Dept of Sanitation Garage in Hudson Square

[bigkdc]

As has been discussed in many threads here, plans have finally come out for a new sanitation garage in hudson square. The plan is to build 3 facilities in the area with the largest being in the UPS parking lot at the corner of Spring St and West St. Evidently the plan is for a joint use facility for UPS and the dept of sanitation that will be 140-150 feet high.

The proposed plan is in its early stages but the fight has already begun as there is a big turnout planned by the friends of hudson square at a hearing on the project on Jan 31.

It will be interesting to see how all of the folks who have purchased milion dollar plus condos in the area will react as news gets out. More details on the project can be found at the following link:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dsny/downloads/pdf/guides/MJLMN125.pdf

[lofter1]

It might be very difficult to win a fight against this plan.

DSNY is under order to remove existing facilities from the Piers / Hudson River Park. A large site is need to consolidate those facilites.

There seems to be one other option at 11th Avenue / W. 30th Street, but with plans for Hudson Yards that seems like the less likely site.

From the document:



The Proposed Action is consistent with the existing mix of land uses, and the garage is an as-of-right use under the existing M2-4 zoning ... would be within the requisite floor-air ratio (FAR) of 5.0; however DSNY would seek special permits for height variance and relief from streetwall and setback requirements ...

However, if built this facility might turn the Urban Glass House into one of the biggest "luxury development" turkeys in all of NYC.

On the other hand if a well designed building with a "green" roof were built it could be a great benefit to the community at large.

Some maps showing the proposed facilities / traffic patterns ...

***

[lofter1]

Curbed (http://www.curbed.com/archives/2007/01/09/west_soho_paradise_threatened_by_sanitation.php#mo re), in its own inimitable way, has a big report on this today; here are the visuals -- go to the link for the text ...

West Soho Paradise Threatened by Sanitation

Tuesday, January 9, 2007, by BL

http://www.curbed.com/2007_01_westsohogarage.jpg

http://www.curbed.com/2007_01_anmap.jpg

[bigkdc]

There was a proposal back in 1999 to do something similar but the city and ups could never agree on how to make it work....

I am reading this as a garage for storing and fixing trucks - this isnt going to be a garbage processing site, is it?

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
Yes. It is replacing the truck/salt storage facility now at Gansevoort.

[lofter1]

But NOT a garbage processing site ...

1.1 Project Description

DSNY is proposing to construct and operate a new garage facility in lower Manhattan on a site generally bounded by Spring Street, Washington Street and West Street. The new garage would consolidate operations at the proposed site to provide better service to the local community districts, achieve an economy of scale, replace outdated facilities, and improve operational efficiencies. It would also enable DSNY to comply with its legal obligation to vacate the Gansevoort peninsula, 2 Bloomfield Street/427 Gansevoort Street, within the recently established Hudson River Park, which currently holds garages for Manhattan Districts 2 and 4, and which will in the future temporarily house up to two other Manhattan garage districts pending completion of new facilities but will at no time hold more than three Manhattan garage districts...


The new multi-story garage (approximately 427,000 gross square feet of space) would be located on an 85,450 square foot- (sq ft-) site that is currently owned and used by the United Parcel Service (UPS) for truck trailer staging and parking (known as the Equipment Staging Lot) as part of their Manhattan South Facility operations...

The overall UPS Package Distribution Facility operations would remain as they currently are. There would be no change in their existing operations. The number of UPS trucks, trailers, other vehicles and employees would remain at their present levels...

There would be a maximum of 128 pieces of DSNY equipment operating out of the new garage. The total number of employees on a peak day over three shifts would be about 231 (including 191 sanitation workers). The peak number of employees working out of the new garage during any individual shift would be 108. The facility would operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.

DSNY truck and equipment access and egress to the DSNY garage would be via West Street and Washington Street. The configuration of West Street in this location allows for queuing of trucks and equipment, when needed. Vehicles exiting the garage at this point would turn north onto West Street. DSNY would also be able to enter and exit the new garage via Washington Street (one-way in a southerly direction) at the northern end of the site. DSNY employees would enter and access the garage from Washington Street at mid-block...

The DSNY salt storage facility (Block 600, Lot 29) would be located just north of the new garage for ready access to the vehicles and equipment. The covered facility would have a maximum storage capacity of 6,500 tons of salt. Loading operations would take place from the Washington Street side of the facility. There would be two aboveground storage tanks for liquid calcium chloride used to melt snow and ice...

[bigkdc]

Has anyone seen anything on how the city and UPS are working together on this? Seems odd for the city to make a proposal on land they don't own. I assume the city would give UPS some sort of tax break in exchange for entering into this situation?

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
I think it was UPS that initiated the deal, in light of what they were facing.

The lot was underutilized. UPS had been trying to sell all or part of it, but retain a presence for truck staging. The city wanted the land for the garage, and could have used Eminent Domain to acquire the property.

It's not clear to me who will own the garage. The scoping document states that the DSNY will be the lead agency in the DEIS, and one of the alternatives to be discussed is a sanitation garage without UPS..

The condo owners are really stuck, but they should have looked at a zoning map and researched neighborhood issues before buying. I posted about the city's plans for a garage a year ago. The Urban Glass House is on a corner of a C zone (bounded by Canal, Washington, Spring and Hudson) that is surrounded by M zones.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Found some information:



City to build garbage truck parking tower in Hudson Square

By Albert Amateau

The Department of Sanitation wants to build garages on three sites, one of them owned by United Parcel Service, in the Hudson Square neighborhood where six luxury residential towers have risen in the past few years.

The project would require joint use of the 85,450-square-foot U.P.S. parking lot on the north side of Spring St. along West St. behind the U.P.S. Washington St. truck-loading facility. Sanitation would build a garage 150 feet tall — 13 feet taller than the new, 12-story, Philip Johnson-designed Urban Glass House directly across Spring St. from the site. The garage would store garbage and recycling trucks, snow plows and salt spreaders on the upper level, and U.P.S. would use the lower level for the staging area for its Manhattan South sorting and dispatching operation.

The garage would be home to trucks from three Sanitation districts, including those currently on Gansevoort Peninsula, as well as those from the Sanitation garage on the south side of Spring St. at West St. Under a legal settlement, the city must remove its garbage trucks from Gansevoort by 2012 so that the peninsula can be redeveloped as part of the Hudson River Park.

Norman Black, U.P.S. public affairs director, said the city was threatening to take over the property under eminent domain, so the company made a deal.

“We’re a reluctant participant in this project,” he said. “We said we’d agree to the current proposal if the city got all the necessary approvals,” Black said. “Questions about ownership [of the new garage] haven’t even begun to be addressed yet.”

The site is a relatively quiet parking lot during the day, but at night serves as the crucial staging area for trucks that pull into the U.P.S. building as soon as loaded trucks pull out. Without the staging area, U.P.S. would have to move the entire operation, Black said.

Also part of the D.O.S. project is the demolition of the existing Sanitation garage at Spring and West Sts. and replacing it with a truck-washing and refueling facility that would accommodate four 4,000-gallon diesel fuel tanks, a 4,000-gallon unleaded gasoline tank, a 4,000-gallon ethanol tank, a 2,000-gallon hydraulic oil tank, a 2,000-gallon motor oil tank and a 1,000-gallon waste oil tank.

The third part of the project calls for converting an existing parking garage on Washington and Clarkson Sts. into a covered shed to store 6,500 tons of road salt with two above-ground storage tanks for liquid calcium chloride used to melt snow and ice on city streets. This would replace the salt shed on Gansevoort.

Artist Julian Hatton, who lives nearby on Broome St., said “I used to paint the sides of those [U.P.S. and Sanitation] trucks a while back.” He was not concerned about the more recent residents to the neighborhood who have moved into the new luxury buildings.

“The people that live in those condos need to have a little bit of disruption to their lives, it’s like you need to have a trust fund in order to even get one,” he said,

But Francis Dosne, who owns Manhattan Graphics nearby, said: “I am sure it will cause a major traffic problem for residents in this area, there is no doubt about that.”

Sanitation will conduct a public scooping session on the project from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Wed., Jan. 31, in the Rosenthal Pavilion on the 10th floor of New York University’s Kimmel Hall, at 60 Washington Sq. S.

Community Board 2, which originally supported Sanitation’s proposed takeover of the U.P.S. site, reversed itself a year ago under new leadership. Friends of Hudson Square, a neighborhood group headed by David Reck, a C.B. 2 member, has always opposed the project.

With reporting by Priya Idiculla


Downtown Express is published by
Community Media LLC.
145 Sixth Avenue, New York, NY 10013
Phone: (212) 229-1890 Fax: (212) 229-2790
Advertising: (646) 452-2465 •
© 2006 Community Media, LLC

Email: news@downtownexpress.com

[bigkdc]

TRUMP DUMPS ON SOHO'S TRASH PLAN

By RITA DELFINER
January 16, 2007 -- Donald Trump is ready to talk trash to help his future SoHo neighbors take on the Sanitation Department.
The city agency wants to build a 150-foot-tall garage on a site roughly bounded by Spring Street, Washington Street and West Street that would house 106 trucks.
It would be located several blocks from the site where Trump plans to build the Trump SoHo Hotel Condominium at 246 Spring St.
"I don't like the trucks, the fumes, the traffic from the standpoint of the community," Trump said, saying he sympathizes with concerns voiced by some neighbors.
"If the community wanted help, I would certainly help," he added.
The Donald stressed that he has no personal objection to the proposal, declaring, "It doesn't impact [our building] because it's five blocks away. Five blocks in New York City is an eternity."
The Sanitation Department plans to share the garage with the UPS, which now has a facility there.
The department's plan also calls for putting a refueling station with nearly 30,000 gallons of fuel and oil in a separate building at Canal and West Streets.
"That's lunacy," David Reck, president of Friends of Hudson Square, said. "It would be a perfect terrorist target that would burn up TriBeCa, Hudson Square and the Holland Tunnel all in one big shot."
rita.delfiner@nypost.com (rita.delfiner@nypost.com)

[lofter1]

The Donald knows what he's talking about when it come to TRASH (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20007639,00.html)

[ZippyTheChimp]

Sanitation parking tower plan reignites C.B. 2 feud

The city plan to build a garbage truck parking garage tower in Hudson Square has reopened a feud at Community Board 2 over whether the area should get more Dept. of Sanitation trucks.

Last week’s Downtown Express article on the proposed garage incorrectly stated that C.B. 2 recently reversed its late 1990s resolution in support of siting a Sanitation garage on the U.P.S. parking lot at Spring and Washington Sts. In fact, Arthur Schwartz, C.B. 2 Waterfront and Parks Committee chairperson, a year ago, had proposed a resolution supporting the lawsuit by Friends of Hudson River Park to force the city to get its garbage trucks off Gansevoort Peninsula, which likely would have moved the trucks to the U.P.S. lot. The move would allow a park to be built on Gansevoort as part of the Hudson River Park. But Schwartz’s resolution failed after a discussion by the board, mainly because some newer members didn’t take kindly to the idea of the garbage trucks being relocated to the Hudson Square lot.

Noting he grew up in Hudson Square back when “rats were as big as cats,” Phil Mouquinho, who owns the nearby P.J. Charlton restaurant on Greenwich St., said at the time, “The area is just starting to gentrify,” and that an influx of garbage trucks could threaten further upscaling. The earlier C.B. 2 resolution supporting just one Department of Sanitation garage at the site still remains on the books, however. But the latest proposal by the city — for a garage for not one, but three garbage truck districts, plus the U.P.S. trucks, a jumbo fuel storage depot and a salt shed on two other sites to boot — is likely to provoke even more opposition from the 50-member board, only about five members of which remain from the late 1990s.

Meanwhile, Schwartz and David Reck, who sparred over the initial resolution on the U.P.S. lot, are, eight years later, once again on opposing sides of the new proposal for a 150-foot-tall mega-garage. Reck is leading a coalition against the garage plan, including his group — Friends of Hudson Square — along with the Tribeca Community Association, the new Urban Glass House condo tower, the Ear Inn and other local restaurants and businesses, and the area’s “major landlords.”

“I am a park supporter,” Reck said. “I just don’t feel that dumping it all [the garbage trucks and facilities] in one neighborhood is fair. They want to move three garbage truck garages down here — plus a salt pile. We’re going to become like the garbage center.” Reck added the fuel depot, located near the Holland Tunnel airshaft, would also be a juicy terrorist target. “There’s 29,000 gallons of flammable stuff there.” They will be filing a lawsuit, he vowed.

Schwartz countered that the only residents negatively impacted would be those in the Urban Glass House just south of the site. “If David Reck wants to defend luxury housing Downtown — this is super-luxury housing — that’s fine,” Schwartz said, adding he’s sure Reck’s lawsuit will be well funded by developers’ money. “What’s David’s alternative — using the [U.P.S.] lot to build luxury housing?” he added.

“The Urban Glass House people are very upset about this,” Reck assured.

Speaking of developers, Reck can also count Donald Trump in his corner. On Tuesday, the New York Post reported that Trump, who’s trying to develop a condo-hotel a few blocks away on Varick St., said he’d offer the community his help in fighting the massive garage. Reck said he hasn’t personally talked to The Donald about it yet.

As for Schwartz’s statements about real estate money behind his lawsuit, he said, “Arthur’s not relevant here. He doesn’t live in the neighborhood, and we’re going to do our own lawsuit.”

Coincidentally, Schwartz, who’s thinking of moving, said that six months ago he looked at a unit at the Urban Glass House and the broker claimed to know nothing about the garage when Schwartz queried him about it. “Either he didn’t know or wasn’t telling,” Schwartz said.

The city will hold a public hearing on its plan Jan. 31 at 60 Washington Square South at 7:30 p.m.

— Lincoln Anderson

Downtown Express is published by
Community Media LLC.
145 Sixth Avenue, New York, NY 10013

[bigkdc]

somehow it does not seem fair to put the burden of 3 districts worth of garbage trucks on 1 district. that being said, life isn't always fair...

[projectsnyc]

Clearly CD5 is an after-thought in this proposal, it was not slated for the UPS site in the original agreement hammered out back in 1999 (rather there was to be a site at 29th-30th Street or Hudson Yards area). DSNY is being disingenuous inflicting the pain of trucks "commuting" to midtown Manhattan upon the West Village.

There is also genuine (commonsense) concern about 29,000 gallons of fuel atop the entrance to the Holland Tunnel, and another 13,000 gallons buried one block nearby. Also, why is there a gas station on the southern side of Canal Street so close to the Tunnel?

Finally, if the salt-pile shed structure in CD3 (under the Manhattan Bridge) is so under-utilized (it was empty up until early January and is now 1/4 full), why not use this as a central distribution node for CD's 1, 2, 3 and 5?

We need to break this proposal down into its component parts...

[CBTwo]

I don’t get it. I realize the DSNY must vacate the pier they are on now due to legal reasons, but it doesn’t make sense to tear down an existing facility, although it needs some upgrading, and build another at a different location, only in order to build a new park. It would appear an easier solution is to just build a new recreational pier.

How is the Hudson River Park Trust going to pay for a new park and maintain same? It seems they can barely maintain what they have now.

"The bottom line is" (if I may quote Bloomberg) there is no park down where the relocated DSNY garage is to be relocated. Pier 40 is not a park. It is a recreational facility used by players from all over the city. Plus the strip of Hudson River Park from the tennis courts up to Clarkson Street has been a storage junkyard for HRPT since before 9/11. When are they going to clean up their mess and give some amenities back to the area residents?

[lofter1]

The whole "leave the DOS facility at Gansevoort and build a new pier for the park" argument was trotted out last week in the comment section at curbed ...

You've answered that question yourself: There is an order that DOS vacate Gansevoort Peninsula ...

Pier 40 is part of the park and will have multiple uses -- Are you suggesting that DOS move this facility in there?

The area in front of Pier 40 will be upgraded along with the renovation of that pier.

The Tribeca stretch of the Park is under construction.

The whole traffic concern is overblown. West Street is already a very high traffic hiway. Whenever possible most of the DOS truck traffic should be directed out of the area via West Street to reach the far-lying areas of the CB Districts which they serve. To access the garage trucks will be using an entrance / exit on West Street or coming up around on Clarkson and then down Washington and into the garage. The strip of Spring between Washington / West already is lined with various trucks -- parked and otherwise.

[CBTwo]

lofter1,

Your reply to my comment, “The whole "leave the DOS facility at Gansevoort and build a new pier for the park" argument was trotted out last week in the comment section at curbed ...” So? What does that have to do with examining a possible new solution? Is it a viable solution or not?

You also state, “There is an order that DOS vacate Gansevoort Peninsula ...” So? There also was an “order” to "CHARGE!" given to the British Light Brigade during the Crimean War. Just because it’s an order doesn’t make it an intelligent order, or an order that cannot be rescinded before it's too late.

I never suggested, nor would I suggest, that Pier 40 be altered to accommodate the DSNY. It’s fine just the way it is (although it could use some upgrades) and does not need a Las Vegas style circus to make it into something else.

You also state that the front of Pier 40 will be upgraded with the renovation of the Pier itself. They are two different projects. How do you know that they will be cojoined and what is the timetable for accomplishing that feat?

I can’t believe your logic when you state, “The whole traffic concern is overblown. West Street is already a very high traffic hiway.” So adding a few hundred more trucks and more than a few hundred cars (you got to know that the sanitation guys drive to work for the most part because of free parking) isn’t going to impact the already overburdened streets and highway?

Then you go on with, “The strip of Spring between Washington / West already is lined with various trucks -- parked and otherwise.” I agree with you, yes it is, it’s lined already to the gills with randomly parked DSNY trucks and DSNY employee vehicles, who park on the side walk with impudence.

I also noticed that you have posted over 10,000 times to this site. So? Does that make you an expert on all of New York City's affairs?

[lofter1]

Not an expert, no ... just a longtime CB2 resident who loves NYC ...

But conversely, I note that you have 2 posts here -- does that make you an un-expert?

And "Charge of the Light Brigade"??

C'mon -- you can do better than that ...

But seriously ...

I'm a big fan of turning Gansevort Peninsula into a park. Have no interest in fighting the (losing) fight to try to undo the order that DOS must clear out.

If you are proposing same are you filing legal paperwork to get it done?

We both note that trucks are parked along that stretch of Spring. Wouldn't the GARAGE help to alleviate that?

If you think a couple of hundred more cars and trucks a day in that area are a problem -- when there are already many thousands that drive along West Street everyday -- then I don't know what to say to that.

I'm not a fan of the big proposal for Pier 40 either -- prefer the smaller scale plan that has been proposed.

What is your specific and viable proposal that would solve the DOS needs?

[lofter1]

You also state that the front of Pier 40 will be upgraded with the renovation of the Pier itself. They are two different projects. How do you know that they will be cojoined and what is the timetable for accomplishing that feat?



Regarding the Tribeca / Hudson Square stretch of Hudson River Park (Segment 3 (http://www.hudsonriverpark.com/development/seg3.htm)):
Segment 3 is being built by the Hudson River Park Trust and is expected to be opened in or before 2010.Pier 40 (http://www.hudsonriverpark.com/development/pier40dev.htm) development is also overseen by the Hudson River Park Trust (LINK (http://www.hudsonriverpark.com/development/underdev.htm)):
The Hudson River Park Trust is in the midst of a selection process for a master developer for Pier 40Renderings (http://www.hudsonriverpark.com/development/pier40dev.htm) of the two plans proposed for Pier 40 seem to indicate that the space between Pier 40 and the bike path will be designed / built in conjunction with the plan chosen for Pier 40.

According to the Segment 3 Plan (http://www.hudsonriverpark.com/pdfs/development/Seg3PLAN.pdf) rendering, Segment 3 does NOT include the space in front of Pier 40.

[CBTwo]

You are one tiresome individual I must say.

You say “Not an expert, no ... just a longtime CB2 resident who loves NYC ...” I can definitely agree with the “Not an expert part.” So you see we are agreeable on at least one point.

I’m sorry I only have a 2 rating, but given time discussing the problems of New York City and the Universe with you I am sure it will rise.

What parts of CB2 do you love? Can you tell me what and how many of the parts of this DSNY project that you love or find acceptable? I doubt for a variety of reasons that you live in Hudson Square and that you are neither in the field of architecture or city planning, nor environmental science. If so, an evaluation must be done on the certification process.

I admit that the Light Brigade was a bit reaching but it does illustrate a certain bull headed go ahead at any costs mentality that seems to pervade most of this DSNY discussion. It kind of reminds me of other decisions and positions made by leaders in power today.

Pataki ain’t governor anymore, are you aware of that. So things can change. Are you aware of that? Why take a defeatist attitude?

Regarding the first step to alleviate and start a legal proceeding, I believe that is underway with the Friends of Hudson Square under the brilliant guidance of David Reck. It will be interesting to see how much Donald Trump throws into the arena’$ legal pot.

The garage will not alleviate any of the “on street” parking that currently is there. Just walk down Greenwich Street after six and see how UPS takes over the four block stretch from Spring to Houston. They are drivers with total disregard of any and everything that is around them, hot rodding back and forth and jockeying for position. DSNY will be no different guaranteed. I don’t know how the two trucking groups are going to duel it out on Washington Street.

Relative to “there is a lot of traffic there already,” adding more will just be the same as adding just a few more straws to the camel’s back. At what point does it become obvious that one cannot add more?

I’m not anti-park, but I read constantly about the HRPT is having problems financing what they have already. Why would they take on additional financial burdens just because it was ordered by... ? I'm new to this ordering stuff, but can you tell me who ordered the removal of sanitation from the pier?

Realizing there is no quick fix to the problem, whether it’s the truck storage, or the salt storage. I’m suggesting that this has to be thought out in a more thorough manner than it has been to date.

I read somewhere there was an architectural competition to design the garage. I can just imagine the solutions. Renderings with a lot of trees at sidewalk level and foliage dripping from the "green" roof. Does anyone have a link to the competition?

[bigkdc]

I have seen the mention of homeland security as it relates to the fuel storage and the tunnel. Does anyone know if something like this would actually get reviewed by homeland security?

[CBTwo]

That is an interesting thought bigkdc. Hopefully there will be some input from them as well as OEM, but unfortunately I think OEM is asleep at the switch for the most part. Remember the somewhat recent blackout in Queens that caught OEM flat footed, and they had a duh duh duh response? I guess they need more higher paid people sitting around in planning meetings discussing pay raises.

Hopefully the feds will help.

lofter1,

Thanks for the update on the completion of segment 3 of the Hudson River Park scheduled for on or about the year 2010. I just find it amazing that the planners have moved the completion schedule from the fall of 2001 to the year 2010. At a certain time in the past (pre 9/11) I received monthly updates on the progress of 9A, which also included the progress of the "park." The Hudson Square portion of the park was scheduled to be one of, if not, the final phases of the park to be finished in the fall of 2001. I haven't received any of their updates since the summer of 2001. Did they go out of business? Talk about pissing on a community. How can it take nine years to do a simple job? And where were the time and resources diverted over the last five years to screw Hudson Square once more? What are we chopped liver?

Also I didn't ask for the where abouts of the renderings for the Pier 40 concepts, I was looking for the renderings for the garbage garage building renderings. I heard there were ten firms that offered "design" solutions.

[ZippyTheChimp]

You are one tiresome individual I must say.
Save the hostility for the CB meeting; personal attacks are not permitted here.

[CBTwo]

I believe UPS got an OK back in the last days of that less than perfect Mayor David Dinkens reign before he left office, to build a very large multi storied garage that would have bridged over Washington Street from their existing building to a new structure where the parking lot now exists. It would have extended from Spring to Charlton (or maybe half the way between Vandam and Charlton) from Greenwich to West street. Economics shut that project down I believe. But I can imagine them resurfacing the idea.

Andrew Stein Ok'd the idea also in his waining days. This would be late 1993 I believe.

I remember the renderings vividly. A non descript beige block building fronted with a forest of rendered trees. None of the trees would have lasted the first season given the sub-artic weather and wind suffered on our blocks.

[CBTwo]

Sorry Chimp,

I didn't mean it to be personal. I mean he does have 10,199 posts and I only have 5.

It was meant only to be an observation. I think we are friends now. Co-combatants so to speak in the same war.

[ZippyTheChimp]

You also state, “There is an order that DOS vacate Gansevoort Peninsula ...” So? There also was an “order” to "CHARGE!" given to the British Light Brigade during the Crimean War. Just because it’s an order doesn’t make it an intelligent order, or an order that cannot be rescinded before it's too late.The original order for the DSNY to vacate Gansevoort was a result of the Hudson River Park Act in 1998. Rescinding the order would have to go before the State legislature to amend the law.

Suit was brought against the city in early 2005, charging that the DSNY was in violation of the law, not only in not vacating the peninsula in a timely manner, but attempting to build a temporary structure. An agreement was reached in court that they would vacate by 2012 and pay the HRPT $21 million in rent.

In spring 2006, the DSNY proposed building a marine transfer station for recyclable waste at Gansevoort, and to enlarge the solid waste facility on pier 99 at W59th St. They acknowledged that the law would have to be changed.

CB4 proposed consolidating both operations at pier 76.

So it seems unrealistic to me that no garage will be built at the UPS site. However, I think it is unfair that it is all being consolidated in one spot. And a better location can be found for the fuel depot.

A garage is under construction at w57th St.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/artcom/html/awards/design_awards21/slide0026_image064.jpg

http://www.nyc.gov/html/artcom/html/awards/design_awards21/slide0028_image066.jpg

http://www.nyc.gov/html/artcom/html/awards/design_awards21/slide0030_image073.jpg

[lofter1]

CBTwo: Now you're asking for credentials?

Offer yours first, if you please.

Do you serve on the Community Board in District 2 (as your moniker infers)?

While I do live in CB District 2, I don't live in Hudson Square.

But, like you and others in this District, I do generate garbage (I know I'm giving you an opening with that one ;) ) that needs to be collected -- which is what the DOS proposal is about.

Intersting: you still haven't offered a viable alternative -- or any alternative, for that matter -- to what DOS has put forth.

And if you think I'm tiresome because I challenged you on your first couple of posts -- hold tight, there's most likely more challenges to come ... as you can see I don't tire easily ;) .

btw: I posted the link to the renderings of Pier 40 to shed some light on your claim that Pier 40 and the space that fronts it "are two different projects". Are you still holding to that position? If so, please offer some basis so we can continue the discussion based on the facts rather than conjecture.

Also, you say now "I was looking for the renderings for the garbage garage building renderings", but you hadn't mentioned that previously. Those renderings are fairly clear in their depiction of what is proposed for that area.

You also state "I heard there were ten firms that offered "design" solutions." Any links to that info -- which I've not heard?

[lofter1]

A bit more on the Court ruling regarding the DOS facility on the Gansevoort Peninsula [aka Friends of Hudson River Park et al v. New York City Department of Sanitation et al, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Index No. 105763/05, I.A.S. Part 5 (Stallman, J.), Settlement Agreement and Order] from the New York City Council (http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/attachments/71108.htm?CFID=868695&CFTOKEN=16939142) Staff Report (February 2006):

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK


REPORT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE DIVISION
Robert Newman, Acting Legislative Director

COMMITTEE ON SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Hon. Michael E. McMahon, Chair

OVERVIEW:

On February 7, 2006, the Sanitation and Solid Waste Management Committee, chaired by Michael E. McMahon, will conduct a hearing on the status of the proposed draft Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) as it pertains to the borough of Manhattan. In particular, it now seems that several facilities proposed to handle aspects of Manhattan’s waste may no longer be viable ...



GANSEVOORT STREET FACILITY
The use of the Gansevoort site has apparently been precluded by the recent settlement of a long-standing court case between the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY) and a group of civic organizations, including Friends of Hudson River Park.[2] (http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/attachments/71108.htm?CFID=868695&CFTOKEN=16939142#_ftn2) The settlement reaffirms the City’s intent to comply with the Hudson River Park Act, the state law that establishes the Hudson River Park and controls, among other things, land uses allowed on the Gansevoort Peninsula. Under the agreement the City will pay the Hudson River Park Trust $21,500,000 to design and build parks on Pier 97 and at the Gansevoort Street site, and the Department of Sanitation agrees to remove all of its operations from the Gansevoort Street site by 2012.

Although the decision is silent as to approval or disapproval of Gansevoort as a site for a recycling facility, it reiterates the terms of the original park act that precludes any “incompatible government” use.[3] (http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/attachments/71108.htm?CFID=868695&CFTOKEN=16939142#_ftn3) The settlement agreement specifically calls for the demolition of the existing marine transfer station at Gansevoort Street upon the Department of Sanitation vacating, but provides no indication that the plaintiffs would consider it being restored in the future.[4] (http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/attachments/71108.htm?CFID=868695&CFTOKEN=16939142#_ftn4) In addition, the Friends of Hudson River Park have stated that the Hudson River Park Act prohibits any sanitation facility from being located within the park.[5] (http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/attachments/71108.htm?CFID=868695&CFTOKEN=16939142#_ftn5)
And this from The Villager (http://www.thevillager.com/villager_172/letterstotheeditor.html) (August 2006):

To The Editor:

I generally am supportive of the reportage done by Albert Amateau and the rest of your staff regarding local issues affecting the waterfront. I am writing this letter to ask that you correct something that was omitted from Mr. Amateau’s article “Local politicians, activists, boards are not on board with barging plan” (July 26), which has to do with the city’s new 20-year Solid Waste Management Plan passed by the City Council on July 19, which includes a provision for a transfer station for recyclables on the Gansevoort Peninsula — the jewel of the Hudson River Park.

Mr. Amateau is correct when he refers to my remarks that the settlement of our lawsuit in October 2005 did not preclude transfer stations at Gansevoort and W. 59th Sts., but I would like to add the following clarification.

Our settlement agreement with the city of New York permits only present Sanitation activities to remain on the Gansevoort Peninsula until 2012. It is our position that the city cannot use the Gansevoort Peninsula in any other way until after the 2012 vacate date. In other words, even if the State Legislature allows another use at Gansevoort before 2012, the Friends of Hudson River Park would bring an action under their settlement agreement, which provides, contractually, that no other use can be there until 2012.

Finally, Mr. Amateau is correct when he says that the Friends would probably go to court to make sure the transfer stations are dropped, but we must add the other phrase, “or any other use before 2012.”

I hope this clarifies Friends’ position on the Gansevoort Peninsula.

Daniel Alterman

Alterman was the attorney on the Friends of Hudson River Park’s lawsuit to vacate the Department of Sanitation trucks from Gansevoort Peninsula

[Downtowner]

The HRP website says:
… this 550-acre park is the largest open space development in Manhattan since the completion of Central Park.

It seems to me that there should be more reason to create a park than to put photos of the former governor on the web site.

What city with a sense of greatness would build a significant park on the waterfront and then, having created choice waterfront views, put a sanitation garage overlooking the masterful new park. Would Chicago? Would Paris? Do we think NYC is so great it can survive being ugly and stupid --ignorant of architecture, land use and planning?

