Technical and Legal Assistance to Community Organizations in the review
and comments on the 2 Bridges Environmental Impact Statement
Background/Context:
Exactly 30 years ago, in 1987, community organizations in 2 Bridges neighborhood in Lower Manhattan
led the fight to establish the measurement of secondary displacement in the EIS review (AAFE vs Koch).
Displacement remains the primary concern of the community and yet the current CEQR methodology is
unlikely to be adequate to accurately address secondary displacement since the CEQR methodology is
based on housing market assumptions from the late 1980s, well before NYC’s emergence as a rapidlygentrifying housing market.
Today three separate, essentially market rate luxury mixed use residential and commercial development
projects have been proposed by JDS, L&M, the CIM Group, and Starrett, all located within the Two
Bridges neighborhood in Lower Manhattan with construction slated to begin in 2018. In total, there will
be 3,000 new rental and condo units, 10,000 square feet of retail, and a minimum number of affordable
units—25% or 686 units. However, levels of affordability are still not clear and do not necessarily reflect
the local community AMI.
The projects are exceptional in several regards: namely; at between 725 and 1,000 feet, all will tower over
the existing built form; all will rise in a high-risk flood and storm surge zone and none are subject to the
city’s uniform land use review process because each only requires a minor modification to the existing
Large Scale Residential Development designation and otherwise can be built as-of-right. Subsequently,
as with the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn (which went through a state agency), it will not go through
ULURP, no local community board or local elected official will have a vote in the approval process, and
because little to nothing (aside from the creation of additional open space and promises of some
affordable units lacking in detail) released publicly about the projects accords with the communityinitiated and consensus-driven Chinatown Working Group Plan (Subdistrict D). While Starrett’s building
includes resiliency measures, including building above the flood plain, flood gates to protect the
storefronts, and “holding tanks to store excess storm water,” among other features, and others will likely
follow, is it not clear how these will relate to local waterfront and climate change resilience plans.
As the Department of City Planning had determined that the developments will only be minor
modifications to the Two Bridges Large Scale Residential Development zoning designation, and therefore
not be subject to full ULURP review, City Council member Margaret Chin and Manhattan Borough
President Gale Brewer persuaded the city to compel the developers to prepare a joint Environmental
Impact Statement to disclose cumulative impacts and recommend mitigations and to hire a consultant to
inform the community about the EIS process. To date, three meetings have been held with the community
and there is a website, e-mail address, and phone number that people can use to voice additional concerns
and questions. This assistance is, however, to end once the scope has been determined and is focused only
on identifying community concerns not on assisting the community with their assessment and review of
the EIS products throughout the process.
Although, given the size and complexity of the proposed developments, the community requested a delay
for scoping until September, the developers have refused, and the scoping hearing is set for April 27th and
a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) anticipated in the Fall.
Community concerns already articulated range from the impact of construction on seniors in the area and
on the potential for secondary displacement of residents and businesses, among many other issues. “The
community [has] been here for a long time, and the pressures they’re facing to leave their homes, to leave
what they’ve built here, is immense. Low-income tenants in this neighborhood need protection from
developers like you.” (Curbed, “Two Bridges residents voice anxieties over spate of new skyscrapers,”
Dec 16, 2017, Zoe Rosenberg, accessed 2/27/17.)
Goals of the Technical and Legal Assistance:
a) To assist local community organizations such as GOLES and CAAAV working with Tenants
United Fighting For the Lower East Side (TUFF-LES), to help ensure that their and the larger
public’s priorities and concerns are reflected in the Two Bridges Environmental Review;
b) To collaborate with professionals in fields, such as law, design, and housing
development, to provide the most comprehensive analysis of all of the potential impacts of the
three high density market-rate or luxury development projects currently planned for the 2
Bridges/Chinatown waterfront;
c) To highlight the benefits of measuring cumulative impacts of multiple development
projects in a single Environmental Impact Statement
d) To advocate for the inclusion of the Plan for Chinatown and Surrounding Areas and other
community based and climate change/resilience plans for the area, in the Environmental Impact
Statement as added alternatives to the build and no-build scenarios;
e) To utilize participatory action research coming from this community engagement to
highlight the limitations of the city’s current approach to measuring secondary displacement in
the official process;
f) To begin to make the legal case that the city’s environmental review process is flawed
because it substantially undercounts secondary displacement impacts and does not provide
communities, elected officials, and decision-makers with accurate information to enable genuine
assessment of impacts. This legal argument will have significant citywide implications because
all subsequent EIS’s for re-zonings designed to implement the Mayor’s Affordable Housing Plan
would be compelled to reconsider secondary displacement.
Methodology:
To achieve the stated goals of the project, we anticipate three phases of work:
1) Pre-Finalization of Scope of Work/background research:
 Prior to the scoping meeting slated for April 27th, the TA providers will review, analyze,
and summarize basic information pertaining directly to the project, and gather and synthesize
case studies from other projects and cities that will be relevant points of comparison. The TA
providers will meet with the community partners during this period to obtain further detailed
information about their approach, concerns, and objectives for participation in the full EIS
process and meet with legal experts to plan a joint approach to the review of the Draft Scope
and the Draft EIS.

