Pier 57 Final Scope of Work Blacklined 10-10-12 - Hudson River Park

hudsonriverpark.org

Pier 57 Final Scope of Work Blacklined 10-10-12 - Hudson River Park

Pier 57: Draft Final Scope of Work for an Environmental Impact Statement

A. INTRODUCTION

The applicant—Young Woo & Associates, through the entity Hudson Eagle LLC (“Hudson

Eagle”)—proposes to redevelop the Pier 57 site, which is located within Hudson River Park at

approximately West 15th Street (see Figure 1), with retail, restaurant and other commercial

uses; a marina; and educational and cultural and public open spaces uses. As part of the

proposed project, the Pier 57 supporting caissons and pier structure would be rehabilitated and

repaired.

In order to develop this proposed project, discretionary actions would be required from the

Hudson River Park Trust (HRPT), the New York City Planning Commission (CPC), the New

York City Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA), and the New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and possibly other agencies, including the New York

State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). Thus, the proposed Pier 57 project is subject to

environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) and City

Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) regulations and guidelines. HRPT will act as the lead

agency for this proposal. In addition, the project will be subject to review under the Uniform

Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). Federal approvals would be necessary for permits for inwater

work on the pier structure and would be subject to environmental review under the

National Environmental Policy Act.

Development of the proposed project may result in potentially significant adverse environmental

impacts, requiring that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared. Scoping is the

first step in the EIS preparation and provides an early opportunity for the public and other

agencies to be involved in the EIS process. It is intended to determine the range of issues and

considerations to be evaluated in the EIS. This draft EIS scope has been prepared to describe the

proposed project, present the proposed framework for the EIS analysis, and discuss the

procedures to be followed in the preparation of the Draft EIS (DEIS). The 2010 New York

City’s 2012 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual will serve as a

general guide on the methodologies and impact criteria for evaluating the project’s potential

effects on the various environmental areas of analysis.

This document is the Final Scope of Work for the Pier 57 Redevelopment Project Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). This Final Scope has been prepared to describe the

proposed project, present the proposed framework for the EIS analysis, and discuss the

procedures to be followed in the preparation of the DEIS. In accordance with the State

Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), a Draft Scope of Work (“Draft Scope”) was

prepared and distributed for public review. A public scoping meeting was held on July 14, 2011

at the Chelsea Markets Events Space, 75 Ninth Avenue, New York, NY 10011. Written

comments were accepted through the public comment period, which ended July 29, 2011.

1 October 2012


9.13.12

N

NEW

JERSEY

HUDSON RIVER

0 2000 4000 FEET

SCALE

Project Site

Hudson River Park

HUDSON RIVER PARK PIER 57

W. 34th St.

99

98

97

W. 55th St.

94

92

90

88

86

84

83

W. 42nd St.

81

79

78

76

72

66

64

W. 23rd St.

62

61

60

59

Convention

Center

57

Gansevoort St.

Eleventh Ave.

54

53

52

51

W. 59th St.

49

Tenth Ave.

46

45

Christopher St.

40

34

Ninth Ave.

Chambers St.

Eighth Ave.

W. 14th St.

32

26

25

Seventh Ave.

Sixth Ave.

Battery Park

City

Battery Pl.

Broadway

Fifth Ave.

Canal St.

Battery

Park

E. 59th St.

E. 57th St.

Park Ave.

Broadway

Lexington Ave.

Third Ave.

E. 42nd St.

E. 34th St.

E. 23rd St.

Second Ave.

First Ave.

Houston St.

FDR Drive

E. 14th St.

Queensboro Bridge

EAST RIVER

Brooklyn Bridge

QUEENS

Manhattan Bridge

BROOKLYN

Project Location

Figure 1

Ea st River Park


Pier 57 Redevelopment

In January 2012, the city released an updated CEQR Technical Manual. The Final Scope

incorporates changes to impact assessment methodologies since the Draft Scope was issued, as

well as any revisions made in response to the comments on the Draft Scope. A version of the

Final Scope with revisions since the Draft Scope indicated by double-underlining new text and

striking deleted text is available on HRPT’s website (www.hudsonriverpark.org).