It is customary when building a handsome new park, at least in the cities I know, to put amenities next to the park, such as hotels and residences, where people can enjoy the park and have views of it. Symbiotically, when you are in the park, the handsome residences that line the park form an important part of their charm and appeal. Likewise, elegant buildings at an entrance to a park define the experience before you even enter.

I can't think of Regent's Park in London without the uniform elegant townhouses on one corner or of the Parc Monceau in Paris without the varied elegant residences adjacent to it. Likewise Chicago has some of its most attractive apartments overlooking the lake. And many of the fabled views from Central Park feature the prewar apartment buildings on its periphery. Only New York treats its waterfront --its fabled and fabulous waterfront --as a cesspool.

So what does the proposal match HRP with? A 150 ft tall sanitation garage.

Spring St and Canal are major cross town arteries. They effectively meet beside a charming new triangular park at an important entry point to the park. So what will set the tone at this key gateway? --a truck garage, more sanitation trucks and cars from sanit workers and plowing equipment stored on the sidewalk.

How stupid. How sheerly stupid.

[Downtowner]

I live in a single family home in Hudson Square/South Village suffiiciently far from the UPS site that it will not affect my quality of life, except to the extent that the whole neighborhood will be affected, including Trump's building.

However, whenever I or my family go to the park we will pass under 150 feet of looming ugliness and have to thread our way through cars and equipment parked on the sidewalk.

But I would like to address the question of our use of the City's garbage collection services. As a homeowner, I act as my own super. The way our garbage gets collected directly affects the apperarance of our street and our quality of life. I also have a small office in Chelsea, for which I have to hire a private carter.

Others may have a different experience, but I find the contrast between the private carter and our fine public servants the difference between night and day. The difference is simple. With the private carter, if I put out trash, they pick it up, and leave the sidewalk clean. With DOS, I never know, from day to day, whether they will show up at all or, if they do show up, what they will deign to collect. Moreover, if the private carter is unhappy, if they feel I have put out quantities or types of trash that are not in our agreement, they call me and in a few minutes and for insignificant amounts of money the problem gets solved.

With sanitation workers, it's like they are finicky cats who are likely to turn up their noses at our offerings for the oddest reasons, which they are incapable of communicating, except by leaving significant messes. I live in terror of my garbage not being picked up.

People in the know, contractors and people who have grown up in the neighborhood (I have only been here for 20+ years), tell me I have to wake up early and wait for them to come and bribe them. Then they will do their job.

So I would gladly dispense with their services, if our taxes were appropriately reduced, and hire the excellent private carter who services my office and manages to park his trucks somewhere without destroying neighborhoods and expecting me to break the law.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Correct me if I'm wrong:

1. HRP is crap because the city wants to put a garage across the street, to replace a garage that is in the park.

2. DSNY sucks, so just eliminate it, and you won't need a garage.

I hear speeches like this all the time at CB meetings. They offer nothing in the way of a solution, only present straw-man arguments that convince many people that these meetings are a waste of time.

Since you've deemed any garage unnecessary, you don't have to come up with an alternative in Manhattan - a large space space free of traffic.

Thank you for your input.

[bigkdc]

Does anyone know the timing of all this? How long will it take DOS to get the needed approvals to move forward with construction?

I think Downtowner makes a very good point about how we treat the areas around our parks. I can't really think of any other cities where they have something like what they are proposing. Now, we are on an island so the situation is a bit different but does the garage need to be right on the border of the park?

CB2 - thanks for the info on OEM and the safety concern. How does one make sure that OEM is fully aware of the situation so they can get involved? Has anyone heard anything from the local politicians on the issue?

[CBTwo]

What about the city's tow pound? Do they have to leave their pier also? That would be nice to get rid of them permanently.

[projectsnyc]

I found an RFP for engineering and design services on the City website dating back to December, 2005 (an estimated $6mm contract). This gives us an idea of how the second, third and fourth floors would lay-out. Wonder who won it?

Why burden Hudson Square with Mid-Manhattan's (CD5) garbage?

Why not move the salt-pile to CD3 under the Manhattan Bridge?
It is under-utilized and more centrally located for CD's 1,2,3 and 5...
Why so many private vehicles (non-mandated employee parking)?

[CBTwo]

Thanks for the link Projectnyc.

Where does UPS fit into this scheme? The basement floor is taken over by many small vehicles (I guess they ramp down to that level from an entrance at the southeastern part of the plan.) The same vehicles that I mentioned earlier which I presume is taxpayer subsidized free parking for DSNY employees.

Also there appears to be only one way in and one way out for all the trucks, and it sure looks like it's on Washington Street at the northeastern part of the plan if I'm reading the plans correctly. That is going to be one tangled mess on Washington Street.

The whole building could be made into a two story structure by excavating the portion in the basement marked with an "X" and using it for the offices that are currently on the second, third and fourth floors, Or store more trucks down there. Why is all that office space needed at that location? Doesn’t DSNY have their headquarters somewhere in one of the outer boros? If you eliminate two thirds of the office space, you eliminate the need for the space that the DSNY small vehicles take up and also those DSNY employees’ private vehicles.

If you eliminate two of the three sanitation districts from the garage then the whole project is a reasonable fit. If one wants to talk about fairness, why should one district take on the storage problems of two other districts?

One more thought. Since there needs to be some kind of relationship with UPS, why doesn't the City go into contract with UPS and use the refueling depot that UPS uses at Houston Street? A simple card would be used to read who's using how much fuel. At least it gets the fuel storage problem away from on top of the tunnels.

[CBTwo]

Wait a minute here.

After studying the plans for the new garage and what the total project’s scope is I must ask, “Where is the refueling station and the scrubby dub dub part of the plan? None of that is being shown in the “main” building. If it’s at the new facility on the triangle of Spring, Washington, and Canal streets. How are the trucks going to access that and then neatly go to bed in the garage?

Are they going to go down Washington Street, turn right on Canal street, go through the facility, turn left on Spring Street, turn right on West Street, go up to Clarkson Street and turn right, and then make another right and proceed down Washington to the garage? HUH? Or will they come across Canal street on their maiden approach to access the refueling station?

Or am I reading the whole plan wrong and the feed into the garage is from West Street? It would be nice if the planners at least show a north arrow on their drawings.

This does not look like the original “concept” plan shown on page one of this forum. Page one shows a “Swiss cheese” approach to entering and existing the garage. But obviously that would not work because of the ramping problem.

Once again I am confused.

[ZippyTheChimp]

There are two entry/exits on Washington St and two on West St.

[CBTwo]

Where does it show the two entrances and exits on Washington and two on West Street? I'm not talking about the conceptual sketch on page one, I am talking about an updated drawing. Is there a link to a drawing that I am not seeing? I was using the link provided by projectsnyc.

Those drawings do not show the ground floor plan so I was interpreting that plan by using the least wasted space and giving UPS the most available space on that floor.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Wait a minute here.

After studying the plans for the new garage and what the total project’s scope is I must ask, “Where is the refueling station and the scrubby dub dub part of the plan? None of that is being shown in the “main” building. If it’s at the new facility on the triangle of Spring, Washington, and Canal streets. How are the trucks going to access that and then neatly go to bed in the garage?This information is in the scoping document.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dsny/downloa...s/MJLMN125.pdf

The garage has its own refueling tank:

The garage would have one 10,000 gallon diesel fuel storage tank and a tank each (1,000 gallons) for motor oil, waste oil and hydraulic oil.
The truck washing and refueling facility (Block 595, Lot 87) would be reconstructed on the site of the existing MN1 Garage (14,575 square feet). The facility would house four 4,000 gallon diesel fuel tanks, one 4,000 gallon unleaded gasoline tank, one 4,000 gallon ethanol tank, one 2,000 gallon hydraulic oil tank, one 2,000 gallon motor oil tank, and one 1,000 gallon waste oil tank.

[CBTwo]

Can some one show me a flow plan of this project? Any architectural office or city planning group could probably do this.

Starting with where are the trucks coming from, and how are they getting here. Once here (assuming they are someplace on Washington Street below Houston) how and where do they go through the process? Do they refuel first or do they go through the wash first, where and how? After that where do they go? Are they teleported to the garage or what?

[lofter1]

The pdf file posted by projectsnyc is, as was pointed out, from 2005.

This image is from what was recently released and shows the entrances / exits:

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3323&d=1168203558

[CBTwo]

Chimp thanks for the link.

And yes I realize that fuel is being stored there. Your reference says it’s in the garage and then your other reference says it’s in the new washing and refueling facility.

Where is the refueling facility? Someone has to make up their mind on this. Or are there two refueling facilities? I notice one has a large capacity gasoline and ethanol storage, so much for the “harmless” diesel fuel storage.

I also, thanks for giving me a sanitation district map through the link, noticed that MN1 is in Tribeca, not in the Village. Why is the Village MN2 responsible for Tribeca’s MN1 garbage truck storage? Aren’t there a lot of spots down on the East river where Tribeca MN1 can park their trucks? We are talking fairness here aren’t we?

BTW I noticed you live in Battery Park City, are there any available spots down there for this project?

Lofter,

Yes I see the plan and it sure looks to me that UPS is getting screwed big time with all the problems of having DSNY take up most of the first floor plan with their circulation flow with all those entrances. The diagram does not show the circulation plan for the facility, it only shows the entrances and exits. How does the processing of the garbage trucks work?

[Downtowner]

At the risk of repeating myself, in a rational world, land with river and park views and adjacent to luxury housing is not used for sanitation garages.

There is also a safety factor. Kids and adults on bikes, strollers and rollerblades are constantly using Spring St. to get to HRP. Since DOS uses the streets and sidewalks as parking lots and an extension of their facilities, people can get hurt. Two cyclists have been killed on the path in recent months. The park does not need to have its reputation tarnished further.

The role of Spring & Canal St. as gateways to the park must be taken into account. Even without Trump, there is increasing residential density that needs to get to the park through Canal and Spring.

Even if DOS get to use the UPS facility, the streets leading to the park must be kept clear for pedestrians and bikers/skaters.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Where is the refueling facility? Someone has to make up their mind on this. Or are there two refueling facilities?
The answer is obvious.


Why is the Village MN2 responsible for Tribeca’s MN1 garbage truck storage? Aren’t there a lot of spots down on the East river where Tribeca MN1 can park their trucks? We are talking fairness here aren’t we?When you flush your toilet, the crap is processed at the North River Plant. Why should MN9 be responsible for it. When you turn on your toaster, where does the power come from? Does MN2 have any power plants? MN3 has one. Why should they provide your electricity?

Community districts are not autonomous municipalities.


BTW I noticed you live in Battery Park City, are there any available spots down there for this project?No.

My only interest is getting the garage off Gansevoort. I don't like the ides of the waste transfer station, but that involves barges, and must be on the waterfront. The garage involves trucks.

Yours is not the only westside neighborhood that has to put up with city infrastructure. Besides the sewage plant, there is a subway power station, a fuel transfer station, and waste transfer station at W59th; a huge DSNY garage at W57th; a postal service repair garage, and DSNY repair garage on W24th.

[ZippyTheChimp]

At the risk of repeating myself, in a rational world, land with river and park views and adjacent to luxury housing is not used for sanitation garages.At the risk of repeating myself, you have again avoided confronting the problem.

Land with river and park view pretty much takes care of the westside. We could always put the garage in Harlem. It has Highbridge Park, but doesn't meet your third criteria of luxury housing.

[Ninjahedge]

CB2...


Just a clue, you are asking a lot of pretty good, although "lazy" questions on the whole subject, but the way you phrasing them is not lending to any sense of conviviality.

Your first 3 posts insulted one of the large contributors (and very rare fighter) on this forum, and your later posts seem to be almost bulleted demands rather than discussions and requests for filling in the gaps.

Do some googling yourself man! Bring in an op-ed or city plan you may have found here or there. Even if it is minor, i will be seen as cooperation and contribution rather than phact phishing.

You do not seem like a bad guy CB, just a bit pushy. Relax a bit..... ;)




As for the facilities, I agree. It is difficult to fit all you need to operate a city within its bounds. Just like a luxury car, you need an oil filter, drip pan, air filter and gas tank.

You would not want any of these to be in your lap while driving, but unlike a car, you really can't just stick them behind or under the engine and hope everyone likes them there.

So aside from NJ (no, we won't take them....) or all of Manhattan throwing out less trash (HAHAHAHAHA) what other solution is there? If your only complaint is the route that the trucks have to take to get around, that is pretty small. I would rather get them off the sidewalk first rather than worry about the fact that they have to go down a back-street to get to the main road...

[bigkdc]

I don't know nearly enough about the city and the ability to do this but why wouldn't they build these garages underground somewhere? I know that hudson square may not work well because it is a flood zone but seems to me there might be better areas for this (even within these districts). Underground also seems really efficient.

On the fuel storage - no plan here but I would think there has got to be something smarter than storing near the hudson tunnel which has (along with the path tubes) already been mentioned in the past 12 months as a terrorist target. We elect our gov't officials to come up with smart solutions and this one (especially on the fuel) seems really odd.

I will say that the 57th street DOS building looks quite nice in the renderings so hopefully whatever ends up here looks as nice.

[Ninjahedge]

Big, main reasons are pre-existing construction and $$.

Manhattan has three main construction zones. Bedrock, fill or pre-existing construction. Getting a plot of unused subterranian large enough to build something like this on it is as hard, if not harder, than getting something above-ground.

As for the fuel depot and the like, it is hard to build something when you do not own the land needed to do it.

I think the DPW and whoever else is involved could BUY some more land to do this, but that in itself would probably cost more than the reclamation and construction of the facility itself.

Too much $$ almost any way you look at it...

[lofter1]

Maybe the should flip the salt storage and the truck washing / refueling sites ...

Here's the map of what is proposed:

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3322&d=1168203550

Salt Storage could go onto the triangle at West / Spring / Canal.

Washing / Refueling could go to the block at Houston / Washington.

[lofter1]

There is also a safety factor. Kids and adults on bikes, strollers and rollerblades are constantly using Spring St. to get to HRP.

There is no crosswalk leading into the HRP at the foot of Spring Street. The closest X-Walk is at the south side of the intersection of Canal / West St opposite the new Canal Street Park. The other option is to cross at Houston Street. There are no X-Walks between those two.




Two cyclists have been killed on the path in recent months. The park does not need to have its reputation tarnished further.

All the more reason to get DOS facilities out of the HRP ASAP.




The role of Spring & Canal St. as gateways to the park must be taken into account.


At some point in the past there was discussion of constructing a pedestrian bridge across West Street into Pier 40. This seems to be something that should be raised once again, particularly as the redevelopment of Pier 40 moves forward.

[CBTwo]

Several voices here are not addressing the problems, they are doing a Jack Webb on them, “I Just Want Facts Mam, Just the Facts.” I appreciate their facts but I don’t see alternate solutions coming from those individuals.

Specifically, “There is no crosswalk leading into the HRP at the foot of Spring Street. The closest X-Walk is at the south side of the intersection of Canal / West St opposite the new Canal Street Park. The other option is to cross at Houston Street. There are no X-Walks between those two.”

Obviously people that live in Hudson Square are aware of that, and given the traffic pattern set up, it makes sense, although at rush hour the south bound lane on West Street is diverted further south from the Canal Street approach to the Holland Tunnel. Is one to dawdle in that funny little patch of green, I believe it’s called Canal Park, waiting to cross? I’m not saying the park is useless, it’s better than keeping snowplows in that patch of no man’s land like DSNY use to do. But please, who goes there to eat lunch and reflect on the betterment of man?

So great, Hudson Square, and may I add SoHo, residents access to HRP is via the top of Tribeca or the bottom of the Village. Thanks for the convenience, but we knew that already.


"Two cyclists have been killed on the path in recent months. The park does not need to have its reputation tarnished further.
All the more reason to get DOS facilities out of the HRP ASAP."

They were not killed by garbage trucks, the latest fatality was caused by a poorly marked access road and a driver who was unfamiliar with the pathways. As a monthly parker at Pier 40 I have seen way too many cyclists go merrily through an obviously marked stop signal at Houston street with their ear phones stuffing their head. It’s a wonder more haven’t been injured or killed.

"At some point in the past there was discussion of constructing a pedestrian bridge across West Street into Pier 40. This seems to be something that should be raised once again, particularly as the redevelopment of Pier 40 moves forward."

The pedestrian bridge makes sense if the public facilities are on the second or third level of Pier 40. An elevator should be provided of course for the handicap and elderly and where should it be located? Houston Street would be the most logical place due to, at least what I see from using the Pier, the most common access point to the Pier. Clarkson Street would be more convenient for people coming from the Village of course.

[bigkdc]

Maybe the should flip the salt storage and the truck washing / refueling sites ...

Here's the map of what is proposed:

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3322&d=1168203550

Salt Storage could go onto the triangle at West / Spring / Canal.

Washing / Refueling could go to the block at Houston / Washington.

Yes that seems like a very reasonable solution. I have to imagine there is some reason why they didn't do that. I guess this thing is still in a very early stage so solutions like this one are still quite likely to come along.

[CBTwo]

I apologize, Lofter came up with an alternative plan for the project. That's what we need. More thought into this thoughtless project. Thanks Lofter.

I believe you are talking about the building at Clarkson and Washington Streets, not Houston and Washington.

[lofter1]

Several voices here are not addressing the problems, they are doing a Jack Webb on them, “I Just Want Facts Mam, Just the Facts.” I appreciate their facts but I don’t see alternate solutions coming from those individuals.

I asked you way back after your first post here for a viable alternative to the DOS proposal from your point of view -- but you have yet to offer one with any specifics.

[CBTwo]

I did. One of the most obvious things to do is build a new pier, either for the park or for sanitation. Or down size the project so it fits more to the community. Do I have to make a flow diagram for you to understand the two possible solutions?

What do you want me do for specifics, specify the bore diameter of the inspection ports on the proposed pier?

I even gave you the benefit of positive acknowledgement regarding the switch from salt to fuel. Is that the limit of your thinking outside the ...? Great! and Thanks for all your thoughts.

Plus Chimp doesn't like this forum to get personal so I wont.

[lofter1]

One point ^^^ of agreement (many to go ;) )

And I like diagrams, so if you'd like to post visual aids you'll get no complaints here.

Per your idea to build an additonal pier: It seems that any idea regarding DOS facilities on the piers will not be viable due to the NYS court ruling that states all DOS uses must vacate the park area by 2012.

The entire waterfront along there is controlled by the Hudson River Park Trust under the Hudson River Park Act.

Piers and DOS don't mix. It is a matter of law.

So if DOS con't be on the pier, then no additional new pier is needed for park space.

Besides, building a new pier into the Hudson would most likely also require all sorts of land use studies / applications / legal maneuvers involving many of the issues that stopped Westway.

On the other hand if you know otherwise (i.e.: that building such a new pier out into the Hudson River would be an easily achievable goal) then any concrete info pointing in that direction would be appreciated.

You suggest that salt storage continue at the site under the Williamsburg Bridge. If it's viable then I have no problem with that. Especially if it could mean that the planned refueling building is moved away from the Holland Tunnel / Canal Street location and into the block proposed for the salt storage facility. However I do not know if the Williamburg Bridge site is workable in the future -- there could be some specific reason that it is proposed to move the current salt storage away from there. Such info on that site would be good to know before presenting it as a solution to the salt storage problem.

You keep challenging me to come up with a better idea. But I don't have a big problem with the overall concept of these specific DOS facilities on the sites proposed. Therefore I'm not going to spend lots of my time figuring out an alternative. I'll leave that to those who believe passionately that changes to the DOS plan are necessary -- and who have the wherewithal to follow through with a clear new plan which will be listened to by those in power.

After all, those with the power are the ones who will make the decisions regarding this DOS proposal. They are ones to whom a viable, complete alternative will need to be presented -- they are the ones who truly need to be won over.

[lofter1]

This is from NYS Department of Environmental Conservation ...

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/enb2007/20070103/not2.html

ENB - REGION 2 NOTICES
Positive Declaration And Public Scoping

New York City County - The New York City Department of Sanitation, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed Consolidated Sanitation Garage for Manhattan Districts 1, 2 and 5 may have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared. A public scoping session will be held on January 31, 2007, from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at Kimmel Hall, New York University, 60 Washington Square South, Rosenthal Pavilion, Tenth Floor.

Written comments on the Draft Scope are also invited and will be accepted and considered if received by 5pm on February 12, 2007 by the project contact person listed below. A draft Scope of Work for the DEIS is available for public review and comment on DSNY’s website (www.nyc.gov/sanitation), at the office of DSNY’s contact person, and at the repositories indicated below:

-Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination, 253 Broadway, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10007

-NYC Public Library, Hudson Park Branch, 66 Leroy Street, New York NY, 10014

-NYC Public Library, Jefferson Market Regional Branch, 425 Sixth Avenue, New York, NY 10011

-Community Board 2 Office, 3 Washington Square Village, Apt. 1A, New York, NY 10012.
As part of its ongoing capital program, DSNY proposes to consolidate operations of three district garages (1, 2 and 5) at a new garage facility to be constructed in lower Manhattan on a site generally bounded by Spring Street on the south, Washington Street on the east, West Street on the west, and St. John's Center (550 Washington Street) on the north. The new garage is intended to replace outdated facilities, provide better service to the local community districts, and improve operational efficiencies.

The garage will also enable DSNY to comply with its legal obligation to vacate the Gansevoort peninsula 2 Bloomfield Street/427 Gansevoort Street within the recently established Hudson River Park, which currently holds garages for Manhattan Districts 2 and 4. The proposed consolidated garage, located in Manhattan Community District 2 next to the current District 1 Garage would service Community Districts 1, 2 and 5. DSNY vehicles and equipment providing refuse and recyclables collection and winter emergency services, would be garaged, maintained and refueled there.

The new facility would consolidate garage operations of Manhattan District 1 currently at 553 Canal Street/297 West Street, Manhattan District 2 currently at 2 Bloomfield Street/427 Gansevoort Street, and Manhattan District 5 currently at 525-545 East 73rd Street. Associated actions would include relocation of the Manhattan District 6 Garage from a leased facility (606 West 30th Street, between 11th and 12th Avenues) back to the site now occupied by the Manhattan District 5 Garage at 525-545 East 73rd Street; replacing the existing 14,575 square foot (sf) Manhattan District 1 Garage with a newly constructed fueling and truck washing facility on the site (553 Canal Street/297 West Street); vacating the existing Manhattan District 2 Garage site and salt shed on 2 Bloomfield Street/427 Gansevoort Street; demolition of a 2-story private parking garage on Block 600, Lot 29 at 575 Washington Street between Clarkson and West Houston Streets (a site of 13,495 sf) and construction and seasonal operation of a covered road salt storage facility on the site.

The proposed Garage site (Lot 50) and the truck washing and refueling facility (Lot 87) are both within an M2-4 zoning district, while the proposed salt storage site (Lot 29) is within an M1-5 district. Within ¼ mile of the site is a mix of commercial, industrial and residential zoning and land uses.

The new Consolidated Garage would be approximately 140 to 150 feet in height, up to 220 feet wide and 413 feet long, with approximately 427,000 gross sf of space and be located on an approximately 85,450 sf site that is partially paved, fenced and used by the United Parcel Service (UPS) for truck trailer staging and parking to support the adjacent UPS Package Distribution Facility at 315 West Houston Street.

The first floor of the proposed Consolidated Garage would accommodate existing on-site UPS vehicle parking and storage (approximately 58 trucks). Floors 2, 3 and 4 would include DSNY vehicle storage, offices, and employee locker facilities. DSNY employees would total approximately 231 over all three shifts on a peak day, with a shift peak of 108 employees. The facility would operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.

The Garage would have one 10,000 gallon diesel fuel storage tank, a tank each for motor oil, waste oil and hydraulic oil (1000 gallons each).

The refueling and truck washing facility will have four 4000 gallon diesel fuel tanks, one 4000 unleaded gasoline tank, one 4000 gallon ethanol tank, one 2000 gallon hydraulic oil tank, one 2000 gallon motor oil tank, and one 1000 gallon waste oil tank.

The salt storage facility on Lot 29 would be enclosed and kept locked except during resupply and winter emergency use. It would store up to 6500 tons of road salt and have two aboveground tanks for liquid calcium chloride for melting snow and ice.

The build year for all three proposed structures would be 2012 following a three-year construction period.

Primary DSNY truck and equipment access and egress to the DSNY garage would be via West Street. The configuration of West Street in this location would allow for queuing of trucks and equipment, when needed. Vehicles exiting the garage would turn north onto West Street. DSNY secondary access and egress would be from Washington Street (one-way in a southerly direction) at the northern end of the site. DSNY employees would enter and access the garage from Washington Street mid-block. The garage facility would have approximately 106 parking spaces for DSNY trucks and equipment and 98 spaces for automobiles. The total number of DSNY daily two-way vehicular movements into and out of the site would be 480 trips (240 trips in and 240 trips out).

The proposed action includes site selection and acquisition for a capital project and related Uniform Land Use Review Procedure approval, special permits for a height variance and relief from street wall setback requirements, Art Commission review, City construction contracts, and consistency review with the City’s Waterfront Revitalization Program for actions in the designated Coastal Zone.

Contact: Abas O. Braimah, City Planner, New York City Department of Sanitation, Bureau of Legal Affairs, 125 Worth Street, Room 708, New York, NY 10013, phone: (646) 885-4993.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Several voices here are not addressing the problems, they are doing a Jack Webb on them, “I Just Want Facts Mam, Just the Facts.” I appreciate their facts but I don’t see alternate solutions coming from those individuals.
It's not incumbent on those who either support or accept any modification of the project, including moving it elsewhere, to offer alternatives.

[projectsnyc]

Under the Manhattan Bridge (CD3) - A viable location for CD1,2,3 & 5?

In New York City there are 34 city-owned salt storage locations, 26 of which are along the waterfront and 19 of which are outdoors and uncontained piles. Salt piles on the waterfront are a significant concern both to the health of our environment and the value of New York’s waterfronts. Storing unprotected salt on the waterfront poses a significant environmental problem, terrestrial and aquatic resources are damaged as chemicals in these salts seep into soil and groundwater and run off into surface water due to wind and rain. This is the same salt that corrodes our cars and seeps into the soil and water if it is unprotected from wind and rain. The City will protect the aquatic live, vegetation, and water quality it is currently threatening.

While New York City waters are brackish, salt from salt piles and snow increases the salinity of the water near the pile, aggravating the balance necessary for aquatic life in the vicinity. Salt used for snow removal is also not pure sodium; additives that increase its effectiveness can have adverse consequences for the natural environment. These include chlorine, which can be detrimental at high concentrations, sodium chloride, which, after dissolution renders chloride ions that do not easily dissipate and therefore accumulates in water to pose risks, and sodium ferrocynide, which can dissociate to form cyanide in solution and in the presence of light. Calcium, potassium, and magnesium chlorides are also added to snow salt.[1]


[1] Riverkeeper, “Road Salt Storage on the NYC Waterfront: Environmental Considerations,” unpublished manuscript (February 2003).


Borough Sanitation District Location Coverage Capacity(tns)Waterfront
Manhattan M2 Gansevoort Peninsula Shed Fulltime 8,000 yes
Manhattan M3 South and Pike Streets Open 4,000 yes
Manhattan M3 Henry Street Indoors 1,500 yes
Manhattan M7 West 56th Street/North River Shed 2,000 yes

CB#3 – November, 2005 Resolution
Temporary storage of salt pile at Pier 35 for one season on OEM property
VOTE: That Community Board #3 understands that the NYDS was planning to enclose the salt pile at Pike Street/South Street so that it would not be a dangerous area for children and also to prevent salt from leaking onto the sidewalk. However, when excavating for this enclosure, NYDS discovered gas tanks at this former gas station site that have not been certified for proper removal by the NYDEC. It is therefore necessary to obtain the proper environmental approvals and to ensure that the soil in the area is safe.

NYDS therefore finds it necessary to store the salt pile for the 2005 – 2006 winter on OEM property. This specifically is the OEM parking lot at Pier 36. The salt pile will be kept at a minimum level, approximately 1500 tons and will be refilled as necessary during the winter. The salt pile will be kept at a distance from the bike path and will have cinder blocks around the boundaries for safety.

The Department of Sanitation has made every effort to keep the Community Board informed. The Board understands the necessity to have an unenclosed salt pile on the OEM parking lot for this one year ending April 2006 and looks forward to a presentation of the design of the enclosure located at Pike/South St. before it is erected.

[bigkdc]

The build year for all three proposed structures would be 2012 following a three-year construction period.



So building starts in 2009 with it going operational in 2012. The next two years while they are planning this thing will be a real battle. I'd love to see the renderings as soon as anyone sees anything. I am having a tough time imagining it being so tall (150 feet). The one on 57th street is 117 feet and 4 stories, I believe.

I was also doing some running around on the web about eminent domain and the ability for the city to make UPS agree to doing this. That debate is a pretty fervent one as well.

[lofter1]

Battle Day #1, one week from tomorrow:

A public scoping session will be held on January 31, 2007, from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at Kimmel Hall, New York University, 60 Washington Square South, Rosenthal Pavilion, Tenth Floor.

[CBTwo]

Isn't that the same floor that NYU's Community Affairs and School of Proctology are located?

[bigkdc]

Battle Day #1, one week from tomorrow:

A public scoping session will be held on January 31, 2007, from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at Kimmel Hall, New York University, 60 Washington Square South, Rosenthal Pavilion, Tenth Floor.

What happens at a session like this?

[lofter1]

Usually a fairly calm presentation with visual aids ...

But given this project there could be some noise ...

[CBTwo]

These types of meeting are usually for the quiet old time Villagers who have nothing else to do except chat with their neighbors and share the memories of how their community was before it went down the tubes.

I’m not sure what refreshments will be served if any, but it will probably be bottled water and finger sandwiches.

Then again if the “element” shows up there could be some noise. But there shouldn’t be a problem if that rowdy group takes the advice of the late Tex Antoine (Mr. Weatherbee to those that remember) who quipped, "With rape so predominant in the news lately, it is well to remember the words of Confucius: 'If rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it.”

[Ninjahedge]

Um, I vote thumbs down on that last post. I believe that even if the quote fit, it was rather discordant and looking for confrontation.

Also, the apparent lack of any confidence that anyone would be of any use at the meetings, either being "old and useless" or "noisy and discordant" indicates an overall lack of confidence in the system and a disheartening attitude that will only lead to arguements on the board.

CB2, lighten up, will ya?

[ZippyTheChimp]

What happens at a session like this?Everything that happens from now until construction begins is in preparation for the Final Environmental Impact Statement, which is the necessary legal document covering all aspects of the project.

The scope of work that was issued will be discussed at the Jan 31 meeting. There will be a presentation, and comments by attendees will be entered into the record. Generally, no issues are resolved at this meeting, just gathering of information.

