Draft Scope of Work

1

DOWNTOWN FAR ROCKAWAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

DRAFT SCOPE OF WORK FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

CEQR NO. 16DME010Q

ULURP NOS. pending

August 19, 2016

A. INTRODUCTION

This Draft Scope of Work (Draft Scope) outlines the technical areas to be analyzed in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Downtown Far Rockaway Redevelopment Project. The City of New York, acting through the New York City (NYC) Economic Development Corporation (EDC), is proposing a series of land use and other discretionary actions, including zoning map amendments, zoning text amendments, disposition and acquisition of property, establishment of an Urban Renewal Area (URA), and a special permit (collectively, the “Proposed Actions” as described in detail below) to implement recommendations of a comprehensive plan to redevelop and revitalize an approximately 21-block area of the Downtown Far Rockaway neighborhood of Queens, Community District 14 (see Figure 1, “Project Location” and Figure 2, “Project Area”). Within this area, the Proposed Actions are expected to result in an incremental increase over the future condition without the Proposed Actions (the “No Action condition”) of 3,027 dwelling units (DUs); 3,048,459 gross square feet [gsf]); 152,935 gsf of commercial (retail) space; and 86,947 gsf of community facility space (the “Proposed Project”). These floor area increases would occur on the following sites: the site located between the Downtown Far Rockaway-Mott Avenue A-train terminus and the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) Far Rockaway station (“the Proposed Downtown Far Rockaway URA [Proposed DFRURA or DFRURA]”); two disposition sites located on Beach 21st Street south of Mott Avenue and on Nameoke Avenue between Brunswick and Augustina Avenues (“the Disposition Sites”); and multiple projected development sites located throughout the proposed Rezoning Area (“the Projected Development Sites”). Development on the above-described sites is expected to occur by 2032 (the analysis “Build Year”). Additional floor area also could be developed on potential development sites located throughout the proposed Rezoning Area (“the Potential Development Sites”), but development on these sites would most likely occur beyond the analysis Build Year. The analysis described in this document is based on Projected Development Sites, Disposition Sites, and the proposed Downtown Far Rockaway Urban Renewal Area. Since Potential Development Sites are not expected to be redeveloped by the 2032 analysis Build Year, the program associated with these sites is not included in the projection of future project-generated development, described as the Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario (RWCDS) and the With-Action Condition, which are identical in the case of this analysis. The Proposed DFRURA, Disposition Sites,

7/20/2016

Figure 1

Project Area

Proposed Downtown Far Rockaway Urban Renewal Area (DFRURA)

Project LocationDowntown Far Rockaway Redevelopment Project

Se

rvic

e L

aye

r C

red

its: S

ou

rce

: E

sri

, D

igita

lGlo

be

, G

eo

Eye

, E

art

hsta

r G

eo

gra

ph

ics,

CN

ES

/Air

bu

s D

S,

US

DA

, U

SG

S, A

EX

, G

etm

ap

pin

g, A

ero

gri

d,

IGN

, IG

P, s

wis

sto

po,

an

d t

he

GIS

Use

r C

om

mu

nity

0 2,000 FEET

Nassau County

Que ens County

FAR ROCKAWAY

CORNAGA AVE

CENTR

AL AV

E

MOTT AVE

NA

MEO

KE S

T

NAMEOKE AVE RED

FER

N A

VE

CAFFREY

AVE

BEA

CH

CH

AN

NEL

DR

IVE

BEA

CH

12

ST

BEA

CH

22

ST

ROCKAWAY FREEWAY

HASSO

CK STB

EAC

H 1

9 S

T

LORETTARD

BRUN

SWIC

K AV

E

GATEW

AYBLV

D

PIN

SO

N S

T

DIX AVE

MC

BR

IDE

ST

CHANNING RD

BATTERY RD

AUGUSTINA A

VE

NEW HAVEN AVE

MINTON ST

WHEATLEY ST

REGINA AVE

BEA

CH

20

ST

HORTON AVE

GR

AS

SM

ERE

TER

RA

CE

NEILS

ON

ST

DINSMORE AVE

FOAM PLACE

BIRDSALL AVE

PR

ES

IDEN

T S

T

HURLEY COURT

BEAC

H 1

8 ST

CH

AN

DLE

R S

T

EVERDELL ST

SMIT

H PLA

CE

GREENWOOD COURT

BAYPORT PLACE

BEA

CH

21

ST

7/21/2

016

0 400 FEET

Figure 2

Project Area

Rezoning Area Boundary


Disposition Sites

Study Area (400-foot boundary)Project Area

Downtown Far Rockaway Redevelopment Project


2

Projected Development Sites, and Potential Development Sites are shown in Figure 3, “Project Area Components.” The Proposed Project also would provide a new public plaza space on Mott Avenue between Redfern and Central Avenues.

The Proposed Actions have been crafted as part of a comprehensive community planning process. The Downtown Far Rockaway Working Group (the Working Group) was convened in November 2015 by the Council Member representing City Council District 31 in partnership with City Hall to catalyze the revitalization of Downtown Far Rockaway. The Working Group included local elected officials and representatives from the community, business, and nonprofit sectors. With input from the public, the Working Group developed a set of recommendations to guide future public and private investment in Downtown Far Rockaway. The recommendations, delivered to Mayor de Blasio on February 1, 2016, are organized around the following goals:

Re-establish Downtown Far Rockaway as the commercial and transportation hub of the Rockaway peninsula;

Reposition the area as a mixed-use district, including new mixed-income housing;

Activate the public realm with new connections and public open space;

Improve the quality of life for residents through access to community services, education and quality jobs; and

Build the capacity of community organizations and support local businesses.

The Proposed Actions (described below) were developed as part of a comprehensive response to the recommendations of the Working Group, with the aim of transforming underutilized sites with mixed-use, transit-oriented development, and unlocking the potential for additional development throughout the proposed Rezoning Area.

The NYC Office of the Deputy Mayor for Housing and Economic Development (ODMHED), serving as lead agency, has determined that an EIS will be prepared for the Proposed Actions in conformance with City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) guidelines. The environmental analyses in the EIS will assume a development period of 15 years for the RWCDS for the Proposed Actions (i.e., analysis Build Year of 2032) and identify the cumulative impacts of other projects in areas affected by the Proposed Actions. The lead agency will conduct a coordinated review of the Proposed Actions with involved agencies (including the NYC Department of City Planning [DCP], the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development [HPD], the NYC Department of Citywide Administrative Services [DCAS]) as well as with interested agencies (including the NYC Department of Transportation [DOT], the NYC Department of Sanitation [DSNY], the NYC Department of Environmental Protection [DEP], NYC Transit [NYCT], and the Metropolitan Transit Authority [MTA]).

AREAS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED ACTIONS

The Project Area is generally bounded by Cornaga Avenue to the south; Beach 22nd Street, Beach Channel Drive and Redfern Avenue to the west and northwest; Gateway Boulevard to the southeast; and Central Avenue and Hassock Street to the east and northeast (see Figure 2). Some of the roadways within the Project Area are private streets (not mapped City streets) which are subject to public access easements. The Project Area comprises the following areas which would be directly affected by the Proposed Actions (see Figure 3 and Appendix 1 which includes a full list of the blocks and lots that would be affected by the Proposed Actions):

40

1

19

44

10

24

31

6

655

153

9

52

46

32

161

50

10

63

133

112 32

61

28

15

51

152

45

83

15

56

43

4

92

150

46

17

58

12

99

55

1

115

40

5

53

46

14

29

59

35

84

58

50

29

26

40

51

151

59

40

12

621

65

112

148

53

1

58

81

8

26

43

137

16

12

9

5

18

54

79

94

128

23

17

1

4222

47

4350

44

41

42

17

31

1

26

147

58

28

34

14

25

4

36

44

22

40

25

54

8

28

40

2257

40

13

19

1

11

7501

89

125

100

42

16

86

43

8

23

41

34

40

18

1

12

25

13

31

62

17

24

33

60

54

26

12

4

19

38

3441

23

21

9

60

71

22

30

45

130

6

1

44

45

16

42

4543

23

80

30

70

1

66

140

26

51

57

109

5

59

88

75

135

53

53

6

17

60

9

69

45

56

215

78

125

1

101

55

72

118

84

81

40

92

1

6

36

115

45

33

29

136

43

42

37

40

48

24

1

1 5 7 5 11 5 7 5 2

1 5 7 0 6

1 5 5 7 3

1 5 5 7 4

1 5 5 6 0

1 5 5 4 5

1 5 5 2 8

1 5 5 3 6

1 5 7 0 5

1 5 6 5 1

1 5 5 2 5

1 5 7 5 0

1 5 6 6 0

1 5 5 2 9

1 5 7 0 4

1 5 7 0 9

1 5 5 3 5

1 5 5 4 1

1 5 5 5 6

1 5 6 5 8

1 5 5 3 3

1 5 5 6 1

1 5 5 5 9

1 5 5 2 7

1 5 5 2 6

1 5 6 5 9

1 5 5 4 3

1 5 6 6 1

1 5 5 6 2

1 5 7 1 0

1 5 5 4 2

1 5 7 0 4

1 5 5 6 4

1 5 5 3 7

1 5 5 6 3

1 5 5 5 7

1 5 5 4 4

1 5 5 3 4

MOTT AVENUE

NA

MEO

KE

STR

EET

PIN

SO

N S

TRE

ET

RED

FER

N A

VEN

UE

CORNAGA AVENUE

CENTR

AL AV

ENUE

NAMEOKE AVENUE

ROCKAWAYFR

EEW

AY

BEAC

HC

HA

NN

EL

DR

IVE

AUGUSTI

NA AV

ENUE

BEA

CH

22

STR

EET

WHEATLEY STREET

DINSMORE AVENUE

GATEW

AY B

OULEVARD

HASSO

CK STREET

BRUN

SWIC

K AV

ENU

E

CRAWFORD COURT

DIX AVENUE

MO

RS

E CO

UR

T

SCOT

T A

GADE

LL P

LACE

NEILS

ON

STR

EET

FOAM PLACE

CHANNING ROAD

BIRDSALL AVENUE

BEA

CH

20

STR

EET BEAC

H 1

8 ST

REE

T

LORETTA ROAD

SMIT

H P

LACE

CH

AN

DLE

R S

TREE

T

BEA

CH

19

STR

EET

BAYPORT PLACE

BEA

CH

21

STR

EET

!(1

!(A

!(B

!(C

!(D

!(2

!(3

!(4

!(5

!(6!(7

!(8 !(E!(9

!(I

!(11

!(12

!(F

!(13

!(14

!(G

!(H

!(15

!(16

!(17

!(10

7/21/2

016

0 200 FEET

Figure 3

Project Area


Proposed DFRURA

Disposition Sites

Projected Development Sites

Potential Development Sites

So

urce

: N

ew Y

ork

Cit

y D

epar

tmen

t of

Fin

ance

, Ju

ly 2

01

5

Project Area ComponentsDowntown Far Rockaway Redevelopment Project

Note: Projected/Potential Site boundaries illustrate the extent of the enitre tax lots that would contribute to total development area.

Actual projected/potential development footprints may differ.

Disposition Sites:

Block 15705, Lots 59 and 69 are the DOT/MTA Disposition Site

Block 15534, Lot 70 is the DSNY Disposition Site

Draft Scope of Work

3

Rezoning Area. The Rezoning Area is the 21-block portion of the Project Area which would be rezoned to allow new residential uses and a wider range of commercial and community facility uses.

Downtown Far Rockaway Urban Renewal Area (DFRURA). The Proposed DFRURA is the approximately 13-acre portion of the Project Area north of Mott Avenue, east of Redfern Avenue and west of Central Avenue that is proposed for redevelopment by the City of New York. Parcels within the DFRURA may be acquired by the City through negotiations with property owners or through eminent domain and subsequently disposed for redevelopment with new housing, retail, community facility space, and public plaza space. The DFRURA would encourage new mixed-use development with ground-floor retail, residential uses, community facility uses, and new public plaza space on a key site within the neighborhood.

Disposition Sites. The Disposition Sites include two City-owned parcels, one of which is located at Beach 21st Street, south of Mott Avenue, and is comprised of two lots (Block 15705, Lots 59 and 69) that are under the jurisdiction of DOT and the MTA. The DOT/MTA Disposition Site is currently used as a layover area for buses and a municipal parking lot; as part of DOT’s Downtown Far Rockaway Urban Design and Streetscape Reconstruction Project, which is independent of the Proposed Project, the bus layover use will be relocated within the immediate neighborhood. The second Disposition Site, which is located at Nameoke Avenue between Brunswick and Augustina Avenues (Block 15534, Lot 70) and which is outside the Rezoning Area boundary, is under the jurisdiction of DSNY. The DSNY Disposition Site is vacant. Both of the Disposition Sites would be disposed of by sale or lease for redevelopment with housing, community facility space and/or retail space.

B. REQUIRED APPROVALS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES

The Proposed Actions include discretionary actions that are subject to review under the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) and CEQR process. The Proposed Project requires approval of several discretionary actions:

Zoning Map Amendments. The proposed Zoning Map amendments would change existing R5, R5/C1-2, R5/C2-2, C4-2, C8-1 and M1-1 districts within the Rezoning Area to R5, R5/C2-4, R6, R6/C2-4, C4-2 and C4-4 districts. All of the existing C1-2 and C2-2 commercial overlays within the Rezoning Area would be replaced or removed.

Zoning Text Amendments. The proposed text amendments to the NYC Zoning Resolution (ZR) would do the following:

‒ Establish the Special Downtown Far Rockaway District (the “Special District”) within the Rezoning Area to modify underlying zoning to require active ground floors and minimum transparency requirements at key locations along major corridors, adjust maximum permitted base and building heights to blend new development into Downtown Far Rockaway’s existing built scale, and to adjust accessory off-street parking requirements to reflect automobile ownership rates. The proposed Special District would include a Subdistrict, generally bounded by Nameoke Avenue, Mott Avenue, Central Avenue, and Redfern Avenue, that would include mandatory sidewalk widenings along designated corridors, special street wall height and setback requirements along designated street, unique maximum building heights in specified locations, and requirements for the development of a privately-owned, publically-accessible street and open space network.


4

‒ Establish the Special District as a Mandatory Inclusionary Housing Area (MIHA). The text amendment would establish the Special District as an MIHA in Appendix F of the NYC ZR.

‒ Establish a City Planning Commission (CPC) special permit to establish appropriate restrictions on Use Group 5 transient hotels in the Special District.

Disposition of Real Property. The City is seeking authority to dispose of two adjacent lots which are currently under the jurisdiction of DOT and MTA (Block 15705, Lots 59 and 69, respectively), and a site currently under the jurisdiction of DSNY (Block 15534, Lot 70), by sale or lease in accordance ULURP and City Charter Section 384(b)(4). The DSNY Disposition Site is vacant. The DOT/MTA Disposition Site is currently used as a layover area for buses and a municipal parking lot; independent of the Proposed Project, the bus layover use will be relocated within the immediate neighborhood. Disposition of the DOT/MTA Site would require the approval from the MTA Board of directors authorizing the surrender of the MTA’s leasehold interest in Block 15705, Lot 69. Both Disposition Sites would be disposed to a private developer for redevelopment via a comprehensive Request for Proposal (RFP) process led by EDC and HPD.

Establishment of the DFRURA. The City proposes the establishment of a URA for Downtown Far Rockaway. The Proposed DFRURA would provide the City with authority to dispose of (by sale or lease) City-owned property within the DFRURA for redevelopment in accordance with the Downtown Far Rockaway Urban Renewal Plan (DFRURP).

Acquisition of Real Property. To facilitate implementation of the Proposed Actions, the City may acquire certain property through a negotiated purchase or through eminent domain. Properties proposed for potential acquisition are located within the DFRURA. Any property acquired through eminent domain would be done in compliance with the provisions of the New York State Eminent Domain Procedure Law and the NYC Administrative Code.

Additionally, a number of Projected and Potential Development Sites, and portions of the DFRURA along Redfern Avenue, are built within mapped street widening lines (a common occurrence in this area). Future development on these sites assumes that property owners would follow a series of administrative actions to comply with General City Law Section 35 provisions, whereby the owners would submit an application for a GCL 35 waiver at the NYC Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA). Following this submission, the BSA would submit the application to DOT for review and approval.

The Proposed Actions are described in more detail in Section F, “Description of the Proposed Actions.” The Proposed Actions would allow new residential uses and a wider range of commercial and community facility uses, and would activate streets in the Rezoning Area with ground floor uses. The Proposed Actions would concentrate density out of the flood zone and near mass transit while maintaining consistency with existing neighborhood scale.

CITY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW (CEQR) AND SCOPING

The Proposed Actions are classified as Type I, as defined under 6 NYCRR 617.4 and 43 RCNY 6-15, and are subject to environmental review in accordance with CEQR guidelines. An Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS) was completed on August 17, 2016. A Positive Declaration, issued on August 17, 2016, established that the Proposed Actions may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, thus warranting the preparation of an EIS.

Draft Scope of Work

5

The CEQR scoping process is intended to focus the EIS on those issues that are most pertinent to the Proposed Actions. The process allows other agencies and the public a voice in framing the scope of the EIS. The scoping document sets forth the analyses and methodologies that will be utilized to prepare the EIS. During the period for scoping, those interested in reviewing the Draft Scope may do so and give their comments to the lead agency. The public, interested agencies, Queens Community District 14, and elected officials are invited to comment on the Draft Scope, either in writing or orally, at a public scoping meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 6:30 P.M. to be held at: St. John’s Episcopal Hospital, Boces Conference Room, 510 Beach 20th Street, Far Rockaway, NY 11691. Comments received during the Draft Scope’s public meeting and written comments received up to 10 days after the meeting (until Monday, October 3, 2016 at 5:00 P.M.) will be considered and incorporated as appropriate into the Final Scope of Work (Final Scope). The lead agency will oversee preparation of the Final Scope, which will incorporate all relevant comments on the Draft Scope and revise the extent or methodologies of the studies, as appropriate, in response to comments made during scoping. The Draft EIS (DEIS) will be prepared in accordance with the Final Scope.

Once the lead agency is satisfied that the DEIS is complete, the document will be made available for public review and comment. A public hearing will be held on the DEIS in conjunction with the CPC hearing on the land use applications to afford all interested parties the opportunity to submit oral and written comments. The record will remain open for 10 days after the public hearing to allow additional written comments on the DEIS. At the close of the public review period, a Final EIS (FEIS) will be prepared that will respond to all substantive comments on the DEIS, along with any revisions to the technical analyses necessary to respond to those comments. The FEIS will then be used by the decision makers to evaluate CEQR findings, which will address project impacts and proposed mitigation measures, in deciding whether to approve the requested discretionary actions, with or without modifications.

C. BACKGROUND

The Rockaway Peninsula as a whole became a popular area for seaside hotels starting in the 1830s, and its popularity grew with the coming of the LIRR’s Rockaway Beach Branch to Long Island City and Flatbush Terminal (now Atlantic Terminal). In 1898, when Far Rockaway was consolidated into the City of Greater New York, the estimated permanent population was 11,000 persons. In 1898, while not densely populated, Far Rockaway had begun to resemble the neighborhood it is today. From the late 1800s into the 1900s Far Rockaway grew as a low-density residential neighborhood, featuring other land uses such as religious facilities, a hospital, banks, and general businesses, as well as attractions such as hotels and entertainment facilities along the seaside. However, Far Rockaway lacked large-scale employers and many permanent residents had to make long daily commutes to the City’s employment centers. Many homeowners supplemented their income by renting their homes during the summer months, when the peninsula became attractive for vacationing.

In the following century, Far Rockaway would experience more rapid growth. In 1930 the population had grown to 30,000 people; by 1950, that population was 50,000. In 1956 subway service was introduced to the neighborhood. The subway encouraged industrial and commercial growth and brought middle and working class people to the Rockaways, which increased the permanent, year-round population to 79,000 by 1960. However, in the later part of the 20th century, Far Rockaway began to lose its appeal as a summertime vacation spot. As the tourism industry declined, disinvestment in other aspects of the local economy began to take hold. At the


6

time, the Lindsay Administration sited several large public housing projects in Rockaway. Public amenities and local employment opportunities were not equipped to handle the increased population, thus the cycle of disinvestment was exacerbated.

Historically, Downtown Far Rockaway’s commerce was anchored around tourism, seaside entertainment and vacation rentals. Today, Downtown Far Rockaway serves as the neighborhood’s central commercial downtown, and is anchored by the Central Avenue, Mott Avenue, and Beach 20th Street retail corridors. The commercial downtown is defined by storefronts for local-serving retail, office space, and community facilities such as the post office, public library, houses of worship and police and fire stations. However, decades of disinvestment have resulted in underperforming retail corridors as well as a lack of housing options, community services, and amenities. The area is characterized by poor pedestrian circulation and uninviting streetscapes, with little to no public open space. The Rockaways remain one of the last underdeveloped areas in all of NYC—but that is changing in large part due to the overwhelming success of Arverne By The Sea and a number of public works projects to improve roads, transportation, parks and public spaces from Breezy Point to Far Rockaway and neighborhoods in between. Although Downtown Far Rockaway presents an opportunity for transit-oriented development, revitalization has been hindered due to the large number of underutilized properties, including those located on the Proposed DFRURA.

D. EXISTING ZONING

The existing zoning within the proposed Rezoning Area is comprised of R5, C4-2, C8-1 and M1-1 districts (see Figure 4, “Existing Zoning”). The existing commercial overlays within the Rezoning Area are C1-2 and C2-2 overlays, mapped within the existing R5 districts.

R5

R5 districts are found in three locations within the Rezoning Area. They are mapped along Central Avenue, north of Nameoke Avenue, east of Augustina Avenue and west of Channing Road. An R5 district is also mapped along Mott Avenue, to the east of Beach 18th and Beach 19th Streets to Gateway Boulevard; and along Beach Channel Drive, west of Redfern Avenue and Beach 22nd Street, between Dix Avenue and just south of Mott Avenue.

The existing R5 districts are primarily comprised of attached and semi-detached multi-family houses, residential multi-family walk-up buildings, residential elevator buildings, and some institutional uses such as the PS 253 School.

R5 districts allow a variety of housing at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.25, which typically produces three-and four-story attached houses and small apartment houses. Evidence of this can be seen in the residential building along Augustina and Central Avenues. With a height limit of 40 feet, R5 districts provide a transition between lower- and higher-density neighborhoods. Above a height of 30 feet, a setback of 15 feet is required from the street wall of the building before a building can rise to the maximum permitted building height. Detached, single- and two-family houses must have two side yards that total at least 13 feet, each with a minimum width of 5 feet. Semi-detached houses need one eight-foot-wide side yard, and all other types of residences typically require two side yards, each with a width of eight feet. Front yards must be 10 feet deep or, if deeper, a minimum of 18 feet to prevent cars parked on-site from protruding onto the sidewalk. Cars may park in the side or rear yard, in the garage or in the front yard

7.21.16

Downtown Far Rockaway Redevelopment Project Figure 4Existing Zoning

Sour

ce: D

epar

tmen

t of C

ity P

lanni

ng -

Quee

ns O

ffice

Draft Scope of Work

7

within the side lot ribbon; parking is also allowed within the front yard when the lot is wider than 35 feet. Off-street parking is required for 85 percent of the DUs in the building.

On a block entirely within an R5 district, optional regulations may be used to develop infill housing in predominately built-up areas. Infill regulations may be used if at least 50 percent of the area of the block is occupied by zoning lots developed with buildings, and the lot does not exceed 1.5 acres. However, infill regulations may not be used to redevelop a lot occupied by a one- or two-family detached or semi-detached house unless the blockfront is predominantly developed with attached or multi-family housing, or commercial or manufacturing uses.

On sites that qualify for infill housing, the higher FAR of 1.65 and more relaxed parking requirements permit developments with greater bulk and more DUs than are otherwise permitted in R5 districts; infill regulations typically produce three-story buildings with three DUs and two parking spaces—one in a ground-floor garage and the other in the driveway. Infill regulations can also produce small apartment buildings.

