XI, XII and XIII and XIV. * * * * * * 23-011 Quality Housing Program (c) In the districts indicated without a letter suffix, the optional Quality Housing #bulk# regulations permitted as an alternative pursuant to paragraph (b) of this Section, shall not apply to: * (2) * * Special Purpose Districts However, such optional Quality Housing #bulk# regulations are permitted as an alternative to apply in the following Special Purpose Districts: * * * #Special Grand Concourse Preservation District#; #Special Inwood District#; #Special Harlem River Waterfront District#; * * * Chapter 4 - Bulk Regulations for Community Facilities in Residence Districts 24-00 APPLICABILITY, GENERAL PURPOSES AND DEFINITIONS 24-01 Applicability of This Chapter * * * Special regulations applying to #large-scale community facility developments# or to #community facility uses# in #large-scale residential developments# are set forth in Article VII, Chapter 8. Special regulations applying only in Special Purpose Districts are set forth in Articles VIII, IX, X, XI, XII and, XIII and XIV. * * * ARTICLE III – COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS Chapter 3 - Bulk Regulations for Commercial or Community Facility Buildings in Commercial Districts 33-00 APPLICABILITY, GENERAL PURPOSES AND DEFINITIONS 33-01 Applicability of This Chapter * * * Special regulations applying to #large-scale residential developments#, #community facility uses# in #large-scale residential developments# or #large-scale community facility developments# are set forth in Article VII, Chapter 8. Special regulations applying only in Special Purpose Districts are set forth in Articles VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, and XIII and XIV. * * * Chapter 4 - Bulk Regulations for Residential Buildings in Commercial Districts 34-00 APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS 34-01 Applicability of This Chapter * * * Existing #buildings or other structures# that do not comply with one or more of the applicable #bulk# regulations are #noncomplying buildings or other structures# and are subject to the regulations set forth in Article V, Chapter 4. Special regulations applying only in Special Purpose Districts are set forth in Articles VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, and XIII and XIV. * * * Chapter 5 - Bulk Regulations for Mixed Buildings in Commercial Districts 35-00 APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS 35-01 Applicability of This Chapter * * * Existing #buildings or other structures# that do not comply with one or more of the applicable #bulk# regulations are #noncomplying buildings or other structures# and are subject to the regulations set forth in Article V, Chapter 4. Special regulations applying only in Special Purpose Districts are set forth in Articles VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, and XIII and XIV. * * * Chapter 7 - Special Urban Design Regulations 37-00 GENERAL PURPOSES Special urban design regulations are set forth in this Chapter to improve the quality of the streetscape and to promote a lively and engaging pedestrian experience along commercial streets in various neighborhoods. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply as follows: * (c) * * Section 37-30, inclusive, sets forth special streetscape provisions that apply in conjunction with provisions specified in the supplemental use provisions of Article III, Chapter 2, special provisions for certain areas in Article VI, or in Special Purpose Districts in Articles VIII through XIII XIV; * * * ARTICLE IV – MANUFACTURING DISTRICT REGULATIONS Chapter 3 - Bulk Regulations 43-00 APPLICABILITY AND GENERAL PROVISIONS 43-01 Applicability of This Chapter * * * Special regulations applying to #large-scale community facility developments# are set forth in Article VII, Chapter 8. Special regulations applying only in Special Purpose Districts are set forth in Articles VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, and XIII and XIV. * * * ARTICLE VI – SPECIAL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN AREAS Chapter 2 - Special Regulations Applying in the Waterfront Area * * * * * * * * * 62-10 GENERAL PROVISIONS 62-13 Applicability of District Regulations The regulations of this Chapter shall apply in the #Special St. George District# + following Special Purpose Districts except as specifically modified within the North Waterfront Subdistrict Special Purpose District provisions: #Special Inwood District# #Special St. George District#. * * * * * * 62-90 WATERFRONT ACCESS PLANS 62-94 Borough of Manhattan The following Waterfront Access Plans are hereby established within the Borough of Manhattan. All applicable provisions of Article VI, Chapter 2 remain in effect within the areas delineated by such plans, except as expressly set forth otherwise in the plans: M-1: Inwood, in the #Special Inwood District# as set forth in Section 142-60 (Inwood Waterfront Access Plan) * * * ARTICLE XIV – SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS Chapter 2 - Special Inwood District 142-00 GENERAL PURPOSES The “Special Inwood District” established in this Resolution is designed to promote and protect public health, safety and general welfare. These general goals include, among others, the following specific purposes: (a) to create a lively and attractive built environment that will provide amenities and services for the use and enjoyment of area residents, workers and visitors; (b) to encourage well-designed #development# that complements and enhances the built character of the neighborhood; (c) to enhance neighborhood economic diversity by broadening the range of housing choices for residents of varied incomes; (d) to maintain and establish physical and visual public access to and along the waterfront; (e) to promote the pedestrian orientation of ground floor uses in appropriate locations, and thus safeguard a traditional quality of higher density areas of the City; (f) to take advantage of the waterfront along the Harlem River, Sherman Creek, and the North Cove and create a public open space network; (g) to focus higher-density development in appropriate locations along wide, mixed-use corridors with good access to transit; (h) to provide flexibility of architectural design within limits established to assure adequate access of light and air to streets and public access areas, and thus encourage more attractive and economic building forms; and (i) to promote the most desirable use of land and development in accordance with the District Plan for the Inwood waterfront, and thus conserve and enhance the value of land and buildings, and thereby protect the City’s tax revenues. 142-01 General Provisions The provisions of this Chapter shall apply within the #Special Inwood District#. The regulations of all other Chapters of this Resolution are applicable, except as superseded, supplemented or modified by the provisions of this Chapter. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Chapter and other regulations of this Resolution, the provisions of this Chapter shall control. However, in #flood zones#, in the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Chapter and the provisions of Article VI, Chapter 4 (Special Regulations Applying in Flood Hazard Areas), the provisions of Article VI, Chapter 4, shall control. 142-02 District Plan and Maps The regulations of this Chapter are designed to implement the #Special Inwood District# Plan. The District Plan, including Map 1 (Subdistricts and Subareas), Map 2 (Ground Floor Use and Curb Cut Regulations), and Map 3 (Special Inwood District – Transit Easement Zones) is set forth in the Appendix to this Chapter and is hereby incorporated as part of this Resolution for the purpose of specifying locations where the special regulations and requirements set forth in this Chapter apply. In order to carry out the purposes and provisions of this Chapter, district maps are located in the Appendix to this Chapter and are hereby incorporated and made an integral part of this Resolution. They are incorporated for the purpose of specifying locations where special regulations and requirements, as set forth in the text of this Chapter, apply. Map 1. Special Inwood District - Subdistricts and Subareas Map 2. Special Inwood District - Ground Floor Use and Curb Cut Regulations Map 3. Special Inwood District – Transit Easement Zones Map 4. Waterfront Access Plan: Parcel Designation Map 5. Waterfront Access Plan: Public Access Areas Map 6. Waterfront Access Plan: Visual Corridors 142-03 Subdistricts and Subareas In order to carry out the provisions of this Chapter, five subdistricts are established, as follows: Sherman Creek Subdistrict A Tip of Manhattan Subdistrict B Commercial “U” Subdistrict C Upland Area Subdistrict D Infrastructure Zone Subdistrict E In each of these subdistricts, certain special regulations apply which do not apply within the remainder of the #Special Inwood District#. Within certain subdistricts, subareas are established, as follows: Within Sherman Creek Subdistrict A: Subarea A1 Subarea A2 Subarea A3 Within Tip of Manhattan Subdistrict B: Subarea B1 Subarea B2 Subarea B3 Subarea B4 The location and boundaries of subdistricts and subareas are outlined on Map 1 (Special Inwood District Subdistricts and Subareas) in the Appendix to this Chapter. 142-04 Applicability 142-041 Applicability of the Quality Housing Program In the #Special Inwood District#, any #building# containing #residences#, or any #building# containing #long-term care facilities# or philanthropic or non-profit institutions with sleeping accommodations, shall be #developed# or #enlarged# in accordance with the Quality Housing Program and the regulations of Article II, Chapter 8 shall apply. The #bulk# regulations of this Chapter shall be considered the applicable #bulk# regulations for #Quality Housing buildings#. 142-042 Applicability of the Inclusionary Housing Program For the purposes of applying the Inclusionary Housing Program provisions set forth in Section 23-154 and 23-90, #Mandatory Inclusionary Housing areas# within the #Special Inwood District# are shown in APPENDIX F of this Resolution. 142-043 Applicability of Article XII, Chapter 3 In M1 Districts paired with a #Residence District#, the special #use#, #bulk# and parking and loading provisions of Article XII, Chapter 3 (Special Mixed Use District) shall apply, except where modified by the provisions of this Chapter, and shall supplement or supersede the provisions of the designated #Residence# or M1 District, as applicable. 142-05 Modification of Use and Bulk Regulations for Zoning Lots Fronting on Former West 208th Street Where the #lot line# of a #zoning lot# coincides with the former boundary of West 208th Street, as shown on Map 1 in the Appendix to this Chapter, such #lot line# shall be considered a #street line# for the purpose of applying all #use# and #bulk# regulations of this Resolution. 142-06 Development over a Street in Subarea A1 In Subarea A1, as shown on Map 1 (Special Inwood District – Subdistricts and Subareas) in the Appendix to this Chapter, when a volume above a #street#, or portion thereof, has been eliminated, discontinued or closed, such volume may, at the option of an owner of a #zoning lot# adjoining such volume, be considered part of the adjoining #zoning lot#, and a #development# or #enlargement# may be located within such volume that is part of or connected to a #building# on the adjoining #zoning lot# utilizing #floor area# generated by the adjoining #zoning lot#, provided that the #street# below the volume is provided with lighting in accordance with Department of Transportation standards. In no event shall such volume contribute to the amount of #lot area# of any #zoning lot# for the purposes of generating #floor area#. 142-07 Shoreline boundary For the purposes of this Chapter, the #shoreline# shall be as shown on a survey available on the Department of City Planning website 142-08 Off-street Relocation of Subway Station Entrances For all #developments# or #enlargements# involving ground floor level construction on a #zoning lot# that is wholly or partially located within a Transit Easement Zone, as shown on Map 3 (Special Inwood District – Transit Easement Zones) in Appendix A of this Chapter, a transit easement volume may be required on such #zoning lot# for public access between the #street# and the adjacent above- or belowgrade subway station. (a) Transit Easement Prior to filing any application with the Department of Buildings for an excavation permit, foundation permit, new building permit or alteration permit for a #development# or #enlargement#, the owner of the #zoning lot# shall file an application with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the Chairperson of the City Planning Commission requesting a certification as to whether or not a transit easement volume is required on the #zoning lot#. Within 60 days of receipt of such application, the MTA and the Chairperson shall jointly certify whether or not a transit easement volume is required on the #zoning lot#. Failure to certify within the 60-day period will release the owner from any obligation to provide a transit easement volume on such #zoning lot#. When the MTA and the Chairperson indicate that a transit easement volume is required, the MTA shall, in consultation with the owner of the #zoning lot# and the Chairperson, determine the appropriate type of transit easement and reasonable dimensions for such transit easement volume. The owner shall submit a site plan showing a proposed location of such transit easement volume that would provide access between the #street# and the adjacent subway station and be compatible with the proposed #development# or #enlargement# on the #zoning lot# for joint approval and final certification by the MTA and the Chairperson. The MTA and the Chairperson shall comment on such site plan within 45 days of its receipt and may, within such 45-day period or following its expiration, permit the granting of an excavation permit while the location and size of the transit easement volume is being finalized. Upon joint approval of a site plan by the MTA and the Chairperson, copies of such certification shall be forwarded by the Chairperson to the Department of Buildings. Legally enforceable instruments, running with the land, creating a transit easement volume, and setting forth the obligations of either the MTA or the owner and developer, their successors and assigns, to design and construct the improvement, shall be executed and recorded in a form acceptable to the MTA and the Chairperson. The execution and recording of such instruments shall be a precondition to the issuance of any foundation permit, new building permit, or alteration permit by the Department of Buildings allowing such #development# or #enlargement#. (b) Construction and Maintenance Where a transit easement volume is required pursuant to this Section, transit access improvements within such volume shall be constructed and maintained either by the MTA or the owner of the #zoning lot# with the #development# or #enlargement#. (1) (2) (c) Where such mass transit improvement is constructed and maintained by the owner of the #development # or #enlargement#: (i) A transit access improvement shall be provided in accordance with standards set forth by the MTA; (ii) Such improvement shall be accessible to the public at all times, except as otherwise approved by the MTA; (iii) such improvement shall include #signs# to announce accessibility to the public. Such #signs# shall be exempt from the maximum #surface area# of non#illuminated