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PROJECT SITE

The project site consists of historic Pier 57, adjacent lands underwater, and some associated

frontage area, all of which are located in Hudson River Park at approximately West 15th Street.

Immediately adjacent to and east of the site are other portions of Hudson River Park and the

Route 9A bikeway and roadway. (see Figure 2).

The pier, at 15th Street west of Route 9A, was constructed in 1952from 1950 to 1954 and

consists of three underwater caissons, which are concrete boxes that form most of the pier’s

substructure. Above the caissons are the pier’s headhouse and “finger” building.(the eastern

portion of the pier structure that is parallel to Route 9A) and “finger” building, or pier shed (the

portion of the pier that is perpendicular to Route 9A and extends into the water).

The pier, which is listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places, was historically

used for the Grace Lines cruises (through 1967). Between 1967 and 2003, it was used as a bus

garage and maintenance facility by the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transportation Operating

Authority and later the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The pier has been vacant since

2004.

The pier is zoned M2-3, which allows commercial or manufacturing uses at a maximum floor

area ratio of 2.0 (see Figure 3). Many uses otherwise permitted by zoning are prohibited by the

Hudson River Park Act, Chapter 592 of the Laws of 1998 (“the Act”), which created Hudson

River Park and HRPT to design, build and operate it.

Pier 57 is part of the 550-acre Hudson River Park, the creation of which was the subject of an

environmental review in the late 1990s (Hudson River Park Final Environmental Impact

Statement, May 1998). In 1998, the New York State Legislature passed the “Hudson River Park

Act,” Chapter 592 of the Laws of 1998 (“the Act”) which created Hudson River Park and HRPT

to design, build and operate it.

PROPOSED PROJECT

The rehabilitated pier is expected to include a public retail marketplace, restaurant and other

commercial uses, as well as educational, cultural and public open spaces uses and a marina. The

pier would become an important component of this section of Hudson River Park, generateing

needed revenue to support the Park’s operations, and improveing the visual and programming

links between the Park and the inland communities. The project would also preserve an

important physical component of the waterfront’s history and reintroduce some maritime uses to

a pier once built explicitly for that purpose while also introducing innovative architectural

components designed to respect and enliven the historic structure. Table 1 summarizes the

