UWS residents line up Wed. night to voice their concerns to Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer. (Photo Courtesy of @scottmstringer)

At a packed town hall meeting on the Upper West Side last night, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer fielded questions from concerned residents of the West 90s and 100s. The community came out in full force, pressing Stringer, City Council Member Gale Brewer and a panel of officials representing various city agencies to address their complaints and fears about various neighborhood issues.

Between 100 and 150 residents attended the forum, and the line of people waiting to step up to the microphone to say their piece stretched to the back of the room for the entire two-hour meeting. Armed with literature and, sometimes, un-concealed anger, community members and self-identified local activists pressed their elected officials for answers and action.

Stringer, a contender in the Democratic primary for the 2013 mayoral race, addressed concerns ranging from construction to hydrofracking to rat infestation.

The most-discussed issue of the night was the proposed construction of a Jewish Home Lifecare center on West 97th Street. JHL, an organization that provides health care and support services for the elderly, seeks to build a new, 20-story high-rise nursing home next door to P.S. 163, an elementary school. Although the New York City Planning Commission approved the application, Community Board 7 and local activists have continued to fight against the project.

Avery Brandon, who lives near the 97th Street site and whose kindergarten-aged daughter will be attending P.S. 163 for the next several years, spoke out vehemently against the new building at the meeting.

“A huge construction project like this can have untold effects on the health of our children,” Brandon said. “With the noise levels, and the mental stress that this construction will cause, how will our children be able to learn?”

Brandon and various other residents also cited increased congestion, dust and debris and decreased access to the block for emergency responders as potential negative consequences of the project.

Later, on the issue of fracking, the focus of the conversation centered around the contentious Spectra Pipeline, a proposed natural gas pipeline intended to expand the delivery of natural gas to areas in New York and New Jersey. The project, which was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in May, is slated to run along the coast of New Jersey and cross the Hudson River into Manhattan, bringing gas from the Marcellus Shale — acquired through the process of hydraulic fracturing — to New York City homes on the West Side.

Residents at the meeting last night voiced opposition shared by many critics of the controversial method, citing in particular what they said are particularly high levels of radon and other radioactive material in Marcellus gas. They emphasized the dangers of using radon-infused gas in New York City kitchens, which tend to be small and often not well-ventilated, as well as the potential effects exposure to fracked gas could have on children in the neighborhood.

Attendees also complained of a growing rat infestation on Upper West Side streets — a problem which Council Member Brewer assured would be tackled next month in a block-by-block effort conducted by the Department of Health — and the New York Police Department’s ever-contentious Stop and Frisk policy, which NYPD representatives declined to discuss in detail last night.

President John Sexton defends plan to the community, and city council members

By Alissa Fleck
City Council members struggled to quell boos, hisses, applause and chants at a hearing on the NYU expansion on Friday, June 29. Even Greenwich Village resident and actor Matthew Broderick showed up to voice an opinion on the controversial proposal; Broderick said NYU 2031 would “destroy the village” by hurting the “quirkiness and humanness” for which it’s known.

Council members largely agreed with Broderick, expressing concern over the plan, which would add 2 million square feet for academic and residential uses. One of the greatest sources of debate was how much community green space the plan would ultimately allow.

The hearing, the last expected before the City Council votes on the expansion proposal in July, incorporated presentations and testimony from opposition and proponents alike. Elected officials, NYU faculty members, community advocates and others came together to debate the highly contentious NYU 2031 plan also known as the “Sexton Plan.”

Two morning rallies proceeded the hearing outside City Hall, with plan opponents having a significantly larger turnout than supporters as people scrambled for space inside to attend a pre-hearing. Opponents held colorful banners that read “NYU 2031 is Wrong for NYC, Wrong for the Village and Wrong for NYU” and appeared to fill the majority of seats in the chambers. Security struggled to allow an even number from both camps to enter as people flooded into chambers.

The proposal, which was announced publicly in 2010, was approved by the City Planning Commission (CPC) on June 6 of this year after receiving feedback from Community Board 2 and Borough President Scott Stringer. The CPC passed the plan along to the City Council with several modifications, including the elimination of a hotel and commercial space.

The hearing opened with a presentation from supporters affiliated with NYU, including university President John Sexton, Tisch Dean Mary Schmidt Campbell, Senior Vice President Lynne Brown and Vice President Alicia Hurley. Council members then thoroughly questioned aspects of the NYU 2031 plan.

