Man Caught Damaging 18 Cars At Pier 40

Manhattan

By Geoffrey Croft

An emotionally disturbed man went on a rampage, smashing cars last month on Pier 40, NYC Park Advocates has learned. 

The man was seen hitting cars with a brick and ripping  off license plates at 3:00 in the morning on April 29th at the Hudson River Park facility near West Street.   He was spotted by a security guard at a nearby parking facility. 

NYPD arrested Juan Hernandez, 29, of W. 184th Street. 

He was charged with 18 counts of Criminal Mischief, 1 count of Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle , two counts of Auto-Stripping and 1 count of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property. 

The perpetrator was transported to Bellevue Hospital for psychological evaluation. 

Electeds Say Deal To Transfer Unused Development Rights To Pay For Pier 40 Repairs Is News To Them

Pier 40, part of Hudson River Park,  is deteriorating and the government has refused to pay for the repairs which has created a mess.  (Photos:  Richard Perry/The New York Times

Manhattan

By Geoffrey Croft

Assemblymember Deborah Glick sent out a press release this afternoon titled, SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON PIER 40 AND THE HUDSON RIVER PARK after the NY Times revealed that the Cuomo administration and park officials struck a tentative agreement with a developer to transfer unused development rights from Pier 40 to the St. John’s Terminal Building across the West Side Highway in return for more than $100 million that would be used to rehabilitate the deteriorating pier.    

The press release stated that the local elected officials were united in opposing a General Project Plan (GPP) that would silence the community's voice.  Six officials -  Congressman Jerry Nadler, Assemblymember Deborah Glick, State Senator Brad Hoylman, State Senator Daniel Squadron, Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, and Councilmember Corey Johnson wrote to both Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio on May 1st, spelling out their strong opposition.

"A GPP would completely usurp local zoning and local input from the community and is in no way condoned by the Hudson River Park Act," the release states. 

"It is the same land use procedure that brought the Barclays Center to the Atlantic Yards, despite widespread disapproval from that community." 

The release also included a letter (below) elected officials sent more than two weeks ago outlining their unified opposition to any such plan. 

"There was no response from the Cuomo Administration to this letter. Apparently, they felt a NY Times article would suffice in alerting the community and their elected representatives to what they should expect.  Active engagement by the local community may not be preferable to the developer, but it is an important process, by which all voices are heard, and is the hallmark of democracy." 

A deal to develop the St. John’s Terminal Building, left, could fund the repairs at Pier 40. 

May 1, 2014 Governor Andrew Cuomo NYS State Capitol Building Albany, NY 12224 Mayor Bill de Blasio City Hall New York, NY 10007 Dear Mayor de Blasio and Governor Cuomo, As elected officials who represent Manhattan's West Village neighborhood, we are becoming increasingly concerned about the possibility that the State and the City are working towards the adoption of a General Project Plan (GPP) to transfer air rights from Pier 40 in the Hudson River Park to the St. John's Building at 550 Washington Street. Such an action would enable air rights from the park/commercial pier to be transferred to a property across the West Side Highway without going through New York City's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). This would demonstrate a blatant disregard for our community, and deny the local community board and local elected officials a real voice on what will no doubt be a controversial proposal.  The idea of a GPP has been a non-starter from the moment it was first introduced to local elected officials as a possibility in the fall of 2013. We are all strong advocates of increased funding for Hudson River Park. However, the state legislation that was enacted in 2013 and codifies the Hudson River Park Trust's ability to generate revenue through the transfer of air rights was predicated on the premise that local zoning laws would dictate the process. This was to ensure that resources would be made available to the Park but not at the expense of local input. A GPP would be in direct violation of this principle and would rightfully enrage the community, which would be effectively left powerless through this process. Any lip service paid to the needs of the community would only be that, as the local officials who have a formal role in the ULURP process, the City Council Member and Borough President, will have no binding authority when it comes to negotiating any agreement, or voting on whether to approve the proposal. Furthermore, if a GPP is being considered, it is difficult to understand why. This action would obviously create enormous benefit for the developers of the transfer site, and would provide the Park with a quick infusion of capital, but it is highly unlikely that the value of the air rights would decrease during the time needed for a transfer mechanism to be established and a proper ULURP process to take place. In fact, there is a great chance that time will only increase the value of these air rights leading to even more money for the Hudson River Park. Active engagement by the local community may not be preferable to the developer, but it is that sometimes messy process, in which all voices are heard, that is the hallmark of democracy. And most importantly, it ensures that government takes actions that accurately reflect the wants and needs of its citizens. If a GPP moves forward, we will actively oppose it.  The public process must unfold in the way that it is designed to, and failure to do so is extremely bad precedent.  Thank you for your attention to this matter and we look forward to discussing this issue further.

Read More:

Possible Deal May Bring Money to Repair Pier 40 in Manhattan

New York Times - May 15,  2014 - By Charles V. Bagli

Where's Government Money As Bloomberg’s Girlfriend Helps Raise $2.5M for Hudson River Park

A Walk In The Park -  October 6, 2013 

Future Of Two Hudson River Park Proposals Forum Draws A Crowd

A Walk In The Park  - March 8,  2013

Friends of Hudson River Park's Improvement District Funding Scheme Rears Its Ugly Head Again

A Walk In The Park  - June 28,  2012 

Facing Deficits Hudson River Park Trust Looking For State Legislation

To Loosen Development Restrictions-Major League Soccer Hoping To Come To Pier 40

A Walk In The Park  - April 5,  2012 

Reliance On Self- Sustaining Hudson River Park "Model" Continues To Plague Project

A Walk In The Park  -  January 28,  2012 

Pier 40 Fire Destroys Fours Vehicles

By Geoffrey Croft

An early morning fire destroyed four vehicles at the Pier 40 parking garage.

Witnesses said they heard pops and then loud explosions.

"All of a sudden cars started exploding," a witness told A Walk In The Park.  

