1 Slide 1 Hi, my name is Stephen Johnson and I am the project manager for the Manhattan Core parking text amendment project. The Department of City Planning (DCP) is proposing to revise the zoning regulations governing off - nity Districts 1 - 8). Since the street parking in the Manhattan Core (Commu Spring 2009, DCP has been studying these regulations in order to better understand how they have - affected the supply of off street parking, and how public parking is being used today. The existing regulations are now 30 years old and we wanted to take a fresh look at how they are - working, and as a result of this research, DCP believes we can make targeted improvements to the off street parking regulations. The goals of this project are to: • fine tune the existing 1982 regulations • add more clarity and predictability about parking policy • provide mobility improvements, and • update the 30 - year old regulations. And to do this while continuing the shift away from commuter parking and better ensuring that we are providing the right amount of parking spaces to residents and businesses.
2 Slide 2 There are about 32 slides in the presentation and I am going to start off with • background material including the current parking regulations in the Manhattan Core • key findings from the Manhattan Core parking study and what it tells us about parking usage in Manhattan, and the reasons for proposing changes. • Then I will take you through the proposal. I also wanted to mention that we have done extensive outreach on the study and this proposal prior to today (November 5, 2012) and we believe that working and collaborating with other stakeholders has really stren gthened this proposal.
3 Slide 3 The current regulations have their origins in a parking management strategy called the Transportation Control Plan (TCP) that was adopted in response to a lawsuit filed under the Clean Air Act. The TCP bile use & reduce off - street parking. By reducing off - street parking in had measures to reduce automo th Street, it was thought that the Manhattan central business district (CBD), which is below 60 commuters driving into Manhattan would be discouraged and mass transit would be encourag ed, and this would result in improvements to air quality, and increased mobility. However, New York State does not in fact rely on parking regulations to ensure compliance with Clean Air Act standards, and improvements in air quality over the years are a ttributable to other factors such as upgrades in automobile technologies and emissions. Because of this, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is in the process of removing historical references to the 1982 regulations in the State Im plementation Plan (SIP) for carbon monoxide to clarify that they are not a strategy for achievement of Clean Air Act compliance Also, any amendments to the 1982 zoning regulations will be reviewed under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) f or their potential to affect air quality, but are not subject to Clean Air Act regulatory review. In any event, the outcome of the TCP is that the Manhattan Core parking regulations adopted in 1982 , were and still are the most progressive parking regulatio ns in the country and the three goals are listed on the slide.
4 Slide 4 The 1982 regulations continue to be in effect today in Man CDs 1 - 8 which is below 96th St on the east side, 110th St on the West side. This area is referred to as the Manhattan Core and inclu des some of the City’s densest neighborhoods, major institutions, parks, transit hubs, and CBD. The Core does not include the area subject to the special Hudson Yards parking regulations, Roosevelt Island or Governor’s Island. The 1982 parking regulation s introduced a number of changes to parking in the Core from the 1961 regulations and the most significant change was a shift from minimum parking requirements for new residential developments to maximum parking limits on parking spaces. arking was required for all new residential developments, while after 1982, no parking Prior to 1982, p was required where permitted, limiting the amount. These residential parking spaces were restricted to only occupants of the building and these are known as ‘accessory’ parking spaces. Looking at the map on the slide, you can see the parking maximums for residential development are set at 20% of residential units in CD 1 - 6 and 35% of units in CD 7 - 8. You could get more than this maximum number of accessory parking spaces but you could only get them through the special permit process.
5 Slide 5 The 1982 regulations also included changes to accessory parking not only for residential districts, but for commercial, retail and manufacturing districts. These bullets on the slide highlight some of those changes. For example, office, retail, and manufac turing are set at 1 parking space per 4,000 SF. One particular issue to mention is as - of - right (A - O - R) public parking lots. One of the primary goals of the 1982 regulations was to limit commuter parking which focused on public parking lots. So while ore 1982 you could have surface parking lots up to 150 spaces in most commercial (C2 - C5) and all bef manufacturing districts, with the 1982 regulations, public parking lots are no longer allowed A - O - R in commuter areas. Also, all public parking garages are sub ject to a special permit.