Affordable Independent Residences for Seniors and Long-Term Care Facilities

Within R5 districts, Affordable Independent Residences for Seniors (AIRS) and Long-Term Care Facilities (LTCF) are permitted a maximum FAR of 1.95.The maximum building height for these building types is 45 feet, except that beyond 25 feet of the street line, the height may be increased to 55 feet where certain criteria are met, such as adjacency to large lots, existing tall buildings, or a preponderance of multi-family housing.

C4-2

A C4-2 district is mapped over the majority of the Rezoning Area between the previously mentioned R5 districts and C8-1 district, in the heart of the Rezoning Area. The C4-2 district is mapped along Beach 20th Street and Central Avenues, between Bayport Place and Cornaga Avenue.

The existing C4-2 district within the Rezoning Area, is primarily comprised of commercial and institutional uses. Commercial uses are concentrated along Central Avenue, Beach 20th Street and Mott Avenue. These commercial uses include local retail uses including small stores and nail and hair salons and several multi-story office buildings within the C4-2 district; for example 1931 Mott Ave, a four-story office building with ground floor commercial use. The institutional uses within the C4-2 district include the Queens Library at Far Rockaway, an FDNY Fire Station, and several places of worship.

C4 districts are intended for regional commercial centers where uses serve an area larger than a neighborhood shopping area. Developments in C4-2 districts utilizing height factor provisions are permitted residential uses with a maximum FAR of 2.43 (R6 equivalent), commercial uses with a maximum FAR of 3.4, and community facility uses with a maximum 4.8 FAR. Buildings in C4-2 districts using these regulations have no fixed height limits and building envelopes are regulated by a sky exposure plane. Residential development under the Quality Housing Program has a maximum FAR of 2.2 on narrow streets (defined as less than 75 feet wide) with a 45-foot maximum base height, and after setback, a 55-foot building height limit, and for developments along wide streets (defined as 75 feet wide or more) outside the Manhattan Core, the maximum FAR is 3.0, the maximum base height is 65 feet, and after setback the building height limit is 75 feet for buildings with qualifying ground floors (those with a ground floor at least 13 feet tall).


8

Off-street parking is required for 85 percent of the DUs1. Outside the transit zone, off-street parking is required for 25 percent of the income-restricted housing units.

Affordable Independent Residences for Seniors and Long-Term Care Facilities

Within R6 and R6 equivalent districts (C4-2), AIRS and LTCF buildings are permitted a maximum FAR is 3.9. The maximum base height is 65 feet and the maximum building height is 85 feet (8 stories). In locations where buildings are in the vicinity of transportation infrastructure like elevated rail lines, rail road right-of-ways, or expressways, the maximum building height is increased to 115 feet (11 stories) to allow for additional flexibility. Outside the transit zone, AIRS have a parking requirement of 10 percent of the total number of DUs.

C8-1

A C8-1 district can be found in the heart of Rezoning Area, generally south of Nameoke Avenue, east of both Redfern Avenue and Beach 22nd Street and north of Cornaga Avenue.

The C8-1 district within the Rezoning Area is primarily comprised of automotive related commercial and light manufacturing uses. Evidence of this can be found along Beach 21st Street, where an automotive repair shop is located. The manufacturing uses within the C8-1 district include a recycling facility, and several warehouses along Redfern Avenue (south of Nameoke Avenue). For manufacturing uses mapped within the C8-1 district, strict performance standards are imposed for certain semi-industrial uses (Use Group 11A and 16).

C8 districts bridge commercial and manufacturing uses, and provide for automotive and other heavy commercial services that often require large amounts of land. Typical uses are automobile showrooms and repair shops, warehouses, gas stations and car washes—although all commercial uses (except large, open amusements) as well as certain community facilities are permitted in C8 districts. Community facility and industrial uses can also be found along the east side of Redfern Avenue; for example, a church is located at the intersection with Birdsall Avenue and multiple industrial uses are located between Birdsall Avenue and Nameoke Avenue.

C8-1 districts allow for a commercial FAR of 1.0, and a community facility FAR of 2.40. Maximum building height is determined by a sky exposure plane beginning at a height of 30 feet, or two stories, whichever is less, above the street line. Off-street parking requirements vary with the use, but are 1 space per 300 square feet of floor area for typical commercial retail and service uses.

M1-1

An M1-1 district is mapped in the northern section of the Rezoning Area north of Nameoke Avenue along Redfern Avenue, in an area generally including a mix of low-rise commercial, storage and light industrial buildings.

M1-1 districts permit manufacturing and commercial uses with a maximum FAR of 1.0 FAR, and limited community facility uses with an FAR of 2.40. Residential uses are not permitted. Maximum building height is determined by a sky exposure plane beginning at a height of 30

1 Per ZR 25-027, in Community District 14 in the Borough of Queens, R6 and R7 Districts shall be subject

to the accessory off-street parking regulations of an R5 District, except that such requirement shall not apply to any development located within an urban renewal area established prior to August 14, 2008, or to income-restricted housing units as defined in ZR Section 12-10.

Draft Scope of Work

9

feet, or two stories, whichever is less, above the street line. Off-street parking requirements vary with the use. Community facility uses are permitted at a maximum FAR of 2.4. All industrial uses are allowed in M1 districts if the uses meet the performance standards (minimum requirements or maximum limits) set in the NYC ZR for noise, vibration, smoke, and odors. C1-2 AND C2-2 COMMERCIAL OVERLAYS

C1-1 and C2-2 are commercial overlays mapped within residential districts with high off-street parking requirements. These overlays are mapped along streets that serve local retail needs, and are found extensively throughout the city’s lower- and medium-density areas and occasionally in higher-density districts.

Typical uses found within the commercial overlays in the Rezoning Area are beauty salons, delis and dollar stores. There are some community facility uses, including the Arverne Church of God on Central Avenue (13-28 Central Avenue) and the Bethel Temple Church on Foam Place (11-03 Foam Place).

On Beach Channel Drive and Cornaga Avenue the R5 districts are mapped with C1-2 or C2-2 overlays, the result is retail such as restaurants and general retail stores located along the first floor of buildings. When mapped within an R5 district, C1-2 or C2-2 commercial overlay districts permit a commercial FAR of 1.0.

E. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTIONS

Decades of disinvestment in Downtown Far Rockaway have resulted in underperforming retail corridors as well as a lack of housing options, community services, and amenities. The area is characterized by underutilized properties, poor pedestrian circulation, uninviting streetscapes and little public open space. As previously mentioned, to catalyze the revitalization of Downtown Far Rockaway, the Working Group was convened in November 2015 by the local Council Member representing City Council District 31 in partnership with City Hall and including other local elected officials and representatives from the community, business, and nonprofit sectors. With input from the public, the Working Group developed a set of recommendations to guide future public and private investment in Downtown Far Rockaway. The recommendations, delivered to Mayor de Blasio on February 1, 2016, are organized around the following goals:

Goal 1: Re-establish Downtown Far Rockaway as the commercial and transportation hub of the Rockaway peninsula;

Goal 2: Reposition the area as a mixed-use district, including new mixed-income housing;

Goal 3: Activate the public realm with new connections and public open space;

Goal 4: Improve the quality of life for residents through access to community services, education and quality jobs; and

Goal 5: Build the capacity of community organizations and support local businesses.

The City developed the Proposed Actions as part of a comprehensive response to the Working Group’s goals and recommendations. The Proposed Actions are intended to transform the underutilized DFRURA and Disposition Sites with mixed-use, transit-oriented development and to unlock the potential for additional development throughout the Rezoning Area. The Proposed Actions would concentrate mixed-use development in one of the areas on the peninsula located out of the floodplain, with access to transit and St. John’s Episcopal Hospital—the peninsula’s


10

largest employer. By providing new auto and pedestrian access through the DFRURA, as shown in Figure 7, “Illustrative Site Plan for Proposed DFRURA and DOT/MTA Disposition Site,” the Proposed Actions would reconnect the site to the surrounding area, improving circulation. New public plaza space along Mott Avenue between Redfern and Central Avenues would create gateways to Downtown and increase pedestrian activity for local businesses.

F. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS

In order to facilitate the Proposed Project, a series of discretionary approvals are needed. The City is proposing the following actions:

ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS

The City is proposing zoning map amendments to change existing R5, R5/C1-2, R5/C2-2, C4-2, C8-1 and M1-1 districts to R5, R5/C2-4, R6, R6/C2-4, C4-2 and C4-4 districts (see Figure 5, “Proposed Zoning”). The proposed zoning districts would allow for a wider range of uses and unlock development potential throughout Downtown Far Rockaway. The proposed zoning map amendments, in combination with the proposed zoning text amendments to modify underlying zoning with a special district, would help support the redevelopment of the Downtown’s underutilized and irregular sites and enhance the vitality of existing commercial corridors while creating opportunities for a more vibrant, mixed-use community. The proposed zoning changes would concentrate density close to the downtown commercial core and mass transit, while integrating new development with the existing neighborhood scale and preserving the “village” character of Downtown Far Rockaway.

In summary, the zoning map amendment would change:

C4-2 to R5

C4-2 to R6

R5 to R6

C8-1 to R6

M1-1 to R6

R5 to C4-2

C8-1 to C4-2

C4-2 to C4-4

C8-1 to C4-4

C1-2 overlays to C2-4 overlays

C2-2 overlays to C2-4 overlays

Removal of C1-2 overlay

PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS

Proposed R5 Zoning District

An R5 district is proposed at the southern end of the Rezoning Area, along Beach 20th Street, south of Cornaga Avenue. The proposed R5 district would replace a portion of an existing C4-2 district.

8.11.16

Downtown Far Rockaway Redevelopment Project Figure 5Proposed Zoning

R6

R6

M1-1

R5

C8-1C4-4

C8-1

C8-1

C4-2

R5

R5

C4-2

C4-2

C4-2

R6

R5

R6

R6

R5

C4-2

BRUNSW

ICK AVEN

UE

DIX AVENUE

NAMEO

KE

STREET

REDFE

RN AVENUE

LORETTA ROAD

BEAC

H19

STRE

ET

MO

TTAV

ENU

E

BEACH 22 STREET

ROCKAWAY

FREEWAY

HASS OCKSTREET

BAYPORT PLACE

CHAN

DLER

STR

EET

CENTR

AL AVENUE

BEACH CHANNEL DR IVE

REGINAAVENUE

CRAWFORDCOURTGATEWAY BOULEVARD

CHANNING ROAD

EVERDELLSTREET

PINS

ON

STRE

ET

MO

RSE COU

RT

CORNAGA AVENUE

NAMEOKE AVENUE

SCOTT

A G

ADEL

L PLA

CE

MOTT AVENUE

WHEATLEY STREET

FOAMPLACE

CENTRALAVENUE

HASSOCK

STREET

BIRDSALL AVENUE

AUGUSTIN

A AVENUE

DINSMORE AVENUE

BEAC

H 18

STRE

ET

MOTT AVENUE

SMITH

PLACE

BEAC

H 20

STR

EET

BEAC

H 19

STR

EET

NEILSON STREET

BAYPORT PLACE

AUGUSTIN

A AVENUE

BEAC

H 21

STR

EET

15751

15752

15573

15574

1575015564

15563

15567

15712

15706

15652

15560

15545

15528

15501

15536

15705

15662

15651

15525

15660

15529

15704

15709

15706

15535

15541

15556

15658

15532

15533

15561

15559

15527

15526

15659

15543

15661

15562

15710

15542

15704

15537

15557

15654

15544

15534

Downtown Far Rockaway Zoning Recommendations

A

LIRR

Rezoning AreaZoning District RecommendationExisting Zoning District

Commercial Overlay Recommendations

Update Overlay to C2-4Remove Existing Overlay

DOT Muni Lot

NYCHARedfern Houses

SOUR

CE: D

epar

tmen

t of C

ity P

lann

ing

- Que

ens

Oce

Draft Scope of Work

11

R5 districts allow a variety of housing at an FAR of 1.25, which typically produces three- and four-story attached houses and small apartment houses. With a height limit of 40 feet, R5 districts provide a transition between lower- and higher-density neighborhoods. Above a height of 30 feet, a setback of 15 feet is required from the street wall of the building before a building can rise to the maximum permitted building height. Detached, single- and two-family houses must have 2 side yards that total at least 13 feet, each with a minimum width of 5 feet. Semi-detached houses need one eight-foot-wide side yard, and all other types of residences typically require two side yards, each with a width of eight feet. Front yards must be 10 feet deep or, if deeper, a minimum of 18 feet to prevent cars parked on-site from protruding onto the sidewalk. Cars may park in the side or rear yard, in the garage, or in the front yard within the side lot ribbon; parking is also allowed within the front yard when the lot is wider than 35 feet. Off-street parking is required for 85 percent of the DUs in the building.

On a block entirely within an R5 district, optional regulations may be used to develop infill housing in predominately built-up areas. Infill regulations may be used if at least 50 percent of the area of the block is occupied by zoning lots developed with buildings, and the lot does not exceed 1.5 acres. However, infill regulations may not be used to redevelop a lot occupied by a one- or two-family detached or semi-detached house unless the blockfront is predominantly developed with attached or multi-family housing, or commercial or manufacturing uses.

On sites that qualify for infill housing, the higher FAR of 1.65 and more relaxed parking requirements permit developments with greater bulk and more DUs than are otherwise permitted in R5 districts; infill regulations typically produce three-story buildings with three dwelling units and two parking spaces—one in a ground-floor garage and the other in the driveway. Infill regulations can also produce small apartment buildings.

Affordable Independent Residences for Seniors and Long-Term Care Facilities Within R5 districts, AIRS and LTCF are permitted a maximum FAR of 1.95. The maximum building height is 45 feet, except that beyond 25 feet of the street line, the height may be increased to 55 feet where certain criteria are met, such as adjacency to large lots, existing tall buildings, or a preponderance of multi-family housing.

Proposed R6 Zoning District

R6 districts are proposed to be mapped to the north of Nameoke Avenue generally between Redfern Avenue and Central Avenue, the intersection of Mott Avenue and Beach Channel Drive, along Mott Avenue generally between Beach 19th Street and Gateway Boulevard, and south of Cornaga Avenue between Beach 21st Street and Beach 19th Street. The proposed R6 district would replace the existing R5, C4-2 C8-1, and M1-1 districts.

R6 zoning districts would allow residential and community facility uses a maximum FAR of 3.0 (up to 3.6 FAR is allowed in Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) designated areas). R6 districts permit all types of housing. The minimum base height is 40 feet, and the maximum base height is 65 feet for buildings with qualifying ground floors, above which the building must be set back to a depth of at least 10 feet on a wide street and 15 feet on a narrow street. The maximum building height is 75 feet (7 stories) for buildings with qualifying ground floors. For buildings providing inclusionary housing units, the maximum height is increased to 85 feet (8 stories) for buildings with qualifying ground floors. Off-street parking is required for 85 percent


12

of DUs2, and outside the transit zone, parking is required for 25 percent of income-restricted units.

Affordable Independent Residences for Seniors and Long-Term Care Facilities AIRS and LTCF developments in R6 districts are allowed a maximum FAR of 3.9. The maximum base height is 65 feet and the maximum building height is 85 feet (8 stories) for buildings with a qualifying ground floor. Outside the transit zone, AIRS have a parking requirement of ten percent of the total number of DUs.

Proposed C4-2 Zoning District (R6 Equivalent)

The proposed C4-2 would be mapped from Mott Avenue to the north, Beach 19th Street to the east, Cornaga Avenue to the south and run along Beach 21st and Beach 22nd Streets to the west. The proposed C4-2 district would replace the existing C8-1 district.

Developments in C4-2 districts utilizing height factor provisions are permitted residential uses with a maximum FAR of 2.43 (up to 3.6 is allowed in MIH designated areas on wide streets), commercial uses with a maximum FAR of 3.4, and community facility uses with a maximum 4.8 FAR. Buildings in C4-2 districts using these regulations have no fixed height limits, and building envelopes are regulated by a sky exposure plane. Residential development under the Quality Housing Program has a maximum FAR of 2.2 on narrow streets (defined as less than 75 feet wide) with a 45-foot maximum base height, and after setback, a 55-foot building height limit, and for developments along wide streets (defined as 75 feet wide or more) outside the Manhattan Core, the maximum FAR is 3.0, the maximum base height is 65 feet, and after setback the building height limit is 75 feet for buildings with qualifying ground floors (those with a ground floor at least 13 feet tall). For buildings providing inclusionary housing units, the maximum FAR is 3.6 on a wide street and the maximum permitted height is 85 feet (8 stories) for buildings with qualifying ground floors. In locations where buildings are in the vicinity of transportation infrastructure like elevated rail lines, rail road right-of-ways, or expressways, the maximum base height is increased to 65 feet and the maximum building height is increased to 115 feet (11 stories) to allow for additional flexibility. Off-street parking is required for 85 percent of the dwelling units3. Outside the transit zone, off-street parking is required for 25 percent of the income restricted housing units.

Affordable Independent Residences for Seniors and Long-Term Care Facilities Within R6 and R6 equivalent districts (C4-2), AIRS and LTCF developments are permitted a maximum building height of 85 feet (8 stories). In locations where buildings are in the vicinity of transportation infrastructure like elevated rail lines, rail road right-of-ways, or expressways, the maximum building height is increased to 115 feet (11 stories) to allow for additional

2 As described above, in Community District 14 in the Borough of Queens, R6 and R7 Districts shall be

subject to the accessory off-street parking regulations of an R5 District, except that such requirement shall not apply to any development located within an urban renewal area established prior to August 14, 2008, or to income-restricted housing units as defined in NYC ZR Section 12-10. The proposed Special District would modify this requirement to reflect what is described here as the requirement for R6 districts

3 Per ZR 25-027, in Community District 14 in the Borough of Queens, R6 and R7 Districts shall be subject to the accessory off-street parking regulations of an R5 District, except that such requirement shall not apply to any development located within an urban renewal area established prior to August 14, 2008, or to income-restricted housing units as defined in ZR Section 12-10.

Draft Scope of Work

13

flexibility. Outside the transit zone, AIRS have a parking requirement of 10 percent of the total number of DUs.

Proposed C4-4 Zoning District (R7 Equivalent)

The proposed C4-4 district would be mapped from Nameoke Avenue to the north, Central Avenue to the east, Cornaga Avenue to the south, and Redfern Avenue to the west. The proposed C4-4 district would replace the existing C8-1 and C4-2 districts. The C4-4 district would include the DFRURA as proposed, and the western frontage of Central Avenue.

The C4-4 district would allow commercial uses an FAR of 3.4, residential uses utilizing height factor provisions a maximum FAR of 3.44 (through a residential equivalent of an R7-2 district), and community facility uses a maximum FAR of 6.5. Development utilizing the Quality Housing regulations outside of inclusionary housing areas is permitted a maximum residential FAR of 3.44 on a narrow street and up to 4.0 FAR on wide streets. Residential buildings developed under the Quality Housing regulations in MIH designated areas have an FAR of 3.6 (up to 4.6 on wide streets). For buildings providing inclusionary housing units, the maximum permitted building height is 95 feet (9 stories) for buildings with qualifying ground floors. In locations where buildings are in the vicinity of transportation infrastructure like elevated rail lines, rail road right-of-ways, or expressways, the maximum base height is increased to 75 feet and the building height is increased to 135 feet (13 stories) to allow for additional flexibility. Off-street parking is required for 85 percent of the dwelling units4. Outside the transit zone, off-street parking is required for 15 percent of the income restricted housing units.

The proposed C4-4 district allows the same commercial FAR as the existing C4-2 district; however, the FAR for community facility uses and for residential developments is greater in comparison to the C4-2 district (R6 equivalent), which permit FARs of 4.8 for community facility and 2.43 under the basic height and setback regulations for residential developments (a maximum FAR of 3.6 is allowed under IH on a wide street).

Affordable Independent Residences for Seniors and Long-Term Care Facilities AIRS and LTCF developments in R7 districts (or commercial equivalent districts such as C4-4 districts) are permitted a maximum FAR of 5.01. AIRS and LTCF buildings in R7-2 districts (and R7 commercial equivalent districts) are permitted a maximum base height of 75 feet and a maximum building height of 105 feet (10 stories) on wide streets, and 95 feet (9 stories) on narrow streets, for a building with a qualifying ground floor. In locations where buildings are in the vicinity of transportation infrastructure like elevated rail lines, rail road right-of-ways, or expressways, the maximum building height is increased to 135 feet (13 stories) to allow for additional flexibility. Outside the transit zone, AIRS have a parking requirement of 10 percent of the total number of DUs.

Proposed C2-4 Overlay District

C2-4 commercial overlay are proposed to be mapped along major commercial corridors within the Rezoning Area including: Nameoke Avenue, Central Avenue, Mott Avenue, Beach Channel Drive and Cornaga Avenue.

4 Per ZR 25-027, in Community District 14 in the Borough of Queens, R6 and R7 Districts shall be subject

to the accessory off-street parking regulations of an R5 District, except that such requirement shall not apply to any development located within an urban renewal area established prior to August 14, 2008, or to income-restricted housing units as defined in ZR Section 12-10.


14

C2-4 commercial overlay districts are typically mapped along streets that serve local retail needs and are found throughout the city’s lower- and medium-density areas. The proposed C2-4 overlay would allow an additional FAR of 1.0 when compared to the existing C2-2 and C2-2 overlay districts. When mapped in R6 districts, the proposed C2-4 overlay has a maximum commercial FAR of 2.0. The existing C1-2 and C2-2 overlay districts have an FAR of 1.0 when mapped in R5 districts. Changing the existing C1-2 and C2-2 commercial overlays to C2-4 and C2-4 commercial overlays would reduce the parking from generally one parking space per 300 sf of commercial floor area to one space per 400 sf of commercial floor area.

ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS

The proposed underlying zoning described above would be modified by proposed Zoning Text Amendments to the NYC ZR that would do the following:

Establish the Special District within the Rezoning Area to modify underlying zoning, to adjust maximum permitted base and building heights to blend new development into Downtown Far Rockaway’s existing built scale, and to adjust accessory off-street parking requirements to more closely reflect automobile ownership rates in the area. To help enliven the streetscape, active ground floor use at key locations along major corridors and minimum transparency requirements are also proposed. The proposed Special District would also adjust the maximum permitted FAR for residential development within the MIHA. Within R6 districts and their commercial equivalents in the MIHA, the maximum residential FAR is proposed to be 3.6, irrespective of whether the building has wide street or narrow street frontage. Within C4-4 districts in the MIHA, the maximum residential FAR is proposed to be 4.6, again, irrespective of the type of street frontage. These modifications would allow moderate increases in density to support the redevelopment of the area’s underutilized sites.

As described above, the maximum permitted base and building heights would be adjusted to blend new development into the existing neighborhood’s fabric. Within R6 districts and their commercial equivalent and C4-4 districts, street walls would be required. The maximum permitted street wall height is proposed to be reduced from 65 feet to 55 feet. Within C4-4 districts the maximum permitted street wall height is proposed to be reduced from 75 feet to 55 feet. To offset the proposed reductions in street wall height and to allow for greater utilization of the maximum permitted FAR, the proposed Special District would set new maximum building height limits. Within R6 districts, the maximum permitted building height is proposed to be 95 feet (9 stories). Within C4-2 districts the maximum permitted building height is proposed to be 105 feet (10 stories). Within C4-4 districts the maximum permitted building height is proposed to be 115 feet (11 stories).

Within C4-4 districts, the accessory off-street parking requirement for income-restricted DUs would increase from 15 to 25 percent. The accessory off-street parking requirement within the Special District for all other residential DUs would decrease from 85 to 50 percent. Both of these modifications are proposed to more closely reflect automobile ownership rates within the area.

Commercial and community facility off-street parking would be subject to the requirements of the C4-4 district but the off-street parking requirement would generally increase for most commercial and community facility uses from 1 space per 1,000 sf of commercial floor area to 1 space per 750 sf of commercial floor area.

