THE CiiY OF NEW YORK

LAv DEPARTMEN1
MICHAEL A. CARDOZO 100 CHURCH STREET LOUISE A. MOEI)
(orpora’/on (OuflSe!
NEW YORK. NY 0007 Phone: (21 2) 788-0768
Fax: (212)791-9714
LMOED c’LAW.NYC.GO\”

June 16, 2010

The Hon. Emily Jane Goodman

New York County Supreme Court
60 Centre Street(Rm 551) by e-mail: afie1d’icourts.state.ny.us
Ne’. York, NY 10007

Re: Broadway Triangle Community Coalition v. Bloomberg

Index No. 112799/09

Your Honor:

I am one of the attorneys in the Office of the Corporation Counsel of the City of
New York who represents respondents in the above-referenced matter.

As per the Court’s urging at oral argument this past Monday. our office made a
proposal to petitioners’ attorneys of terms the City would consider offering to settle this case.
We offered a downward modification of the number of 4-bedrorn apartments acceptable to HPD
from the number in the applications made by Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Citizens’ Council to
DHCR and an extension to residents of Community District 3 of the 50% community district
preference that, by long-standing City-wide policy, is ordinarily extended only to the residents of
the district in which the development is sited. i.e., Community District 1. Petitioners’ attorneys
responded by stating that there could be no settlement unless the City agrees to change the
zoning of the area to provide for high-rise buildings, which the City has made clear in oral
argument and again in our conversations with petitioners’ counsel is not an option. given the
sound planning principles that militate in favor of mid-rise contextual zoning throughout the
outer boroughs of Nev York City. which principles are set forth in detail in the FEIS.
Petitioners also said that a settlement would depend on ithdraing control of the two sites at
issue from UJO and Ridgewood Bushwick and using an REP process to award them to other
entities. As the City made clear in oral argument, DHCR awarded federal tax credits to UJO and
Ridge\\ood Bushwick for use to build affordable housing on these to sites, and that dedicated
federal ftinding is not the City’s to redistribute in any other fashion.

In light of petitioners’ insistence on the latter two points, it is clear that no

settlement is possible. We again urge this Court to decide the pending discoerv motion
expeditiously so that the preliminary injunction application can be resolved as soon as possible.
As we stated at oral argument, the withdrawal of the federal tax credits for failure to complete
sufficient construction by the fall deadlines is a very serious concern. We further renew our
application for petitioners to post an undertaking to compensate for the increasingly likely loss of
federal funding to build the 1 81 affordable units that are directly at risk.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

Louise A. Moed
Assistant Corporation Counsel

cc: Martin Needelman, Brooklyn Legal Services Corporation A, attorney for

petitioners/plaintiffs, by e-mail: mneedelmanbkaorg

Shekar Krishnan, Brooklyn Legal Services Corporation A, attorney for

petitioners/plaintiffs, by e-mail: skrishnanbka.org