6 Slide 6 If you do not comply with all zoning regulations, then this requires a discretionary action. Special permits and authorizations are discretionary actions. This slide shows the authorization process as it the Manhattan Core. pertains to parking in After 1982 if a development wants to: • provide up to 15 spaces in an existing building or • build a public parking lot up to 150 spaces in certain locations, then an authorization is needed from the CPC. It can be a lengthy proc ess with these levels of review and there have only been about nine authorization applications since 2000.
7 Slide 7 While the previous slide showed the authorization process, this slide shows the special permit process. If a development wants to provide: • Any public parking garage • more accessory parking than allowed A - O - R, • more than 15 spaces of new accessory parking in a existing building • build a public parking lot of over 150 spaces, then they would need a special permit. These special permits go through an even lengthy review process including an environmental review. Since 2000, there have been about 90 special permit applications for parking in the Manhattan Core and about 73 have been approved.
8 Slide 8 nd information on the existing off - That was some backgrou street parking regulations from 1982. Now I’m going to highlight the Manhattan Core Parking Study which is the basis for this zoning text amendment. After three decades of experience with these regulations, the Departmen t launched a study to collect data about off street parking to help inform our understanding of parking today and how the rules - affect supply and utilization. We released the Manhattan Core Parking Study in December of 2011 and it is up on our website. L et’s go through the methodology and key findings from the report.
9 Slide 9 A large portion of our report was based on a survey. The survey methodology was quite straight forward, DCP went to 110 public parking garages and talked to over 2800 people as they were wa iting for the attendants to get their cars. On the slide you can see a page from the survey and it includes questions about trip purpose, why are you parking here, who is paying for your parking, home zip y of auto trips to Manhattan, and occupation. code, reasons for not taking mass transit, frequenc The number of parking spaces from the survey represent about 15% of the public parking spaces in the CBD licensed by the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). All NYC parking facilities with a private operato r are required by law to obtain a license from DCA. We got a lot of good data from the survey but there were some limitations and this mainly affected monthly residential parkers. Because residential monthly parkers often call down ahead of time to the attendants and then hop in their waiting car, they were difficult to capture because they did not want to wait around to answer survey questions. Also, residents who had cars in these facilities were not necessarily using them during the survey periods so some were not included in the survey. So the survey results underestimate the number of residential monthly parkers using the surveyed facilities.
10 Slide 10 I’ m going to briefly touch on each of the six key findings and then go into each finding and the supporting data. #1. Looking back over 30 years, the existing parking regulations have supported a growing, successful MC and it is clear that Manhattan is still a thriving world city and more successful than it was in 1982. #2. The number of off - street parking spaces ha ve slowly decreased by 20% as have auto commuters. #3. Car ownership among MC residents is relatively low. Approximately 23% of Manhattan Core households own a car compared to 46% citywide. #4. In contrast with 1982 when almost all public parking was ut ilized by commuters and people on business, now, we see a shift, a large portion of public parking spaces are being used by MN residents on a monthly basis. #5. Despite zoning rules limiting parking to accessory use, most new parking facilities have foun d a way to operate as public parking facilities. #6. Parking still plays a role in the Core and limited amounts of new parking are still needed to support economic activity and residents.
11 Slide 11 I’m now going to go through the data and support material for each of the key findings. Our first key finding is that the Manhattan Core parking regulations are compatible with a growing and successful CBD. Looking back over the 30 years that the regulations have been in effect, they have supported the Manhattan and NYC . Regional population is up 16%. Manhattan population is up 11%. Manhattan employment is up 16%. One of the criticisms during the discussions before the 1982 regulations were approved, were that these parking regulations were going to thwart economic ac tivity and hurt businesses in Manhattan. But the data shows that the parking regulations are compatible with population and job growth and a thriving CBD.