Councilwoman Margaret Chin, representing the area contained in the proposal, roused excitement from plan opponents by calling the expansion “unacceptable” and urging for greater balance.

“This plan tries to shoehorn too much into too small a space,” said Chin to wide applause and jazz hands.

The issue of scale was a hot topic. Councilwoman Jessica Lappin, representing parts of the Upper East Side and Roosevelt Island, agreed with Chin, calling the plan “too dense, too big, too tall and too much.” She added it could be made significantly more contextual with its surroundings, agreeing with many dissenters’ arguments against the plan. Lappin also pointed to the contradiction in the university’s choice to grow the undergraduate student population in the past and its current insistence on resource expansion to meet those needs.
Lappin said community members’ wariness about the plan was evident in the overwhelming contact she has received, even as a representative outside the relevant district.

Supporters affiliated with the university said there is a direct correlation between space and the ability to stay competitive with peer universities, while community supporters added that the plan will create jobs and benefit the local economy. NYU representatives have stated the plan will create 18,200 construction jobs and 2,600 opportunities for long-term employment.

Sexton, a lifelong New Yorker, said the university is desperately in need of space, which “translates into talent.” He pointed to the growth of new disciplines—the study of genomes, for instance—and the resulting need to attract the fields’ top researchers.

Currently, according to evidence the school put forth, NYU’s science facilities are outdated and not adequately sophisticated to keep pace with other top research institutes. Up-to-date science labs require additional space and flexibility over the average classroom. Without the necessary facilities, attracting top experts would be near impossible, said Sexton.

Sexton and other supporters continually reiterated that the school has no intention of growing the student body or viewing this as a real estate or corporate development project; it’s about academic necessity and meeting current needs and demands. The students themselves are “the loudest voices” calling for more space, explained Sexton.

Opponents of the plan granted that NYU may be in need of additional space, but encouraged the university to consider development elsewhere, like the Financial District, which would welcome the development, according to downtown District Leader Jenifer Rajkumar. Plan opponents overwhelmingly argued the proposal would change the character and ambiance of the Village, including decreasing green space, and some say it would force residents to live in a construction zone for at least 20 years.

It’s essential for facilities to be developed near the school’s core for many reasons, explained Brown, including efficiently delivering curriculum to undergraduates, creating community, decreasing university costs and not having to duplicate crucial facilities. Proposed changes, NYU claimed, will be built entirely on the school’s existing footprint or space currently owned by the institution.

Hurley responded to accusations against the school by providing a breakdown of space allocation, saying the university is dedicated to transforming current private space into public open space, including increasing open green space.

The debate over whether the plan will increase or decrease public green space is still highly contested on both sides. Council Member Robert Jackson put Sexton on the spot, asking whether he and his other representatives, were being as honest and forthcoming as they possibly could. Audience members’ hisses indicated their opinion as Sexton affirmed he was being truthful.

Some opponents believe the university is being deceptive about its motivations for the project. Many say the school is acting as a corporation rather than a university, with an eye toward taking over its “backyard.” Protesters pointed to a law firm hired by NYU to advocate for the plan, construction worker union members in the crowd who had little understanding of what the plan entailed and the many faculty members against the plan choosing who chose to remain anonymous as evidence of the school’s deceptive tactics.

NYU maintained it has tried to engage the community and remain transparent about the plan for the past five years. While the plan is projected to cost from $3 to $4 billion in total, Sexton asserted it would have no financial impact on NYU students. The City Council is expected to reach a decision by the end of July.

Borough President’s Compromise Not Enough to Sway Public Opinion

On Wed. afternoon (4/25), the City Planning Commission (CPC) held a public hearing at the Museum of the American Indian to hear both concerns and support over the NYU Sexton Plan – a project that would radically expand the NYU campus over a 20 year period.

CPC members heard the raised, and sometimes distressed voices of community members who were against the plan, as the standing room only “crowd” gave raucous applause to members speaking out against the expansion, and provided a chorus of hisses and even outraged shouts to those advocating it.

Members of NYU Faculty weighed in on both sides of the coin. Mary Schmidt Campbell, Dean of the Tisch School of the Arts, advocated on behalf of the plan, citing a lack of performance space and the need to remain competitive as universities around the country put additional pressure on the already taxed School of the Arts.

“We’ve achieved at the highest level and contributed to the creative economy of downtownNew Yorkin spite of the fact that Tisch’s Institute for Performing Arts has, for years, struggled with inadequate, obsolete, sometimes dangerous, and cramped facilities…Our existing facilities are at a crisis point. In order to continue to thrive, we’ve embarked on an ambitious plan to design the world’s finest performing arts training center as part of the 2031 plan.”

