Less Than A Stellar Moment For Community Board 6 As Members Reject Own Land Use Committee's Recommendations And Votes To Conditionally Approve Lightstone Gowanus Project

Community Board 6 Board  October Meeting at Prospect Park Residence in Park Slope

Board Chairman Daniel Kumer

The Lightstone Group suits

Chairman of CB6's Land Use Committee

Board Member Lou Sones

Board members Debbie Scotto (with hand raised) and Judy Thompson

Last night's monthly meeting of Community Board 6 was a bizarre, badly organized affair that left many Gowanus/ Carroll Gardens residents scratching their heads and wondering about the board's integrity.

First, CB6 should have known that their monthly general meeting would be well attended. After all, on the agenda for the night was the Lightstone Group's  application for "minor modifications" to the previously approved land use actions at 363-365 Bond Street in Gowanus.
When the issue was discussed at CB6's Landmark/ Land Use Committee's public hearing on September 28th, 2012, the community had come out in force, filling an entire school auditorium and overwhelmingly spoke against it.

Yet, no provisions were made to accommodate a larger crowd. Before the meeting even started, the room set aside for the night at the Prospect Park Residence in Park Slope was filled to capacity and members of the community were stuck in the lobby, unable to go upstairs to attend.
(Perhaps if someone had asked some of the 10+ representatives of Lightstone to leave, there would have been room? Just saying...)

Board Chairperson Daniel Kumer was quick to tell everyone that no comments would be taken from the audience. He stated that there had been plenty of opportunity for the community to speak out at the Landmark/ Land Use Committee on September 28th and at a previous meeting in August.
"Most of the real work happens in the committees" he stated.

True enough. After listening to much opposition to the Lightstone project, the Committtee had passed a motion requested that New York City Planning Commission not move ahead with the Lightstone project and that it be tabled until a supplemental Environmental Impact Study (EIS) is performed.
In addition, the motion requested
*that the developer commit to the following:
* that 30 percent of the units be affordable
*that the over-all height of the building be reduced to eight stories as opposed to 12 stories.
*and that the Community Board Responsible Contractor Conditions (which include union labor) be followed.
The motion passed 14 to 3.

The same committee's motion was now in front of the full board.  It is customary for the board to follow  the  committee's recommendation, but after discussion, the motion failed to pass with 27 members voting against.  (Strangely, some members, like Lou Sones, who had voted for the motion a week before, now voted against it.  What was up with that?)

A second motion was made by board member Debbie Scotto. It stated:
Community Board 6 was to neither approve, nor disapprove the application, but to ask City Planning to renew its commitment to a rezoning study and a full EIS for the entire Gowanus Corridor.  In addition, the Board insists that any developer agree to CB6's Responsible Contractor Policy.
It failed 19 to 18.

The following motion was then made by Bob Levine and voted on by the Board:
The Community Board conditionally approves the minor modifications provided that the developer follows CB6's Responsible Contractor Policy and that City Planning starts a full scale study involving the rezoning of the Gowanus Corridor.

The non-binding recommendation passed with 27 yes votes.
 (There were 4 abstentions and 4 no votes.

It was less than a stellar moment for CB6.  Local Gowanus residents who had taken the time to understand the issue,  to attend two prior CB6 meetings on the matter and had  testified in front of the Landmark/Landuse committee were disgusted by the board's refusal to consider the recommendation of its own committee.
"What a shameful performance," someone mentioned on the way out of the meeting.

Read More

Last Night, Act Two Of City's Gowanus Alternative Clean-Up Plan Presentation

Last night was Round 2 of the City's presentation on their alternative plan for the Gowanus Canal. This time, the meeting was geared towards Gowanus-area business owners.
Cas Holloway, Chief Of Staff to NYC Deputy Mayor Skyler, again was the master of ceremony. ( How Mr. Holloway can continue to keep a straight face during these presentations is beyond me. How much salary do you suppose the city pays him to act as sacrificial lamb? Probably not enough!!!!)

I am still in South Carolina, but received accounts of the meeting from neighborhood residents who were in attendance.. Below is their great coverage.

First account:

The City finally claimed ownership of the letter they are circulating about their alternative and but it on city letterhead.