Down the road, there will be a Final Scoping Document, followed by a Draft EIS and a Final EIS. Public comment is taken on all of them.

If you've never gone through the process, I recommend you attend the sessions. It's only a few nights over a year or more.

[bigkdc]

Yeah it sounds interesting....I think I will try to check it out

[projectsnyc]

NY TIMES
January 28, 2007
Big Deal
Few Views Are Forever

By JOSH BARBANEL
DOUGLAS PINTER, a San Francisco real estate developer and the former chief executive of a long-forgotten Internet start-up, is used to the ups and downs of the business world, but his introduction to the pitfalls of New York City real estate has been a bit abrupt.

Just last month, Mr. Pinter closed on his $2.4 million 10th-floor apartment in a notable new condominium, the Urban Glass House, the last residential commission of Philip Johnson, modeled loosely on the architect’s own home in Connecticut and marketed as a “modernist luxury residence.”

Mr. Pinter liked the building’s light and airy look, even though its location, at Spring and Washington Streets, was in a grungy no-name land between Greenwich Village, TriBeCa and SoHo. It is across the street from ventilation shafts for the Holland Tunnel. Still, some upper-floor apartments have views to the south, and most of the apartments have views of the river to the north and west. At least for now.

But in the last month, with most of the 40 apartments in the building sold or in contract, the New York City Sanitation Department said that it planned to take over a large parking lot just to the north and diagonally opposite the Urban Glass House. It would put up a garage as tall as a 15-story building and longer than a football field that promises to block much of the view of the river from many apartments.

Having a view blocked by a newer, bigger building is an old story in New York. But seldom has the view from such a distinctive building been threatened so soon after the ink on so many sales contracts has dried. The building opened in October.

Since then, Mr. Pinter and his neighbors, an affluent mix of models, minor celebrities and Wall Street executives who spent $2 million or more for their apartments, have been gathering information and organizing.

Mr. Pinter, who calls himself semiretired, said he was looking for “like-minded residents” to join him at a hearing called by the Sanitation Department to discuss plans for the new garage.

“It’s a shame,” Mr. Pinter said. “Invariably something would have been built there, but here is a building that was critically acclaimed architecturally, modest in size and scale and not gaudy, facing a consolidated sanitation garage.”

The Sanitation Department plan was put forth in a 46-page document posted on the department’s Web site. The document was dated Dec. 28 but was first spotted in early January by residents of the neighborhood. The plans call for putting up a garage 140 to 150 feet high on the lot, which is bounded by Spring, Washington and West Streets and to the north by a large office and warehouse building. The Urban Glass House tops out at 137 feet.

The garage’s ground floor would be used by the United Parcel Service, which now parks its trucks on the lot, while the rest of the building would be used by the Sanitation Department, consolidating three garages. A smaller garage just to the south of the parking lot and next to the ventilation shafts would be turned into a truck wash and refueling depot, storing 13,000 gallons of fuel and oil.

Vito Turso, a deputy sanitation commissioner, said that the garage was needed to replace garages along the river in the newly established Hudson River Park. “We are trying to be as understanding and as good a neighbor as we can to that community,” Mr. Turso said, “recognizing that we still need to provide refuse collection, recycling and snow removal to that part of town.”

Abe Shnay, a partner in the group that developed the Urban Glass House, said that buyers were still signing contracts and that most were aware that the parking lot could someday be developed. At one point, he said, there were rumors that a high-rise would go up on the site. “The reality is that on the upper floors the best views are to the south, incredible views of the upper harbor and the Statue of Liberty,” he said.

But Michael Shvo, the president of Shvo Marketing, a real estate company that is not involved with the Urban Glass House, said he always tells buyers, “There are only two views in New York that are guaranteed: if you are on a park, or if you are facing a brick wall.”

My Comment: It is 29,000 gallons not 13,000 gallons of fuel contemplated on top of the Holland Tunnel entrance (needs to get his facts right).

The reporter fixates on looking west (scenic vistas) when he should be more interested in quality of life issues (proximity of residential to manufacturing) like traffic safety, noise and air quality. The City has been actively promoting the potential of Hudson Square and really can't have it both ways now either...the neighborhood has clearly reach a tipping point.

[bigkdc]

That column is generally pretty gossip oriented and rarely gets too deep into any issue. I think it is good that the story is getting out and I am sure as this thing proceeds the NY Times will write further articles about the situation.

I have a feeling there will start to be a steady stream of letters to the editor on the subject.

[CBTwo]

If Nino Vendome, the original developer would have been allowed to build the Johnson building originally designed for the site, "Architecture as Art," there would presently be a much larger stink from both residents and those that could appreciate fine architecture.

Alas, it was too ambitious for some individuals in the community, and it became what it is, moderate and non threatening.

[infoshare]

NY TIMES
January 28, 2007
Big Deal
Few Views Are Forever

“It’s a shame,” Mr. Pinter said. “Invariably something would have been built there, but here is a building that was critically acclaimed architecturally, modest in size and scale and not gaudy, facing a consolidated sanitation garage.”



It is this (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=142980&postcount=29) NYwired member (thus far) that has said what best reflects my personal sentiments.

[ablarc]

It is customary when building a handsome new park, at least in the cities I know, to put amenities next to the park, such as hotels and residences, where people can enjoy the park and have views of it. Symbiotically, when you are in the park, the handsome residences that line the park form an important part of their charm and appeal. Likewise, elegant buildings at an entrance to a park define the experience before you even enter.

I can't think of Regent's Park in London without the uniform elegant townhouses ...
Those townhouses --and vast residential palaces like Chester and Cumberland Terrace-- were conceived as part-and-parcel of the development or Regent's Park. The Regent and his architect, John Nash, wanted to gift the public with the park, while making money from the housing, whose value was enhanced by the park.

This self-same idea was trotted out recently in Brooklyn, where NIMBYs rose to oppose it. It's such a good idea, it should be adopted as the paradigm for park development in New York: the profits from the residential helps finance the park's construction and maintenance. There's no reason to mean-spiritedly oppose this because some benefit from it financially. I would hope some benefit finacially from every good act. No need for envy.

[infoshare]

There's no reason to mean-spiritedly oppose this because some benefit from it financially. I would hope some benefit finacially from every good act. No need for envy.

Yes, this just one of the many unstated objections of the NY NIMBY. Glad to see you are not in the least bit fooled by the many nimby 'straw man' arguments: as so many all too often are. :mad:

[CBTwo]

I consider myself a tin man not a "straw man". Mark me stupid, but what is a "straw man?"

I see several of the supporters of this garbage hut on this forum have no problem with sharing the reponsibility as long as it doesn't affect their little tree lined alcoves of the Village, Soho, and Battery Park City. They say "Share in the needed infrastructure." Well I don't exactly see them sharing a four block long UPS terminal in their little Shangri-La's. We have enough of our fair share of trucks in Hudson Square. The UPS trucks, along with the lines of idling buses feeding the FEGS center on Vandam street, as well on the northern end with FedEx contributing their fair share of trucks, is a bit over the limit for the fair share amount of a small but concerned neighborhood.

Let those other NIMBY's have their "fair share" of all this "good for the city's benefit structures."

[ZippyTheChimp]

I see several of the supporters of this garbage hut have no problem with sharing the reponsibility as long as it doesn't affect their little tree lined alcoves of the Village, Soho, and Battery Park City.I seem to be having trouble locating the post where I stated that I support the garage. The only thing I could find was:

My only interest is getting the garage off Gansevoort.
They say "Share in the needed infrastructure." Well I don't exactly see them sharing a four block long UPS terminal in their little Shangri-La's. We have enough of our fair share of trucks in Hudson Square.You chose to live near an M district. My choice was not to.


I consider myself a tin man not a "straw man". Mark me stupid, but what is a "straw man?"Not you, your argument. Look it up.

[CBTwo]

Chimp,

I never made any direct reference to you supporting the garbage garage. What is it, why do you think I was talking directly to you? Are you so important and the only voice of BPC?

The whole Tribeca and BPC communities would love to sweep their obligations and contributions to NYC under the umbrella that they suffered so much after 9/11 that they can't bear any more. That's a load of c....

I know that Battery Park City is not an edgy community and never was. I always felt it was the upper east side built on land fill, but that is another issue all together. That is not the point. They have a lot of fill going out of the city and why not create more land with that fill down in BPC and plant a garbage transfer or a new train yard for MTA on that land?

I believe Soho and Tribeca were M1 also back in the early days. Look what marvelous things have been done there. M1 is zoned light manufacturing, not a wholesale free for all dumping ground for everyone else's crapola.

I looked the "straw" thing up and after reviewing the facts I am a full supportive member of the straw vote party.

[ZippyTheChimp]

The whole Tribeca and BPC communities would love to sweep their obligations and contributions to NYC under the umbrella that they suffered so much after 9/11 that they can't bear any more. That's a load of c....
More straw man.


why not create more land with that fill down in BPC and plant a garbage transfer or a new train yard for MTA on that land?Maybe you should suggest that at the meeting.


I believe Soho and Tribeca were M1 also back in the early days. Look what marvelous things have been done there.
They are not M zones now.


M1 is zoned light manufacturing, not a wholesale free for all dumping ground for everyone else's crapola.

Let's see. St Johns was once a RR terminal. Morton Square was a Yellow Freight facility, and before that, I think an iron foundry. Seems you're the one who intruded. If you think you're the dumping ground for everyone else's crapola, you should get out more.

At any rate, it doesn't matter to me as long as DSNY obeys the law and court ruling, and vacates the peninsula. I suggest you spend your time looking for alternatives, instead of attacking those you consider "supporters." I can't help you.

[bigkdc]

Is this a viable alternative? Seems like that area is better suited for something like this and there may be a way of putting the fuel stoarge in a safer place.

[CBTwo]

Chimp,

Actually it was a Plymouth Rock freight terminal that was situated on the ground of the Satchi and Satchi building. What other terminal are you talking about?

When I arrived in '73 the Union Freight Terminal now known as the UPS terminal was vacant.

Can you name the private carting services that were stationed here in Hudson Square at that same time?

[infoshare]

I consider myself a tin man not a "straw man". Mark me stupid, but what is a "straw man?"

Sorry about not getting back to you right away with an answer; besides, I much prefer the asynchronous mode of communication with my on-line interlocuter. :D

As to your queston CBtwo. Basically a 'straw man' argument means setting-up a sham/false arguments of one sort or another: try wikipedia for a better definition.

[CBTwo]

Thanks Info,

That's me waving at the camera from the "Square." I don't see the Trump building or the Village or BPC in the picture, just a smidge of Tribeca. Where are the others

What false argument have I set up?

[projectsnyc]

30th & 12th is currently housing CD6 trucks with CD5 trucks up at East 73rd.

As we transition from the Giuliani-era 1999 agreement (CD4 and CD5 were slated to go to the Con Ed site at 29th & 12th) to the Doctoroff-era where the Hudson Yards are the center of residential/office/hotel and Convention Center development/expansion, there are more global agendas driving three CD districts to the UPS site.

CD5 becomes an "orphan" under the current plan where CD6 returns (rightly) to East 73rd Street. Related is trying to take the 29th Street site and turn it into another residential monstrosity (even though it is currently in an M-zone). They don't want DSNY across the street on 30th Street and are also pushing to cut down the northernmost portion of the proposed HighLine Park so that someone else can put up a residential neighbor.

CD4's new "architecurally distinguished" 57th Street & 12th Avenue facility will be completed this year and instead of also housing CD5 it is (rightly) housing CD7. I use the word "rightly" because you want to keep the truck trip mileage to a minimum.

Is the 57th Street Garage large enough to accomodate CD5? Maybe...
Should the City save the West 30th Street Yards?
What about the two other alternative sites that they were studying,
Block 1093 and Block 1094 basically across the street from the INTREPID pier, where their pedestrian necks down to the east of Route 9A?

[infoshare]

Thanks Info,
What false argument have I set up?

I was not talking about you personally on the 'straw man' comment: it was comment about nimbys - in general - who typically use such arguments.

However, I do not get the sense that you are sincerely interested in persuing mutual edification on this (or an other) subject. I perceive you as being a bit of a troll: look it up.

With that being said I will now end any further discussion with you.

cheers.

[bigkdc]

Related is trying to take the 29th Street site and turn it into another residential monstrosity (even though it is currently in an M-zone). They don't want DSNY across the street on 30th Street and are also pushing to cut down the northernmost portion of the proposed HighLine Park so that someone else can put up a residential neighbor.



So do you think Related is pushing to get the garage in hudson square to preserve their plans for 29th street? Ironic because I always thought Related would end up building some sort of residential building on the ups site...

[CBTwo]

Wait a minute here. I believe back a few pages the moderator or instigator or someone else said to keep this and all discussions not personally directed.

Do you see Chimp? He called me a troll, albeit "a bit of a troll," but a troll none the less. Is that allowed?

[lofter1]

If the shoe fits ... :cool:

[infoshare]

Wait a minute here. I believe back a few pages the moderator or instigator or someone else..........


Your the instigator;;;;;;;so there!:p

p.s. .......... the 'troll' comment was not a personal attack,,, pleeezzzz! You are toying with people here - and with people who actually live/work (myself included) a few blocks from you: not very neighborly.

[ZippyTheChimp]

CBTwo:

Rather than do any research, you have been spoon-fed information after asking questions the answers to which are available in the links that have been posted.

Unlike others who (I guess) are opposed to the project and have offered viable alternatives, you have offered nothing.

Look up internet troll. The term was used in reference to your posting style.

You are starting to annoy me. That's not good.

[projectsnyc]

Re-directing our attention to the issue at hand, I have located a CB4 letter to the Commissioner of Sanitation re-affirming that CB#2 WOULD BE RELOCATED to 29th Street and 12th Avenue.

[bigkdc]

That letter is a great find. I wonder what transpired that has caused the change of plans. I assume of all this will come up at the meeting wed night....

[ZippyTheChimp]

Print the letter, take it to the meeting, and read it into the record.

[lofter1]

The problem is that the letter is from a Community Board. Under NYC rules of procedure CBs only have advisory power -- nothing they say is binding.

Besides, the letter does NOT re-affirm that a NYDS facility WILL BE RELOCATED to 29th / 10th -- it merely mentions that CB4 had agreed to allow a NYDS facility to be built on that site (which has now become a hot area for redevelopment since rezoning in 2005).

While this letter (dated May 2005) was written after the re-zoning of Hudson Yards (January 2005), seemingly the powers that be revised their plans regarding the NYDS facility.

From NY City Planning Commission:

Hudson Yards (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/hyards/hymain.shtml)
Adopted by the City Council on January 19, 2005.

[projectsnyc]

Hudson Yards - Approved Adopted Zoning

On November 23, 2004, the City Planning Commission approved the ten ULURP actions for Hudson Yards. On January 19, 2005, the City Council voted to adopt the ULURP applications for the Hudson Yards proposal with several modifications to the zoning map change (040499(A) ZMM) and the zoning text amendment (040500(A) ZRM).

SITE SELECTION AND ACQUISITION FOR TOW POUND AND/OR SANITATION FACILITY(IES) (040501 PCM)
Site selection and acquisition of Manhattan Block 675 (West 29th to West 30th streets and Eleventh to Twelfth avenues) would allow for construction of a new below-grade municipal facility to accommodate one or more of the following uses: a Police Department violation tow pound, a Department of Sanitation (DSNY) garage for District 2, and/or garage for DSNY District 5. This facility would allow for the relocation of these uses from within the Hudson River Park.

[CBTwo]

Mr. Braimah:

The Friends of Hudson Square has reviewed the Draft Scoping Document and we have the following comments;

1. We object to the Department of Sanitation (DSNY) being the Lead Agency for the City Environmental Quality Review. Given the size and scope of the project, we request an independent lead agency such as the Department of Environmental Protection or City Planning act as the Lead Agency.

2. We find the Environmental Assessment Statement prepared for the Proposed Action is incomplete in that it found that the proposed action may result in one or more significant adverse environmental impacts only with respect to traffic, noise and air quality and these impacts are not fully described. Clearly there are significant adverse environmental impacts in other City Environmental Quality Review categories that require further analysis as noted below. No Environmental Assessment Statement has been provided. Please provide us with the Environmental Assessment Statement and all amendments for this proposed action.

3. This Proposed Action is only part of the relocation of multiple Sanitation Facilities. When taken together, these relocations affect a much larger area and have environmental consequences over multiple districts. We object to the limited scope of this Environmental Quality Review and we request that all of the Sanitation projects be included in a single City Environmental Quality Review.

4. Please explain why consolidation of the three Sanitation Districts is a better option than having separate facilities for each district within the separate districts. Please provide a comparative analysis. Please explain how the proposed consolidation complies with the “Fair Share” rules

5. The Draft Scoping Document assumes that there are no other possible alternatives to this proposal. Over the past ten years there have been many alternatives that have been publicly discussed. The City Environmental Quality Review process requires the review of alternative sites for public actions. Please provide an assessment of these alternative sites.

6. Expanding the study area beyond a 400- foot radius around the proposed consolidated garage, the truck washing and refueling facility, and salt shed sites is necessary because the proposed garage, located in Manhattan Community District 2, would service Community Districts 1, 2 and 5, all the vehicles will have to commute from a central location to all three Community Boards which will create significant impacts across all three Boards. Please provide an explanation and an analysis.

7. Please provide complete information on the current operations for the existing facility at Gansevoort and for the facility that currently serves District 5. Please include the size and the type of operations, the number and type of vehicles, the trip ends generated, the amount of fuel stored, and a comparative analysis between the existing and proposed facilities.

Please provide complete information on the current operations of all of the other district facilities that are being moved and / or relocated.

8. As per the Draft Scoping Document, The truck washing and refueling facility would house four 4,000 gallon diesel fuel tanks, one 4,000 gallon unleaded gasoline tank, one 4,000 gallon ethanol tank, one 2,000 gallon hydraulic oil tank, one 2,000 gallon motor oil tank, and one 1,000 gallon waste oil tank. In addition there would be one 10,000 gallon diesel fuel storage tank and a tank each (1,000 gallons) for motor oil, waste oil and hydraulic oil in the new DSNY consolidated garage and there is an existing retail gas station on Canal St. The truck washing and refueling facility directly adjoins the vent shaft and emergency exit of the Holland Tunnel and is on top of the Tunnel. The potential hazards of the fuel storage and its potential as a terrorist target need to be assessed as part of the scope of this proposal.

9. Land Use, Zoning, Public Policy, Neighborhood Character and Community Facilities Land use:
The Description of the existing zoning within 400-800 feet is inaccurate. The surrounding zoning districts include C6-2A, M1-5, M1-6, R6, C6-3A, and the TRIBECA Special Mixed Use District (Special District Zoning) that allows residential. The recent Hudson Square Rezoning (C6-2A), the recent rezoning of several blocks to the south in Tribeca (C6-2A & C6-3A), and the proposed rezoning of North Tribeca (C6-2A) that is currently underway at City Planning are clearly reflective of Public Policy in regards to Land Use for the surrounding area. The Land Use survey for the Hudson Square Rezoning found no industrial uses in the rezoned area and few industrial uses in the surrounding area. At the time of the Hudson Square Rezoning Community Board #2 recommended rezoning a larger area because of large number of existing residential and commercial uses. The scope should include the impacts on these districts and the uses they allow.

The request for special permits for relief from street wall, setback requirements, and from height limits would not be consistent with the Hudson Square C6-2A contextual zone and the proposed plan for a Tribeca contextual C6-2A zone. Please explain these impacts on the surrounding districts.

Introducing the proposed new heavy manufacturing use near the existing residential / commercial area will diminish the quality of residential / commercial uses, will affect surrounding land uses, and will create significant adverse impacts. The scoping document does not comment on this. We find that the Proposed Action is not consistent with the existing mix of land uses, would discourage development in the surrounding area, and that the planned project would create trends that would negatively affect land use in the surrounding neighborhood. Please provide an explanation and an analysis.

10. Socioeconomic Conditions;
The Proposed Action is one that would be expected to result in significant adverse socioeconomic impacts. The proposed development is large enough to alter socioeconomic trends in the area so that upgrading, conversion, and redevelopment would be adversely affected and would negatively change land use patterns. Please provide an explanation and an analysis.

The use of 2000 census data would not accurately reflect current population, demographics, housing, and employment. Since the time of the census there has been considerable upgrading, conversion, and redevelopment in the surrounding neighborhood that is not reflected in the census data. There are also many live work businesses in the surrounding loft buildings that would not be evident in the data. Please explain what data will be used.

The proposed action would lower property values in the surrounding area and would alter the underlying forces that shape socioeconomic conditions in the area and thus indirectly displace residents, business, and institutional uses through indirect displacement. Please provide an analysis and an explanation.

11. Open Space;
The Draft Scoping Document does not acknowledge that the truck washing and refueling facility is directly adjacent to the recently constructed Canal St. Park. This park and the Hudson River Park will permanently experience the limitation of public access through the direct effects of noise, air pollutant emissions, and odors. The impacts to these parks should be included and an explanation as to how this complies with park regulations.

12. Cultural Resources;
The James Brown House at 326 Spring Street has already experienced construction and traffic related vibration effects from previous construction projects. Care must be taken to preserve this designated landmark. There are other designated landmark buildings at Block 595, Lots 38, 38, & 40 and there are other buildings in the area that have been proposed for designation as NYC Landmarks. Please describe the precautions that will be taken and the impacts, including traffic, when the proposed project is complete.

Several years ago when the local streets were excavated for the installation of a 48” water main numerous archaeological and historic artifacts were found. It would be reasonable to assume that other artifacts would be found during excavation of the proposed project. Please describe the process that will be used to look for these artifacts.

13. Urban Design/Visual Resources;
The proposed new garage would not be consistent with the street wall, setback requirements, and height limits of the existing zoning nor would it be consistent with the Hudson Square C6-2A contextual zone and the proposed plan for a Tribeca contextual C6-2A zone andwould result in structures substantially different in height, bulk, size, scale, use and arrangement from existing conditions. The proposed new garages would obstruct view corridors and views of the waterfront. Please provide an analysis and an explanation.

14. Neighborhood Character;
We find that development resulting from the proposed action would conflict with surrounding uses; conflict with land use policy for the area; change land use character; and result in a significant negative land use impact. The proposed action would have substantially different building bulk, street wall, form, and scale from the existing buildings. The proposed action would result in substantial direct and indirect displacement of population, employment, and businesses. The addition of these three garages will increase the amount of traffic, change in traffic patterns, and substantial increase in traffic congestion on residential streets. Please provide an analysis and an explanation.

15. Hazardous Materials;
In that testing at other development sites along the west side that were formerly industrial has found leaking under ground tanks and soils and groundwater that were contaminated, it is likely that similar conditions exist at these sites. Please describe the methodology that will be used to determine if these problems exist.

16. Waterfront Revitalization Program;
The Draft Scoping Document notes that the proposed consolidated garage site and the existing MN1 garage are located within the designated New York City coastal zone boundary and are subject to a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Consistency Review and that the proposed salt storage facility is outside of the coastal zone boundary. Note that all three sites are in the 100 year flood plain. Please describe the potential impacts that could be expected from flooding.

17. Traffic and Parking
The construction and operation of the proposed salt storage facility would permanently displace an existing use, a two-story parking garage that provides parking for 400 cars. Most of the development in the surrounding area and throughout Community Boards 1 & 2 has been on sites that were former parking lots which resulted in a tremendous loss of parking spaces. This parking garage is one of few that remains. The loss of this parking would place an undue burden on the surrounding neighborhood that should be included in the analysis.

Traffic is already severely congested in the surrounding area due to the Holland Tunnel. It backs up along Spring St. from Varick St. to the West side. Washington St. is also congested because it is used as an alternative to the West Side Highway (Rt. 9A). Canal St., Houston St., Clarkson St., Varick St., Hudson St. and the West Side Highway (Rt. 9A) are often congested.

The Draft Scoping Document proposes a very limited analysis of a few locations in the project vicinity. The traffic analysis needs to be expanded to include all intersections on:
Spring St. from Varick St. to the West side
Canal Street from the West Side to 6th Ave.
Houston St. from the West Side to 6th Ave.
Clarkson St from the West Side to 6th Ave.
Varick St.from Houston St. to Canal St’
Hudson St. from Laight St. to Clarkson St.
Washington St. from Clarkson St. to Laight St.
The West Side Highway (Rt. 9A) from Chambers St. to 14th St.
Broome St. from Lafayette St. to the Holland Tunnel
Canal Street from the East Side to the Holland Tunnel

The traffic analysis should take into account the future build out of North Tribeca which is about to be rezoned. Additional considerations should include the rebuild of Houston St. which is currently underway and the future rebuild of Canal St. which should commence in the near future.

Please explain why traffic data from 2005 is being used and more recent data from 2006 or 2007 is not.

Please provide a comparative analysis of the proposed project with and with out UPS.

Please provide a trip end analysis for all pieces of equipment operating out of the three proposed facilities.

18. Transit and Pedestrians;
It is likely that the Proposed Action will affect the M-21 bus which runs down Washington St. and across Spring St. This is a vital transportation link for the neighborhood that should not be relocated. Please provide an analysis.

19. Air Quality;
It is likely that the Proposed Action will affect surrounding residential uses and the use of both the Canal St. Park and the Hudson River Park due to emissions from DSNY trucks, heating / ventilation equipment, and significant odors from the facility. These additional emissions will contribute to the existing excessive emissions from Holland Tunnel traffic. Please provide a comparative air quality study.

20. Infrastructure and Energy;
Please explain why the proposed action will not have impacts on Infrastructure and Energy and why local electrical and water systems will not need upgrading.

Please explain the impacts on the storm drainage system caused by the truck washing facility.

21. Construction Impacts;
For the past several years the surrounding residential & commercial buildings have been disrupted by the construction of a 48” water main along Washington St., Spring St. and Greenwich St. as well as the construction of the West Side Highway (Rt 9A) and many new buildings. Please provide an analysis of Construction Impacts for the proposed project including the effects on transportation services (loss of traffic lanes, sidewalks, etc.), the effects of dewatering and construction noise sources including pile drivers and dewatering.

Please provide a comparative analysis based on having separate facilities for each district within the separate districts.

22. Solid Waste and Sanitation Services;
The proposed action would be expected to have impacts on private sanitation services in the surrounding area. Please provide an analysis.

23. ALTERNATIVES
CEQR requires that alternatives to the proposed action be identified and evaluated in an EIS. The consideration of alternative sites for the proposed action is required because the objectives of the proposed action are not site dependent. The Draft Scoping Document assumes that there are no other possible alternatives to this proposal. Please provide an assessment of alternative sites.

24. Fair Share analysis;
Because the proposed garages would be located in Manhattan Community District 2 and would service Community Districts 1, 2 and 5 as would the proposed salt storage facility and the proposal assumes the construction of the proposed Gansevoort Recyclables Acceptance Facility, also in Community District 2, please explain how this proposal is an equitable distribution of city facilities among the boroughs and community districts.

[bigkdc]

I assume the above was sent to someone?

[lofter1]

My guess is that the list is a defensive strike in preparation for the Scoping presentation to take place Wed. Jan.31 at NYU / Kimmel Hall (mentioned earlier in this thread) and that it was prepared in conjunction with David Reck (a very smart zoning / architectural expert from CB2 and who was mentioned by poster CBTwo in an earlier post).

My question about the list is in regards to this:


Introducing the proposed new heavy manufacturing use near the existing residential / commercial area will diminish the quality of residential / commercial uses, will affect surrounding land uses, and will create significant adverse impacts.

What about a garage / salt facility / truck wash / fueling station qualifies as a "new heavy manufacturing use"?

[CBTwo]

You definitely cross your "i's" and dot your "t's" I see.

[lofter1]

Reminder about tonight's meeting:

Public scoping session will be held on:

January 31, 2007, from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

Kimmel Hall, New York University
60 Washington Square South
Rosenthal Pavilion, Tenth Floor.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I can almost hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth.

[CBTwo]

How about the sound of small arms and IED's?

I'm looking forward to meeting a lot of friends and other people tonight. I will be the one wearing a blue flak jacket.

[lofter1]

David Reck and one other fellow (last name Baird?) gave DOS a lot to think about -- they were very good about staying on point and exposing the deficiencies of the Scoping report. Politicians sent reps who had nothing to say (except "We're following the process).

Some pics of the DOS presentation boards (no details, just show proposed placement / massing):

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Hudson%20Square/DOS_Scope_01f.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Hudson%20Square/DOS_Scope_01b.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Hudson%20Square/DOS_Scope_01c.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Hudson%20Square/DOS_Scope_01d.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Hudson%20Square/DOS_Scope_01e.jpg

One upside of the meeting was seeing the view of WSP and NYC from 10 floors up --

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Hudson%20Square/DOS_Scope_01g.jpg

[CBTwo]

I really don't think WSP is a good location for relocating the facility as proposed by DSNY. But then again it was a cemetery at one time, so the land use option is open I guess.

Thanks David R. for the excellent job you did tonight.

Interesting enough they ghosted in the Trump SoHo building on the top image (thanks for the coverage lofter.) Was that to make their project look smaller? Hmmm?

[bigkdc]

David Reck did do a really good job of laying out the issues. There were several others who were effective as well.

After listening to the presentation and to all of the responses, I just have to wonder what in the world is the city thinking on this?

The fuel storage thing on top of the tunnel is a joke. This story will bubble up to the national level at some point here and I have a feeling the national media will have a complete field day on it.

One thing that was really surreal was listening to the owner of the garage that the city wants to use for the salt storage. I kind of felt like we weren't in America for a sec. Here is a guy that has built a nice business that is serving the community and all of a sudden the gov't is going to muscle him into shutting down his business so the gov't can use the land. I'm sure they will try to "buy" it from him but life will become very difficult if he doesn't sell and they can always threaten eminent domain to get leverage in any negotiation.

[infoshare]

One thing that was really surreal was listening to the owner of the garage that the city wants to use for the salt storage. I kind of felt like we weren't in America for a sec. Here is a guy that has built a nice business that is serving the community and all of a sudden the gov't is going to muscle him into shutting down his business so the gov't can use the land. I'm sure they will try to "buy" it from him but life will become very difficult if he doesn't sell and they can always threaten eminent domain to get leverage in any negotiation.

Same story with the UPS lot. Is this not what is called a "taking" of personal property - and therefore an unconstitutional (i.e. illegal) action. Any constitutional scholars out there who can shed some light on what exactly is the legal definition of a "taking of private property"?


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/takings.htm

[lofter1]

I learned a lot at the Scoping session last night -- and was lucky to be sitting next to a zoning attorney (recently in litigation with the DOS on another issue) who was good enough to explain some of the specifics of Scoping process (vs. the upcoming DEIS / ULURP reviews -- all of which are part of the process this plan has to go through).

It seems that one of the biggest legal flaws in the DOS Scoping plan involves the likely emission of additional harmful Particulate Matter in the area and how this project will impact already bad conditions. At this point DOS apparently hasn't supplied the necessary information on this subject.