Four cars including an suv, and a small wagon, a pick up truck,  and a Subaru wagon were destroyed.

Other vehicles were damaged. 

Fire officials said they received notification at 6:21am.  12 units responded with approximately 60 firefighters. 

The fire was under control by 7:10am.  

No injuries were reported. 

$3 Million For Pier 40 Roof Fix - Part Of Hudson Square Rezoning Deal

"This rezoning is increasing the development pressure dramatically." 


As part  of the Hudson Square rezoning proposal - highlighted in color - about $3 million dollars will be allocated to fix the roof at nearby Pier 40 which is estimated to cost $30 million in total.  Support for a residential housing plan at Pier 40 recently dried up.

The Hudson Square rezoning is being proposed by Trinity Real Estate, a non-profit real estate division of the Trinity Church, which owns 40 percent of the built space in Hudson Square.   (Courtesy Trinity Real Estate)

Manhattan

Manhattan's Hudson Square neighborhood took a step closer to getting a face-lift Wednesday as the City Council modified a plan to rezone the area, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal.

The modifications, approved by the council's land-use committee and zoning subcommittee, allow for about 130 new affordable-housing units and include measures to preserve a proposed historic area. The plan will now go back to the City Planning Commission and a full council vote is expected later this month.

A rezoning of Hudson Square would mark a new chapter for the sleepy neighborhood bounded by Canal and Houston streets, and Sixth Avenue and the Hudson River. Although it is surrounded by pricey neighborhoods, Hudson Square doesn't offer much housing stock or shopping options. That hurts the foot traffic in the historically industrial neighborhood on nights and weekends.

The rezoning was proposed by Trinity Real Estate, which controls 40% of the property in Hudson Square.

"Today's positive action significantly advances the process launched more than five years ago, and we look forward to the rezoning's final consideration by the full Council," Trinity President Jason Pizer said in a statement.

But some local advocates are alarmed about what the rezoning would mean for neighboring areas. "There has been tremendous development pressure on the area," said Andrew Berman, president of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, which is pushing for landmark designation for South Village, located south of Washington Square Park and east of Hudson Square. "This rezoning is increasing the development pressure dramatically."

On Wednesday, the City Council said it had secured a commitment from the Landmarks Preservation Commission to vote on giving landmark status to a portion of South Village by the end of the year.

Mr. Berman called that news "positive" but said, "On the downside…they have not committed to vote on the other part."

A Landmarks Preservation Commission spokeswoman said that the commission sees the proposed historic district as a "priority for this year." The other portion, located south of Houston Street, "requires extensive further study," she said.

The modifications also include about $3 million to fix the roof at Pier 40, the largest in Hudson River Park. The total cost of the project is $30 million.

Madelyn Wils, chief executive of the Hudson River Park Trust, said the Trust was "grateful" to have been included in the plan.

Read More:

Hudson Square Nears Rezoning  

The Wall Street Journal - March 13, 2013  - By Anjali Athavaley 

Holy Trinity! City Council Committees Give Hudson Square Rezoning Stamp of Approval New York Observer - March13, 2013 -  By Kim Velsey   

Pier 40 Residential Development Not Going To Fly - The Villager Editorial

"...the Hudson River Park Act of 1998 doesn’t allow housing in the park — and for a very good reason. This is a park: It’s about open air and unbroken vistas."  

Reality Settling In. The Pier 40 Champions plan includes two 22-story residential towers - which would apparently be see through according to the renderings - is be sited at the foot of the West Houston St  pier according to the proposal. What little political and public support the plan had is fading fast. 

Manhattan

More than 400 people turned out for a major forum on Pier 40 last Thursday evening. David Gruber, chairperson of Community Board 2, convened the forum and did an admirable job moderating it, and is to be commended for his efforts, according to an editorial in The Villager.

Much information was shared, and we all learned a lot. The major stakeholders had their say, including the backers of two competing concept designs for the pier: Douglas Durst’s adaptive reuse plan and the Pier 40 Champions’ proposal for two 22-story residential towers to be sited at the foot of the massive West Houston St. pier.

But last week’s forum, in our view, is just the beginning of what must necessarily be a carefully considered and ongoing dialogue. In short, the issues confronting Pier 40 are not going to be solved overnight — and are not going to be solved, for that matter, in the next seven months or the next 10 months.

Residential use has been pushed by the Hudson River Park Trust, the state-city authority that is building and operating the 5-mile-long park. Yes, residential could be the so-called “quick fix” that the Trust is looking for. It is after all the “highest use” in New York — the type of project that generates the most revenue. And revenue is precisely what’s needed to repair the 50-year-old former Holland-America shipping pier. But the Hudson River Park Act of 1998 doesn’t allow housing in the park — and for a very good reason. This is a park: It’s about open air and unbroken vistas. The park act wasn’t created overnight, nor should it be modified overnight.

(And, honestly, how many people are really going to want to live right next to a major athletic venue, with kids cheering wildly early on weekend mornings and adult leagues playing into the night under the lights? Residents would soon be asking to restrict the pier’s hours, etc.)

The Trust has been lobbying aggressively to open up the park act to allow a wider range of uses — chief among them being residential. But once residential is allowed, the die will have been cast. The Trust will put out a request for proposals, R.F.P., and guess which proposal will win? Residential, of course, since it’s the highest use. And that will be that. We will have massive towers on the waterfront — with the threat of only more to come.

As Assemblymember Deborah Glick has stated repeatedly, development pressure on the waterfront will never abate — even, seemingly, in a post-Sandy environment. This despite serious questions about whether we should now even be building in the flood zone, which Pier 40 is definitely in.

Madelyn Wils was brought in as president of the Trust only about a year and a half ago — in other words, very late in the game. In 10 months, New York City will have a new mayor, and the Trust itself may very well be overhauled, as a result.