The proposed Special District would also include a Subdistrict, generally bounded by Nameoke Avenue, Mott Avenue, Central Avenue, and Redfern Avenue, that would include

Draft Scope of Work

15

mandatory sidewalk widenings along designated corridors, special height and setback requirements along designated streets, unique maximum building heights in specified locations, and requirements for the development of a privately-owned, publically-accessible street and open space network.

Establish an MIHA within Queens Community District 14. The text amendment would establish the Special District as a MIHA in Appendix F of the NYC ZR.

Establish a CPC special permit to establish appropriate restrictions on Use Group 5 transient hotels in the Special District.

DISPOSITION OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY

The City is seeking disposition approval for two City-owned parcels in accordance with ULURP and City Charter Section 384(b)(4) and potentially other disposition methods. The two Disposition Sites consist of a site comprised of two lots located at Beach 21st Street south of Mott Avenue (Block 15705, Lots 59 and 69) which are under the jurisdiction of DOT and the MTA, respectively, and a site under the jurisdiction of DSNY located on the northwest corner of Augustina Avenue and Nameoke Avenue (Block 15534, Lot 70) (see Figure 3). The approximately 1.3-acre DOT/MTA Disposition Site (Block 15705, Lots 59 and 69) is located south of the Far Rockaway-Mott Avenue station at the terminus of the NYCT A-Train subway line. The site is currently used as a layover area for buses and a municipal parking lot; independent of the Proposed Project, the bus layover use will be relocated within the immediate neighborhood. The DSNY Disposition Site is vacant.

The proposed disposition would require the approval from the MTA Board of Directors authorizing the surrender of the MTA’s leasehold interest in Block 15705, Lot 69 (which is a non-discretionary action) so that the site can be developed pursuant to zoning following a competitive RFP process led by the EDC and HPD. In addition, DSNY would transfer jurisdiction for their site to DCAS to allow for it to be redeveloped pursuant to zoning following a competitive RFP process.

With the Proposed Project, the DOT/MTA site would be redeveloped with 176 DUs, 7,421 gsf of ground floor retail space, and 11,557 gsf of community facility space. The approximately 0.3-acre DSNY Site (Block 15534, Lot 70) is located just north of the DFRURA and is currently vacant. This site would be developed with new as-of-right residential uses pursuant to existing R3X zoning.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DOWNTOWN FAR ROCKAWAY URBAN RENEWAL AREA

The City proposes the establishment of the DFRURA, which is generally bounded by Nameoke Avenue and Hassock Street to the north, Mott Avenue to the south, Central Avenue and Augustina Avenue to the east, and Redfern Avenue to the west (see Figure 6, “Proposed Downtown Far Rockaway Urban Renewal Area”). Through its Urban Renewal Authority, HPD may seek to establish the DFRURA pursuant to ULURP and the New York State General Municipal Law. A Downtown Far Rockaway Urban Renewal Plan (URP) would be prepared to govern development on designated City-owned sites (or sites proposed for acquisition by the City of New York).

The DFRURA currently contains the Far Rockaway Shopping Center, which includes a grocery store and two largely vacant retail strips surrounding a large parking lot. A mix of vacant land,

BEA

CH

CH

AN

NEL

DR

IVE

NA

MEO

KE S

T

RED

FER

NAV

E

DIX AVECE

NTRAL

AVE

NAMEOKE AVE

BEA

CH

22 ST

HASSO

CK ST

MOTT AVE

WHEATLEY ST

BRUN

SWIC

K AV

E

FOAM PLACE

BIRDSALL AVE

BEA

CH

20

ST

PIN

SO

N S

T

BEAC

H 1

8 ST

BEA

CH

21

ST

SMIT

H PLA

CE

AUGUSTINA A

VE

BAYPORT PLACE

7/20/2

016

0 200 FEET

Figure 6


Proposed Downtown Far RockawayUrban Renewal Area



16

vacant buildings, single- and multi-family dwellings, automotive-related uses, a house of worship, and general service establishments occupy the remaining area within the DFRURA.

Redevelopment of the DFRURA would activate a critical underutilized site in the area with new mixed-income housing, commercial and community facility space, and new public plaza space along Mott Avenue between Redfern and Central Avenues, and would help re-establish Downtown Far Rockaway as a mixed-use hub and destination on the Rockaway Peninsula.

CITY ACQUISITION

To facilitate implementation of the Proposed Actions, the City may acquire property through a negotiated purchase or through eminent domain. Properties proposed for potential acquisition are located within the DFRURA. Any eminent domain procedure would be done in compliance with the provisions of the New York State Eminent Domain Procedure Law and the NYC Administrative Code.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS RELATED TO PROPERTIES IN MAPPED STREETS

A number of Projected and Potential Development Sites within the Rezoning Area, and portions of the DFRURA along Redfern Avenue, are built within mapped street widening lines (a common phenomenon in this area). Future development on these sites assumes that property owners would follow a series of administrative actions to comply with General City Law Section 35 provisions, whereby the owners would submit an application for a GCL 35 waiver at the BSA. Following this submission, the BSA would submit the application to DOT for review and approval.

G. FRAMEWORK FOR THE EIS ANALYSIS

The lead agency is required to take a “hard look” at the environmental impacts of proposed actions and, to the maximum extent practicable, avoid or mitigate potentially significant adverse impacts on the environment, consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations. An EIS is a comprehensive document used to systematically consider environmental effects, evaluate reasonable alternatives, and identify and mitigate, to the maximum extent practicable, any potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. The EIS provides a means for the lead and involved agencies to consider environmental factors and choose among alternatives in their decision-making processes related to a proposed action. This section outlines the conditions to be examined in the EIS.

REASONABLE WORST CASE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO (RWCDS)

In order to assess the possible effects of the Proposed Actions, a RWCDS was developed to account for existing, the future No Action condition and the future With-Action condition. For purposes of the environmental review, the Proposed Project is expected to be complete and operational by 2032, which is the Proposed Project’s Build Year. The incremental difference between the future No Action and future With-Action conditions serves as the basis for the impact analysis of the environmental review. Under the With-Action condition, the Proposed Actions are expected to result in an incremental increase over the No Action condition of 3,027 DUs; 92,431 gsf of commercial (retail) space; 86,947 gsf of community facility space; and a new public plaza space within the DFRURA.

Draft Scope of Work

17

PROPOSED DFRURA RWCDS ASSUMPTIONS

For purposes of a RWCDS, it is assumed that all existing uses on the DFRURA would be displaced, to be redeveloped with: 1,747 DUs (including 50 percent of the units as affordable); 129,077 gsf of neighborhood retail uses, including a grocery store that would be comparable in size to the existing Food Dynasty grocery store; and 36,295 gsf of community facility uses. These uses would be within eight new buildings that would front on a new street network that would connect to the surrounding street network. The proposed Special District text described above would establish the street network and include a series of design controls that would set the maximum envelope within which future development could occur. As such, the program and site plan for the DFRURA in the RWCDS describes a maximum development scenario.

Proposed DFRURA Planning Principles

The development of the DFRURA would be guided by a set of specific controls within the new Special District intended to facilitate a context-sensitive design that meets the following principles:

Establish a center to the downtown “village” by creating meaningful, lively new gathering and civic spaces along Mott Avenue that complements and strengthens the existing neighborhood;

Strengthen Downtown’s built fabric with new contextual buildings and active street frontages;

Integrate new roadways into an improved pedestrian and vehicular network with key north-south and east-west connection;

Physically and visually connect pedestrians with clear points of arrival to a variety of commercial and community services; and

Concentrate taller buildings in the middle of the site that step down to the existing neighborhood through a variety of forms to create a range of contextualized downtown development.

Street Network

The Proposed DFRURA currently forms a superblock within the heart of the Downtown, limiting the connections to the surrounding neighborhood. As part of the Proposed Project, the DFRURA would include eight separate buildings and a new street network. As illustrated in Figure 7, the proposed street grid would integrate the DFRURA with the surrounding street network, breaking up the superblock by establishing publicly-accessible north-south and east-west connections. Portions of six of the buildings would front on the new north-south connection, while one would front entirely on Central Avenue and the last would front on Redfern and Nameoke Avenues.

The new north-south oriented street would form the main axis on the DFRURA. This new street would extend through the DFRURA connecting to Nameoke Avenue on the north. At the southern end, the north-south oriented street would terminate at a traffic circle between Buildings B and C that front Mott Avenue. Two new east-west streets would directly connect the DFRURA with Redfern and Central Avenues. To achieve this, Birdsall Avenue would extend eastward through the DFRURA between Buildings D and E, intersecting with the new north-south oriented street and connecting with Bayport Place between Buildings F and H, before connecting to Central Avenue. Also from the west, Dix Avenue would be extended eastward

7.21.16

Figure 7Downtown Far Rockaway Redevelopment ProjectIllustrative Site Plan for Proposed DFRURA and DOT/MTA Disposition Site

BRUN

MO

TT AVE.

CENTRAL AVE.

BAYPORT PL.

AUGUSTINA AVE.

NAM

EOKE AVE.

BEACH 21st ST.

BAYPORT PL.

FOAM

PL.

SMITH PL.

BEACH CHANNEL DR.

DIX AVE.

BIRDSALL AVE.

REDFERN AVE.

7F

9F

12 F

12F

12F

1F

1F

4F

12F

15F

9F

9F

9F

9F

1F

15F6F

6F

6F

10F

4F

[K]

[A][A]

[C][H]

[D]

[B] [G]

[F]

[E]4F 6F

12F

9F

12F

9F

6F

4FF

12 F 1F 15F[[[[HHHHH]]]

E]]]]]]6F

9F

12F

12F

1F9F

66FFF [B]

12F9F

1F

15F6F

4F

[C]

7FFF

9F

10F

[A][A]]]]]

12F9F9F999F

4FFF

9F

6F

[F]FFFFF]12F

9FFFFFF

6F

Issued:06/29/2016Downtown Far Rockaway EIS Site Plan

Site Plan 120'

1" 120'

Church

0 120 240 FEET


18

between Buildings C and D, to the north of the existing church on Redfern Avenue, and then between Buildings B and H, terminating to the east of these buildings. These streets would also provide vehicular access to on-street and off-street parking as well as to the loading areas associated with the buildings on the DFRURA.

These new streets would visually and physically connect the DFRURA to the surrounding area, helping pedestrians and vehicles move easily through the DFRURA between the Central Avenue corridor and Redfern Avenue as well as between Mott Avenue and Nameoke Avenue. The new north-south oriented street would allow for pedestrians and vehicles to move between the A Train Station on Mott Avenue and the LIRR Station on Nameoke Avenue or to move between the Downtown area and the adjoining neighborhoods.

Active Uses

The site plan and design for the DFRURA are intended to promote a “Main Street” feeling in Downtown Far Rockaway by concentrating the majority of new retail along the portion of the north-south street closest to Mott Avenue (See Figure 8, “Illustrative Ground Floor Plan for Proposed DFRURA and DOT/MTA Disposition Site”). As shown in Figure 8, the new street network allows for active street frontages along Mott Avenue as well as along the new streets within the site by having all of the proposed buildings on the DFRURA front on either an existing street or one of the new streets. Buildings B and C would front directly on Mott Avenue and would include ground floor retail space that would open onto either Mott Avenue, Redfern Avenue, or the new north-south oriented street. The existing supermarket on the DFRURA would be relocated to the ground floor of either Building B or Building C. Continuing to the north, the six new buildings (Buildings B, C, D, E, F, H) within the DFRURA would primarily be residential but they would be built with frontages directly on the new north-south and east-west streets, Redfern Avenue, Central Avenue, or Nameoke Avenue. Along Nameoke Avenue, near the LIRR Station and the NYC Housing Authority’s (NYCHA’s) Redfern Houses, Buildings E and K would include ground floor community facility space while Building E would also include ground floor space for new retail uses. Along the Central Avenue, Building G would help to fill a gap along this key corridor with complementary ground-floor retail space.

Open Spaces

A critical component of the DFRURA’s proposed design is the integration of public spaces within the DFRURA to create a center to the “Village,” knitting together the adjacent public library, the subway station, and the other portions of the Downtown area. A new public plaza would front Buildings B and C along Mott Avenue and the plaza would continue into the DFRURA between these two buildings (See Figure 9, “Illustrative Proposed DFRURA Plaza Design,” Figure 10, “Illustrative Rendering: View from Central Plaza to Library,” and Figure 11, “Illustrative Rendering: View of Central Plaza from Subway Station”). This plaza would create a pedestrian gateway to the DFRURA between the two new buildings and would include new plantings, seating, and other street furniture, as well as opportunities for public programming that would improve streetscape conditions within the DFRURA.

Built Form

Figures 12 through 15 illustrate the RWCDS massing for the DFRURA. The proposed design would concentrate taller, denser development in the middle of the DFRURA, along the new north-south oriented street and away from the edges of the site. Furthermore, each of the buildings on the DFRURA would have a series of transitions between the lower rise portions of

7.21.16

Figure 8Downtown Far Rockaway Redevelopment Project

Church

SubwayStation

Library

LIRRStation

Issued:Down to wn Far Rockaway EIS Site PlanGround Floor Plan

0 120 240 FEET

Illustrative Ground Floor Plan for Proposed DFRURA and DOT/MTA Disposition Site

Community Facility UseCommercial (Retail) UseResidential Use

7.21.16

Figure 9Downtown Far Rockaway Redevelopment ProjectIllustrative Proposed DFRURA Plaza Design

0 40 80 FEET

MOTT AVE.


Plaza Design Parameters 40'

1" 40'

7.21.16


Illustrative Rendering:View from Central Plaza to Library

7.21.16


Illustrative Rendering:View of Central Plaza from Subway Station

7.21.16


Illustrative Rendering:View of Proposed DFRURA, Hassock Street from Redfern Avenue

(Looking South)

7.21.16



Massing Perspective (Looking North) NOT

TO SCALE

Commercial Community Facility Residential Parking

Proposed DFRURA Illustrative Rendering with Maximum Building Envelopes(Looking North)


7.21.16



Massing Perspective (Looking South) NOT

TO SCALE

Commercial Community Facility Residential Parking

Proposed DFRURA Illustrative Rendering with Maximum Building Envelopes(Looking South)


7.21.16


Illustrative Rendering: Proposed DFRURA Massing Perspective (Looking North)

Draft Scope of Work

19

the building and the maximum height, staggering the heights such that it would give the impression that the buildings on the site were developed over time. Building C and H would reach a maximum height of 15-stories (approximately 160 feet), the highest on the DFRURA. The other buildings would reach a maximum height of 12 stories. Overall, each building on the site would include a series of transitions heights of between 4, 6, and 9 stories before reaching their maximum height (See Figure 7).

In addition, by stepping building heights down, the buildings on the periphery of the DFRURA would be contextual with the existing Downtown. The portions of Buildings C, D, and E along Redfern Avenue would have a maximum height of 4 stories to match the adjacent context. The portions of Buildings B and C along Mott Avenue would have a maximum height of 6 stories. On Nameoke Avenue, Buildings E, and F and K would have a maximum height of 6 stories.

Construction on the DFRURA would occur in phases, with the final phase expected to be completed by 2032. While a phasing plan has not been finalized, it is expected that construction on the DFRURA would occur in three phases, beginning with Buildings C and B along Mott Avenue. Upon completion of these buildings, construction would commence on Buildings D, H, and G. Upon completion of these buildings, construction would commence on Buildings E, F, and K. The duration of construction for specific buildings would vary, but generally each is expected to take approximately two years to complete.

DISPOSITION SITES RWCDS ASSUMPTIONS

In the future with the Proposed Actions, the vacant City-owned parcel currently under the jurisdiction of DSNY—located at the corner of Augustina and Nameoke Avenues (Block 15534, Lot 70)—would be redeveloped as–of-right with 2, approximately 3-story (35-foot-tall) residential buildings that would include a total of 8 DUs, all of which would be affordable (8,000 gsf).

An approximately 44,000-sf portion of the City-owned site currently under the jurisdiction of DOT and MTA—located along Beach 21st Street south of Mott Avenue (Block 15705, Lots 59 and 69)—would be redeveloped with an approximately 10-story (105-foot-tall) building that would include 176 DUs (all of which would be affordable), 7,421 gsf of local ground floor retail, and 11,557 gsf of community facility space. Independent of the Proposed Project, the current bus layover use on this site will be relocated to another location within the immediate neighborhood.

REDEVELOPMENT SITE CRITERIA

In addition to development expected to occur on the DFRURA and Disposition Sites, the Proposed Actions would result in redevelopment elsewhere within the Rezoning Area. In projecting the amount and location of other new development expected to occur as a result of the Proposed Actions, several factors have been considered in identifying likely development sites. These include known development proposals, past and current development trends, and the development site criteria described below. Generally, for area-wide rezonings that create a broad range of development opportunities, new development can be expected to occur on selected, rather than all, sites within the rezoning area. The first step in establishing the development scenario was to identify those sites where new development could be reasonably expected to occur.

Projected and Potential Development Sites were initially identified based on the following criteria:


20

Lots located in areas where an increase in permitted FAR is proposed.

Lots with a total size of 10,000 sf or larger, and privately-owned vacant lots 5,000 sf or greater. Based on current market conditions, the proposed rezoning would not provide lots that are less than 10,000 sf in area (and vacant lots less than 5,000 sf) with the incremental density necessary to encourage redevelopment.

Underutilized lots (defined as vacant or lots constructed to less than or equal to half of the proposed FAR under the proposed zoning, including consideration for assemblages).

Lots with at least 50 feet of street frontage.

Potential assemblages of adjacent lots with one common owner.

Certain lots that meet the above criteria have been excluded from the scenario based on the following conditions (because they are very unlikely to be redeveloped as a result of the Proposed Rezoning):

Lots where construction is currently ongoing.

The sites of schools (public and private), libraries, government offices, medical centers, and houses of worship5, including their accessory parking. These facilities may meet the development site criteria, because they are built to less than half of the permitted floor area under the current zoning and are on larger lots. However, these facilities have not been redeveloped or expanded despite an ability to do so, and it is extremely unlikely that the increment of additional FAR permitted under the Proposed Zoning would induce redevelopment or expansion of these structures. Additionally, for government-owned properties, development and/or sale of these lots may require discretionary actions from the pertinent government agency.

Multi-unit buildings (existing individual buildings with six or more DUs are unlikely to be redeveloped because of the required relocation of tenants in rent-stabilized units).

Certain large commercial structures, such as multi-story commercial buildings. Although these sites may meet the criteria for being built to less than half of the proposed permitted floor area, they are unlikely to be redeveloped due to their current or potential profitability, the cost of demolition and redevelopment, and their location.

Lots with five or more commercial tenants would be difficult to redevelop due to long-term leases; this exemption has not been applied to lots with five or more commercial tenants with primary frontage on Mott Avenue between Beach Channel Drive and Cornaga Avenue that are currently developed to less than 0.5 FAR under existing zoning, because of their location on primary commercial corridors.

Lots whose location, highly irregular shape, or highly irregular topography would preclude or greatly limit future as-of-right development. Generally, development on highly irregular lots does not produce marketable floor space.

Lots with buildings that were developed or significantly altered since 2005.

5 This criterion does not apply to the designation of Projected Site 15 (Block 15536, Lots 12, 15, 18, 22

and 28, upon which a house of worship is currently located) as a development site because there are known plans to redevelop the site with the proposed zoning. Projected Development Site 15 would be redevelopment with an approximately 11-story mixed-use building with approximately 138 DUs (138,000 gsf of residential space), and 25,500 gsf of community facility space.

Draft Scope of Work

21

Lots that contain City, State, or Nationally listed or eligible historic resources.6

PROJECTED AND POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITES

To produce a reasonable, conservative estimate of future growth, the development sites were divided into two categories: Projected Development Sites and Potential Development Sites. The Projected Development Sites are considered more likely to be developed within the 15-year analysis period (i.e., by the 2032 Build Year). Potential Development Sites are considered less likely to be developed by the 2032 Build Year, and are assessed only for site-specific technical areas of CEQR.

Of the sites identified based on the criteria described above, Potential Development Sites were identified based on the following criteria:

Lots with slightly irregular shapes, topographies, or encumbrances such as extensive map easements.

Active businesses, which may provide unique services or are prominent, and successful neighborhood establishments that are unlikely to move.

Lots with five or more commercial tenants with their primary frontage on Mott Avenue between Beach Channel Drive and Cornaga Avenue, and that are currently developed to less than 0.5 FAR under existing zoning. As noted above, lots with five or more commercial tenants would be difficult to develop due to long-term leases; however, given their location on primary commercial corridors, it is reasonable to assume that they would be redeveloped longer-term, and therefore should be considered a Potential Development Site.

Based on the above criteria, in addition to the DFRURA and the Disposition Sites, a total of 26 development sites (17 Projected Development Sites and 9 Potential Development Sites) have been identified in the Project Area. Figure 3 shows these Projected and Potential Development Sites, as well as the DFRURA and Disposition Sites within the Project Area. Table 1, below, provides a summary of the RWCDS for development that is expected to occur by 2032, while Table 2 provides a summary of the development less likely to occur by 2032 (on Potential Development Sites). Appendix 1 includes detailed RWCDS Tables. The full build-out of the Proposed Project, which will be analyzed in the EIS, includes development projected to be completed within the 15-year analysis window by 2032 (this includes development on the DFRURA, Disposition Sites, and Projected Development Sites), but not the development anticipated to occur on Potential Development Sites.

6 Trinity Chapel, 1874 Mott Avenue, and U.S. Post Office Far Rockaway, 18-36 Mott Avenue, are listed

on the State/National Register of Historic Places (S/NR).


22

Table 1 RWCDS Assumptions

Residential

(DUs)1 Commercial/ Retail (GSF)

Community Facility (GSF)

Publicly-Accessible Open Space (SF)

Proposed DFRURA 1,747 129,077 36,295 35,669 DOT/MTA Disposition Site 176 7,421 11,557 0 DSNY Disposition Site 8 0 0 0 Projected Development Sites 1,104 107,369 44,095 0 Total Development by 2032 Build Year 3,035 243,867 91,947 35,669 Note: 1. The DUs are assumed to be 1,000 gsf, except for a few DUs within the DFRURA that are assumed to be 2,000

gsf to account for their design as townhouses.

Table 2 RWCDS for Potential Development Sites

Residential

(DUs)1 Commercial/ Retail (GSF)

Community Facility (GSF)

Publicly Accessible Open Space (SF)

Potential Development Sites 552 88,495 5,500 0 Note: 1. DUs are assumed to be 1,000 gsf.

DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO PARAMETERS

Dwelling Unit Factor

Generally, under CEQR, the number of projected DUs in apartment buildings is determined by dividing the total amount of residential floor area by 1,000 and rounding to the nearest whole number. The DFRURA would include a series of 4-story townhouses along Redfern Avenue in Building E (refer to Figure 7). Given their design, each of these townhouse units are assumed to be 2,000 gsf each.

Affordable Housing Assumptions

The Proposed Actions would support the development of new permanently affordable housing construction by mapping new zoning districts to permit residential development in areas where it is not permitted today and to increase residential density where it is permitted today. While Downtown Far Rockaway has not experienced market‐rate multifamily construction in recent years, the neighborhood is characterized by a number of underutilized sites with capacity for significant growth. Zoning changes to allow residential development at higher densities would facilitate the construction of new permanently affordable housing development. For the immediate future, it is anticipated that new multifamily development would resemble recent multifamily development in the broader area, which has generally utilized public subsidy and has been affordable to low‐income households.

It is expected that a variety of City and State financing programs for affordable housing would result in the creation of a substantial amount of affordable housing within the Project Area under the Proposed Actions. Included among the Proposed Actions is the designation of an MIH area which would require that new residential developments include an affordable component. The MIH requirement that a percentage of housing units developed under a Proposed Action remain permanently affordable can ensure that new development will address the needs of residents at lower income levels, even in the event that local housing market conditions change.