Regarding the privately-owned parking lot at Clarkson / Washington: It was pointed out that the city wants to buy this to turn into the salt storage facility. By doing so ~ 400 parking spaces curretnly used by the public will be taken out of action -- couple that with the number of other parking spaces that are being removed in the nearby area due to recent / future development and the parking problem in the neighborhood is greatly exacerbated. At the same time DOS wants to create space in the proposed building at Washington / Spring for ~ 200+ employee parking spaces.

So: DOS is tearing down one viable parking structure, building another and in the process decreasing the overall number of parking spaces.

The "community" seems to be very activated on this issue. And seems to have some smart and effective advocates to plead their case(s).

No wonder most of the pols have yet to take much of a position.

My guess is that Bloomberg wants this specific DOS project to happen (as it keeps the previously proposed facility at W. 30th / 10th Avenue out of the Hudson Yards area -- which is Bloomberg's baby).

It's going to be very interesting to watch this one play out.

[lofter1]

Note in this photo / rendering from the presentation tha they've included the Trump Condo/Hotel (grayish thing at upper right) -- apparently in an effort to minimize the size of the new DOS garage (the orange things across the bottom) ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Hudson%20Square/DOS_Scope_01f.jpg

[lofter1]

From DOS (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dsny/html/public/notices.shtml) regarding extension of time for public to submit comments:

Consolidation of Sanitation Garage 1,2, and 5

Notice of Determination (Positive Declaration) and Notice of Scoping Meeting: Consolidated Sanitation Garage for Manhattan Districts 1, 2 and 5 - Comment Period Extended to 2/20/2007 (19.8 KB) (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dsny/downloads/pdf/public/MN_125.pdf)

[bigkdc]

Note in this photo / rendering from the presentation tha they've included the Trump Condo/Hotel (grayish thing at upper right) -- apparently in an effort to minimize the size of the new DOS garage (the orange things across the bottom) ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Hudson%20Square/DOS_Scope_01f.jpg


It's probably 5th or 6th on my list of issues with the whole plan but that thing (the garage) is HUGE

[CBTwo]

Friends of Hudson Square

512 Greenwich St., NYC, NY 10013
David Reck, Pres.
(212) 966-1899
512dave@earthlink.net

The meeting last night was very well attended and we are off to a good start but, there are more meetings to come.

There will be a meeting tonight of the Community Board #1 Tribeca Committee. We have this one covered. There are several Community Board Members who live in north Tribeca who are very concerned and support our position. The Friends of Hudson Square will have representatives there who can explain the issue.

Community Board #2 will hold four committee meetings on the issue this month.
The Board is very aware of the issue. Please attend as many of the meetings as you can.

ENVIRONMENT Hon. Rick Panson, Chair
Mon., 2/5 @ 6:30 PM-CB#2-Man. Conference Room, 3 Washington Square Village, ground floor enter on Bleecker St. west of LaGuardia Place
Proposed Sanitation Garage (Spring St.): Scope of DSNY’S Environmental Impact Statement.

WATERFRONT, PARKS, RECREATION & OPEN SPACE Arthur Z. Schwartz, Chair
Mon., 2/5 @ 7:30 PM-Tony Dapolito Recreation Center, 3 Clarkson St., 3rd Floor, at 7th Ave. South
Sanitation Garage – Proposed Sanitation Garage (Spring St.): Scope of DSNY’S Environmental Impact Statement

ZONING & HOUSING Hon. Doris Diether, Chair
Thurs., 2/8 @ 6:30 PM –St. Vincent’s Hospital, 170 W. 12th St. Cafeteria (Identification required)
Proposed Sanitation Garage (Spring St.): Scope of DSNY’S Environmental Impact Statement.

TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION Hon. Brad Hoylman, Chair
Tues., 2/13 @ 6:30 PM –LGBT Community Service Center, 208 W. 13th St. bet. 7th & Greenwich Aves. (Check in lobby for room assignment).
Proposed Sanitation Garage (Spring St.): Scope of DSNY’S Environmental Impact Statement.

More to come
A complete copy of the proposal can be obtained at: www.nyc.gov/sanitation (http://www.nyc.gov/sanitation)

CONSOLIDATED SANITATION GARAGE FOR MANHATTAN DISTRICTS 1, 2 & 5

[bigkdc]

CBTwo - you seem to me very in the know with what the friends of hudson square group is doing on this issue. thanks for the info...

question - is there any kind of media plan to get this out there? so far people have focused on the garage and not the fuel storage which to me is a much more interesting media story

[lofter1]

There was a photographer / reporter at the Scoping meeting who seemed to be getting good coverage -- not sure where he reports.

btw: The very large room at Kimmel where the Scoping presentation took place this past Wednesday was full of neighborhood foks (I'd guess 200 +).

A recent Letter to the Edtor of The Villager (http://http://www.thevillager.com/villager_194/letterstotheeditor.html) :

Recipe for disaster

January 17 - 23, 2007

To The Editor:

According to the draft scoping document for a draft environmental assessment statement for the consolidated Sanitation garage for Manhattan Districts 1, 2 and 5, the Department of Sanitation proposes to store 29,000 gallons of petroleum products on D.O.S.’s proposed new refueling facility at Canal, West and Spring Sts.

Currently, Sanitation District 1 is located at this site with 8,550 gallons of stored petroleum products. The new consolidated garage would be an increase of 10,450 gallons of petroleum products stored on site. This site is adjacent to the Port Authority’s Holland Tunnel and the tunnel’s ventilation shaft.

The proposed new garage on the UPS site is adjacent to the tunnel and the proposed new refueling site. The proposed UPS site will have another 13,000 gallons of petroleum products stored on site. An explosion on these sites would be catastrophic to the Holland Tunnel, businesses, residents, pedestrian traffic, the streets, Route 9A, the Hudson River Park and Pier 40. All of these are within 800 feet of the proposed facilities.

I can only wonder what the Port Authority and Homeland Security would say to the siting of these D.O.S. facilities.

The loss of 251 parking spaces in the garage on Clarkson and Washington Sts. — for a new salt storage site — would also affect businesses and residents.

According to New York City Hurricane Evacuation Zones, the proposed sites are either in an A or B zone. The current D.O.S. site and the UPS site are in Zone A. Zone A would experience strong storm surges and flooding if any hurricane hit off New York City. Zone B would experience strong storm surges and flooding if a Category 2 through 5 hurricane hit off New York City.

Remember Katrina!

I urge all who live in this area to come to the public scoping meeting on Wed., Jan. 31, at Kimmel Hall, New York University, 60 Washington Square South, Rosenthal Pavilion, 10th floor, 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

Ellen Peterson-Lewis

[projectsnyc]

Al Amateau, who writes for the Downtown Express/The Villager/Chelsea Now
is writing a story...I'm guessing that it was too close to deadline for today's edition. I've also heard that the NY SUN is planning an article.

When will we see the fuel depot proposal on the front page of the NY POST?

[lofter1]

This DOS proposal has brought to light something that few seemed to be aware of:

The existing one-story garage building just to the west of the Holland Tunnel vent towers and just above the Holland Tunnel itself (triangle of Canal / Spring / Washington) stores throusands of gallons of various fuels, and has done so for decades.

[bigkdc]

Is there any reason not to write Senators Schumer and Clinton on this? I know our local folks know about it and all of the zoning stuff is squarely in their knowledge base but the national security impact of the fule storage seems like a federal issue as well.

Is it better to let things play out at the local level and only go to the senator level once the local level politics have played out?

[bigkdc]

This DOS proposal has brought to light something that few seemed to be aware of:

The existing one-story garage building just to the west of the Holland Tunnel vent towers and just above the Holland Tunnel itself (triangle of Canal / Spring / Washington) stores throusands of gallons of various fuels, and has done so for decades.

Kind of frightening....

[ManhattanKnight]

29,000 gallons of petroleum products

Which, if I've done my math correctly, is 2.1% of the diesel fuel capacity of a moderately-sized passenger ship (QE2, specifically). I'm trembling. Anyhow, if I remember my science correctly, liquid petroleum products can't explode. Burn, yes; explode, no.

[CBTwo]

In the proposed refueling station, directly adjoining the easterly most Holland Tunnel ventilation tower, there is one 4,000 gallon tank which will hold gasoline and one 4,000 gallon tank holding ethanol. Gasoline is obviously extremely explosive and ethanol is explosive but at a lower level of risk. The other 21,000 gallons of petroleum products are highly flammable but are not at a high risk for exploding. Given enough burn time with this fuel source structural failure (no matter what the material) will occur.

The proposed garage across Spring Street street would house approximately 13,000 gallons of petroleum products.

For comparison, the planes involved in the September 11th attacks were each capable of holding up to aproximately 24,000 gallons of fuel, albeit jet fuel.

[projectsnyc]

Downtown's "Go-To" Guy for issues of Homeland Security


Regarding casework, such as a personal issue dealing with a federal agency, or other issues or concerns in my district, you can call or write to my Manhattan or Brooklyn offices. Manhattan

Rep. Jerrold Nadler
201 Varick Street, Suite 669
New York, NY 10014
Tel. 212-367-7350
Email Me (http://www.house.gov/nadler/emailform.shtml)

[projectsnyc]

At CB#1 last night, the TriBeCa committee passed a unanimous resolution which amongst other points, asked for a different lead agency and for alternative sites.

In 2004 CB#4 and the Hells Kitchen Neighborhood Association agreed the block 675 (29th-30th Streets 12th-11th Avenues) could take a one story structure including a sanitation garage (DSNY off of Gansevoort), and a tow-away pound (NYCDOT off of Pier 76) with a green roof top park.

The salt pile structure under the Manhattan Bridge CD3 is under-utilized.

Take CD 5 out of the West Village and shift the salt pile east and then other solutions become more plausible and possible.

(http://www.house.gov/nadler/emailform.shtml)

[CBTwo]

What is the story on the east side along the river around and under the FDR north of the Manhattan Bridge? It looks pretty desolate over there, and there are existing decrepit structures. They have the look of typical city maintained structures. Does anyone know what they are used for?

[lofter1]

Developers aren't doing to want a DOS facility in what they see as their new pot-o'-gold (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=145959&postcount=225) ...




At CB#1 last night, the TriBeCa committee passed a unanimous resolution which amongst other points, asked for a different lead agency and for alternative sites.

In 2004 CB#4 and the Hells Kitchen Neighborhood Association agreed the block 675 (29th-30th Streets 12th-11th Avenues) could take a one story structure including a sanitation garage (DSNY off of Gansevoort), and a tow-away pound (NYCDOT off of Pier 76) with a green roof top park.

(http://www.house.gov/nadler/emailform.shtml)




Residential Towers to Sprout Soon on Far West Side

... Developers also want the city to demolish the elevated railroad line, known as the High Line, that hugs the western and southern perimeter of the railyards. That proposal is opposed by several community groups, which want to see the entire length of the High Line converted to a park.

[projectsnyc]

Interesting conundrum...long-term residents, new residents, parkies' "rights", a newly unified neighborhood vs. the next-wave of development. Hudson Square (with an old-school M-Zone) now at its tipping point (residential enclave with views), competing with an un-built future vision.

Block 675 (29th-30th) would achieve a number of important goals:
1. Relocate CD5 Sanitation Garage out of the West Village and save miles and time being adjacent to Midtown Manhattan district that it serves
2. Maintain the northernmost (30%) of the HighLine Park
3. Relocate the Municipal Tow-Away Pound out of Pier76/Hudson River Park
4. Free-up Pier 76 for a Sanitation Waste Transfer Station consolidating plans for both Gansevoort and Pier 99 in one location per CB#4 preference and making Speaker Quinn a local hero again
4. Extend the park and access inboard with a green rooftop

It's all possible under the Hudson Yards re-zoning. Will Doctoroff be able to resist the "spot zoning" demands of individual Developers in order to subscribe to the rubric of Master Planning?

[bigkdc]

In thinking about the currently planned location vs the hudson yard area doesn't the holland tunnel issue and the safety of having all of that fuel nearby come into play?

Yes the developers (ie, related) may want to build something but if doing that means we need to build a bomb next to the holland tunnel, shouldn't we try to avoid that?

[lofter1]

Garbage center plan stinks, Hudson Square residents cry

http://www.thevillager.com/villager_197/richard.gif
Villager photo by Jefferson Siegel
Richard Barrett, of Canal West Coalition, holds a cloth

he wiped his windowsill with, showing what he claimed
was three months’ worth of grime from pollution.


thevillager.com (http://www.thevillager.com/villager_197/garbagecenterplan.html)
By Albert Amateau
February 7 -13, 2007


Residents of Hudson Square and Tribeca expressed outrage and contempt last week for the city’s proposal to build a 150-foot-tall garage for three Department of Sanitation districts on a site just north of new luxury residential development and a Holland Tunnel exit ramp and ventilation tower.


Most of the 200 people at a Jan. 31 hearing were clearly against the project’s threat of an estimated 480 daily truck trips, increased air pollution and the storage of 17,000 gallons of fuel oil in a manufacturing zone adjacent to an area recently rezoned for residential use.


“This is beyond poor planning; it’s ludicrous, and we’ll take every opportunity to see that this project as planned does not move forward,” said Richard Barrett, of the Canal West Coalition, at the Department of Sanitation’s hearing on the scope of the project’s proposed environmental impact statement.


Barrett unfurled a white handkerchief blackened with soot, which he said he wiped from a window that had been cleaned three months previously at his home on Canal St. off Washington St., to show how badly the air is already polluted even without the proposed project. Barrett then read off statistics about diesel-particulate pollution, and at one point Steven Brautigam, one of the Sanitation officials making the presentation, asked him to keep his remarks to three minutes.


“This is about human health!” Barrett protested, to cheers from the audience.


http://www.thevillager.com/villager_197/site.gif
Villager photo by Esther Martin


The view northwest from the $14 million, 12th-floor penthouse apartment of the new Urban Glass House on Spring St., showing the UPS parking lot in the foreground and Pier 40 in background. The proposed 150-foot-tall garage on the UPS site would be 13 feet taller than the Urban Glass House, blocking this entire view.


The single voice in favor of the Sanitation project, most of which would be built on a United Parcel Service parking and truck-staging lot between Washington and West Sts. north of Spring St., was Ross Graham, co-chairperson of the Friends of Hudson River Park, advocates for the 5-mile-long riverfront park being built by the state and city.


Friends of Hudson River Park filed a lawsuit in 2005 to get Sanitation facilities off the Gansevoort Peninsula — which is located 20 blocks north of Spring St. — in compliance with the state legislation that created the park.


Last September, the Department of Sanitation signed a court-approved agreement to find alternative locations for the Sanitation uses currently on Gansevoort Peninsula and on Pier 97 at 57th St. to allow park construction to begin on those sites by 2012. The proposed Hudson Square Sanitation project is intended to replace existing facilities for Sanitation District 2 (currently based on Gansevoort Peninsula) and for District 5 (now based on the East River at 73rd St.).


“Friends of Hudson River Park are aware of the issues raised by the construction of a major facility in the area,” Graham said. “But we note it is in a manufacturing district and is mandated by the court settlement. We hope that mitigating arrangements can make it more acceptable to the community but we are adamant that it be finished in time for removal of the Sanitation Department from Gansevoort by the end of 2012,” she said.


But members of Community Board 2, in whose district the new mega-garage is planned, and Community Board 1, whose border on Canal St. abuts the southern end of the project, were dead set against the project. State Senator Tom Duane and Assemblymember Deborah Glick had serious reservations that they insisted be addressed by the environmental impact statement.


Maria Passannante Derr, C.B. 2 chairperson, noted that the board in 1999 supported a potential plan for Sanitation facilities at the Hudson Square site for two Sanitation districts — District 1, covering Lower Manhattan, and District 2, covering the Village, Hudson Square, Soho, Noho and Little Italy. But the current proposal would handle trucks and salt storage for those two districts plus District 5, which covers the middle of Manhattan from 14th to 59th Sts.: “The eight-year-old resolution never contemplated including District 5,” Derr said.


“I never heard a worse idea in my life,” said Phil Mouquinho, a C.B. 2 member and second-generation owner of P.J. Charlton restaurant on Charlton St. Mouquinho recalled that when the city two years ago proposed a New York Jets stadium above the rail yards in the West 30s, the plan included a new Department of Sanitation garage facility at 30th St. — with a park on the roof — that was supposed to take some of the garbage trucks.


“Where is that offer now?” Mouquinho asked. “This project is a no-win situation for the neighborhood and the city. Let’s scope it somewhere else.”


Sanitation, however, was only there to make the presentation and did not respond to the comments or questions of any speakers.


The plan also calls for creating a new fuel-storage depot on the south side of Spring St. between Canal and West Sts. at the site of the current outmoded District 1 Sanitation garage.


Carole DeSaram, chairperson of the C.B. 1 Tribeca Committee, blasted the proposed storage capacity for 4,000 gallons of diesel fuel, 4,000 gallons of gasoline, 4,000 gallons of ethanol, 2,000 gallons of hydraulic oil, 2,000 gallons of motor oil and 1,000 gallons of waste oil. Much of the fuel would be stored on this smaller site, which would be used for truck washing and truck refueling.


DeSaram said the proposed increased fuel storage at the site near the Holland Tunnel exit ramp was a potential terrorism target in an area where residents suffered through the World Trade Center attack.


The current District 1 garage at this smaller site, just north of the triangular Canal Park, has a storage capacity for 7,000 gallons of various fuel and waste oils.


In total, there are three sites in the current proposal. The largest is the 85,000-square-foot UPS parking lot, where the four-story, 150-foot-tall garage is planned. UPS would use the first floor for parking and staging 58 delivery trucks per day, and Sanitation would use the second, third and fourth floors for handling 128 pieces of equipment 24 hours a day, seven days a week.


To the outrage of many people at the Jan. 31 hearing, the Sanitation facility on the UPS site also calls for space for 98 cars, many of them for personal use by Department of Sanitation employees.


The third site in the project is a privately owned parking garage that accommodates 400 vehicles at 575 Washington St., which the city would take by condemnation proceedings. Sanitation plans a shed on the site to store 6,500 tons of road salt and two 5,000-gallon tanks for liquid calcium chloride, also used to melt road ice.


“You’re looking to take my business away,” Gary Spindler, owner of 575 Washington St., told Sanitation officials conducting the hearing. He demanded that Sanitation find an alternate site for the salt storage.


Regarding the UPS site, complex legal issues have not been spelled out yet. Whether the city or UPS would own the parking lot, the question of condemnation or sale of the property and rent issues have not been settled, according to Sanitation and UPS officials. But Leonard Steinberg, representing new residents of the neighborhood at the hearing, demanded to know, “What kind of deal is there between the city and UPS? It could be a dirty deal.”


The area was rezoned from manufacturing to residential three years ago, during which time it has seen seven new residential developments in a two-block radius of the site, with apartments selling for as much as $1,200 per square foot and a total real estate value of $672 million, Steinberg said.


The projects include the recently completed 12-story Urban Glass House at the corner of Washington and Spring Sts., designed by the late Philip Johnson, the 14-story glass-facade residence at 505 Greenwich St. and an 11-story project designed by Winka Dubbledam that combines a new glass house and an old warehouse converted to residential lofts.


David Reck, a C.B. 2 member and president of Friends of Hudson Square, presented a five-page critique of the proposed environmental review to be conducted by the Department of Sanitation. Reck called for the Department of City Planning or the Department of Environmental Protection to replace D.O.S. as the lead agency in the review. Instead of 575 Washington St., Reck suggested a site under the Manhattan Bridge to store road salt. Another problem, Reck said, is that the Sanitation project would have a negative impact on access to both the 5-mile-long Hudson River Park on the west side of West St. and Canal Park, completed 18 months ago, on the east side West St.


A few weeks ago, Reck told The Villager that he and a coalition of the new residents, business and property owners will likely go to court to fight the project.


Barbara Siegel, a member of Canal West Coalition and a board member of the Canal Park Conservancy, recalled that neighbors lobbied for years for the creation of Canal Park, which had been a parking lot for Sanitation employees.


“Now another Sanitation parking lot is going to be built right next to it,” she said.


Michael Kramer, representing Eugene M. Grant Co., owner of the St. John’s Building — a former High Line rail terminal, north of the UPS lot, now occupied by back offices — suggested that the environmental review consider other places for District 5 Sanitation equipment. Murray Weinstock, a musician who has lived in the neighborhood for 27 years, recalled that two decades ago, before the upscale development, he saw rats running in the streets when he came home from a gig. Weinstock feared that with a garage housing garbage trucks from three Sanitation districts, the rat population would flourish again.


The deadline for written public comment on the scope of the project review is 5:30 p.m., Feb. 26. The draft environmental impact statement will begin in May along with the beginning of the city uniform land use review procedure. In June, D.O.S. will hold a hearing on the draft environmental impact statement, and the final E.I.S. is expected by the beginning of September.


C.B. 2 and the Manhattan Borough Board will review the project in the summer and fall of this year and the City Planning Commission and the City Council will vote on final approval in the winter of 2008, with acquisition of the sites to follow. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2009; by the end of 2012 the department hopes to complete the project and leave Gansevoort Peninsula to allow construction to begin on the park.


© 2006 Community Media, LLC

[bigkdc]

Good article. I wonder how they got a picture from the penthouse

[antinimby]

^ By going up to the penthouse and taking a picture?

[lofter1]

I'd imagine that the new resident owners at the Urban Glass House will be raising all sorts of funds to fight this -- and inviting the press in to get whatever coverage they think will help the cause.

[lofter1]

Good article.

Interesting that the article doesn't mention any of the discussion of the problems of Particulate Matter caused by vehicles in that area -- something that Mr. Barrett went into depth about and stressed very strongly in his presentation (and which an environmental lawyer sitting next to me said could very likely be the nail in the coffin of this proposal -- as the City has failed over the past many years to meet all sorts of Federal markers on Particulate Matter and it is deemed a major health risk for inhabitants not only in this neighborhood but other high traffic neighborhoods of NYC as well).

It could be that the editor at The Villager cut that part of the article, thinking it too arcane for most readers.

[bigkdc]

See below from the NYTimes a few months back. If the owner (Sol Kerzner of Atlantis in the bahamas fame) of the penthouse is fighting this, then you potentially have Trump (he has vowed to help in the fight) and Kerzner working together on something which would be a real trip since they are pretty fierce competitors in the casino world...

Throwing No Stones
SOL KERZNER, the resort and casino developer, has agreed to buy the $10.5 million penthouse at the Urban Glass House, the 12-story apartment tower at Spring and Washington Streets designed by Philip Johnson (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/j/philip_johnson/index.html?inline=nyt-per), according to a person informed of the deal. Mr. Kerzner is buying the penthouse for his daughter Beverley, the person said.
The four-bedroom, four-bath unit has 4,266 square feet of interior space and 1,579 square feet of terraces on three sides.
The Urban Glass House was one of Mr. Johnson's last projects before his death last year, at 98. Its name, if not its height, is meant to evoke his Glass House, a low-slung modernist icon in New Canaan, Conn. The building's interiors have been designed by Annabelle Selldorf.
Charles Blaichman, one of the developers of the building, said that 25 of the 40 apartments are in contract. The building is expected to be finished in July.
Mr. Kerzner is the chairman of Kerzner International, which owns resorts in the Bahamas, Dubai and Morocco, as well as the Mohegan Sun casino in Connecticut (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/classifieds/realestate/locations/connecticut/?inline=nyt-geo).
Lauren Snyder, senior vice president for corporate public relations at Kerzner International, said Mr. Kerzner would not comment. The broker who represented the Kerzners, Leonard Steinberg of Prudential Douglas Elliman, also refused to discuss the transaction.

[infoshare]

New York is a world class city: and the waterfront stretch going from 14th street to Champers St is tourning out to be a parade of world-class architecture. So what new development is slated for that choice piece of real estate? A mega sanitation facility - nutz.

I hope Trump and the other glass house guy, can do something to stop this sheer stupidity.

In my opinion all the other conserns are nothing more than "particulate Matter (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=147203&postcount=129)". Mabeee ............ everybode is not a ARTchitcture fanatic like me.:eek:

p.s. I thing there is one member (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=145682&postcount=119) (active on this tread) who is involved in local city politics: I hope he is alos opposed to this projcect also - we need his support.

[ZippyTheChimp]

14th street to Champers St is tourning out to be a parade of world-class architecture.Like Morton Square? I think even the DSNY garage at W57th St trumps it (no pun intended).

The decentralized dual-facility argument is going to be difficult for the city to argue against.

Of course, the W30 St site is also near the waterfront in the same world class city.

So where in this world-class city would you put it (them)?

[ablarc]

So where in this world-class city would you put it (them)?
Could you build a new pier and put everything in a three or four story building on the pier?

[CBTwo]

I suggested a new pier dedicated to the project a few weeks ago. It still seems to me the correct solution. Did this Hudson River Park formation eliminate any access to river property? Actually they could incorporate a new heliport in the new pier construction also. Talk about smelly. Or is the heliport use condemned also?

[ZippyTheChimp]

The park property extends from RT 9A to the pierline.

The park itself can't authorize a new pier (even for park use) without federal approval.

The only pier that is slated for municipal use is pier 76. I think half will remain a tow pound, and there is talk about a consolidated waste transfer station at 76.

The question is: Would the District 2 accept a smaller garage that does not include District 5.

[infoshare]

Of course, the W30 St site is also near the waterfront in the same world class city.

So where in this world-class city would you put it (them)?

Oh,,,,hell, I dont know, some where - anywhere (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=147331&postcount=134) - but there. I do not have all the answers - That is your department.:D

[projectsnyc]

I have atttached Community Board 4's official position as expressed during the Hudson Yards deliberations. Surprisingly CB5 has taken no such position and they haven't even asked Dan Klein from DSNY to address their Board. I guess they expect the other Boards to do the lifting for them without fairly sharing the burden.

Perhaps the CB1 building can be rebuilt (18,000 sf lot - FAR of 5) into something more useful than as a fueling station for all City agency vehicles.

We'll find someplace else for the salt pile too.

[lofter1]

I saw a sign today announcing a CB2 meeting that took place on Feb. 8 regarding the DOS proposal.

Anyone know what came out of that?

[bigkdc]

Editorial
Sanitation: Don’t dump on Hudson Square


Hudson Square used to be a dumping ground for uses shunned by other neighborhoods, mainly trucking, including private garbage carters and recyclable waste and paper carters. In the late 1990s, that began to change as new luxury residential buildings began to sprout up.


Three years ago, Hudson Square’s southern end was rezoned residential, and the new designer glass towers have kept on coming.


But the Department of Sanitation garbage-truck garage on Gansevoort Peninsula is a problem. Under the Hudson River Park Act, Sanitation is already supposed to have left Gansevoort so the park can be built there; but the city has moved slowly, precipitating the Friends of Hudson River Park’s lawsuit, which forced the city to agree to vacate the peninsula by 2012, paying steep fines every year it remains.


When Community Board 2 debated the Gansevoort problem back in 1998, the Greenwich Village board resolved Hudson Square could accommodate one more Sanitation district’s trucks in addition to the trucks from Sanitation District 1 (which, currently based at Canal and Spring Sts., serve Lower Manhattan’s C.B. 1, though this garage site is within C.B. 2). The thought was always that C.B. 4 (Chelsea/Clinton) could also house one more Sanitation district’s trucks in addition to its own.


But the new Hudson Square plan calls for a three-Sanitation district garage — for Sanitation Districts 1 and 2 (the latter serving Greenwich Village) and now also Sanitation District 5 (serving the middle of Manhattan from Union Square to Central Park S.). And, it turns out, Chelsea/Clinton isn’t getting an additional Sanitation district, after all.


A couple of years ago, as Mayor Bloomberg pushed his West Side stadium plan, the city was also proposing a new Sanitation garage — with a rooftop park — in the West 30s. The stadium idea collapsed, but City Hall is still promoting the Hudson Yards, with a slew of upscale residential towers on the way. For unexplained reasons, though, a Sanitation garage is no longer slated for the Hudson Yards.


Again Hudson Square is being dumped on. Yet, the city rezoned Hudson Square residentially — so the city is working at cross-purposes.


And we can’t fathom why this planned four-story garage must be 150 feet tall. UPS will have the ground floor; still, must ceilings be 35 feet high? If there were one less Sanitation district, meaning a few dozen less trucks (assuming one of the Sanitation districts was relocated, perhaps, to Chelsea), the garage could be smaller.


This project will add thousands of truck trips to congested Canal St. and the Holland Tunnel area. The preliminary document says the traffic study area will be a 400-foot radius around the site — to be expanded “if needed.” Clearly, a 400-foot area is too small to assess the tremendous impact this facility promises.


Hudson Square shouldn’t be saddled with garbage trucks from three community board districts. This isn’t so much a NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) issue as just not fair.

[CBTwo]

Does anyone know what the fine would be if the DOS does not vacate the pier? Also who would collect the fine, the state, the city or the park? If the fine was somewhat reasonable, and the park collected the money, perhaps that is a way to fund the rest of the park.

What would the cost of the new sanitation facility be compared to paying a yearly fine?

Just a thought.

[lofter1]

There is no fine. The DOS has to vacate.

[CBTwo]

Friends of Hudson Square
512 Greenwich St., NYC, NY 10013
David Reck, Pres.
(212) 966-1899
512dave@earthlink.net

Sanitation Update: The Alternative site isn’t the Alternative - It’s already approved!!

The Friends of Hudson Square has researched the records for the Hudson Yards Rezoning & has found a wealth of astounding documents and a power point presentation as well.

Block 675, West 29th to West 30th streets between Eleventh Ave & Twelfth Ave, is the site that was selected for the sanitation facilities that are now being forced on Hudson Square!!! It already has every approval it would ever need.

This site has been reviewed over many years. It has been approved by Community Board #4 and a copy of that approval is attached. The environmental work was done years ago as part of the Hudson Yards Rezoning and a copy of that report is attached. The Hudson Yards Rezoning was reviewed, voted on, and approved by Community Board #4, by the City Planning Commission, and by City Council. They even produced a rendering of the roof of that garage that is intended to be a park that will be an accessory to the Hi Line Park. A copy of the rendering is attached. The Community around Block 675 wants this facility.

In addition to all of that we have obtained a copy of the Uniform Land Use Review documents (040501 PCM) for “Public Facility-Site Selection/Acquisition” specifically for this facility that were reviewed, voted on, and approved by Community Board #4, by the City Planning Commission, and by City Council.

The question arises why is this now being shoved on Hudson Square at break neck speed with little time for community review when all the extensive review and approvals have been done on block 675?

