NEW YORK STATE SENATE

NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY

NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL

MANHATTAN BOROUGH PRESIDENT

June 22, 2016

Director Carl Weisbrod
Department of City Planning
120 Broadway, 31st floor
New York, New York 10271
Re: Pre-Application Statements (PAS) for Two Bridges
Manhattan Blocks 246, 247 and 248
Dear Director Weisbrod:
We write in regard to proposed changes to an existing Large Scale Residential Development
(LSRD) within the former Two Bridges Urban Renewal Area (URA). It is our understanding
that there are currently three separate proposals to develop three sites within the LSRD. While
we understand that the Urban Renewal Plan has expired, the former URA was developed as a
Large Scale Residential Development pursuant to Article 7, Chapter 8 of the New York City
Zoning Resolution (ZR). The Two Bridges LSRD was the subject of special permit waivers,
in particular, permitting the location of buildings without regard to height and setback
regulations, and reducing the minimum distance between buildings. As these special permits
were vested when the existing buildings were developed, the land comprising the former URA
can only be further developed with new buildings if the special permits are modified.
The Department of City Planning (DCP) may elect at the staff level to process such
modifications as so-called minor modifications. Minor modifications are not subject to the
Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) and therefore would not require the review of
the Manhattan Borough President, the City Council, or the local community board.
We write to urge you, as Director of DCP, to process these applications, if filed, as major
modifications which would trigger a new ULURP action. This conclusion is the only one
we believe to be appropriate given the significance of each of the proposals individually as
described in their respective PAS, as well as cumulatively.
The findings for the original LSRD approval, pursuant to ZR Section 78-313 (Findings), required
that as a condition to the granting of a special permit that the City Planning Commission
(CPC) determine that such modifications would aid in achieving the general purposes and
intent of the chapter as set forth in ZR Section 78-01 (General Purposes). ZR Section 78-01
establishes that these purposes and intents were to facilitate better site planning and community
planning, to safeguard the present or future use and development of surrounding areas .to
enable open space in large-scale residential developments to be arranged in such a way as best to
serve active and passive recreation needs of the residents . to encourage harmonious designs

incorporating a variety of building types and variations in the siting of buildings, and thus to
promote and protect public health, safety and general welfare.
Since each of the proposed developments will necessarily have a significant impact upon the
surrounding areas, will fundamentally change the LSRD site plan by occupying the large scales
open spaces, and will irrevocably change the relationships of the existing buildings to one
another, these findings must be applied anew through a ULURP process.
ZR Section 78-313 requires that for individual waivers such as distribution of floor area, open
spaces, and locations of buildings to be granted, that such waivers result in a better site plan and
benefit to the residents of the large-scale residential development and the City as a whole. It
further provides that CPC must determine that such distribution or location will not unduly
increase the bulk of buildings, density of population, or intensity of use in any block, to the
detriment of the occupants of buildings in the block or nearby blocks. It requires CPC to
determine that such distribution or location will not affect adversely any other zoning lots outside
the large-scale residential development by restricting access to light and air or by creating traffic
congestion; and that the modification of height and setback will not impair the essential character
of the surrounding area and will not have adverse effects upon the access to light, air and privacy
of adjacent properties.
While these findings technically pertain to the existing buildings which were the subjects of the
original waivers, the proposed addition of the new buildings to the site plan would dramatically
affect the balance struck by CPC and the City Council in the grant of the original LSRD
approvals. The scale of this change requires us to re-evaluate the findings.
An additional basis for processing the proposals as major modifications is that each project,
taken alone, is likely to trigger an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). If the projects are
reviewed collectively, which we believe is legally required in order to avoid improper
segmentation, an EIS will almost certainly be required. There is precedent for the view that an
action which triggers an EIS should be subject to ULURP. The rules for major concessions, set
forth in 62 RCNY 7-03, provide in pertinent part as follows: Notwithstanding any other
provision of these rules the following shall not be considered major concessions unless an EIS is
required [emphasis added] Accordingly, if an EIS is required for any of the projects
individually or collectively, we believe that the City is further justified in applying the major
modification framework.
We firmly believe that there are strong technical and legal arguments in favor of treating these
applications as a new ULURP, but equally important, these new projects will represent the most
significant development in the Two Bridges neighborhood in over a generation. The community
at large, through the ULURP process, deserves a role in shaping its future.
We look forward to working together with the Department and the applicants to develop a
revised holistic plan for this neighborhood which acknowledges the need for our city to grow and
accommodate change but does it in a way that is responsible and with the appropriate level of
public review.

Sincerely,

Councilmember Margaret Chin

Councilmember Rosie Mendez

Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer

State Senator Daniel Squadron

State Assemblywoman Alice Cancel

Nydia M. Velazquez

Cc:
City Council Land Use Division
Manhattan Community Board 3