signs# permitted by Section 32-642 (Non-illuminated signs); and (iv) no temporary certificate of occupancy shall be granted by the Department of Buildings for the #building# until the Chairperson of the City Planning Commission, acting in consultation with the MTA, has certified that the improvement is substantially complete and usable by the public. Where such mass transit improvement is constructed and maintained by the MTA: (i) where the construction of the improvement is not contemporaneous with the construction of the #development# or #enlargement#, any underground walls constructed along the #front lot line# adjacent to a below-grade subway station shall include a knockout panel, not less than 12 feet wide, below #curb level# down to the bottom of the easement. The actual location and size of such knockout panel shall be determined through consultation with the MTA. (ii) temporary construction access shall be granted to the MTA on portions of the #zoning lot# outside of the transit easement volume, as necessary, to enable construction within and connection to the transit easement volume. (iii) in the event that the MTA has approved of obstructions associated with the #development# or #enlargement# within the transit easement volume, such as building columns or footings, such construction and maintenance shall exclude any such obstructions within the transit easement volume. Additional modifications Where a transit easement volume is required pursuant to paragraph (a) of this Section, the Chairperson of the City Planning Commission shall certify the following modifications in conjunction with such transit easement volume certification: (d) (1) the edge of the transit easement volume facing the #street# shall be considered a #street wall# for the purposes of applying the #street wall# location provisions set forth in Section 142-40 (SPECIAL HEIGHT AND SETBACK REGULATIONS), inclusive, irrespective of whether such volume is incorporated into a #building#; (2) for #zoning lots# adjacent to a below-grade subway station, the maximum height for the #building# set forth in Section 142-40, inclusive, shall be increased by 10 feet, and the maximum number of #stories#, if applicable, shall be increased by one, except where the provisions of Section 142-48 (Special Regulations for Certain Sites in Subdistrict C) are being utilized; (3) the floor space contained within any transit easement volume required pursuant to this Section shall be excluded from the definition of #floor area#; and (4) the street frontage of such transit easement volume shall be excluded for the purpose of applying the provisions of Section 142-14 (Ground Floor Level Requirements). Temporary Use Any easement volume required on a #zoning lot# pursuant to paragraph (a) of this Section may be temporarily used for any permitted #commercial# or #community facility uses# until such time as required by the MTA for transit access improvements. The floor space allocated to such temporary #uses# within the transit easement volume shall continue to be exempt from the definition of #floor area# and shall not be included for the purpose of calculating #accessory# offstreet parking, bicycle parking, or loading berths. Improvements or construction of a temporary nature within the easement volume for such temporary #uses# shall be removed by the owner of the #building# or portion of the #zoning lot# within which the easement volume is located prior to the time at which public #use# of the easement area is required, except as otherwise specified by the MTA. A minimum notice of six months in writing shall be given by the MTA to the owner of the #building# or portion of the #zoning lot# in order to vacate the occupants of such temporary #uses#. (e) Termination of an easement volume In the event that the MTA and the City Planning Commission jointly notify the Department of Buildings and the owner in writing that a transit easement volume is not required on a #zoning lot# in its final construction plans, the restrictions imposed on such #zoning lot# by the provisions of this Section shall lapse, following receipt of notification thereof by the owner, and the owner shall have the right to record an instrument reciting the consent of the MTA to the extinguishment of the easement volume. On any #zoning lot# which has been #developed# or #enlarged# in accordance with the provisions of this Section and on which termination of transit easement has been certified, pursuant to this paragraph, any floor space in a previously required transit easement volume shall continue to be exempt from the definition of #floor area#, and shall not be included for the purpose of calculating requirements for #accessory# off-street parking, bicycle parking, or loading berths. However, where such previously required volume is located within a #building#, the ground floor space shall be subject to the provisions of Section 142-14. 142-10 SPECIAL USE REGULATIONS The underlying #use# regulations are modified by the provisions of this Section, inclusive. In M1-4/R7A and M1-4/R9A Districts, the #use# regulations of Article XII, Chapter 3 of the #Special Mixed Use District# shall apply, except where modified by the provisions of this Section. 142-11 Permitted Uses #Physical culture or health establishments# shall be permitted as-of-right in C2-4, C4-4D, C4-5D, C6-2, M1-4 and M1-5 Districts. For the purposes of applying the underlying regulations to such #use#, a #physical culture or health establishment# shall be considered a Use Group 9 #use# and shall be within parking requirement category B. In Subarea B1, as shown on Map 1 (Special Inwood District – Subdistricts and Subareas) in the Appendix to this Chapter, commercial or public utility vehicle storage, open or enclosed, including #accessory# motor fuel pumps, as listed in Use Group 16C, shall be a permitted #use#. In Subareas B2 and B3, as shown on Map 1, all #uses# listed in Use Groups 3 and 4 shall be permitted #uses#, and Use Group 6A food stores, including supermarkets, grocery stores, or delicatessen stores, shall not be limited to #floor area# per establishment. 142-112 Special provisions for transient hotels The #development# or #enlargement# of a #building# containing a #transient hotel#, as listed in Section 32-14 (Use Group 5), or the #conversion# or change of #use# within an existing #building# to a #transient hotel#, shall only be allowed in C2 Districts, subject to the locational criteria set forth in the double-asterisked footnote of Use Group 5 in Section 32-14, and in C4, C6 or M1 Districts: (a) upon certification by the Chairperson of the City Planning Commission to the Commissioner of Buildings that the residential development goal, as set forth in this Section, has been met, or (b) where such residential development goal has not been met, by special permit by the City Planning Commission. To permit such a #transient hotel#, the Commission shall find that: (1) sufficient sites are available in the area to meet the residential development goal; or (2) a harmonious mix of #residential# and non-#residential# uses has been established in the area, and the #transient hotel# is consistent with the character of the surrounding area. The Commission may prescribe additional conditions and safeguards to minimize adverse effects on the character of the surrounding area. For the purpose of applying the provisions of this Section, the residential development goal shall be met when at least 3,860 #dwelling units# within the #Special Inwood District# have received temporary or final certificates of occupancy subsequent to [date of adoption]. 142-113 Regulations for manufacturing uses in Subareas B2 and B3 In Subareas B2 and B3, as shown on Map 1 (Special Inwood District – Subdistricts and Subareas) in the Appendix to this Chapter, the #manufacturing uses# permitted in M1 Districts shall be subject to the modifications set forth in Section 123-22 (Modification of Use Groups 16, 17 and 18), inclusive. 142-12 Location of Uses In C2 Districts mapped within R7 or R8 Districts, for #buildings# constructed after [date of adoption], the underlying provisions of Section 32-421 (Limitation on floors occupied by commercial uses) shall be modified to permit #commercial uses# listed in Use Groups 6, 7, 8, 9 or 14 on the second #story# of a #building# occupied on one or more of its upper #stories# by #residential uses# or by #community facility uses#, and provided no #commercial uses# are located directly over any #dwelling units#. Within the portion of the C2-4 District mapped within an R8A District and the portion of the C2-4 District mapped within an R9A District, where located east of Tenth Avenue, south of West 207th Street, west of Ninth Avenue, and north of West 206th Street, the underlying provisions of Section 32-421 (Limitation on floors occupied by commercial uses) shall be inapplicable. In lieu thereof, Section 32-422 (Location of floor occupied by commercial uses) shall apply. In C4 or C6 Districts, the underlying provisions of Section 32-422 (Location of floors occupied by commercial uses) shall be modified for #mixed buildings# to permit #dwelling units# on the same #story# as a #commercial use# provided no access exists between such #uses# at any level containing #dwelling units#, and provided no #commercial uses# are located directly over any #dwelling units#. However, such #commercial uses# may be located over #dwelling units# by authorization of the City Planning Commission upon a finding that sufficient separation of #residential uses# from #commercial uses# exists within the #building#. In Subareas A1, B2 and B3, as shown on Map 1 (Special Inwood District – Subdistricts and Subareas) in the Appendix to this Chapter, no #uses# listed in Use Group 6A, 6C or 10A shall be permitted above the ground floor level. 142-13 Enclosure Requirements in Subdistrict E In Subdistrict E, #commercial# and #manufacturing# activities and storage #uses# shall not be subject to the provisions of Section 42-41 (Enclosure of Commercial and Manufacturing Activities) or Section 4242 (Enclosure or Screening of Storage). 142-14 Ground Floor Level Requirements For the purposes of applying the special #ground floor level# streetscape provisions set forth in Section 37-30 to this Chapter, any portion of a #ground floor level street# frontage along #streets# designated on Map 2 (Ground Floor Use and Curb Cut Regulations) in the Appendix to this Chapter shall be considered #primary street frontages#, and shall consist of Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 #primary street frontages#. A #ground floor level street# frontage along any other #street# shall be considered a #secondary street frontage#. For the purposes of this Section, defined terms shall include those in Sections 12-10 and 37311. The provisions of this Section shall apply to #developments# or #ground floor level enlargements#. (a) Along #primary street frontages# (1) Type 1 #primary street frontages# For #buildings#, or portions thereof, with Type 1 #primary street frontage#, #uses# on the #ground floor level#, to the minimum depth set forth in Section 37-32 (Ground Floor Depth Requirements for Certain Uses), shall be limited to non-#residential uses#, except for Type 1 lobbies and entrances and exits to #accessory# parking spaces provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 37-33 (Maximum Width of Certain Uses). Group parking facilities located on the #ground floor level# shall be wrapped by #floor area# in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a) of Section 37-35 (Parking Wrap and Screening Requirements). #Ground floor level street walls# shall be glazed in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 37-34 (Minimum Transparency Requirements), except that in M1 Districts in Subdistrict B, where the #ground floor level# is occupied by #uses# in Use Groups 16, 17 or 18, up to 50 percent of the #ground floor level street wall# width may be exempt from such regulations. (2) Type 2 #primary street frontages# For #buildings#, or portions thereof, with Type 2 #primary street frontage#, all #uses# permitted by the underlying district shall be permitted on the #ground floor level#, provided that group parking facilities located on the #ground floor level# shall be wrapped by #floor area# in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a) of Section 37-35. (3) Type 3 #primary street frontages# For #buildings#, or portions thereof, with Type 3 #primary street frontage#, #uses# on the #ground floor level# shall comply with the regulations applicable to Type 1 #primary street frontages#. In addition, the following regulations shall apply to the #ground floor level# to a depth of 30 feet from the #street line#: (i) An aggregate width equal to at least 50 percent of a #building’s street wall# shall be occupied by #commercial uses# listed in Use Groups 5, 6A, 6C excluding banks and loan offices, 7B, 8A, 8B, 9A, 10, or 12; and (ii) The maximum #street wall# width of a bank or loan office, as listed in Use Group 6C, shall not exceed 25 feet. However, in Subarea A1 or B1, as shown on Map 1, for #buildings# containing predominantly commercial or public utility vehicle storage, including #accessory# fuel pumps, as listed in Use Group 16C, the screening provisions of paragraph (b) of Section 37-35 may be utilized as an alternative to such wrapping requirement and any transparency requirements need not apply. (b) Along #secondary street frontages# For #buildings#, or portions thereof, with #secondary street frontage#, all #uses# permitted by the underlying district shall be permitted on the #ground floor level#, provided that any off-street parking spaces on the #ground floor level# shall be wrapped or screened in accordance with Section 37-35. Entrances and exits to accessory parking facilities shall be subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of Section 37-33. (c) For blank walls In #Commercial Districts# or #Manufacturing Districts#, any #street wall# width exceeding 50 feet with no transparent elements on the #ground floor level# shall provide planting or wall treatment in accordance with the provisions of Section 142-141 (Special Streetscape Provisions for Blank Walls). The level of the finished floor of such ground floor shall be located not higher than five feet above nor lower than five feet below the as-built level of the adjoining #street#. In C4-5D Districts, and in C2 Districts mapped within R7D Districts, the provisions of Section 32-434 (Ground floor use in C4-5D and C6-3D Districts and in certain C2 Districts) shall not apply. In lieu thereof, the provisions of this Section shall apply. 142-141 Special Streetscape Provisions for Blank Walls Where visual mitigation elements are required on a blank wall along the #ground floor level street wall# pursuant to the provisions of Section 142-14 (Ground Floor Level Requirements), at least 75 percent of the linear footage of any such blank wall shall be treated by any of the following visual mitigation elements, or both. (a) Planting When planting is provided as a visual mitigation element, any combination of perennials, annuals, decorative grasses or shrubs shall be provided in planting beds, raised planting beds or planter boxes in front of the #street wall#. Each foot in width of a planting bed, raised planting bed or planter box, as measured parallel to the #street wall#, shall satisfy one linear foot of frontage mitigation requirement. Such planting bed shall extend to a depth of at least three feet, inclusive of any structure containing the planted material. Any individual planted area shall have a width of at least five feet, and the height of such planting, inclusive of any structure containing the planted materials, shall be at least three feet. At least 25 percent of such #street wall# width shall be planted in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. (b) Wall treatment When a wall treatment is provided as a visual mitigation element, permitted signs, graphic or sculptural art, rustication, decorative screening or latticework, or living plant material, shall be provided along the #street wall#. Each linear foot of wall treatment shall constitute one linear foot of frontage mitigation requirement. Such wall treatment shall extend to a height of at least 10 feet, as measured from the level of the adjoining sidewalk or grade, and have a minimum width of 10 feet, as measured parallel to the #street wall#. 