Wils comes from the city’s Economic Development Corporation, where she spearheaded major building projects, like the Seward Park Urban Renewal Area plan. SPURA was a major achievement and Wils did a tremendous job, along with Community Board 3, in pulling it off,  painstakingly working to achieve community consensus. But Pier 40 and Hudson River Park are not SPURA, and there is hardly consensus in our community on residential use in the park — far from it.

Yes, without a doubt, the Lower West Side has experienced an amazing youth sports boom, and Pier 40, with its huge courtyard artificial-turf athletic field, is our youth sports mecca. The field was created on an interim basis after the first R.F.P. for Pier 40 failed in 2003. A second R.F.P. for the pier, in turn, failed in 2005. Meanwhile, the pier’s field has become an icon of the community, a family-centric safe zone where kids and parents congregate and experience a healthy, almost small town-like environment in the big city. It’s a wonderful thing, and it needs to be safeguarded.

All of Downtown and Lower Manhattan is starved for park space, in general. That’s a reality. We all want to save the sports field on Pier 40. But the pier — despite the Trust’s steady drumbeat of pronouncements — is not ready to sink into the river. In fact, as Durst has said, if repairs are started on Pier 40’s corroded piles now, the overall price of the repairs will be significantly less in the long run. And Durst’s cost estimates, in general, for the pier are far below the Trust’s. Durst is a pro, he’s not making up fantasy financials.

More to the point, there is simply no political will — really, almost zero — to allow residential in the park. Assemblymember Glick, new state Senator Brad Hoylman and state Senator Dan Squadron all have said they don’t support it.

And now, this week, in major news, Council Speaker Christine Quinn has added her voice to the mix, telling The Villager she also opposes residential use in Hudson River Park — though she does support saving Pier 40’s field, as well as creating more sports fields in the park.

For his part, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is simply not going to go up against Glick, a part of his trusted inner leadership team and whose district contains the pier.

With Quinn’s statement, reality finally seems to be setting in, at least for some people. Tobi Bergman, a leader of the Champions effort, appears to have accepted the reality.

In a statement to The Villager on Wednesday evening, Bergman said, “Champions was never about residential development. We are about public open space and fields. We see a big win in the Speaker’s statement. For the first time, part of Pier 40, about 25 percent, will be designated for park use, and there’s a commitment to build more fields to meet the needs of a growing community so every child can play. We still have to figure out how to pay for the repairs needed to keep the pier open, but Champions are eternal optimists and team players, and we are ready to join a bigger team to get it done.”

It’s now time for the Trust to join that “bigger team” — to work with the community to find a solution we all can live with. But when we asked the Trust if they will now drop the plan for high-rise towers at Pier 40, they sent us a statement that indicates that Wils will still push for a legislative change to allow residential use in the park. The Trust’s statement said, in part: “In order to protect the future of the pier and achieve long-term sustainability for the park as a whole, the legislation needs to allow for as many options as possible because the park cannot afford another failed R.F.P.”

The word “quixotic” comes to mind. Again, yes, residential could be the easy quick-fix — but it’s not right for the park for so many reasons. The Champions and Trust have worked hard toward this one solution, but it’s simply not the right fit. Worse, it would be a major mistake. SPURA was a win-win. Twenty-two-story towers at Pier 40, however, would be a disaster.

It’s now time for the community to come together, as a “bigger team,” as Bergman said. The Trust’s fear-mongering about the pier, the manipulative riling up of local parents against our elected officials, is simply not constructive. We agree with Glick and others that incremental fixes can be made in the meantime while some acceptable, sensible ideas are worked out.

One good idea, for example, that we support is for a charrette, as the Trust did a few years ago, soliciting design concepts for the pier. New York City is full of so many creative, dynamic people — we’ve got to be able to come up with more than two plans for Pier 40.

Also, people need to stop seeing Douglas Durst as some sort of obstacle to saving the pier. He’s one of the city’s top developers — and, most important, he’s deeply committed to this park. He was, until recently, chairperson of Friends of Hudson River Park and has done a tremendous amount for the park, in terms of projects and fundraising. He’s got good ideas on how to save Pier 40, so let’s take advantage of his deep expertise in construction and development projects. The city’s administration will be changing in 10 months, but we feel pretty confident that Durst’s interest in the park won’t be going away. His knowledge is valuable. He needs to be part of the “bigger team” that can save Pier 40 and Hudson River Park. We hope that the Trust will be part of that team, too.

So, again, let’s scale back on the crisis-mode fear-mongering, and let’s get back to thinking — as a community — about how we can solve Pier 40. And the park act must not be opened — and it won’t be opened — until there is consensus in our community and our elected officials are onboard. To try to fight that realty in the last 10 months of Bloomberg’s last, lame-duck term — we just don’t see the point. Tone down the panic, anger and the hype, and let’s calmly work toward a constructive solution that we all can live with.

Again, do we really want 22-story towers on our unspoiled, glorious waterfront, towers that will be there for 100 years looming over the pier and the park?

There’s no emergency other than that which the Trust is creating. We need to think this through a little more carefully — make that, a lot more carefully.

Read More:

Pier 40 reality 

The Villager - Editorial  -  March 7, 2013  

Four Teens Robbed At Hudson River Park's Pier 40

Manhattan

By Geoffrey Croft

Four teenagers were robbed at Hudson River Park's Pier 40, NYC Park Advocates has learned.

The teens - a white and black male, ages 15,  and 14 respectively, and two white females ages, 14 and 15,  were approached by two Hispanic males who threatened to shoot them according to law enforcement sources. 

The assailants kept their hands in their waistbands and said they had a gun. 

The incident occurred on October 4th at approximately 5:15 P.M.  near W. Houston & West Streets in the park.  

The thieves, believed to be in their 20's,  stole two phones and a small amount of cash. 

They headed south on foot. 

 

NYPD canvassed the area with the victims. No arrests were made. 

On September 23rd, a 21-year-old female was brutally raped in Hudson River Park near Pier 25. 