[bigkdc]

Here are the attachments that David Reck sent out with the above post...as well as the photo of what had been approved at the north end of the highline

[CBTwo]

Garbage tower foes push for alternate sites

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_197/busses.gif

The city was planning to build a Sanitation facility at this W. 30th St. lot, officially known as Block 675 in the Hudson Yards Redevelopment zone, but it now wants to build facilities in Hudson Square. Opponents say Block 675 and the west side Tow Pound should be considered instead.
By Albert Amateau

West Siders from Tribeca to Hell’s Kitchen are frantically seeking ways to ensure the future of a 5-mile park being built along the Hudson River and at the same time safeguard their neighborhoods threatened by Department of Sanitation proposals for a jumbo garage and marine-transfer stations.

Many Hudson Square and Tribeca residents, including members of the Canal West Coalition, made it clear at a scoping meeting at the end of last month that they would fight the Department of Sanitation proposal for a 150-foot-tall garage and road-salt storage for three Sanitation districts on a cluster of sites from Canal to Charlton Sts. between West and Washington Sts.

However, the project is intended to enable the city to take garbage trucks and road salt off the Gansevoort Peninsula, the 8-acre landfill projection into the river between Little W. 12th and Gansevoort Sts., scheduled to become a major part of Hudson River Park.

Friends of Hudson River Park, an advocacy group, sued to force Sanitation to get off the peninsula and off Pier 97 at W. 57th St. in compliance with the 1998 Hudson River Park Act, which created the park. D.O.S. signed an agreement last year to leave the peninsula and the pier by 2012.

One possible solution was voiced at the Jan. 31 scoping meeting when residents recalled that the city’s 2005 approval for the proposed Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project between W. 29th and W. 43rd Sts. included, “the selection and acquisition of property bounded by W. 29th and W. 30th Sts. between 11th and 12th Aves. for use as a sanitation garage and tow pound.”

The original plan for the W. 30th St. property, which is privately owned, was for a Sanitation garage below the surface and a park on top. Housed in this garage would have been trucks and equipment from two Sanitation districts — District 2 (covering Greenwich Village down to Hudson Square) and District 5 (covering the middle of Manhattan from Union Square to Central Park S.)

Arthur Schwartz, chairperson of Community Board 2’s Parks and Waterfront Committee, said Community Board 4 (Chelsea/Clinton) had accepted having the garbage trucks serving Community Board 2 (Greenwich Village/Soho/Noho/Hudson Square) in its district in return for being guaranteed input in planning the future park on Gansevoort Peninsula, which is located in Board 2, but only a few blocks south of Chelsea.

The approval is still valid for the Hudson Yards Redevelopment but the city has apparently decided not to acquire the site, known as Block 675 in the city map.

Spokespersons for Mayor Bloomberg and city’s Sanitation Dept. did not respond to inquiries for reasons for dropping the site. A Parks Department spokesperson, however, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the city decided it had “a better deal, or opportunity, at the Spring St. site , which is why they are looking to do it down there.”

Indeed, the common assumption is that the high cost of acquiring Block 675 through condemnation proceedings and high construction costs for an underground garage prompted the decision to go with the Hudson Square project instead. The city will likely pay less for the largest of the three Hudson Sq. parcels because they will share the site with the current owner, United Parcel Service.

However, speaking in March 2004 at a meeting of the Chelsea Waterside Park Association, Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe had vowed that the combination garage and park would be built somewhere in the W. 30s — he didn’t specify where. At that time, the city was still planning a Jets/Olympic stadium over the West Side rail yards. Asked about the stadium plans three years ago, Benepe said there would be a 4-acre park on top of a new Sanitation garage to be built somewhere south of the Javits Convention Center: “Whether a stadium is built or not, the garage will be built. We have to get the Sanitation trucks out of Hudson River Park.”

Speaking this Tuesday, the Parks spokesperson said their understanding is that the Hudson Yards Redevelopment Corporation is still looking into providing space for “active recreation” in the Hudson Yards area.

Most of the Sanitation project at Hudson Square would be on the U.P.S. lot between West and Washington Sts. north of Spring St., which the firm uses for truck staging to load and deliver packages from the company’s facility across the street.

The plan calls for U.P.S. to use the ground floor of the proposed garage, and for Sanitation to use the second, third and fourth floors to store trucks and other equipment for three Sanitation districts — District 1 (covering Lower Manhattan) and Districts 2 and 5.

Reports that The Related Companies is interested in the Hudson Yards Block 675 site are false, Joanna Rose, a spokesperson for Related, said on Tuesday.

Despite the agreement to get garbage trucks off Gansevoort, the city is pursuing a three-year-old plan to build a new marine-transfer station, or M.T.S., on the peninsula to send recyclable glass and paper by barge to Sunset Park in Brooklyn.

Although the M.T.S. would not violate the agreement to get garbage trucks off Gansevoort by 2012, Hudson River Park advocates and most local elected officials say a transfer station with 60 truck trips a day would be incompatible with park use. Christine Quinn, who reserved judgment about a Gansevoort M.T.S. as a councilmember representing the Village, has supported it since becoming speaker of the Council in 2006.

Nevertheless, building a transfer station on Gansevoort would require an amendment to the state 1998 Hudson River Park Act.

Assemblymember Richard Gottfried, a co-author of the park legislation in 1998, has vowed to oppose any such amendment. Speaking for Gottfried, who was in Albany this week, Wendi Pastor, his chief of staff, said Gottfried would not support any amendment to the law “that would do an injustice to the park and to the community around it.”

On Feb. 5, however, Mayor Mike Bloomberg went to Albany and in an extensive address to the Legislature, made a brief pitch for an amendment to allow the city “to reactivate” a Gansevoort transfer station. The remnant of a long-unused transfer station — a truck ramp and two barge slips covered by a corrugated plastic roof — remains on the end of Gansevoort, but the proposal is for an entirely new barge facility.

“The mayor glossed over the fact that the amendment would really be an alienation of park land,” said Assemblymember Deborah Glick, who also vowed to oppose any change of the legislation. Any amendment would have to be introduced by members of both the Assembly and State Senate and, if passed, then signed by Gov. Eliot Spitzer.

The city’s M.T.S. proposal also includes building a large transfer station at the end of Pier 97 to barge commercial garbage — mainly from Manhattan restaurants — to various disposal sites. Pier 97 is also covered by the state Hudson River Park Act, so the Gansevoort amendment would have to include Pier 97 as well.

But Al Butzel, president of Friends of Hudson River Park, and other members of F.O.H.P. are calling for a marine-transfer station to be built on Pier 76 at W. 35th St. where the current auto tow pound is located and where the police Mounted Unit will have a temporary home.

“Pier 76 is very large and we believe that it could accommodate the transfer station for recyclables and for commercial garbage,” said Butzel. The Friends are planning a study for a Pier 76 transfer station to convince the city of its feasibility. “It’s right on Route 9A, which would reduce truck traffic on local streets,” Butzel said of Pier 76.

In addition, C.B. 2’s Schwartz said some think Pier 76 is, in fact, big enough to be used as a parking garage for Sanitation’s garbage trucks, as well as an M.T.S. — and could house Sanitation Districts 2, 4 and 5 — which would negate the need to build the new 150-foot-tall garage in Hudson Square.

To accommodate all the garbage trucks, the police Mounted Unit and the tow pound would have to move to new sites, which have not yet been identified.

Opponents of the Gansevoort marine-transfer station have suggested that a rail transfer for recyclables and commercial waste could be built on Block 675. But that would require expensive underground construction.

That still leaves Hudson Square residents demanding that the city find alternatives for the proposed U.P.S. site.

Richard Barrett of the Canal West Coalition noted there was recently a New York Times article hyping all the high-end residential development planned for the Hudson Yards. It’s not a stretch, he feels, to imagine how this glitzy vision for the Hudson Yards must have some connection to the dropping of the 30th St. garbage garage project and its relocation to Hudson Square.

“I think this smacks of some political and real estate deals,” Barrett said. “We already have our fair share of trucks and diesel pollution, Holland Tunnel traffic and exhaust.”

[I] With reporting by Lincoln Anderson

[lofter1]

... this smacks of some political and real estate deals

Exactly. Nothing else makes any sense.

[bigkdc]

Would be really interested to know what UPS is getting out of the deal...

Seems to me the tow pound is a really good alternative and solution that solves all woes. I am sure it is much easier and much less controversial to relocate a mounted police HQ. I am sure most hoods would take horse sh*t over garbage trucks anyday

[CBTwo]

I vote for relocating the mounted police HQ in Hudson Square if they eliminate all sanitation garages in the area.

[projectsnyc]

WHEREAS: A proposed new 140-150 feet high consolidated sanitation garage for Manhattan Districts 1, 2 & 5 is to be located at Spring, Washington, and West Streets in Manhattan (block 596, lot 50), and

WHEREAS: The Sanitation Scoping Document for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) relating to this project states that the proposed sanitation garage will contain one 10,000 gallon diesel fuel storage tank and three 1,000 gallon tanks for motor oil, waste oil and hydraulic oil, and

WHEREAS: The proposed sanitation garage will operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week with sanitation trucks making 480 daily trips in and out, and

WHEREAS: The Canal Street Corridor is already a highly congested area with air quality concerns as acknowledged by several government and scientific reports, and

WHEREAS: The proposed sanitation garage is adjacent to the Holland Tunnel Vent Building and the entrance to the Holland Tunnel, and

WHEREAS: The storage of large quantities of diesel fuel on premises contributed to the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, and

WHEREAS: The presence of massive concrete jersey barriers surrounding 60 Hudson Street evidences New York City's acknowledgment of the dangers that such storage poses, and

WHEREAS: The existing MN1 garage (block 595, lot 87) at Canal, West, and Spring Streets next to the Holland Tunnel Vent building and the Hudson River will be demolished and a truck washing, maintenance and refueling facility will be constructed on this site. This proposed facility will contain four 4,000 gallon diesel fuel tanks, one 4,000 gallon unleaded gasoline tank, one 4,000 gallon ethanol tank, one 2,000 gallon hydraulic oil tank, one 2,000 gallon motor oil tank, and one 1,000 gallon oil tank, and

WHEREAS: The DEIS has no emergency plan for human error or a deliberate attack which could, among other possibilities, shut down the Holland Tunnel and Lower Manhattan preventing an evacuation, and

WHEREAS: A road salt storage facility will also be constructed at 575 Washington and Clarkson Streets and (block 600, lot 29), which will store 6,500 tons of salt and will contain two 5,000 gallon above ground storage tanks for liquid chloride to melt snow and ice, and

WHEREAS: The DEIS does not address the high water tables in the area or the issue of runoff of salt and other contaminates and their effect on the Hudson River, and

WHEREAS: Each of these proposed facilities will have a substantial adverse effect on residential and business real estate development in the area. There are three new residential buildings directly across from the proposed sites and two under construction to the south. A garbage facility in close proximity will cause real estate values to drop with a corresponding reduction in real estate tax revenue, and

WHEREAS: The DEIS does not call for a full shadow study and its impact on the Hudson River and Canal Street Parks and the surrounding area, and

WHEREAS: CB#1 respects the fact that each community has to address their fair share of the sanitation burden, now

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: CB#1 supports CB#2 and requests that the EIS provide an accurate picture of the impact each of the proposed projects will have on the surrounding community and include in the DEIS the above concerns, and

BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER THAT: Alternate plans should be developed by both community boards and the affected communities, and

BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER THAT: The lead agency should be another city agency and not DSNY and that this DEIS is defective and fatally flawed in not following the proper Environmental Review timetable, and

BE IT RESOLVED FINALLY THAT: The Federal and State agencies concerned with security also be included in the scoping of the DEIS.

[bigkdc]

So what does it mean if a CB passes a resolution? Is this the CB's way of officially going on the record with their view?

[projectsnyc]

Basically the DEIS and ULURP processes are set-up is to empower the most local form of government (residents and workers) who are formally recognized by the City to do the dirty work of taking the time to hold meetings and hearings (to listen) as a prelude to forming a consensus on an issue.

Any good elected official will hold off their own comment(s) until after the Community Board has spoken, not looking to get too far out in front of an issue until this early work has been done.

The local press usually picks up its cues for next week's story here as well.
Will it be the danger from the fuel depot? The flawed DEIS timeline (lack of early community consultation)? The need for an impartial lead agency? Or the continuing search for alternative sites?

[CBTwo]

January 31, 2007 DSNY Public Scoping Hearing at NYU – Written Comments Deadline
Extended to February 20, 2006
Over 200 members of the public in attendance, strong turnout
DSNY Personnel – Daniel Klein, DSNY Director of Real Estate
Orlando Davis – Assistant to Daniel Klein
Steven Brautigam – DSNY Asst. Commissioner of Environmental Affairs
Richard Dattner, AIA – Architect for the UPS Site
Edwards & Kelsey – Engineering Consultants
Hydroqual – Environmental Consultants
Elected officials representatives in attendance:
1. Kate Kirk – Councilmember Christine Quinn
No prepared statement, following closely will come before City Council…did a mailing to those
in database…
2. Gregory Bender – State Assembly Member Deborah Glick
Extend comment period to 2/20/07 – consider a 2nd hearing – storage of combustible fuels at site.
Above or below ground? Fires above ground led to collapse of 7WTC – traffic implications –
heavily burdened neighborhood – additional truck traffic impact on neighborhood traffic patterns
– vehicles idling – construction work impact on historic buildings – a slow earthquake –
aesthetic impact of building – uncharacteristically tall – describe appearance of building – odor
emanating from truck storage – full shadow study given the size upon HRP
3. Adam Riff – State Senator Thomas Duane
Proactive and long-awaited plan to relocate – fuel storage above HOLLAND TUNNEL –
obvious safety threat – 3 CD’s economy of scale – downside trucks traveling greater distance –
how much total annual truck mileage will increase – fair share of burden for all neighborhoods –
how will 3 districts impact HUDSON SQUARE neighborhood, traffic environment heath, etc.
Maintain balance within community for some other facility to mitigate damage.
4. Maria Passanante Derr – CB2 - Chairperson
February, 1999 – Mr. Klein extensive meetings – board resolution DSNY plan being contingent
on a number of factor…CB4 agreed to accept 3 districts – CB2 would then accept trucks for
CB1.
Never contemplated inclusion of trucks from CB5 – phenomenal rate of growth in HUDSON
SQUARE – never planned large structure – open air plan was approved = least impact – most
flexibility – need a comparison of CB2 vs. CB5 – 4 committees on CB2 will be looking at this.
5. Philip Mouquinho – CB2 Chair – Sidewalks
33 years ago POWER BROKER came out – Robert Moses – didn’t care about neighborhoods,
just wanted to get it done. Born and raised 3 blocks from proposed action…never heard of a
worse idea in my life. HUDSON SQUARE has experienced wonderful renaissance – so what
does the City do – they give us garbage facilities – I don’t fight progress – but we don’t need it
here – 30th Street has existing garage – City was going to give us a sanitation facility – It’s not
about NIMBY – HUDSON SQUARE is already designated as a red zone too much co2. Add
hundreds of trucks, larger UPS storage of trucks – Let’s comment on the scoping, but let’s scope
it somewhere else.
6. Ian Dutton – CB2 – Traffic and Transportation – public member
Just focus on traffic – poor air quality effect of noise – comprehensive study of effect of traffic
on neighborhood – Canal Area Transportation Study – traffic effects on Houston, Spring and
West Streets – employee parking should be discouraged – no special treatment – use public
transit
7. Saan Kahn – Manhattan Borough Presidents Office community liaison
We’re just here to listen to community concerns.
In attendance but not speaking
8. For Congress member Jerrold Nadler – Drinkwater
9. For City Councilmember Alan Gerson - Sarah
10. Ann Arlen – CB2 Environment – public member
1999 Resolution was chair of Environment Committee – CB1 and CB2 originally to be located
on waterfront…”DSNY failure to convert trucks from diesel fuel…doesn’t belong in residential
neighborhoods”. Anticipate maximum amount of pollution…ultra-low sulfur diesel…
Can’t find filter to do pollution reduction. Be wise…can’t just buy into it. True pollution
reduction actually in-use is. DEIS too late to have any CB2 meetings prior to Scoping Meeting.
11. Carole DeSarem – CB1 – Chair TriBeCa Committee
Extend time for CB1 to submit resolutions of concerns. number of trucks, storage of fuel, 9/11
sensitivity. HOLLAND TUNNEL impact by accident or otherwise will shut down Lower
Manhattan. Really has to be dealt with.
12. Andy Neale – CB1 – TriBeCa Committee
Comments until end of February.
Members of the Public
13. Richard Barrett – Canal West Coalition
Extra-ordinary traffic on Canal Street…documented health hazards…traffic continues to grow,
annually 3.5%. City done nothing to mitigate…City has put more residents at risk for asthma at
HUDSON SQUARE. Nothing more we can do about Canal Street… studies, congestion, health
concerns…
Pm2.5 particulates…microscopic NY phenomenon. Diesel, truck and buses and tall buildings
that track their fumes. Spitzer filed suit against NYS DOT about Jersey-bound Sanitation trucks.
2004 Manhattan was declared a non-attainment area by 2010 for PM2.5. Hot Spot problem on
Route 9A. Mobile 6 to be used…disparity between real world emissions and model predictions.
Yale Study real world to be 500x higher than average, could be 15x20 higher. High Point in
South Bronx study real world at receptors – diesel bus as culprit…obfuscation of health impacts
of Holland Tunnel vent shafts…EPA characterized as stationary polluters. To separate
incompatible uses NYC uses zoning…this is ludicrous and highly irresponsible. THIS PLAN
SHOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD.
14. Ross Graham – Co-chair Friends of Hudson River Park
Lived on the Westside since 1965. Advocate for park and legislative stature being fulfilled.
Nothing was happening, new buildings going up on Gansevoort brought a lawsuit and reached a
settlement to move DSNY off by 2012. Until then they would pay a fee to allow for construction.
Hope that problems can be mitigated.
15. Denise Levine – resident 505 Greenwich Street near Spring Street
Scoping underplays environmental concerns of neighborhood. Fuel storage poses safety and
terrorist concerns. Effect of large-scale DSNY facility is within the boundary of the Waterfront
Park. Maps contained in scoping documents suggest commercial and industrial uses ignores
several large multiple dwellings that have recently gone up. Proposed facility will affect health
and character of neighborhood. West Street to Varick, Canal to Spring Streets is heavily
trafficked increase pollution and congestion. Recommend expansion to environmental study.
Environment should become lead agency.
16. David Reck – Friends of Hudson Square
Registered architect, CB2 member…Led HUDSON SQUARE rezoning, major setback for
neighborhood.
CB2 recommended significantly larger area to rezone. M1 zone is quite bogus. C6 zone is C6-2A
contextual zone…TriBeCa mixed-use district in the works at CPC with support of CB#1.
Reviewed scoping document, DSNY should not be lead agency…. independent lead agency CPC
or Environment. Defective statement on impacts includes other City review categories. Proposed
SWMP is not a reality or supported by community, 4 facilities do not comply with Fair Share –
Equitable Distribution. No resemblance to the 1999 proposal. Must examine other alternatives,
scoping assumes no alternatives. Site in CB4 as late as 2005 was committed to this site.
Re-Fueling station people have talked about risks…Note document to use 2000 census data,
which is way too old for this area. Many live/work businesses in surrounding loft buildings
should not be ignored. Canal Street Park was ignored. Parking and traffic…400-vehicle parking
is not just the issue. new buildings have been built on parking lots --- 2000 spaces have been lost.
Parking on street is very difficult, don’t destroy community parking and give employees parking.
Park them in the garage…Trip analysis is needed…deceptive as noted…
17. Michael Kramer – Testified for the Grant Organization
My name is Michael Kramer and I am here to represent the Eugene M. Grant Company, owners of the St
Johns Building for over forty years. Our building, bounded by Spring and Clarkson Streets from West to
Washington Streets, is remarkable as it dates back to 1935, to an earlier era when Manhattan’s waterfront
was the center of break/bulk freight and the St Johns Park Freight House was the terminus for the New
York Central Railroad. We have always strived to be a good neighbor and a model corporate citizen for
the City of New York and welcome the park-friendly relocation of trucks off of Gansevoort Peninsula.
Our goal is to offer some common-sense alternatives to find a constructive solution that will minimize the
impact upon our neighborhood with a “Fair Share” of services amongst the affected community districts.
1. We have carefully read the CB#2 and CB#4 resolutions that date back to 1999 and find no reference to
Manhattan Community District #5 which services Midtown Manhattan. Blocks 675, 1093 and 1094 were
all listed as site alternatives in the FEIS study for the Hudson Yards re-zoning rather than the UPS site.
We feel strongly that CD#5 which services midtown Manhattan should be sited outside of our district.
2. We wonder whether the salt-pile could be stored in the existing CD#3 shed under the Manhattan
Bridge. Last Sunday, this shed was only halfway full, and it would seem to be convenient to the adjacent
Community District’s #1 and 2.
3. On Gansevoort Peninsula, DSNY recently constructed a 70,000 sf temporary garage to house existing
operations. Even when accounting for the salt-pile, why do you need to take over three sites with almost
650,000 sf of build able space to replace this? Is it really “apples to apples” to what is being relocated?
4. How much of your proposed garage will be used to store employee private vehicles? Perhaps a better
use could be made of the existing or a rebuilt parking garage on Clarkson Street or maybe free Metro
Cards would encourage the use of mass transit by your employees?
5. We understand that the CD#1 garage at Canal and West Streets is now obsolete. Has a study been
undertaken to design a new facility to house CD#1 and perhaps CD#2 DSNY trucks? Potentially you
could build a building just as large as the “temporary garage” that was just completed at Gansevoort.
We also have specific concerns that will need to be addressed in your DEIS as follows:
1. With proposals for Piers 40 and 57 creating the potential for heavy traffic generators, and with the
potential for more residential development just to the north of our building, our own possible future
growth, and the re-zoning of Northern TriBeCa, how can we not have traffic hot-spots, noise and air
quality concerns that would be exacerbated by the construction of a large garage at the UPS site? How
many truck and car trips are generated by each Community Sanitation District that is proposed to be
housed here? How can there not be a “significant impact” upon our socio-economic conditions?
2. We understand that an RFP went out one year ago to contract for architectural and engineering services
to design these new facilities. Why have we not seen any renderings? Are there plans sized to house only
one or two (rather than three) Community Districts at the UPS site?
3. Please tell us more about the acquisition of the UPS site for your requirements. Who will own this
facility? How can we be certain that additional municipal services will not be relocated to this site?
4. Finally, we are concerned about the location of a hazardous fuel depot so close to the Holland Tunnel.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our public comments on the draft Scope of Work to consider this
plan for a Consolidated Sanitation Garage for Manhattan Districts 1, 2 and 5. We will also submit in
writing a more detailed technical response before February 12th.
18. Gary Spindler – Testified for the 52 Clarkson Street Parking Garage (Owner)
Testimony of Gary Spindler
Scoping Hearing
January 31, 2007
My name is Gary Spindler. Besides being a resident of the Hudson Square/West Village
Community, my partners and I, own the parking garage at 575 Washington Street, the site of the
proposed Salt Storage Facility. Like so many others here, I first heard about the proposed
condemnation of our garage for a Proposed Sanitation Facility only three weeks ago.
The Garage
Our parking garage has a legal capacity of 400 spaces, not the 80 spaces as set forth in
the Scoping Document. We provide 24 hours a day; 7 days a week that fulfills the community’s
needs. We are fully occupied and currently have a waiting list of names for spaces. Our facility
has been providing a convenient, affordable service to the Hudson Square/West Village residents
and businesses for over twenty years. There is a critical shortage of parking here. Over 1200
parking spaces have been lost in the immediate area in the past few years, and it rumored that
over six hundred spaces will be lost at Pier 40 if the new plans come through. It is unlikely that
new parking spaces will be built, and other surface lots will disappear when development plans
are approved. The high water table in this area makes building underground parking spaces in
new buildings difficult and very expensive. The loss of 400 spaces at our garage will exacerbate
the already unbearable traffic problems in our neighborhood.
Alternate Site
I operate parking facilities and am not an expert on the location of sanitation facilities.
However, there must be alternative sites for the proposed Salt Storage Facility, other than our
garage, perhaps the underutilized salt storage facility under the Manhattan Bridge. Did you study
any alternative sites?
Increased Traffic
The increase in overall truck traffic caused by combining the sanitation facilities will
have an enormous impact on the Hudson Square/West Village Community, causing increased air
and noise pollution. The Scoping Document proposes to utilize traffic data generated almost 2
years ago. This data is stale. Under customary environmental practices, traffic data is outdated if
it is more than 12 months old.
New Modern Facility
Over the past six months, we had had several meetings with the Department of City Planning
about replacing our existing garage with a modern facility to better serve our clients. With the
proposed condemnation of our garage, our plans are totally up in the air and we are faced with
what my attorney has called “condemnation blight”.
Petition
I am providing you with a petition signed by our garage customers protesting the
destruction of our garage for a Salt Storage Facility.
PLEASE FIND ANOTHER SITE THAT IS VACANT OR USE EXISTING
UNDERUTILIZED SALT STORAGE FACILITIES INSTEAD OF TAKING OUR
GARAGE.
19. Joanne Hendrix – Resident
Further impact upon neighborhood… scale back or do something else at that site.
Expanding it into our expanding neighborhood is maybe not the place it should be.
20. Murray Weinstock – Resident since 1980
Completely different view…late at night HUDSON SQUARE sleeps, musicians unload their
instruments, it is a different space…HUDSON SQUARE was dominated by rats of all different
sizes amongst the garages on Greenwich Street not baby strollers. These rats made their nightly
pilgrimage to Vandam Street not uncommon to see 10-15 running in each direction. Human
traffic has now edged out the rodent population; say yes to DSNY we will recreate the day when
rats will once again flourish.
Rat management is not a perfect science. What studies have been made? I’m worried about that.
21. Barbara Siegel – Canal West Coalition
Board of Canal Park Conservancy – resident since 1979 – 466 Washington Street
How will this relocation compliment our North TriBeCa neighborhood as it is rezoned in a major
way to residential…mostly families and businesses with families…well within the 400 foot limit.
In 1988 we started to research the Triangle in the middle of Canal Street…it was a company
parking lot…another parking lot is very frightening to us and counter to the effort, which we
made to have, Canal Park created. When built, trees lined both sides of Canal Street, because of
DSNY; every tree on the northern side has been cut down. That will kill them. The South side of
Canal Street has tremendous residential use and are historic…what will the construction impact
be over the three years of construction. What is the impact upon Canal Park? Consider
alternatives more emphatically; separate into three sections into three different areas. We lived
through 9/11 and having some much fuel is a horror and so insensitive to residents. Canal Park
will be both a State and Federal landmark for your scoping document.
22. Leonard Steinberg – Prudential Douglas Elliman
On behalf of several owners…why be so pc (politically correct) about it. Shocked and amazed
about scale of building, prime residential property potential…a fraud has happened here, City
has rezoned to residential then turns their back on them; their real estate taxes should be
refunded.
Vibrant neighborhood, west 30th street, no man’s land, what brain cells are being used at City
Hall and why aren’t they being used? Impact of trucks already is a fraction of a fraction of what
will happen? What kind of deal has been set between the City and UPS? I feel it could be a dirty
deal.
23. Residents of 505 Greenwich Street
Your proposal is detrimental to those residents who have revived HUDSON SQUARE. Paint a
big red arrow over the fuel depot on top of the HOLLAND TUNNEL. What is your evacuation
plan for us? Rezoning has tried to bring in redevelopment to help HUDSON SQUARE grow;
you are taking 50 steps backwards and encouraging people to leave the area…inconsistent with
all the efforts of people here…vehement in our opposition.
24. Warren Underjohn
Zoning codes are useful but I would suggest that any proper Public evaluation on the economic
impact on this neighborhood. My estimate within 200 feet is 500,000 sf is $672,000,000 real
estate value, this gives you $100MM TO $200MM destruction of wealth. Compare to 30th street
or on a dock or a barge or any other alternative.
25. Sidney Spanier – 27-year resident 466 Washington Street
I live with the trauma of 9/11. The emergency command center was installed in 7WTC should
never have built so close to a terror target…I will predict that because the fuel is stored
underground, however no one envisioned airplanes going into the Two Towers. HOLLAND
TUNNEL is a federal landmark; find a better location that is not a terrorist target.
26. Sean Sweeney – Director of SoHo Alliance + CB2 Member
HOLLAND TUNNEL air vent is on the Federal Register of Historic Places should be considered
in DEIS.
Where the trucks coming and leaving from? Quite true about rats, in Central SoHo the rats have
been there since Hudson came. Large problem with rodents. A more western location would
have brought out a larger crowd.
27. Andrew Berman – Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation
Inherent contradiction locating CD districts in the community’s from which they come, without
creating a buffer through denying rezoning. Condo Hotels in M1-5 and M1-6 zones will remove
any buffers. Landmark designation calendared for other buildings as well.
28. Marc Amaruso – CB1 Chair TriBeCa Committee
Not enough time to comment on DEIS…On a personal note, this is a really stupid idea.
29. Frank Dobbs – 38 Dominick Street Property Owner since 1984
Name HUDSON SQUARE comes from the HOLLAND TUNNEL quadrangle – then the area
became a slum for 150 years.
30. Joan Krowle –resident
Noise questions – back beeping by trucks 24 hours per day is something to be considered.
31. Ann Boyle – resident since 1979
During 1999 meetings the washing off of the trucks – are the striped bass still endangered?
Where does the water go?
32. Desiree Alvarez – resident of 533 Canal Street
Historic natures of the neighborhood 510-516 Canal Street buildings are landmarked and on the
National Register.

[infoshare]

January 31, 2007 DSNY Public Scoping Hearing at NYU – Written Comments Deadline
Extended to February 20, 2006
Over 200 members of the public in attendance, strong turnout


I read the entire report, many good comments and observations - but my favorite is #22.:D

22. Leonard Steinberg – Prudential Douglas Elliman
On behalf of several owners…why be so pc (politically correct) about it. Shocked and amazed
about scale of building, prime residential property potential…a fraud has happened here, City
has rezoned to residential then turns their back on them; their real estate taxes should be
refunded.
Vibrant neighborhood, west 30th street, no man’s land, what brain cells are being used at City
Hall and why aren’t they being used? Impact of trucks already is a fraction of a fraction of what
will happen? What kind of deal has been set between the City and UPS? I feel it could be a dirty
deal.

[bigkdc]

That is my fav as well. He just sold a ton of people apts right there on Spring St so he must be pretty pissed about the situation. There definitely seems like there is a piece to this puzzle that is missing.

I'm just waiting for the whole fuel on top of the holland tunnel thing to get out a bit...the NY Post will have a field day with that one

[lofter1]

I point out once again (and not to justify future storage on this site) that the existing garage on the small triangle just to the west of the Holland Tunnel Vents at Canal / West / Spring (and directly above the Holland Tunnel tubes) has been the storage site of ~ 5,000 gallons of petroleum fuels for decades.

Fortunately there has not been an incident there. But it does beg the question: Is this a wise / prudent place to store large amounts of fuel?

[CBTwo]

In answer to your question. No it's not.

