Comments on the Dra Environmental Impact 
Statement for ECF East 96th Proposal 
16ECF001M  
March 2007 
Marie Win eld 
 

Summary  
The ECF Co-op Tech mixed-use development proposal is out-of-character for the 
surrounding community and outside the scope of current land use policy in Community 
District 11. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement does not re ect the enormity of the 
environmental impacts this proposal would yield on the surrounding community, nor 
provide su cient mitigation for these impacts. The below timeline and comment clearly 
indicate that the DEIS would have bene tted from community input, feedback and analysis 
at the Draft Scope of Work stage. Without e ective notice to provide useful feedback, ECF’s 
current DEIS is not an adequate assessment of the ensuing environmental impacts.  

Community Engagement Timeline  
Over a year ago, on March 8, 2016, the Educational Construction Fund (ECF) contacted 
Community Board 11 to request a meeting with the Chair at the Community School District 
4 o ces on March 16, 2016. At that time, the CB11 Chair asked ECF if the committee chairs 
of Land Use and Education could be invited to the meeting. The full Board was not 
informed that this meeting took place in the monthly report. On March 24, 2016, ECF asked 
to meet with the Environment, Open Space and Parks Committee leadership. The meeting 
was scheduled for Thurs. March 31st, where both ECF and the NYC Department of Parks 
and Recreation gave an overview of the Marx Brothers Playground proposal. In April 2016, 
the larger ECF project was outlined in the media. ECF and Parks presented to the CB11 EOS 
& Parks Committee on June 9, 2016 on the Marx Brothers Playground. A public scoping 
meeting for Marx Brothers Playground was scheduled for October 24, 2016.   

1 

 

  

 

 

ECF did not present at the CB11 Land Use Committee until December 2016. At this meeting, 
ECF revealed that the environmental review process had already started. The DEIS Scoping 
meeting took place at Park East High School on June 29, 2016. ECF stated that only two 
people showed up at that meeting and that they gave notice to the CB and published in 
newspapers, such as El Diario and the NY Daily News. Written comments were due on July 
11, 2016 while the Community Board was not in session. At the December 2016 CB11 
meeting, not a single Board member on the Land Use committee could state they knew 
anything about the public scoping session. The Parks Committee was also not informed of 
the scoping meeting at the June 2016 committee meeting. Months later, CB11 held a public 
hearing at a Full Board meeting on February 21, 2017. ECF made presentations throughout 
March 2017 at various CB11 committees and at the full Board meeting.  
ECF did not inform the Environment, Open Space and Parks Committee in June that the 
public scoping would be taking place just weeks later. No matter what minimum notice 
requirements SEQRA/CEQR baseline, both the Community Board leadership and the ECF 
development team have not lived up to their responsibilities of ensuring that e ective 
notice took place. Public comment at CB11 public hearings related to the draft EIS have 
gone ignored as community members are unaware that only written feedback or comment 
at a public scoping session on the EIS will require a response by the lead agency. Neither 
ECF nor Community Board 11 has done anything to correct this misunderstanding or 
facilitate a response from the CB or any community member to the DEIS. Both the 
Community Board and ECF have ignored recommendations in the East Harlem 
Neighborhood Plan on the environmental review process for the Co-op Tech project.  
The end result has been that the entire environmental review process has been without 
signi cant feedback from the community. On Tues. March 21, 2017, CB11 voted to support 
the project with a list of “conditions” that examine none of the serious environmental 
impacts that may go unmitigated, according to the DEIS.  

 
 

2 

 

  

 

 