Legislation To Allow Housing In Hudson River Park Fails- Emergency Funding Rejected

Pier 40. Legislation to change the Hudson River Park Act which would have allowed housing and a hotel in the park has failed. Many proponents of the change had represented that the park was required to be self-sustaining according to the original law that established the park. This is inaccurate. Despite the fact that the park has generated billions of dollars in revunue for the city and state, they refuse to allocate the proper resources to maintain the park.

Legislators refused to introduce the most recent version of the bill (see below) which would have allocated $15 million in emergency funds and approximately $7 million annually from cruise ships and water taxi fees.

Park advocates have fought years to keep housing out of Brooklyn Bridge Park.

- Geoffrey Croft

Manhattan/Albany

Housing and hotel would have risen in Hudson River Park adjacent to Pier 40 under the official plan A consultant’s concept rendering, showing rudimentary massing studies for how Pier 40 could be redeveloped with residential housing, a hotel and sports fields. The housing, about 15 stories tall (equal in height to nearby Morton Square), is depicted in yellow, the hotel in a darkish pink and the sports fields and open space in green. Spaces for the Hudson River Park Trust’s operations and offices are in dark purple and medium purple, respectively. Parking is gray, retail is red and where an indoor field might go is shown in blue.

(Image courtesy the Hudson River Park Trust via The Villager)

Legislation to bolster the quickly deteriorating finances of the nonprofit that runs the Hudson River Park has failed amid disagreements on how to solve the group's money troubles, according to Crains New York Business.

"It is clear at this point there is not enough support to pass a bill that does what needs to be done," said Rep. Richard Gottfried.

The state legislative session is slated to end Thursday.

The park's bank account is quickly dwindling in the wake of two successive years of budget deficits. Without a cash infusion, the five-mile park will exhaust its reserve fund in less than three years.

To reverse the trend, the trust sought new legislation to make Pier 40, the park's main commercial asset, more attractive to potential developers by expanding the uses allowed there, as well as the lease term. Two previous attempts to develop the pier have failed. Recently, the trust's president, Madelyn Wils, said Pier 40 might have to close by 2014 unless there is a cash infusion.

Meanwhile, roughly $118 million is needed just to make basic repairs to Pier 40, a nearly 15-acre expanse with ball fields and a 775,000-square-foot building with offices, sports facilities and a parking garage.

The trust has raised the idea of allowing residential units and a hotel to be constructed on the pier—two uses forbidden under the law that created the trust. Leaders also hoped the pier's lease term would be extended beyond 30 years. A study commissioned by the trust suggested that an 87-year lease term for its existing space at the end of West Houston Street would be ideal.

However, the proposed bill was a watered down version of what the trust thought would make sense for the Pier. It didn't allow for either residential or hotel development, nor did it definitely lengthen the lease term.

Previously, Rep. Deborah Glick voiced doubts about the legislation, saying she thought the effort was moving too quickly. She wasn't convinced that Pier 40's lease term needed to be changed or that its uses had to be expanded. Her support is crucial because she represents the Greenwich Village district.

However, Ms. Glick said that the legislation would have given the trust $15 million in emergency aid. It also would have received about $7 million from fees on water taxis.

"I think it was a fair deal," she said. "I don't know why [the Pier] walked away."

Mr. Gottfried said the bill didn't provide long-term solutions for the trust's financial problems and passing legislation that would need to be changed again in several years didn't make sense to him.

If a special session of the legislature is called in December, there is a chance the bill could be revisited. Otherwise, legislators will go back to the drawing board next year.

Ms. Wils didn't return calls for comment.

Bill to save Pier 40 fails

Legislators couldn't agree on terms that would generate revenue

to rebuild the park's aging infrastructure

Crains New York Business - June 20, 2012 - By Theresa Agovino

Push to change park act heading down to the wire

The Villager - June 14, 2012 - By Lincoln Anderson

Fight Against Housing In Hudson River Park Heats Up

A Walk In The Park - June 7, 2012

Legislators refused to introduce the most recent version of the bill (below) even though the park would have received funding proponents of altering the Hudson River Park Act say the park desperately needs. The original version included a number of other provisions which were removed including the ability to issue bonds. The proposed changes to the bill are in CAPS.

S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K

________________________________________________________________________

10705

I N A S S E M B L Y

June 15, 2012

___________

Introduced by COMMITTEE ON RULES -- (at request of M. of A. Gottfried)

-- read once and referred to the Committee on Cities

AN ACT to amend the Hudson river park act and the New York city charter,

in relation to the boundaries and uses of the Hudson river park

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-

BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

1 Section 1. Section 3 of chapter 592 of the laws of 1998, constituting

2 the Hudson river park act, is amended to read as follows:

3 S 3. Definitions. As used in this act, the following terms shall have

4 the following meanings, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:

5 (a) "Board" means the board of directors of the Hudson river park

6 trust.

7 (b) "Compatible governmental use" means a use within the park that is

8 compatible with park use in accordance with the purposes of this act,

9 such as necessary and appropriate sewage, utility, and ventilation

10 connections, and private utilities, including the repair, maintenance,

11 operation, and replacement thereof; public safety facilities necessary

12 for the maintenance and operation of the park; the marine company one

13 fire boat station on pier 53; and the city of New York department of

14 sanitation water-dependent marine transfer station on pier 99.

15 (c) "Floating structure" means any vessel or other water-supported

16 structure, including a floating dock, which is bordered by either open

17 water or a dock and which is or is intended to be moored or attached to

18 a pier, wharf, dock, platform, bulkhead or floatation system for a peri-

19 od of more than six months; provided however, that such definition shall

20 not include historic ships or vessels, as determined by the trust

21 through rules and regulations. Support by means of a cradle or as a

22 result of natural siltation shall not exclude from this definition a

23 structure normally supported by water.

24 (d) "General project plan" means the Hudson river park concept &

25 financial plan, dated May, 1995, as modified in the May 20, 1998 final

26 environmental impact statement, and any successor plan or statement of

27 findings created thereafter consistent with the state environmental

EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets

[ ] is old law to be omitted.