142-20 SPECIAL FLOOR AREA REGULATIONS The underlying #floor area# regulations are modified by the provisions of this Section, inclusive. 142-21 Floor Area Regulations on Waterfront Blocks On #waterfront blocks#, the provisions of Section 62-31 (Bulk Computations on Waterfront Zoning Lots) shall be modified so that #lot area# that is seaward of the #shoreline# shall not be included for the purpose of determining allowable #floor area# or to satisfy any other #bulk# regulation. 142-22 Floor Area Regulations in Subareas A2, A3 and B1 In Subareas A2, A3 and B1, as shown on Map 1 (Special Inwood District – Subdistricts and Subareas) in the Appendix to this Chapter, the #floor area# regulations shall be modified as follows: For #zoning lots# without a #shoreline#, or for #zoning lots# with a #shoreline# length of 100 feet or less, the maximum #residential floor area ratio# shall be 4.6. For #zoning lots# with a #shoreline# length of more than 100 feet, the maximum #residential floor area ratio# shall be as set forth in paragraph (d) of Section 23-154 (Inclusionary Housing) for the particular district. For #zoning lots# that are divided by zoning district boundary lines, #floor area# may be distributed within a #zoning lot# without regard to zoning district boundary lines. #Accessory# parking located below a height of 33 feet shall be exempt from the definition of #floor area#. 142-23 Floor Area Regulations in Subarea B2 and B3 In Subarea B2, as shown on Map 1 (Special Inwood District – Subdistricts and Subareas) in the Appendix to this Chapter, all permitted #uses# shall have a permitted #floor area ratio# of 2.0. In Subarea B3, as shown on Map 1, the base #floor area ratio# shall be 5.0, and may be increased only in accordance with the provisions of this Section. The Chairperson of the City Planning Commission shall allow, by certification, a transfer of #floor area# from a #zoning lot# located in Subarea B2 to a #zoning lot# located in Subarea B3 provided that the provisions of this Section are met. For the purpose of this Section, a “granting lot” shall mean a #zoning lot# within Subarea B2 that transfers #floor area# pursuant to this Section, and a “receiving lot” shall mean a #zoning lot# within Subarea B3 that receives additional #floor area# pursuant to this Section. Such certification for a transfer of #floor area# shall be subject to the following conditions: (a) the maximum amount of #floor area# that may be transferred from a granting lot shall be based on a #floor area ratio# of 2.0, less the total #floor area# of all existing #buildings# on the granting lot and any previously transferred #floor area#; (b) each transfer, once completed, shall irrevocably reduce the amount of #floor area# that may be #developed# or #enlarged# on the granting lot by the amount of #floor area# transferred; (c) for #developments# or #enlargements#, which in the aggregate for both the granting lot and the receiving lot, involve an increase in the #floor area# of more than 20,000 square feet of the amount existing on [date of adoption], a waterfront certification pursuant to Section 62-811 (Waterfront public access and visual corridors) has been granted; and (d) prior to the issuance of a building permit, as set forth in this Section, the owners of the granting lot and the receiving lot shall submit to the Chairperson a copy of the transfer instrument legally sufficient in both form and content to effect such a transfer. Notice of the restrictions upon further #development# or #enlargement# of the granting lot and the receiving lot shall be filed by the owners of the respective lots in the Office of the Register of the City of New York (County of New York). Proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Chairperson. Both the transfer instrument and the notices of restrictions shall specify the total amount of #floor area# transferred and shall specify, by #block# and lot numbers, the granting lot and the receiving lot that are a party to such transfer. An application filed with the Chairperson for certification pursuant to this Section shall be made jointly by the owners of the granting lot and the receiving lot, and shall include site plans and zoning calculations for the granting lot and receiving lot showing the additional #floor area# associated with the transfer, and any such other information as may be required by the Chairperson. The Chairperson shall certify to the Department of Buildings that a #development# is in compliance with the provisions of this Section only after the transfer instrument and notice of restrictions required by this Section have been executed and recorded with proof of recordation provided to the Chairperson. Such certification shall be a precondition to the filing for or issuing of any building permit allowing more than the basic maximum #floor area ratio# for such #development#. A separate application shall be filed for each transfer of #floor area# to any #zoning lot# pursuant to this Section. 142-24 Floor Area Regulations in Subdistrict D For #zoning lots# that are located partially in a #Commercial District# mapped within an R8A District and partially in a #Commercial District# mapped within an R9A District, #residential floor area# may transfer across the zoning district boundary line from the #Commercial District# mapped within an R8A District to the #Commercial District# mapped within an R9A District. 142-25 Special Commercial and Community Facility Floor Area Regulations in Subdistricts C and D Within Subdistricts C and D, the maximum #floor area ratio# permitted for #commercial# and #community facility uses# shall be modified as follows: (a) (b) Within Subdistrict C: (1) within the C4-4D District mapped around the intersection of Broadway and 207th Street, the maximum #community facility floor area ratio# shall be 4.2; (2) within the portion of the C4-4D District mapped around the intersection of Broadway and Dyckman Street that is west of Broadway, the maximum #community facility floor area ratio# and #commercial floor area ratio# shall be 4.2; and (3) within the portion of the C4-4D District mapped around the intersection of Broadway and Dyckman Street that is east of Broadway and that is within 100 feet of Dyckman Street, the maximum #community facility floor area ratio# and #commercial floor area ratio# shall be 4.2. Within Subdistrict D: (1) within the C2-4 District mapped within an R7D District to the west of Broadway, the maximum #community facility floor area ratio# shall be 4.0; (2) within the C4-4D Districts mapped to the west of Tenth Avenue, the maximum #community facility floor area ratio# and #commercial floor area ratio# shall be 4.2; and (3) within the portion of the C2-4 District mapped within an R8A District or the portion of the C2-4 District mapped within an R9A District, where located east of Tenth Avenue, south of West 207th Street, west of Ninth Avenue, and north of West 206th Street, the #commercial floor area ratio# shall be 3.5. 142-30 SPECIAL YARD REGULATIONS The underlying #yard# regulations are modified by the provisions of this Section. In M1-4/R7A and M1-4/R9A Districts, in Subareas A1 and B3 as shown on Map 1 (Special Inwood District – Subdistricts and Subareas) in the Appendix to this Chapter, and in the portion of the C2-4 District mapped within an R8A District or the portion of the C2-4 District mapped within an R9A District, where located east of Tenth Avenue, south of West 207th Street, west of Ninth Avenue, and north of West 206th Street, no #rear yard equivalents# are required for #through lots# or #through lot# portions of a #zoning lot#. In Subdistrict D, no #rear yard# is required along any portion of a #rear lot line# that is coincident with a #lot line# of the rail yard for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority located east of Tenth Avenue between West 207th Street and West 215th Street. A #waterfront yard#, as defined in Section 62-11 (Definitions), shall be provided on any portion of a #zoning lot# located within 40 feet of the #shoreline#. Any other #yard# regulations shall be inapplicable within such portion of a #zoning lot#. 142-40 SPECIAL HEIGHT AND SETBACK REGULATIONS In Subareas A1 and B2, and in Subdistrict E, as shown on Map 1 (Special Inwood District – Subdistricts and Subareas) in the Appendix to this Chapter, the height and setback regulations of the underlying districts shall apply. In Subareas A2, A3, B1, B3 and B4, the height and setback regulations of the underlying district regulations are modified by Sections 142-41 through 142-47 shall apply, and all heights shall be measured from the #base plane#. In Subdistricts C and D, the height and setback regulations of the underlying district regulations are modified by Sections 142-48 (Special Regulations for Certain Sites in Subdistrict C) and 142-49 (Height and Setback for Certain Sites in Subdistricts C and D), as applicable. 142-41 Permitted Obstructions in Subareas A2, A3, B1, B3 and B4 In Subareas A2, A3, B1, B3 and B4, as shown on Map 1 (Special Inwood District – Subdistricts and Subareas) in the Appendix to this Chapter, the provisions of Section 33-42 (Permitted Obstructions) shall apply to all #buildings#. In addition, along all #street# frontages, dormers may penetrate a maximum base height in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (c)(1) of Section 23-621 (Permitted obstructions in certain districts), and balconies shall be permitted in conjunction with #residential uses# as set forth in Section 23-132 (Balconies in R6 through R10 Districts). 142-42 Height and Setback for Zoning Lots in Subareas A2, A3 and B1 With 100 Feet or Less of Shoreline In Subareas A2, A3 and B1, as shown on Map 1 (Special Inwood District – Subdistricts and Subareas) in the Appendix to this Chapter, for #zoning lots# that do not have a #shoreline# or that have a #shoreline# with a length of 100 feet or less, the height and setback regulations for R7A Districts set forth in Sections 23-662 (Maximum height of buildings and setback regulations) and 23-664 (Modified height and setback regulations for certain Inclusionary Housing buildings or affordable independent residences for seniors), as applicable, shall apply. The #street wall# location requirements of paragraph (b) of Section 35-651 shall apply to #street# frontages along and within 50 feet of Ninth Avenue, and the #street wall# requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of Section 35-651 shall apply along all other #street# frontages of the #zoning lot#. The #street wall# articulation provisions of paragraph (e) of Section 35-651 shall apply along all #street# frontages. 142-43 Height and Setback for Zoning Lots in Subarea A2 With More Than 100 Feet of Shoreline In Subarea A2, as shown on Map 1 (Special Inwood District – Subdistricts and Subareas) in the Appendix to this Chapter, for #zoning lots# that have a #shoreline# with a length of more than 100 feet, the following height and setback regulations shall apply: (a) #Street wall# location The #street wall# location requirements of paragraph (b) of Section 35-651 shall apply to #street# frontages along and within 50 feet of Ninth Avenue, and the #street wall# requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of Section 35-651 shall apply along all other #street# frontages of the #zoning lot#. For the purposes of applying such regulations, all #street walls# shall extend to at least the minimum base height set forth in paragraph (b) of this Section, or the height of the #building#, whichever is less. The #street wall# articulation provisions of paragraph (e) of Section 35-651 shall apply along all #street# frontages. (b) Base height and setbacks The minimum base height shall be 60 feet on all #street# frontages. Within R9A Districts, or C1 or C2 Districts mapped within R9A Districts, the maximum base height shall be 105 feet. Within R8 Districts, or C1 or C2 Districts mapped within R8 Districts, the maximum base height before setback shall be 105 feet if the #building’s# maximum overall height does not exceed 155 feet, or 85 feet if a #building# is developed with a tower in accordance with the regulations of paragraph (e) of this Section. At a height not lower than the minimum base height nor higher than the maximum base height specified for the applicable district, a setback with a minimum depth of 10 feet shall be provided from the #street wall# of the base. The provisions of paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(4) of Section 23-662 (Maximum height of buildings and setback regulations) shall apply to such setbacks. (c) Within 70 feet of the #shoreline# Within 70 feet of the #shoreline#, the height of a #building# along 30 percent of the length of a #zoning lot#, as measured parallel to Ninth Avenue, shall be limited to a maximum height of 30 feet, and the height along the remaining 70 percent may rise to a maximum height of 85 feet. (d) Maximum #building# height The maximum #building# height shall be 155 feet, except where towers are provided in accordance with paragraph (e) of this Section. (e) Optional tower regulations For #zoning lots# that have a #lot area# of more than one acre, a “tower” shall be permitted above a height of 125 feet, provided that: (1) the gross area of any #story# shall not exceed 9,000 square feet, except that any dormers provided within the setback area shall not be included in such gross area; (2) the gross area of any #story# above 205 feet shall not exceed 90 percent of the gross area of the highest #story# that is located entirely below a height of 205 feet; (3) no portion of such tower shall be located within 80 feet of the #shoreline#; (4) the width of such tower shall not exceed 100 feet, as measured parallel to Ninth Avenue. Such width shall be measured in plan and shall include the total width of the combined #lot coverage# of all #stories# above 125 feet; and (5) The maximum height of such tower shall not exceed 245 feet. #Zoning lots# with a #lot area# in excess of 1.5 acres may contain a second tower, provided that the heights of the two towers differ by at least 50 feet from each other, and provided that the combined width of the towers does not exceed 140 feet, as measured parallel to Ninth Avenue. Such width shall be measured in plan and shall include the total width of the combined #lot coverage# of all #stories# above 125 feet. 142-44 Height and Setback for Zoning Lots in Subarea A3 With More Than 100 Feet of Shoreline In Subarea A3, as shown on Map 1 (Special Inwood District – Subdistricts and Subareas) in the Appendix to this Chapter, for #zoning lots# that have a #shoreline# with a length of more than 100 feet, the height and setback regulations of this Section shall apply: (a) Base along West 207th Street and Ninth Avenue Along