Chapter 2: Land Use  
Public Policy  
It is inappropriate to reference a twenty-one (21) year old 197-a plan, which was never 
adopted by the City, as a policy document to be considered for any current land use action 
in Community District 11.   
Community Board 11 develops annual statements of district needs and budget 
priorities, which are not even referenced in this section. These are the current policy 
documents that should be considered and referenced in this section. Respectfully, the 
section on the 197-a plan should be removed and replaced by analysis of the 
Community Board’s Statement of District Needs and Budget Priorities, which have 
been submitted to DCP and other city agencies, as well as the formal response by the 
Community Board to the FY ‘18 preliminary budget. Please see response to comments on 
the African Burial Ground proposal environmental review, where this change was made to the 
Final Scope of Work for the DEIS.  
With regards to the East Harlem Neighborhood Plan, the nal Plan document is not just a 
series of objectives. The EHNP developed series of recommendations under speci c topic 
areas that speci cally referenced sites in East Harlem. This site was never discussed as part 
of the EHNP because of the decision by external facilitators and consultants to designate 
the Co-op Tech site as a “pipeline” site, even though this project was only a proposal and 
had not yet been approved through ULURP. As a member of, and often the only 
community resident participating in, the Land Use and Zoning subgroup for the EHNP, I can 
personally testify that this was not a decision that came out of the community discussion or 
deliberation. Marx Brothers Playground is certainly not a site identi ed under the EHNP as 
a priority for rehabilitation. As often stated throughout community meetings, Marx 
Brothers is not often permitted by East Harlem athletic groups. As a pipeline site, the Co-op 
Tech project was referenced as if it was already a given. This section’s referencing of the 
ECF proposal as responsive to the EHNP after the fact is misleading.  
The East Harlem Neighborhood Plan gave detailed recommendations on how to provide 
an expanded environmental review process that was responsive to community input. (See 

3 

 

  

 

 

attached Environmental Impact Statement Recommendations) The ECF team has failed to 
acknowledge any of these recommendations in its plan, nor even attempt to implement a 
single one. The EHNP recommends three strategies for improving this process: providing 
scoping notices in multiple languages, with extended time for public review; providing a 
minimum of two scoping sessions (day and evening) with interpretation and childcare 
provided, with a good-faith e ort made to yer NYCHA developments; providing updates 
on environmental review on a regular basis by meeting with the Community Board and 
providing updated handouts in multiple language. ECF has failed on all three community 
engagement recommendations for the Environmental Impact Statement in the 
EHNP.  
It is very disturbing to nd an analysis of the Waterfront Revitalization Program Policies 
that seems to be focused on the views that the residents of the 68-story tower would have 
over the waterfront, instead of examining the e ect of planting a 68-story tower in the 
rest of the community. It is completely unbelievable that an analysis of this area could 
possibly nd this proposal consistent with protecting and improving the visual quality 
associated with NYC’s urban content and the historic and working waterfront. While it is 
indubitably wonderful that this project “will a ord the occupants of the new buildings an 
appreciation of the City’s waterfront setting,” it seems your paid consultants may be 
missing the point here in an intentionally obtuse way. This project puts a 68-story tower on 
Second Avenue that obstructs the rest of the community’s “appreciation of the City’s 
waterfront setting.” (See p. 2-18) 
Land Use  
There is no stated public policy that supports concentrating three high schools on one 
block. There is no existing land use in the study area that concentrates three high schools 
on one city block. This concentration of high schools on the Southern end of the district is 
not a desirable e ect of this proposal. Valid concerns about an eventual change in school 
district zoning by just one block could possibly move three high schools out of the local 
CSD. This is simply not a desirable policy to start a precedent, here in our local school 
district, on the distribution of high schools within a given district.  
 

4 

 

  

 

 

Other corrections 
There is a typo in the third paragraph: “The proposed rezoning area closes to the project 
site, Second Avenue between 104th and 112th Street…” “[C]loses” should be changed to 
“closest.”(p. 2-6)  

Chapter 3: Socioeconomic conditions  
When using CEQR criteria relating to a radius study area, it seems helpful to adjust the 
study area when large portions of the area does not fall under the study conditions. In this 
case, a large portion of the socioeconomic conditions study area is the East River. 
Decentering the study area to examine the e ects at a greater distance inland seems to 
make more sense here, regardless of whether it is known beforehand that the population 
will not meet the Step 2 criteria. (See Child Care Facilities study area map) 
The East Harlem Neighborhood Plan, in addition to providing broad objectives, provides 
detailed instructions on how to engage in supplemental environmental review that better 
gauges the true impacts on the East Harlem community. (See attached Environmental Impact 
Statement Recommendations). There are recommendations for an enhanced environmental 
review under Socioeconomic Conditions which this DEIS does not address at all.   

Chapter 4: Community Facilities and Services  
Direct Impact on School Facilities  
Without an indication of the repurposing of the Park East High School facility, there cannot 
be a useful analysis of the direct impact of concentrating 3 high school facilities on the 
same block, thereby removing two high schools from the East Harlem core. If Park East 
High School were to be sold by the city for private development, there would be a greater 
direct impact on school facility distribution in the district. To completely analyze this 
section, please require the DOE/SCA to respond with their eventual proposed use of 
the Park East High School building and attach their formal reply to your response to 
comments on the DEIS when releasing the FEIS.  
 