LBD16294-03-2

A. 10705 2

1 quality review act; provided that the general project plan shall be

2 consistent with this act.

3 (e) "Hudson river park" or "park" means the area in the city and coun-

4 ty of New York within the following boundaries, but excluding pier 76

5 except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c) of subdivision nine of

6 section seven of this act and piers 78, 88, 90, 92 and 94 and their

7 associated upland areas:

8 (i) the southern boundary shall be the northern [boundary of Battery

9 Place and Battery Place extended, provided that the Battery Park city

10 project area as defined in section 1972 of the public authorities law

11 shall not be included within the boundaries of the park] SEAWALL OF

12 BATTERY PARK CITY AS EXTENDED EASTERLY TO THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE

13 ROUTE 9A BIKEWAY;

14 (ii) the northern boundary shall be the northern boundary of 59th

15 street and 59th street extended;

16 (iii) the western boundary shall be the United States pierhead line;

17 and

18 (iv) the eastern boundary shall be the western boundary of West

19 street, eleventh avenue or twelfth avenue (whichever boundary is more

20 westerly at any point); provided that as any portion of the state high-

21 way route 9-A is completed, as certified by the commissioner of trans-

22 portation of the state, the eastern boundary of the park adjacent to

23 that portion shall be the western boundary of state highway route 9-A;

24 provided that the department of transportation shall retain a temporary

25 easement over all lands east of the bulkhead during the period of

26 construction of route 9-A for the sole purpose of completing

27 construction; and provided further that (A) Thomas F. Smith Park as will

28 be rebuilt as part of the route 9-A project, (B) the area bounded by

29 14th street, 15th street, tenth avenue and route 9-A, and (C) any addi-

30 tional land adjacent to the park or adjacent to route 9-A acquired in

31 accordance with the provisions of this act to expand the park shall be

32 part of the park; and provided further that any pier or upland area

33 which is privately owned shall not be deemed part of the park for

34 purposes of this act unless transferred to or acquired by the city or

35 state and made part of the park.

36 (f) "Incompatible governmental use" means a governmental use within

37 the park that is not a compatible governmental use or is otherwise

38 incompatible with park use in accordance with the purposes of this act,

39 such as sanitation-truck parking, bus parking, and police impound lots

40 and storage facilities.

41 (g) "Park/commercial use" means a use that is not a prohibited use and

42 is compatible with park use, and that is:

43 (i) a transportation water dependent use, including commercial mari-

44 time and marine ferry terminals;

45 (ii) an entertainment, retail, TELEVISION OR FILM STUDIO, COMMUNITY

46 NON-COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL SPORTS FACILITIES, or commercial recreation-

47 al use;

48 (iii) limited parking spaces incidental to permitted uses;

49 (iv) solely at piers 59, 60, and 61 and the headhouse (commonly known

50 as "Chelsea Piers") the uses authorized at such piers and headhouse as

51 of the effective date of this act, including, but not limited to, sports

52 and studio facilities; [or]

53 (v) a non-tourism/non-recreation heliport for commercial and emergen-

54 cy transportation use[.];

55 (VI) SOLELY ON THAT PORTION OF PIER 76 THAT IS NOT USED AS PARK USE,

56 PARKING, BUSINESS, PROFESSIONAL OR GOVERNMENTAL OFFICES, RESIDENTIAL,

A. 10705 3

1 HOTEL, SPA AND RELATED ANCILLARY OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES ONLY UPON THE

2 CONDITION THAT SUCH USES ARE IDENTIFIED AND AUTHORIZED IN A MEMORANDUM

3 OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE GOVERNOR, THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW

4 YORK, THE TEMPORARY PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND THE SPEAKER OF THE

5 ASSEMBLY AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY AND SENATE

6 REPRESENTING THE AREA WHERE PIER 76 IS LOCATED; SUCH MEMORANDUM OF

7 UNDERSTANDING MAY IDENTIFY, DESCRIBE AND LIMIT SPECIFIC USES AND

8 PROJECTS THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED "PARK/COMMERCIAL USE" PURSUANT TO THIS

9 PARAGRAPH AND MAY AUTHORIZE THE TRUST TO ENTER INTO A LEASE, CONCESSION

10 AGREEMENT, LICENSE OR OTHER AGREEMENT RELATED TO USES ON SUCH PIER FOR A

11 TERM OR TERMS THAT ARE COTERMINOUS WITH THE DURATION OF THE TRUST'S

12 MASTER LEASE WITH THE CITY OR STATE; OR

13 (VII) SOLELY AT PIER 40, PARKING, BUSINESS, PROFESSIONAL OR GOVERN-

14 MENTAL OFFICES, A FINE ARTS GALLERY OR STUDIO OWNED OR OPERATED BY THE

15 CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AND RELATED ANCILLARY OPERATIONS AND FACILI-

16 TIES ONLY UPON THE CONDITION THAT SUCH USES ARE IDENTIFIED AND AUTHOR-

17 IZED IN A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE GOVERNOR, THE MAYOR OF

18 THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE TEMPORARY PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND THE

19 SPEAKER OF THE ASSEMBLY AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE

20 ASSEMBLY AND SENATE REPRESENTING THE AREA WHERE PIER 40 IS LOCATED; SUCH

21 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING MAY IDENTIFY, DESCRIBE AND LIMIT SPECIFIC

22 USES AND PROJECTS THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED "PARK/COMMERCIAL USE" PURSUANT

23 TO THIS PARAGRAPH AND MAY AUTHORIZE THE TRUST TO ENTER INTO A LEASE,

24 CONCESSION AGREEMENT, LICENSE OR OTHER AGREEMENT RELATED TO USES ON SUCH

25 PIER FOR A TERM OR TERMS UP TO 49 YEARS IN LENGTH.

26 (h) "Park use" means:

27 (i) public park uses, including passive and active public open space

28 uses;

