Background
In 1991 the city did a rezoning along the Brooklyn Botanic Garden “BBG” and placed height limits of 6/7 stories. The rational given was to protect the BBG from shadows that would harm the garden and to protect the community from tall towers, especially since 99% of the buildings are 3 to 4 stories high.
City Identified Three Soft Spots
The City identified three main areas of concern and called them soft spots A, B, and C. C was classified as the most harmful of the development sites, for it was the closest to the garden and would cast the most shadows on BBG’s green houses and conservatories
Developers Buy Land Along BBG
In 2014, developers began buying up land along the BBG. Cornell Realty brought property A, and B, and Continuum brought site C. An up rezoning (increase in building heights) attempt was made by Community Board 9 which included these areas, but due to the tremendous push back from the community, this rezoning had been stopped.
In 2018, Cornell Realty placed an application to, rezoned soft sites A and B and to pave the way for Continuum. In their application they made the claim that their project would not cause any environmental consequences, and the Department of City Planning “DCP” agreed and thus did not do an Environmental Impact Statement “EIS”.
In December 20, 2018, this zoning was passed into law.
In April 2019, members of MTOPP and others filed an lawsuit as pro se litigants (without an attorney). Their main argument was that the City failed to address the negative consequences of this development and the developer lied and misrepresented facts to avoid an environmental impacts statement “EIS”.
That case is still pending in the lower courts, Brooklyn Supreme Court, Boyd vs. Cumbo Index # 1518/19 in front of Judge Boddie.
960 Franklin Ave – Soft Site C
In the meantime, Continuum, the owners of C site, identified as 960 Franklin Ave, placed an application to change the 6/7 story height restriction. The developers listed the number of stories as 39 stories, but the height would be 483 ft., which is the equivalent of 48 stories. This is suppose to be biggest residential complex ever built in Brooklyn. Due to the tremendous change that would occur, Continuum was forced to undergo an Environmental Impact Statement.
Environmental Review Process
In March 2019, of last year, a mandatory “Scoping Hearing” was conducted where the community came out in record numbers including BBG staff, to tell the City what environmental issues the City should study for this project. The City is suppose to then take these suggestions and perform “studies” on areas on these suggestions. They do not have to perform all suggestions given to them but they must explain why they have chosen not to address an issue.
The City then conducts studies with the help of the developer, of the environmental consequences they have chosen to identify. The City is suppose to follow the guidelines of the City Environmental Quality Review manual “CEQR”, but can add other items that are not apart of this manual if the area being studied requires it.
For example, there is not provision in the CEQR, which addresses sunglare, but in the case of this development, residents and BBG staff have stated sunglare is an environmental negative consequence that should be studied. Thus the City should study its effect upon the BBG.
Once these studies are performed a “Draft EIS” is created and various government agencies are invited to review the studies performed and to give their feedback and suggestions for corrections and or approval etc.. DEP, is then suppose to implement these suggestions into their Draft EIS and then the Department of City Planning make a final determination and certifies the application.
Certified Application – ULURP Begins
Once an application is “certified”, the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, called ULURP, begins. This is a 7- month review process, where it is almost impossible to change anything within this document, despite the fact that it is suppose to be the opportunity where Community input was to be obtained. DCP has a 99% chance of getting their Draft EIS and rezoning passed once an application is certified.
Several bodies of government are suppose to weight in on this review process and make a final determination about the proposed changes. These include, Community Board, Borough President, City Planning Commission etc.
Important Information Obtained via FOIL
It has already been stated by many folks that one of the most important actions one can take is to obtain information and weigh in on the discussion before an application is certified. However, the only way a person can find out about what is happening behind closed doors is to request a Freedom of Information Law “FOIL” request to obtain the documents.
MTOPP submitted FOIL requests for all documents pertaining to 960 Franklin Ave to see what decisions have been made, what studies have already been conducted and what has been the response from the various government agencies.
In a violation of the FOIL, DCP has refused to submit the Draft EIS and the studies and their findings on these studies to us, but we were able to obtain several government agencies responses to City’s studies and their findings.