Draft Scope of Work

23

While it is possible that by the time of the 2032 Build Year, changes in the housing market and government subsidies may result in non-subsidized multifamily development occurring, the MIH program would ensure that a substantial amount of new housing would be permanently affordable to low- to moderate-income households. The MIH program includes two primary options for set-aside percentages with different affordability levels. One option would require 25 percent of residential floor area to be for affordable housing units for residents with incomes averaging 60 percent of the area median income (AMI) (with 10 percent of the floor area affordable at 40 percent AMI), and the second would require 30 percent of residential floor area to be for affordable housing units for residents with incomes averaging 80 percent of AMI.

In combination with these options, two other options may be utilized. A “Deep Affordability Option” may be utilized under which 20 percent of residential floor area must be affordable housing units affordable to households with income at a weighted average of 40 percent of AMI. Also, a “Workforce Option” may also be utilized providing 30 percent of residential floor area must be affordable housing units affordable to households with income at a weighted average of 115 percent, with 5 percent of residential floor area must be affordable housing units affordable to households with income at an income band of 70 percent of AMI and another 5 percent of residential floor area must be affordable housing units affordable to households with income at an income band of 90 percent of AMI. No public funding may be used for MIH development utilizing the Deep Affordability Option or the Workforce Option.

At this time, it has not been determined which of the MIH options would be applicable within the Project Area. The option will be determined through the public review process. Therefore, each environmental impact category will utilize whichever of the two primary MIH options would provide the more conservative basis for its specific analysis.

For the city-owned sites, it is assumed that 50 percent of the future DUs would be affordable. The total number of affordable DUs assumed on the city-owned sites (874 for the DFRURA and 184 for Disposition Sites) was estimated based on known development proposals, past and current development trends, the City, State, and Federal programs that support the construction of affordable housing, the proposals in Housing New York, the Mayor’s 10‐year housing plan, that aim to significantly increase the amount of affordable housing created and preserved in the five boroughs, and the City’s specific commitments to providing affordable housing in Downtown Far Rockaway.

FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTIONS

In the future without the Proposed Actions (the No Action condition), the DFRURA, Disposition Sites, and Projected Development Sites are assumed to remain unchanged from existing conditions (see Table 3).7

7 While some development sites—particularly those that are vacant, occupied by vacant buildings, or

occupied by low intensity uses—could in the No Action condition become occupied by uses that are as-of-right under existing zoning, for purposes of a conservative environmental assessment it is assumed that these sites would remain unchanged.


24

Table 3 No Action Condition

DFRURA, Disposition Sites and Projected Development Sites Use Existing Condition No Action Condition

Residential (Units) 8 8 Retail (GSF) 90,932 90,932 Community Facility (GSF) 5,000 5,000 Open Space (SF) 0 0 Vacant Land1 (SF) 334,634 334,634 Note: 1. Includes undeveloped lots, and auto-related vacant lots. Sources: mapPLUTO 15v1 and AKRF, Inc.

However, some moderate levels of development are expected on six sites within the Project Area:

1. At 11-38 Foam Place (Block 15545, Lot 19), a seven-unit residential building is planned8;

2. At 18-31 Mott Avenue (Block 15560, Lot 30), an approximately 5,236-gsf commercial building is planned9;

3. At 16-37 Central Avenue (Block 15559, Lot 25) the Far Rockaway Public Library is slated for expansion;

4. At 15-26 Central Avenue (Block 15537, Lot 137) an open area behind the existing charter school for middle school students will be redeveloped as a play area for the school;

5. At 15-28 Central Avenue (Block 15537, Lot 133), the vacant building fronting Central Avenue will be demolished and redeveloped as a charter school for primary and intermediate school students, and the vacant building at the rear of the lot will be rehabilitated to be part of the charter school campus, containing a mix of classroom and administrative space.

6. As part of the Downtown Far Rockaway Urban Design and Streetscape Reconstruction Project (described below), an approximately 14,000-sf area of City-owned property (on Block 15705, Lot 59) immediately north of the DOT/MTA Disposition Site—currently under the jurisdiction of DOT—will be improved with a new public plaza, and the existing slip lane at Mott and Central Avenues will be closed and converted to a public plaza.

The No Action condition also assumes that the Downtown Far Rockaway Urban Design and Streetscape Reconstruction Project10 will be completed by the 2032 build year. The project, undertaken by DOT, in a priority Vision Zero location, is aimed at enhancing the public realm by implementing a comprehensive urban design plan and streetscape improvements that will encourage a safer, more inviting pedestrian experience while employing sustainable, energy-efficient and visually-appealing street design elements. Downtown Far Rockaway’s current and potential role in serving as a transit hub for Downtown Far Rockaway and peninsula is a key component of the area’s revitalization and design plan. The project will include full street reconstruction in conjunction with

8 Based on Department of Buildings (“DOB”) Building Information System. 9 Ibid. 10 DDC Capital Project Nos. SANDR02, HWQ1079 and SE-830.

Draft Scope of Work

25

new DEP storm and sanitary sewers,11 new curbs, sidewalks and expanded pedestrian spaces throughout the downtown. While the project is expected to address maintenance and safety concerns in the study area, improvements will be limited to the area generally bounded by Cornaga Avenue to the south and east, Beach Channel Drive to the west, and Foam Place to the north. Preliminary design is expected to be completed by Summer 2016.

FUTURE WITH THE PROPOSED ACTIONS

As shown in Table 4, the full build-out of the Proposed Project includes development projected to be completed within the 15-year analysis window by 2032 (this includes development on the Proposed DFRURA, Disposition Sites, and Projected Development Sites). Since Potential Development Sites are not expected to be redeveloped under the Proposed Actions, the program associated with these sites is not included in the projection of future project-generated development. The full build-out under the RWCDS is assumed to include: 3,035 DUs; 243,867 gsf of commercial space; and 91,947 gsf of community facility space. The Proposed Project also would provide a new public plaza along Mott Avenue on the DFRURA.

Table 4 Development Program for Analysis

With-Action Condition

Use Proposed DFRURA

Disposition Sites

Projected Development

Sites Total With-Action Condition Residential (DUs)1 1,747 184 1,104 3,035 Commercial/Retail (GSF) 129,077 7,421 107,369 243,867 Community Facility (GSF) 36,295 11,557 44,095 91,947 Open Space (SF) 35,669 0 0 35,669 Notes: 1. Assumes 1,000 gsf per DU, except for a few DUs within the DFRURA that are assumed to be

2,000 gsf to account for their design as townhouses. Sources: mapPLUTO 15v1 and AKRF, Inc.

The analysis assumptions for the No Action condition, With-Action condition, and increment for analysis are summarized below in Table 5.

Table 5 Comparison of No Action and With-Action Conditions

Proposed DFRURA, Disposition Sites and Projected Development Sites Uses No Action Condition With-Action Condition Increment for Analysis

Residential (DUs) 8 3,035 3,027 Retail (GSF) 90,932 243,867 152,935 Community Facility (GSF) 5,000 91,947 86,947 Vacant1 (GSF) 334,634 0 (334,634) Open Space (SF) 0 35,669 35,669 Note: 1. Includes undeveloped lots, and auto-related uses with no build structures. Sources: mapPLUTO 15v1 and AKRF, Inc. 11 As described below in Section H, Task 11, “Water and Sewer Infrastructure,” any capital improvements

to the sanitary and stormwater conveyance system that may be necessary to support the Proposed Project in addition to the new DEP storm and sanitary sewer upgrades will be identified in coordination with DEP and described in the EIS.


26

H. PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE EIS

ODMHED as lead agency in the environmental review determined that the Proposed Actions have the potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts and, therefore, pursuant to CEQR procedures, issued a positive declaration requiring that an EIS will be prepared for the Proposed Actions that will analyze all technical areas of concern. The EIS will be prepared in conformance with all applicable laws and regulations, including the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)(Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law) and its implementing regulations found at 6 NYCRR Park 617, NYC Executive Order No. 91 of 1977, as amended, and the Rules and Procedure for CEQR, found at Title 62, Chapter 5 of the Rules of the City of New York.

The EIS, following the guidelines of the CEQR Technical Manual, will contain:

A description of the Proposed Actions, the Proposed DFRURA, Disposition Sites, and the Projected and Potential Development Sites and the environmental setting;

A statement of the environmental impacts of the Proposed Actions, including their short- and long-term effects and typical associated environmental effects;

An identification of any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the Proposed Actions are implemented;

A discussion of reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Actions;

A discussion of any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the Proposed Actions should they be implemented; and

A description of mitigation measures proposed to eliminate or minimize any significant adverse environmental impacts.

As noted above, the EIS will analyze the RWCDS for the DFRURA, Disposition Sites, and Projected Development Sites for all technical areas of concern, and also will evaluate the effects of the Potential Development Sites for site-specific effects such as archaeology, shadows, hazardous materials, air quality, and noise. The specific technical areas to be included in the EIS, as well as their respective tasks and methodologies, are described below.

TASK 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

As the first chapter of the EIS, the Project Description will introduce the reader to the Proposed Actions and set the context in which to assess impacts. This chapter is the key to understanding the Proposed Actions and their impact and gives the public and decision makers a base from which to evaluate the Proposed Actions. The chapter will include the following:

An introduction to the background and history of the Project Area;

A description of the Proposed Actions;

A statement of the public purpose and need for the Proposed Actions, and key planning considerations that have shaped the proposal;

A description of the analysis framework for the environmental review, including a discussion of the No Action condition and the Build Year for analysis;

A detailed description of the Proposed Project, including both the No Action condition and the With-Action condition;

A description of the design of the Proposed Project with supporting figures;

Draft Scope of Work

27

A discussion of the approvals required, procedures to be followed, the role of the EIS in the process, and its relationship to any other approvals.

In addition, the Project Description chapter will summarize the RWCDS for analysis in the EIS. The section on approval procedure will explain the ULURP, zoning text amendment, and URP processes, their timing, and hearings before the Community Board, the Borough President’s Office, the CPC, and the New York City Council. The role of the EIS as a full disclosure document to aid in decision-making will be identified and its relationship to the discretionary approvals and the public hearings will be described.

TASK 2: LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY

Under CEQR, a land use analysis characterizes the uses and development trends in the area that may be affected by a Proposed Project, describes the public policies that guide development, and determines whether a Proposed Project is compatible with those conditions and policies or whether it may affect them. In addition to considering the Proposed Project’s effects in terms of land use compatibility and trends in zoning and public policy, this chapter will also provide a baseline for other analyses.

The land use chapter will provide the following:

A brief development history of the Rezoning Area and the study area. The study area will focus on the Rezoning Area and the area within 400-feet of the Rezoning Area; this is the area with the greatest potential to experience possible impacts related to land use. Additional consideration will also be given to a secondary study area (approximately ¼-miles from the Project Area), see Figure 16, “Land Use.”

Describe conditions in the study area, including existing uses and the current zoning.

Describe predominant land use patterns in the study area, including recent development trends and zoning changes.

Summarize other public policies that may apply to the Project Area and study area, including any formal neighborhood or community plans, the NYC Waterfront Revitalization Program (WRP) as revised by the City in 2013, the Jamaica Bay Watershed Protection Plan, Vision 2020 New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan, and One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City.

List other projects expected to be built in the study area that would be completed by the 2032 analysis year. Describe the effects of these projects on land use patterns and development trends. Also, describe any pending zoning actions or other public policy actions that could affect land use patterns and trends in the study area.

Describe the Proposed Actions and provide an assessment of the impacts of the Proposed Project on land use and land use trends, zoning, and public policy.

Consider the effects of the Proposed Project related to issues of compatibility with surrounding land use, consistency with public policy initiatives, and the effect on development trends and conditions in the area.

If necessary, mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potential significant adverse impacts will be identified.

BRUN

SWIC

K AV

E

CAFFREY

AVE

CENTR

AL AV

E

MOTT AVE

BEACH CHANNEL DRIVE

NA

MEO

KE S

T

NAMEOKE AVE RED

FER

N A

VE

CORNAGA AVE

BEA

CH

12

ST

PIN

SO

N S

T

BEA

CH

22

ST

BEA

CH

19

ST

GATEW

AY BLV

D

ROCKAWAY FREEWAY

HASSO

CK ST

LORETTARD

GIP

SO

N S

T

DIX AVE

MC

BR

IDE

ST

BEA

CH

20

ST

CRAWFORD COURT

AUGUSTINA A

VE

NEW HAVEN AVE

MINTON ST

BEA

CH

9 S

T

MO

RS

E CO

UR

T

CHANNING RD

SCOT

T A

GADE

LL P

LACE

GR

AS

SM

ERE

TER

RA

CE

NEILS

ON

ST

DINSMORE AVE

FOAM PLACE

BIRDSALL AVE

PR

ES

IDEN

T S

T

RO

SE S

T

BEAC

H 1

8 ST

CH

AN

DLE

R S

T

EVERDELL ST

SMIT

H PLA

CE

BAYPORT PLACE

BEA

CH

21

ST

7/20/2

016

0 200 FEET

Figure 16

Commercial and Office Buildings

Industrial and Manufacturing

Open Space and Outdoor Recreation

Parking Facilities

Public Facilities and Institutions

Residential

Residential with Commercial Below

Transportation and Utility

Vacant Land

Sou

rce:

NY

C D

ept.

of

City

Pla

nnin

g M

apP

LUTO

v. 1

5v1,

edi

ted

by A

KR

F.

Land UseDowntown Far Rockaway Redevelopment Project

BEAC

H 1

9 ST

REET

Project Area

Proposed DFRURA

Study Area (400-foot boundary)


28

TASK 3: SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS

The socioeconomic character of an area includes its population, housing, and economic activity. Socioeconomic changes may occur when a project directly or indirectly changes any of these elements. Although socioeconomic changes may not result in impacts under CEQR, they are disclosed if they would affect land use patterns, low-income populations, the availability of goods and services, or economic investment in a way that changes the socioeconomic character of the area. This chapter will assess the Proposed Actions’ potential effects on the socioeconomic character of Downtown Far Rockaway.

The socioeconomic study area boundaries are expected to be similar to those of the land use study area, and will be dependent on the size and characteristics of the RWCDS associated with the proposed actions, pursuant to Section 310 of Chapter 5 of the CEQR Technical Manual. A socioeconomic assessment seeks to assess the potential to change socioeconomic character relative to the study area population. The Proposed Actions are expected to generate a net increase of 3,027 DUs. For projects or actions that result in an increase in population, the scale of the relative change is typically represented as a percent increase in population (i.e., a project that would result in a relatively large increase in population may be expected to affect a larger study area). Therefore, the socioeconomic study area would be expanded to a ½-mile radius, as illustrated in Figure 17, “Socioeconomic Study Area,” if the RWCDS associated with the proposed actions would increase the population by 5 percent compared to the expected No Action population in a ¼-mile study area, consistent with the CEQR Technical Manual.

The six principal issues of concern with respect to socioeconomic conditions are whether a Proposed Project would result in significant adverse impacts due to: (1) direct residential displacement; (2) direct business displacement; (3) indirect residential displacement; (4) indirect business displacement due to increased rents; (5) indirect business displacement due to retail market saturation; and (6) adverse effects on a specific industry. The following describes whether and how each of these issues will be addressed in the EIS.

DIRECT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT

Direct residential displacement is the involuntary displacement of residents from a site directly affected by the proposed actions. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, direct displacement of fewer than 500 residents would not typically be expected to alter the socioeconomic characteristics of a neighborhood. The proposed actions would not exceed the CEQR Technical Manual analysis threshold of 500 directly displaced residents, and therefore are not expected to result in significant adverse socioeconomic impacts due to direct residential displacement. The EIS will disclose the estimated numbers of DUs and residents that would be directly displaced by the Proposed Actions, and will determine the amount of displacement relative to study area population.

DIRECT BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT

Direct business displacement is the involuntary displacement of businesses from a site directly affected by the Proposed Actions. For direct business displacement, the type and extent of businesses and workers that would be directly displaced by the RWCDS associated with the Proposed Actions will be disclosed. If a project would directly displace more than 100 employees, a preliminary assessment of direct business displacement is appropriate. The Proposed Actions have the potential to exceed the threshold of 100 displaced employees, and therefore, a preliminary assessment will be provided in the EIS.

1032.01

1032.02

1010.01

998.01

1008.02

TRIS

T P

LAC

E

CENTR

AL AV

E

CEDAR LAWN AVE

HENRY RD

CORNAGA AVE

MOTT AVE

MO

BIL

E R

D

BEA

CH

38 S

T

BEA

CH

35 S

T

BEACH 25 ST

WESTBOURNE AVE

SEAGIRT AVE

BEA

CH

33 S

T

BEA

CH

19

ST CAFFREY AVE

BE

AC

H17

ST

NA

MEO

KE

ST

BEA

CH

30 S

T

NAMEOKE AVE

CR

EST

RD

BEA

CH

13

ST

BEA

CH

32S

T

ROCKAWAY FR

EEWAY

BEA

CH

27 S

T

READ

SLAN

E

HEALY AVE

REDFE

RNAV

E

BEA

CH

12

ST

COLLIER AVE

GRASSMERE

TER

RA

CE

ELK

DRIVE

SA

GE S

T

BEA

CH

36 S

T

COLDSPRING RD

FAR ROCKAWAY BLV

D

BAYSWATER AVE

FER

NSID

E PLAC

E

MOTT

AVE FRISCO AVE

HEYSON RD

BEA

CH

6 ST

BEA

CH

34 S

T

HAS

SOC

K STANNAPOLIS ST

SEAGIRT AVE

DUNBAR ST

BAYPORT PLACE

LORETTA RD

BROOKHAVEN AVE

ENRIGHT RD

MC

BR

IDE

ST

GATEW

AY B

LVD

HA

RT

MAN

LANE

BESSEMUND AVE

OAK DRIV

E

BEA

CH

26 S

T

OCEAN CREST BLVD

PIN

SO

N S

T

HICKSVILLE RDAZTECPLACE

EMP

IRE

AVE

ALONZO RD

BEA

CH

37 S

T

DEERFIELD RD

DIX AVE

GIP

SO

N S

T

BAY

28 S

T

BEA

CH

42

ST

ROCKAWAY BEACH BLVD

GRANAD

A PL

ACE

BATTERY RD

DWIGHT AVE

EDGEMERE AVEAUGUSTI

NA AVE

EDGEMERE AVE

BEA

CH

7 ST

NEW HAVEN AVE

LEWMAY RD

MINTON ST

WHEATLEY ST

BEA

CH

40 S

T

BEA

CH

29 S

T

MEEHAN AVE

BAY

27 S

T

LANETT AVE

PLAINVIEW AVE

REGINA AVE

POINT B

REEZE PLACE

SPRAYVIEW AVE

VIRGINIA ST

BAY32ST

EGG

ERT

PLA

CE

NORTON AVE

BOLTON RD

NE

ILSO

N S

T

DINSMORE AVEFOAM PLACE

BAY

PAR

K P

LA

CE

BIRDSALL AVE

CHANNING RD

BRUN

SWIC

K AV

E

BEA

CH

3 ST

BECK R

D

PLAINVIEW AVE

BEA

CH

4 ST

BEA

CH

14

ST

CH

AN

DL

ER S

T

BAY

24 S

T

BEA

CH

8 ST

RO

SE

ST

BAY

30 S

T

BEA

CH

39 S

T

JARVIS AVE

BAY 31 ST

DAVIES RD

FALCON AVE

BEA

CH

43 S

T

EGMONT PLACE

WA

TERV

IEW

ST

BEA

CH

15

ST

BEA

CH

21

ST

MA

RV

IN S

T

BEA

CH

24 S

T

BEA

CH

41 S

T

SEAGIRT BLVD

SEAGIRT BLVD

BEA

CH

9 ST

BE A

CH

20

ST

CAMP RD

ELVIR

AAVE

DIC

KEN

S S

TB

EAC

H C

HA

NN

EL D

RIV

E

BE

AC

H

22 ST

NO

RTO

ND

RIV

E

EDGEWATERRD

BRIA

RPL

AC

E

BEA

CH

28 S

T

BAY

25 S

T

SU

NNY

SIDE

ST

CEDAR H

ILL

RD

BEACH CHANNEL DRIVE

7/20/2

016

0 800 FEET

Figure 17

Project Area

Other Census Tracts

Census Tracts in Study Area

Quarter Mile Boundary from Project Area

Socioeconomic Study AreaDowntown Far Rockaway Redevelopment Project

1008

Nassau County

Queens County

Draft Scope of Work

29

The analysis of direct business displacement will estimate the number of employees and the number and types of businesses that would be displaced by the proposed actions, and characterize the economic profile of the study area using current employment and business data from the New York State Department of Labor or U.S. Census Bureau. This information will be used in addressing the following CEQR criteria for determining the potential for significant adverse impacts: (1) whether the businesses to be displaced provide products or services essential to the local economy that would no longer be available in its “trade area” to local residents or businesses due to the difficulty of either relocating the businesses or establishing new, comparable businesses; and (2) whether a category of businesses to be displaced is the subject of other regulations or publicly adopted plans to preserve, enhance, or otherwise protect it.

INDIRECT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT

Indirect residential displacement is the involuntary displacement of residents that results from a change in socioeconomic conditions created by a proposed action. Indirect residential displacement could occur if a Proposed Project either introduces a trend or accelerates a trend of changing socioeconomic conditions that may potentially displace a vulnerable population to the extent that the socioeconomic character of the neighborhood would change. To assess this potential impact, the analysis will address a series of threshold questions in terms of whether the project substantially alters the demographic character of an area through population change or the introduction of more costly housing.

The indirect residential displacement analysis will use the most recent available U.S. Census data, NYC Department of Finance’s Real Property Assessment Data (RPAD) database, as well as current real estate market data, to present demographic and residential market trends and conditions for the study area. The presentation of study area characteristics will include population estimates, housing tenure and vacancy status, median value and rent, estimates of the number of housing units not subject to rent protection, and median household income. The preliminary assessment will carry out the following step-by-step evaluation:

Step 1: Determine if the Proposed Actions would add substantial new population with different income as compared with the income of the study area population. If the expected average incomes of the new population would be similar to the average incomes of the study area populations, no further analysis is necessary. If the expected average incomes of the new population would exceed the average incomes of the study area populations, then Step 2 of the analysis will be conducted.

Step 2: Determine if the Proposed Actions’ population is large enough to affect real estate market conditions in the study area. If the population increase may potentially affect real estate market conditions, then Step 3 will be conducted.

Step 3: Determine whether the study area has already experienced a readily observable trend toward increasing rents and the likely effect of the Proposed Action’s on such trends. This evaluation will consider the following:

‒ If the vast majority of the study area has already experienced a readily observable trend toward increasing rents and new market development, further analysis is not necessary. However, if such trends could be considered inconsistent and not sustained, a detailed analysis may be warranted.

‒ If no such trend exists either within or near the study area, the action could be expected to have a stabilizing effect on the housing market within the study area by allowing


30

limited new housing opportunities and investment. In this circumstance no further analysis is necessary.

‒ If those trends do exist near to or within smaller portions of the study area, the action could have the potential to accelerate an existing trend. In this circumstance, a detailed analysis will be conducted.

A detailed analysis, if warranted, would utilize more in-depth demographic analysis and field surveys to characterize existing conditions of residents and housing, identify populations at risk of displacement, assess current and future socioeconomic trends that may affect these populations, and examine the effects of the proposed actions on prevailing socioeconomic trends and, thus, impacts on the identified populations at risk. If necessary, mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potential significant adverse impacts will be identified.

INDIRECT BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT DUE TO INCREASED RENTS

The indirect business displacement analysis determines whether the Proposed Actions may introduce trends that make it difficult for those businesses that provide products and services essential to the local economy, or those subject to regulations or publicly adopted plans to preserve, enhance, or otherwise product them, to remain in the area. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a proposed action has potential to introduce such a trend. The preliminary assessment will entail the following tasks:

Identify and characterize conditions and trends in employment and businesses within the study area. This analysis will be based on field surveys, employment data from the New York State Department of Labor and/or Census, and discussions within real estate brokers.