the West 207th Street and Ninth Avenue frontages, all #buildings# shall have a minimum base height of 60 feet, or the height of the #building#, whichever is less, and a maximum base height of 105 feet. The #street wall# location requirements of paragraph (a)(1) and (2) of Section 35-651 shall apply along both #streets#. The boundary of any easement required for a #street# or sidewalk widening pursuant to Section 142-64 shall be considered the #street line# for the purpose of this Section. At a height not lower than the minimum base height nor higher than the maximum base height, a setback with a minimum depth of 10 feet shall be provided from the #street wall# of the base. The provisions of paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(4) of Section 23-662 (Maximum height of buildings and setback regulations) shall apply to such setbacks. (b) Within 70 feet of the #shoreline# Within 70 feet of the #shoreline#, the maximum #building# height shall be 85 feet. (c) Within 30 feet of former West 208th Street Within 30 feet of Former West 208th Street, as shown on Map 1 in the Appendix to this Chapter, the height of a #building# along 30 percent of the length of a #zoning lot#, as measured along the former extent of West 208th Street, shall not exceed 30 feet, and the height of the remaining 70 percent may rise to a maximum height of 85 feet. (d) Maximum #building# height Within the portion of the #zoning lot# that is beyond 100 feet of West 207th Street, the maximum #building# height shall be limited to 145 feet. Within the portion of the #zoning lot# that is within 100 feet of West 207th Street, the maximum #building# height shall be 175 feet, except where towers are provided in accordance with paragraph (e) of this Section. (e) Optional tower regulations For #zoning lots# that have a #lot area# of more than one acre, a “tower” shall be permitted above a height of 175 feet within the portion of the #zoning lot# that is within 100 feet of West 207th Street, provided that: (1) the gross area of any #story# shall not exceed 10,000 square feet, except that any dormers provided within the setback area shall not be included in such gross area; (2) the gross area of any #story# above 255 feet shall not exceed 90 percent of the gross area of the highest #story# that is located entirely below a height of 255 feet; and (3) The maximum height of such tower shall not exceed 295 feet. 142-45 Height and Setback for Zoning Lots in Subarea B1 With More Than 100 Feet of Shoreline In Subarea B1, as shown on Map 1 (Special Inwood District – Subdistricts and Subareas) in the Appendix to this Chapter, for #zoning lots# that have a #shoreline# with a length of more than 100 feet, the height and setback regulations of Section 142-43 (Height and Setback for Sites in Subarea A2 With More Than 100 Feet of Shoreline) shall apply, except that paragraph (e) of such Section shall be modified to allow the gross area of any #story# in a tower to be up to 10,000 square feet and to rise to a height of 265 feet, provided that the gross area of any #story# above 225 feet shall not exceed 90 percent of the gross area of the highest #story# that is located entirely below 225 feet. The #visual corridor# located between a line parallel to and 20 feet south of the prolongation of the centerline of West 218th Street and a line parallel to and 30 feet north of such centerline established by Section 142-60 (INWOOD WATERFRONT ACCESS PLAN) shall be treated as a narrow #street line# for the purposes of applying all height and setback regulations. 142-46 Height and Setback in Subarea B3 In Subarea B3, as shown on Map 1 (Special Inwood District – Subdistricts and Subareas) in the Appendix to this Chapter, the maximum #building# height shall be 125 feet within 10 feet of a #street line#. Beyond 10 feet of a #street line#, the maximum #building# height shall be 265 feet. 142-47 Height and Setback in Subarea B4 In Subarea B4, as shown on Map 1 (Special Inwood District – Subdistricts and Subareas) in the Appendix to this Chapter, the height of a #building# within 10 feet of a #street line# shall not exceed 125 feet. Portions of #buildings# located beyond 10 feet of a #street line# may rise to a maximum height of 210 feet. Any #development# or #enlargement# with frontage on West 218th Street must provide a sidewalk widening with a minimum depth of five feet along such frontage. Any #development# or #enlargement# with frontage on 9th Avenue must provide a sidewalk widening with a minimum depth of five feet along such frontage. 142-48 Special Regulations for Certain Sites in Subdistrict C In Subdistrict C, as shown on Map 1 (Special Inwood District – Subdistricts and Subareas) in the Appendix to this Chapter, for #zoning lots# that share a #side lot line# with an adjacent #zoning lot# that is #developed# with a #building# constructed prior to December 15, 1961 that contains #residences# with #legally required windows# facing and located within 15 feet of the shared #side lot line#, the underlying height and setback provisions shall be modified by the provisions of this Section. The #street wall# location provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of Section 35-651 shall apply except that where an adjoining #zoning lot# contains #residences# with #legally required windows# facing and within 15 feet of a shared #side lot line#, the #street wall# of a #building# need not extend along the entire #street# frontage of such a #zoning lot# if an open area is provided above the level of the first #story# or a height of 15 feet, whichever is lower, along the entire shared #side lot line#. Where such an open area is provided, the #street# frontage of such open area may be excluded for the purpose of applying the #street wall# location provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of Section 35-651. In addition, where an open area with a depth of at least 15 feet, as measured perpendicular from the shared #side lot line#, and is provided in the form of a recess, #court# or other open area is provided along shared #side lot line#, and such open area is provided adjacent to all portions of a #building# on an adjoining #zoning lot# that contain #legally required windows# facing and located within 15 feet of the shared #side lot line#, the maximum height for the #building# set forth in Section 23-662, 23-664, 35-652 or 35-654, as applicable, may be increased by 10 feet; and the maximum number of #stories#, if applicable, may be increased by one. #Zoning lots# may apply the regulations of this Section along multiple #side lot lines# where applicable, but in no case shall the permitted #building# height be increased by more than one #story# or 10 feet, whichever is lower. 142-49 Height and Setback for Certain Zoning Lots in Subdistricts C and D In Subdistricts C and D, as shown on Map 1 (Special Inwood District – Subdistricts and Subareas) in the Appendix to this Chapter, all #non-residential buildings# in C4 and C6 Districts shall follow the height and setback regulations of paragraph (b) of Section 23-664 (Modified height and setback regulations for certain Inclusionary Housing buildings or affordable independent residences for seniors) for the applicable residential equivalent. In Subdistrict D, all #developments# or #enlargements# on zoning lots# within M1-4/R7A and M14/R9A Districts shall follow the height and setback regulations of paragraph (b) of Section 23-664, for the applicable #Residence District#, except portions of #zoning lots# that are located within 30 feet of West 201st Street shall be limited to a maximum #building# height to 85 feet. In Subdistricts C and D, for portions of #zoning lots# located within 100 feet of a #street# that contains an elevated rail line, the underlying height and setback regulations shall be modified as follows: (a) the minimum required base height shall be 25 feet; (b) the maximum permitted #building# height shall be 165 feet and the maximum number of #stories# shall be 16; and (c) along the frontage of a #street# that contains an elevated rail line, the #street wall# location regulations of paragraph (a)(1) of Section 35-651 shall apply. 142-50 SPECIAL OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS The underlying off-street parking and loading regulations are modified by the provisions of this Section, inclusive. 142-51 Required Accessory Parking Spaces for Residences The requirements of Sections 25-23 (Requirements Where Group Parking Facilities Are Provided) are modified to require #accessory residential# off-street parking spaces for a minimum of 20 percent of new #residences#, The number of #accessory# off-street parking spaces required may be reduced or waived as set forth in the underlying district regulations. 142-52 Required Accessory Parking Spaces for Commercial or Community Facility Uses in Certain Districts No #accessory# parking is required for new #commercial# or #community facility uses# in #mixed buildings# in C2-4, C4-4D, or C4-5D Districts. 142-53 Public Use of Accessory Parking All required or permitted #accessory# off-street parking spaces may be made available for public use. However, any such space shall be made available to the occupant of a #residence# to which it is #accessory# within 30 days after written request for such space is made to the landlord. 142-54 Accessory Parking on a Roof in Subarea A1 In Subarea A1, the underlying off-street parking regulations of Section 44-11 (General Provisions) are modified to permit #accessory# parking to be located on the roof of any #story# of a #building#. 142-55 Curb Cuts Curb cuts accessing off-street parking facilities or loading berths shall not be permitted along the #streets# specified as a Type 1 or Type 2 primary street on Map 2 (Ground Floor Use and Curb Cut Regulations) in the Appendix to this Chapter on #zoning lots# that also have frontage on a #street# that is not specified on Map 2. 142-60 INWOOD WATERFRONT ACCESS PLAN The provisions of Article VI, Chapter 2, (Special Regulations Applying in the Waterfront Area), shall apply, except as superseded, supplemented or modified by the provisions of this Section, inclusive. Map 4 (Waterfront Access Plan: Parcel Designation), Map 5 (Waterfront Access Plan: Public Access Areas), and Map 6 (Waterfront Access Plan: Visual Corridors) in the Appendix to this Chapter show the boundaries of the area comprising the Inwood Waterfront Access Plan, boundaries of parcels within the Plan, and the location of certain features mandated or permitted by the Plan. The Plan has been divided into parcels consisting of tax blocks and lots and other lands as established on [date of adoption], as follows: Parcel 1: block 2215, lots 877 and 885; and block 2197, lots 67, 71, 74 and 174 Parcel 2/3: block 2197, lot 47 and 75 Parcel 4: block 2197, portion of lot 1 Parcel 5: block 2188, lot 1 Parcel 6: block 2187, lots 1, 5, 7 and 20 Parcel 7: block 2185, lots 25, 36 and 51 Parcel 8: block 2185, lots 1 and 10 Parcel 9: block 2184, lots 20 and 40 Within the #Special Inwood District#, the parcels of land designated in this Section need not be contiguous for the area to be considered to be a Waterfront Access Plan pursuant to Section 62-911. For the purposes of this Section, inclusive, defined terms shall include those listed in Section 12-10 (DEFINITIONS) and Section 62-11 (Definitions). 142-61 Lot area and waterfront public access area requirements For the purposes of determining requirements for #waterfront public access areas#, #lot area# shall not include any portion of a #zoning# lot that is seaward of the #shoreline. For the purposes of determining the applicability of #waterfront public access area# requirements, pursuant to Section 62-52, all #zoning lots# with portions located within 40 feet of the #shoreline# shall be considered #waterfront zoning lots#. On Parcel 1, as shown on Map 4 (Waterfront Access Plan: Parcel Designation) in the Appendix to this Chapter, for the purposes of calculating the total #waterfront public access area# requirements on a “granting lot,” as described in Section 142-23 (Floor Regulations in Subarea B2 and B3), #lot area# shall be the combined #lot area# of all “granting lots” and all “receiving lots.” 142-62 Tip of Manhattan, Subdistrict B In Tip of Manhattan Subdistrict B, for Parcels 1 and 2/3, as shown on Map 4 (Waterfront Access Plan: Parcel Designation) in the Appendix to this Chapter, the following regulations shall apply. (a) Applicability of #waterfront public access area requirements# to Use Group 16 In Subarea B1, as shown on Map 1, #developments# of #buildings# containing exclusively commercial or public utility vehicle storage, including #accessory# fuel pumps, as listed in Use Group 16C, shall be exempted from #waterfront public access area# requirements. (b) #Shore public walkways# (c) (1) the minimum width of a #shore public walkway# set forth in Section 62-53 (Shore Public Walkways) shall be reduced to 20 feet; (2) the minimum width of the screening buffer shall be five feet; (3) on Parcel 1, no #shore public walkway# shall be required. #Upland connections# On Parcel 2/3, #upland connections# shall be provided along the shared boundary between Parcels 1 and Parcel 2/3, and within the area located between a line parallel to and 20 feet south of the prolongation of the centerline of West 218th Street and a line parallel to and 30 feet north of such centerline. (d) (e) #Supplemental public access areas# (1) on Parcel 1, #supplemental public access area# shall be bounded by Ninth Avenue to the west, the shared boundary of Parcels 1 and 2/3 to the south, and the stabilized shore to the east. Section 62-571 (Location and area requirements for supplemental public access areas) shall not apply to such #supplemental public access area#; (2) on Parcel 2/3, #supplemental public access area#, if required, shall be located at the intersection of the #upland connection# and the #shore public walkway#. Section 62-571 shall be modified to allow the longest side of such #supplemental public access area# to adjoin the #upland connection# provided that the maximum depth measured perpendicular to the #upland connection# does not exceed 1.5 times the width measured parallel to the #upland connection#. #Visual corridors# #Visual corridors# shall be provided at three locations as shown on Map 6 (Waterfront Access Plan: Visual Corridors) in the Appendix to this Chapter: (1) within the prolongation of the #street lines# of West 220th Street; (2) within the prolongation of the #street lines# of Ninth Avenue; (3) within the area located between a line parallel to and 20 feet south of the prolongation of the centerline of West 218th Street and a line parallel to and 30 feet north of such centerline. In the event that such #visual corridor abuts# an open area with a minimum depth of 20 feet along the entire length of such #visual corridor#, and an easement for such open area has been recorded against the property, the minimum dimension of a #visual corridor# set forth in 62-512 (Dimensions of visual corridors) may be reduced to 30 feet. 142-63 Sherman Creek Subdistrict A In the Sherman Creek Subdistrict A, Parcels 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, as shown on Map 4 (Waterfront Access Plan: Parcel Designation) in the Appendix to this Chapter, the following regulations shall apply. (a) #Shore public walkways# (1) #Waterfront zoning lots# that have a #shoreline# measuring more than 100 feet shall provide a #shore public walkway# as required by Section 62-53 (Requirements for Shore Public Walkways). (2) #Zoning lots# within or partially within 40 feet of the #shoreline# that do not #abut# the #shoreline#, or that contain a #shoreline# measuring 100 feet or less shall provide either: (i) a #shore public walkway#, located partly on the #zoning lot# and partly on an adjoining #waterfront zoning lot#; or (ii) a #shore public walkway# on any portion of the #zoning lot# within 40 feet of the #shoreline#. Such #shore public walkway# shall have a minimum width of 14 feet, and its pedestrian circulation path shall connect to and provide access from adjoining public #streets#, parks or public places. Such #shore public walkway# shall extend beyond 40 feet of the #shoreline# as necessary to satisfy the minimum dimensional requirements, but the total area of the #shore public walkway# need not exceed an area equivalent to that portion of the #zoning lot# within 40 feet of the #shoreline#. The provisions of Section 62-62 (Design Requirements for Shore Public Walkways and Supplemental Public Access Areas) shall be modified to allow the circulation path to have a minimum width of 10 feet and to be located entirely beyond 10 feet from the #shoreline#. In addition, for Parcels 6, 7 or 8, the planting requirements set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of Section 62-62 need not apply. Where the #zoning lot# does not include all of the adjacent #shoreline#, the design of the #shore public walkway# shall be compatible with the future improvement of public access areas on the land between the #zoning lot# and the #shoreline#. (3) (b) The primary circulation path required pursuant to Section 62-62 shall be provided at a minimum elevation of 7.5 feet above the #shoreline#, except that such requirement need not include portions of a circulation path that slope downward to meet the elevation of an existing publicly accessible sidewalk. #Supplemental public access areas# On Parcel 5, no #supplemental public access area# shall be required. 