[projectsnyc]

Just wondering why one neighborhood (Hudson Square and Block 596) is being pitted against another (Hudson Yards and Block 675)?

Remember,
in spite of all the approvals being in place on 29th-30th Street (2003-2005), DSNY specified the UPS site as the preferred choice in settling their lawsuit (10.27.05) with the Friends of Hudson River Park...

All things being equal, the cost of construction for either site is comparable...notwithstanding some of the statements that have been uttered in front of CB2.

Both UPS and the various owners uptown all want "market value" for their properties.

Please, no conspiracy theories from earlier than 1999...

[lofter1]

I really think it comes down to Bloomberg et al want Hudson Yards to be big and business-y -- and they figured that the DOS site plan didn't fit in there. Hudson Square became the dumping ground -- the newly-rezoned Residential lots down there have been built-out to a large degree and most of the units have been sold -- so the tax money is already rolling in from those new residents. With just a few buildable lots in the immediate vicinity they probably figured that the DOS project wouldn't thwart too much new development down that way.

And they figured they could fight off whatever opposition appeared.

They may have misjudged on my last point.

At least that's how it seems to me ...

[Derek2k3]

One building adjacent to a sanitation garage in Hudson yards would contain more residents than in all of Hudson Square. If a few dozen people in a majorily commercial/manufacturing area kill this project there is something seriously wrong with city planning.

[CBTwo]

I guess some people don't quite get it. It's not just a few dozen people that see a problem with the use of the UPS site and the adjacent lot being the refueling station for the DSNY trucks. If one can be so bold to say the potential is, "A time bomb waiting to go off." Do you think for one minute some PA cop is going to stop a terrorist from his dedication to Allah? Both of those officers have their hands full just trying to get drivers to stop clogging all the streets approaching the Holland Tunnel at the evening rush hours.

If the cheapo airlines would have secured their cockpits for a couple of thousand dollars a plane prior to 9/11, would there have been a 9/11? It's called thinking ahead.

BTW Derek: Do you actually know how many people live in Hudson Square? I don't, and I have lived in HS since 1973.

So if Bloomberg wants his precious Hudson Yard projects to go through, it's just a matter of a waiting game. He will be out of office in a few years and sanity will return.

[bigkdc]

One building adjacent to a sanitation garage in Hudson yards would contain more residents than in all of Hudson Square. If a few dozen people in a majorily commercial/manufacturing area kill this project there is something seriously wrong with city planning.

So you think putting that much fuel on top of the holland tunnel is smart city planning? How about putting that many trucks into an area that has serious traffic issues already? Good city planning? How about further polluting an area that already has poor air quality due to all of the traffic? Sound planning? How about utilitizing waterfront property for a sanitation garage? That good city planning?

The residential comparison is a factor but seems like it pales in comparison to the safety and environmental issues

[Derek2k3]

The Real Deal reports that at 523 Greenwich Street an 18-story, 22-unit luxury condominium will be developed on the site. Carlton Advisory Services arranged $17 million in bridge and acquisition financing for the project.
This will nearly directly overlook the new garage.

[lofter1]

At 18 stories they would be lucky if the top 5 floors "overlooked" the new 140' - 150' DOS garage ...

The rest of the floors in the new building would look directly across the lower building on Washington / Greenwich and at the walls of the garage.

[infoshare]

Here is the map view (http://gis.nyc.gov/doitt/mp/map.htm?mapAction=pan&zoomLevel=1&zoomLevelCount=10&layerId=&visible=&brand=NYC&direction=E) of the new Greenwich Street building.

[bigkdc]

The Real Deal reports that at 523 Greenwich Street an 18-story, 22-unit luxury condominium will be developed on the site. Carlton Advisory Services arranged $17 million in bridge and acquisition financing for the project.
This will nearly directly overlook the new garage.

Those are some big units at basically one per floor...

My assumption is that the garage will actually look nice (using the rendering for the west 57th street one as a guide) so having a view of it won't be a problem. That being said, this condo will likely get a few years of awesome views until the garage is actually built (if it ever gets built)

[CBTwo]

The loss of the taxi repair garage is definitely a plus for the neighborhood. At a lot footprint of approximately 5,000 square feet those are going to be some big condos to say the least.

How did they ever get the OK to build residential in that M1 area above Spring Street? Special zoning for the development?

[bigkdc]

I assume you say that because the cabs increase the traffic in the area?

[projectsnyc]

Has Council Speaker Quinn taken a position on all things Hudson Square?

[lofter1]

It doesn't look like they've yet obtained the OK to build anything at 523-525 Greenwich. DOB (http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQueryByLocationServlet?requestid=1&allbin=1010359&allstrt=GREENWICH+STREET&allnumbhous=523) shows no job actions on this site since 1997. No "New Building" application is seen.

A plans such as this would first have to go through City Planning (and Community Boards before that). CPC shows no record or anything for this property -- and nothing is showing up on calendars regarding this site for the upcoming Manhattan CB2 meetings / agenda.

[projectsnyc]

from the Real Deal
523 Greenwich Street
An 18-story, 22-unit luxury condominium will be developed on the site. Carlton Advisory
Services arranged $17 million in bridge and acquisition financing for the project.

I'm thinking that this was the press release from some eager-beager broker anxious
to get into that week's edition. Presumably the small details like having a design,
permits and a market will follow.

By the way, I just got a "private message" from one of those Nigerian letter scams.
How did they find this forum?

[bigkdc]

Looks like the building was sold according to this something on this link (http://www.condobuzznyc.com/)

However doesn't seem like anything else has happened yet.

I got a spam private message to about botswana....odd

I don't think Quinn has said anything on the garages...I'm sure the politicians are going to wait a while before weighing in. That will change should the post or times start to play up the fuel/holland tunnel theme

[CBTwo]

A note from David Reck:


Sanitation Update

Save the Date: Fund Raiser at The Ear Inn, Monday, March 19th, 5:00 to 7:00. More to come.

Attached is an article from the current issue of the Tribeca Trib. Thank you Jim Stratton.


Last Friday the Land Use Staff of Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer hosted a meeting with representatives from the four Community Boards concerned with the Sanitation Issue. Also in attendance were representatives of Congressman Jerry Nadler, State Senator Tom Duane, State Senator Martin Conner, Assembly Member Debra Glick, and Council Member Christine Quinn. The Community Boards are all in agreement that the preferred site is Block 675 at 29th St. and 11th Ave. that was previously approved. The Borough Presidents office will request documents from Sanitation that we currently do not have and will host a meeting with Sanitation in the near future.

We have formed a Steering Committee with representatives from the neighborhood and from the sponsoring organizations. Many of the Steering Committee members are also members of Community Boards #1 & #2. This committee will plot the future direction of our efforts and will plan possible legal action.


Sponsoring Organizations:
The Friends of Hudson Square, The Tribeca Community Association, The Canal West Coalition, The Soho Alliance, The Soho Arts Council, The Community Environmental Monitoring Coalition, The Downtown Independent Democrats

[infoshare]

Thank you Jim Stratton.

Permit me to digress. Jim Stratton wrote and facinating book that I recently read: "Pioneering in the Urban Wilderness; all about Lofts". He is one of the pioneers of Soho Loft Living.

This is a fascinating and intellegently written book that is about more than
just loft living/renovation, it tells much about the recent history of urban pioneering in New York City.

P.S. The book has been out of print for many years. If you cant find a copy, pm me:::: I will lend you mine!

[bigkdc]

The Tribeca Trib column is well done.....think he definitely hits on the right points and it seems to me the fuel near the Holland Tunnel is pretty hard to defend

[CBTwo]

I just rechecked and noticed that the Port Authority guards the ventilation tower at the end of the pier like it's Fort Knox and the president is going to visit. They have double locked gates and a patrol car stationed at the end of the pier. Meanwhile the eastern ventilation tunnel is accessible to anybody that wants to gain access by simply busting through a simple locked door or park next to it with a truck loaded with explosives. Huh? Smart planning.

[CBTwo]

Don’t Trash Our Neighborhood



Hudson Square and Tribeca needs your help to stop the


Mega Sanitation Project planned for our community.




Fund Raiser at the EAR INN


Monday, March 19th, 5:00 to 7:00


326 Spring St.


Between Greenwich St. & Washington St.




Join your neighbors both new and old for


some serious trash talking.




This Sanitation proposal is a whole lot of Garbage &


We need to raise money to continue our fight.



Everyone is welcome regardless of their ability to donate.



We are currently discussing the issue with an environmental law attorney and are planning legal action.
All donations will be used to defend the neighborhood on this issue.

[projectsnyc]

http://www.catf.us/projects/diesel/dieselhealth/edge-tl.gif
http://www.catf.us/projects/diesel/dieselhealth/logo.gif (http://www.catf.us/)
Diesel & Health in America:
Diesel Soot Health Impacts (http://www.catf.us/projects/diesel/dieselhealth/diesel.php?site=0)

Where You Live
New York County
[/URL]
The lifetime cancer risk from diesel soot in your community exceeds the risk of all other air toxics tracked by EPA combined.
The average lifetime diesel soot cancer risk for a resident of New York County is 1 in 307.
This risk is 3,262 times greater than EPA's acceptable cancer level of 1 in a million. Annual Diesel Soot Health Impacts Estimated for 1999:
Adults 751Premature Deaths 1,201Non-Fatal Heart Attacks 17,198Asthma Attacks 530Chronic Bronchitis 118,890Work Loss Days (WLD) 671,763Minor Restricted Activity Days (MRAD)
How the Risk from Diesel Soot in New York County Compares to Other Counties Nationally:
National Rank: 2 of 3,109 counties

How the Risk from Diesel Soot in New York County Compares to Other New York Counties:
Rank Within State: 1 of 62 counties http://www.catf.us/projects/diesel/dieselhealth/maps/36/36061.gif

Lifetime Cancers per Million People in New York County:
http://www.catf.us/projects/diesel/dieselhealth/dot-blank.gif 3262
http://www.catf.us/projects/diesel/dieselhealth/dot-orange.gif [URL="http://www.catf.us/projects/diesel/dieselhealth/faq.php?site=0#higher"] (http://www.catf.us/projects/diesel/dieselhealth/state.php?s=36&site=0)

Diesel Emissions (1999):
Pollutant Annual Tons/Year Highway (on road) Heavy Equipment (non road)
NOx 19,395 8,479 10,916 PM2.5 1,333 259 1,07 PM10 1,460 293 1,167 CO 9,617 2,963 6,654 VOC 2,039 586 1,453 SO2 1,707 212 1,495

Copyright ©2005 Clean Air Task Force
www.catf.us (http://www.catf.us/)

[CBTwo]

It is obvious by the map that the lower New York state tier is and has been suffering from severe air problems. Is there another map that shows Manhattan's problem?

[projectsnyc]

I'll say this gently, New York County is also known as Manhattan.

Anyone get to last night's CB1 Waterfront Committee meeting where we learned from Al Butzel that Hudson Square "deserved" a Sanitation Consolidated Garage for three districts...and then stormed out of the room?

[lofter1]

Dustup at Community Board 1 Waterfront Committee

frogma (http://frogma.blogspot.com/)
March 27, 2006

OK. Tonight I actually sort of wish I was a real journalist. Because then I could justify staying up all night researching Al Butzel, the Friends of the Hudson River Park, the Committee to Protect Our Parks, and a certain sanitation garage in the Hudson Square area. Unfortunately I'm not, so it's got to be nutshell version & then to bed.

The reason I'm suddenly interested in non-boathouse stuff is that made for one very exciting Community Board One meeting tonight.

Connie Fishman, president of the Hudson River Park Trust, didn't show up & didn't want to send Noreen, the vice president who I have mentioned here from time to time in conjunction with my frustration over lack of public notice about park-related meetings. Apparently no one else on the Trust is qualified to speak about the Pier 25-26 situation. They'll invite Connie to the next one on April 30th but that took a lot of the point out of that agenda item for tonight. In the meantime, they'll refine the specific questions they want to ask, and maybe start listing ideas for how to get some interim uses going there (since the current timeline involves Piers 25 & 26 being under construction until 2009 at the VERY soonest).

Al Butzel and Yvonne Morrow were the last people on the agenda (the first ones were East River Park planners - I got there a bit too late & was sitting outside for that one so can't speak to what happened there). They were there to ask CB1 to support their Committee to Protect Our Parks, which apparently already has a fair number of supporters. Their speil all sounded pretty good, although the organization sounds incredibly incestuous (typical for waterfront politics) - their stated goal involved keeping the Hudson River Park land as park, rather than allowing the legislation to be changed to allow for a marine transfer station for recyclables to be built on the Gansevoort Peninsula, and for Pier 99, the pier I've always referred to as "the garbage barge pier" to be expanded to handle a lot more garbage.

Currently, the Sanitation Department is using the Gansevoort Peninsula as a garage. They're supposed to clear out but haven't given any sign of doing them.

Al, working through his Friends of the Hudson River Park, had organized a batch of community people & park folks to sue Sanitation to get them out. They had their plaintiffs, and I guess the Committee to Protect Our Parks is a wider coalition of groups & politicians supporting the lawsuit.

Catch is - New York City is a BIG city and we make A LOT of garbage. That takes transfer station & truck garages & there's just no way around that. Seems there were a series of negotiations between the FOHRP and Sanitation & eventually a deal was cut that Sani would get to build an enormous garage in the Hudson Square area.

The meeting got exciting because the question was posed - "Who speaks for this organizations, and what's the decision-making process?" Al said that they had meetings, and emails would be sent around -

well, there was a gentleman there who lives in the area where the settlement said that Sanitation could build their garbage truck tower & he began to ask some extremely direct questions about just how open the decision to build this thing was. According to him, a number of the plaintiffs who FOHRP had claimed to be acting on behalf of felt that they were misled or not properly notified of the size of this thing that was now landing in their neighborhood.

Turned into a bit of a fracas. No actual fisticuffs, but Al was called a liar; Al then started getting visibly tense and called the detractor a liar in return, the detractor said his neighborhood didn't deserve this thing, Al said maybe the detractor deserved it, somebody asked if Al had a thing about CB2 to say that, Al said "Maybe I have a thing about Dave", and at that point pretty much all hell broke loose, people were yelling, Robert's Rules were flung to the winds, until finally Julie started calling for order & loudly suggested that the motion to support the Committee to Protect Our Parks be tabled until the next meeting. Enough board members heard here to vote in agreement & that was the end of the meeting.

The unbelievably contentious end to the meeting.

Anyways. Wow. Next to that, boathouse politics are pretty tame.

Of course I only have what I heard tonight, but the decision-making & notification process Al was describing did sound less than ideally transparent. Lots of money & lots of political connections involved there too - that's where I think the people in charge of a group really do need to make sure that they are actually representing the people they claim to be representing & that all of those people are kept completely informed & have ample opportunity to express their opinions - and have those opinions listened to & respected.

In this case, clearly there are people who don't feel they were treated with that repect.

Anyways. Exciting. Haven't been to a meeting where people were actually yelling at each other since I don't remember when.

[bigkdc]

^^^Sounds like quite the meeting

Does anyone know the latest on this whole situation?

[projectsnyc]

Basically he became more and more agitated and showed his disdain for the process of creating a community consensus. His exact words were that "Hudson Square deserves to have Sanitation dump a consolidated garage on their neighborhood".

FOHRP was basically formed by the old "regime" swept out of power (Conservancy became the Trust) by Pataki. They started out as the opposition but eventually bought into collaboration because then the fundraiser dinner is more fun to go to and you can extract big bucks from contractors doing business with the Trust by buying a table. Trying to create yet another unaccountable and unelected group brought into play the influence of Doug Durst (perhaps?) moving the facility from 29th Street to Spring Street to promote his truck-rail freight vision (good idea, wrong location), and their true colors about consulting with your base constituency (the imperial presidency).

There are a number of alternative sites that have been suggested by Friends of Hudson Square, most notably Block 675 at 29th Street which went through all the hoops of ULURP, even granting powers of condemnation. But there are also other ideas, certainly starting with sending CD5 somewhere else to lighten the load at Hudson Square. Maybe exploring other sites in Northern TriBeCa and on the LES.

CB4 would get a "rooftop" park over the garages a "full" block long and wide which is an example of a "win-win" for the community. Pier 76 might be emptied of the tow-away pound and put to another use.

If the FOHRP were truly "parkies" they would advocate for the little leagues and soccer leagues and residents and property owners and area workers and small businesses rather than play Machiavelli.

[infoshare]

I'll say this gently, New York County is also known as Manhattan.

Anyone get to last night's CB1 Waterfront Committee meeting where we learned from Al Butzel that Hudson Square "deserved" a Sanitation Consolidated Garage for three districts...and then stormed out of the room?

After reading some of the history (http://www.gothamgazette.com/iotw/hudson/) on Al Butzel and his efforts (http://www.gothamgazette.com/iotw/hudson/doc3.shtml) to get the 'Hudson River Park' built (http://www.gothamgazette.com/iotw/hudson/doc4.shtml) I can understand why he is so insistent about getting the Dept of Sanitation off the Hudson River Waterfront. I just wish he would find somewhere else to build the garage. Other than that somewhat minor complaint I must give him credit for his efforts to get the park built; as it is made more than clear by a reading of the recent history on the Hudson River Park - he has been working on this project for many years.

[CBTwo]

I've tried to find some backup on Al Butzel, but I can't except that he is the president of FOHRP. Is he doing this out of the goodness of his heart or is this a paid position?

Judging from his response the other night it appears he has some serious problems dealing with community board meetings and those that attend. If he can't work with CB1 and 2, who can he deal with?

It appears he has a problem with "Dave."

[infoshare]

Is he doing this out of the goodness of his heart or is this a paid position?

My guess is that Al Butzel is paid a salary for his position, therefore he can not possibly be advocating for the construction of Hudson River River Park out of the 'goodness of his heart'.

Thanks for the above rhetoric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophists), you have gotten us back on-topic: GARBAGE. ;)

[projectsnyc]

FRIENDS OF HUDSON RIVER PARK
Summary of Operations 2005 (unaudited)

Revenues:
Foundation Grants $ 135,000
Government Grants 95,000
Individual & Business Contributions (including gala) 500,000
Program Revenues 50,000
Special Restricted Grant 50,000
Total Revenues $ 830,000


Expenses
Personnel $ 200,000
Benefits 40,000
Consultant Expenses (other than lobbying) 35,000
Lobbying Expenses 45,000
Program Expenses 120,000
Gala Expenses 180,000
Website, Newsletter, Materials 35,000
Rent, Utilities & Office Expenses 55,000
Contributions to Hudson River Park Trust 50,000
All Other 20,000
Total Expenditures $ 780,000

[CBTwo]

With a total revenue source of $830,000, Hudson River Park Trust gets $50,000 (is that the special restricted $50,000 grant where the contribution is actually spent on what it's meant for)? That is equal to a hair over 6% if my math is correct.

Meanwhile 252 parking spaces on the roof of Pier 40 generates approximately $831,000 more or less in revenue including city parking taxes. May I ask who is helping out the cause of saving the park?

Hmm? I'm glad I don't have friends like that. What's the $20,000 in "other" for, rubber thumbs and pushpins? Where is Boss Tweed now that they need him?

Who's auditing this stuff? It cost them $120,000 in Program Expenses for a gross return of $50,000 in Program Revenues?

I can see why Al Butzel high tailed it out of the meeting and he doesn't want anyone looking at the organization too closely.

Not knowing the total history of Al B's involvement with the project, it is difficult to judge his original and his present goals regarding HRPT. I applaude his past, but question his future involvement with the park.

Oops? I just ran the figures again through my updated copy of Turbo Tax and you know what? There is another $50,000 that doesn't show on their balance sheet. Must be for post'em notes I guess.

[Ellen Peterson-Lewis]

ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORISM

The Department of Sanitation's proposed siting of 29,000 gallons of petroleum products adjacent to the Holland Tunnel vehicle exit ,entrance and Ventilation Tower which is also the escape exit for the Holland Tunnel and entrance for emergency responders is nothing short of Environmental Terrorism being perpetrated by DOS on the residents, businesses and park users in Community Boards 2 and 1.

Why haven't The Port Authority and Home Land Security weighed in on this? Where are our elected officials on this issue? Community Board 2 and 1 have passed resolutions on this dangerous proposal.

[antinimby]

^ Perfectly valid point but I would think they would take extra measures to protect those fuels, like thick concrete walls or something.

[bigkdc]

ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORISM

The Department of Sanitation's proposed siting of 29,000 gallons of petroleum products adjacent to the Holland Tunnel vehicle exit ,entrance and Ventilation Tower which is also the escape exit for the Holland Tunnel and entrance for emergency responders is nothing short of Environmental Terrorism being perpetrated by DOS on the residents, businesses and park users in Community Boards 2 and 1.

Why haven't The Port Authority and Home Land Security weighed in on this? Where are our elected officials on this issue? Community Board 2 and 1 have passed resolutions on this dangerous proposal.

It sounds like the local elected officials are waiting a while to see how things transpire before they way in...federal officials will likely wait until local officials have a view. That being said I have always thought this issue needs to be raised in a higher profile forum like a daily paper (Times, Post, etc).

The terrorism point is a valid one and it is hard to see the counter argument to it. Of course we need to have this garage (and thus the fuel storage) somewhere but why on earth would you put it close to something that has already popped up as a target?

[projectsnyc]

It turns out that ANY City vehicle can refuel either at a DSNY garage or at a FDNY firehouse. The "Ghostbusters" FDNY house is just nearby on N Moore Street. There are also plenty of firehouses in CD5 (midtown).

[Ellen Peterson-Lewis]

CHANEL ONE in the news on Friday, reported that a NYC Department of Sanitation Garbage Tuck from Manhattan burst into flames on its way to a landfill in Edison NJ. The burning garbage truck caused a brush fire along the side of the roadway. There were no injuries and no cause was given.

Chanel One's video of the burning DOS garbage truck and brush fire makes me even more apprehensive of the proposed siting of Districts 1,2 and 5 in Hudson Square. A fire/ explosion at the proposed mega refueling site would be CATASTROPHIC not only to CB2 and CB1 residents, businesses and people who work in the the area but also to the Holland Tunnel occupants and infrastructure

[CBTwo]

Ellen,

Thanks for your realization of the main problem of the scheme. There are others out there that think the Hudson Square Nimbys are stupid, self serving and protecting their rent controlled apartments from an onslaught of garbage trucks.

Those same dumb pieces of excrement numbnuts that take that view find it perfectly acceptable to park thousands of gallons of flammable fluids above a major escape route for New York City will never get the concept of right and wrong because they were most likely spawned by individuals who were total fools. How else could an individual get that stupid in twenty plus years?

There have been several plots over the years targeting the Holland Tunnel. I must ask DUH?

Meanwhile Homeland Security is spending mega bucks protecting corn silos in the middle of Nebraska.

Knowing and having worked with some of the key individuals that are running the local NYC protection show I wont even ask what NYC OEM has planned for an "EVENT!' if it comes about. Their track record is highlighted by what they did regarding last years power outage. What is there reponse? "Buy another mega-hundred thousand dollar response vehicle."

[Ellen Peterson-Lewis]

CBTwo

I believe it is imperative NOW to ask New York City’s Office of Emergency Management if indeed there is a plan for an "Event" if it comes about.

Since the February 26th,1993 World Trade Center Bombing and since 9/11/01, DSNY has been upgrading the current District 1 garage at 275 West Street.

A review of DSNY ( 2006) EAS and DOB (1994 -2005) records will verify that 18,550 gallons of petroleum products are now on site and not the 14,550 existing gallons in DSNY’s 20006 EAS.

Current security at this site is almost non existent.

On Saturday, April 21, 2007 as I was walking along the Hudson River Park I looked over to the UPS parking field.

Along West street from Spring Street were 6 garbage trucks with both doors open and unattended. This was at 12:45 pm.

I crossed at Canal and walked to Spring Street. In front of the garage were a group of drivers, just hanging about. I might add that it was in the 70's. The stench of garbage was in the air.

I walked over to Washington Street and found another 7 garbage trucks with both doors open and unattended. Again the stench of garbage was in the air.

I walked back to West Street and found to my surprise two garbage trucks from Queens District 3, two from District 2, and two from District 1.

Along Spring Street there were 3 garbage trucks from District 1 with their doors closed. Inside of the garage there were five District 1 trucks.

On Washington Street there were two District 6 garbage trucks, two District 3 garbage trucks, two District 2 garbage trucks and one District 1 garbage truck.

I asked a Sanitation worker about District 1's pick up schedule .

There are 4 shifts Tuesday through Saturday.
12 am to 8 am
6am to 2pm
4pm to 12 am
Baskets 11am to 7pm

I asked how many trucks did District 1 have and he told me 14.

I left at 1:45 as I was meeting someone at 2:00

I returned on Suday around 5:30 pm and found the same garbage trucks with doors closed and unattended. However their side windows were open.

The Garage's perferated roll down gates covered the three bays. No sanitation workes were to be found outside of the garage. 6 District 1 garbage trucks were in the garage and the other 8 were parked on West and Washington Streets along with the 9 out of district garbage trucks including the two from Queens.

My concern is with DSNY's laxed security anyone could steal a garbage truck to do harm in our community.

Is this laxed security common to all DSNY facilities?

Who would question a DSNY Garbage Truck parked along side of the Holland Tunnel Ventilation Tower or District's 1 garage?.

Again it is imperative that we as a community ask the Office of Emergency Management for a plan NOW!!!!!!
.

[projectsnyc]

Posted: 9 Dec 2006 14:27:13


On December 9, 2006, at approximately 0840 hours, the Seminole County Sheriff's Office was contacted by the Orlando Police Department to assist with a fleeing stolen garbage truck that was heading into the Maitland area of Seminole County.

The incident began when the driver of the stolen garbage truck notified OPD that he was suicidal. OPD followed the truck north on U.S. Hwy 17/92 to the Maitland over-pass, where Seminole County Sheriff’s Deputies caught sight of him. The truck then turned west onto S.R. 436 into Altamonte Springs. Deputies deployed stop sticks at S.R. 436 and Palm Springs Drive, deflating the front two tires of the truck. The driver proceeded to get on Interstate 4 in Altamonte Springs. He traveled through Longwood and got off at the exit ramp at Lake Mary Blvd. At that time, the truck had completely lost the front two tires. Traveling on the front rims, he turned east onto Lake Mary Blvd. He continued to travel through Lake Mary. At one point he yelled out the window “you will have to kill me”.

The incident came to an end at approximately 0917 hours when the driver drove through the Heathrow area, veered off the road and headed towards a lake. The truck came to a stop just at the water’s edge. The driver surrendered to authorities without further incident. He was taken into protective custody and will face criminal charges upon his release.


Ellen, maybe you need to send your report to the Electeds?

[bigkdc]

I agree...posting that here is a start but putting that account into a letter to local officials, new york times, etc would help too

[projectsnyc]

In reviewing the CPC zoning actions I am reminded that a City Map Change has already taken place for a full-block park. I am always told that it is next to impossible to alienate a park without NYS legislation. Is this yet another reason for the Community Boards to support the DSNY Plan at this location and will it make harder for the City to make its fair-share case?

CITY MAP CHANGE (040507 MMM) (040508 MMM)
These applications seek to establish a network of new parks in the area and Hudson Boulevard, a north – south street couplet between Tenth and Eleventh avenues. Much of the park and Hudson Boulevard would be above a lower limiting plane due to subsurface conditions under the park and boulevard. The linear park would extend from West 33rd to West 39th Street. A full-block park would also be mapped from West 29th to West 30th streets between Eleventh and Twelfth avenues. Hudson Boulevard “East” would run northbound from West 33rd Street to West 38th Street and Hudson Boulevard "West" southbound from West 38th Street to West 35th Street.

[Ellen Peterson-Lewis]

Will Send Letters

[ZippyTheChimp]

Garbage tower foes look for dirt on Spring St.

By Albert Amateau

A coalition of civic groups in the Hudson Sq. and Tribeca neighborhoods are stepping up efforts to turn back the Department of Sanitation’s plan for a jumbo garage for three sanitation districts on United Parcel Service property just north of new high-end luxury residences.

The newly organized Community Sanitation Steering Committee is raising environmental, fair-share and land-use objections to the D.S.N.Y. project that the department outlined at a contentious January hearing.

“There’s a ton of questions about the project and the biggest is why Block 675 [a square block bounded by 29th and 30th Sts. between 11th and 12th Aves.] was withdrawn as the sanitation garage site,” said David Reck, president of Friends of Hudson Sq., and a member of the Sanitation Steering Committee.

Block 675, which is used by Greyhound to park buses and also currently has garbage trucks from Sanitation District 6 — covering the East Side between 14th and 59th Sts. — was approved as a combined sanitation facility in a 2004 land-use review for the 36-block Hudson Yards redevelopment. The approval, valid to this day, included authorization for condemnation proceedings. The facility was supposed to include a rooftop park.

Another question the committee is raising is why and how the U.P.S. site on Washington St. near Spring was specified in the October 2005 settlement of a lawsuit that Friends of Hudson River Park filed to force D.S.N.Y to get sanitation uses off the Gansevoort Peninsula to allow the peninsula to become part of the five-mile long riverfront park by the end of 2012.

The committee — through its lawyer David Snyder — last week filed a seven-page Freedom of Information Law request to the Department of Sanitation regarding those and other questions.

At the same time, the committee filed freedom of information requests to the Port Authority and the federal Environmental Protection Agency for auto traffic and air quality information in the area of the proposed sanitation garage, which includes a Holland Tunnel ventilation tower.

“Air pollution is one of our biggest concerns,” said Richard Barrett, president of the Canal West Coalition and a member of the Sanitation Steering Committee. “Manhattan is not in compliance with federal air pollution standards and we want data on emissions from stationary sources like the tunnel vents and from moving sources — cars,” Barrett said.

The D.S.N.Y. proposal, which requires an Environmental Impact statement before it can be built, calls for a three-level, 150-ft.-tall garage on the U.P.S. site that would accommodate department trucks and other equipment for Sanitation District 1, covering Lower Manhattan up to Canal St. The garage would also accommodate trucks from District 2, covering the Village, Hudson Sq. and Soho to 14th St. and District 4, which covers Chelsea and Clinton between 14th and 59th Sts.

At ground level, the proposed garage would also allow U.P.S. to continuing using the site as a staging area for delivery trucks entering the U.P.S. building to the east for loading. In addition, the project calls for using a triangular site on Spring, Canal and West Sts., currently used for District 1 trucks, for fuel storage and truck washing for the three districts and a private garage on Washington and Charlton St. that accommodates parking for 400 cars to be taken by condemnation proceedings.

The project is the source of bitter conflict between Hudson Sq., Soho and South Village residents, and members of the same neighborhoods with shared interests and who are members of Friends of Hudson River Park.

