• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Introduction This memorandum is in reference to the NYC Parks Concession located at the Dyckman Marina, 348 Dyckman Street, Fort Washington Park, Manhattan. The concession has been operated since July 2012 under the name “La Marina” by the entity Manhattan River Group LLC. When the troublesome prior concession at Dyckman Marina was terminated in 2006 after a major NYPD drug bust, the community worked with the Parks Department to identify two uses that would be acceptable for the context of the site and provide opportunity for public enjoyment of the parkland in a manner that would attract investment and provide revenue. The two uses identified were for a restaurant and a marina. In 2007 the Parks Department issued a detailed RFP to this effect. After evaluating bids, a License Agreement was signed with Manhattan River Group in 2009 and reconstruction of the site was begun. However, since its opening in 2012 the Parks Department has allowed the concession to operate dramatically differently from what was initially presented to the public and subsequently approved by the Community Board. Furthermore the concession has consistently operated in violation of its License Agreement. In plain language, what was intended to be a public access restaurant, cafe and marina has become a private access nightclub and concert venue open until 1 am every summer night (even Sundays). In doing so, it has caused serious quality­of­life issues for the surrounding residential neighborhood of Inwood, most notably but not limited to traffic and noise. For three summers, residents of Inwood have brought the numerous issues relating to the operation of this concession to the attention of the Parks Department, Community Board 12, other city agencies (notably DOT and NYPD), the borough president’s office, the mayor’s office, local city councillors, state assembly members and state senators, and other officials. To date there have been no meaningful changes in the operations of the concession. Residents are frustrated by this situation, which seems to represent inequitable application of the law in their uptown neighborhood. Such a situation would never be tolerated south of 96th Street, and in fact has not been (see last year’s cancelled concert series in Tribeca). The solution being sought is to abide by the legally binding concession agreement contract documents that define this license, namely: 1) The License Agreement between Manhattan River Group, LLC and the City of New York Department of Parks & Recreation, dated June 25, 2009 (and its two minor infrastructure amendments of August 26, 2010 and March 27, 2013) 2) The Site Plan filed with the Public Design Commission dated June 28, 2011 and approved October 3, 2011. 3) The Construction Drawings filed with Small Business Services dated July 29, 2011, which received a Temporary Certificate of Completion on February 5, 2010 and a Public Assembly Certificate on March 26, 2012. These documents, developed as noted above after a long process of consultation following the closure of the previous concession in 2007, did a good job of balancing the needs of the community and the desire to operate a successful concession that would bring new investment, jobs and revenue to the area and to the city. They were all approved through the appropriate processes and should have been binding. However, the end result has in fact been grossly different. Since the signing of the original contract, Parks officials have made many verbal, undocumented, unilateral changes to the License Agreement, without input or approvals from the community or other city agencies. Other changes made by the concessionaire were simply ignored by the Parks Department. This approach by Parks led to other city agencies (NYPD, DOT, SBS, DCA, etc.) neglecting their roles and obligations in turn, thereby creating the current situation. Residents are not demanding anything more than what was originally agreed to and what the laws, rules and regulations of the City of New York allow. Many of the problems with Parks’ management of the concession are related, but they can be specifically documented as relating to the Use, Capacity, Operating Hours, Noise, Parking/Traffic, Access, Revenues, Other City Policies and Community Impact. A. Use as a Nightclub and Concert Venue The License Agreement allows for the construction, operation and maintenance of a "full­service restaurant and a lounge for the accommodation of and use by the public". The aproved Site Plans expand on this by making reference to the “Costera Restaurant” (now La Marina) and the “315 Outdoor Cafe” (now La Marina Beach). There is no mention of a nightclub or discotheque, with all of the late hours, amplified music and controlled access that such a use entails. The Use Group on the occupancy documents (related to the drawings as filed) is Use Group 6, which does not even allow for large nightclub use (Large venues with entertainment should be filed under Use Group 12, which itself is incompatible with the residential R7 zoning adjacent to the site). As per the approved Site Plans, there should be a full­service restaurant building and an outdoor cafe area with toilets. There is no depiction on the plans of a stage, modular outbuildings (for nightlife staff locker rooms), multiple barriers, or “bottle service” seating areas, and yet all of these components have existed every weekend night for three summers. Not only is a concert venue not mentioned in the approved uses, the License Agreement actually states in section 10.18 that "concerts are strictly prohibited at the Licensed Premises". And yet the Outdoor Cafe area shown on the approved Site Plan became a “beach” entertainment event venue that requires a separate admission fee. This area has since opening contained a large stage and elaborate sound system that hosts not only prominent DJ acts but live music acts from a broad selection of genres. The beach area events are ticketed and heavily promoted as concerts. Because the beach concert venue did not appear on the Site Plan, there was no Certificate of Public Assembly originally issued for the beach area in 2012 when the concession opened. In violation of FDNY regulations, with no certificate, dozens of concerts with thousands of attendees were held in the beach area that summer anyway. (A PA certificate for the beach was finally obtained in May 2013). The added nightlife uses are also reflected in the liquor licenses issued by the State Liquor Authority, which were obtained including multiple standing­service bars. This is in direct violation of the License Agreement’s requirement for only sit­down alcohol service. The fact that the concession operator received approval from the SLA for standing bars should not override the language of the license agreement, as this condition was specifically included in the License Agreement to ensure a restaurant/cafe/lounge seated use (similar to, for example, Boat Basin Cafe) and not a packed nightclub use. The increased consumption of alcohol at standing bars also contributes to the overall quality­of­life problems when patrons exit the concession. This nightclub and concert venue is not a Parks use. These uses are also incompatible with the immediate area which is zoned Residential and has extremely limited street access. These uses draw from a wide area across the tri­state region, not a local audience, exacerbating the below noted traffic issues in an area already burdened with extremely high asthma rates. There is a reason why only a Restaurant and Marina were identified as desired uses in the consultations between Parks and the community and why a Restaurant and Lounge were the only allowed uses in the License Agreement for the land part of the concession. And yet somehow a concession that was described only as a restaurant all through the RFP and construction stages has been operating with nightclub and concert uses since opening, possibly the largest such nightclub in Manhattan. (A frequent promoter of events at the concession, Pacha Nightclub, has a capacity of only 2,150 persons compared to La Marina’s claimed 3,000 person capacity.) Name­brand DJs and live music concerts occur up to four times per week during the summer, including each and every Sunday night until 1 am, with tickets available from nightlife promoters from $25 to $60 officially (and unofficially much more). The following headline appeared on wire services in July, 2014: “Rapper Fabolous was caught up in a terrifying shooting on Sunday night when a bouncer was shot at a New York City nightclub where he was partying.” It is beyond question at this point that the concession is now well­established as one of Manhattan’s most popular and infamous nightclub and concert venues. This should not be; the concession should be limited to its allowed uses and no others. B. Massive Capacity Increase The capacity of the concession is described on the filed drawings and approved Site Plan. Representatives from the Parks Department stated publicly during construction that the total capacity of the facility was 500 seats, even going as far as to announce in May 2012 that they had cut the requested capacity from the operator’s liquor license application from 1,000 seats to 500. The 2012 Public Assembly certificate for the restaurant allows for 294 patrons indoors. This is consistent with the restaurant use and the filed plans. The 2013 PA certificate for the outdoor terrace around the restaurant allows for 300 additional patrons. This is a total of 594 seats, not 500, but reasonably close to the stated capacity. However, the 2013 PA certificate for the beach concert area allows for a stunning 1,500 additional patrons, giving the facility a total capacity of 2,094 patrons.

Load more

  15

Copy Link