142-64 Special Regulations on Parcel 5 (a) Section 62-811 (Waterfront public access and visual corridors) shall not apply to Parcel 5, as shown on Map 4 (Waterfront Access Plan: Parcel Designation) in the Appendix to this Chapter. In lieu thereof, the following regulations shall apply. Required Certification No excavation or building permit shall be issued for any #development# on Parcel 5 until the Chairperson of the City Planning Commission has certified to the Department of Buildings, that: (b) (1) a site plan has been submitted showing compliance with the provisions of Sections 62-50 (GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR VISUAL CORRIDORS AND WATERFRONT PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS) and 62-60 (DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR WATERFRONT PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS) as modified by Section 142-60 (INWOOD WATERFRONT ACCESS PLAN); (2) the Chairperson has certified that an easement, the requirements for which shall be determined in consultation with the Department of Transportation, has been provided to enlarge the adjoining mapped #streets#, an instrument creating such easement has been recorded in the Office of the City Register, and a certified copy of such easement has been submitted to the Department of City Planning; and (3) an acceptable restrictive declaration is executed and filed pursuant to Section 62-74 (Requirements for Recordation). Buildout of Adjoining #Streets# No certificate of occupancy for any #development# on Parcel 5 shall be issued until the Department of Buildings has been furnished with a certification by the Department of Transportation that adjoining mapped #streets# have been built out to Department of Transportation standards. Within 45 days of receipt of a complete application, the Chairperson shall either certify that the proposed #development# complies with the requirements of this Section or disapprove such application, citing the nature of any failure to comply. Failure to certify or disapprove such application within the 45 day period will release the Department of Buildings or the Department of Business Services from any obligation to withhold the excavation or building permit and authorize such agency to determine compliance with the provisions of this Section. APPENDIX Special Inwood District Plan Map 1. Special Inwood District – Subdistricts and Subareas Subdistricts and Subareas: A – Sherman Creek Subdistrict A Subarea A1 Subarea A2 Subarea A3 B – Tip of Manhattan Subdistrict B Subarea B1 Subarea B2 Subarea B3 Subarea B4 C – Commercial “U” Subdistrict C D – Upland Area Subdistrict D E – Infrastructure Zone Subdistrict E Map 2. Special Inwood District Ground Floor Use and Curb Cut Regulations BROADWAY - BRIDGE SPUYTEN DUYVIL CREEK 219TH ST W218TH ST W218TH ST 216th ST 215TH ST INWOOD HILL PARK MTA RAILYARD 10TH AVE 206TH ST ST W204TH ST 10TH AVE W202ND ST 40 ZOIST ST SHERMAN CREEK IARLLM 'i RIVER UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS BRIDGE HARLEM RIVER Type 1 primary street Type 2 primary street Type 3 primary street District Boundary Map 3. Special Inwood District Transit Easement Zones SPUYTEN DUWIL CREEK BROADWAY BRIDGE 220TH ST 219TH ST W218TH ST INWOOD HILL PARK 10TH AVE 216TH ST i 9TH AVE W21BTH ST HARLEM W215TH ST MTA RAILYARD 1 UNIVERSITY 10TH AVE 207TH ST HEIGHTS BRIDGE 205TH7 ST 204TH ST HARLEM RIVER ?w 202ND ST I i? ZDIST ST SHERMAN CREEK District Boundary Transit Improvement Zone Map 4. Waterfront Access Plan: Parcel Designation BROADWAY - BRIDGE 2215/877. 885& 3 2197 75 Lr . 219TH ST 5' 218TH ST Parcel 4 a" I Block 2197] ,1 l5, Ponion 01 Lot 1 216TH ST HARLEM RIVER 215TH MTA RAILYARD 2188/ 1 Parcel 5 -- i 207TH ST BRIDGE Parcel 6 2187/ 1. 5. 7, 20 205m ST ST <1 2185 1 25, 36? 51 7 204TH ST 2185/ 1. 10 203RD ST (I 21a4120.4o I l? C) 202ND ST HARLEM 3? RIVER I l- 201 ST ST 6? Parcel Designation WAP boundary Parcel line 2185/ 1. 10 Tax Block/ Lot numbers Map 5. Waterfront Access Plan: Public Access Areas . BROADWAY - BRIDGE ST i? 3 ,3 a) W219TH ST 218TH ST . Parcel 4 I ?5 215TH ST MIA RAILYARD P. Parcel 5 A UNIVERSITY 207TH ST HEIGHTS BRIDGE I 206TH ST 205TH 81 Parcel 7 I 204TH ST Parcel 8: I A- 203KB SI I I W202ND ST . . HARLEM 5 . I I - 20151 ST a; Public Access Areas Parcel line Shore Public Walkway - 20-ft minimum required In"- Shore Public Walkway - 40-ft minimum required, or as modified by Section 142-63(a) 0 Supplemental Public Access Area Upland Connection (Designated Location) Map 6. Waterfront Access Plan: Visual Corridors BROADWAY BRIDGE W218TH ST 9TH AVE W216TR ST 215TH ST MTA LYARD 10TH AVE Parcel 5 UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS BRIDGE 207TH ST Parcel 6 206TH ST I 205TH ST . Parcel 7 204TH ST . Parcel 8 . A 203RD ST I C) 202ND ST ,1 HARLEM 2 I. RIVER I l- 201 ST ST 0? Visual Corridors Parcel line 00000-0} Visual Corridor * * * APPENDIX F Inclusionary Housing Designated Areas and Mandatory Inclusionary Housing Areas * * * * * * Manhattan Manhattan Community District 12 Map 1 – (date of adoption) Portion of Community District 12, Manhattan * * * APPENDIX A-Application Tab/es APPENDIX B TABLE 1: AMENDED APPLICATION PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT SITE SUMMARY SITE INFO Site Tax  Block Tax Lot 1 2214 24 400 WEST 219 ST. 2A 2215 2215 2215 2215 2215 842 852 857 863 866 5140 BROADWAY 4168 9 AVENUE 9 AVENUE 4116 WEST 220 ST. 409 WEST 220 ST. 2B 2215 2197 2197 2197 2197 2215 877 67 71 74 174 885 BROADWAY 4135 9 AVENUE 9 AVENUE 9 AVENUE 9 AVE. (waterfront)  9 AVE. (waterfront)  Address  2 TOTAL 3 2243 2243 4 2197 2197 5 2230 6 255 250 BROADWAY 5045 BROADWAY p/o 75 HARLEM RIVER DR. p/o 47 4095 9 AVENUE 21 3976 10 AVE. 2188 10 WEST 207 ST. 2188 1 3875 9 AVE. EXTERIOR ST BETWEEN W 207 & W 208 STS.* EXISTING CONDITIONS Lot Area  (SF)  Existing  Zoning  Zoning  Overlay Built  FAR Residential  (SF) Com. Fac.  (SF) Total  Commercial  (SF)  Auto‐ Related  Office (SF)  (incl. auto  storage)  (SF)  Retail (SF) Vacant  Commercial  Space (SF) Garage  (SF) Storage/  Wholesale/  Warehousing  (SF)  Industrial  (SF) Total (SF)  20,000 M1‐1 0.43 0 0 8,656 0 0 8,656 0 0 0 0 8,656 15,925 10,100 3,205 5,000 20,925 55,155 24,333 17,225 19,075 1,004 7,252 11,464 71,000 126,155 M1‐1 M1‐1 M1‐1 M1‐1 M1‐1 SPLIT 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,040 0 0 0 3,040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,040 0 0 0 3,040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,040 0 0 0 3,040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,040 7,500 10,000 17,500 C8‐3 C8‐3 C8‐3 0.00 0.61 0.35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,100 6,100 0 0 0 0 6,100 6,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,100 6,100 53,225 31,138 84,500 M3‐1 M3‐1 M3‐1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,410 C8‐3 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39,307 32,268 5,262 76,837 M1‐1 M1‐1 M1‐1 M1‐1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.40 0.00 0.32 0 0 0 0 0 0 31,881 0 31,881 31,881 0 31,881 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31,881 0 31,881 M2‐1 M2‐1 M2‐1 M2‐1 M2‐1 M2‐1 2203 2203 9 21 430 WEST 207 ST. 408 WEST 207 ST. 79,600 19,984 99,584 R7‐2 M1‐1 SPLIT 2200 2200 2200 15 21 29 416 WEST 204 ST. 3814 9 AVE. 417 W. 203RD ST. 14,988 19,993 9,992 44,973 R7‐2 M1‐1 M1‐1 SPLIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2201 21 3816 9 AVE. 19,983 M1‐1 1.00 0 19,983 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,983 2185 2185 2185 25 36* 51 3815 9 AVE. WEST 205 ST. WEST 204 ST. 19,983 6,057 25,960 52,000 M3‐1 M3‐1 M3‐1 M3‐1 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,042 0 0 18,042 18,042 0 0 18,042 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,042 0 0 18,042 11 2202 2202 1 5 3835 10 AVE. 3843 10 AVE. 9,992 9,992 19,984 R7‐2 R7‐2 R7‐2 0.10 0.75 0.43 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 7,500 8,500 0 7,500 7,500 0 0 0 1,000 0 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 7,500 8,500 12 2185 2184 1 20 9 AVE. 3775 9 AVENUE 39,900 33,821 73,721 M3‐1 M3‐1 M3‐1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2199 2199 2199 1 11 34 3775 10 AVE. 499 WEST 202 ST. 417 WEST 202 ST. 19,900 24,875 14,928 59,703 M1‐1 M1‐1 M1‐1 M1‐1 2.01 0.28 1.00 1.04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39,966 7,000 14,928 61,894 0 2,000 14,928 16,928 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 5,000 19,983 0 0 19,983 14,988 0 0 14,988 4,995 0 0 4,995 0 0 0 0 39,966 7,000 14,928 61,894 2198 2198 1 5 3761 10 AVE. 3769 10 AVE. 18,900 8,810 27,710 M1‐1 M1‐1 M1‐1 0.00 1.16 0.37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,260 10,260 0 8,460 8,460 0 0 0 0 1,800 1,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,260 10,260 7 8 9 10 13 14 C1‐3 C1‐4 C2‐4 C2‐4 APPENDIX B TABLE 1: AMENDED APPLICATION PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT SITE SUMMARY SITE INFO EXISTING CONDITIONS Site Tax  Block Tax Lot 15 2232 18 5060 BROADWAY 14,100 C8‐3 1.69 0 0 Auto‐ Related  Retail (SF) Office (SF)  (incl. auto  storage)  (SF)  23,800 1,500 0 4,800 16 2174 66 156‐166 NAGLE/100‐102 DYCKMAN ST 10,000 C4‐4 1.42 0 0 14,203 9,203 5,000 17 2174 50 130‐132 DYCKMAN ST 20,000 C4‐4/R7‐2 0.95 0 0 18,907 18,907 18 2224 53 175 DYCKMAN ST 10,000 C4‐4 2.00 0 0 20,000 19 2175 49 4748 BROADWAY/ 208‐210 DYCKMAN ST 9,975 C4‐4 1.00 0 0 20 2246 55 250 DYCKMAN ST 21,575 C8‐3/R7‐2 1.26 0 21 2246 36 278‐284 DYCKMAN ST 16,225 C8‐3/R7‐2 2.00 22 2246 20 308 DYCKMAN ST 18,500 C8‐3/R7‐2 23 2233 1 4762‐4764 BROADWAY/ 211 DYCKMAN ST 11,700 C4‐4 24 2233 2233 5 10 4768‐4776 BROADWAY 4778 BROADWAY 18,575 11,800 30,375 R7‐2 R7‐2 R7‐2 25 2233 2233 11,825 6,000 17,825 Address 13 4780 BROADWAY P/O 20 BROADWAY Lot Area  (SF)  Existing  Zoning  Zoning  Overlay Built  FAR Residential  (SF) Com. Fac.  (SF) Total  Commercial  (SF)  Vacant  Commercial  Space (SF) Garage  (SF) Storage/  Wholesale/  Warehousing  (SF)  Industrial  (SF) Total (SF)  17,500 0 0 0 23,800 0 0 0 0 0 14,203 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,907 2,500 17,500 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 9,975 9,975 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,975 0 13,550 0 0 0 0 0 13,550 13,550 27,100 0 0 32,440 0 0 5,353 27,087 0 0 0 32,440 2.12 0 0 2,200 0 2,200 0 0 0 0 37,064 39,264 0.80 0 0 9,305 9,305 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,305 C1‐4 C1‐4 C1‐4 0.95 0.22 0.66 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,645 2,550 20,195 17,645 0 17,645 0 0 0 0 2,550 2,550 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,645 2,550 20,195 R7‐2 R7‐2 R7‐2 C1‐4 C1‐4 C1‐4 1.47 0.00 0.97 0 0 0 17,334 0 17,334 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,334 0 17,334 C2‐4 26 2237 75 4781‐4785 BROADWAY 11,625 R7‐2 C1‐4 0.99 0 0 11,550 11,550 0 0 0 0 0 11,550 27 2237 52 4799 BROADWAY/664‐670 ACADEMY ST 14,000 R7‐2 C1‐4 0.56 0 0 7,813 7,813 0 0 0 0 0 7,813 28 2238 35 4849 BROADWAY 15,000 R7‐2 C1‐4 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 2235 9 4810 BROADWAY 17,875 R7‐2 C2‐4 0.51 0 0 9,200 9,200 0 0 0 0 0 9,200 30 2236 1 4942‐4946 BROADWAY/605‐611 W 207TH ST 13,200 R7‐2 C1‐4 1.00 0 0 13,200 13,200 0 0 0 0 0 13,200 31 2226 17 564‐572 W 207TH ST 16,125 R7‐2 C1‐4 1.00 0 0 16,125 16,125 0 0 0 0 0 16,125 32 2223 2223 26 27 513 W 207TH ST 515‐519 W 207TH ST 3,500 7,500 11,000 R7‐2 R7‐2 R7‐2 C1‐4 C1‐4 C1‐4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,500 7,500 11,000 0 7,500 7,500 3,500 0 3,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,500 7,500 11,000 53,225 31,138 55,636 M3‐1 M3‐1 0.00 0.11 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,329 3,329 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,329 3,329 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,329 3,329 0 37,317 385,165 217,234 34,300 29,159 70,939 14,988 18,545 50,614 473,096 33 2197 2197 P/O 75 HARLEM RIVER DR. P/O 47 4095 9 AVENUE TOTAL  * Lot areas of waterfront sites adjusted to only account for property located landward of  the Mean High Water Line (MHWL).  APPENDIX B TABLE 1: AMENDED APPLICATION PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT SITE SUMMARY SITE INFO Site Tax  Block Tax Lot 1 2214 24 400 WEST 219 ST. 2A 2215 2215 2215 2215 2215 842 852 857 863 866 5140 BROADWAY 4168 9 AVENUE 9 AVENUE 4116 WEST 220 ST. 409 WEST 220 ST. 2B 2215 2197 2197 2197 2197 2215 877 67 71 74 174 885 BROADWAY 4135 9 AVENUE 9 AVENUE 9 AVENUE 9 AVE. (waterfront)  9 AVE. (waterfront)  Address  2 TOTAL 3 2243 2243 4 2197 2197 5 2230 6 255 250 BROADWAY 5045 BROADWAY p/o 75 HARLEM RIVER DR. p/o 47 4095 9 AVENUE 21 3976 10 AVE. 2188 10 WEST 207 ST. 2188 1 3875 9 AVE. EXTERIOR ST BETWEEN W 207 & W 208 STS.* FUTURE WITHOUT‐ACTIONS CONDITIONS Lot Area  (SF)  20,000 EXISTING TO REMAIN Total  Comm.  Fac. (SF) Residential  (SF) House of  School   Medical  Worship  (SF) Office (SF) (SF) Nonprofit  LIBRARY  TOTAL  Retail (SF)  Office (SF) (SF) Commercial (SF) Supermarket  (SF) Office  (SF)  Auto‐ Related  (SF)  Garage  (SF)  Storage/  Wholesale/  Warehousing  (SF)  Industrial  (SF) Total SF  FAR Total  DU's Access.  Parking  Total  Parking  Bldg.  Ht.