Other faculty members were not so supportive of the expansion, which makes The Tisch School seem more like an outlier when compared to many other departments and faculty at the university. However, less than one third of NYU faculty have chosen to publicly align themselves.

Despite concerns over anonymity, a senior faculty member, who was introduced improperly,  spoke out against the Sexton Plan,  urging the CPC to say “N-O” until they “K-N-O-W” more.

The CPC's Public Hearing on the NYU Expansion (Sexton Plan) drew the full attention of the maximum capacity auditorium at the Museum of the American Indian.

“The NYU leadership would have you believe that the university can’t fulfill its educational mission and be a global leader without anEmpire State Building’s worth of square footage squeezed into a few blocks. But the NYU team pushing this plan does not speak for its faculty; for we, too, are the university.”

“As of today, 20 academic departments and programs, including the Department of Economics (which might know something about something) have passed resolutions against this plan overwhelmingly.”

More than anything, however, the public hearing revealed a poor dissemination of information. Many attendees representing NYU and its expansion plan seemed unable to adequately describe different phases of the plan when pressed by the commission, and there was also an apparent disconnect between those who spoke on behalf of the  Sexton plan  sans “Stringer’s Compromise” and those who spoke exclusively of it – which NYU President Sexton agreed to on Apr. 11.

Speaking on behalf of the Greenwich Village Society for Historical Preservation (GVSHP), lawyer Randy Mastro urged the CPC to consider the usage of space, and the impact it will have on Greenwich Village.

“This commission is being asked to approve over 2.2 million gross square feet of construction over the next nineteen years that will fundamentally change the character of one of our city’s most beloved neighborhoods – Greenwich Village…yet hundreds of thousands of square feet of this project are not for academic purposes,”

“As a result of this construction, this neighborhood will have to accommodate up to 2,000 new residents, and find itself flooded with more than 10,000 new people visiting the area every day. It will substantially reduce the amount of open space available for community use in an area already lacking such open space.”

Members of the Public Hearing show their opposition to the Sexton Plan

While nearly all of the community members present at the hearing were opposed to the Sexton plan, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer’s Director of Land Use, Brian Cook, spoke on behalf of Stringer, bringing to light many of the Borough President’s amendments – some of them for the first time to the CPC.

“The office [of the Borough President] has maintained a philosophy of seeking ways to strike a balance to ensure that development, when it is occurring, does not overrun or take away things and hurt the community in ways that we can prevent,”

And as he outlined the Borough President’s amendments, Cook commented on the President’s decision to dissuade NYU from building “below-grade” below street level) around parks was perhaps the most popular opposing point made at the hearing.

“The clear direction we heard from the community was taking the below-grade of those parks [Northern Mercer St. Park, Western Mercer St. Park] and tearing out the old trees and what existed, even if they were eventually replaced was an unacceptable line.”

However, when pressed by the City Planning Commission  and the community for information regarding the concessions NYU was unwilling to make at President Stringer’s urging, Mr. Cook declined to comment.

Members of the City Planning Commission, including Chairperson Amanda Burden

As it stands, the City Planning Commission has, at the present time, many more questions than it does answers. In light of the tremendous public opposition to the project, as well as the points raised by several community speakers, it does not appear likely that the CPC will approve the Sexton Plan without at least first requesting a full disclosure and review of Stringer’s Compromise.

“It’s  important that the commission to hear the modifications that the borough president recommended,” said City Planning Commission Chair Amanda M. Burden.

The City Council’s Land Use Committee voted 10 to one in favor of a proposal whose major provisions include shrinking Rudin’s residential development from 450 condo units to 350; the purchase of a state-owned building at 75 Morton St. to be used for a new middle school; and the permanent transfer of Triangle Park to the city, which will include an AIDS memorial and undergo a public review process.

Moreover, the Council reported that $1 million would be directed to arts programs at P.S. 41, P.S. 3 and the proposed school at the Foundling Hospital site, along with $1 million for a legal services fund to help retain affordable housing in the Village. The Council also said that the Reiss Building on 12th Street would be preserved.