Determine whether the Proposed Actions would introduce enough of a new economic activity to alter existing economic patterns.

Determine whether the Proposed Actions would add to the concentration of a particular sector of the local economy enough to alter or accelerate an ongoing trend to alter existing economic patterns.

Determine whether the Proposed Actions would directly displace uses of any type that directly support businesses in the area or bring people to the area that form a customer base for local businesses.

Determine whether the Proposed Actions would directly or indirectly displace residents, workers, or visitors who form the customer base of existing businesses in the area.

If the preliminary assessment determines that the Proposed Actions could introduce trends that make it difficult for businesses that are essential to the local economy to remain in the area, a detailed analysis will be conducted. Following CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, the detailed analysis would determine whether the Proposed Actions would increase property values and thus increase rents for a potentially vulnerable category of business and whether relocation opportunities exist for those businesses. If necessary, mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potential significant adverse impacts will be identified.

INDIRECT BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT DUE TO RETAIL MARKET SATURATION

Based on CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, an assessment of potential business displacement due to retail market saturation (i.e., competition) is not warranted. The Proposed Actions and associated RWCDS are not expected to add to, or create, a retail concentration that may draw a substantial amount of sales from existing businesses within the study area to the extent that

Draft Scope of Work

31

certain categories of business close and vacancies in the area increase, thus resulting in potential for disinvestment on local retail streets. The RWCDS would introduce an increment of 152,935 gsf of retail uses. This retail space would not be concentrated on a single site, but would be distributed among the DFRURA, Disposition Sites, and Projected Development Sites within the Rezoning Area, and is expected to largely consist of local-serving retail. Projects resulting in less than 200,000 gsf of retail on a single development site, or less than 200,000 gsf of retail that is regional-serving (not the type of retail that primarily serves the local population) on multiple sites would not typically result in socioeconomic impacts, according to the guidelines established in the CEQR Technical Manual. As the Proposed Actions and associated RWCDS would not exceed these CEQR thresholds, no further analysis is warranted.

ADVERSE EFFECTS ON SPECIFIC INDUSTRIES

Based on the findings of the direct and indirect displacement assessments described above, a preliminary assessment of potential effects on specific industries will examine the following:

Whether the Proposed Actions would significantly affect business conditions in any industry or category of businesses within or outside the study area; and

Whether the Proposed Actions would indirectly substantially reduce employment or impair the economic viability in a specific industry or category of businesses.

The industries or categories of businesses that will be considered in this assessment are those specified in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as promulgated by the U.S. Census Bureau.

TASK 5: COMMUNITY FACILITIES

The demand for community facilities and services is directly related to the type and size of the new population generated by any proposed development. New workers tend to create limited demands for community facilities and services, while new residents create more substantial and permanent demands. According to the thresholds presented in the CEQR Technical Manual, the Proposed Project would not require of outpatient health care facilities or police and fire protection serving the Project Area. However, the Proposed Project would introduce a residential population that would have the potential to affect public schools, child care, and public libraries. The assessments of potential impacts on each are described below.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

A schools analysis is required under CEQR for proposed actions that would result in more than 50 elementary/middle school or 150 high school students. In Queens, based on CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, this would require that 124 or more DUs be constructed as part of the Proposed Project to require an elementary and intermediate schools analysis; and more than 1,068 DUs be constructed as part of the Proposed Project for high school analysis. The Proposed Project would introduce 3,027 incremental DUs to the study area. Accordingly, a detailed analysis of public schools will be included in the EIS. This analysis will include the following:

Identify schools serving the Project Area and discuss the most current information on enrollment, capacity, and utilization using information from NYC Department of Education (DOE).


32

Based on the data provided from DOE and DCP, determine future enrollment, capacity, and utilization in the No Action condition.

Based on methodology presented in the CEQR Technical Manual, assess the potential impact of students generated by the Proposed Project on schools.


CHILD CARE CENTERS

The number of affordable DUs (excluding senior citizen units) in the Proposed Project would exceed the minimum number of DUs requiring detailed analyses of publicly funded child care (in Queens the threshold for affordable DUs is 139). The EIS will therefore include an analysis of child care as described below:

Identify existing publicly funded group child care facilities within approximately 1.5 miles of the Project Area.

Describe each facility in terms of its location, number of slots (capacity), and existing enrollment. Information will be based on publicly available information and consultation with the Administration for Children’s Services’ Division of Child Care and Headstart (CCHS).

Any expected increases in the population of children under 12 within the eligibility income limitations, based on CEQR Technical Manual methodology, will be discussed as potential additional demand, and the potential effect of any population increases on demand for publicly funded group child care services in the study area will be assessed. The potential effects of the additional eligible children resulting from the Proposed Project will be assessed by comparing the estimated net demand over capacity to the net demand over capacity estimated in the No Action condition.


PUBLIC LIBRARIES

The Proposed Project would exceed the CEQR threshold requiring analysis of public libraries, which is 622 DUs in Queens. Therefore, using the guidance of the CEQR Technical Manual, the EIS will:

Describe and map the local libraries and catchment areas in the vicinity of the Project Area.

Identify the existing user population, branch holdings and circulation. Based on this information, estimate the holdings per resident.

Determine conditions in the No Action condition based on planned developments and known changes to the library system.

Based on the population to be added by Proposed Project, estimate the holdings per resident and compare conditions in the No Action condition and the With-Action condition.


Draft Scope of Work

33

POLICE/FIRE SERVICES AND HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

A detailed analysis of police and fire services and health care facilities is warranted if a proposed action would (a) introduce a sizeable new neighborhood where one has not previously existed, or (b) would displace or alter a hospital or public health clinic, fire protection services facility, or police station. As the Proposed Actions would not result in any of the above, no significant adverse impacts are expected to occur, and a detailed analysis of police/fire services and health care facilities is not required; however, for informational purposes, a description of existing police, fire, and health care facilities serving the Rezoning Area will be proved in the EIS.

TASK 6: OPEN SPACE

If a project will add population to an area, demand for existing open space facilities will typically increase. Indirect effects may occur if the population generated by a project would be sufficiently large to noticeably diminish the ability of an area’s open space to serve the future population. For the majority of projects, an open space assessment is conducted if the proposed project would generate more than 200 residents or 500 employees, or a similar number of other users, such as visitors. However, the need for an open space assessment may vary in certain areas of the City that are considered either underserved or well-served by open space. The Open Space Appendix of the CEQR Technical Manual does not identify the Project Area as a well-served or underserved area.

The Proposed Actions are expected to generate over 200 residents and would exceed the CEQR Technical Manual thresholds warranting a detailed residential open space assessment. The Proposed Actions also could generate in excess of 500 incremental workers; therefore, a detailed assessment of the daytime (non-residential) population is warranted. An assessment of residential and worker impacts on open space will be provided in the EIS that considers the demands created by these new populations, as well as the effects of the project-generated open spaces on conditions within the study area.

The open space analysis will consider both passive and active open space resources. The passive open space ratio will be assessed within the ¼-mile non-residential study area, and both passive and active open space ratios will be assessed within the ½-mile residential study area. The study areas will generally comprise those census tracts that have 50 percent or more of their area located within the ¼-mile and ½-mile radii from the Rezoning Area (see Figure 18, “Open Space Study Areas.”

The detailed open space analysis will include the following subtasks:

Characteristics of the two open space user groups (residents and workers/daytime users) will be determined. To determine the number of residents in the study areas, Census data will be compiled for census tracts comprising the residential open space study area. As the study area may include a workforce and daytime population that may also use open spaces, the number of employees and daytime workers in the study areas will also be calculated, based on reverse journey-to-work census data.

Existing active and passive open spaces within the ½-mile open space study area will be inventoried and mapped. The condition and usage of existing facilities will be described based on the inventory and field visits. Field visits will be conducted during peak hours of use and in good weather. Passively programmed open spaces will be visited during peak weekday midday hours and actively programmed open spaces (or actively programmed portions of open spaces that have both active and passive open space resources) will be

Nassau

County

Qu

ee

ns C

ou

nty

Na

ssa

u C

ou

nty

1010.02

1032.01

1032.02

1010.01

998.01

1008.02

7/20/2

016

0 800 FEET

Figure 18

Project Area

Other Census Tracts

Census Tracts within 1/4 Mile of Study Area

Census Tracts within 1/2 Mile of Study Area

Open Space

Quarter Mile Boundary from Project Area

Half-Mile Boundary from Project Area

Open SpaceDowntown Far Rockaway Redevelopment Project

1008

1008


34

visited during both weekday midday and peak weekend hours. Acreages of these facilities will be determined and the total study area acreages will be calculated. The percentage of active and passive open space will also be calculated.

Based on the inventory of open spaces and study area populations, total, active, and passive open space ratios will be calculated for the residential and worker populations and compared to City guidelines to assess adequacy. Open space ratios are expressed as the amount of open space acreage (total, passive, and active) per 1,000 user population.

Expected changes in future levels of open space supply and demand in the 2032 analysis year will be assessed, based on other planned development projects within the open space study areas. Any new open space or recreational facilities that are anticipated to be operational by the analysis year will also be accounted for. Open space ratios will be calculated for future No Action conditions and compared with exiting ratios to determine changes in future levels of adequacy.

Effects on open space supply and demand resulting from increased residential and worker populations and new project-generated open spaces added under the RWCDS associated with the Proposed Actions will be assessed. The assessment of the Proposed Actions’ impacts will be based on a comparison of open space ratios for the future No Action versus future With-Action conditions. In addition to the quantitative analysis, a qualitative analysis will be performed to determine if the changes resulting from the Proposed Actions constitute a substantial change (positive or negative) or an adverse effect to open space conditions. The qualitative analysis will assess whether or not the study areas are sufficiently served by open space, given the type (active vs. passive), capacity, condition, and distribution of open space, and the profile of the study area populations. The qualitative analysis also will describe the publicly accessible open spaces introduced by the Proposed Project.

If any significant adverse open space impacts are identified, identify and assess potential mitigation strategies.

TASK 6: SHADOWS

A shadows analysis assesses whether new structures resulting from a proposed action would cast shadows on sunlight sensitive publicly accessible resources or other resources of concern, such as natural resources, and the significance of their impact. This chapter will examine the Proposed Actions’ potential for significant and adverse shadow impacts. Generally, the potential for shadow impacts exists if an action would result in new structures or additions to buildings resulting in structures over 50 feet in height that could cast shadows on important natural features, publicly accessible open space, or on historic features that are dependent on sunlight. New construction or building additions resulting in incremental height changes of less than 50 feet can also potentially result in shadow impacts if they are located adjacent to, or across the street from, a sunlight-sensitive resource.

The Proposed Actions would permit development of buildings greater than 50 feet in height and therefore has the potential to result in shadow impacts. The EIS will include a preliminary screening assessment for all development sites to determine whether new shadows could be long enough to reach sunlight-sensitive resources. The shadows assessment will be coordinated with the open space, historic and cultural resources and natural resources analyses. It will include the following tasks:

Draft Scope of Work

35

Develop a base map illustrating each Projected and Potential Site and the Development and Disposition Sites in relationship to publicly accessible open spaces, historic resources with sunlight-dependent features, and natural features in the area.

To determine whether shadow could reach any sunlight-sensitive resources at any time of year, calculate the longest shadow study area for each of the development sites.

If the preliminary assessment cannot eliminate the possibility of new shadows on a sunlight-sensitive resource, a detailed analysis will be required. The detailed analysis would include the following tasks:

Develop a three-dimensional computer model of the elements of the base map developed in the preliminary assessment.

Develop three-dimensional representations of the proposed structures.

Using three-dimensional computer modeling software, determine the extent and duration of new shadows that would be cast on sunlight-sensitive resources as a result of the Proposed Actions on four representative days of the year.

Document the analysis with graphics comparing shadows resulting from the No Action condition with shadows resulting from the Proposed Project, with incremental shadow highlighted in a contrasting color. Include a summary table listing the entry and exit times and total duration of incremental shadow on each applicable representative day for each affected resource.

Assess the significance of any shadow impacts on sunlight-sensitive resources. If any significant adverse shadow impacts are identified, identify and assess potential mitigation strategies.

TASK 7: HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOUCES

The CEQR Technical Manual identifies historic and cultural resources as districts, buildings, structures, sites, and objects of historical, aesthetic, cultural, and archaeological importance. This includes designated NYC Landmarks (NYCLs); properties calendared for consideration as landmarks by the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC); properties listed on the State/National Register of Historic Places (S/NR) or contained within a district listed on or formally determined eligible for S/NR listing; properties recommended by the New York State Board for listing on the S/NR; National Historic Landmarks; and properties not identified by one of the programs listed above, but that meet their eligibility requirements.

The Proposed Actions would result in in-ground disturbance and new construction, and, therefore, following guidelines in the CEQR Technical Manual, a historic and cultural resources analysis is required. The historic and cultural resources analysis will include the following tasks:

Request a preliminary determination of archaeological sensitivity for the portions of the Project Area that would experience subsurface disturbance from the LPC. If it is determined that any sites may be sensitive for archaeological resources, a Phase 1A Archaeological Documentary Study of the affected area will be prepared as directed by LPC.

Select the study area for architectural resources, and map and briefly describe designated architectural resources in the study area. Consistent with the guidance of the CEQR Technical Manual, the study area has been defined as within a 400-foot radius of the Rezoning Area.


36

Conduct a field survey of the Project Area and study area to identify any potential architectural resources that could be affected by the Proposed Project. Potential architectural properties include previously undesignated properties that appear to meet SXQNR or NYCL eligibility criteria.

Assess the potential impacts of the Proposed Project on archaeological and architectural resources, including visual and contextual changes as well as any direct physical impacts.

If necessary, measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse impacts on historic and cultural resources will be developed in consultation with LPC

TASK 8: URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL RESOURCES

Urban design is the totality of components that may affect a pedestrian’s experience of public space. An assessment of urban design and visual resources is appropriate when there is the potential for a pedestrian to observe, from the street level, a physical alteration beyond that allowed by existing zoning. When an action would potentially obstruct view corridors, compete with icons in the skyline, or would result in substantial alterations to the streetscape of the neighborhood by noticeably changing the scale of buildings, a more detailed analysis of urban design and visual resources would be appropriate. As described in the CEQR Technical Manual, examples of projects that may require a detailed analysis are those that would make substantial alterations to the streetscape of a neighborhood by noticeably changing the scale of buildings, potentially obstruct view corridors, or compete with icons in the skyline.

As the Proposed Actions could result in the construction of multiple structures, building uses, size, and types not currently permitted in the Rezoning Area, this scope of work assumes that a detailed analysis will be required. The detailed analysis will describe the urban design and visual resources of the Rezoning Area, focusing on the project sites, and a surrounding 400-foot area. The analysis will describe the potential changes that could occur to urban design and visual resources with the Proposed Actions in comparison to the future No Action condition, focusing on the changes that could negatively affect a pedestrian’s experience of the area. If necessary, mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potential significant adverse impacts will be identified.

TASK 9: NATURAL RESOURCES

Under CEQR, a natural resource is defined as the City’s biodiversity (plants, wildlife and other organisms); any aquatic or terrestrial areas capable of providing suitable habitat to sustain the life processes of plants, wildlife, and other organisms; and any areas capable of functioning in support of the ecological systems that maintain the City’s environmental stability. Such resources include ground water, soils and geologic features; numerous types of natural and human-created aquatic and terrestrial habitats (including wetlands, dunes, beaches, grasslands, woodlands, landscaped areas, gardens, parks, and built structures); as well as any areas used by wildlife.

The Project Area comprises developed areas with buildings and surface parking interspersed with vacant lots. As such, vegetation is limited and there is minimal habitat to support native wildlife. This portion of Far Rockaway is outside the 100-year floodplain as indicated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Revised Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps (PFIRMs). The Project Area is within the Brooklyn-Queens sole source aquifer and within the Jamaica Bay watershed.

Draft Scope of Work

37

In the EIS, the existing natural resources within or in the vicinity of the Project Area will be characterized, including terrestrial natural resources (plants and wildlife) and groundwater resources. The EIS will also assess the potential for the Proposed Project to affect natural resources, including short-term construction effects, long-term effects such as the discharge of stormwater runoff from the project and beneficial impacts to wildlife from any landscaping and establishment of street trees that would be implemented as part of the Proposed Project. A discussion of any related permits that may be required will be provided.

The analysis will include the following tasks:

On the basis of existing information site reconnaissance, characterize the existing natural resources (terrestrial plants, wildlife, and groundwater resources), within and adjacent to the Project Area at a level of detail sufficient to complete the Jamaica Bay Watershed Protection Plan Project Tracking Form.

Assess potential effects to natural resources in the future without the Proposed Project, accounting for any changes in the study area that may alter terrestrial natural resources in the vicinity of the Project Area.

Assess potential impacts to natural resources from the Proposed Project. Potential impacts to terrestrial resources will be assessed by considering removal of the existing structure, visual and noise disturbances to wildlife in the vicinity of the Project Area, and benefits of landscaping and planting of street trees that would occur as part of the Proposed Project. The need for any state or federal approvals will be identified.

The future No Action condition for the natural resources within the Project Area and study area for the Proposed Project will be described in the EIS as the baseline condition. The potential effects of the Proposed Project on natural resources, in comparison to the No Action condition, will be assessed. The short-term and long-term impacts of the Proposed Project on the environment will be discussed, as well as concepts for the potential mitigation of identified significant impacts to natural resources.

TASK 10: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

A hazardous materials assessment determines whether Proposed Actions may increase the exposure of people or the environment to hazardous materials and, if so, whether this increased exposure would result in potential significant public health or environmental impacts. The potential for significant impacts related to hazardous materials can occur when: a) elevated levels of hazardous materials exist on a site and the project would increase pathways to human or environmental exposure; b) a project would introduce new activities or processes using hazardous materials and the risk of human or environmental exposure is increased; or c) the project would introduce a population to potential human or environmental exposure from off-site sources.

The hazardous materials section will examine the potential for significant hazardous materials impacts from the Proposed Project. The EIS will include a discussion of the Project Area’s history and current environmental conditions, using Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) for the DFRURA and Disposition Sites. The Phase I ESAs will include the review of historical Sanborn maps, federal and state environmental regulatory databases, and site reconnaissance. For the DFRURA, the Phase I ESA reconnaissance was conducted from public rights-of-way, as no interior access was provided. For the Projected and Potential Development Sites, a preliminary screening assessment will be conducted to determine which sites warrant a


38

hazardous materials (E) designation. A hazardous materials (E) designation is a site-specific institutional control that can be placed as a result of the CEQR review of a zoning map or zoning text amendment or action pursuant to the NYC ZR, as described in the CEQR Technical Manual. It provides a mechanism to ensure that testing for and mitigation and/or remediation of hazardous materials, if necessary, are completed prior to, or as part of, future development of the affected site, thereby eliminating the potential for a hazardous materials impact. The screening analysis will include the review of historical Sanborn maps, federal and state environmental regulatory databases, and site reconnaissance from public rights-of-way. The results of these analyses will be summarized in the hazardous materials chapter. The chapter will also include a discussion of the Proposed Project’s potential to result in significant adverse hazardous materials impacts and, if necessary, will include a description of any additional further testing, remediation, or other measures that would be necessary to avoid impacts.

The hazardous materials assessment will include the following tasks:

Perform exterior site inspections of each parcel that is subject to the analysis to identify any possible monitoring wells, vent pipes, and/or manufacturing/commercial/industrial uses that could indicate potential environmental impacts.

Review existing information sources such as Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps and City directories for the Projected Development Sites and Potential Development Sites and the surrounding area, to develop a profile of the historical uses of properties.

Review and evaluate relevant existing data to assess the potential for environmental concerns on the subject sites.

Prepare a summary of findings and conclusions for inclusion in the EIS to determine where (E) designations may be appropriate.

If possible based on development details and site access, implement subsurface testing prior to construction to determine the need for special handling of excavated materials or other measures needed to be incorporated into the Proposed Project.

TASK 11: WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE

The CEQR Technical Manual outlines thresholds for analysis of a project’s water demand and its generation of wastewater and stormwater. The Proposed Project would result in an incremental demand for water of more than 1 million gallons per day (gpd) and therefore, would require an analysis of water supply. Based on DEP sewer system maps, the Rezoning Area is located in a part of the City that is served by a separated sewer system. The Proposed Project would exceed the square foot development threshold in the CEQR Technical Manual for new development in a separated sewer area; therefore analysis of the Proposed Project’s effects on wastewater and stormwater infrastructure is warranted. DEP will be consulted during the preparation of the preliminary stormwater and wastewater infrastructure assessment.

The Proposed Project would introduce over 3,000 DUs, which is above the thresholds presented in the CEQR Technical Manual, an analysis of water and sewer infrastructure is warranted. This analysis will consist of the following (all information will be presented in DEP’s matrix format per the CEQR Technical Manual guidance):

A description of the existing stormwater drainage system and surfaces (pervious or impervious) on the DFRURA and of the existing water supply and sewer system that serves the Rezoning Area.

Draft Scope of Work

39

A description of any changes to the Project Area’s stormwater drainage system, the sites’ surface area, and the area’s sewer system that are expected in the No Action condition.

An analysis of potential project impacts that will consist of the identification and assessment of the effects of the incremental With-Action sanitary and stormwater flows on the capacity of the sewer infrastructure. The DEP volume calculation worksheet will be prepared. This analysis will incorporate any infrastructure improvements that are planned for the Rezoning Area in the No Action condition and as part of the Proposed Project. The analysis will also describe any measures required to ensure consistency with the City’s water quality goals in Jamaica Bay, as development resulting from the Proposed Actions has the potential to convey stormwater to Jamaica Bay.

The stormwater assessment will discuss any planned sustainability elements and best management practices (BMPs) that are intended to reduce stormwater runoff from the Project Area. Changes to the Project Area’s proposed surface area (pervious or impervious) will be described, and runoff coefficients and runoff for each surface type/area will be presented. Volume and peak discharge rates of stormwater from the site will be determined based on the DEP volume calculation worksheet.

Sanitary sewage generation for the project will be estimated. The effects of the incremental demand on the system will be assessed to determine if there will be any impact on operations of the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).

Based on the assessment of future stormwater and wastewater generation, the change in flows and volumes to the sewer system and/or waterbodies due to the Proposed Project will be determined. Any capital improvements to the sanitary and stormwater conveyance system that may be necessary to support the Proposed Project will be identified in coordination with DEP and described in the EIS.

TASK 12: SOLID WASTE AND SANITATION SERVICES

A solid waste assessment determines whether an action has the potential to cause a substantial increase in solid waste production that may overburden available waste management capacity or otherwise be inconsistent with the City’s Solid Waste Management Plan or with State policy related to the City’s integrated solid waste management system. The Proposed Actions would induce new development that would require sanitation services. If a project’s generation of solid waste in the With-Action condition would not exceed 50 tons per week, it may be assumed that there would be sufficient public or private carting and transfer station capacity in the metropolitan area to absorb the increment, and further analysis generally would not be required.

As the Proposed Actions are expected to result in a net increase of more than 50 tons per week, compared to No Action condition, an assessment of solid waste and sanitation services is warranted. This chapter will provide an estimate of the additional solid waste expected to be generated by the DFRURA, Disposition Sites, and Projected Development Sites under the RWCDS and assesses its effects on the City’s solid waste and sanitation services. This assessment will:

Describe existing and future NYC solid waste disposal practices.

Estimate the solid waste generation by the DFRURA, Disposition Sites, and Projected Development Sites for existing, No Action, and With-Action conditions.

Assess the impacts of the Proposed Actions’ solid waste generation on the City’s collection needs and disposal capacity. The Proposed Actions’ consistency with the City’s Solid Waste Management Plan will also be described.