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,656 0 0 0 8,656 0 0 0 8,656 0.43 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,040 0 0 0 0 3,040 0 0 3,040 0.06 0 244 244 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,040 0 0 0 0 3,040 0 0 3,040 0.02 0 244 342 15 7,500 10,000 EXISTING TO REMAIN 17,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,100 0 0 6,100 0 0 0 0 6,100 0.81 0 0 100 15 53,225 31,138 EXISTING TO REMAIN 84,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 245 0 15,410 EXISTING TO REMAIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 88 0 39,307 32,268 EXISTING TO REMAIN 5,262 76,837 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 149 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31,881 31,881 0 0 0 0 0 0 31,881 0.40 0 198 198 23 51,559 0 0 51,559 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51,559 0 0 51,559 1.15 59 30 30 80 15,925 10,100 3,205 5,000 20,925 55,155 EXISTING TO REMAIN ON BOTH  24,333 SITES 2A & 2B 17,225 19,075 1,004 7,252 11,464 71,000 126,155 2 TOTAL  2203 2203 9 21 430 WEST 207 ST. 408 WEST 207 ST. 79,600 19,984 EXISTING TO REMAIN 99,584 2200 2200 2200 15 21 29 416 WEST 204 ST. 3814 9 AVE. 417 W. 203RD ST. 14,988 19,993 LOT 15 REDEVELOPED WITH  9,992 RESIDENTIAL USES 44,973 2201 21 3816 9 AVE. 19,983 EXISTING TO REMAIN 0 19,983 0 19,983 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,983 1.00 0 0 0 20 2185 2185 2185 25 36* 51 3815 9 AVE. WEST 205 ST. WEST 204 ST. 19,983 6,057 EXISTING TO REMAIN 25,960 52,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,042 0 18,042 0 0 0 0 0 18,042 0.90 0 0 0 20 11 2202 2202 1 5 3835 10 AVE. 3843 10 AVE. 9,992 REDEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL  9,992 BLDG W/ GR FL RETAIL 19,984 53,757 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,988 14,988 0 0 0 0 0 0 68,745 6.88 61 31 31 80 12 2185 2184 1 20 9 AVE. 3775 9 AVENUE 39,900 33,821 EXISTING TO REMAIN 73,721 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 2199 2199 2199 1 11 34 3775 10 AVE. 499 WEST 202 ST. 417 WEST 202 ST. 19,900 24,875 REOCCUPATIN OF COMMERIAL  14,928 59,703 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61,894 31,916 0 0 5,000 19,983 4,995 0 61,894 3.11 0 0 165 0 2198 2198 1 5 3761 10 AVE. 3769 10 AVE. 18,900 8,810 EXISTING TO REMAIN 27,710 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,260 8,460 0 0 1,800 0 0 0 10,260 0.54 0 0 0 31 7 8 9 10 13 14 APPENDIX B TABLE 1: AMENDED APPLICATION PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT SITE SUMMARY SITE INFO FUTURE WITHOUT‐ACTIONS CONDITIONS Site Tax  Block Tax Lot 15 2232 18 5060 BROADWAY 14,100 EXISTING TO REMAIN 16 2174 66 156‐166 NAGLE/100‐102 DYCKMAN ST 17 2174 50 130‐132 DYCKMAN ST 18 2224 53 175 DYCKMAN ST 19 2175 49 4748 BROADWAY/ 208‐210 DYCKMAN ST 20 2246 55 250 DYCKMAN ST 21 2246 36 22 2246 23 24 25 Address Lot Area  (SF)  Total  Comm.  Fac. (SF) Residential  (SF) House of  School   Medical  Worship  (SF) Office (SF) (SF) Nonprofit  LIBRARY  TOTAL  Retail (SF)  Office (SF) (SF) Commercial (SF) Supermarket  (SF) Office  (SF)  Auto‐ Related  (SF)  Garage  (SF)  Storage/  Wholesale/  Warehousing  (SF)  Industrial  (SF) Total SF  FAR Total  DU's Access.  Parking  Total  Parking  Bldg.  Ht.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23,800 1,500 0 0 4,800 17,500 0 0 23,800 1.69 0 0 70 17 REDEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL  10,000 BLDG W/ GR FL RETAIL & NON‐ PROFIT OFFICE 32,500 5,000 0 0 0 5,000 0 2,500 2,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 40,000 4.00 37 0 0 80 20,000 REDEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL  BLDG W/ GR FL RETAIL 59,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 74,400 3.72 68 34 34 80 10,000 REDEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL  BLDG W/ GR FL RETAIL 32,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,500 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 40,000 4.00 37 0 0 80 9,975 REDEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL  BLDG W/ GR FL RETAIL 32,419 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,481 7,481 0 0 0 0 0 0 39,900 4.00 37 0 0 80 21,575 EXISTING TO REMAIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,550 0 0 0 0 0 13,550 13,550 27,100 1.26 0 0 0 20 278‐284 DYCKMAN ST 16,225 EXISTING TO REMAIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32,440 0 0 0 5,353 27,087 0 0 32,440 2.00 0 0 149 20 20 308 DYCKMAN ST 18,500 EXISTING TO REMAIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,200 0 0 2,200 0 0 0 37,064 39,264 2.12 0 0 0 30 2233 1 4762‐4764 BROADWAY/ 211 DYCKMAN ST 11,700 REDEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL  BLDG W/ GR FL RETAIL 38,025 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,775 8,775 0 0 0 0 0 0 46,800 4.00 43 0 0 80 2233 2233 5 10 4768‐4776 BROADWAY 4778 BROADWAY 18,575 REDEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL  11,800 BLDG W/ SUPERMARKET 30,375 81,709 0 0 0 0 0 0 22,781 0 22,781 0 0 0 0 0 104,490 3.44 93 47 47 163 0 17,334 0 0 0 0 17,334 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,334 0.97 0 15 15 10 2233 2233 13 4780 BROADWAY P/O 20 BROADWAY 11,825 6,000 EXISTING TO REMAIN 17,825 26 2237 75 4781‐4785 BROADWAY 11,625 REDEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL  BLDG W/ MED OFFICE 37,781 8,719 0 0 8,719 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46,500 4.00 43 0 0 80 27 2237 52 4799 BROADWAY/664‐670 ACADEMY ST 14,000 REDEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL  BLDG W/ GR FL RETAIL 45,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,500 10,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 56,000 4.00 52 16 16 80 28 2238 35 4849 BROADWAY 15,000 REDEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL  BLDG W/ GR FL RETAIL 45,950 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,250 11,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 57,200 3.81 53 16 16 80 29 2235 9 4810 BROADWAY 17,875 REDEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL  BLDG W/ MEDICAL OFFICE 56,484 13,406 0 0 13,406 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69,890 3.91 65 33 33 80 30 2236 1 4942‐4946 BROADWAY/605‐611 W 207TH ST 13,200 REDEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL  BLDG W/ GR FL RETAIL 42,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,900 9,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 52,800 4.00 49 25 25 80 31 2226 17 564‐572 W 207TH ST 16,125 REDEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL  BLDG W/ GR FL RETAIL 52,406 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,094 12,094 0 0 0 0 0 0 64,500 4.00 60 30 30 80 32 2223 2223 26 27 513 W 207TH ST 515‐519 W 207TH ST 3,500 REDEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL  7,500 BLDG W/ GR FL RETAIL 11,000 35,750 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,250 8,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 44,000 4.00 41 21 21 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,329 0 0 0 0 3,329 0 0 3,329 0.06 0 142 142 20 698,640 64,442 0 19,983 22,125 5,000 17,334 346,211 181,995 40,823 8,300 25,609 70,939 18,545 50,614 1,159,907 798 882 1,946 33 2197 2197 P/O 75 HARLEM RIVER DR. P/O 47 4095 9 AVENUE 53,225 31,138 EXISTING TO REMAIN 55,636 TOTAL  * Lot areas of waterfront sites adjusted to only account for property located landward of  the Mean High Water Line (MHWL).  APPENDIX B TABLE 1: AMENDED APPLICATION PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT SITE SUMMARY FUTURE‐WITH ACTION CONDITIONS SITE INFO Site Tax  Block Tax Lot 1 2214 24 400 WEST 219 ST. 2A 2215 2215 2215 2215 2215 842 852 857 863 866 5140 BROADWAY 4168 9 AVENUE 9 AVENUE 4116 WEST 220 ST. 409 WEST 220 ST. 2B 2215 2197 2197 2197 2197 2215 877 67 71 74 174 885 BROADWAY 4135 9 AVENUE 9 AVENUE 9 AVENUE 9 AVE. (waterfront)  9 AVE. (waterfront)  Address  2 TOTAL 3 2243 2243 4 2197 2197 5 2230 6 7 8 255 250 BROADWAY 5045 BROADWAY p/o 75 HARLEM RIVER DR. p/o 47 4095 9 AVENUE 21 3976 10 AVE. 2188 10 WEST 207 ST. 2188 1 3875 9 AVE. EXTERIOR ST BETWEEN W 207 & W 208 STS.* Lot Area  (SF)  20,000 15,925 10,100 3,205 5,000 20,925 55,155 24,333 17,225 19,075 1,004 7,252 11,464 71,000 126,155 Prop. Zoning Prop.  Overlay Total FAR Res FAR Com  FAR CF FAR TOTAL  House of  Community Ctr  School   Universal  Non‐Profit  Medical  Com. Fac.  Worship  (SF) (SF) Pre‐K (SF) Office (SF) Office (SF) (SF) (SF) Residential  (SF) LIBRARY  (SF) TOTAL  Commercial  (SF) Fresh  Supermarket  (SF)   Retail (SF)   Office (SF)  Garage (SF)  Storage/  Wholesale/  Warehousing  (SF)  Total (SF) Max Bldg.  Ht. Total DU's C6‐2 7.20 6.45 0.75 0.00 129,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 15,000 0 0 0 0 144,000 147 210 M1‐5 6.50 0.00 4.50 2.00 0 110,310 0 0 0 0 0 110,310 0 248,198 15,000 0 233,198 0 0 358,508 0 265 M1‐4 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0 142,000 0 0 0 0 0 142,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142,000 0 85 M1‐5/M1‐4 3.97 0.00 1.97 2.00 0 252,310 0 0 0 0 0 252,310 0 248,198 15,000 0 233,198 0 0 500,508 0 265 5.60 4.85 0.75 0.00 84,875 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,125 13,125 0 0 0 0 98,000 97 115 7,500 10,000 17,500 R7D 53,225 31,138 84,500 C6‐2 7.20 5.95 0.00 1.25 502,775 105,625 55,454 0 0 0 50,171 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 608,400 575 265 15,410 C4‐4D 7.20 4.20 3.00 0.00 64,722 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46,230 15,000 0 31,230 0 0 110,952 74 165 39,307 32,268 5,262 76,837 R9A/ R8 C2‐4 8.5/7.2 7.5/6.2 0.75 0.25 501,068 19,209 19,209 0 0 0 0 0 0 57,628 57,628 0 0 0 0 577,905 573 295 C2‐4 2203 2203 9 21 430 WEST 207 ST. 408 WEST 207 ST. 79,600 19,984 99,584 R8A R9A  R9A / R8A C2‐4 C2‐4 C2‐4 7.20 5.70 8.50 7.00 8.5 / 7.2 7.0 /5.7 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 613,608 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 149,376 104,376 45,000 0 0 0 762,984 701 175 2200 2200 2200 15 21 29 416 WEST 204 ST. 3814 9 AVE. 417 W. 203RD ST. 14,988 19,993 9,992 44,973 R7A R8A R7A R8A / R7A C2‐4 C2‐4 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 234,870 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,995 14,995 0 0 0 0 249,865 268 145 C2‐4 4.00 4.00 7.20 6.45 4.60 4.60 4.0 / 7.20 4.0 /6.45 2201 21 3816 9 AVE. 19,983 R8A C2‐4 7.20 4.20 0.00 3.00 83,929 59,949 0 29,975 0 29,974 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143,878 96 145 2185 2185 2185 25 36* 51 3815 9 AVE. WEST 205 ST. WEST 204 ST. 19,983 6,057 25,960 52,000 R8 C2‐4 7.20 6.45 0.75 0.00 335,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39,000 14,987 0 24,013 0 0 374,400 383 245 11 2202 2202 1 5 3835 10 AVE. 3843 10 AVE. 9,992 9,992 19,984 R8A C2‐4 7.20 6.45 0.75 0.00 128,897 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,988 14,988 0 0 0 0 143,885 147 165 12 2185 2184 1 20 9 AVE. 3775 9 AVENUE 39,900 33,821 73,721 M2‐4 0.00 3.40 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250,651 0 0 54,651 185,900 10,100 250,651 0 60 2199 2199 2199 1 11 34 3775 10 AVE. 499 WEST 202 ST. 417 WEST 202 ST. 19,900 24,875 14,928 59,703 272,644 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79,600 10,000 0 0 0 69,600 352,244 312 175 2198 2198 1 5 3761 10 AVE. 3769 10 AVE. 18,900 8,810 MX (M1‐4/R9A) 27,710 182,886 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52,649 5,000 0 0 0 47,649 235,535 209 175 9 10 13 14 MX (M1‐4/R9A) MX (M1‐4/R7A) MX (M1‐4/R7A) (M1‐4/R9A and R8A) 3.40 8.50 4.60 4.60 8.50 7.00 2.60 4.60 6.60 1.50 2.00 0.00 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 APPENDIX B TABLE 1: AMENDED APPLICATION PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT SITE SUMMARY FUTURE‐WITH ACTION CONDITIONS SITE INFO Site Tax  Block Tax Lot 15 2232 18 5060 BROADWAY 14,100 C4‐4D 7.20 6.45 0.75 16 2174 66 156‐166 NAGLE/100‐102 DYCKMAN ST 10,000 C4‐4D 7.20 4.20 3.00 17 2174 50 130‐132 DYCKMAN ST 20,000 C4‐5D/R7A 18 2224 53 175 DYCKMAN ST 10,000 C4‐5D 5.60 19 2175 49 4748 BROADWAY/ 208‐210 DYCKMAN ST 9,975 C4‐4D 7.20 20 2246 55 250 DYCKMAN ST 21,575 C4‐4A/R7A 21 2246 36 278‐284 DYCKMAN ST 16,225 22 2246 20 308 DYCKMAN ST 23 2233 1 24 2233 2233 5 10 25 2233 2233 Address Lot Area  (SF)  Prop. Zoning Prop.  Overlay Total FAR Res FAR Com  FAR CF FAR TOTAL  House of  Community Ctr  School   Universal  Non‐Profit  Medical  Com. Fac.  Worship  (SF) (SF) Pre‐K (SF) Office (SF) Office (SF) (SF) (SF) LIBRARY  (SF) TOTAL  Commercial  (SF) Fresh  Supermarket  (SF)   Retail (SF)   Office (SF)  Garage (SF)  Storage/  Wholesale/  Warehousing  (SF)  Total (SF) Total DU's Max Bldg.  Ht. 90,945 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,575 10,575 0 0 0 0 101,520 104 165 0.00 42,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 0 72,000 48 165 0.25 0.50 81,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 0 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 96,000 93 115 3.60 2.00 0.00 36,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 56,000 41 115 4.20 3.00 0.00 41,895 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,925 10,000 0 19,925 0 0 71,820 48 155 4.6/4.00 3.85/4.00 0.75 0.00 79,119 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,181 16,181 0 0 0 0 95,300 90 95 C4‐4A/R7A 4.6/3.44 3.85/4.00 0.75 0.00 58,731 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,169 12,169 0 0 0 0 70,900 67 95 18,500 C4‐4A/R7A 4.6/3.44 3.85/4.00 0.75 0.00 66,125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,875 13,875 0 0 0 0 80,000 76 95 4762‐4764 BROADWAY/ 211 DYCKMAN ST 11,700 C4‐4D 7.20 4.20 3.00 0.00 49,140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35,100 10,000 0 25,100 0 0 84,240 56 155 4768‐4776 BROADWAY 4778 BROADWAY 18,575 11,800 30,375 C4‐4D 7.20 6.45 0.75 0.00 215,919 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22,781 0 22,781 0 0 0 238,700 247 155 11,825 6,000 17,825 C4‐4D 7.20 5.80 0.00 1.40 103,340 25,000 0 0 7,000 0 0 0 18,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 128,340 118 145 13 4780 BROADWAY P/O 20 BROADWAY 5.6 /4.00 5.5/ 3.75 0.00 Residential  (SF) 26 2237 75 4781‐4785 BROADWAY 11,625 C4‐4D 7.20 5.70 0.00 1.50 66,263 17,438 0 0 0 0 0 17,438 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83,701 76 155 27 2237 52 4799 BROADWAY/664‐670 ACADEMY ST 14,000 C4‐5D 5.60 4.85 0.75 0.00 67,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,500 10,500 0 0 0 0 78,400 78 125 28 2238 35 4849 BROADWAY 15,000 C4‐5D 5.60 4.85 0.75 0.00 72,750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,250 11,250 0 0 0 0 84,000 83 125 29 2235 9 4810 BROADWAY 17,875 C4‐5D 5.60 4.10 0.00 1.50 73,288 26,813 0 0 0 0 0 26,813 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,101 84 115 30 2236 1 4942‐4946 BROADWAY/605‐611 W 207TH ST 13,200 C4‐4D 7.20 6.45 0.75 0.00 85,140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,900 9,900 0 0 0 0 95,040 97 155 31 2226 17 564‐572 W 207TH ST 16,125 C4‐5D 5.60 4.85 0.75 0.00 78,206 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,094 12,094 0 0 0 0 90,300 89 125 32 2223 2223 26 27 513 W 207TH ST 515‐519 W 207TH ST 3,500 7,500 11,000 R7D 5.60 4.85 0.75 0.00 53,350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,250 8,250 0 0 0 0 61,600 61 115 53,225 31,138 55,636 C6‐2 6.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0 265 33 2197 2197 P/O 75 HARLEM RIVER DR. P/O 47 4095 9 AVENUE TOTAL  * Lot areas of waterfront sites adjusted to only account for property located landward of  the Mean High Water Line (MHWL).  C2‐4 0 4,495,785 0 516,344 0 0 74,663 29,975 0 7,000 0 29,974 0 60,171 0 296,561 0 18,000 333,816 1,562,856 55,636 515,529 0 53,180 67,781 441,297 225,000 410,900 0 127,349 333,816 6,574,985 5,138 APPENDIX B TABLE 1: AMENDED APPLICATION PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT SITE SUMMARY INCREMENT SITE INFO Site Tax  Block Tax Lot 1 2214 24 400 WEST 219 ST. 2A 2215 2215 2215 2215 2215 842 852 857 863 866 5140 BROADWAY 4168 9 AVENUE 9 AVENUE 4116 WEST 220 ST. 409 WEST 220 ST. 2B 2215 2197 2197 2197 2197 2215 877 67 71 74 174 885 BROADWAY 4135 9 AVENUE 9 AVENUE 9 AVENUE 9 AVE. (waterfront)  9 AVE. (waterfront)  Address  2 TOTAL 3 2243 2243 4 2197 2197 5 2230 6 255 250 BROADWAY 5045 BROADWAY p/o 75 HARLEM RIVER DR. p/o 47 4095 9 AVENUE 21 3976 10 AVE. 2188 10 WEST 207 ST. 2188 1 3875 9 AVE. EXTERIOR ST BETWEEN W 207 & W 208 STS.