12 Slide 12 Continuing with the first key finding. Looking at the graphic on the slide, the light blue is 1982 a nd the yellow is 2009. This graphic represents the number of people coming in by different mode and the number of persons is determined by occupancy surveys and vehicle classifications. Even with more people, more jobs, & overall growth, the number of pe ople entering the Manhattan CBD daily by vehicle has declined by over 100,000 since 1982, while during the same time period, the number of people using transit has increased by almost half a million. This shift to transit is especially pronounced among co mmuters. Manhattan has many public transportation options and the transit supported growth and development in the Core, has lessened - the role of off - street parking. So to summarize this finding: there has been overall growth in population and employment; there is an increase in the volume of trips into the CBD; the number of people entering into the CBD by car has dropped; and transit use has risen.
13 Slide 13 The second key finding is that the supply of off - street parking in the Manhattan CBD has declined by about 1/5 since 1978. Looking at the illustration on the slide, the blue line represents vehicles entering the CBD from 1978 to 2010. While the previous c hart showed the number of people entering the CBD, this chart shows the number of vehicles. There is a steady increase of vehicles entering the CBD, peaking in 1999 with 844,000 and then trending downward. The vertical dotted line represents when the Man hattan Core regulations went into effect . Looking at the yellow line across the bottom of the chart, this represents the number of DCA licensed, off - street public parking spaces in the CBD. These spaces have decreased from around 127,000 in 1978 to approx 102,000 in 2010. The decline of off - street parking spaces is due to a number of reasons, like the redevelopment of sites that had parking facilities as well as the effects of the MC regulations in limiting the provision of parking.
14 Slide 14 The third key findin g is that car ownership and car commuting in the MC are relatively low. Only 23% of Manhattan Core households have a car (compared to 46% Citywide), and only about 1/5 of those households commute to work by car. We also know that car ownership rates inc rease with household income throughout the city. This pattern holds true within the Core. Looking at the chart on the slide, the yellow is households with cars and the blue is without, you can see the rates rising with income until we get to 36% of househo lds earning $130,000 or more having vehicles. Car ownership rises with income. Also, if you look at the U.S. Census, median household income in the MC, adjusted for 2009 dollars, has increased 239% from 1980 to 2009 from $37,000 to $88,000. To summarize this key finding, car ownership rates are low in Core, ownership rates rise with income and median income is rising in the Manhattan Core.
15 Slide 15 Demographic changes over the last 30 years also have had impacts on parking and car ownership in the Core. Neighborh oods such as Tribeca and the Far West Side have seen the rise of a significant amount of residential redevelopment and this has been by higher income residents and families with children, which are characteristics highly correlated with - car ownership. Th e chart here reflects Households with Vehicles and with Children. The two bars on the left are Households with Children and the two bars on the right are Households without Children (1990 & 2008). Yellow represents car ownership. Manhattan Core households with children owned vehicles at around twice the rate as households without children. To summarize this finding: car ownership rates in the Core are relatively low; car ownership rates increase with higher income and presence of children; there has been notable residential redevelopment in the Core; and median income has risen in the Core (239% from 1980 - 2009).