Last month, Al Butzel, president of the Friends, and Reck had a loud public argument at a Community Board 1 hearing over the fact that the much-reviled D.S.N.Y. Spring St. project is specifically mentioned in the 2005 court-approved agreement to get District 4 garbage trucks off Gansevoort to make way for an eight-acre extension of the park.

In a telephone interview on April 24, Butzel recalled that during negotiations in 2005 D.S.N.Y. agreed to find an alternative site for the District 4 trucks to free the peninsula. “We expected it to be Block 675 but they said they were dropping that site and would choose another. We were unwilling to sign any settlement that did not specify a site and they finally said they would go to Spring St.,” Butzel said.

The 1998 legislation that created the Hudson River Park called for municipal uses to vacate the peninsula in 2004, and Friends insisted on a specific city commitment to another site for its trucks.

The Department of Sanitation has said the cost of condemnation of Block 675 would be prohibitive. However, sanitation committee members ridiculed the D.S.N.Y. estimate of $700 million as the price of Block 675. “It’s completely absurd. You could build the entire Hudson River Park and have money left over for that much money,” said Reck.

Tobi Bergman, president of Pier Park and Playground, the not-for-profit Pier 40 recreation complex and a Community Board 2 member, recalled the board in 2000 had approved the Spring St. site as a District 2 sanitation garage but no one expected it to accommodate three districts. “There is no way the community board would have approved it if they knew it would have a 150-ft. building,” said Bergman, a Friends of Hudson River Park member who made it clear that he did not speak for the group.

“It was a bait and switch,” Bergman said, “Sanitation was able to pit one community group against another and they may never get approval for the Spring St. site and might have to stay on Gansevoort.”

The Friends agreement also calls for Sanitation to pay $21 million to the Hudson River Park Trust, the city-state agency building the park, as rent for Gansevoort until the end of 2012 and if Sanitation fails to get off the peninsula by then, the Friends can go to court again to seek other remedies — presumably more money to fund completion and operation of the park.

Michael Kramer, a member of the steering committee who represents property owners in the Spring St. area, has circulated a list of 13 alternatives to the Spring St. sanitation facility.

The first alternative on Kramer’s list is the Block 675 location in the Hudson Yards.

The second is Pier 76 at 35th St., excluded from the Hudson River Park and currently the site of the city auto tow pound and the temporary home of the N.Y.P.D. mounted police unit. The pier has also been suggested as a possible site for a sanitation marine transfer station.

Some of the other Kramer alternatives, however, appear far-fetched. Kramer suggested that Pier 40, the 13-acre structure at Houston St., which must have 50 percent of its space devoted to public recreation, could also accommodate the sanitation garage. The Hudson River Park Trust is now considering a proposal for a theater complex on the commercial half of Pier 40. Kramer also proposes a site at 147 Watts St. in Tribeca, where the Jack Parker Corporation is already building a residential complex. He also proposed two recently rezoned Tribeca sites at 281-7 West St. and 445-7 Washington St., which are potential residential development sites.

The committee hopes that City Council Speaker Christine Quinn will call for a Council hearing soon to consider alternatives to the U.P.S. site. Committee members, however, are ready to mount a court challenge to the city if all else fails.

Albert@DowntownExpress.com

[bigkdc]

^^^ Interesting how the opposition has focused on the environmental impact and not the safety issue re: the holland tunnel and all of that fuel.

I guess it is easier to quantify the impact on the environment whereas the holland tunnel issue is harder to prove.

[CBTwo]

I believe they are taking this course of action because it is one of many fronts of attack, each one being pursued in order to stretch out the whole process rather than attacking on all fronts at the same time. This prolonged effort will hopefully make more people aware of all the problems associated with this misdirected project.

[CBTwo]

http://downtownexpress.com/de_207/river.gif






Downtown Express photo by Milo Hess


It's interesting to note that the HRPT can't afford what projects they have started, but insist that they need the DSNY property at Gansevoort for additional parkland. Someone should tell them to get their finances together before demolishing another pier or structure that will only sit fallow for years.


A new sign seemingly directing Hudson River Park joggers and cyclists into the water might also be applied to the park’s current state of affairs. Officials no longer think they have enough money to rebuild the park’s amenities on Piers 25 and 26 in Tribeca.
With $70M spent, no money to reopen park’s Tribeca piers
By Skye H. McFarlane

There was a deep sadness in Bob Townley’s eyes as he looked out over the Hudson River Tuesday night. Out in the river stood two quiet fields of wooden piles, the decaying remains of Piers 25 and 26.

“People miss what we had there,” Townley said of Pier 25, which he used to run with his organization Manhattan Youth. “We have to do whatever’s necessary to get it done and get them back on line.”

Based on new estimates, the Hudson River Park Trust does not have the money to rebuild what he had on the piers. It will take a figure well over $20 million and several more years before neighborhood residents can return to play miniature golf, volleyball or soccer on the rebuilt Pier 25. Meanwhile, the Trust is embroiled in a dispute with local boaters and community board members over the design of Pier 26.

Last summer, the community rejoiced as work finally began on the Tribeca segment of the riverfront park, also called segment three. In 2005, the Trust was promised $70 million from the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. The money was meant to pay for the entirety of segment three, including the esplanade from Pier 40 down to Chambers St., sport and playground facilities and a marina on Pier 25, and a boathouse, eatery and river study center on Pier 26. The old piers were torn down in 2006.

But as many Downtown construction projects are learning, $70 million just isn’t what it used to be. With the costs of construction skyrocketing, the Trust began to realize last fall that it would need more money to complete the piers. In October, Trust President Connie Fishman announced that there was no longer enough money in the budget to build the boathouse, estuarium or restaurant on Pier 26.

Last month, she notified members of the park’s advisory council that the Trust did not have the money to build the playground and other amenities on Pier 25 or the upland area in front of 25 and 26.

In a January letter to Community Board 1 chairperson Julie Menin, Fishman said she was confident that the new city and state budgets would contain enough money to build the Pier 26 boathouse. In an interview Wednesday with the Downtown Express, Fishman confirmed that the Trust received a combined $10 million from the city and state. However, that money may never make its way to Tribeca. If bids for construction in other parts of the park run over, Fishman said, then the money will have to be used to fill those gaps first.

The park as a whole suffers, Fishman noted, because in-water construction can only be done from May 1 to Nov. 1. Each time another season passes, construction prices go up.

“The whole project undergoes a cost penalty because we can only do certain projects six months per year,” Fishman said.

Though she did not have any current estimates, Fishman said that the park as a whole still needs at least $120 million to finish its current projects. Segment three, specifically, needs more than $20 million — the Trust’s estimate of the cost overrun on Pier 26 alone. The Trust has applied for another L.M.D.C. grant and plans to apply for funds from the Port Authority, the State Department of Transportation and possibly the Federal government. The Friends of Hudson River Park group also does private fundraising for the park.

As it stands now, however, the new Tribeca esplanade is slated to open in fall 2008. Around the same time, in-water construction on Piers 25 and 26 would be complete, leaving two blank, concrete-topped piers and an upland area of worn-down asphalt.

Asked when that blank concrete slate could be filled in with buildings and recreation, Fishman said, “If someone walked in with a giant pot of money tomorrow, then the earliest [the piers could be finished] would be in early 2010,” a year behind the previous schedule.

Absent the pot of money, Fishman said she wasn’t sure how long the project would take. However, she was hesitant to say that the community could use the blank piers for interim activities and for river views. She hopes that by the time the blank piers are in place, the Trust will have the money to begin the remaining construction.

“If we knew it was going to be quite a while, we would consider it,” Fishman said of the interim use. “It would depend upon the schedule and, of course, what uses you’d be talking about.”

Even though Fishman reports to the Trust’s board of trustees, one of its members, Julie Nadel, said Fishman never disclosed to her that there was no money left to build the field and play areas on Pier 25.

Since the old Piers 25 and 26 were torn down, the community has been clamoring to reclaim the recreational and educational uses that they once served. However, issues with the Trust’s plan for Pier 26 prompted C.B. 1 to pass a resolution asking the Trust not to fund or build the structures on that pier until the design details can be revised with the board’s input.

“Some people may think we’re crazy,” said Nadel, who is also chairperson of C.B. 1’s Waterfront Committee and a leader in the fight to redesign Pier 26. “But we just want to pause the process long enough to get it right. I think most people would rather have nothing than have something that’s really expensive and screwed up.”

The community board is concerned that if money is found to build the current plans, the boathouse, would not be large enough to hold many of the kayaks it is meant to store. The estuarium has been removed from the plans completely, and a large commercial restaurant on the pier may not be in keeping with the Hudson River Park Act, which established Pier 26 as a “park only” area.

Responding to those concerns Wednesday, Fishman said that the Trust would revisit its boathouse plans to see if it can make the desired changes. Fishman hopes that the kayaks can be accommodated by changing the boathouse’s internal layout, since moving the structure’s walls would require paying to redesign the building.

The estuarium will be designed after an operator is chosen through a formal Request For Proposals (R.F.P.) process. The process, Fishman said, will ensure that the estuarium design can accommodate whatever tanks or machinery the marine study center might need. However, to build the estuarium later, the Trust will likely have to tear up part of Pier 26 a second time to install additional piles.

As for the restaurant, Fishman insisted that it will be a family-friendly place that people would be “comfortable getting off their bikes, sweaty or whatever, to go in and eat.” Fishman said she’d like the place to have the same feel as Hudson River Café in Riverside Park — a seasonal outdoor eatery whose operators recently won a contract to put a café on Pier 84 in the Hudson River Park. The food vendor will also be selected through an R.F.P.

Though the community would eventually be able to comment on both R.F.P.s, Fishman said that the community board would have to get permission from the Trust’s board of trustees if it wants to have a more active role in the R.F.P. process.

In its March resolution, the board did ask for a more open park planning process and more community involvement — concerns that seemed to strike a nerve with the Trust and its supporters. Former Trust advisory council member Yvonne Morrow wrote a letter to this paper citing meetings between the Trust and the board and resolutions passed by the board in favor of the segment three schematic design (the board’s current questions concern the more detailed architectural designs). Fishman herself also sent out an extensive packet of information and old C.B. 1 resolutions to demonstrate the Trust’s commitment to community involvement.

“The one thing that’s clear is that there’s been an unbelievable level of involvement with the community over the years,” Fishman said, though she admitted that some community members might be upset that their suggestions were not incorporated into the final design.

Nadel said the new information does little to change what the community wants for the pier in the future — a functional boathouse; a modest, non-destination eatery; and a vibrant educational center built with community involvement.

At least one member of the Friends group has voiced concerns that the community board’s current opposition on Pier 26 could hinder the park’s fundraising campaigns. Both Nadel and Fishman, who agree on little else, adamantly denied that claim, saying that government agencies do not consider such minutia in their funding decisions.

Still, both sides want to move forward quickly to resolve their differences. On Monday night, Fishman and the Trust’s design team will appear before the Waterfront Committee to answer questions. Some committee members, including Nadel, also plan to meet with the designers at the Trust’s offices, to go over design plans in detail.

Meanwhile Townley will wait and watch the river for the day (presumably May 1) when the barges will come to begin reconstructing his pier. He will continue hoping that the money will be there to finish. He said that the smaller design details can — and must — be worked out so that the community has a functional set of piers. The bigger picture is making sure that they get funded and built in the first place.

“People have to dig in. It’s going to be about hard work in getting it done. Hard work with communication, openness, …and motivation,” Townley said. “If we have to, we’ll get the governor and the speaker and the officials involved and we’ll get it done.”

[Ellen Peterson-Lewis]

New York Times ,Monday April 30, 2007

Explosion Of Tanker Truck Carrying 8,600 Gallons of Gasoline Collapses Bay Area Overpass



DSNY District 1 Sanitation Garage currently has 18,550 gallons of petroleum products on site.

District 1's Garage abuts the Holland Tunnel Vent shaft. The garage also straddles the two Holland Tunnels. One on Spring Street the other on Canal Street.

An accidental explosion or by design would be Catastrophic to the Holland Tunnel Infrastructure as well as to all who live, walk, use the parks ,drive and work in the area.

Security is just about non existent. See page 13, Thread #193

[CBTwo]

I can see the finger pointing now. The politicians and all the planners will realize after the fact, when that little triangular park they recently built at Canal and West streets becomes an inlet, that it really wasn't a good idea to have a gas station on one side and a fuel storage facility on the other side of Canal street straddling the Holland Tunnel tubes. Duh?

Is Homeland Security aware of all this? Or are they all driving around with their vehicles marked "Homeland Security" trying to find the best price on a dozen donuts to take back to the office for a planning meeting?

[Ellen Peterson-Lewis]

CBTwo

You are so right. Where is Home Land Security on this issue.?

The Gas Station on Canal currently has the Capacity for 16,000 gallons of fuel.

The current Distric Sanitation Garage for District 1 has 18,550 gallons of petroleum products on site.

Currently DSNY is using their site as a refuling site for any NYC agency vehicles which includes DSNY garbage trucks.

Here is a list of out of district garbage trucks that were parked over Saturday night April 21, 2007 until 12:am Monday morning. All were unattended.


Q3 25cu-021
Q3 25cu-224

M6 25cn-070
M6 25cn-687

M2 25cw-240
M2 25cn-522
M2 25cn-064

M3 25cn 009
M3 25cn 469

All of these out of district garbage trucks parked along West, Washington and Spring Street were unattended during the day and over night. See Thread #193

AGAIN, WHERE IS HOME LAND SECURITY ON THIS ISSUE?

FOR THAT MATTER, WHERE IS DSNY ON THE SUBJECT OF SECURITY CONCERNING THEIR UNATTENDED OUT OF DISTRICT GARBAGE TRUCKS THAT WERE PARKED OVERNIGHT ON WEST,SPRING AND WASHINGTON STREETS?

[ASchwarz]

Wow, Community Board 2 definitely wins the NIMBY King award. NOTHING is ever accepted in this neighborhood. The funny thing is that this site was formerly going to be condos that were (once again) opposed by the "community."

Now people are staying up all night watching garbage trucks and writing down serial numbers. Just thrilling. Sounds like someone who needs a hobby, a fling, ANYTHING.

The Pier 40 proposal is propagandized as "Vegas", now a Sanitation Facility is propagandized as "terrorist threat". Next up, Andrew Berman will claim NYU and West Village condo builders are colluding to warehouse weapons of mass destruction.

[CBTwo]

Good point. NYU is a terrorist threat to the Village and have caused mass destruction to same for quite a few decades. And thank you for the NIMBY award. If it wasn't for the NIMBY attitude the Village would look and be like the rest of New York City, BORING!

[ASchwarz]

Good point. NYU is a terrorist threat to the Village and have caused mass destruction to same for quite a few decades. And thank you for the NIMBY award. If it wasn't for the NIMBY attitude the Village would look and be like the rest of New York City, BORING!

Right, because a community that is 95% rich and white is just sooo fascinating! I hear all the starving artist/musician types are moving from East Williamsburg and Bushwick to duplexes on Hudson Street. The Village is just so hip, so bohemian, so happening! It's still 1955, right?

[CBTwo]

East Williamsburg and Bushwick is not New York, nor is Jersey City or Hoboken.

Actually I was looking at a time period closer to turn of the century and early twenties, more ash can school type art.

Also there are very few duplexes on Hudson Street, so that limits those types that need them.

[pianoman11686]

I hear you, ASchwarz. These people will stop at nothing to keep anyone else from getting something out of their neighborhood, be it a new residential or cultural development, or an infrastructure project. You should have realized that when the ridiculous connection was made with that tanker explosion (on a FREEWAY in CALIFORNIA, no less!). Grasping at straws, ad nauseam.

[ASchwarz]

East Williamsburg and Bushwick is not New York, nor is Jersey City or Hoboken.

Actually I was looking at a time period closer to turn of the century and early twenties, more ash can school type art.

Also there are very few duplexes on Hudson Street, so that limits those types that need them.

LOL, the West Village of 2007 is NOT New York. It's about the least New Yorky neighborhood outside of Staten Island.

Maybe it should secede and form the Republic of West NIMBYstan. Andrew Berman can be appointed Chief Warlord.

[bigkdc]

I hear you, ASchwarz. These people will stop at nothing to keep anyone else from getting something out of their neighborhood, be it a new residential or cultural development, or an infrastructure project. You should have realized that when the ridiculous connection was made with that tanker explosion (on a FREEWAY in CALIFORNIA, no less!). Grasping at straws, ad nauseam.

Do you think it is reasonable to put that much fuel on top of the holland tunnel?

[ASchwarz]

Do you think it is reasonable to put that much fuel on top of the holland tunnel?

Yes, if OEM and the Police and Fire Departments sign off on the project.

Where in Lower Manhattan are you going to build something that isn't on top of something valuable? Should we shut down every street that sits on a subway line?

Random NIMBYs are just grasping at anything to keep the lot undeveloped. What was the problem when the lot was supposed to be condos? Not enough fuel? Now it's too much fuel? Give me a break.

[pianoman11686]

Do you think it is reasonable to put that much fuel on top of the holland tunnel?

I'm not familiar with all the aspects of this project, that being my first post in this thread. So no, I don't know if it's reasonable. The point I was making was a broader one about the area in general.

Do you think it's reasonable to try to scare people into opposing a project by bringing up a headline of a tanker explosion in California? Or screaming about the terrorist risks and how Homeland Security should get involved? The whole city's a terrorist risk. And serious explosions can happen anytime, anywhere flammable materials are used/stored.

[lofter1]

To NOT consider that the storage of tens of thousands of gallons of highly-flammable fuel over / in the very near vicinity of cross-Hudson underwater tubes (Holland Tunnel, PATH, etc.) creates a POSSIBLY DANGEROUS SITUATION and merits some re-thinking is short-sighted, to say the least.

Let's not forget that back in the 1990's both the NYPD and the FEDS signed-off on the storage of the tens of thousands of gallons of fuel inside the old 7WTC -- and don't forget what devastation that decision led to.

[CBTwo]

I really don't believe there are as many idiots that walk around, speak English and are allowed to access online websites as I see here.

OEM is a bunch of idiots, same thing with the NYPD and Port Authority.

Case in point. How many airplanes have been hijacked since the idiots finally realized that with a five dollar lock you can secure the cockpit? Same thing is going down here with the stupidity of storing over 20,000 gallons of fuel over one of the three vehicular out and into Manhattan from Jersey. Oh? DuH?

Pianoman, Perhaps you should stick to playing a piano in NC rather than comment on an area of New York City which apparently you know nothing about.

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
Forum infraction: You could have made the point without the insult.

[ASchwarz]

Apparently CB2 is WRONG. The DOS garage site is NOT located above the Holland Tunnel.

I was skeptical of his claim since the tunnel entrance and exit are both to the south of the site.

This link clearly shows the outline of the tunnel structure (scroll down a bit):
http://www.panynj.gov/CommutingTravel/tunnels/html/holland.html

This link clearly shows the location of the DOS garage (page 5):
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dsny/downloads/pdf/guides/MJLMN125.pdf

The DOS garage is planned for the NORTH side of Spring Street, between Washington and West. The tunnel, which is located to the south, NEVER touches the site.

Try a new excuse for your NIMBYism. Maybe the structure will alter the migratory flight of a rare bird...

[ZippyTheChimp]

Let's not forget that back in the 1990's both the NYPD and the FEDS signed-off on the storage of the tens of thousands of gallons of fuel inside the old 7WTC -- and don't forget what devastation that decision led to.And to compound the error, the city moved the OEM into the building after the 1993 WTC terrorist attack, knowing it remained a prime terrorist target. The OEM is now located in Brooklyn.

Why is it assumed that the city will address potential safety problems, when they have been so frequently overlooked in the past?

[ASchwarz]

I really don't believe there are as many idiots that walk around, speak English and are allowed to access online websites as I see here.

OEM is a bunch of idiots, same thing with the NYPD and Port Authority.

Case in point. How many airplanes have been hijacked since the idiots finally realized that with a five dollar lock you can secure the cockpit? Same thing is going down here with the stupidity of storing over 20,000 gallons of fuel over one of the three vehicular out and into Manhattan from Jersey. Oh? DuH?

Pianoman, Perhaps you should stick to playing a piano in NC rather than comment on an area of New York City which apparently you know nothing about.

So you think OEM, the NYPD and the Port Authority are all idiots, and want public safety decisions to be the exclusive domain of a bunch of uncredentialed West Village anti-everythings? Sure, makes alot of sense.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Apparently CB2 is WRONG. The DOS garage site is NOT located above the Holland Tunnel.
The garage project includes a truck washing facility to be built on nthe site that now abuts the vent building for the Holland Tunnel. That building will also be used for fuel storage.

[ZippyTheChimp]

So you think OEM, the NYPD and the Port Authority are all idiots, and want public safety decisions to be the exclusive domain of a bunch of uncredentialed West Village anti-everythings? Sure, makes alot of sense.Did the OEM and NYPD do a good job at 7WTC?

[ASchwarz]

And to compound the error, the city moved the OEM into the building after the 1993 WTC terrorist attack, knowing it remained a prime terrorist target. The OEM is now located in Brooklyn.

Why is it assumed that the city will address potential safety problems, when they have been so frequently overlooked in the past?

Why would you assume a neighborhood opposition group would have a better grasp of citywide public safety concerns?

Do you really think the opposition is primarily concerned about public safety? Are they marhalling resources to shut down the Department of Sanitation Garage in the South Bronx (next to the Bruckner Expressway)?

Sorry, I trust Bloomberg and Co. on citywide safety and provision of public facilities over CB2, Andrew Berman, etc.

[ASchwarz]

Did the OEM and NYPD do a good job at 7WTC?

What exactly did OEM and the NYPD do that was "bad"?

Did they cause 9-11? No

Prior to 9-11, was such an event considered a reasonable possibility? No

Does OEM have to be in proximity to City Hall and Police HQ? Yes

Given these facts, I don't understand the Monday Morning quarterbacking. There is NO location in proximity to City Hall that is not high profile and subject to safety considerations.

Also, what does a truck washing facility have to do with the World Trade Center site? You really think truck washing facilities are equivalent to WTC, Eifel Tower, Statue of Liberty. etc? Give me a break.

If the fuel is really the only motivation for the opposition (yeah, right), then move it to the north side of Spring.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Why would you assume a neighborhood opposition group would have a better grasp of citywide public safety concerns? I don't, but when the issue is first brought up, I
i expect that those with expertise to discus it, not dismiss it because it was first brought up by amateurs.


Do you really think the opposition is primarily concerned about public safety?Their motivation is not relevant. The only issue is the validity of the safety concern, not whether Blloomberg or Berman is more trustworthy.

[ZippyTheChimp]

What exactly did OEM and the NYPD do that was "bad"?I thought my post was obvious.


Did they cause 9-11? NoNot relevant.


Prior to 9-11, was such an event considered a reasonable possibility? NoYou sound like George Tenet.


Does OEM have to be in proximity to City Hall and Police HQ? YesThey are now in Brooklyn.


Also, what does a truck washing facility have to do with the World Trade Center site? You really think truck washing facilities are equivalent to WTC, Eifel Tower, Statue of Liberty. etc? Give me a break.Your comparison is in error. It's the Holland Tunnel that's equivalent, not the garage.


If the fuel is really the only motivation for the opposition (yeah, right), then move it to the north side of Spring.If that is the expert conclusion, then that's what they should do. Has the lead agency suggested this?

[ASchwarz]

Zippy, OEM is right next to the Brooklyn Bridge. Their location is just as high-profile and centralized as before, as they have to be accessible to City Hall/ Police HQ. There's no difference.

The opposition does not care about a truck washing facility. If the City transferred the hypothetical fuel storage to the north side of Spring, do you think the opposition would melt away? No, another "issue" would magically arise and their claimed "public safety agenda" would be forgotten.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Zippy, OEM is right next to the Brooklyn Bridge.[ Their location is just as high-profile and centralized as before, as they have to be accessible to City Hall/ Police HQ. There's no differenceThe OEM is on Cadman Plaza, one block from the bridge access road, across the street from the park. It's hardly high profile or centralized. It is away from targets, yet near access to Manhattan. The right choice was made, but only after the error became obvious.


The opposition does not care about a truck washing facility. If the City transferred the hypothetical fuel storage to the north side of Spring, do you think the opposition would melt away? No, another "issue" would magically arise and their claimed "public safety agenda" would be forgotten.I don't particularly care where the garage is located. My only concern is that it vacates Gansevoort. But I think the issue of fuel storage should be discussed.

[bigkdc]

The opposition does not care about a truck washing facility. If the City transferred the hypothetical fuel storage to the north side of Spring, do you think the opposition would melt away? No, another "issue" would magically arise and their claimed "public safety agenda" would be forgotten.

Again, do you think it is a good idea to put all of that fuel on top of the holland tunnel (which as zippy has pointed out, IS the case because the fuel is going on the south side of spring street)?

The motivation for the opposition does not matter. As of now, that is the plan proposed by DOS so it is something that really needs to be addressed. Until DOS comes out with a new plan that puts the fuel elsewhere I think it is quite fair for people to oppose this plan.

[ASchwarz]

Again, do you think it is a good idea to put all of that fuel on top of the holland tunnel (which as zippy has pointed out, IS the case because the fuel is going on the south side of spring street)?

The motivation for the opposition does not matter. As of now, that is the plan proposed by DOS so it is something that really needs to be addressed. Until DOS comes out with a new plan that puts the fuel elsewhere I think it is quite fair for people to oppose this plan.

I already answered your question, but I'll repeat myself. If OEM, the Police Dept., PA and City Hall all sign off on the project, and the only opposition is from anti-everythings, then yes, I do think it is a good idea.

The motivation for the opposition DOES matter, because they are opposed to EVERYTHING being proposed. The distinction between the small washing facility and the rest of the project was not even made by the opposition on this board until I showed that their "safety" claims on the main part of the project were false.

DOS should not come up with a new plan until the experts (not West Village NIMBYs) make a determination. Public agencies are not infalliable, but they are at least informed and accountable, which is not the case with the opposition.

[Ellen Peterson-Lewis]

Public Safety is an issue.

Go to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey - Tunnel Web page.

The map shows the Exit Tunnel runs along Canal Street from NJ to the Exit at Hudson Street.

The Entrance Tunnel to NJ runs along Spring Street to two entrances off of Varrick Street and one off of Canal Street

DSNY District 1 Manhattan Garage site is bounded by Canal, West and Spring Streets.

The Holland Tunnel South Ventilation Tower abuts the Garage site and is bounded by Washington, Canal and Spring Streets.

[lofter1]

Below is the map from ASchartz's earlier post ...

(dotted lines show the underground access to the Holland Tunnel)

The truck washing / fuel storage garage would be on the trapezoidal site at the upper left ...

http://www.panynj.gov/CommutingTravel/tunnels/sidebar_images/01_09_01_01a.jpg

[ASchwarz]

Of course public safety is important. So is accuracy. Your site description clearly shows that the main garage is NOT within the footprint of the Holland Tunnel. Try again.

I still don't understand the point. Is the idea that nothing of value can ever again be sited above important underground infrastructure? If that's the case, time to vacate the world's major cities and leave the subways, tunnels, etc. to Mother Nature.

To all the claimed Public Safety gurus, many (most?) modern office buildings have fuel tanks. Many other buildings (academic, hospital, etc.) also have stored fuel. Of course many of these buildings are situated above transit and road tunnels. I guess we need to get started on demolishing much of the world's office, academic and medical space. Safety First!

[Ellen Peterson-Lewis]

Public Safety Issue

The issue is not the Mega Garage proposed for Districts 1,2 and 5. That site is the UPS Open LOT bounded by West, Spring and Washington Streets

The issue is the current Distric Refueling Garage on a portion of the Trapezoid bounded by Canal, West and Spring Streets. 18,550 gallons of petroleum products are currently on site. Security is non existent. See 193 posting.



The other portion of the Trapezoid is the site of the Holland Tunnel Ventilation Tower. Canal, Washington and Spring Streets

[ASchwarz]

Aha, so you are not opposed to the project; you just think the southernmost portion of the plan is a "public safety issue" that merits further review.

Do you have a background in law enforcement, engineering or disaster planning? Do you know something that the scores of various experts used in the approvals process apparently don't? If not, then what's your point?

[CBTwo]

I'm not so sure that all of the so called "experts" have been consulted in the planning of this project.

I realize DOS has to vacate the Gansevoort peninsula, but given the state of HRPT's lack of available funds to complete Piers 25 and 26 and other sections of the park as well as maintain them, it looks like it will be a long time before they will pressure DOS to vacate, even if the law requires them to vacate. Where would they get the money to demolish the existing structures and renovate the peninsula?

[ASchwarz]

I'm not so sure that all of the so called "experts" have been consulted in the planning of this project.

I realize DOS has to vacate the Gansevoort peninsula, but given the state of HRPT's lack of available funds to complete Piers 25 and 26 and other sections of the park as well as maintain them, it looks like it will be a long time before they will pressure DOS to vacate, even if the law requires them to vacate. Where would they get the money to demolish the existing structures and renovate the peninsula?

Wait a second, you are using HRPT's lack of money as an excuse?! NIMBYs like yourself who are fighting the Pier 40 Related project are 100% responsible for HRPT's fiinancial issues! Pretty shameless.

If HRPT funding is an issue, stop trying to block Pier 40. If DOS safety is an issue, show me an expert opinion that disagrees with the proposal.

[CBTwo]

Show me an expert opinion that agrees with the proposal.

[ASchwarz]

Show me an expert opinion that agrees with the proposal.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dsny/downloads/pdf/guides/MJLMN125.pdf

[ZippyTheChimp]

On what page is the the safety of fuel storage addressed?

[bigkdc]

The distinction between the small washing facility and the rest of the project was not even made by the opposition on this board until I showed that their "safety" claims on the main part of the project were false.


If you are posting on this topic don't you have a responsibility to know the facts? The location of the fuel is a known fact to most discussing this topic. The details of this plan are all over this thread. I don't think those opposing the project need to reiterate those facts each time they post.

Anyway, in terms of the project, I understand your point as it relates to NIMBYs but I think this situation is very different than the typical "I don't want a tall tower across the street" complaint.

[CBTwo]

Wait a second, you are using HRPT's lack of money as an excuse?! NIMBYs like yourself who are fighting the Pier 40 Related project are 100% responsible for HRPT's fiinancial issues! Pretty shameless.

If HRPT funding is an issue, stop trying to block Pier 40. If DOS safety is an issue, show me an expert opinion that disagrees with the proposal.

I didn't realize that a few people from one community could hold so much power. 100% responsible?

If HRPT did it's homework from the get go they would realize that they were planning a project way too big for them to maintain. Same thing goes for the PAC plan, it won't fly because of its inherent problem of lack of people using it. But that's another forum. I'm only stating that HRPT needs to have a financial plan in place with a flexible time line which shows what they will need in the way of real dollars if everything wont go perfectly to their time schedule. If they don't have a realistic plan, and are building their dreams on some magical benefactor coming to their rescue, that they should scale back their plans to those that are feasible.