* Lot Area  (SF)  20,000 Residential  (SF) Total Com.  Community  Fac. (SF) Ctr (SF) School   (SF) Universal  Pre‐K (SF)  House of  Worship  (SF) Non‐Profit  Office (SF) Medical  Office (SF) Library  Total Commercial  Retail (SF)  (SF) (SF) Supermarket  (SF) Office (SF)  Storage/  Wholesale/  Garage (SF) Warehousing  (SF)  Auto‐ Related  (SF) Industrial  (SF)  Total (SF)  Total DU's 129,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,344 15,000 0 0 ‐8,656 0 0 0 135,344 147 0 110,310 0 0 0 0 0 110,310 0 245,158 15,000 0 233,198 0 ‐3,040 0 0 355,468 0 0 142,000 0 0 0 0 0 142,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142,000 0 0 252,310 0 0 0 0 0 252,310 0 245,158 15,000 0 233,198 0 ‐3,040 0 0 497,468 0 7,500 10,000 17,500 84,875 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,025 13,125 0 ‐6,100 0 0 0 0 91,900 97 53,225 31,138 84,500 502,775 105,625 55,454 0 0 0 50,171 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 608,400 575 15,410 64,722 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46,230 15,000 0 31,230 0 0 0 0 110,952 74 39,307 32,268 5,262 76,837 501,068 19,209 19,209 0 0 0 0 0 0 57,628 57,628 0 0 0 0 0 0 577,905 573 15,925 10,100 3,205 5,000 20,925 55,155 24,333 17,225 19,075 1,004 7,252 11,464 71,000 126,155 2203 2203 9 21 430 WEST 207 ST. 408 WEST 207 ST. 79,600 19,984 99,584 613,608 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117,495 72,495 45,000 0 0 0 0 0 731,103 701 2200 2200 2200 15 21 29 416 WEST 204 ST. 3814 9 AVE. 417 W. 203RD ST. 14,988 19,993 9,992 44,973 183,311 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,995 14,995 0 0 0 0 0 0 198,306 209 2201 21 3816 9 AVE. 19,983 83,929 39,966 0 29,975 0 9,991 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123,895 96 2185 2185 2185 25 36* 51 3815 9 AVE. WEST 205 ST. WEST 204 ST. 19,983 6,057 25,960 52,000 335,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,958 14,987 ‐18,042 24,013 0 0 0 0 356,358 383 11 2202 2202 1 5 3835 10 AVE. 3843 10 AVE. 9,992 9,992 19,984 75,140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75,140 86 12 2185 2184 1 20 9 AVE. 3775 9 AVENUE 39,900 33,821 73,721 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250,651 0 0 54,651 0 185,900 10,100 0 250,651 0 2199 2199 2199 1 11 34 3775 10 AVE. 499 WEST 202 ST. 417 WEST 202 ST. 19,900 24,875 14,928 59,703 272,644 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,706 ‐21,916 0 0 ‐5,000 ‐19,983 64,605 0 290,350 312 2198 2198 1 5 3761 10 AVE. 3769 10 AVE. 18,900 8,810 27,710 182,886 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42,389 ‐3,460 0 0 ‐1,800 0 47,649 0 225,275 209 7 8 9 10 13 14 APPENDIX B TABLE 1: AMENDED APPLICATION PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT SITE SUMMARY SITE INFO INCREMENT House of  Worship  (SF) Storage/  Wholesale/  Garage (SF) Warehousing  (SF)  Auto‐ Related  (SF) Site Tax  Block Tax Lot 15 2232 18 5060 BROADWAY 14,100 90,945 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐13,225 9,075 0 0 ‐4,800 ‐17,500 0 0 77,720 104 16 2174 66 156‐166 NAGLE/100‐102 DYCKMAN ST 10,000 9,500 ‐5,000 0 0 0 0 ‐5,000 0 0 27,500 27,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 32,000 11 17 2174 50 130‐132 DYCKMAN ST 20,000 21,600 10,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 0 ‐10,000 ‐10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 21,600 25 18 2224 53 175 DYCKMAN ST 10,000 3,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,500 12,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,000 4 19 2175 49 4748 BROADWAY/ 208‐210 DYCKMAN ST 9,975 9,476 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22,444 2,519 0 19,925 0 0 0 0 31,920 11 20 2246 55 250 DYCKMAN ST 21,575 79,119 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,631 16,181 0 0 0 0 ‐13,550 ‐13,550 68,200 90 21 2246 36 278‐284 DYCKMAN ST 16,225 58,731 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐20,271 12,169 0 0 ‐5,353 ‐27,087 0 0 38,460 67 22 2246 20 308 DYCKMAN ST 18,500 66,125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,675 13,875 0 ‐2,200 0 0 0 ‐37,064 40,736 76 23 2233 1 4762‐4764 BROADWAY/ 211 DYCKMAN ST 11,700 11,115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26,325 1,225 0 25,100 0 0 0 0 37,440 13 24 2233 2233 5 10 4768‐4776 BROADWAY 4778 BROADWAY 18,575 11,800 30,375 134,210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134,210 154 11,825 6,000 17,825 103,340 7,666 0 0 7,000 0 0 0 666 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111,006 118 25 2233 2233 Address 13 4780 BROADWAY P/O 20 BROADWAY Lot Area  (SF)  Residential  (SF) Total Com.  Community  Fac. (SF) Ctr (SF) School   (SF) Universal  Pre‐K (SF)  Non‐Profit  Office (SF) Medical  Office (SF) Library  Total Commercial  Retail (SF)  (SF) (SF) Supermarket  (SF) Office (SF)  Industrial  (SF)  Total (SF)  Total DU's 26 2237 75 4781‐4785 BROADWAY 11,625 28,482 8,719 0 0 0 0 0 8,719 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37,201 33 27 2237 52 4799 BROADWAY/664‐670 ACADEMY ST 14,000 22,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22,400 26 28 2238 35 4849 BROADWAY 15,000 26,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26,800 30 29 2235 9 4810 BROADWAY 17,875 16,804 13,407 0 0 0 0 0 13,407 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,211 19 30 2236 1 4942‐4946 BROADWAY/605‐611 W 207TH ST 13,200 42,240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42,240 48 31 2226 17 564‐572 W 207TH ST 16,125 25,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,800 29 32 2223 2223 26 27 513 W 207TH ST 515‐519 W 207TH ST 3,500 7,500 11,000 17,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,600 20 53,225 31,138 55,636 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 330,487 55,636 0 53,180 0 221,671 0 0 330,487 0 3,797,145 451,902 74,663 29,975 7,000 9,991 55,171 274,436 666 1,216,645 333,534 26,958 432,997 ‐25,609 339,961 108,804 ‐50,614 5,415,078 4,340 33 2197 2197 P/O 75 HARLEM RIVER DR. P/O 47 4095 9 AVENUE TOTAL  * Lot areas of waterfront sites adjusted to only account for property located landward of  the Mean High Water Line (MHWL).  APPENDIX B TABLE 2: AMENDED APPLICATION POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITE SUMMARY SITE INFO SITE Tax  Tax Lot Block Address EXISTING CONDITIONS Lot Area  (SF)  Existing  Zoning  Total  Retail  Zoning  Built  Residential  Com. Fac.  Commercial  (SF) Overlay FAR (SF) (SF) (SF)  FUTURE WITHOUT‐ACTIONS CONDITIONS Auto‐ Storage/  TOTAL  Total  Related  Retail  Total  Redev.  Residential  Garage  Wholesale/  Industrial  Office  Comm.  Commercial  Other (SF) Total (SF)  (incl. auto  (SF)  DU's Y or N (SF) (SF) Warehousing  (SF) (SF)  (SF) Fac. (SF) storage)  (SF)  (SF)  Storage/  Auto‐ Garage  Wholesale/  Office  Related  Warehousing  (SF)  (SF)  (SF)  (SF)  Total SF  Total  DU's Bldg. Ht.  B 2215 801 5122 BROADWAY 2215 806 5124 BROADWAY 2215 807 5134 BROADWAY SITE B TOTAL  10,432 756 5,900 17,088 M1‐1 M1‐1 M1‐1 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,600 6,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,800 1,800 0 0 4,800 4,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,600 6,600 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 6,600 0 1,800 4,800 0 0 6,600 0 30 C 2214 41 425 WEST 218 ST. 2214 35 409 WEST 218 ST. 2214 39 423 WEST 218 ST. SITE C TOTAL  10,000 10,000 5,000 25,000 M1‐1 M1‐1 M1‐1 1.00 1.00 0.49 0.90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 2,450 22,450 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 2,450 22,450 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 2,450 22,450 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 22,450 0 0 22,450 0 0 22,450 0 16 D 2243 266 5073 BROADWAY 2243 261 5063 BROADWAY 2243 264 5069 BROADWAY SITE D TOTAL  5,000 9,025 5,000 19,025 C8‐3 C8‐3 C8‐3 1.87 1.08 1.00 1.27 0 0 0 0 9,350 0 0 9,350 0 9,762 5,000 14,762 0 3,400 5,000 8,400 0 0 0 0 0 6,362 0 6,362 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,350 9,762 5,000 24,112 0 0 0 0 N 0 9,350 14,762 8,400 0 6,362 0 0 24,112 0 30 E 2229 25 3966 10 AVE. 2229 32 3950 10 AVE. SITE E TOTAL  9,992 9,991 19,983 C8‐3 C8‐3 0.45 1.00 0.73 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,500 9,991 14,491 1,250 9,991 11,241 0 0 0 3,250 0 3,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,500 9,991 14,491 0 0 0 N 0 0 14,491 11,241 0 3,250 0 0 14,491 0 18 F 2243 5037 BROADWAY 9,875 C8‐3 1.00 0 0 9,900 0 9,900 0 0 0 0 0 9,900 0 N 0 0 9,900 0 9,900 0 0 0 9,900 0 24 G 2232 1 2232 4 2232 5 2232 13 2232 14 SITE G TOTAL  5044 BROADWAY 5048 BROADWAY 5050 BROADWAY 10 AVE. 4020 10 AVE. 7,125 1,825 2,575 2,500 3,740 17,765 C8‐3 C8‐3 C8‐3 C8‐3 C8‐3 0.43 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.76 0.65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,065 1,825 0 0 6,586 11,476 3,065 1,825 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,065 1,825 0 0 6,586 11,476 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 11,476 4,890 6,586 0 0 0 11,476 0 30 4,890 0 0 0 0 6,586 6,586 247 H 2243 273 5099 BROADWAY 2243 270 5089 BROADWAY SITE H TOTAL  5,225 7,150 12,375 C8‐3 C8‐3 0.47 0.00 0.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,433 0 2,433 2,433 0 2,433 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,433 0 2,433 0 0 0 N 0 0 2,433 2,433 0 0 0 0 2,433 0 15 WEST 207 ST. 3859 9 AVE. 3851 9 AVE. 3849 9 AVE. 4,332 60,650 12,500 2,492 79,974 M3‐1 M3‐1 M3‐1 M3‐1 0.00 0.37 1.00 1.00 0.47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22,250 12,500 2,492 37,242 0 I 2187 20* 2187 7 2187 5 2187 1 SITE I TOTAL  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22,250 12,500 0 34,750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22,250 12,500 2,492 37,242 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 37,242 2,492 0 0 0 34,750 37,242 0 27 2,492 2,492 0 0 0 0 0 J 2228 32 500 WEST 211 ST. 6,500 C8‐3 0.14 0 0 885 0 0 885 0 0 0 0 885 0 N 0 0 885 0 0 885 0 0 885 0 10 K 2223 34 3936 10 AVE. 18,950 C8‐3 0.13 0 0 2,400 0 0 2,400 0 0 0 0 2,400 0 N 0 0 2,400 0 0 2,400 0 0 2,400 0 15 L 2214 1 5094 BROADWAY 17,655 M1‐1 1.00 0 0 17,655 0 0 0 17,655 0 0 0 17,655 0 N 0 0 17,655 0 0 0 17,655 0 17,655 0 14 M 2189 60 401 WEST 207 ST. 27,450 M1‐1 0.08 0 0 2,100 0 0 2,100 0 0 0 0 2,100 0 N 0 0 2,100 0 0 2,100 0 0 2,100 0 0 2203 3 3859 10 AVE. 5,367 R7‐2 C2‐4 1.68 0 0 9,038 9,038 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,038 0 N 2203 5 3863 10 AVE. 2203 7 3867 10 AVE. SITE N TOTAL  4,950 4,992 15,309 R7‐2 R7‐2 C2‐4 C2‐4 1.65 1.00 1.45 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,150 4,992 22,180 8,150 4,992 22,180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,150 4,992 22,180 0 0 0 Y 49,754 0 11,482 11,482 0 0 0 0 61,236 57 80 O 2202 25 401 WEST 205 ST. 9,992 M1‐1 2.00 0 19,984 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,984 0 N 0 19,984 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,984 0 20 2202 21 3842 9 AVE. 9,992 M1‐1 0.65 0 0 6,500 6,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,500 0 N 0 0 6,500 6,500 0 0 0 0 6,500 0 9,992 19,984 R7‐2 0.00 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 6,500 0 6,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,500 0 Y 0 PARTIAL  34,372 34,372 0 0 0 6,500 0 6,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34,372 40,872 39 39 Q 2202 17 414 WEST 206 ST. SITE Q TOTAL  80 80 APPENDIX B TABLE 2: AMENDED APPLICATION POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITE SUMMARY SITE INFO SITE Tax  Tax Lot Block Address EXISTING CONDITIONS Lot Area  (SF)  Existing  Zoning  R 2186 1 3835 9 AVE. 19,983 M3‐1 T 2200 5 3801 10 AVE. 9,992 R7‐2 U 2200 1 3795 10 AVE. 9,992 V 2200 35 425 WEST 203 ST. W 2174 65 2174 61 2174 60 2174 64 SITE W TOTAL  X 2174 Total  Retail  Zoning  Built  Residential  Com. Fac.  Commercial  (SF) Overlay FAR (SF) (SF) (SF)  FUTURE WITHOUT‐ACTIONS CONDITIONS Auto‐ Storage/  TOTAL  Total  Related  Retail  Total  Redev.  Residential  Garage  Wholesale/  Industrial  Office  Comm.  Commercial  Other (SF) Total (SF)  (incl. auto  (SF)  DU's Y or N (SF) (SF) Warehousing  (SF) (SF)  (SF) Fac. (SF) storage)  (SF)  (SF)  Storage/  Auto‐ Garage  Wholesale/  Office  Related  Warehousing  (SF)  (SF)  (SF)  (SF)  Total SF  Total  DU's Bldg. Ht.  2.00 0 0 40,000 0 0 0 0 40,000 0 0 40,000 0 N 0 0 40,000 0 0 0 0 40,000 40,000 0 27 0.60 0 0 6,000 6,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,000 0 Y 32,474 0 7,494 7,494 0 0 0 0 39,968 37 80 M1‐1 3.00 0 0 29,976 5,000 0 0 24,976 0 0 0 29,976 0 N 0 0 29,976 5,000 0 0 24,976 0 29,976 0 26 19,983 M1‐1 1.00 0 0 19,983 0 0 0 0 19,983 0 0 19,983 0 N 0 0 19,983 0 0 0 0 19,983 19,983 0 20 110 DYCKMAN STREET 116A DYCKMAN STREET 118 DYCKMAN STREET 112 DYCKMAN STREET 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 6,400 C4‐4 C4‐4 C4‐4 C4‐4 C4‐4 1.20 1.50 1.50 4.71 2.23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,920 2,400 2,400 7,536 14,256 960 2,400 2,400 7,536 13,296 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 960 0 0 0 960 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,920 2,400 2,400 7,536 14,256 0 0 0 0 0 Y 4,800 0 0 0 0 150 DYCKMAN STREET 20,000 C4‐4 0.79 0 0 15,804 15,804 0 0 0 0 0 15,804 0 Y 65,000 0 15,000 15,000 0 0 0 0 80,000 74 80 Y 2220 54 141 DYCKMAN STREET 2220 50 133 DYCKMAN STREET SITE Y TOTAL  11,000 10,000 21,000 C4‐4 C4‐4 C4‐4 0.91 0.00 0.48 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 10,000 10,000 0 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 10,000 0 0 0 Y 68,250 0 15,750 15,750 0 0 0 0 84,000 78 80 Z 2220 151 DYCKMAN STREET 10,000 C4‐4 1.00 0 0 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 Y 32,500 0 7,500 7,500 0 0 0 0 40,000 37 80 2175 74 160 DYCKMAN STREET 2175 70 168 DYCKMAN STREET SITE AA TOTAL  20,000 10,000 30,000 C4‐4/R7‐2 C4‐4/R7‐2 C4‐4/R7‐2 1.12 2.00 1.42 0 0 0 0 0 0 22,476 20,000 42476 19,137 15,000 34137 3,339 5,000 8339 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22,476 20,000 42476 0 0 0 Y 89,100 0 22,500 22,500 0 0 0 0 111,600 102 80 172 DYCKMAN STREET 10,000 C4‐4 0.50 0 0 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 Y 32,500 0 7,500 7,500 0 0 0 0 40,000 37 80 2175 60 190 DYCKMAN STREET 2175 61 184 DYCKMAN STREET 2175 63 180 DYCKMAN STREET SITE AC TOTAL  5,717 4,210 5,000 14,927 C4‐4 C4‐4 C4‐4 C4‐4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,717 4,210 5,000 14,927 5,717 4,210 5,000 14,927 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,717 4,210 5,000 14,927 0 0 0 0 Y 48,513 0 11,195 11,195 0 0 0 0 59,708 55 80 AA AB AC 2175 42 1 66 C1‐4 20,800 0 4,800 25,600 24 80 AD 2233 52 201 DYCKMAN STREET 7,000 C4‐4 1.00 0 0 7,000 7,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,000 0 Y 22,750 0 5,250 5,250 0 0 0 0 28,000 26 80 AE 2246 65 242 DYCKMAN STREET 11,700 C8‐3/R7‐2 0.16 0 0 1,820 0 0 1,820 0 0 0 0 1,820 0 N 0 0 1,820 0 0 1,820 0 0 1,820 0 10 AF 2246 28 290 DYCKMAN STREET 17,275 C8‐3/ R7‐2 2.00 0 0 34,570 0 0 0 0 34,570 0 0 34,570 0 N 0 0 34,570 0 0 0 0 34,570 34,570 0 20 2234 1 651 ACADEMY STREET 2234 4 4840 BROADWAY SITE AG TOTAL  6,250 4,000 10,250 R7‐2 R7‐2 R7‐2 C2‐4 C2‐4 C2‐4 3.00 2.00 2.61 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,750 8,000 26,750 0 18,750 8,000 0 8,000 18,750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,750 8,000 26,750 0 0 0 y 33,313 0 7,688 7,688 0 0 0 0 41,001 38 80 AG AH 2235 4880 BROADWAY 11,990 R7‐2 C2‐4 0.16 0 0 1,875 0 0 1,875 0 0 0 0 1,875 0 Y 32,253 0 8,993 8,993 0 0 0 0 41,246 37 80 AI 2235 7 4896 BROADWAY 2235 5 4892 BROADWAY SITE AI TOTAL  7,175 7,200 14,375 R7‐2 R7‐2 R7‐2 C2‐4 C2‐4 C2‐4 1.67 0.35 1.