16 Slide 16 The fourth key finding is that public parking facilities serve a large number of Manhattan residents and fill neighborhood needs for residentia l parking. In contrast with 1982, when most public parking was utilized by commuters and other people parking on business, now we see a shift a large portion ly of spaces in public parking facilities were found to be utilized by Manhattan residents on a month - provided data, 44% of all public parking spaces in surveyed facilities were basis. According to operator leased to residential monthly parkers and in some residential areas, the share was much higher at over 70% in CD 2, 3, 7, 8. This suggests that res idents are parking their vehicles in public parking facilities in residential neighborhoods and occupying a larger share of the parking spaces than was the case when the Core parking regulations went into effect. Resident Parking Tax Exemption. We used data from this The second bullet refers to the Manhattan tax exemption as a key research tool for the study. This is an exemption that reduces taxes on parking fees for Manhattan residents. Drivers who park in Manhattan are charged an 18.375% tax on rental parking spaces. However, if you qualify, you can have this tax reduced to 10.375%. To be eligible, Manhattan residents must own and register their car in Manhattan and park in a long - term rented space. Residents who file for the exemption must notify the Department of Finance (DOF). We looked at DOF records and, on average, only 10% of residents who filed for the tax exemption lived in the same building where they parked their vehicles; 63% lived either in the same building or
17 within a 1/4 of where they parked their vehicle; 84% lived either in the same building or within a 1/2 of where they parked their vehicle. This suggests that Manhattan residents are not necessarily parking in their own buildings, but parking their cars around the neighborhood or one neighborhood over, using the market to find monthly parking in accessory or public parking.
18 Slide 17 The fifth key finding is that most new parking facilities in the Manhattan Core operate as public facilities. This is despite zoning regulations limiting parking to accessory use, most new parking facilities have found a way to operate as public parking while the zoning regulations require permitted parking to be reserved for accessory use only. The 1982 regulati ons assumed that distinguishing between accessory and public parking was necessary to limit commuter parking. However, the Department of Consumer Affairs licensing regulations are not entirely in sync with this distinction, therefore many accessory garage s under zoning have obtained public parking licenses. Most residential buildings do not have parking but those that do have a DCA license. All New York City parking facilities with a private operator are required by law to obtain a license from DCA. So t he survey and research showed that this distinction between accessory and public is not how parking is being used today – which is actually a good thing because in a sense it is leveling the playing field, opening up more parking options for Manhattan resi dents and functioning as a shared community resource.
19 Slide 18 The final key finding is that limited amounts of new parking are still needed in the Manhattan Core. This graphic shows the results from one of the survey questions when we asked “Why did you not transit?” and 42% of respondents cited transit deficiencies as to why they didn’t take transit. take We know that some parts of the city and some portions of the region are not well - served by transit because, depending on where you live, buses or trains may stop running; they run infrequently; or not at a convenient time . This suggests that some respondents just don’t see public transit as an option. This is similar to the response to the same question as to why did you not take transit, 24% cited “comfort .” Most people traveling into the Core who park in public parking facilities have a perception that they need to drive but there are legitimate reasons for not taking transit, for example, if you are transporting goods or equipment, making multiple stops , if there are other people in the car that you have to pick up or drop off, and the previously mentioned problems with transit schedules, stops or transfers. The survey also suggests that some travelers into the Manhattan Core might have some flexibilit y and sometimes they use transit and other times use a car and could possibly be induced to use transit for more trips.
20 Slide 19 So this is the final slide before we get into the proposal. Why change the regulations? There are a number of reasons. First, the spec ial permit application process does not give the City Planning Commission (CPC), the New York City Council, and Community Boards enough information to - O determine the appropriate number of spaces for a given site over and above the A R maximums or - build a public parking garage. Frequently the public’s comments concern whether the amount of parking proposed in a project is actually needed. The special permit findings offer no opportunity to review this so virtually all special permit requests easily meet the required findings. We believe a more sensible and rigorous standard should be applied. For example, perhaps a developer is proposing to build a medium - sized residential building with twice the amount of permitted parking. The special permit process does n ot give the CPC the tools to evaluate the appropriate number of spaces at the site, such as how many off - street parking facilities are already in the neighborhood, how stable is the population, has there been a lot of recent development and has that develo pment created/remove parking. Second, as I already stated, the current regulations do not reflect the way parking is being used today. We now know from our study, Manhattan residents don’t necessarily park their cars in their own building, but park around the neighborhood in public parking or accessory spaces. Third, being 30 years old, today’s rules contain a number of provisions that need to be updated such as the existing provisions for reservoir space in garages. Fourth, the regulations contain few d esign standards and
21 pedestrian safety standards. Finally, there are obsolete references to inactive categories of publicly - assisted housing. These are holdovers from the pre - 1982 regulations, and while they have no practical effect, they create confusion as to what rules apply to new affordable housing in the Core. Overall, we believe targeted changes to the parking regulations can provide clarity, predictability and reflect a contemporary understanding of parking usage in the Manhattan Core.