In answer to the previous evening's question, Cas Holloway indicated that no money has been spent on lobbyists to DC because municipalities can lobby and Cas has been to DC several times to lobby for the City's Alternative Superfund plan. We learned at Tuesday night's meeting that Cas is neither an engineer nor a scientist. He is, however, a former corporate litigator which for some reason he mentioned several times last night. This explains so much like why he sometimes seems to be defending client whom he knows is guilty, the word parsing, the careful delivery.

Walter Mungden and his team, who are engineers/have science backgrounds, were there and as usual Walter logically dispelled the misinformation and clarified the City's points and answers. Walter also said that the EPA has indicated in writing that the EPA sees no reason why the City cannot proceed with the flushing tunnel work. So, that avenue of threat seems to be closed for the City but I am sure they will conjure up something else. Walter also inserted a dose of reality in terms of PRP liability. The EPA's intention is not to drive viable business away and the EPA can not blood from a stone so it is unlikely they will go after someone for $100,000 if they only have $5,000.

The City had some new slides. One slide contained the fear mongering tactic that super fund would lower property values, make obtaining mortgages difficult, lead to higher interest rates for area residents, etc. He was however very careful to say that it "could" lead to these things. Deb Scotto was all too happy to jump on the fear mongering bandwagon and was a little more strident than Cas saying that super fund would just be a stigma on the neighborhood it would condemn the neighborhood and people wouldn't be able to rent their properties, renovate, refinance, or sell.

Once some of the audience members realized that if they were deemed PRPs under either plan they would have pay they became more skeptical. They also realized that litigation would probably be part of the equation under either plan. One person seemed to indicate that maybe the preferable thing to do was nothing since there didn't seem to be any health related problems caused by proximity to the canal. Cas did say that doing nothing was not an option. And of course no comprehensive health study has been done or if it has it is outdated and impossible to obtain.

Dan Wiley, from Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez's office, set the record straight regarding the use of WRDA and the viability of using that source of funding. There is a waiting list of properties for the funds, it is 50 million per year shared between all the states, you have to reapply for it every year, other areas in New York Harbor are on the list for funding but the canal is not. It doesn't sound like it is a true option. He also made a very important point - this isn't a political but a scientific decision.

It doesn't seem like there will be much difference in time frames and if I understood correctly the epa might be a little quicker. City wouldn't start for four or five years anyway. I think the City's push for support is more of stalling maneuver than a real commitment to clean the canal. My feeling is that in two or three years they will be more than happy to throw in the towel and turn it over to the EPA and in the meantime the City can use that time to get the Gowanus rezoning through. Cas did refer several times to the City's "plans" for the canal but never really indicated what those "plans" are. It would be nice if the City would clue the community in as to what the Bloomberg Administration plans for the neighborhood although I am sure we can all make a good guess.

A good portion of the audience seemed to be affiliated with Clean Gowanus Now! , GCCDC, and the CB6 Land Use Committee cabal. These meetings seem to be little more than a PR stunt orchestrated to drum up support for the City's Superfund Alternative Plan. The bottom line is that is not a popularity contest nor as Dan Wiley so rightfully noted last night is it a political decision but a scientific decision.

This is the second report sent to me by a local resident in attendance last night.

Some additions: there have been 45 sites which have used or are using the alternative plan--of these only one had multiple prps--(20 of them vs the 150 to 200 thought here) Not really sure what phase that project is in but one out of forty five suggests that alternative plans with multiple prps is not the best way to go

There were about 100 people there tonight--lots of suits- including David Von Spreckelsen, Toll Brothers V.P.---I wondered how they were all informed of the meeting but no one asked. It seemed to me that after a little while, most of the suits left a little disappointedly--maybe the initial city sales pitch sounded good but once Mugdan's calm, focused facts, combined with the plain truth that the EPA has nothing to gain or lose by choosing listing or alternative routes vs the city's "IF" (in giant flashing neon letters) plan was even too much for them to bear.

Ellen from State Senator Daniel Squadron's office, was there. She left copies of Daniel's pro Superfund statement. Both Oscar Jonas and Irene Van Slyke of Velmanette Montgomery's office were there--the senator's statement in support of Superfund was also available.

Ms. Found In Brooklyn also has a great recap of the meeting on her blog. Make sure you read it here: The Word "Superfund" Scares the City! A Recap on City's "Alternative to Superfund" Presentation.

My thanks go to my very involved neighbors who continuously attend these meetings and educate themselves on issues. I truly appreciate that they took the time to write these posts so that all Carroll Gardeners/Gowanus residents can stay informed.

Read More