Brad Hoylman, chairperson of Community Board 2, praised Council Speaker Christine Quinn, whose district includes the Village, for her efforts on behalf of the community. “The St. Vincent’s redevelopment package addresses significant needs in our area. This includes support for public schools, a legal fund for rent-stabilized tenants, open space that will become permanent public parkland with an AIDS memorial and sensible changes to the new development, including preserving the Reiss building in addition to the five buildings that were already saved as part of the project, which is in the Greenwich
Village Historic District,” Hoylman said in an emailed statement.

However, he reiterated his frustration regarding the fight for a hospital in the Village. “Unfortunately, the plan doesn’t include a much-needed full-service hospital,” he added. “That battle must continue.” Plans for a new health care center to be operated by North Shore LIJ out of the modern building on West 12th Street, referred to by some residents as a “freestanding emergency room,” were unaffected by Wednesday’s announced deal.

Some politicians, including Assembly Member Deborah Glick, had mixed support for the revised Rudin West Village Development Plan. “The battle to get a school at 75 Morton Street was a four-year effort and we’re happy about that,” Glick said. She added that she was not pleased about the upzoning privileges afforded Rudin.

“That zoning should have been reserved for the ‘public benefit,’ as St. Vincent’s was,” Glick explained. “A private developer shouldn’t have been able to take that zoning and use it for a private, commercial use.”

In an emailed statement, Andrew Berman, executive director of The Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, concurred with Glick regarding the upzoning issue. “The GVSHP objects to upzoning the St. Vincent’s site to give a luxury condo development special zoning considerations originally intended for a hospital,” he wrote. He continued, “While many of the changes may improve the [development] plan, they don’t necessarily address this fundamental problem.”

The special zoning privileges Berman referred to date back to 1979, when the St. Vincent’s site was rezoned to allow a large bulk of development for hospital buildings and a much smaller one for residential buildings. Berman added that Rudin is now asking for the site to be upzoned to be allowed much greater bulk than the allowable residential.

The revised plan must still be reviewed by the City Planning Commission and will be voted on by the full Council March 28.

Elizabeth Kellner speaks at the Community Board 7 meeting.

Last Tuesday night, dozens of supporters and a fair number of detractors showed up at Community Board 7’s meeting to express their views on the proposed retail rezoning initiative for the Upper West Side. The proposal from the City Planning Commission would limit storefront widths along certain sections of Broadway and Amsterdam and Columbus avenues in an effort to encourage small, individually owned “mom-and-pop” shops and keep big banks and chain stores out.

Several small business owners came to speak in support of the measure. Bruce Stark, one of the owners of Beacon Paint on Amsterdam Avenue between 77th and 78th streets, said that his family’s hardware store has been in the neighborhood for 112 years and he hopes that the rezoning will allow them to stay another 112 years.

“This is a very important [thing] for me, because what would stop my landlord from saying, you know, ‘Let’s take that store and the one next to it and the one next to it and make one big store and triple the rent,’?” Stark said.

Monica Blum, president of the Lincoln Square BID, came to beg the board not to approve it for fear that it may come to her district next and to defend the big box stores others were railing against.

“We think drugstores [like Duane Reade] today are the five-and-dimes of the past,” Blum said, a comment that elicited boos from the crowd. She continued, stating that large, established chains are better, more stable bets for landlords to rent to, and said that the BID fears that this zoning would lead to empty retail chains.

Barbara Adler, president of the Columbus Avenue BID, asked the board to amend the proposal to exclude their area, a move that the board considered but ultimately rejected.

Anne Shirazi spoke to represent the West 100th Street Block Association, and testified that she and her neighbors support the proposal because they see too many small businesses ousted in favor of larger retail outlets.

“Columbus Avenue is like a New Jersey mall,” Shirazi said. “It’s not a neighborhood. We must pass zoning to protect what is left of small independent businesses.”

Another resident, John Davenport, said that with more zoning restrictions in place, the Upper West Side could resemble other desirable areas of Manhattan.

“I love going to the West Village, and I can’t imagine what the West Village would look like if it weren’t zoned,” Davenport said, urging the board to go “against the moneyed interests” opposing the zoning.

Mike Watson, an Upper West Side resident since 1983, said that he supported the move to preserve the small businesses that offer a level of customer service that bigger stores can’t.

Others spoke about how small businesses often contribute to the neighborhood by sponsoring Little League teams and participating in Safe Haven programs for kids.

Some warned that the proposal would do nothing to actually protect the beloved small shops.

“Contextual zoning doesn’t lower rents, it doesn’t prevent someone from being kicked out of their space, it doesn’t protect anyone from higher costs,” said resident Alexander Medwedew. “There’s too much competition for the same amount of space.” He advocated opening up other areas for small business instead of changing the currently zoned areas.