22 Slide 20 So now let’ s go through the proposal.
23 Slide 21 The first proposal is to update the framework for reviewing Special Permit applications that want to - O - R. The same categories of parking that are subject to a exceed the number of spaces allowed A ubject to a special permit under this proposal. special permit today would be s The first arrow on the slide is the existing special permit framework and just as a reminder, in CDs 1 - 6 it is set at 20% of residential units and CDs 7 - 8 it is 35%; so to get parking above the A - O - R maximums, you need a special permit for additional acces sory parking, and for public parking facilities. The second arrow is the proposed framework which includes a special permit based on residential growth, special generators, and for large sites. Now let’s go through these special permits.
24 Slide 22 The first pr oposal for the special permits is the new special permit findings. There are two components. First, new special permit findings would require applicants to provide additional information that would help the City Planning Commission, New York City Council , and communities to rationally assess whether increases over A - O - R parking maximums for residential development make sense. The new findings would focus on recent changes in the supply of parking and surrounding residential ing should keep pace with population growth. growth in recognition that park Additionally, neighborhood characteristics, the streetscape in a residential neighborhood, pedestrian safety and land use conflicts must also be addressed by the applicant, an example of this would be the pote ntial conflict if you are building a large garage next to a public school. These new findings will give the Commission and community boards the ability to consider several new factors in reviewing these sites.
25 Slide 23 nd The 2 component is to create New Special Permits . As a reminder, retail, commercial, community facilities and manufacturing uses currently permit 1 space per 4,000 SF with a max of 100 spaces; and no more than 225 spaces for a mix of uses. These are l unchanged with this proposal. The New Specia Permits are to make clear that certain economic development & employment generators could have a valid justification for parking spaces beyond A - O - R maximums. These special generators include hospitals, theaters, cultural institutions, and major employme nt generators, all of which are critical to the economic health of the City, but they also must demonstrate a need for additional parking with the proposed new findings and conditions. For the second bullet, Large Sites also have impacts on the surrounding parking supply and can have notable impacts on parking resources in a community if a significant number of new residential units are being proposed. The photo here is of the East River Realty site on the East Side just south of the United Nations. For the se types of sites, the CPC would consider the availability of parking in the surrounding neighborhood, the demand generated onsite, as well as a phased parking plan. Additionally, for these special permits , the CPC would be able to find that Transportat ion Demand Management (TDM) measures be applied to the site. TDM is a set of strategies to relieve congestion, improve efficiency around the proposed development through things like parking management, pedestrian/bike improvements, transit enhancements, ca r sharing, and employer - based programs. So for example, is the Economic Generator providing subsidized parking for employees, are they creating
26 a car pool system for employees, do they have car share vehicles and bike parking for employees, do they have al ternative work hours, telecommuting, etc. Overall, these new special permits will give the CPC and other stakeholders the ability to consider several factors in reviewing these sites.
27 Slide 24 Our second proposal is that • all parking in new accessory facilities may be made available to the public and • existing accessory parking facilities operating with a DCA license are permitted as a conforming use. As I mentioned earlier, this recommendation reflects how Manhattan residents are parking now – residents are using accessory parking spaces as a shared neighborhood resource. This also uses the market to allocate spaces more efficiently. All facilities would retain the right to make spaces available only to specific users, such as residents of the building. So, for example, if you have an accessory parking facility in your coop and it functions as an accessory facility, it can remain that way.