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,000 2,500 14,500 12,000 2,500 14,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,000 2,500 14,500 0 0 0 Y 46,719 0 10,781 10,781 0 0 0 0 57,500 53 80 AJ 2235 20 610 WEST 207 STREET 2235 22 600 WEST 207 STREET SITE AJ TOTAL  24,798 3,950 28,748 R7‐2 R7‐2 R7‐2 C1‐4 C1‐4 C1‐4 0.99 1.00 0.99 0 0 0 0 0 0 24,475 3,950 28,425 24,475 3,950 28,425 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24,475 3,950 28,425 0 0 0 Y 77,332 21,561 0 0 0 0 0 0 98,893 88 163 1 AK 2235 28 582 WEST 207 STREET 15,000 R7‐2 C1‐4 0.75 0 0 11,200 11,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,200 0 Y 48,750 0 11,250 11,250 0 0 0 0 60,000 56 80 AL 2227 33 565 WEST 207 STREET 10,000 R7‐2 C1‐4 1.00 0 0 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 Y 32,500 0 7,500 7,500 0 0 0 0 40,000 37 80 AM  2223 30 521 WEST 207 STREET 10,000 R7‐2 C1‐4 1.26 0 6,319 6,319 6,319 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,638 0 Y 32,500 0 7,500 7,500 0 0 0 0 40,000 37 80 2224 49 2.19 0 0 21,902 21,902 0 0 0 0 0 0 21,902 0 Y 32,500 0 7,500 7,500 0 0 0 0 40,000 37 80 1.91 0.67 1.29 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,170 2,500 9670 5170 2,500 7670 2,000 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,170 2,500 9670 0 0 0 Y 24,375 0 5,625 5,625 0 0 0 0 30,000 28 80 0 0 25,520 0 Y 32,500 0 7,500 7,500 0 0 0 0 40,000 37 80 161 DYCKMAN STREET 10,000 C4‐4 A 2219 19 504 WEST 207 STREET 2219 17 129 POST AVENUE SITE A TOTAL  3,750 3,750 7,500 R7‐2 R7‐2 R7‐2 AP 2224 177 DYCKMAN STREET 10,000 AN 1 C1‐4 C1‐4 C1‐4 C4‐4 2.55 0 0 25,520 15,520 10,000 0 0 0 * Lot areas of waterfront sites adjusted to only account for property located landward of the Mean High Water Line (MHWL). APPENDIX B TABLE 2: AMENDED APPLICATION POTENTIAL DEVELOP FUTURE‐WITH ACTION CONDITIONS SITE INFO SITE Tax  Tax Lot Block Address Lot Area  Prop.  Prop. Zoning (SF)  Overlay Total  FAR Res FAR Fresh  TOTAL  TOTAL   Retail  Com  CF  Residential  Supermar Com. Fac.  Commercial  (SF)  FAR FAR (SF) ket (SF)  (SF) (SF) INCREMENT  Office  (SF)  Auto‐ Related  (SF)  Storage/  Total  Auto‐ Max Bldg.  Residential  Total Com.  Garage  Wholesale/  Industrial  Commercial  Retail (SF)  Office (SF)  Related  Total (SF) Total DU's Ht. (SF) Fac. (SF) (SF) (SF)  Warehousing  (SF) (SF) (SF)  B 2215 801 5122 BROADWAY 2215 806 5124 BROADWAY 2215 807 5134 BROADWAY SITE B TOTAL  10,432 756 5,900 17,088 M1‐5 6.50 0.00 0.75 5.75 0 98,256 12,816 5,000 0 7,816 0 0 0 0 111,072 0 265 0 98,256 6,216 5,000 C 2214 41 425 WEST 218 ST. 2214 35 409 WEST 218 ST. 2214 39 423 WEST 218 ST. SITE C TOTAL  10,000 10,000 5,000 25,000 C6‐2 7.20 6.45 0.75 0.00 161,250 0 18,750 18,750 0 0 0 0 0 0 180,000 184 210 161,250 0 ‐3,700 18,750 D 2243 266 5073 BROADWAY 2243 261 5063 BROADWAY 2243 264 5069 BROADWAY SITE D TOTAL  5,000 9,025 5,000 19,025 R7D 5.60 4.85 0.75 0.00 92,271 0 14,269 14,269 0 0 0 0 0 0 106,540 105 115 92,271 ‐9,350 ‐493 E 2229 25 3966 10 AVE. 2229 32 3950 10 AVE. SITE E TOTAL  9,992 9,991 19,983 C4‐4D 7.20 4.00 3.00 0.20 79,932 3,997 59,949 10,000 0 49,949 0 0 0 0 143,878 91 165 79,932 3,997 F 2243 5037 BROADWAY 9,875 R7D 5.60 4.85 0.75 0.00 47,894 0 7,406 7,406 0 0 0 0 0 0 55,300 55 115 47,894 G 2232 1 2232 4 2232 5 2232 13 2232 14 SITE G TOTAL  5044 BROADWAY 5048 BROADWAY 5050 BROADWAY 10 AVE. 4020 10 AVE. 7,125 1,825 2,575 2,500 3,740 17,765 C4‐4D 7.20 4.00 3.00 0.20 71,060 3,553 53,295 10,000 0 43,295 0 0 0 0 127,908 81 165 H 2243 273 5099 BROADWAY 2243 270 5089 BROADWAY SITE H TOTAL  5,225 7,150 12,375 R7D C2‐4 5.60 4.85 0.75 0.00 60,019 0 9,281 9,281 0 0 0 0 0 0 69,300 69 WEST 207 ST. 3859 9 AVE. 3851 9 AVE. 3849 9 AVE. 4,332 60,650 12,500 2,492 79,974 C2‐4 7.20 6.20 0.75 0.25 I 2187 20* 2187 7 2187 5 2187 1 SITE I TOTAL  R9A / R8 R9A R9A R9A / R8 C2‐4 8.5 / 7.2 7.5/ 6.20 7.50 C2‐4 8.50 C2‐4 8.50 7.50 C2‐4 8.5 / 7.2 7.50/ 6.20 520,518 19,994 59,981 29,990 0 29,991 0 0 0 0 600,493 J 2228 32 500 WEST 211 ST. 6,500 C4‐4D 7.20 6.45 0.75 0.00 41,925 0 4,875 4,875 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 2223 34 3936 10 AVE. 18,950 C4‐4D 7.20 6.45 0.75 0.00 122,228 0 14,213 14,213 0 0 0 0 0 L 2214 1 5094 BROADWAY 17,655 C6‐2 7.20 6.45 0.75 0.00 113,875 0 13,241 13,241 0 0 0 0 0.75 0.75 168,828 20,588 20,588 20,588 0 0 0 247 R8 C2‐4 C2‐4 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 6,016 Storage/  Wholesale/  Industrial  (SF)  Warehousing  (SF)  Garage  (SF) Total (SF)  Total DU's ‐4,800 0 0 0 104,472 0 0 ‐22,450 0 0 0 157,550 184 5,869 0 ‐6,362 0 0 0 82,428 105 45,458 ‐1,241 49,949 ‐3,250 0 0 0 129,387 91 0 ‐2,494 7,406 ‐9,900 0 0 0 0 45,400 55 71,060 3,553 41,819 5,110 36,709 0 0 0 0 116,432 81 115 60,019 0 6,848 6,848 0 0 0 0 0 66,867 69 595 245 520,518 19,994 22,739 27,498 29,991 0 0 ‐34,750 0 563,251 595 46,800 48 165 41,925 0 3,990 4,875 0 ‐885 0 0 0 45,915 48 0 136,441 140 165 122,228 0 11,813 14,213 0 ‐2,400 0 0 0 134,041 140 0 0 127,116 130 210 113,875 0 ‐4,414 13,241 0 0 ‐17,655 0 0 109,461 130 0 0 0 210,004 193 165 168,828 20,588 18,488 20,588 0 ‐2,100 0 0 0 207,904 193 . M 2189 60 401 WEST 207 ST. 2203 3 27,450 R9A / R8A  C2‐4 8.5/7.2 7/5.7 3859 10 AVE. 5,367 N 2203 5 3863 10 AVE. 2203 7 3867 10 AVE. SITE N TOTAL  4,950 4,992 15,309 R8A C2‐4 7.20 6.45 0.75 0.00 98,743 0 11,482 11,482 0 0 0 0 0 0 110,225 113 165 48,989 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48,989 56 O 2202 25 401 WEST 205 ST. 9,992 R8A C2‐4 7.20 3.45 0.75 3.00 34,472 29,976 7,494 7,494 0 0 0 0 0 0 71,942 39 145 34,472 9,992 7,494 7,494 0 0 0 0 0 51,958 39 2202 21 3842 9 AVE. 9,992 R8A C2‐4 7.20 6.45 0.75 0.00 104,416 0 7,494 7,494 0 0 0 0 0 0 111,910 119 145 70,044 0 994 994 0 0 0 0 0 71,038 80 9,992 19,984 R7A R8A/ R7A C2‐4 C2‐4 Q 2202 17 414 WEST 206 ST. SITE Q TOTAL  4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 7.2 / 4.6 6.45 / 4.6 0.75 / 0.00 APPENDIX B TABLE 2: AMENDED APPLICATION POTENTIAL DEVELOP FUTURE‐WITH ACTION CONDITIONS SITE INFO SITE Tax  Tax Lot Block Address Lot Area  Prop.  Prop. Zoning (SF)  Overlay Total  FAR Res FAR Fresh  TOTAL  TOTAL   Retail  Com  CF  Residential  Supermar Com. Fac.  Commercial  (SF)  FAR FAR (SF) ket (SF)  (SF) (SF) INCREMENT  Office  (SF)  Storage/  Total  Auto‐ Max Bldg.  Residential  Total Com.  Garage  Wholesale/  Industrial  Commercial  Retail (SF)  Office (SF)  Related  Total (SF) Total DU's Ht. (SF) Fac. (SF) (SF) (SF)  Warehousing  (SF) (SF) (SF)  Auto‐ Related  (SF)  Storage/  Wholesale/  Industrial  (SF)  Warehousing  (SF)  Garage  (SF) Total (SF)  Total DU's R 2186 1 3835 9 AVE. 19,983 R8A C2‐4 7.20 6.45 0.75 0.00 128,890 0 14,987 14,987 0 0 0 0 0 0 143,878 147 145 128,890 0 ‐25,013 14,987 0 0 0 ‐40,000 0 103,878 147 T 2200 5 3801 10 AVE. 9,992 R8A C2‐4 7.20 6.45 0.75 0.00 64,448 0 7,494 7,494 0 0 0 0 0 0 71,942 74 145 31,974 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31,974 37 U 2200 1 3795 10 AVE. 9,992 R8A C2‐4 7.20 6.45 0.75 0.00 64,448 0 7,494 7,494 0 0 0 0 0 0 71,942 74 145 64,448 0 ‐22,482 2,494 0 0 ‐24,976 0 0 41,966 74 V 2200 35 425 WEST 203 ST. 19,983 R7A 4.60 4.60 0.00 0.00 91,922 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91,922 105 95 91,922 0 ‐19,983 0 0 0 0 ‐19,983 0 71,939 105 W 2174 65 2174 61 2174 60 2174 64 SITE W TOTAL  110 DYCKMAN STREET 116A DYCKMAN STREET 118 DYCKMAN STREET 112 DYCKMAN STREET 0.75 0.00 36,160 0 4,800 4,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 40,960 41 145 15,360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,360 17 X 2174 150 DYCKMAN STREET 20,000 C4‐5D 5.60 4.35 0.75 0.50 87,000 10,000 15,000 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 112,000 99 115 22,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32,000 25 Y 2220 54 141 DYCKMAN STREET 2220 50 133 DYCKMAN STREET SITE Y TOTAL  11,000 10,000 21,000 C4‐5D 5.60 4.85 0.75 0.00 101,850 0 15,750 15,750 0 0 0 0 0 0 117,600 116 125 33,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33,600 38 Z 2220 151 DYCKMAN STREET 10,000 C4‐5D 5.60 4.85 0.75 0.00 48,500 0 7,500 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 56,000 55 125 16,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,000 18 0.75 0.00 121,500 0 22,500 22,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 144,000 139 115 32,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32,400 37 AA AB AC 42 1 2175 74 160 DYCKMAN STREET 2175 70 168 DYCKMAN STREET SITE AA TOTAL  1,600 1,600 1,600 C4‐4D/ C4‐5D 1,600 6,400 7.2/ 5.6 20,000 10,000 C4‐5D/R7A 30,000 5.6/4.0 6.45/ 4.85 4.85/4.00 172 DYCKMAN STREET 10,000 C4‐5D 5.60 4.85 0.75 0.00 48,500 0 7,500 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 56,000 55 115 16,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,000 18 2175 60 190 DYCKMAN STREET 2175 61 184 DYCKMAN STREET 2175 63 180 DYCKMAN STREET SITE AC TOTAL  5,717 4,210 5,000 14,927 C4‐5D 5.60 3.60 2.00 0.00 53,737 0 29,854 29,854 0 0 0 0 0 0 83,591 61 125 5,224 0 18,659 18,659 0 0 0 0 0 23,883 6 5.60 3.60 2.00 0.00 25,200 0 14,000 14,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 39,200 29 125 2,450 0 8,750 8,750 0 0 0 0 0 11,200 3 2175 66 AD 2233 52 201 DYCKMAN STREET 7,000 C4‐5D AE 2246 65 242 DYCKMAN STREET 11,700 R8A 4.60/4.00 3.85/4.00 0.75 0.00 43,005 0 8,775 8,775 0 0 0 0 0 0 51,780 49 95 43,005 0 6,955 8,775 0 ‐1,820 0 0 0 49,960 49 AF 2246 28 290 DYCKMAN STREET 17,275 R8A 4.60/4.00 3.85/4.00 0.75 0.00 62,144 0 12,956 12,956 0 0 0 0 0 0 75,100 71 95 62,144 0 ‐21,614 12,956 0 0 0 ‐34,570 0 40,530 71 2234 1 651 ACADEMY STREET 2234 4 4840 BROADWAY SITE AG TOTAL  6,250 4,000 10,250 C4‐5D 5.60 4.85 0.75 0.00 49,713 0 7,688 7,688 0 0 0 57,401 57 115 16,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,400 19 AG 0 0 0 AH 2235 4880 BROADWAY 11,990 C4‐5D 5.60 4.85 0.75 0.00 58,152 0 8,993 8,993 0 0 0 0 0 0 67,145 66 115 25,899 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,899 29 AI 2235 7 4896 BROADWAY 2235 5 4892 BROADWAY SITE AI TOTAL  7,175 7,200 14,375 C4‐5D 5.60 4.85 0.75 0.00 69,719 0 10,781 10,781 0 0 0 0 0 0 80,500 80 115 23,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23,000 27 AJ 2235 20 610 WEST 207 STREET 2235 22 600 WEST 207 STREET SITE AJ TOTAL  24,798 3,950 C4‐5D/C4‐4D 28,748 0.00 3.40 0.00 0 0 97,743 21,561 0 76,182 0 0 0 0 97,743 0 145 ‐77,332 ‐21,561 97,743 21,561 76,182 0 0 0 0 ‐1,150 ‐88 1 7.2/5.6 AK 2235 28 582 WEST 207 STREET 15,000 C4‐5D 5.60 4.85 0.75 0.00 72,750 0 11,250 11,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 84,000 83 115 24,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24,000 27 AL 2227 33 565 WEST 207 STREET 10,000 C4‐5D 5.60 4.85 0.75 0.00 48,500 0 7,500 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 56,000 55 125 16,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,000 18 AM  2223 30 521 WEST 207 STREET 10,000 C4‐5D 5.60 4.85 0.75 0.00 48,500 0 7,500 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 56,000 55 115 16,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,000 18 2224 49 C4‐5D 5.60 4.85 0.75 0.00 48,500 0 7,500 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 56,000 55 115 16,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,000 18 0 0 0 54,000 55 155 24,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24,000 27 0 0 0 56,000 47 125 8,500 0 7,500 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 16,000 10 161 DYCKMAN STREET 10,000 A 2219 19 504 WEST 207 STREET 2219 17 129 POST AVENUE SITE A TOTAL  3,750 3,750 7,500 AP 2224 177 DYCKMAN STREET 10,000 AN 1 0 R8A C2‐4 7.20 6.45 0.75 0.00 48,375 0 5,625 5,625 0 0 C4‐5D 5.60 4.10 1.50 0.00 41,000 0 15,000 15,000 0 0 * Lot areas of waterfront sites adjusted to only account for property located landward of the Mean High Water Line (MHWL). 0 APPENDIX C  For Analysis Purposes only a   Listing of all Businesses Considered to be Potentially Directly   Displaced under CEQR Methodology in the Amended With‐Action Condition Although this technical memorandum analyzes long‐term trends, the descriptions of private firms and institutions subject to potential direct displacement are based on the businesses and organizations currently located on the projected development sites. In fact, New York City's streets are dynamic; businesses regularly open and close in response to changes in the economy, local demographics and consumer trends. Therefore, within the 15‐year period up to 2032, it possible that existing businesses identified as likely to face displacement pressure could close or relocate for reasons independent of the Amended With‐Action condition.  APPENDIX C TABLE 1: For Analysis Purposes Only Listing of all Businesses Considered to be Potentially Directly Displaced under CEQR Methodology SITE 1 3 3 5 6 7 10 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 20 21 21 COMPANY NAME A1‐ ALL GERMAN CAR CORP. ALL PARKING CORPORATION CONCOURSE ORTHOTIC & PROSTHETIC LAB EDISON PUBLIC PARKING  Parking 207 Garage LLC SUPER ASSOCIATED MARKETPLACE COMPARE FOODS DIVINE PARKING/CAR WASH J & H IMPORT SERVICES  OAISIS AUTO REPAIR AND PARKING PATACON PISAO SUSHI MAMBO P & N TOWING, COLLISION & PAINT OPUS LOUNGE TOBAGO EAT @ SHERMAN CREEK COCINA TALLER VACCA LOUNGE HIRAN REPAIR SHOP ALEGRIA BODY SHOP  The CLIFF  10TH UNITED IGNITION AUTO REPAIR STAR DELI  J & M GENERAL CAR REPAIR BROADWAY MECHANIC SERVICES  BROWN SUGAR 5060 AUTO SERVICE INC.  CHARLIE'S USED CAR SALES TREAD BIKE SHOP PUBLIC PARKING GARAGE/DYCKMAN CAR WASH/WINDOW TINTING  LORA WINDOW TINTING MAJOR  ADDRESS ZIP CODE NAICS CODE 400 W. 219TH ST 10034 81 5051 BROADWAY 10034 81 5045‐4049 BROADWAY 10034 62 3976 TENTH AVE. 10034 81 3875 NINTH AVE. 10034 81 430 W. 207 ST 10034 44‐45 3815 NINTH AVE.  10034 44‐45 3775 TENTH AVE. 10034 81 450 W. 203RD ST 10034 48‐49 431 W. 202ND ST.  10034 81 W. 202ND ST BTW 9TH & 10TH AVE 10034 72 431 W. 202ND ST.  10034 72 432 W 203RD ST 10034 81 72 417 W 202ND ST 10034 421 W 202ND ST 10034 72 421 W 202ND ST 10034 72 416B W 203RD ST 10034 72 416 W 203RD ST 10034 72 3761 10TH AVE. 10034 44‐45 3769 10TH AVE. 10034 81 72 3769 10TH AVE. 10034 3769 10TH AVE. 10034 81 3769 10TH AVE. 10034 44‐45 5060 BROADWAY 10034 81 5060 BROADWAY 10034 81 5060 BROADWAY 10034 72 10TH AVE 10034 81 10TH AVE/W 215TH ST 10034 44‐45 250 DYCKMAN ST 10034 44‐45 278 DYCKMAN ST 10034 81 284 DYCKMAN ST 10034 81 NAICS BUSINESS DESCRIPTION OTHER SERVICE‐ AUTOMOTIVE‐RELATED (SERVICE REPAIR) OTHER SERVICE‐ PUBLIC PARKING  HEALTH CARE & SOCIAL ASSISTANCE‐ MISC. HEALTH PRACITIONERS OTHER SERVICE‐ PUBLIC PARKING  OTHER SERVICE‐ PUBLIC PARKING  RETAIL‐ SUPERMARKET RETAIL‐ SUPERMARKET OTHER SERVICE‐ PUBLIC PARKING/CAR WASH TRANSPORTATION & WAREHOUSING ‐ PACKING & SHIPPING IMPORT SERVICE OTHER SERVICE‐ PUBLIC PARKING/AUTO SERVICE FOOD SERVICE‐ FOOD TRUCK FOOD SERVICE‐ RESTAURANT/LOUNGE OTHER SERVICE‐ TOWING/AUTO SERVICE FOOD SERVICE‐ RESTAURANT/LOUNGE FOOD SERVICE‐ RESTAURANT/LOUNGE FOOD SERVICE ‐TAKE OUT FOOD SERVICE‐ RESTAURANT/LOUNGE FOOD SERVICE‐ RESTAURANT/LOUNGE RETAIL‐ TIRE SALES/RIM REPAIR OTHER SERVICE ‐ AUTOMOTIVE‐RELATED (SERVICE REPAIR) FOOD SERVICE‐ DRINKING EST./NIGHTCLUB/LOUNGE  OTHER SERVICE ‐ AUTOMOTIVE‐RELATED (SERVICE REPAIR) RETAIL‐ BODEGA/GROCERY OTHER SERVICE ‐ AUTOMOTIVE‐RELATED (SERVICE REPAIR) OTHER SERVICE ‐ AUTOMOTIVE‐RELATED (SERVICE REPAIR) FOOD SERVICE‐ RESTAURANT/LOUNGE OTHER SERVICE‐ PUBLIC PARKING  RETAIL‐ USED CAR SALES RETAIL‐ BICYCLE STORE OTHER SERVICE‐ PUBLIC PARKING  OTHER SERVICE‐ AUTO WINDOW TINTING APPROX. SF  OCCUPIED  8,656 0 3,050 0 0 31,881 18,042 19,983 4,995 0 0 2,000 5,000 3,964 3,000 500 1,664 5,800 0 1,300 7,460 500 1,000 2,400 2,400 1,500 17,500 0 1,500 31,440 1,000 ESTIMATE OF  WORKERS 6 6 2 7 3 30 98 5 3 5 4 6 8 12 12 2 5 17 5 1 30 2 2 3 5 12 3 1 13 8 3