TA providers will review the development proposals, the entire Draft Scope of Work, the
residents’ concerns, any existing neighborhood plans and proposals and relevant
neighborhood data.

The TA Providers will summarize the information for inclusion by the community into
scoping hearing testimony, with supporting data, documentation, and case studies. The
product for Phase I will be a brief report summarizing information on the proposed
developments and the joint EIS process plus a set of bulleted points based on a review of
the Draft Scope that can be used by for inclusion in testimony and written comments on
the Draft Scope of Work.
2) Pre-Draft EIS/focused research on secondary displacement:

Prior to the release of the Draft EIS, currently scheduled for the fall, the TA Provider(s)
will lay the groundwork for a critique of the CEQR technical manual procedures for
documenting secondary displacement.

The TA Provider(s) will develop a thorough understanding of the current process, review
EIS comments from other neighborhood re-zonings, including East New York/Cypress
Hills, Atlantic Yards, and Greenpoint Williamsburg to provide points of comparison. In
addition, the TA Provider(s) will research and synthesize methods used by other cities to
measure secondary displacement.

The TA Provider(s) will research local vulnerability to displacement, due to cost,
harassment, other pressures, and climate change impacts. In order to more accurately
assess the extent of secondary displacement the TA Provider(s) will provide an inventory
of what the current methods of calculating displacement will leave out of the scope of
examination (for example, rent stabilized or otherwise controlled, illegal measures such
as harassment, etc.).

In addition community groups will collect further anecdotal information about people
who have been displaced or who are at risk of displacement, and their fates.
3) Draft EIS Review and Commentary:
Once the Draft EIS is released, working in collaboration with the community the TA Provider(s)
will prepare written comments that the community can use to inform and supplement their work.

Written comments will be prepared by an interdisciplinary team to include: Pratt CRP
faculty and students, members of the Collective for Community Culture and the
Environment (CCCE), (already funded through a Taconic grant) and a land use, zoning
and environmental lawyer with expertise in EIS review, such as Steve Kass of Carter
Ledyard & Millburn LLP or another attorney with similar EIS expertise and an interest in
secondary displacement,

To compliment the work of the TA provider(s) students paid through the Taconic grant,
will perform research, mapping, and reporting tasks. The selected land use and
environmental attorney will, however, have primary responsibility for the DEIS review,
and Pratt faculty/CCCE members (also funded through the Taconic grant) will provide
additional review of all areas of the DEIS.

During this time, the TA Provider(s) team will meet regularly with the community
partner -at least twice—once to review the salient points of the DEIS together, and again
to identify key areas of concern for community residents, which will guide comments.

A draft of written comments will be submitted to our community partner for review, at
which time they may want to schedule an additional meeting. During this time the team
will also review the feasibility of including the consensus-driven Plan for Chinatown and
Surrounding Areas and other community plans for consideration as alternatives to the
Build and No-Build scenarios.

Citywide implications of the research will be highlighted in a memo drafted by the
lawyer and Eve Baron, with additional assistance from students and Pratt faculty/CCCE
members.
Timeline and Scope of work (plus timing of each task plus deliverables)
The work will run in parallel to the full Environmental Review process. The scoping hearing will
take place on April 27th, with the release of the DEIS in the fall and a possible public hearing in
late fall/early winter. While this is the anticipated schedule, there are various factors that can
delay the review process, including a push from the community to request additional time for
review. However, with the information available at this moment, we anticipate that the work will
commence immediately and run through the end of 2017.
Phase 1: Background research and review of Draft Scope of Work- March-May, 2017
Deliverables:
- meeting of TA Provider with community groups;
- brief written report on the project and process for use by the community
- written review of full Draft Scope including points to be used for comments on the Draft Scope.
Phase 2: Secondary displacement research - Summer 2017 Deliverables:
- meeting with community groups
- interviews with individual community members,
- written report documenting gaps in the city’s assessment of secondary displacement, including:
 maps illustrating local displacement vulnerability,
 narrative describing instances of local displacement and fear of displacement (this
component may be multi-media, skill sets permitting),
 inventory of case studies of secondary displacement assessment in other cities, and
 recommendations for revisions to NYC’s CEQR manual.
Phase 3: Draft EIS Comments - Fall and Winter 2017
Deliverables:
- 2-3 meetings with community clients and partners;
- written preliminary draft of Draft EIS comments;
- written final draft of Draft EIS comments;
- legal memo regarding inadequacy of the city’s measurement of secondary displacement.
Requested Budget for Spring 17, Summer 17, and Fall 17:
1) Land use and Environmental Lawyer with EIS expertise for DEIS Review – up to $10,000
2) Community Organizations for Administrative overhead and tenant and community organizing
to solicit comments on the Scope and DEIS
- $3,000
Total Request - up to $13,000
**Already Funded by a Taconic Fellowship Grant
1) Pratt students - $4, 000
2) Pratt Faculty/CCCE members - $2,500
3) Materials, mapping, printing, travel, refreshments: - $3,500
Incidentals to support completion of project
Total funded - $10,000