40

TASK 13: ENERGY

In most cases, an action does not need a detailed energy assessment, but its operational energy is projected. A detailed energy assessment is limited to actions that may significantly affect the transmission or generation of energy. For other actions, in lieu of a detailed assessment, the estimated amount of energy that would be consumed annually as a result of the day-to-day operation of the buildings and uses resulting from an action is disclosed.

An analysis of the anticipated additional demand from the Proposed Actions’ RWCDS will be provided in the EIS. The EIS will disclose the projected amount of energy consumption during long-term operation resulting from the Proposed Actions. The projected amount of energy consumption during long-term operation (for projected development sites) will be estimated based on the average and annual whole building energy use rates for NYC. The Mayor’s Office of Sustainability (MOS) and the power utility serving the area (Long Island Power Authority) will be consulted.

TASK 14: TRANSPORTATION

The objective of a transportation analysis is to determine whether a proposed action may have a potential significant impact on traffic operations and mobility, public transportation facilities and services, pedestrian elements and flow, the safety of all roadway users (pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists), on‐and off‐street parking, or goods movement. The Proposed Actions are expected to induce new residential, commercial, and community facility development, which would generate additional vehicular travel and demand for parking, as well as additional subway and bus riders and pedestrian traffic. These new trips have the potential to affect the area’s transportation systems. Therefore, the transportation studies will be a key focus of the EIS.

TRAVEL DEMAND AND SCREENING ASSESSMENT

A detailed travel demand forecast has been prepared using standard sources, including the CEQR Technical Manual, U.S. census data, previously-approved studies, and other references. The travel demand forecast (a Level-1 screening assessment) is summarized by peak hour, mode of travel, as well as person and vehicle trips. The travel demand forecast also identifies the number of peak hour person trips made by transit and the numbers of pedestrian trips traversing the area’s sidewalks, corner areas, and crosswalks. The results of this forecast will be summarized in a Transportation Planning Factors (TPF) and Travel Demand Forecast (TDF) technical memorandum. In addition to the travel demand forecast, detailed vehicle, pedestrian and transit trip assignments (a Level-2 screening assessment) will be prepared to validate the intersections and pedestrian/transit elements selected for quantified analysis.

TRAFFIC

The EIS will provide a detailed traffic analysis focusing on those peak hours and street network intersections where the highest concentrations of action-generated demand would occur. The peak hours for analysis will be selected, and the specific intersections to be included in the traffic study area will be determined based upon the assignment of project-generated traffic and the CEQR Technical Manual analysis threshold of 50 additional vehicle trips per hour.

The RWCDS exceeds the minimum development density screening thresholds for a transportation analysis specified in Table 16-1 of the CEQR Technical Manual. Therefore, a travel demand forecast is required to determine if the Proposed Actions would generate 50 or more vehicle trips in any peak hour. Based on a preliminary forecast, the Proposed Actions are expected to generate more than 50

Draft Scope of Work

41

additional vehicular trips in the weekday AM, midday, and PM peak hours, as well as the Saturday midday. Based on a preliminary vehicle trip assignment, it is anticipated that the traffic study area will include approximately 35 intersections for analysis (see Figure 19, “Preliminary Traffic Analysis Locations”). These intersections–primarily concentrated along the Mott Avenue, Central Avenue, Redfern Avenue, Beach Channel Drive and Cornaga Avenue corridors—are as follows:

1. Seagirt Boulevard & Beach 20th Street

2. Brookhaven Avenue & Beach 20th Street (unsignalized)

3. Cornaga Avenue & Beach Channel Drive

4. Cornaga Avenue & Rockaway Freeway

5. Cornaga Avenue & Beach 22nd Street

6. Cornaga Avenue & Beach 20th Street

7. Cornaga Avenue & Mott Avenue


9. Mott Avenue & Beach Channel Drive

10. Mott Avenue & Beach 21st Street

11. Mott Avenue & Beach 20th Street/Central Avenue

12. Central Avenue & Foam Place

13. Central Avenue & Bayport Place (unsignalized)

14. Central Avenue & Nameoke Avenue

15. Nameoke Avenue & Augustina Avenue (unsignalized)

16. Nameoke Avenue & Brunswick Avenue (unsignalized)

17. Nameoke Avenue & Beach Channel Drive

18. Birdsall Avenue & Beach Channel Drive (unsignalized)

19. Dix Avenue & Beach Channel Drive

20. Birdsall Avenue & Redfern Avenue (unsignalized)

21. Dix Avenue & Redfern Avenue (unsignalized)

22. Central Avenue & Neilson Street

23. Central Avenue & Wheatley Avenue (unsignalized)

24. Central Avenue & Beach 12th Street/Minton Street (unsignalized)

25. Brunswick Avenue & Beach 12th Street (unsignalized)

26. Redfern Avenue & Beach 11th Street (unsignalized)

27. Redfern Avenue & Nameoke Avenue/Hassock Street (unsignalized)

28. Beach Channel Drive & Hassock Street/Horton Avenue

29. Mott Avenue & Redfern Avenue (unsignalized)

30. Mott Avenue & Beach 22nd Street (unsignalized)


32. Cornaga Avenue & Nameoke Street (unsignalized)

33. Cornaga Avenue & Neilson Street (unsignalized)

34. Cornaga Avenue & Gateway Boulevard (unsignalized)

35. Beach Channel Drive & Rockaway Freeway/Regina Avenue

7.20.16

Downtown Far Rockaway Redevelopment Project Figure 19Preliminary Traffic Analysis Locations


42

The following outlines the anticipated scope of work for conducting a traffic impact analysis for the Proposed Actions’ RWCDS:

Select peak hours for analysis and define a traffic study area consisting of intersections to be analyzed within and in proximity to the Rezoning Area and along key routes leading to and from the Rezoning Area.

Conduct a count program for traffic analysis locations that includes a mix of automatic traffic recorder (ATR) machine counts and intersection turning movement counts (ATR locations are shown in Figure 19), along with vehicle classification counts and travel time studies (speed runs) as support data for air quality and noise analyses. Turning movement count data will be collected at each analyzed intersection during the weekday and Saturday peak hours, and will be supplemented by nine days of continuous ATR counts. Vehicle classification count data will be collected during each peak hour at several representative intersections in the study area. The turning movement counts, vehicle classification counts and travel time studies will be conducted concurrently with the ATR counts. Vehicle queue and illegal parking observations will also be conducted. Where applicable, available information from recent studies in the vicinity of the study area will be compiled, including data from DOT and other city agencies.

Inventory physical data at each of the analysis intersections, including street and sidewalk widths, number of traffic lanes and lane widths, pavement markings, turn prohibitions, bicycle routes, sidewalk furniture/obstructions and curbside parking regulations. Signal phasing and timing data for each signalized intersection included in the analysis will be obtained from DOT and field verified.

Determine existing traffic operating characteristics at each analysis intersection including capacities, volume‐to‐capacity (v/c) ratios, average vehicle delays, vehicular queues, and levels of service (LOS) per lane group, per intersection approach, and per overall intersection. This analysis will be conducted using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology with the latest approved Highway Capacity Software (HCS).

Based on available sources, Census data and standard references including the CEQR Technical Manual, estimate the travel demand from major developments planned in the vicinity of the study area by the 2032 analysis year (See Appendix 2 for travel demand assumptions table and vehicular and pedestrian trip generation tables). This will include total daily and peak hour person and vehicular trips, and the distribution of trips by auto, taxi, bicycle and other modes. A truck trip generation forecast will also be prepared based on data from the CEQR Technical Manual and previous relevant studies. Mitigation measures accepted for all No‐Action projects as well as other DOT initiatives, such as the planned improvements along the Mott Avenue corridor and surrounding area, will be included in the future No‐Action network, as applicable.

Compute the future 2032 No Action traffic volumes based on approved CEQR Technical Manual background traffic growth rates for the study area (0.5 percent per year for years one through five, 0.25 percent for years six through fifteen) and demand from major development projects expected to be completed in the future without the Proposed Actions. Incorporate any planned changes to the roadway system anticipated by 2032, and determine the No Action v/c ratios, delays, and levels of services at analyzed intersections.

Based on available sources, Census data, and standard references including the CEQR Technical Manual, develop a travel demand forecast for the DFRURA, the Disposition Sites and Projected Development Sites based on the net change in uses compared to the

Draft Scope of Work

43

No‐Action condition as defined in the RWCDS. Determine the net change in vehicle trips expected to be generated by the Proposed Actions as described in the TPF technical memorandum. Assign the net project-generated trips in each analysis period to likely approach and departure routes, and prepare traffic volume networks for the 2032 future with the Proposed Actions condition for each analyzed peak hour.

Determine the v/c ratios, delays, and LOS at analyzed intersections for the With‐Action condition, and identify significant adverse traffic impacts in accordance with CEQR Technical Manual criteria.

Identify and evaluate potential traffic mitigation measures, as appropriate, for all significantly impacted locations in the study area in consultation with the lead agency and DOT. Potential traffic mitigation could include both operational and physical measures such as changes to lane striping, curbside parking regulations and traffic signal timing and phasing, roadway widening, and the installation of new traffic signals. If a new traffic signal is proposed, a full signal warrant will be prepared and submitted to DOT for review and approval. Where impacts cannot be mitigated, they will be described as unavoidable significant adverse impacts.

TRANSIT

Detailed transit analyses are generally not required if a proposed action is projected to result in fewer than 200 peak hour rail or bus transit trips according to the general thresholds used by the MTA and specified in the CEQR Technical Manual. If a proposed action would result in 50 or more bus trips being assigned to a single bus line (in one direction), or if it would result in an increase of 200 or more trips at a single subway station or on a single subway line, a detailed bus or subway analysis would be warranted. The Proposed Actions’ RWCDS is expected to generate a net increase of more than 200 additional subway trips and bus trips in one or more peak hours, and would therefore require detailed transit analyses based on CEQR Technical Manual criteria.

Subway

Transit analyses typically focus on the weekday AM and PM commuter peak hours when overall demand on the subway and bus systems is usually highest. The detailed subway analysis of the Far Rockaway Mott Avenue station will include the following tasks:

Analyze stairways and fare entrance control elements expected to be used by significant concentrations of action-generated demand in the weekday AM and PM peak hours.

Conduct counts of existing weekday AM and PM peak hour demand at analyzed subway station elements and determine existing v/c ratios and levels of service based on CEQR Technical Manual criteria.

Determine volumes and conditions at analyzed subway station elements in the future without the Proposed Actions using approved background growth rates and accounting for any trips expected to be generated by major projects in the vicinity of the study area.

Add action-generated demand to the No Action volumes at analyzed subway station elements and determine AM and PM peak hour volumes and conditions in the future with the Proposed Actions.

Identify potential significant adverse impacts at subway station stairways and fare control elements based on CEQR Technical Manual impact criteria.


44

As the Proposed Actions are expected to generate 200 or more new subway trips in one direction on the subway route serving the Rezoning Area, subway line haul conditions will also be assessed in the EIS.

Mitigation needs and potential subway station improvements will be identified, as appropriate, in conjunction with the lead agency and NYC Transit. Where impacts cannot be mitigated, they will be described as unavoidable adverse impacts.

Bus

The area of the Proposed Actions is served by seven local and express bus routes. Four routes are operated by MTA Bus and connect the Project Area with other parts of Queens and Manhattan. The remaining three routes are operated by the Nassau Inter County Express (NICE) and provide connections to Nassau County on Long Island. A detailed analysis of bus conditions is generally not required if a proposed action is projected to result in fewer than 50 peak hour trips being assigned to a single bus route (in one direction) based on the general thresholds used by the MTA and specified in the CEQR Technical Manual. As the incremental person-trips by bus generated by the Proposed Actions would exceed 50 peak hour trips in one direction on one or more of the seven routes serving the Rezoning Area, the EIS will include a quantitative analysis of local bus conditions. For that analysis, trips will be assigned to each route based on proximity to the DFRURA, Disposition Sites, and Projected Development Sites and current ridership patterns. The analysis will include documenting existing peak hour bus service levels and maximum load point ridership (where data is available), determining conditions in the future No Action condition, and assessing the effects of new action-generated peak hour trips. Bus transit mitigation, if warranted, will be identified in consultation with the lead agency and the MTA-NYCT.

PEDESTRIANS

Projected pedestrian volumes of less than 200 persons per hour at any pedestrian element (sidewalks, corner areas, and crosswalks) would not typically be considered a significant impact, since the level of increase would not generally be noticeable and therefore would not require further analysis under CEQR Technical Manual criteria. Based on the level of new pedestrian demand generated by the Proposed Actions’ RWCDS, it is anticipated that action-generated pedestrian trips would exceed the 200-trip CEQR Technical Manual analysis threshold at one or more locations in one or more peak hours. A detailed pedestrian analysis will therefore be prepared for the EIS focusing on selected sidewalks, corner areas, and crosswalks along corridors that would experience more than 200 additional peak hour pedestrian trips. Figure 20, “Preliminary Pedestrian Analysis Locations” identifies pedestrian analysis locations. Pedestrian counts will be conducted at each analysis location and used to determine existing levels of service. No Action and With-Action pedestrian volumes and levels of service will be determined based on approved background growth rates, trips expected to be generated by major projects in the vicinity of the study area, and action-generated demand. The specific pedestrian facilities to be analyzed will be determined once the assignment of action-generated pedestrian trips has been finalized. The analysis will evaluate the potential for incremental demand from the Proposed Actions to result in significant adverse impacts based on current CEQR Technical Manual criteria. Potential measures to mitigate any significant adverse pedestrian impacts will be identified and evaluated, as warranted, in consultation with the lead agency and NYCDOT.

7.20.16

Downtown Far Rockaway Redevelopment Project Figure 20Preliminary Pedestrian Analysis Locations

Draft Scope of Work

45

VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

Data on traffic crashes involving pedestrians and/or cyclists at study area intersections will be obtained from DOT for the most recent three-year period available. These data will be analyzed to determine if any of the studied locations may be classified (based on CEQR Technical Manual criteria) as high crash locations or Vision Zero intersections or corridors, and whether vehicle and/or pedestrian trips and any street network changes resulting from the Proposed Actions would adversely affect vehicular and pedestrian safety in the area. If any high crash locations are identified, feasible improvement measures beyond those planned by DOT for the Mott Avenue corridor and surrounding area will be explored to alleviate potential safety issues.

PARKING

Parking demand from commercial uses typically peaks in the midday period and declines during the afternoon and evening. By contrast, residential demand typically peaks in the overnight period.

It is anticipated that the on-site required accessory parking for the DFRURA, Disposition Sites, and Projected Development Sites may not be sufficient to accommodate overall incremental demand. As such, detailed existing on-street parking and off-street parking inventories will be conducted for the weekday overnight period (when residential parking demand typically peaks) and the weekday midday period (when parking in a business area is frequently at peak occupancy) to document existing supply and demand for each period. The parking analyses will document changes in the parking utilization in proximity to the DFRURA, Disposition Sites, and Projected Development Sites under the No Action and With-Action conditions based on accepted background growth rates and projected demand from No Action and With-Action development on development sites and other major projects in the vicinity of the study area. Parking utilization within the Rezoning Area, as well as within ¼-mile radius of the Rezoning Area, will be analyzed. Accessory parking would be provided on the DFRURA, the Disposition Sites, and Projected Development Sites. Should the accessory parking spaces not be sufficient, and should a parking shortfall result from the Proposed Project, parking within a ½-mile radius of the Rezoning Area may also be considered to accommodate the projected shortfall, as per CEQR Technical Manual guidelines.

Parking demand generated by the projected residential component of the Proposed Actions’ RWCDS will be forecasted based on auto ownership data for the Rezoning Area and the surrounding area. Parking demand from all other uses will be derived from the forecasts of daily auto trips generated by these uses. Future parking demand will account for net reductions in demand associated with the Projected Development Sites’ No Action land uses displaced under the Proposed Action.

The forecast of new parking supply under the RWCDS will be based on the net change in parking spaces on the DFRURA, Disposition Sites, and Projected Development Sites. Future supply will also account for accessory parking spaces associated with the With-Action commercial uses, which have lower commercial demand in the overnight hours.

TASK 15: AIR QUALITY

An air quality assessment is required for actions that could have potential to result in significant air quality impacts. There are mobile source impacts that could arise when an action increases or causes a redistribution of traffic, creates any other mobile sources of pollutants, or adds new uses


46

near existing mobile sources. Mobile source impacts could also be produced by parking facilities, parking lots, or garages. Stationary source impacts could occur with actions that create new stationary sources or pollutants such as emission stacks from industrial plants, hospitals, or other large institutional uses, or a building’s boilers, that can affect surrounding uses; or when they add uses near existing or planned future emission stacks, and the new uses might be affected by the emissions from the stacks, or when they add structures near such stacks and those structures can change the dispersion of emissions from stacks so that they begin to affect surrounding uses.

The mobile source air quality impact analysis will address two distinct issues:

The potential effects of traffic-generated emissions on pollutant levels (i.e., carbon monoxide [CO] and particulate matter [PM2.5] concentrations) at representative locations within the study area; and

The proposed development’s consistency and compliance with the applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the area and the de minimis criteria for CO.

The number of project-generated trips will likely exceed the CEQR Technical Manual carbon monoxide (CO) analysis screening threshold of 170 vehicles in the peak hour at a number of locations throughout the study area. In addition, the projected number of heavy-duty trucks or equivalent vehicles will likely exceed the applicable fine particulate matter (PM2.5) screening thresholds in the CEQR Technical Manual. Therefore, a microscale analysis of CO and PM mobile source emissions at affected intersections is necessary.

Using computerized dispersion modeling techniques, the effects of project-generated traffic on CO, PM10 and PM2.5 levels at critical intersection locations will be determined. In addition, the effect of the proposed parking garages on air quality will be analyzed, and the results from that analysis will be combined with the intersection analyses, where applicable.

The stationary source air quality impact analysis will determine the effects of emissions from each of the DFRURA, Disposition Sites, Projected Development Sites and the Potential Development Sites fossil-fuel fired heating and hot water systems to significantly impact existing land uses, or to significantly impact any of the other development sites (i.e., project-on-project impacts). While screening studies can be usefully employed for some sites, the number, size and location of the developments are such that refined modeling will likely be necessary for most sites to demonstrate compliance with national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and other relevant impact criteria (with potential restrictions applied). Therefore, a detailed stationary source analysis using EPA’s AERMOD dispersion model will be performed for the Rezoning Area that fail the screening analysis, as necessary.

A small portion of the Rezoning Area is located within 400 feet of an area zoned for manufacturing. Based on review of land uses and field visits, there do not appear to be any active industrial uses in the area. Therefore, an analysis of potential impacts from industrial sources is not anticipated; however, additional field surveys will be performed to verify that there are no sources warranting an analysis.

MOBILE SOURCES

The Proposed Actions are expected to result in the conditions outlined in Chapter 17, Section 210 of the CEQR Technical Manual. Specifically, the project-generated vehicle trips are

Draft Scope of Work

47

expected to exceed the emissions threshold and potentially the peak vehicle traffic threshold for conducting an air quality analysis of mobile sources, which is 170 vehicles at any intersection. The analysis of mobile source air quality would include the following tasks:

Gather existing air quality data. Collect and summarize existing ambient air quality data for the study area. Specifically, ambient air quality monitoring data published by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) will be compiled for the analysis of existing and future conditions.

Determine receptor locations for the microscale analysis. Select critical intersection locations in the study area, and outside the study area, representing locations with the worst potential total and incremental pollution impacts, based on data obtained from the Proposed Project’s traffic analysis. At each intersection, multiple receptor sites will be analyzed in accordance with CEQR guidelines.

Select dispersion models. Use the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) first-level CAL3QHC intersection model to predict the maximum change in CO concentrations. The refined EPA CAL3QHCR intersection model will be used to predict the maximum change in PM2.5 concentrations, and at intersections where maximum predicted future CO concentrations are greater than the applicable ambient air quality standards or when de minimis thresholds are predicted to be exceeded using the first level of CAL3QHC modeling.

Select emission calculation methodology and “worst-case” meteorological conditions. Vehicular cruise and idle emissions for the dispersion modeling will be computed using EPA’s MOVES model. Compute re-suspended road dust emission factors based on CEQR guidance and the EPA procedure defined in AP–42. Five years of meteorological data from JFK Airport and concurrent upper air data from Brookhaven, New York will be used for the simulation program.

At each mobile source microscale receptor site, calculate for each applicable peak period the maximum 1- and 8-hour average CO concentrations and maximum 24-hour and annual average PM2.5 concentrations for No Action conditions and With-Action conditions. Concentrations will be determined for up to four peak periods for CO. No field monitoring will be included as part of these analyses.

Perform an analysis of CO and PM emissions for the parking facilities that would have the greatest potential for impact on air quality. The analyses will use the procedures outlined in the CEQR Technical Manual for assessing potential impacts from proposed parking facilities. Cumulative impacts from on-street sources and emissions from parking garages will be calculated, where appropriate.

Compare future levels with standards. Future pollutant levels with and without the Proposed Project will be compared with the CO NAAQS, and the City’s CO and PM2.5 de minimis guidance criteria, to determine the impacts of the Proposed Project.

Determine the consistency of the Proposed Project with the strategies contained in the SIP for the area. At any receptor sites where violations of standards occur, analyses would be performed to determine what mitigation measures would be required to attain standards.

STATIONARY SOURCES

The stationary source air quality impact analysis will determine the effects of emissions from each of the sites assumed to be developed under the Proposed Project’s fossil-fuel fired heating


48

and hot water systems to significantly impact existing land uses, or to significantly impact any of the other development sites (i.e., project-on-project impacts). While screening studies can be usefully employed for some sites, the number, size and location of the developments are such that refined modeling will likely be necessary for most sites to demonstrate compliance with national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and other relevant impact criteria (with potential restrictions applied). Therefore, a detailed stationary source analysis using EPA’s AERMOD dispersion model will be performed for the Rezoning Area if it fails the screening analysis, as necessary.

Heating and Hot Water Systems Analysis

Perform screening level analysis: The screening procedures outlined in Section 322.1 of the CEQR Technical Manual will be used as the initial step in the analysis to determine the potential for impacts from heating and hot water systems of the sites assumed to be under development under the Proposed Project. The screening procedures utilize information regarding the type of fuel to be used, the maximum development size, exhaust stack height and distance to nearest receptor to evaluate whether a significant adverse impact may occur.

Perform refined analyses as necessary: If the screening analysis for the DFRURA, Disposition Sites, Projected Development Sites, and Potential Development Sites demonstrates a potential for air quality impacts, then a refined modeling analysis will be performed for that site using the AERMOD model. For this analysis, five recent years of meteorological data from the JFK Airport National Weather Service station and concurrent upper air data from Brookhaven, New York will be utilized for the simulation program. Concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide (if assuming fuel oil), and particulate matter will be determined at off-site receptor sites, as well on representative receptors at the DFRURA, Disposition Sites, Projected Development Sites, and Potential Development Sites. Predicted values will be compared with NAAQS and other relevant standards. In the event that violations of standards are predicted, design measures to reduce pollutant levels to within standards will be described.

Industrial Source Analysis

Portions of the Rezoning Area may be located within 400 feet of areas zoned for manufacturing and auto-related uses; therefore, a field survey will be performed to verify the presence or absences of such emission sources.

Perform a field survey: A field survey will be performed to identify processing or manufacturing facilities within 400 feet of the Project Area. A copy of the air permits for any identified facility will be requested from the DEP Bureau of Environmental Compliance. A review of NYSDEC Title V permits and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Envirofacts database will also be performed to identify any federal or state-permitted facilities within one thousand feet of the Project Area. If businesses with source(s) of emissions are identified, an analysis will be performed.

Large and Major Sources Analysis

An analysis of existing large and major sources of emissions (such as sources having federal and state permits) identified within 1,000 feet of the Rezoning Area will be performed to assess their potential effects on the DFRURA, Disposition Sites, Projected Development Sites, and Potential Development Sites. Predicted criteria pollutant concentrations will be predicted using the using

Draft Scope of Work

49

the AERMOD model compared with NAAQS for NO2, SO2 and PM10, and applicable criteria for PM2.5.