Ultimately, the board approved the proposal after considering and rejecting an amendment to carve out individual landmarks. They did, however, adopt an amendment asking the City Planning Commission to adhere to a 90-day time limit in approving variances to the zoning for existing small businesses. The proposal will now move to Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer’s office for the next phase of approvals, and the City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on it April 11 to hear community concerns.

Members of the City Planning Commission approved the Riverside Center development at a meeting Oct. 27, praising the project as vibrant and beneficial addition to the Upper West Side.

The commission came to a near unanimous 12 to 1 vote in favor of the five-building, 3-million-square-foot residential and commercial development planned for West 59th Street to West 72nd Street, from West End Avenue to the river.

A rendering of the Riverside Center Development.

“This is a unique opportunity to re-envision and reshape a bleak, 8-acre parking lot and former rail yard into an exciting addition and major amenity to this thriving West Side neighborhood,” said Amanda Burden, the chair of the planning commission.

Other planning commissioners touted the project’s public space, new commercial businesses and new affordable units.

Though critics of the proposal believe Riverside Center would violate the blue print for the area drafted in 1992—known as a restrictive declaration—Nathan Leventhal, a commissioner and West Side resident, believes the project is appropriate for the neighborhood today.

“If someone who lived here in 1992 left that day and came back this morning, they would probably not recognize what they see on the West Side between 59th and 72nd,” Leventhal said. “Just as our Constitution changes, as do most of our views to reflect current reality, so should our views of what’s right for a particular area.”

Anna Levin was the lone dissenter on the City Planning Commission and voted against modifying the 1992 restrictive declaration that would allow the development to be built. Levin was concerned with density and the unsettled issue of funding and building a new 150,000-square-foot school.

Levin believes the issues will be addressed as negotiations continue at the City Council, but, she added, “They haven’t been addressed yet.”

Karen Phillips, who “reluctantly” voted in favor of the project, wanted additional on-site affordable housing and a better design.

“I feel that there is more that could be done to optimize this opportunity, which is one of the last large-scale sights for the city and this neighborhood,” Phillips said. “I want to have an affirmative vote today but one that says, ‘I don’t think it’s done yet.’”

This is the first affirmative vote on a project since the developer Extell started the public review process. Community Board 7 was the first to weigh in with an advisory opinion, and panned the project. The board members felt Riverside Center was too dense, the designed open space was uninviting to the public and that the developer should fund construction of the new school.

Borough President Scott Stringer echoed those concerns in his own advisory opinion.

Despite the Planning Commission’s accolades for the project, there were commissioners that had reservations.

There is another opportunity for changes to Riverside Center. Now that the City Planning Commission has approved the project, the City Council must ultimately sign off.

George Arzt, the spokesperson for the developer, released a statement saying that Extell was “immensely gratified” by the vote.

“We are equally thankful for the laudatory words of support from Commission members,” Arzt said in the statement. “We look forward to proceeding with the Land Use process and continuing to work collaboratively with Community Board members and elected officials.”

Bill de Blasio, the public advocate, is now advocating in favor of Riverside Center. De Blasio gave his conditional support a day after the City Planning Commission approved the mega-development with a near unanimous vote.

De Blasio praised the mixed-use retail and residential project for adding affordable housing, creating jobs and, perhaps most importantly, a new school.

“There is a crying need for a large school on the Upper West Side,” de Blasio said in a statement. “

The school has been a football in the review process. Extell, the developer, would provide 75,000 square feet for a new school. If the city wants a full 150,000-square-foot school, the School Construction Authority would have to foot the bill. Some community leaders and elected officials want the developer to pay and construct the school on its own.

The issue will likely be revisited as Riverside Center moves to the final leg of the approval process; City Council Member Gale Brewer—whose support is critical to the project’s approval—wants Extell to finance the new school.

“We must use the City Council process to hold the city and developer accountable for providing the full 150,000 square feet of school space,” de Blasio said.

For Fine Times, the developer that wants to open a “residential” hotel on West 68th Street, the latest Community Board 7 meeting was anything but.

The company faced pushback, during the Oct. 6 meeting, on its plan to restore the historic, Beaux Art-style row house that it owns and convert it into a “residential” hotel. In return for the restoration, Fine Times, a luxury rental company with 26 buildings in Manhattan and Brooklyn, would have been able to operate a private, residential club—never before done in New York City.