29 (ii) public recreation, AMUSEMENT RIDES and entertainment, including

30 the arts and performing arts, on open spaces;

31 (iii) public recreation, AMUSEMENT RIDES and entertainment, including

32 the arts and performing arts within enclosed structures subject to the

33 limitations on such structures specified in subdivision nine of section

34 seven of this act;

35 (iv) small-scale boating for recreational and educational purposes

36 that enhance park users' access to, and enjoyment of, the water;

37 (v) environmental education and research, including museums subject to

38 the limitations specified in subdivision nine of section seven of this

39 act;

40 (vi) historic or cultural preservation including historic ships and

41 vessels;

42 (vii) wildlife and habitat protection; and

43 (viii) facilities incidental to public access to, and use and enjoy-

44 ment of park uses, such as concession stands, information stands,

45 comfort stations, boathouses, marinas, water taxis, and stands at which

46 bicycles, skates, deck chairs, beach umbrellas, fishing tackle, other

47 sports equipment or other similar products are rented or at which

48 water-taxi tickets or other tourist attraction passes or meals are sold,

49 subject to the limitations on such structures specified in subdivision

50 nine of section seven of this act.

51 Provided that the following shall apply: (A) enclosed structures on

52 piers and other areas designated for park use shall be subject to the

53 limitations on such structures specified in subdivision nine of section

54 seven of this act, (B) in no event shall the following be deemed to

55 constitute a "park use": any amusement park, television or film studio,

56 commercial cinema or other for-profit entertainment facility, or any

A. 10705 4

1 parking facilities (except for temporary spaces for deliveries or as

2 necessary to meet local, state or federal requirements regarding access

3 for disabled persons); [and] (C) AS USED IN THIS SUBDIVISION, "AMUSEMENT

4 RIDES" SHALL MEAN CAROUSELS AND OTHER SMALL SCALE RIDES OWNED BY THE

5 TRUST THAT ARE INTENDED FOR CHILDREN PROVIDED THAT, ANY SUCH "AMUSEMENT

6 RIDES" MUST BE LOCATED WEST OF THE BULKHEAD AND, PROVIDED FURTHER THAT,

7 EXCEPT AT PIER 76, A FERRIS WHEEL OR OTHER OBSERVATION RIDE OR TOURIST

8 ATTRACTION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A "PARK USE"; AND (D) the overall

9 policy within the park shall be to provide free or nominal-cost recre-

10 ational opportunities to the public on a broad basis.

11 (i) "Permitted use" means:

12 (i) park use;

13 (ii) park/commercial use;

14 (iii) compatible governmental use;

15 (iv) uses permitted under any lease, permit, license, or other instru-

16 ment in effect upon the effective date of this act, whether or not a

17 prohibited use under this act, but only pursuant to the terms of the

18 instrument and only for the term thereof or pursuant to any extension

19 according to the terms thereof if, but only if, the option to extend is

20 exercised solely by and is a contractual right of the lessee, permittee,

21 licensee or other contractual user, and subject to the deadlines for the

22 removal or relocation of incompatible governmental uses under subdivi-

23 sion nine of section seven of this act.

24 (j) "Prohibited use" means any of the following uses:

25 (i) residential EXCEPT AT PIER 76 IF RESIDENTIAL USE IS AUTHORIZED AT

26 SUCH PIER BY MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING PURSUANT TO SUBPARAGRAPH (VI)

27 OF PARAGRAPH (G) OF THIS SECTION;

28 (ii) manufacturing, except in furtherance of and incidental to park

29 uses, PROVIDED THAT AT PIER 57 SMALL SCALE CREATION OF ARTISAN FOODS OR

30 OTHER CRAFT PRODUCTS SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED MANUFACTURING AND, AT

31 PIERS 40 AND 76, SUCH SMALL SCALE CREATION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED MANU-

32 FACTURING IF SUCH SMALL SCALE CREATION IS AUTHORIZED AT SUCH PIERS BY

33 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (G) OF THIS SECTION;

34 (iii) commercial office and warehousing, except office space inci-

35 dental to a permitted use; PROVIDED THAT COMMERCIAL OFFICE USE SHALL NOT

36 BE CONSIDERED A PROHIBITED USE AT PIERS 40 AND 76 IF COMMERCIAL OFFICE

37 USE IS AUTHORIZED AT SUCH PIERS BY MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING PURSUANT

38 TO PARAGRAPH (G) OF THIS SECTION;

39 (iv) hotel EXCEPT AT PIER 76 IF HOTEL USE IS AUTHORIZED AT SUCH PIER

40 BY MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING PURSUANT TO SUBPARAGRAPH (VI) OF PARA-

41 GRAPH (G) OF THIS SECTION;

42 (v) incompatible governmental uses;

43 (vi) casino and riverboat gambling, and the docking of vessels to be

44 used substantially for gambling or for transportation to such a vessel;

45 (vii) any facility for motorized aircraft, including a heliport except

46 a heliport which is defined as a park/commercial use; and

47 (viii) other uses determined by the trust to be incompatible with the

48 purposes of this act.

49 (k) "Hudson river park trust" or "trust" means the public benefit

50 corporation established pursuant to section five of this act.

51 (l) "Water section" means all the area of the park west of the bulk-

52 head line, including the water, lands under water and space above the

53 water, but not including the piers and float bridge as they exist on the

54 effective date of this act.

55 (m) "Water dependent use" excludes any prohibited use and means:

A. 10705 5

1 (i) any use that depends on utilization of resources found in the

2 water section;

3 (ii) recreational activities that depend on access to the water

4 section, such as fishing, boating, swimming in such waters, passive

5 enjoyment of the Hudson river and wildlife protection and viewing;

6 (iii) facilities and incidental structures needed to dock and service

7 boats; and

8 (iv) scientific and educational activities that by their nature

9 require access to marine reserve waters.