TASK 16: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

In accordance with the CEQR Technical Manual, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated by the proposed project will be quantified, and an assessment of consistency with the City’s established GHG reduction goal will be prepared. Emissions will be estimated for the analysis year and reported as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) metric tons per year. GHG emissions other than carbon dioxide (CO2) will be included if they would account for a substantial portion of overall emissions, adjusted to account for the global warming potential.

Relevant measures to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions that could be incorporated into the Proposed Project will be discussed, and the potential for those measures to reduce GHG emissions from the Proposed Project will be assessed to the extent practicable.

Since portions of the Project Area are located within the current 500-year flood hazard zone, and some areas could be within the 100-year flood zone potentially as soon as the 2020s, the potential impacts of climate change on the Proposed Project will be evaluated. The discussion will focus on sea level rise and changes in storm frequency projected to result from global climate change and the potential future impact of those changes on project infrastructure and uses. The EIS analysis will consist of the following subtasks:

CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCY ASSESSMENT

The potential effects of climate change on the proposed development will be evaluated based on the best available information. The evaluation will focus on potential future sea and storm levels and the interaction with project infrastructure and uses. The discussion will focus on early integration of climate change considerations into the project design to allow for uncertainties regarding future environmental conditions resulting from climate change.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS EVALUATION

Direct Emissions—GHG emissions from on-site boilers used for heat and hot water, natural gas used for cooking, and fuel used for on-site electricity generation, if any, will be quantified. Emissions will be based on available project-specific information regarding the project’s expected fuel use if available, or carbon intensity factors specified in the CEQR Technical Manual.

Indirect Emissions—GHG emissions from purchased electricity and/or steam generated off‐site and consumed on‐site during the project’s operation will be estimated.

Indirect Mobile Source Emissions—GHG emissions from vehicle trips to and from the project site will be quantified using trip distances and vehicle emission factors provided in the CEQR Technical Manual.

Emissions from project construction and emissions associated with the extraction or production of construction materials will be qualitatively discussed. Opportunities for reducing GHG emissions associated with construction will be considered.

Design features and operational measures to reduce the Proposed Project’s energy use and GHG emissions will be discussed and quantified to the extent that information is available.


50

Consistency with the City’s GHG reduction goal will be assessed. While the City’s overall goal is to reduce GHG emissions by 30 percent below 2005 level by 2025, individual project consistency is evaluated based on building energy efficiency, proximity to transit, on-site renewable power and distributed generation, efforts to reduce on-road vehicle trips and/or to reduce the carbon fuel intensity or improve vehicle efficiency for project-generated vehicle trips, and other efforts to reduce the project’s carbon footprint.

TASK 17: NOISE

The CEQR Technical Manual requires that the noise study address whether the Proposed Project would result in a significant increase in noise levels (particularly at sensitive land uses such as residences) and potential noise exposure at newly introduced noise sensitive spaces (e.g., residences).

The outdoor mechanical equipment for the Proposed Project would be designed to meet applicable regulations in the New York City Noise Code, which are more stringent than CEQR Technical Manual impact criteria; therefore no detailed analysis of potential noise impacts due to outdoor mechanical equipment will be performed.

The noise analysis will examine the level of building attenuation necessary to meet CEQR interior noise level requirements. The building attenuation study will be an assessment of noise levels in the surrounding area associated primarily with traffic and nearby uses and their potential effect on the Proposed Project.

The following tasks will be performed in compliance with guidelines contained in the CEQR Technical Manual:

Based on the transportation studies, perform a screening analysis to determine whether there are any locations where there is the potential for the Proposed Project to result in significant noise impacts (i.e., doubling of Noise PCEs) due to project generated traffic.

Selection of noise receptor locations. Receptor locations are representative of the DFRURA, Disposition Sites, and Projected and Potential Development Sites, and were selected to provide geographic coverage of the study area as well as to account for specific noise sources such as those from at-grade and elevated railways, bus routes, and large arterial roadways. Receptors will include at-grade as well as elevated locations to account for noise from the elevated NYCT A-Train subway line. The noise receptors will be placed in areas of potentially high ambient noise where residential or other noise-sensitive uses are proposed. See Figure 21, “Preliminary Noise Monitoring Locations.”

Noise monitoring and data collection. At up to two of the receptor locations, a 24-hour continuous noise measurement will be conducted. At up to three additional receptor locations, 60-minute noise measurements will be conducted. At the remaining 13 receptor locations, 20-minute spot noise measurements would be conducted. The 20-minute or 60-minute spot noise measurements will be conducted during each of the typical weekday AM, midday, PM, and weekend peak periods. The 24-hour continuous noise measurements will be conducted during the weekday along with a 60-minute spot noise measurement during the weekend peak period. L1, L10, L50, L90, Lmin, and Lmax values will be recorded.

Determine future noise levels. Following procedures outlined in the 2014 CEQR Technical Manual for assessing mobile source noise impact based on projected volume of Noise PCEs, Future No Action and With-Action will be estimated at the noise receptor locations. Existing

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!! !

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!! !

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!!!!!!

!!

!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

40

1

19

44

10

24

31

6

655

153

9

52

46

32

161

50

10

63

133

112 32

61

28

18

15

51

152

45

83

15

56

43

4

92

150

46

17

58

12

99

55

1

11540

5

53

46

14

29

59

35

84

58

50

29

26

40

51

151

59

40

12

621

65

112

148

53

1

58

81

8

26

43

137

12

9

5

18

54

79

94

128

23

17

1

4222

47

4350

44

4142

17

31

1

26

147

58

28

34

14

25

4

36

44

22

40

25

54

8

28

40

2257

40

13

19

1

117501

89

125

100

42

16

86

43

8

23

41

34

40

18

1

12

25

13

31

62

17

24

33

60

54

26

12

4

19

38

3441

23

21

9

60

71

22

30

45

130

6

1

44

45

16

42

45

43

23

80

30

70

1

66

140

26

51

57

109

5

59

88

75

135

53

53

6

17

60

9

69

45

56

215

78

125

1

101

55

72

118

84

81

40

92

1

6

36

115

45

3329

136

43

42

37

40

48

24

1

1 5 7 5 11 5 7 5 2

1 5 7 0 6

1 5 5 7 3

1 5 5 7 4

1 5 5 6 0

1 5 5 4 5

1 5 5 2 8

1 5 5 3 6

1 5 7 0 5

1 5 6 5 1

1 5 5 2 5

1 5 7 5 0

1 5 6 6 0

1 5 5 2 9

1 5 7 0 4

1 5 7 0 9

1 5 5 3 5

1 5 5 4 1

1 5 5 5 6

1 5 6 5 8

1 5 5 3 3

1 5 5 6 1

1 5 5 5 9

1 5 5 2 7

1 5 5 2 6

1 5 6 5 9

1 5 5 4 3

1 5 6 6 1

1 5 5 6 2

1 5 7 1 0

1 5 5 4 2

1 5 7 0 4

1 5 5 6 4

1 5 5 3 7

1 5 5 6 3

1 5 5 5 7

1 5 5 4 4

1 5 5 3 4

MOTT AVENUE

NA

ME

OK

ESTR

EE

T

PIN

SO

N S

TREE

T

CENTR

AL AV

ENUE

NAMEOKE AVENUE

ROCKAWAY

FRE

EW

AY

AUGUSTINA A

VENUE

WHEATLEY STREET

DINSMORE AVENUE

BE

AC

H 2

2 S

TR

EET

GATEW

AY B

OULEVARD

HA

SSO

CK S

TREET

CRAWFORD COURT

DIX AVENUE

MO

RS

E CO

UR

T

SCOT

T A

GAD

ELL

PLAC

E

NE

ILSO

N S

TRE

ET

CHANNING ROAD

FOAM PLACE

BIRDSALL AVENUE

BEAC

H 1

8 ST

REE

T

LORETTA ROAD

SMIT

H PLA

CE

CH

AN

DLE

R S

TR

EET

BAYPORT PLACE

BE

AC

H 2

1 S

TR

EET

!(1

!(A

!(B

!(C

!(D

!(2

!(3

!(4

!(5

!(6!(7

!(8!(E

!(9

!(I

!(11

!(12

!(F

!(13

!(14

!(G

!(H

!(15

!(16

!(17

!(10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

7/21/2

016

0 200 FEET

Figure 21


Proposed DFRURA

Disposition Sites

Projected Development Sites

Potential Development Sites

So

urce

: N

ew Y

ork

City

Dep

artm

ent

of

Fina

nce

, Ju

ly 2

015

Preliminary Noise Monitoring LocationsDowntown Far Rockaway Redevelopment Project

Note: Projected/potential site boundaries illustrate the extent of the enitre tax lot/s that would contribute to totatl developement area.

Actual projected/potnetial development footprints may be differently shaped.

!!

! ! ! !

!

!!!! Project Area ! At-Grade 20 Minute Measurement

! At-Grade 24 Hour Measurement

! Elevated 60 Minute Measurement

Draft Scope of Work

51

noise levels and mathematical models based on acoustic fundamentals will be used to determine Future No Action and Future With-Action noise levels.

Determine amount of building attenuation required. The level of building attenuation necessary to satisfy CEQR requirements is a function of the exterior noise levels, and will be determined. Future With-Action noise levels will be compared to appropriate standards and guideline levels. As necessary, general noise attenuation measures needed to achieve compliance with standards and guideline levels for the structures at the DFRURA, Disposition Sites, and Projected and Potential Development Sites will be described. Due to the potentially high ambient noise levels adjacent along the Rezoning Area corridor, it is expected that each site would require acoustically rated windows together with provision of some kind of alternative ventilation (i.e., air conditioning) to achieve acceptable interior noise levels.

If the results of the screening analysis indicate that any sensitive receptor location would experience a doubling of traffic between the Future No Action and Future With-Action conditions, a detailed mobile source noise analysis would be performed at that location in compliance with CEQR Technical Manual guidelines.

TASK 18: PUBLIC HEALTH

Public health is the organized effort of society to protect and improve the health and well-being of the population through monitoring; assessment and surveillance; health promotion; prevention of disease, injury, disorder, disability, and premature death; and reducing inequalities in health status. The goal of CEQR with respect to public health is to determine whether adverse impacts on public health may occur as a result of the Proposed Actions, and, if so, to identify measures to mitigate such effects.

A public health assessment may be warranted if an unmitigated significant adverse impact is identified in other CEQR analysis areas, such as air quality, hazardous materials, or noise. If unmitigated significant adverse impacts are identified for the Proposed Actions in any of these technical areas and MOS determines that a public health assessment is warranted, an analysis will be provided for the specific technical area or areas. The Proposed Project will be screened under a level of assessment in conformance with the CEQR Technical Manual.

TASK 19: NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER

Neighborhood character is determined by a number of factors, including land use, socioeconomic conditions, open space, historic and cultural resources, urban design, visual resources, shadows, transportation, and noise. According to the guidelines of the CEQR Technical Manual, an assessment of neighborhood character is generally needed when a Proposed Project has the potential to result in significant adverse impacts in one of the technical areas presented above, or when a project may have moderate effects on several of the elements that define a neighborhood’s character. Therefore, if warranted based on an evaluation of the Proposed Project’s impacts, an assessment of neighborhood character would be prepared following the methodologies outlined in the CEQR Technical Manual.

The analysis would begin with a preliminary assessment, which would involve identifying the defining features of the area that contribute to its character. The preliminary assessment will:

Identify the defining features of the existing neighborhood character


52

Summarize changes in the character of the neighborhood that can be expected in the future With-Action condition and compare to the future No Action condition

Evaluate whether the Proposed Actions have the potential to affect these defining features, either through the potential for a significant adverse impact or a combination of moderate effects in the relevant technical areas.

If the preliminary assessment establishes that the Proposed Project would affect a contributing element of neighborhood character, a detailed assessment will be prepared to examine the potential neighborhood character-related effects of the Proposed Project through a comparison of future conditions both with and without the Proposed Project.

TASK 20: CONSTRUCTION

Construction impacts, though temporary, can have a disruptive and noticeable effect on the adjacent community, as well as people passing through the area. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a Proposed Project with an overall construction period lasting longer than two years and that is near to sensitive receptors (i.e., residences, open spaces, etc.) should undergo a construction impact assessment. Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would occur at different times and at different locations within the rezoning area over the 15-year analysis period. Since construction activities within a particularly sub-area could exceed 24 months, a construction assessment is warranted. This assessment will describe the anticipated construction schedule for the DFRURA, Disposition Sites, and for Projected Development Sites within the larger Rezoning Area, discuss construction logistics and anticipated on-site activities, and provide estimates of construction workers and truck deliveries.

The construction assessment will focus on areas where construction activities may pose specific environmental problems. Because of its development phasing and proximity to sensitive receptor locations such as residences, the Proposed Actions may have the potential for substantial and extended construction effects.

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

This assessment will consider losses in lanes, sidewalks, off-street parking on the project sites, and effects on other transportation services (i.e., transit and pedestrian circulation) during the construction periods, and identify the increase in vehicle trips from construction workers and equipment. Issues concerning construction worker parking and truck delivery staging will also be addressed. Based on the trip projections of activities associated with peak construction for the Proposed Project and those from project components that would have been completed and operational during peak construction, an assessment of potential impacts during construction and how they are compared to the trip projections under the operational condition will be provided. If this effort identifies the need for a separate Levels of Service detailed analysis, it will be performed in compliance with CEQR Technical Manual guidelines.

AIR QUALITY

A detailed dispersion analysis of onsite construction activities will be performed to determine the potential for air quality impacts on sensitive receptor locations, including residences, open spaces, and completed portions of the Proposed Project. Air pollutant sources include combustion exhaust associated with non-road construction engines (e.g., cranes, excavators) and trucks operating on-site, construction-generated traffic on local roadways, as well as onsite

Draft Scope of Work

53

activities that generate fugitive dust (e.g., excavation, demolition). The pollutants of concern include carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). To formulate the reasonable worst-case scenarios for analysis, one annual and one short term (24 hours or less) period will be identified for modeling. The potential for significant impacts will be determined by a comparison of model predicted total concentrations to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), or by comparison of the predicted increase in concentrations to applicable interim guidance thresholds. The air quality analysis will also include a discussion of the strategies to reduce project related air pollutant emissions associated with construction activities.

NOISE AND VIBRATION

A quantitative construction noise analysis will be prepared to examine potential noise impacts due to construction-related stationary and mobile sources. Existing noise levels will be determined based on noise measurements performed as part of the operational noise analysis as well as existing conditions noise modeling. One representative worst-case time period (i.e. day) in each year of construction on the DFRURA will be selected for analysis. During the most representative worst-case time periods, noise levels due to construction activities at the DFRURA, Disposition Sites and Projected Development Sites will be predicted for each sensitive receptor. Based on the results of the construction noise analysis, if necessary, the feasibility, practicability, and effectiveness of implementing measures to mitigate significant construction noise impacts will be examined. Construction activities have the potential to result in vibration levels that may result in structural or architectural damage, and/or annoyance or interference with vibration-sensitive activities. A construction vibration assessment will be performed for the Proposed Project. This assessment will determine critical distances at which various pieces of equipment may cause damage or annoyance to nearby buildings based on the type of equipment, the building construction, and applicable vibration level criteria. Should it be necessary for certain construction equipment to be located closer to a building than its critical distance, vibration mitigation options will be proposed.

OTHER TECHNICAL AREAS

As appropriate, discuss other areas of environmental assessment for potential construction-related impacts, including but not limited to historic and cultural resources, hazardous materials, open space, socioeconomic conditions, community facilities, and land use and neighborhood character.

TASK 21: MITIGATION

Where significant adverse project impacts have been identified for the Proposed Project, measures to mitigate those impacts will be identified and described. The mitigation chapter will address the anticipated impacts requiring mitigation, likely mitigation measures, and the timing of the mitigation measures. Where impacts cannot be practicably mitigated, they will be disclosed as unavoidable adverse impacts.

TASK 22: ALTERNATIVES

The purpose of an alternatives section in an EIS is to examine development options that would tend to reduce action-related impacts. The alternatives will be better defined once the full extent of the Proposed Actions’ impacts have been identified. Typically for area-wide actions such as


54

the Proposed Actions, the alternatives will include a No Action Alternative, a no impact or no unmitigated significant adverse impact alternative, and a lesser density alternative. A lesser density alternative would be pursued only if it is found to have the potential to reduce the impacts of the Proposed Actions while, to some extent, still meeting the Proposed Actions’ stated purpose and need. The alternatives analysis will be qualitative, except in those technical areas where significant adverse impacts for the Proposed Actions have been identified

TASK 23: EIS SUMMARY CHAPTERS

The EIS will include the following three summary chapters, where appropriate to the Proposed Actions:

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

This chapter summarizes any significant adverse impacts that are unavoidable if the Proposed Actions are implemented, regardless of the mitigation employed (or if mitigation is not feasible).

GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS

This chapter will generally refer to “secondary” impacts of the Proposed Actions that trigger further development.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

This chapter summarizes the Proposed Actions and their impact in terms of the loss of environmental resources (loss of vegetation, use of fossil fuels and materials for construction, etc.), both in the immediate future and in the long term.

TASK 24: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The executive summary will utilize relevant material from the body of the EIS to describe the Proposed Actions, their significant and adverse environmental impacts, measures to mitigate those impacts, and alternatives to the Proposed Actions.

Appendix 1

List of Blocks and Lots Included in the

Proposed Rezoning Area and Project Area

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario (RWCDS)

Detailed Tables

List of Blocks and Lots Included in Proposed Rezoning Area

REZONING AREA PROPOSED DFRURA PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT SITES

Block Lot Block Lot Block Lot

15528

1, 5 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 40, 41,

42, 43, 44, 45, 112, 115 15529 9, 10 15528 9

15529 4**,9, 10, 161** 15537

1, 5, 40*, 46, 50, 51,

53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,

59, 60, 63, 65, 71, 79,

89, 92, 94, 99, 100,

112, 128, 130 15529 161**

15535 1, 55**, 58**, 59**, 60**, 61**, 62** 15536 6, 12, 15, 18, 22, 28, 31

15536 1, 6, 12, 15, 18, 22, 28, 31 POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITES 15543 43

15537

1, 5, 40, 46, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59,

60, 63, 65, 71, 79, 89, 92, 94, 99, 100, 112,

125, 128, 130, 133, 137, 147, 148, 150, 152,

153 Block Lot 15544 34

15543 32**, 35, 43, 46, 53 15528 5 15559 8, 58, 62

15544 24, 26, 28, 31, 34, 40 15535 1 15560 8

15545 19, 23, 26, 28, 29, 32** 15544 40 15561 8, 10, 58

15557 1, 4, 14**, 17, 81, 83, 84, 86** 15559 12, 54 15563 31, 40, 43

15559 1, 8, 12, 25, 40, 42, 44, 51, 54, 58, 62, 151 15561 34 15564 40**, 42**

15560

1, 8, 12, 17, 22, 23, 24, 26, 30, 34, 40, 41,

43, 44, 45, 50, 52, 54 15564 45 15661 80

15561

1, 4, 8, 10, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 29,

34, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 58 15661 1 15705 1, 6, 78, 81, 84, 88, 140

15562 1, 24,** 48** 15709 101, 109

15563

1**, 6, 9, 11**, 12**, 16**, 22, 25, 31, 40,

43

15564

17**, 23**, 25**, 33, 36, 38, 40**, 42**, 45,

50**, 7501

15661 1, 9, 70**, 80

15704

1, 5, 6, 17, 26, 30, 36, 40, 53, 55, 57, 60, 66,

72, 75

15705

1, 6, 59, 69, 78, 81, 84, 88, 125, 135**, 136,

140

15709 92**, 101, 109**, 115, 118, 215**

15710 45, 51, 53, 56**

15750 29**, 33, 37, 40, 42, 43**, 45**

DISPOSITION SITES

Block Lot

15705 59

15705 69

15534 70***

Notes: * A portion of Block 15537, Lot 40 is within the Proposed DFRURA and a portion is outside the DFRURA but within the Rezoning Area.

** Indicates a lot that is partially within the Rezoning Area Boundary

*** Block 15534, Lot 70 (DSNY Disposition Site) is outside of the Rezoning Area Boundary

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario (RWCDS) Detailed Tables

PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT SITES

1 15661 80 13-15 BEACH CHANNEL DRIVE Wide 14,995 C1-2 1.25 1 2 0.16 2,400 2,400 0 0 0 0 Laundromat C2-3 3.6 2 3 - 6,290 46,000 46 52,290 (2,400) 6,290 46,000 46 49,890

2 15528 9 13-24 BEACH CHANNEL DRIVE Wide 11,500 C1-2 1.25 1 2 0.31 3,600 3,600 0 0 0 0 Car Wash C2-3 3.6 2 3 6,290 - 30,000 30 36,290 2,690 - 30,000 30 32,690

3 15705 140 10-74 BEACH 22 STREET Narrow 13,710 0 1 2.4 0.06 840 0 0 0 0 0 Vacant 4.6 3.4 4 4,845 - 42,900 43 47,745 4,845 - 42,900 43 46,905

15705 6 21-12 CORNAGA AVENUE Narrow 8,668 0 1 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.6 3.4 6.5 17,680 - 103,300 103 120,980 17,680 - 103,300 103 120,980

15705 78 10-27 BEACH 21 STREET Narrow 14,060 0 1 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.6 3.4 6.5

15705 81 10-17 BEACH 21 STREET Narrow 4,770 0 1 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.6 3.4 6.5

15705 84 BEACH 21 STREET Narrow 6,570 0 1 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.6 3.4 6.5

15705 1 10-09 CORNAGA AVENUE Narrow 9,968 0 1 2.4 0.16 1634 1634 0 0 0 0 4.6 3.4 6.5 7,650 - 43,800 44 51,450 6,016 - 43,800 44 49,816

15705 88 BEACH 21 STREET Narrow 4,320 0 1 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.6 3.4 6.5

15561 8 10-18 BEACH 20 STREET Narrow 6,550 2.43 3.4 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.6 3.4 6.525,925 - 171,600 172 197,525 25,925 - 171,600 172 197,525

15561 10 10-25 BEACH 20 STREET Narrow 26,158 C2-2 1.25 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.6 3.4 6.5

15561 58 CORNAGA AVENUE Narrow 22,165 C2-2 1.25 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.6 3.4 6.4

7 15560 8 10-16 BEACH 19 STREET Narrow 18,694 C2-2 1.25 1 2 0.7 13000 0 0 0 0 0 Vacant Building C2-3 3.6 2 3 7,269 - 58,000 58 65,269 7,269 - 58,000 58 52,269.20

15564 40 19-19 CORNAGA AVENUE Narrow 5,856 2.43 3.4 4.8 0.22 1,296 0 0 0 432 1 C2-3 1.25 1 25,610 - 37,300 37 42,910 5,610 - 36,868 36 41,614

15564 42 19-15 CORNAGA AVENUE Narrow 9,400 1.25 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C2-3 3.6 2 3

15563 31 GATEWAY BOULEVARD Narrow 13,900 C2-2 1.25 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C2-3 3.6/1.25 2/1 3/2- 6,000 135,000 135 141,000 - 6,000 135,000 135 141,000

15563 40 GATEWAY BOULEVARD Narrow 17,591 C2-2 1.25 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C2-3 3.6/1.25 2/1 3/2

15563 43 GATEWAY BOULEVARD Narrow 7,690 C2-2 1.25 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C2-3 1.25 1 2

10 15559 8 MOTT AVENUE Narrow 19,320 2.43 3.4 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking C2-3 3.6 2 3 5,525 3,500 62,500 63 71,525 5,525 3,500 62,500 63 71,525

11 15559 58 11-19 FOAM PLACE Narrow 10,176 2.43 3.4 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacant 3.6 0 3 3,485 - 33,000 33 36,485 3,485 - 33,000 33 36,485

12 15559 62 FOAM PLACE Narrow 10,431 2.43 3.4 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacant 3.6 0 3 3,412 - 34,100 34 37,512 3,412 - 34,100 34 37,512

13 15544 34 14-19 CENTRAL AVENUE Narrow 18,750 0 1 2.4 0.09 1710 1710 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 4.6 3.4 6.5 6,970 - 60,400 60 67,370 5,260 - 60,400 60 65,660

14 15543 43 CENTRAL AVENUE Narrow 9,926 C1-2 1.25 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacant C2-3 3.6 2 3 - 2,805 21,600 22 24,405 - 2,805 21,600 22 24,405

15536 12 AUGUSTINA AVENUE Narrow 5,000 0 1 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.6 3.4 6.5- 25,500 138,000 138 163,500 - 20,500 138,000 138 163,500

15536 15 AUGUSTINA AVENUE Narrow 5,000 0 1 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.6 3.4 6.5

15536 18 19-15 NAMEOKE AVENUE Narrow 5,000 0 1 2.4 0.63 3150 0 0 0 0 0 4.6 3.4 6.5

15536 22 14-14 CENTRAL AVENUE Narrow 10,000 0 1 2.4 0.5 5000 0 5000 0 0 0 4.6 3.4 6.5

15536 28 CENTRAL AVENUE Narrow 5,000 0 1 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.6 3.4 6.5

15536 6 13-12 BAYPORT PLACE Narrow 10,000 0 1 2.4 2 20000 0 0 0 0 0 4.6 3.4 6.57,183 - 54,300 54 61,483 7,183 - 54,300 54 41,483

15536 31 CENTRAL AVENUE Narrow 4,500 0 1 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.6 3.4 6.5

17 15529 161 14-14 BRUNSWICK AVENUE Narrow 32,778 0 1 2.4 0.17 5708 0 0 5708 0 0 Vacant* C2-3 3.6 2 3 5,525 - 32,400 32 37,925 5,525 - 32,400 32 32,217

TOTALS FOR PROJECTED SITES 362,446 58,338 9,344 5,000 5,708 432 1 107,369 44,095 1,104,200 1,104 1,255,664 98,025 39,095 1,103,768 1,103 1,197,326

NOTE: * For Projected Development Site 17, the portion of Block 15529, Lot 161 that is within the Rezoning Area boundary is vacant; the 5,708 sf of industrial space identified in the table is located outside of the Project Area, and would not be affected by the Proposed Actions.