28 Slide 25 - O - R parking, will have layout and design Our third proposal is all new parking facilities, including A quirements. These standards are needed to ensure pedestrian safety in parking facilities with signs re and speed bumps. We are also proposing that reservoir spaces be reduced for smaller facilities because the existing zoning requires more spaces than are nee ded. However, reservoir spaces would be required for accessory parking facilities & rental car establishments which currently have no requirement. We are also proposing to exempt ramp space and mechanical space from square footage calculations. The exist ing zoning requires the total garage size to be limited to 200 SF per parking space for attended garages. Some garages can’t physically fit all of their permitted parking spaces. This is particularly the case with smaller garages that have long ramps that are included in square footage calculations. Also exempting the ramp space removes an artificial incentive to locate parking at the street level rather than using street frontage for active uses like retail.
29 Slide 26 One issue that originated from our earlier outr each efforts on this project is that parking operators are increasingly seeking to develop automated parking facilities. While it is more widely used outside n the U.S. and there are only a few of these facilities in Manhattan, operators expressed interest i looking to expand this new cutting edge technology. While automated parking requires a high initial investment, it offers a number of advantages in that it takes up less space for the same number of cars; there are no emissions because the engines are not running, and therefore reduced ventilation of the parking facility which permits full enclosure and eliminates mechanical ventilation systems and those horrible first floor vents out onto the street ; and damage to parked vehicles is eliminated becaus e each vehicle rests on an individual pallet. Since they operate differently from traditional garages, we are proposing alternative standards.
30 Slide 27 So in order to encourage the development of automated parking because of the more efficient use of space and th e environmental benefits over conventional parking garages, DCP is proposing to create the following standards: Define automated parking in the zoning resolution. DCP is proposing to permit the Department of Buildings (DOB) to determine capacity and to r educe reservoir spaces based on operational characteristics because flexibility is needed because each facility is custom designed to the site and the technology is new and evolving. DCP is also proposing to Increase the existing garage floor area exempt ion for automated facilities from 23’ to 40’ by CPC Chair certification as long as the following three conditions are met: • there is floor area above the garage (that is, there is another use to the development and it is not just a garage); • the 1st floor must be wrapped by another use to a depth of 30’; • the façade up to 40’ is consistent with rest of the building façade.
31 Slide 28 Our fifth proposal is to create more flexibility in rental vehicle parking in the Core. This issue also also came up during outreach for this project. Currently, rental car companies are limited to 10 spaces or 10% of total capacity in public parking garag es in a few commercial districts and manufacturing districts, the 1982 regulations also capped the number of rental car spaces at a specific location at 100. We did some research and we found that the Core is a prime location for car rental & car share a nd unlike other locations, the Manhattan car rental market is for Manhattan residents and not tourists. These services also help contribute to a low car ownership rate, which encourages transit use and reduces the need for off street parking. However, we also found that renting a car in Manhattan for - the weekend can be difficult. All of the major rental car companies hire people to drive empty cars into Manhattan from other locations like airports in order to get them in for weekend rentals to Manhattan r esidents. This creates congestion on the roads, tunnels, and bridges from Thursday night to all day Friday and then Sunday night when the vehicles are coming back. So to encourage more efficient operations and reduce congestion in the Core, the proposal is to allow rental cars to park in public parking garages like car share vehicles which is up to 40% of spaces (C2,C4,C5,C6,C8 all M). Also we are proposing to set the cap on rental cars in a dedicated facility to: 150 in C2; 225 in C4, C5, C6, C8; & 300 i n M districts. This
32 will give rental car companies more flexibility and make operations more efficient which could reduce congestion, help keep car ownership rates low and provide better service to Manhattan residents.