CB7 shot down plans for Fine Times to convert the historic West Side house that it owns into a “residential” hotel. Photo by: Andrew Schwartz

The terms of the agreement stated that an individual or entity would be able to rent the space for no less than a week and a maximum of a month. The client would also be able to bring a maximum of 22 overnight guests or host an event with no more than 50 people in the building at one time.

Board members and nearby residents detailed a litany of fears about what the operation would do to their quiet residential street: late-night cocktail parties, noise, trash, increased traffic, limousines, mid-day drinking and, in the words of one community board member, the potential for “the most expensive bordello on the Upper West Side.”

Stephen Leonard, president of the 74 W. 68th St. co-op board, was worried that Fine Times would cater to the demands of their wealthy customers who rent the space for parties and events rather than neighbors.

“Are they really going to tell the CEO of a major corporation to lower his voice as he leaves the building at 2 a.m.?” Leonard told the community board. “It’s not hard to imagine the disruption this will create.”

David Lindsay, a commercial real estate lawyer, worried that a client and their overnight guests would start partying early in the day.

“This hotel will be rented to groups that know each other and every night at 5 o’clock, they will want to have fun,” Lindsay said. “I don’t know if I want to live next to that 365 days a year.”

But the managing director of Fine Times, Joseph Lopez, tried to highlight the strict set of rules crafted with the local block association that the company and guests would follow. If the building was simply residential, Lopez argued, a tenant could be loud and boisterous with little consequence or recourse for neighbors.

Mitch Korbin, the company’s attorney, told the community board that the set of rules for Fine Times and the West 68th Street Block Association “contains a lot of controls, for everything to hours of occupancy, to when the garbage is picked up.”

Adrienne Stortz, president of the block association, supported Fine Times’ plan because of the restorations to a currently empty building.

The proposal blindsided many opponents of the plan that attended the community board meeting. Though the proposal has been known of since April 2009 and been the subject of several community board meetings, many residents said they only found out about the project after seeing signs posted on their block for a September meeting with the block association.

“This proposal has not received significant review from the community,” said Jonathan Cohen, a resident of 80 Central Park West.

Lopez, the managing director of Fine Times, countered that the company and the block association did extensive outreach to the community.

“There was an opportunity to review this,” Lopez said.

At the end of the lengthy debate, community board members panned the project, especially after contention about how many people could rent out this space. Many board members believed Fine Times would be renting out the building to an individual client. But the agreement with the block association used the word “primarily,” which gave Fine Times wiggle room to rent out the building to more than one client at a time. Board members also believed the community needed to be informed of the plan before lending its support.

After the board rejected the proposal 29 to 4, Fine Times’ options are to retool its application and resubmit the plans to Community Board 7 or go on to the City Planning Commission.

“We’re seeing our options, including going back into making it a multiple-dwelling building,” Lopez said.

Council Member Gale Brewer reiterated her strong support of changing the Riverside Center development at the City Planning Commission’s Sept. 15 public meeting.

Brewer testified that the commission should heed the recommendations offered in a comprehensive report that Community Board 7 issued in July.

“They heard me loud and clear,” Brewer said of the commission. “I usually don’t go to the mat, but this time I’m going to.”

During the last major development on the Upper West Side to go through a public review process—the expansion of Fordham University’s Lincoln Center campus—Brewer was more cautious in comments about changes she wanted to see in that project.

This time, the community board issued a 47-page report that recommends greatly scaling Riverside Center down. The breadth and detail of the report earned Brewer’s support, which she is voicing throughout the land use review process.

“To be honest with you, most community boards don’t put this much effort into a document,” she said. “They thought of everything, that’s why I support it.”

Winning Brewer’s support is crucial for Extell’s proposal to pass the City Council, which has the ultimate binding vote. The entire Council often defers to the local member on land use issues. But Extell seemed to reject the board’s recommendations, which call for eliminating an entire building, fully funding the construction of a 150,000-square-foot school and decreasing density.

After Community Board 7 issued its report, an Extell spokesperson said board members “clearly do not recognize the difficulty in developing projects in this uniquely challenging economic environment.”

Extell echoed that sentiment when Borough President Scott Stringer suggested the developer make similar changes.

After the City Planning Commission’s public meeting, Extell spokesperson George Arzt said the developer is talking with all stakeholders to come up with a consensus on Riverside Center.

“This is a long process and we are continuing to talk to the community board and to the borough president and, of course, Gale,” Arzt said.

The City Planning Commission will vote on the proposal by the end of October.