Site Info Existing and No Action Conditions Future With-Action Conditioins

Site ID (see Figure 3) Block Lot Address Street Type

Lot Area (sf)

within

Rezoning

Area

Residential

(DUs)

FAR Development Scenario

Existing ZoningExisting

Overlay

Residential

FAR

Zoning Area

Use

Zoning

Community

Facility Area

Industrial

Area

Residential

Area

Proposed

Zoning

FAR

R5 R6A

R5 R6A

Residential

(GSF)Total (GSF)

Commercial

(GSF)

Community

Facility (GSF)

Residential

(GSF)

Proposed

Overlay

Residential

FAR

Commercial

FAR

Com

Fac FAR

Commercial

(GSF)

Community

Facility (GSF)Built FAR

Total Built

Area

Commercial

Area

Residential

(DUs)Commercial

FAR

Community

Facility FAR

C8-1 C4-4

4

C8-1

Vacant

C4-4

C8-1 C4-4

C8-1 C4-4

C8-1 C4-4

5C8-1

Auto RepairC4-4

C8-1 C4-4

6

C4-2

Vacant

C4-4

R5/C4-2 C4-4

R5/C4-2 C4-4

R5 R6A

8

C4-2

Vacant/ Residential

R5

R5 R6A

C4-2 R6A

C4-2 R6A

C4-2 R6A

9

R5

Vacant

R6A/R5

R5 R6A/R5

R5 R5

C8-1 C4-4

R5 R6A

15

C8-1

Church/ Vacant

C4-4

C8-1

16

C8-1

Vacant Building

C4-4

C8-1 C4-4

C4-4

C8-1 C4-4

C8-1 C4-4

C8-1 C4-4

M1-1 R6A

Proposed Actions Increment

(difference between No-Action and With-Action Conditions)

Total (GSF)Residential

(DUs)

1-2

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario (RWCDS) Detailed Tables

PROPOSED DOWNTOWN FAR ROCKAWAY URBAN RENEWAL AREA (DFRURA)

15529 9 NAMEOKE AVENUE Narrow 526 M1-1 0.00 1.00 2.40 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacant R6A C2-3 3.6 2 3 129,077 36,295 1,766,666 1,747 874 1,932,038 47,489 36,295 1,759,453 1,740 874 1,767,388

15529 10 20-50 NAMEOKE AVENUE Narrow 17,812 M1-1 0.00 1.00 2.40 0.85 15,085 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacant Building R6A C2-3 3.6 2 3

15537 1 20-02 MOTT AVENUE Narrow 267,496 C4-2/C8-1 2.43 3.40 4.80 0.14 78,750 56,100 0 0 0 0 0 Shopping Center C4-4 4.6 3.4 6.5

15537 5 20-10 MOTT AVENUE Narrow 11,100 C4-2 2.43 3.40 4.80 0.70 7,752 7,752 0 0 0 0 0 Bank C4-4 4.6 3.4 6.5

15537 40 18-01 REDFERN AVENUE Narrow 4,600 C8-1 0.00 1.00 2.40 0.27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Church C4-4 4.6 3.4 6.5

15537 46 REDFERN AVENUE Narrow 5,353 C8-1 0.00 1.00 2.40 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacant C4-4 4.6 3.4 6.5

15537 50 17-27 REDFERN AVENUE Narrow 2,974 C8-1 0.00 1.00 2.40 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacant C4-4 4.6 3.4 6.5

15537 51 17-25 REDFERN AVENUE Narrow 3,018 C8-1 0.00 1.00 2.40 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacant C4-4 4.6 3.4 6.5

15537 53 17-21 REDFERN AVENUE Narrow 3,143 C8-1 0.00 1.00 2.40 0.45 1,407 0 0 0 1,407 2 0 Residential C4-4 4.6 3.4 6.5







15537 60 17-01 REDFERN AVENUE Narrow 6,148 C8-1 0.00 1.00 2.40 0.37 2,275 0 0 2,275 0 0 0 Recylcing Center C4-4 4.6 3.4 6.5



15537 71 20-47 NAMEOKE AVENUE Narrow 20,280 C8-1 0.00 1.00 2.40 1.44 29,285 0 0 29,285 0 0 0 industrial C4-4 4.6 3.4 6.5

15537 79 NAMEOKE AVENUE Narrow 620 C8-1 0.00 1.00 2.40 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacant C4-4 4.6 3.4 6.5

15537 89 20-09 NAMEOKE AVENUE Narrow 5,356 C8-1 0.00 1.00 2.40 1.18 6,300 6,300 0 0 0 0 0 industrial C4-4 4.6 3.4 6.5

15537 92 NAMEOKE AVENUE Narrow 2,013 C8-1 0.00 1.00 2.40 0.09 172 172 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair C4-4 4.6 3.4 6.5

15537 94 14-02 AUGUSTINA AVENUE Narrow 4,850 C8-1 0.00 1.00 2.40 1.00 4,850 4,850 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair C4-4 4.6 3.4 6.5

15537 99 14-06 AUGUSTINA AVENUE Narrow 8,279 C8-1 0.00 1.00 2.40 0.77 6,414 6,414 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair C4-4 4.6 3.4 6.5

15537 100 AUGUSTINA AVENUE Narrow 20,483 C8-1 0.00 1.00 2.40 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacant C4-4 4.6 3.4 6.5

15537 112 BAYPORT PLACE Narrow 17,568 C4-2 2.43 3.40 4.80 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacant C4-4 4.6 3.4 6.5

15537 128 CENTRAL AVENUE Narrow 5,000 C4-2 2.43 3.40 4.80 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacant C4-4 4.6 3.4 6.5

15537 130 CENTRAL AVENUE Narrow 4,958 C4-2 2.43 3.40 4.80 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacant C4-4 4.6 3.4 6.5

TOTALS FOR DFRURA 446,839 164,650 81,588 0 38,114 7,213 7 0 129,077 36,295 1,766,666 1,747 874 1,932,038 47,489 36,295 1,759,453 1,740 874 1,767,388

DISPOSITION SITES

15705 59 BEACH 21 STREET Narrow 48565 C8-1/R5 0.00 1.00 2.40 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bus Depot C4-4 4.6 3.4 6.5 7,421 11,557 177,238 176 176 196,216 7,421 11,557 177,238 176 176 196,216

15705 69 BEACH 21 STREET Narrow 9479 C8-1 0.00 1.00 2.40 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bus Depot C4-4 4.6 3.4 6.5

DSNY Disposition Site 15534 70 14000 R3X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacant NA 0 0 8000 8 8 8,000 - - 8,000 8 8 8,000

TOTAL FOR DISPOSITION SITES 72,044 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,421 11,557 185,238 184 184 204,216 7,421 11,557 185,238 184 184 204,216





Affordable

Dus

Development Scenario

Commercial

FAR

Community

Facility FARBuilt FAR

Residential

(DUs)

DOT/MTA Disposition Site

Total (SF)Commercial

(SF)

Community

Facility (SF)

Residential

(SF)Total (SF)

Residential

FAR

Commercial

FAR

Com

Fac FAR

Community

Facility (SF)

Residential

(SF)Existing Zoning

Existing

Overlay

Residential

FAR

Affordable

DUs

Lot Address Street Type Lot Area (sf)

Zoning

Community

Facility (GSF)

Residential

(GSF)

Commercial

(SF)

Total Built

Area

Commercial

Area

Community

Facility Area

FAR Area

Use

Zoning FAR

Industrial

Area

Residential

Area

Proposed

Zoning

Proposed

Overlay

Residential

(Dus)

Lot Area (sf)

within

Development

Site

Zoning FAR Area

UseTotal Built

Area

Commercial

Area

Community

Facility Area

Industrial

Area

DFRURA


Site ID (See Figure 3)

Commercial

(GSF)

Community

Facility (GSF)

Residential

(GSF)Total (GSF)

Commercial

(GSF)

Residential

Area

Proposed

Zoning

Proposed

Overlay

Residential

FAR

Commercial

FAR

Com

Fac FAR

Zoning FAR Development Scenario

Existing Zoning

BlockResidential

(DUs)


Site ID (see Figure 3) Block Lot AddressResidential

(DUs)

Affordable

DUs

Residential

(DUs)Affordable DUs

Residential

(Dus)

Affordable

DusTotal (GSF)

Existing

Overlay

Residential

FAR

Commercial

FAR

Community


Street Type

Affordable DUs

1-2

Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario (RWCDS) Detailed Tables (cont.)POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITES

A 15661 1 22-02 MOTT AVENUE Wide 12,112 C1-2 1.25 1 2 0.13 1,601 1,601 0 0 0 0 Restaurant C2-3 3.6 2 3 5,610 - 37,800 38 43,410 4,009 - 37,800 38 41,809

B 15709 101 21-41 MOTT AVENUE Wide 19,600 C1-2 1.25 1 2 0.21 4,100 4,100 0 0 0 0 Restaurant C2-3 3.6 2 3 8,075 - 62,000 62 70,075 3,975 - 62,000 62 65,975

C 15709 109 21-23 MOTT AVENUE Narrow 21,278 C1-2 1.25 0 2 0.23 6,050 6,050 0 0 0 0 Retail/Restaurant C2-3 3.6 2 3 9,350 - 85,000 85 94,350 3,300 - 85,000 85 88,300

D 15528 5 13-12 BEACH CHANNEL DRIVE Narrow 10,500 C1-2 1.25 1 2 0.13 1,400 1,400 0 0 0 0 Restaurant C2-3 3.6 2 3 3,825 - 28,400 28 32,225 2,425 - 28,400 28 30,825

E 15564 45 19-03 CORNAGA AVENUE Narrow 11,107 1.25 2 0.82 9,150 9,150 0 0 0 0 Retail C2-3 3.6 2 3 5,865 34,000 34 39,865 (3,285) - 34,000 34 30,715

F 15561 34 19-01 MOTT AVENUE Narrow 23,048 C2-2 1.25 0 2 0.45 10,400 10,400 0 0 0 0 Retail 4.6 3.4 6.5 10,880 5,500 66,400 66 82,780 480 5,500 66,400 66 72,380

G 15544 40 14-01 CENTRAL AVENUE Narrow 10,950 0 1 2.4 0.13 1,440 1,440 0 0 0 0 Retail 4.6 3.4 6.5 4,675 34,700 35 39,375 3,235 - 34,700 35 37,935

H 15535 1 13-38 CENTRAL AVENUE Narrow 10,450 C1-2 1.25 0 2 0.31 3,200 3,200 0 0 0 0 Retail/Restaurant C2-3 3.6 2 3 5,440 - 29,600 30 35,040 2,240 - 29,600 30 31,840

15559 12 19-30 MOTT AVENUE Narrow 60,650 2.43 3.4 4.8 0.39 23,368 23,368 0 0 0 0 C2-3 3.6 2 3

34,775 - 174,360 174 209,135 11,407 - 174,360 174 185,767

15559 54 FOAM PLACE Narrow 10,150 2.43 3.4 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 0 3

TOTAL FOR POTENTIAL SITES 189,845 60,709 60,709 0 0 0 0 88,495 5,500 552,260 552 646,255 27,786 5,500 552,260 552 585,546



Residential

(Dus) Residential

(DUs)

Residential

(DUs)

R5 R6A

R5 R6A

R5 R6A

R5 R6A

Community

Facility (GSF)

Residential

(GSF)

Community


I

C4-2

Retail/Parking

R6A

C4-2 R6A

R5 R6A

R5/C4-2 C4-4

C8-1 C4-4

Total (GSF)

R5 R6A

Commercial

(GSF)

Community

Facility (GSF)

Residential

(GSF)Total (GSF)

Commercial

(GSF)

Residential

Area

Proposed

Zoning

Proposed

Overlay

Residential

FAR

Commercial

FAR

Com

Fac FAR

Zoning FAR Development Scenario

Existing ZoningExisting

Overlay

Residential

FAR

Commercial

FAR

Street Type

Lot Area (sf)

within

Rezoning

Area

Zoning FAR Area

UseTotal Built

Area

Commercial

Area

Community

Facility Area

Industrial

Area


Site ID (see Figure 3) Block Lot Address

1-2

Appendix 2 Preliminary Transportation Planning Factors and

Travel Demand Forecast

Downtown Far Rockaway Redevelopment ‐ Preliminary Transportation Planning Factors

Land Use:

House of

Worship

Medical

Office

Size/Units: 177,615 gsf 3,027 DU ‐24,680 gsf 6,305 gsf 42,295 gsf 20,500 gsf 17,847 gsf

Trip Generation:

Weekday 205 8.075

Saturday 240 9.600

per 1,000 sf per DU per 1,000 sf per 1,000 sf per 1,000 sf

Temporal Distribution:

AM 3.0% 10.0%

MD 19.0% 5.0%

PM 10.0% 11.0%

SatMD 10.0% 8.0%

Modal Splits: AM/MD/PM SAT

Auto 11.0% 8.0% 39.3% 16.0% 16.0% 16.0%

Taxi 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

Subway 9.0% 7.0% 20.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0%

Rail 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Bus 5.0% 5.0% 21.2% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5%

Walk/Other 75.0% 80.0% 56.0% 56.0% 56.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

In/Out Splits: In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out

AM 50% 50% 15.0% 85.0% 65% 35% 53% 47% 61% 39% 54% 46% 89% 11%

MD 50% 50% 50.0% 50.0% 50% 50% 50% 50% 55% 45% 50% 50% 51% 49%

PM 50% 50% 70.0% 30.0% 50% 50% 47% 53% 29% 71% 52% 48% 48% 52%

Sat MD 55% 45% 50.0% 50.0% 50% 50% 47% 53% 49% 51% 71% 29% 41% 59%

Vehicle Occupancy: AM/PM MD/SMD Wkdy Sat

Auto 2.00 1.1 1.1 1.50 2.60

Taxi 2.00 1.40 1.30 1.50 2.60

Truck Trip Generation:

Weekday 0.35 0.06 0.29

Saturday 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.29

per 1,000 sf per DU per 1,000 sf

AM 8.0% 12.0% 3.0%

MD 11.0% 9.0% 11.0%

PM 2.0% 2.0% 1.0%

Sat MD 0.0%

In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out

AM/MD/PM 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%

Notes :

(1)

(2)

(3) Based on ACS 2013 Journey to Work 5‐Year data for tracts 1008.02, 1010.01, 1032.01, and 1032.02.

(4)

(5) Based on data from No. 7 Subway Extension ‐ Hudson Yards Rezoning and Development Program FGEIS, 2004.

(6)

(7)

(8) Community Center use modal splits applied to Day Care Center and House of Worship uses.

(9)

21.83

0.0%

(2)

1.50

(8)

(5)

(8)

1.50

100.0%

1.50

100.0%

(6)

9.6%

(8)

0.00

(6)(6)

9.6%

(7)

0.38

per 1,000 sf per 1,000 sf

(9)

(9)

0.29

(6)

19.18

(6)

(6)

(8)

1.50

All Periods

7.9%

4.0%

7.2%

15.8%

(8)

5.0%

9.0%

(7)

All Periods

4.0%

9.0%

per 1,000 sf

(6)

11.0%

1.0%

11.0%

1.0%

(7)

(2)

(2)

19.42

19.42

(2)

All Periods

85.0%

5.0%

1.0%

per 1,000 sf

1.0%

8.0%

(2)

13.2%

11.0%

14.2%

10.7%

100.0%

14.0%

9.0%

1.0%

(2)

(2)

(3)

1.30

1.30

(1)

(1)

(1)

(3)

All Periods

14.9%

Day Care

Center

Based on data from Jamaica Plan Rezoning FGEIS, 2007.

Based on data from Flushing Commons FEIS, 2010.

Based on data from East New York Rezoning Proposal FEIS, 2016.

Based on data from City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual , 2014.

Based on data from Broadway Triangle FEIS , 2009.

Based on data provided by NYCDOT.

Auto

Repair

Local

Retail Residential

(1)

(1)

(4)

(2)

(2)

11.0%

(1)

(1)

0.89

9.0%

(1)

0.89

per 1,000 sf

(2)

0.0%

100.0%

1.50

0.0%

11.0%

(9)

(9)

Community

Center

0.0%

All Periods

0.0%

0.38

1.0%

9.6%

1.50

0.38

(9)

4.0%

11.0%

12.0%

11.0%

(9)

127

127

per 1,000 sf

(9)

All Periods

30%

2%

33%

18%

17%

100%

2

(5)

16.0%

5.0%

19.0%

12.0%

(8)

0%

(5)

33

(1)

44.7

26.1

(1)

Dowtown Far Rockaway Redevlopment ‐ Preliminary Travel Demand Forecast

Land Use: Total

Size/Units: 177,615 gsf 3,027 DUs ‐24,680 gsf 6,305 gsf 42,295 gsf 20,500 gsf 17,847 gsf

Peak Hour Trips:

AM 3,468

MD 6,750

PM 5,784

Sat MD 5,882

Person Trips:

AM In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out

Auto 46 46 150 831 ‐40 ‐22 3 3 7 5 3 2 25 3 194 868

Taxi 0 0 0 10 ‐1 ‐1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 9

Subway 38 38 74 420 0 0 4 4 11 7 4 3 26 3 157 475

Rail 0 0 12 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 84

Bus 22 22 80 443 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 15 2 120 469

Walk/Other 305 305 55 315 ‐3 ‐1 13 9 29 18 10 8 14 2 423 656

Total 411 411 371 2,103 ‐44 ‐24 20 16 49 31 18 14 82 10 907 2,561

MD In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out

Auto 283 283 258 258 ‐24 ‐24 0 0 15 12 1 1 38 37 571 567

Taxi 0 0 0 0 ‐1 ‐1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 2

Subway 229 229 124 124 0 0 2 2 22 18 2 2 42 40 421 415

Rail 0 0 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 21

Bus 129 129 131 131 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 23 22 287 286

Walk/Other 1,911 1,911 90 90 ‐2 ‐2 4 4 55 44 5 5 22 20 2,085 2,072

Total 2,552 2,552 624 624 ‐27 ‐27 6 6 96 78 8 8 128 122 3,387 3,363

PM In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out

Auto 148 148 749 326 ‐33 ‐33 3 4 5 11 2 2 40 43 914 501

Taxi 0 0 10 1 ‐1 ‐1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 12 3

Subway 120 120 381 162 0 0 4 5 7 16 4 3 42 47 558 353

Rail 0 0 77 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 31

Bus 67 67 402 175 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 23 26 494 273

Walk/Other 1,014 1,014 283 119 ‐2 ‐2 12 11 16 39 9 8 23 24 1,355 1,213

Total 1,349 1,349 1,902 814 ‐36 ‐36 19 21 29 69 16 14 131 143 3,410 2,374

Sat MD In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out

Auto 140 114 457 457 ‐24 ‐24 0 0 7 8 8 3 31 45 619 603

Taxi 0 0 5 5 ‐1 ‐1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 6 7

Subway 120 100 237 237 0 0 0 0 12 12 12 5 34 49 415 403

Rail 0 0 51 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 51

Bus 89 71 249 249 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 18 26 360 349

Walk/Other 1,386 1,134 178 178 ‐2 ‐2 2 2 29 30 29 12 17 25 1,639 1,379

Total 1,735 1,419 1,177 1,177 ‐27 ‐27 2 2 50 52 51 21 102 148 3,090 2,792

Vehicle Trips :

AM In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out

Auto (Total) 28 28 139 756 ‐31 ‐18 2 2 5 4 2 1 17 2 162 775

Taxi 0 0 0 10 ‐1 ‐1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 9

Taxi Balanced 0 0 10 10 ‐2 ‐2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 10 10

Truck 0 0 8 8 ‐1 ‐1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7

Total 28 28 157 774 ‐34 ‐21 2 2 5 4 2 1 19 4 179 792

MD In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out

Auto (Total) 145 145 240 240 ‐19 ‐19 0 0 10 8 1 1 26 25 403 400

Taxi 0 0 0 0 ‐1 ‐1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1

Taxi Balanced 0 0 0 0 ‐2 ‐2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 2

Truck 1 1 6 6 ‐1 ‐1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 7 7

Total 146 146 246 246 ‐22 ‐22 0 0 11 9 1 1 30 29 412 409

PM In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out

Auto (Total) 78 78 681 299 ‐25 ‐25 2 2 4 7 1 1 26 29 767 391

Taxi 0 0 10 1 ‐1 ‐1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 11 2

Taxi Balanced 0 0 11 11 ‐2 ‐2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 13 13

Truck 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 78 78 692 310 ‐27 ‐27 2 2 4 7 1 1 30 33 780 404

Sat MD In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out

Auto (Total) 74 63 416 416 ‐19 ‐19 0 0 5 5 5 2 12 17 493 484

Taxi 0 0 5 5 ‐1 ‐1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 5

Taxi Balanced 0 0 10 10 ‐2 ‐2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 9

Truck 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 74 63 426 426 ‐21 ‐21 0 0 5 5 5 2 13 18 502 493

Total Vehicle Trips

In Out Total

AM 179 792 971

MD 412 409 821

PM 780 404 1,184

Sat MD 502 493 995

Note:

Local Retail Residential Medical Office

Day‐Care

Center

Community

Center

House of

WorshipAuto Repair

822

5,104

2,698

3,154

2,474

1,248

2,716

2,354

‐68

‐54

‐72

‐54

36

12

40

4

25% linked‐trip credit applied to local retail use.

92

250

274

250

80

174

98

102

32

16

30

72

Documents

Draft Scope of Work