10 (n) "Passive and active public open space uses" mean lawns, espla-

11 nades, open pier surfaces, areas for strolling and sitting, picnicking

12 areas and open space areas for sports, exercise and active play includ-

13 ing, playgrounds, ball fields, playing courts, and areas for running,

14 biking and rollerblading and similar recreational activities.

15 S 2. Paragraphs (b), (c), (h) and (i) of subdivision 9 and subdivision

16 11 of section 7 of chapter 592 of the laws of 1998, constituting the

17 Hudson river park act, are amended to read as follows:

18 (b) No less than the equivalent of fifty percent of the footprint of

19 Pier 40 shall be passive and active public open space; provided that up

20 to one hundred percent of this pier may be limited to park use by the

21 general project plan; PROVIDED FURTHER THAT IF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDER-

22 STANDING IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO SUBPARAGRAPH (VII) OF PARAGRAPH (G)

23 OF SECTION THREE OF THIS ACT, THEN NO LESS THAN SIXTY-FIVE PERCENT OF

24 THE PIER FOOTPRINT SHALL BE USED FOR SPORTS EXERCISE AND ACTIVE PLAY,

25 INCLUDING BALL FIELDS, PLAYING COURTS, AND AREAS FOR RUNNING, BIKING,

26 ROLLERBLADING AND SIMILAR RECREATION ACTIVITIES. Notwithstanding any

27 other provision of this act to the contrary, Pier 40 may be used for

28 parking for passenger vehicles with a seating capacity of 10 passengers

29 or less, provided however such use shall be predominantly for long-term

30 parking.

31 (c) [The city of New York shall use best efforts to relocate the tow

32 pound on Pier 76. Subsequent to relocation of the tow pound] ALL INCOM-

33 PATIBLE GOVERNMENTAL USES AT PIER 76, INCLUDING THE TOW POUND AND MOUNT-

34 ED POLICE FACILITY, SHALL BE RELOCATED BY DECEMBER 31, 2015 AFTER WHICH,

35 the city of New York shall convey to the trust a possessory interest in

36 [fifty percent of] Pier 76 for [passive and active public open space use

37 for] a period not to exceed 99 years, provided that [such open space

38 portion of Pier 76] AT LEAST FIFTY PERCENT OF THE PIER FOOTPRINT SHALL

39 BE USED FOR PARK USES THAT ARE LIMITED TO PASSIVE AND ACTIVE OPEN SPACE

40 AND WHICH shall be contiguous to water AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE

41 REMAINING PORTION SHALL BE FOR PARK/COMMERCIAL USE. Upon such convey-

42 ance, [the portion so conveyed will] PIER 76 shall become part of the

43 park [and will be used solely for passive and active public open space

44 uses].

45 (h) On each of the piers identified in paragraph (a) of this subdivi-

46 sion (i) not less than eighty percent of the surface area of each such

47 pier shall be used solely for passive and active public open space uses,

48 or for habitat and wildlife protection in the case of any pier for that

49 purpose, and (ii) not more than ten percent of the surface area of each

50 such pier shall be covered by enclosed structures; [provided that]

51 EXCEPT THAT AN ENCLOSED, ONE-STORY STRUCTURE WITH A COVERAGE LIMITATION

52 OF 12,000 SQUARE FEET THAT IS BUILT FOR USE AS AN ESTUARIUM FACILITY IS

53 PERMITTED at Pier 26, [the coverage limitation shall be fifteen percent

54 and at Pier 64, the existing structures at that pier (or any portions

55 thereof) may be retained for permitted park uses without regard to the

56 requirements of subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of this paragraph] AND THE

A. 10705 6

1 COVERAGE LIMITATION AT PIER 97 SHALL BE NO MORE THAN A TOTAL OF 12,000

2 SQUARE FEET.

3 (i) Consistent with the general project plan, the area of the park

4 east of the bulkhead line shall be used (I) solely for park use and to

5 permit access to permitted uses; provided that this limitation shall not

6 apply to those areas east of the bulkhead line that are occupied by pier

7 headhouses or other pier-related structures at the base of piers 57, 59,

8 60, and 61; OR (II) A COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL USE ALONG THE UPLAND PARK

9 AREA BETWEEN 29TH AND 34TH STREETS, PROVIDED THAT: (A) ANY SUCH RELATED

10 ENCLOSED STRUCTURE SHALL NOT EXCEED TWO STORIES; (B) ANY SUCH USE AND

11 ANY RELATED ENCLOSED STRUCTURE SHALL NOT EXCEED A MAXIMUM OF TWO HUNDRED

12 FEET IN LENGTH AND SHALL MAINTAIN OPEN VIEW CORRIDORS TO THE HUDSON

13 RIVER FROM STREETS RUNNING TOWARDS AND AWAY FROM THE PARK AND SHALL NOT

14 BE LOCATED WITHIN ANY DESIGNATED VIEW CORRIDORS AS SUCH CORRIDORS ARE

15 DEFINED UNDER THE CITY OF NEW YORK ZONING REQUIREMENTS; AND (C) THIS

16 SUBPARAGRAPH SHALL NOT APPLY AFTER JULY 1, 2024.

17 11. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of subdivision 3 of

18 this section AND EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED AT PIERS 40 AND 76 BY

19 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING PURSUANT TO SUBPARAGRAPHS (VI) AND (VII) OF

20 PARAGRAPH (G) OF SECTION 3 OF THIS ACT, the trust may not enter into a

21 lease, concession agreement, license or other agreement relating to any

22 part of the park for periods in excess of thirty years in total;

23 provided FURTHER that any such agreement for a period in excess of ten

24 years shall be for the purpose of assuring a lessee, licensee, conces-

25 sionaire or other party to an agreement with adequate protection against

26 loss of investments in developing, renovating, improving, furnishing,

27 and equipping properties within the park. Any proposed lease, concession

28 agreement, license or other agreement by the trust for a period in

29 excess of ten years shall constitute a proposed significant action

30 subject to the requirements of subdivision six of this section. The

31 trust shall promulgate rules and regulations governing leases, conces-

32 sion agreements, licenses or other agreements. Such rules and regu-

33 lations shall require the trust to issue a bid prospectus for any leas-

34 es, concession agreements, licenses and other agreements which would

35 provide for a total capital investment in the park of no less than one

36 million dollars over the proposed term of the agreement. The bid pros-

37 pectus submitted to prospective bidders shall contain specific informa-

38 tion concerning the nature of the capital improvements or equipment to

39 be provided by the successful bidder and shall be provided to community

40 boards one, two and four within the borough of Manhattan.