Parks Department Blasts DCP’s Findings
On December 20, 2019, Parks Department in a 13 page memorandum stated objections against New York City Department of Environmental Review Agency “ERA” and Department of City Planning’s “DCP” findings that no adverse affects will happen to the Garden.
DCP had an Arborist conduct a study of BBG and based upon those finding made the determination that no adverse affects will happen. The City has refused to give MTOPP the Aborist’s Study and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement EIS, but below are excerpts of what the Parks Department stated about DEP’s findings.
“NYC Parks has reviewed the revised Natural Resources Chapter for the 960 Franklin Avenue Rezoning EIS (“09-NatRes-960FranklinAv_Rev20190924.PDF”) as well as the Arborist Report1 dated September 20, 2019 (Appendix 4 of the EIS). NYC Parks does not agree that the information in the Natural Resources Chapter or the Arborist Report provides a basis to conclude that project-generated shadows would not lead to significant adverse impacts to natural resources.
In fact, assertions found in both the Natural Resources Chapter and the Arborist Report would indicate that the proposed project would potentially lead to a significant adverse impact to natural resources, specifically to natural resources found in the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (BBG), due to the project-generated shadows.
When discussing the potential for impacts to BBG the Natural Resources Chapter states, “the study concluded that in general there would be a potential for long‐term impacts such as reduction in flowering, turning of flowers towards light sources, and slowing of the rate of plant growth.”
Further, the Arborist Report states “The PAR readings suggest that there is reason to believe that the added shadows will have a definite effect on the high-light-demanding plants over time. As all experts agreed, there is not enough data for each species to tell ahead of time how it will react. That said, it is likely that some of the plants will be significantly affected by the reduction in available light.”
The Parks Department then goes on to state why they have these objections.
“NYC Parks is concerned that the assessment presented in the Natural Resources chapter used too narrow a focus to assess the potential for natural resources impacts to BBG and does not present a complete picture of the sunlight needs of natural resources present at BBG. As an example, the revised Natural Resources Chapter determines – using the Arborist Report as its basis – that “Based on the expert interviews, the study concluded that a minimum of 4‐6 hours of light is necessary for plant survival, and 6‐8 hours is needed during the growing season for healthy growth.” It is important to note that the next two sentences of the Arborist Report are omitted that qualify this statement by stating, “There was disagreement on this point, with some experts saying 8-10 hours is necessary. It is especially important to maximize light during the short days of the northeastern winter, so shading at that time may cause the most serious issue.”
NYC Parks does not agree with the conclusion of the Natural Resources Chapter that “Overall, while the duration of the impact is long‐term/permanent, the magnitude is relatively small effects on the productivity of well‐established plants. Therefore, the impact of additional shading is not considered a significant adverse impact under CEQR.”
“As discussed above, this conclusion ignores greenhouse areas that are used for propagation and production of new plants and would not be considered “well-established.” Moreover, it does not attempt to correlate the more specific, year-round sunlight needs of plants from various warm-weather climates of the world present in the greenhouses, including tropical and desert. Instead, the conclusions are based on general claims of sunlight availability asserted for each greenhouse area with an emphasis on sunlight availability during a “growing season” that has less relevance for plants representing different climates of the world and different year round sunlight needs.”
The Mayor Is Green Lighting This Project
Do not be deceived that because BBG and others have spoken about the negative effects to this garden that this project will not be approved. Already you have the Mayor, who’s wife wants to be our next Borough President of Brooklyn stating on radio that he supports this project.
As DCP has stated, they get their directives from the Mayor, and if he wants a project green lighted it appears that they will defy logic and their own study conclusions to make the claim that nothing is going to happen to BBG. (go to 28:00 minute mark to hear Mayor De Blasio’s approval)
However, it is now that pressure needs to be put on the Mayor and his wife, who wants to run for Borough President. It is important that we are not deceived that merely signing a petition is going to stop this project and we can’t wait for a certified application to get into high gear. The Time is now to get active and help save this public green space and the community.
What You Can Do? Come to Court
Date: February 13, 2020, 9:30 am
Location: Brooklyn Supreme Court 360 Adams Street – Rm. 366
Judge Boddie
Case Info: Boyd vs. Councilwoman Laurie Cumbo Index #1518/19
0 Comments