The two projects are linked due to the law affecting the Gansevoort peninsula.

[pianoman11686]

I really don't believe there are as many idiots that walk around, speak English and are allowed to access online websites as I see here.

OEM is a bunch of idiots, same thing with the NYPD and Port Authority.

Case in point. How many airplanes have been hijacked since the idiots finally realized that with a five dollar lock you can secure the cockpit? Same thing is going down here with the stupidity of storing over 20,000 gallons of fuel over one of the three vehicular out and into Manhattan from Jersey. Oh? DuH?

Pianoman, Perhaps you should stick to playing a piano in NC rather than comment on an area of New York City which apparently you know nothing about.

How dare you presume to know who I am, what I do, and how qualified I am to post in these forums. I've been around here for a while, and I post in all threads. The only threads I've seen you post in are this one, and the Pier 40 one. You clearly have an agenda, and you're bad at hiding it.

If you think the forum is full of idiots, you're more than welcome to leave anytime you want. No one's stopping you. Same goes for New York. If you think everyone around you is incompetent, then maybe you should move to a place where no one can hurt you. Better yet, form a colony with your other CB2 friends.

[CBTwo]

Posting in all or, the better and more accurate way to put it is, "other" threads does not make one an authority or expert of anything, only a multiple poster. Yes indeed I have an agenda and it is related to where I live and the intrusions that affect where I live. This is not an Architectural Forum we are looking at, it's real life and those events that affect our day to day living.

By the way, I am not opposed to Trump's West Soho condotel, so there goes the high rise Nimby argument.

We CB2 inhabitants would be more than happy to form a colony of our own, unfortunately state law prohibits it.

[bigkdc]

Extell Moves To Get a Piece of a Hotspot in the Making
Real Estate

BY ELIOT BROWN - Special to the Sun
May 25, 2007
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/55231

With a vision for the Hudson rail yards slowly taking shape, a top developer has plans to build a 600,000-square-foot mixed-use tower across the street, marking an early entry into the hotspot-to-be of Midtown West.

The Port Authority yesterday approved the sale of a 7,300-square-foot sliver of land to Extell Development for $17.1 million, moving the giant developer a step closer to construction on the site, which sits between 30th and 31st streets east of 10th Avenue.

A spokesman for Extell said the company is likely to soon begin construction work for the building, which will contain residential and commercial space and a hotel. Within the land transfer, Extell left a provision for a skyway that would run across the street to the High Line, the planned park to be built on elevated rail tracks.

The building would be one of the few early arrivals to the gradually transforming Hudson Yards district that runs on the West Side between about 28th and 42nd streets, an area that was rezoned to encourage new, denser development in 2004. Anchored by such city- and state-led projects as the planned development of an expanded Javits Center, a new train terminal by Pennsylvania Station, and the Hudson rail yards complex, the area promises to be almost unrecognizable in 15 years, and developers are slowly buying up land.

For Extell and the other few early developers that trickle in, real estate experts say being the first to build can be costly.

"The first project that goes up always takes a hit because you're taking the most risks — you have unestablished market rents," an analyst at Real Capital Analytics, Daniel Fasulo, said. "There's a lot of major developers acquiring land there right now, but it's basically a game of chicken between your neighbors."

Extell is said to be one of five firms planning a bid for development of the rail yards, which run between Tenth and Twelfth avenues. The city and state foresee a giant complex of residential and commercial towers atop the yards, with a spacious park running east to west envisioned for the center of the development.

The state, which owns the site, intends to issue a request for proposals in coming weeks for the development. The bid to complete the complex could go to a single or a team of developers, officials have said. They would be required to build an extremely costly platform over the rail yards before constructing the towers.

[projectsnyc]

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION

FIRST DEPARTMENT

In re C/S 12th Avenue LLC v. The City of New York, 815 N.Y.S.2d 516 (1st Dep’t 2006). City of NewYork’s hudson yard redevelopment project met the “hard look” and “resonable elaboration” standard under SEQRA. The Appellate Division, First Department, found that the City of New York’s Hudson Yard Redevelopment project has met the “hard look” and “reasonable elaboration” compliance standard under SEQRA.
Matter of Jackson v. New York State Urban Development Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 417.

The Redevelopment Project, proposed in September 2004, is an attempt to revitalize and transform the portion of Midtown Manhattan known as the Hudson Yards, by creating a modern, pedestrian-friendly, multi-use area. In November 2005, petitioners, Milstein Brothers 42nd Street, LLC, Mercedes-Benz Manhattan, C/S 12th Avenue LLC, and Valeray
Real Estate Co., Inc., brought this suit against the City of New York, claiming that their land was being taken improperly, as the City’s Determination and Findings for the project were not in compliance with the procedures set forth in Eminent Domain Procedural Law (EDPL) and SEQRA. The court disagreed with petitioners’ argument,
finding that the City “satisfied their obligations under SEQRA by taking a ‘hard look’ at the anticipated areas of environmental concern of the proposed project and making a ‘reasoned elaboration’ of the basis for their determination.” The Court also found no merit in petitioners’ claim that the City had acted in violation of EDPL Article 2 by failing to adequately apprise the petitioners of the nature, timing and extent of the easement upon their property. The Court held that EDPL Article 2 only requires that the approximate location and the reasons for the location selection
for the proposed project be set forth, and that the City had met this requirement.

BELOW IS THE ACTUAL DECISION, sorry, it is long but well worth reading:

Hudson Yards Eminent Domain App. Div. decision, May 25, 2006

Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 05:15:31 -0400
To:
From: "Tenant" tenant@tenant.net
Subject: Hudson Yards Eminent Domain App. Div. decision, May 25, 2006

Matter of C/S 12th Ave. LLC v City of New York
2006 NY Slip Op 04172
Decided on May 25, 2006
Appellate Division, First Department
Malone, J.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law � 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official
Reports.

Decided on May 25, 2006

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION

First Judicial Department
Richard T. Andrias,J.P.
David B. Saxe
David Friedman
Milton L. Williams
Bernard J. Malone, Jr., JJ.
7926- 7927 [M-6216]- 7928 [M-6217]- 7929 [M-6228]- 7930 [M-6230]


[*1] In re C/S 12th Avenue LLC, Petitioner, --
v
The City of New York, Respondent.

In re Valeray Real Estate Co., Inc., Petitioner,
v
The City of New York, Respondent.

In re Mercedes-Benz Manhattan, Inc., Petitioner,
v
The City of New York, Respondent.

In re 522 W. 38th St. NY LLC, Petitioner, [*2]
v
The City of New York, Respondent.

In re Milstein Brothers 42nd Street, LLC, Petitioner,
v
The City of New York, et al., Respondents.


In these original proceedings pursuant to Eminent Domain Procedure Law 207, petitioners
challenge the Determination and Findings of respondents City of New York and Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, which approved the acquisition of certain real property
and/or easements thereto and zoning thereof for the project commonly referred to
as the No. 7 Subway Extension Hudson Yards Rezoning and Redevelopment Program.


Blank Rome LLP, New York (James G. Greilsheimer, Cynthia B. Lovinger and Jesse Strauss
of counsel), for C/S 12th Avenue LLC, petitioner.

Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, P.C., New York (Michael Rikon and Jonathan
Houghton of counsel), for Valeray Real Estate Co., Inc. and Mercedes-Benz Manhattan,
Inc., petitioners.

Todtman, Nachamie, Spizz & Johns, P.C., New York (Robert A. Rubenfeld and Richard
Ciacci of counsel), for 522 W. 38th St. NY LLC, petitioner.

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York (Stanley Parness and Deborah L.
Goldstein of counsel), for Milstein Brothers 42nd Street, LLC, petitioner.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (William Plache, Lisa Bova-Hiatt,
Rochelle Cohen, Fred Kolikoff and Chris Reo of counsel), for The City of New York,
respondent.

Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, New York (John R. Casolaro, Joseph M. Ryan and
Susan B. Kalib of counsel), for The City of New York and The Metropolitan Transportation
Authority, respondents. [*3]


MALONE, J.

In these five original consolidated proceedings commenced pursuant to Eminent Domain
Procedure Law (EDPL) 207, petitioners ask this Court to reject, annul and set aside
the Determination and Findings of respondents City of New York and Metropolitan
Transportation Authority published October 3 and 4, 2005, which approved the acquisition
of certain real property and/or easements thereto and zoning thereof for the project
commonly referred to as the No. 7 Subway Extension Hudson Yards Rezoning and Redevelopment
Program (the Project). For the following reasons, we confirm the Determination and
Findings and dismiss these five proceedings.

The purpose of the Project is to revitalize and transform the 300-acre area known
as the Hudson Yards into a modern, pedestrian-friendly, multi-use extension of Midtown
Manhattan, extending from West 24th to 43rd Streets between Seventh Avenue and the
Hudson River Park on the West Side of Midtown Manhattan. As reflected in the seven-volume
Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS), the proposed action of the
City and the MTA, as co-lead agencies, consisted of: (1) adopting zoning amendments
to permit the development of the Hudson Yards as a mixed-use community; (2) extending
the No. 7 subway line from its current terminus at Times Square to a new terminus
at West 34th Street and Eleventh Avenue; (3) expanding the Jacob K. Javits Convention
Center; and (4) erecting a new multi-use facility for sports, entertainment and
exposition that would house the New York Jets. The DGEIS also envisioned the creation
of two major public open spaces: a park and boulevard system located in the mid-blocks
between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues from West 33rd to 39th Streets with a pedestrian
connection to West 42nd Street and a subsurface public parking garage under a portion
of this property between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues from 34th to 36th Streets, and
a park on the block between Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues and West 29th and 30th
Streets (Block 675).

On September 23, 2004, the City and the MTA held a joint public hearing pursuant
to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)(Environmental Conservation
Law article 8), the New York City Environmental Quality Review procedures (CEQR)(62
RCNY 5-01, et seq.) and the New York City's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure
(ULURP)(NY City Charter � 197-c) to receive public comment on the DGEIS for consideration
in the preparation of the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS).
Containing more than 8,000 pages of text, technical appendices, and summaries of
and responses to public comments received on the DGEIS, the FGEIS evaluated the
potentially significant environmental impacts of all of the elements of the Project,
including the multi-use stadium. In addition, the FGEIS assessed the comparative
impacts of 21 alternatives in 24 categories [FN1] for the reasonable worst case,
i.e., range [*4]of effects that might occur if all proposed elements were approved
and developed. Of the 21 alternatives, eight did not include the multi-use stadium.

On November 10, 2004, the FGEIS was accepted by the co-lead agencies and made available
for public consideration. A "Co-Lead Agencies Findings Statement" under

SEQRA and CEQR (Findings Statement) was adopted by the MTA and The New York City
Planning Commission, respectively, on November 18 and 22, 2004. On January 19, 2005,
the City Council issued its own SEQRA/CEQR findings statement as part of its approval
of the ULURP applications, which, inter alia, implemented a rezoning plan and allowed
for acquisition of the necessary property.

By notice dated May 20, 2005, respondents advised the public that they would conduct
a hearing pursuant to EDPL article 2 on June 16, 2005 "to consider the proposed
acquisition by condemnation of certain property in furtherance of the proposed [Project]."
However, specifically removed from the table for discussion were the Stadium and
the Javits Convention Center as well as their respective financing costs and benefits
[FN2]. Petitioners and others spoke at the hearing and/or submitted written comments
within the allowable period.

On October 3 and 4, 2005, respondents issued and published their Determination and
Findings which specifically limited their approval of the Project to three components:
phase 1 for the construction of the extension of the No. 7 subway line; phase 2
for the creation of a mid-block park and boulevard system running between Tenth
and Eleventh Avenues from 33rd to 39th Streets with a subsurface public parking
garage under a portion of this property between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues from
34th to 36th Streets; and phase 3 for the creation of a new active recreation park
on Block 675 and possibly certain relocated municipal facilities which could be
placed beneath it.

On November 2 and 3, 2005, five petitions were filed in this Court challenging the
Determination and Findings. Petitioner Milstein Brothers 42nd Street, LLC (Milstein)
owns property (temporary easements) subject to condemnation in Phase 1; petitioners
Mercedes-Benz Manhattan (Mercedes) and 522 W. 38th St. NY LLC (522 LLC) own property
subject to condemnation in Phase 2; and petitioners C/S 12th Avenue LLC (C/S) and
Valeray Real Estate Co., Inc. (Valeray) own property subject to condemnation in
Phase 3.

Our scope of review in reviewing the Determination and Findings in these EDPL [*5]proceedings
is limited to whether (1) the proceeding was in conformity with the federal and
state constitutions; (2) the proposed acquisition was within the condemnor's
statutory jurisdiction or authority; (3) the condemnor's Determination and Findings
were made in accordance with procedures set forth in EDPL article 2 and SEQRA; and
(4) a public use, benefit or purpose will be served by the proposed acquisition
(EDPL 207[C]; Matter of West 41st St. Realty v New York State Urban Dev. Corp.,
298 AD2d 1, 3 [2002], appeal dismissed 98 NY2d 727 [2002], cert denied 537 US 1191
[2003]).

SEQRA Review- EDPL 207(c)(3)

"[J]udicial review of a SEQRA determination is limited to determining whether
the challenged determination was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or was the product of a violation of lawful
procedure" (Matter of Village of Tarrytown v Planning Bd. of Vil. of Sleepy
Hollow, 292 AD2d 617, 619 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 609 [2002]). "[T]he courts
may not substitute their judgment for that of the agency for it is not their role
to weigh the desirability of any action or [to] choose among alternatives'"
(Akpan v Koch, 75 NY2d 561, 570 [1990], quoting Matter of Jackson v New York State
Urban Dev. Corp., 67 NY2d 400, 416 [1986]).

Petitioners' SEQRA claims, served on or about November 2-3, 2005, were within
the 30-day statute of limitations to seek Appellate Division review of the section
204 Determination and Findings published October 3 and 4, 2005 (EDPL 207[A]), but
are without merit.

We find that respondents satisfied their obligations under SEQRA by taking a "hard
look" at the anticipated areas of environmental concern of the proposed project
and making a "reasoned elaboration" of the basis for their determination
(see Matter of Jackson, 67 NY2d at 417; Matter of Village of Tarrytown, 292 AD2d
at 620). During the extensive review process, the lead agencies held scoping sessions,
accepted the DGEIS and FGEIS and reviewed input from the community and experts before
reaching their environmental findings (cf. e.g. Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods.
v Town of Sardinia, 87 NY2d 668, 689-690 [1996]; Matter of Save the Pine Bush, Inc.
v Planning Bd. of City of Albany, 298 AD2d 806, 808 [2002]).

In addition, the FGEIS's consideration of 21 worst case scenarios in 24 categories,
including eight which did not include the multi-use stadium, satisfied the substantive
requirements of SEQRA. To be sure, " [n]ot every conceivable environmental
impact, mitigating measure or alternative must be identified and addressed'"
(Matter of Jackson, 67 NY2d at 417); all that is required is that the agency analyze
a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project (Matter of Halpern v
City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 777 [2005], appeal dismissed __ NY3d __ [2006],
2006 NY LEXIS 1265). Upon the meeting of this standard, "judicial inquiry is
at an end" (id.).

The elimination of the stadium and convention center expansion did not render respondents'
reliance on the FGEIS improper. The mere fact that a project has changed does not
necessarily give rise to the need for the preparation of a supplemental EIS (SEIS).
An SEIS is required only if environmentally significant modifications are made after
issuance of an FEIS (see Matter of Jackson, 67 NY2d at 429-430). However, whether
or not a modification is [*6]"significant" is for the agency to decide,
after identifying the relevant areas of concern, again taking a "hard look"
at the potential impacts, and making a reasoned elaboration for the basis of its
determination (id.). The FGEIS determined that high attendance events at the stadium
and convention center would result in significant adverse traffic events approximately
19 times a year; however, commercial and residential development due to rezoning
would result in more significant adverse traffic impacts during weekday peak hours.
Further, the FGEIS estimated that the stadium would create 6,710 new jobs, generating
$54 million in State and City tax revenues while the new commercial and residential
development would create 225,941 new jobs and generate $1.628 billion in State and
City tax revenues (using 2003 dollars). The FGEIS analysis of the rezoning and expansion
of the No. 7 subway line with the stadium makes it clear that the stadium, while
arguably the most controversial element of the proposed project, was not the Project's
centerpiece.
EDPL 204

We reject as premature petitioner Milstein's claim that the Determination was
not compliant with EDPL 204 insofar as it failed to adequately apprise it of the
nature, timing and extent of the easement upon its property. EDPL 204(B)(2) requires
only that the approximate location and the reasons for the location selection for
the proposed project be set forth (see Matter of Wechsler v New York State Dept.
of Envtl. Conservation, 76 NY2d 923, 927 [1990]; Matter of Kaufmann's Carousel
v City of Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 301 AD2d 292, 302 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d
508 [2003]). Extreme accuracy is not required. At the public hearing, it was explained
that "[t]he temporary easement interests are being sought primarily to allow
for the structural stabilization of the subway tunnel during the construction."
Only as the process unfolds will it be possible to determine precisely where the
shaft walls must be stabilized to prevent a collapse. Given the complexity of the
subway tunnel construction process and the nature of the subsurface easements, the
Determination and Findings provide reasonable specificity as to the extent and duration
of the easements.
Constitutional Issues

Two main constitutional issues are raised on this appeal: whether the rezoning plan
constitutes an unconstitutional (1) regulatory taking because it renders the property
incapable of producing a reasonable return, interferes with petitioners' investment-backed
expectations regarding the property, and deprives petitioners of economically beneficial
and productive use of the property for a period up to ten years; or (2) "reverse
spot zoning" because it singles out their property for a use classification
different from that of the surrounding areas. We find that it does not.

Mercedes and 522 LLC's claim that the ten-year restriction diminishes the economic
value of their property, thereby constituting an illegal regulatory taking, cannot
be pursued in an EDPL 207 proceeding. The regulatory taking at issue arises in the
context of a proposed condemnation and is not based on an isolated zoning regulation.
Accordingly, New York's procedure for the pursuit of just compensation claims,
EDPL 101, et seq., fulfills all constitutional requirements (see HBP Assoc. v Marsh,
893 F Supp 271, 278 [1995]). Because there is an adequate mechanism to seek compensation,
including an inverse condemnation claim [*7](see Niagara Frontier Bldg. Corp. v
State of New York, 33 AD2d 130, 133 [1969], affd 28 NY2d 755 [1971]), petitioners'
recourse is limited to a plenary action, where the property owner must prove "beyond
a reasonable doubt" that the land regulation has destroyed the economic value
of the property (St. Aubin v Flacke, 68 NY2d 66, 76-77 [1986]). Therefore, the purported
regulatory taking is not a basis for rejecting the Determination and Findings.

As to petitioners' "reverse spot zoning" claim, the relevant inquiry
in evaluating whether the subject zoning amendment withstands scrutiny under the
Equal Protection Clause is whether there is a rational relationship between the
Phase 2 disparate treatment of petitioners' property owners and a legitimate
governmental purpose (see Peck Slip Assoc. v City Council of the City of NY, 26
AD3d 209 [2006]). Reverse spot zoning is "a land-use decision which arbitrarily
singles out a particular parcel for different, less favorable treatment than the
neighboring ones" (Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v City of New York, 438 US 104, 132
[1978]).

" Zoning legislation is tested not by whether it defines a well-considered
plan, but by whether it accords with a well-considered plan for the community'"
(Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods., 87 NY2d 668, supra at 684-685, quoting Asian
Ams. for Equality v Koch, 72 NY2d 121, 131 [1988]). The essential purpose of this
requirement is to "guard against ad hoc zoning legislation affecting the land
of a few without proper regard to the needs or design of the community as a whole"
(id. at 685). However, a municipality may change its zoning ordinance to promote
the general welfare and to respond to changed conditions in the community so long
as the change does not conflict with the fundamental land use policies and development
plans of the community" (id.).

The rezoning for creation of a mid-block boulevard and park is, we find, "part
of a well-considered and comprehensive plan calculated to serve the general welfare
of the community" (Henderson Taxpayers Assn. v Town of Henderson, 283 AD2d
940, 940-942 [2001] [internal quotation marks omitted], lv denied 96 NY2d 719 [2001]).
It will expand the limited amount of public open space in the Project area, create
a continuous north-south pedestrian route from a large public square south of 33rd
Street to a pedestrian bridge leading to 42nd Street and will permit a connection
to the High Line open space to the south. It will also serve to distinguish the
large scale commercial and entertainment uses along Eleventh Avenue from the lower
density residential uses along Tenth Avenue.

Statutory Jurisdiction/Authority

Respondents' total condemnation of the Mercedes property, which consists of
two garage structures, only a portion of which are depicted in the proposal, was
reasonable. Respondents state that partial condemnation is not feasible where, as
here, the very process used to demolish portions of the building could be expected
to affect the stability of the remaining portions of the building. We see no basis
for interfering with respondents' broad discretion in deciding the extent of
the property necessary
for the project (see Gyrodyne Co. of Am. v State University of N.Y., 17 AD3d 675,
676 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 716 [2005]; Matter of City of Mechanicville v Town
of Halfmoon, 23 AD3d 897, 899 [2005]).

We also reject petitioners' claim that the Determination and Findings constitute
an ultra [*8]vires act because the City did not approve a taking for unspecified
facilities in accordance with ULURP procedures (City Charter � 197-c[a][1]). A reading
of the Determination and Findings as a whole makes clear that the "other municipal
facilities" mentioned are the DSNY garage and NYPD tow pound, the very uses
the City approved under a separate ULURP application. Thus, the acquisition of Block
675 for a new recreation park, clearly authorized under ULURP, withstands constitutional
scrutiny.
Public Use

Absent a clear showing of unreasonableness, courts have been reluctant to interfere
with a condemning authority's determination that a particular site is needed
for a public purpose (Kelo v City of New London, __ US __, 125 S Ct 2655, 2661 [2005]).
In New York, the term "public use" broadly encompasses any use, including
urban renewal, which contributes to the health, safety and general welfare of the
public (see Matter of New York City Hous. Auth. v Muller, 270 NY 333, 340 [1936]).
Thus, our review is limited to ascertain whether the project is rationally related
to a conceivable public purpose (see Matter of West 41st St. Realty, 298 AD2d 1,
supra at 6). We find that it is.

Contrary to the petitioners' contention, the Zoning Board was not required to
analyze so-called cumulative impacts of the proposed project in connection with
the development of Pier 76, a project unrelated to and outside the overall proposed
plan (see Matter of Settco v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 305 AD2d 1026, 1027
[2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 508 [2003], citing, inter alia, Matter of Long Is. Pine
Barrens Socy. v Planning Bd. of Town of Brookhaven, 80 NY2d 500, 513-515 [1992];
see also Matter of North Fork Envtl. Council v Janoski, 196 AD2d 590, 591 [1993]).
The fact that Pier 76 may be the site of commercial development does not call into
question the public purpose of the proposed plan (see Matter of Murray v LaGuardia,
291 NY 320, 329-330 [1943], cert denied 321 US 771 [1944]). Moreover, just because
a private party somehow benefits from the condemnation of property to be used for
a public purpose is an insufficient basis to reject a condemnation (see Vitucci
v New York City School Constr. Auth., 289 AD2d 479 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 609
[2002]; Matter of Board of Coop. Ed. Servs. v Town of Colonie, 268 AD2d 838, 841
[2000]).

We have considered petitioners' remaining claims and reject them as having insufficient
legal merit.

Accordingly, the petitions filed in this Court on or about November 2, 2005, pursuant
to Eminent Domain Procedure Law 207, challenging the resolution of respondents made
after a hearing which approved a Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement in
connection with [*9]certain real property, should be denied, respondents' determinations
confirmed, and the proceedings dismissed, without costs.

M-6609

M-6829

M-6830

M-6836

M-6869 - In re C/S 12th Avenue LLC, et al. v The City of New

York, et al.

Motion seeking dismissal denied. Cross motions seeking leave to re-serve, to extend
time to serve and for other related relief denied.


All concur.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MAY 25, 2006

CLERK

Footnotes



Footnote 1:The 24 categories were: land use, zoning and public policy; socioeconomics;
community facilities and services; open space and recreational facilities; shadows;
architectural historic resources; archaeological resources; urban design and visual
resources; neighborhood character; natural resources; hazardous materials; waterfront
revitalization; infrastructure; solid waste and sanitation services; energy; traffic
and parking; transit and pedestrians; air quality; noise and vibration; construction
impacts; public health; unavoidable adverse impacts; growth-inducing impacts; and
irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources.

Footnote 2:On or about June 6, 2005, the Public Authorities Control Board failed
to approve the plan for the multi-use stadium, thereby eliminating it from the Project.

[bigkdc]

I am not a lawyer so what does all of ^^^^ mean?

[CBTwo]

OK. So all the legal mumbo jumbo goes down. And I read it about four times. Could you put the actual outcome into one or two paragraphs that is understandable by a normal voter?

It's almost like going to St. Vincent hospital with a serious gunshot wound and the asshole there asks you for your insurance card and your mother's date of birth.

From the above I realize that because of same nothing gets done in this world that is truly worth getting done.

Are these the same clowns that ordered DOS off of their pier to move downtown or uptown or wherever some other bunch of clowns thought that it was legally right to move them? Heh. Legal's legal I guess.

I would still like to know how HRPT is going to finance the total reconstruction of the Gansevoort Pier since they barely can afford to maintain Pier 40.

[lofter1]

That was a ruling from the Appellate Division -- which for the most part does NOT rule on the facts of a case but rather on the legalities of a case.

The Appellate Court found that, during the trial in the lower court, the legal process was not violated and that those previous findings were in line with the law.



Our [The Appellate Court's] scope of review in reviewing the Determination and Findings in these EDPL proceedings is limited to whether
(1) the proceeding was in conformity with the federal and state constitutions;
(2) the proposed acquisition was within the condemnor's statutory jurisdiction or authority;
(3) the condemnor's Determination and Findings were made in accordance with procedures set forth in EDPL article 2 and SEQRA; and
(4) a public use, benefit or purpose will be served by the proposed acquisition

[ZippyTheChimp]

Are these the same clowns that ordered DOS off of their pier to move downtown or uptown or wherever some other bunch of clowns thought that it was legally right to move them? Heh. Legal's legal I guess.The law in this case is straightforward.

DSNY was in violation, and acknowledged it.

[pianoman11686]

Hard-Won Garbage Plan Runs Into Trouble in Albany

By RAY RIVERA
Published: June 1, 2007

It seemed like a political milestone of sorts. After two years of squabbling, the City Council and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg reached an agreement last year to overhaul the way the city disposes of garbage.

Compromises had been made and constituencies had been mollified. The system seemed workable. And then the plan went to Albany.

The plan is intended to expand recycling and reduce the number of garbage trucks on city streets by increasing the use of barges and trains. Now the hard-fought agreement is in trouble because state legislators from the West Side of Manhattan oppose a key element.

At the heart of the fight are questions about the city’s plans to place a garbage recycling station on the Gansevoort Peninsula just south of West 14th Street. Mr. Bloomberg says that the station is critical to the 20-year plan, and that without it all the other pieces will fall apart.

But three Assembly members whose districts either include or are near the Gansevoort site say the city has never adequately studied alternative locations, and they are threatening to use their clout with Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Democrat who is also from Lower Manhattan, to kill it.

“My position is that particular location is an illegal location,” said Assemblywoman Deborah J. Glick, a Democrat whose district abuts the site. “There are better alternatives that can be implemented quickly and that would have greater carrying capacity.”

The mayor and the City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, say the legislators’ objections are steeped in the kind of parochial politics that the Council, led by Ms. Quinn, fought hard to overcome in passing this plan. It calls for each borough to handle its own waste, and in the spirit of promoting that idea, Ms. Quinn agreed to the Gansevoort station, which is in her district.

At a news conference at the site yesterday, Mayor Bloomberg said, “We simply can’t let this element of our solid waste management strategy fall prey to a shortsighted not-in-my-backyard mindset.” The site currently houses a city Sanitation Department garage, a road salt warehouse and the remains of a waste transfer station that operated there until the early 1990s.

Mr. Bloomberg was flanked by Ms. Quinn and a handful of council members, environmentalists and community advocates from the other boroughs who say that Manhattan should start handling its own waste instead of trucking it to poorer neighborhoods around the city.

At the urging of city officials, the Republican leadership of the State Senate has introduced a bill that would amend the Hudson River Park Act, which is required to place the facility at the Gansevoort site. City officials say the amendment is the final hurdle to implementing the full plan.

But in the Assembly, the city has been forced to turn for help to Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat of Upper Manhattan. He is expected to introduce a similar measure next week.

Mr. Espaillat’s involvement in a matter outside his district has drawn the ire of Ms. Glick and the two other Assembly members most opposed to the Gansevoort site: Richard N. Gottfried and Linda B. Rosenthal.

Just two weeks ago Mr. Espaillat signed a letter along with two dozen other Assembly members raising concerns about the site. But he said he changed his mind after concluding that the new plan would reduce the burden of neighborhoods in the Bronx and Brooklyn that currently handle much of Manhattan’s waste.

Ms. Glick insists this fight is not about parochialism. She says she wants to protect Hudson River Park, which was created in 1998 by the Legislature.

Ms. Glick, who said that creating the park was a “very, very, long, complicated political process,” asserted that she would prefer that the Gansevoort site be turned into parkland instead of a recycling station. “It is unacceptable for the city to within a few short years seek to undo one of the lynchpins to that agreement,” Ms. Glick said.

The three Assembly members say there are better alternatives in their districts, including converting Pier 76 from a tow pound to a transfer station. “The city has attacked these proposals but has never studied them,” Mr. Gottfried said. “It’s a pretty typical City Hall response to attack an alternative that you have never studied.”

Administration officials say the alternatives are fraught with problems that make them unworkable.

Without the Gansevoort station, they say, recyclable metal, glass and plastic from Manhattan would continue to be moved by truck to facilities in the Bronx, Brooklyn and New Jersey, leaving residents of those areas to contend with traffic congestion and air quality problems.

In addition to easing those burdens, city officials say the Gansevoort site would also free up capacity at an existing paper recycling facility at 59th Street on the Hudson River to handle Manhattan’s commercial waste, which the Assembly members also object to.

Ms. Glick and Mr. Gottfried are senior Democrats who lead two of the most prominent committees in the Assembly: Higher Education and Health Care, respectively. More important, they both have strong ties to Mr. Silver, who has the power to block the transfer station and who has not hesitated in the past to stop major projects that had strong support from city officials.

Most notably, his opposition to the development of a West Side stadium for the New York Jets doomed the project, one that Mr. Bloomberg had sought for nearly four years.

Asked about the transfer station, Charles Carrier, a spokesman for Mr. Silver, said a bill on the issue had not been introduced in the Assembly.

“We have no bill,” he said. “Until we have a bill, we would have to wait to see what they are asking us to do.”

Danny Hakim contributed reporting.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company