41 S 3. Subdivision 10 of section 7 of chapter 592 of the laws of 1998,

42 constituting the Hudson river park act, is amended by adding a new para-

43 graph (d) to read as follows:

44 (D) THE TRUST MAY FIX, ESTABLISH AND COLLECT FEES UPON OPERATORS OF

45 COMMERCIAL VESSELS, SHIPS, BOATS, FERRIES AND OTHER DEVICES THAT ARE

46 USED FOR TRANSPORTATION WATER DEPENDENT USES FOR EACH PASSENGER THAT

47 EMBARKS OR DISEMBARKS WITHIN THE PARK PROVIDED THAT SUCH FEE SHALL EQUAL

48 ONE DOLLAR PER PASSENGER AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT SUCH FEE SHALL EQUAL

49 TEN DOLLARS PER PASSENGER OF A CRUISE SHIP AT PIERS 88, 90 AND 92.

50 S 4. Subdivision 3 of section 8 of chapter 592 of the laws of 1998,

51 constituting the Hudson river park act, is amended by adding a new para-

52 graph (e) to read as follows:

53 (E) NOTWITHSTANDING PARAGRAPH (B) OF THIS SUBDIVISION OR ANY PROVISION

54 OF SECTION 382-A OF CHAPTER 190 OF THE LAWS OF 1990 TO THE CONTRARY,

55 PIER 54 MAY BE RECONSTRUCTED OUTSIDE OF ITS HISTORIC FOOTPRINT PROVIDED

56 THAT THE LENGTH OF SUCH PIER DOES NOT EXCEED 700 FEET AND THE TOTAL

A. 10705 7

1 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SUCH RECONSTRUCTED PIER, EXCLUDING ADJACENT PLATFORM

2 AREAS, DOES NOT EXCEED THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ITS HISTORIC FOOT-

3 PRINT AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT SUCH RECONSTRUCTION COMPLIES WITH ALL

4 APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND CITY LAWS.

5 S 5. Subdivision 1 of section 13 of chapter 592 of the laws of 1998,

6 constituting the Hudson river park act, is amended to read as follows:

7 1. Unless otherwise provided, any person who violates any rule or

8 regulation adopted pursuant to this act, shall be guilty of a violation

9 punishable solely by a fine not to exceed five [hundred] THOUSAND

10 dollars.

11 S 6. Section 14 of chapter 592 of the laws of 1998, constituting the

12 Hudson River park act, is amended by adding a new subdivision 4 to read

13 as follows:

14 4. SHOULD THIS ACT PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND USE OF A

15 HOTEL OR MEETING SPACE WITHIN ANY PORTION OF THE PARK, THE TRUST OR THE

16 CONTRACTOR OR SUB-CONTRACTOR OF SUCH PROJECT SHALL ENTER INTO A VALID

17 AGREEMENT ENFORCEABLE UNDER 29 U.S.C.S 185 WITH EACH LABOR ORGANIZATION

18 THAT IS ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN REPRESENTING OR ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT

19 HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY WORKERS IN THE STATE. SUCH AGREEMENT SHALL, AT A

20 MINIMUM, PROTECT THE TRUST'S PROPRIETARY INTERESTS BY PROHIBITING THE

21 LABOR ORGANIZATION AND ITS MEMBERS FROM ENGAGING IN PICKETING, WORK

22 STOPPAGES, BOYCOTTS, AND ANY OTHER ECONOMIC INTERFERENCE WITH THE OPERA-

23 TION OF THE FACILITY OR ASSOCIATED HOSPITALITY OPERATIONS FOR THE DURA-

24 TION OF THE TRUST'S PROPRIETARY INTEREST.

25 S 7. Paragraph 9-b of subdivision a of section 533 of the New York

26 city charter, as amended by local law number 35 of the city of New York

27 for the year 2008, is amended to read as follows:

28 9-b. by agreement with the Hudson river park trust (a public benefit

29 corporation established pursuant to section five of the Hudson river

30 park act, chapter five hundred ninety-two of the laws of nineteen

31 hundred ninety-eight), to enforce the rules and regulations of such

32 trust relating to the use, government and protection of the Hudson river

33 park, created pursuant to section four of such act. In addition to or as

34 an alternative to any of the remedies or penalties provided under any

35 other provision of law, violation of such rules and regulations shall be

36 punishable by a civil penalty of not more than five [hundred] THOUSAND

37 dollars for each violation, which may be recovered in a proceeding

38 before the environmental control board. Such proceeding shall be

39 commenced by a notice of violation returnable before such board. The

40 procedures set forth in section one thousand forty-nine-a of this char-

41 ter applicable to the adjudication by the environmental control board of

42 violations within the jurisdiction of the commissioner shall apply to

43 the adjudication of violations of such rules and regulations by such

44 board and final orders of such board imposing civil penalties for such

45 violations shall constitute judgments that may be entered and enforced

46 as set forth in such section.

47 S 8. Fifteen million dollars of funding for New York Works Infrastruc-

48 ture projects shall be made available to the Hudson River park trust,

49 created pursuant to chapter 592 of the laws of 1998, in state fiscal

50 year 2012-2013 for capital maintenance including bulkhead or pier repair

51 and reconstruction within the Hudson River park that requires immediate

52 maintenance, repair and reconstruction so as to maintain structural

53 soundness, safety and continued use of park infrastructure.

54 S 9. This act shall take effect immediately.