5 

 

  

 

 

Indirect E ects 
In Table 4-4 (p. 4-10), there is incorrect information listed for JHS 13. In the ULURP 
review for Lexington Gardens II, I identi ed incorrect information in the school facilities 
section on intermediate schools in this subdistrict. Thanks to the Manhattan Borough 
President’s o ce, consultants AKRF corrected their environmental impact statement and 
removed JHS 13 and another intermediate school from their list of schools. JHS 13 has 
been closed since June 2015. Please remove JHS 13 from the list of schools in Table 4-4 
and adjust the calculations in this section.  
The CEQR formula for school seat generation does not accurately calculate needed school 
seats in Manhattan. As shown, in the context of Lexington Gardens II by the CB11 Land Use 
Consultant, George Janes, the CEQR formula underestimates the number of school seats 
generated in upper Manhattan and overestimates the number of schools seats needed in 
the “Manhattan core.” The problems around calculating schools seat generation is certainly 
not new. Accurate school seat generation numbers appear as a recommendation in the 
EHNP (which I advocated for within the Land Use and Zoning subgroup); many e orts 
citywide are engaged on providing better demographics data and updating the CEQR 
methodology for more accurate projects. An ECF project should surely be held to a higher 
standard and go beyond the CEQR formula when projecting the number of school seats 
needed in the district. Please choose a more re ned methodology to complete the 
school seat generation analysis required in this section when completing the FEIS.  
Providing analysis that is founded on incorrect data that misrepresents our community 
diminishes the credibility of the entire analysis provided in the Environmental Impact 
Statement. Please review all DOE data provided by DCP for errors before submitting 
for a FEIS.  
Libraries 
The CEQR methodology is insu cient to capture the burden that this project will put on our 
local libraries. The 5% threshold is too high. A site visit to Aguilar library on any given day 
will show that any analysis concluding that “the proposed project would not result in a 
noticeable change in the delivery of library services” cannot be true. (See p. 4-15)  

6 

 

  

 

 

 
Chapter 5: Open Space 
On page 5-1, the DEIS states that: “the students are anticipated to only use the playground 
on the project site during the school day, and would depart from the neighborhood after 
school hours.” Please provide the data used to support this assumption.   
Table 5-3, again, indicates incorrect data or simply that the eld visits noted here were 
never done. East Harlem has been designated a Community Parks Initiative zone, 
speci cally due to the disinvestment in open space by New York City over the past 20 years. 
Some of the sites indicated in Table 5-3 have been picked as CPI sites due to poor 
conditions, which is documented by the Parks Department. Pier 107 is in no way shape or 
form in “good” condition. Up until recently, there was a huge sinkhole on the Esplanade 
directly in front of access to the Pier. Currently, Pier 107 remains closed to the public 
because the roof requires demolition. The eastern half of the Pier is completely unsafe and 
will be closed to the public after demolition of the roof structure and the pier is reopened. 
The entire pier is in danger of destabilizing less than 10 years from now and requires a 
complete rehabilitation. Please update the “Condition/Utilization” column within this 
table with either correct information from the Parks Department or with actual eld 
visits to these locations.  
The DEIS states that “[t]he private open spaces that would be created at the 7th and 61st 
oors of the building facing Second Avenue would help to serve the open space needs of 
the residents to be generated by the proposed project.” Please indicate the actual o set 
of the percentage decrease in open space in the study area expected by the private 
open spaces on the 7th and 61st oors of the residential tower.  

Chapter 6: Shadows 
Using certain criteria, such as the lack of seating or planters, in a Community Parks 
Initiative zone (of which the de nition is that the area has not had signi cant investments 
in these types of amenities), to justify the conclusion that new shadows will not have an 
e ect on the usability of the space is not an equitable metric.  
7 

 

  

 

 

The proposed residential tower is too tall. New project-generated incremental shadows 
due to this out-of-context height are not acceptable. 

Chapter 7: Historic and Cultural Resources 
Please indicate in the FEIS how the Community Board, local Council member, and 
relevant school community will be noti ed of the CPP.  
Please indicate what entity will provide monitoring of the requirements set out in 
the CPP.  
The analysis on indirect e ects and neighborhood character seem to be based on 
“alternative facts.” Surely there is a non de minimis di erence between 43 stories and 68 
stories. Please indicate why a di erence of 25 stories is seen as compatible with the 
surrounding area.  