33 Slide 29 Our sixth proposal is to create m ore flexibility for commercial vehicles to park in the MC. Our research showed that the off - street parking regulations for commercial vehicles could also be adjusted to encourage more efficient operations and reduce congestion in the Core. Small commerci al vans and vehicles (maximum length of 20’) are limited as to where they can park (up to 10% in public parking facilities in C5, C6, M1 - 6) and they drive around during the day and at the end of the day they have to leave Manhattan during rush hour with an empty van because they are not able to park. This encourages needless back and forth driving and contributes to congestion. The proposal is to increase the permitted percentage of small commercial vehicle parking in public parking lots and garages to 50 % in C5, C6, C8 districts and all manufacturing districts. The 50% could also include car share or car rental vehicles. This would provide more opportunities for parking commercial vehicles and vans overnight in the Core but would also give residents more flexibility to rent or use car share vehicles.
34 Slide 30 This issue also came up during our initial outreach for this project, we were asked to look into the issue of trucks blocking sidewalks as they un/load. If you are required or permitted to have a loading ber th or loading dock, the current regulation is that the depth must be 33’ x 12’. The seventh proposal is to increase the minimum length by 4’ to 37’ x 12’ which will fit common types of trucks that operate in the Core. Loading berths are already exempt fro m floor area calculations, and we are also proposing to exempt that extra required space. We are also proposing to exempt space for trash or recycling dumpsters up to 12’ x 25’ or 300 square feet for buildings over 100,000 square feet. This is to encourage keeping the loading areas free of other things - they often are cluttered with other things. This is also similar to the floor area exclusions for recycling areas in residentia l buildings. The DOB Commissioner would also have the ability to waive the added depth for sites with infrastructure or below ground constraints as well as exempt loading requirements on zoning lots with two street frontages when one does not permit curb cuts. This is a very specific waiver which would be allowed when the second street frontage, where curb cuts are permitted, has an unusually narrow street width like in Lower Manhattan or is encumbered by landmarked buildings, residential buildings or a large commercial building that preclude access to a required loading dock.
35 Slide 31 Finally, our last proposal Other Components. There is no effective parking requirement for affordable housing in the Manhattan Core today. However, there is text in the zoning re solution which references discontinued federal programs, and could be mistakenly read as a parking requirement for affordable housing. These were federal programs that were discontinued in the nd we are therefore proposing to remove 1980s, the references are obsolete, the text is inapplicable, a these provisions. Removing them has no practical effect but makes the parking regulations easier for everyone to understand. We are not changing programs or requirements. For the second bullet, we would allow the re duction or removal of pre‐1982 required parking by CPC authorization. Today, while parking is optional in new development, parking that is required as a legacy of pre - 1982 parking rules cannot be removed. There was an example of this in 2010 with the rd Ellio Street where in order to allow more affordable housing to be built t Chelsea houses on West 23 on an underutilized parking lot, the CPC and NYCC needed to adopt special zoning rules specific to that site. This provision would extend the Elliot Chelsea ru les that allowed for reductions or removal of “once - required” parking throughout the Manhattan Core on a case - by - case basis if the reduction will not have undue adverse effects on residents or businesses. The example happens to be affordable housing but th is would apply to any development.
36 Slide 32 th The next steps for the Manhattan Core Parking text amendment. On Nov 5 the project was referred out for public review for 60 days. We will continue outreach efforts to Manhattan Community Boards and key stakeholders. To learn more about this project please visit our website. If you have any questions or comments, please email: [email protected] . Thank you.
37 Slide 33
D E A R T M E N T O F D E F E N S E P N A L O F W A R M A W U A L J U N E 2 0 1 5 O F F I C E O F G E N ER A L C O U N S E L D P A R T M E N T E O F D E F E N S EMore info »
2018 - Course D escriptions 19 Students should consult their professional staff adviser and faculty adviser each quarter prior to registering for courses to be sure they are meeting graduation require...More info »
IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK FOR THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD FULLY REVISED THIRD EDITION IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK FOR THE CONVENTION ON THE FOR THE CONVENTION ON THE RI...More info »
The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress A Report of the Surgeon General U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesMore info »