Chapter 8: Urban Design 
Please indicate exactly what criteria were used to determine that a 760 foot building 
is compatible with buildings in the surrounding area.  
Please indicate how the “sloping topography of the area” will “somewhat lessen the 
perceived height” of a 760 foot building in east-west views. (p. 8-9) 

Chapter 9: Hazardous Materials  
Please indicate how many closed status spills are listed in the DEC database.  
Please indicate whether there will be a presentation planned for Community Boards 
8 and 11 on the Work Plan for Phase II investigations and required remediation.  

Chapter 10: Water and Sewer Infrastructure 
This section notes that “[s]peci c BMP methods will be determined for each building with 
further re nement of the building design and in consultation with DEP, but may include 
on-site stormwater detention systems such as planted rooftop spaces (“green roofs”) 

8 

 

  

 

 

and/or vaults.” (See p. 10-7) Please indicate whether there will be additional 
stormwater management infrastructure incorporated into the Marx Brothers 
Playground site and if so, what type of green infrastructure is foreseen at that 
location.  

Chapter 11: Transportation 
Please provide information on why the identi ed improvements needed for First 
Avenue and East 96th Street and Third Avenue and East 96th Street will occur 
post-construction. Looking at the crash data, it seems as if these improvements should be 
implemented even in the No Action Scenario.  
At several meetings, without correction from ECF or Avalon, Community Board members 
have stated that there is no parking on this site. The EIS clearly states that there is an “an 
option to provide up to 120 accessory parking spaces.” Please clarify whether 
ECF/Avalon plans to use the option to provide 120 accessory parking spaces and how 
many parking spaces would actually be a part of this project in the FEIS.    

Chapter 13: Climate Change 
Please indicate any additional resiliency control that will be undertaken, outside of 
the building design ood elevations.  

Chapter 15: Neighborhood Character 
The DEIS states that “[t]he preliminary neighborhood character analysis presented below 
concluded that the proposed project would not result in any signi cant adverse impacts on 
neighborhood character, and that a detailed analysis was not necessary.” Please indicate 
in further detail how it was concluded that an unprecedented 68-story, 760 foot 
building with almost 800 market-rate units on one block ts into the neighborhood 
character.  

 
 
9 

 

  

 

 

Chapters on Noise, Air Quality, Construction 
Given the ongoing litigation re: Jewish Home Life Care & Friends of PS 163, please indicate 
whether the analysis in the construction, noise and air quality sections would meet 
the standards required by the judge in that case.  

Chapter 18: Mitigation  
The DEIS speci cally identi ed 306 East 96th Street as a location that will be subject to 
noise pollution due to construction, above the recommended threshold. Since ECF and 
Avalon have no plans to mitigate this nuisance, please indicate whether ECF/Avalon 
have already reached out to the residents of this building and will be compensating 
them for the nuisance and the loss of usable balcony space during the construction 
period.  
In order to mitigate the decrease in open space ratio for Community District 11, please 
respond to the possibility of upgrading the turf at the Eugene McCabe eld to 
provide for usable alternatives to the Marx Brothers playground that are within the 
community district.  

Chapter 19: Unavoidable Adverse Impacts  
Under Transportation, the DEIS notes that “[t]he proposed project would also result in a 
signi cant adverse subway stairway impact at the S4 stairway at the 96th Street-Lexington 
Avenue station during the weekday AM peak hour. Discussions with New York City Transit 
(NYCT) are underway to identify subway mitigation needs. If no feasible mitigation 
measures are found, the identi ed signi cant adverse stairway impact would be 
unmitigated.” Please indicate why the results of possible subway mitigation measures 
were not available at the time of the DEIS publication. Please include these 
mitigation measures in the FEIS.  

 
 
10 

 

  

 

 

General Overview  
I strongly urge both Avalon Bay and the Educational Construction Fund to review their 
consultants’ work before submitting a nal EIS. The level of research and analysis in some 
of the sections of this DEIS is highly concerning.  

Statement of Individual Comment  
I am submitting this comment on my own behalf (not in relation to Community Board 11, 
my position as Vice Chair of the Environmental, Open Space and Parks Committee, 
member of the Land Use and Zoning subgroup of the East Harlem Neighborhood Plan), nor 
on behalf of any other boards or organizations that I am a liated with.  
The above comments re ect solely my personal opinions and analysis.  
Submitted on:  
Thursday, March 23, 2017 
Submitted by:  
Marie Win eld - East Harlem, New York, 10035 - win eldmm@web.de - 347.286.1336 

 

11