2


9.13.12

Project Site

H U D S O N R I V E R

Hudson River Park

HUDSON RIVER PARK PIER 57

PIER 53

PIER 57

PIER 54

PIER 52

PIER 59

PIER 62

PIER 61

PIER 60

FDNY

PIER 51

PIER 64

PIER 63

C H E L S E A P I E R S

NYC

DEPT OF

SANITATION

ESPLANADE

ESPLANADE

WEST WEST ST ST

JOE JOE DIMAGGIO DIMAGGIO HWY HWY ROUTE ROUTE 9A 9A

W W 15 15 ST ST

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON ST ST

W W 16 16 ST ST

W W 17 17 ST ST

W W 18 18 ST ST

HORATIO HORATIO ST ST

JANE JANE ST ST

W 12 ST

BETHUNE BETHUNE ST ST

BANK BANK ST ST

ELEVENTH ELEVENTH AV AV

MEAT PACKING

DISTRICT

LITTLE LITTLE W W 12 12 ST ST

W W 19 19 ST ST

W W 13 13 ST ST

GANSEVOORT GANSEVOORT ST ST

WEST VILLAGE

GREENWICH GREENWICH ST ST

W W 20 20 ST ST

W W 14 14 ST ST

HUDSON HUDSON ST ST

W W 21 21 ST ST

NINTH NINTH AV AV

HUDSON HUDSON ST ST

W W 22 22 ST ST

BLEECKER BLEECKER ST ST

W W 23 23 ST ST

TENTH TENTH AV AV

SCALE

W W 24 24 ST ST

W W 25 25 ST ST

W W 4 4 ST ST

W W 26 26 ST ST

BANK BANK ST ST

W W 4 4 ST ST

W W 11 11 ST ST

W W 27 27 ST ST

CHELSEA

GREENWICH GREENWICH AV AV

N

PERRY PERRY ST ST

NINTH NINTH AV AV

EIGHTH EIGHTH AV AV

WAVERLY WAVERLY PL PL

W W 13 13 ST ST

SEVENTH SEVENTH AV AV SS

0 400 1000 FEET

Project Site Location

Figure 2


9.13.12

N

Project Site

H U D S O N R I V E R

HUDSON RIVER PARK PIER 57

PIER 57

0 400 1000 FEET

SCALE

Zoning

Figure 3


3

Final Scope of Work

Table 1

Preliminary Program of Project Uses

Use Location within the Pier Gross Square Footage

Commercial/Educational/Cultural Uses

Work/Sell Marketplace Center Level II/Level IIM 49,200

Gallery/Spa/Storage/other uses Caisson Level 40,000

Technical Art School and Ancillary Facilities Level II/Level IIM 32,700

Food Market and Restaurants Level I/Level IM/Rooftop 109,400

Restaurant Terrace Level II 13,500

Flexible Retail Space Level I / /Level II/Level IIM 45,200

General Retail Level I/Level II/Level IIM 44,600

Circulation Caisson/Level I/Level

IM/Level II/Level IIM

82,400

Theater/Cultural Use Level I/Level IM 11,000

Total Commercial/Educational/Cultural GSF 428,000

Other Uses

Public Open Space Level I/Rooftop 114,800110,000

Marina Level I 1415 slips

Parking Caisson Level 150Approximately 75 spaces

Source: Hudson Eagle.

proposed program elements; the project uses are preliminary and subject to refinement based on

project design and market conditions. Figures 4 through 9 10 show the project’s preliminary

floor plans and the marina plan, and Figure 110 shows the exterior elevations of the proposed

project.

PROGRAM

RETAIL, RESTAURANT, AND OTHER COMMERCIAL/EDUCATIONAL/CULTURAL USES

The programming and design concepts at Pier 57 have been shaped by the west side

neighborhoods in which the pier is located as well as the dramatic pier itself. While specific

tenants have not yet been finalized, the primary retail use on the second floor is a planned public

marketplace modeled on several existing year-round markets located in the United Kingdom

(Spitalfields and Camden Locke). The UK Urban Space Management, the U.S. arm of the

operator of these markets has a US arm, which is the anticipated Pier 57 market operator and

also, operateds the Dekalb Market and still operates holiday markets at Grand Central Terminal

and Union Square in Manhattan, among othersand is the anticipated lessoroperator of the Pier 57

marketplace.

At Pier 57, the public marketplace concept draws specific inspiration from existing businesses in

West Chelsea and the Meatpacking District in the realms of fashion, design, art and food.

Repurposed shipping containers would be stacked to create twofour market levels (groundfirst

floor and “, first floor mezzanine”). The , second floor, and second floor mezzanine); the

stacking is possible because the ground floor of existing ceiling height isheights of

approximately 28 feet, which can accommodate two levels of stacked containers. Throughout

the length of the piershedpier shed, new vertical circulation would be provided to satisfy

building codes and facilitate access, including ADA access.


10.10.12

N

1

2

3

FIRST FLOOR

22

CIRCULATION

LOADING / WASTE MANAGEMENT

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

RETAIL

CONTAINER MARKET

FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY

HUDSON RIVER PARK PIER 57

3

3

3 3

3

3 3 3 3

New Stairways to Caisson Level

New Elevator Shafts

Extent of New Utility Shaft Enclosures Between Ground Floor and Caisson Level

1

SCALE

2

22

0 50 100 FEET

First Floor Plan

Figure 4


10.10.12

N

2

CAISSON LEVEL

1

2

3

CIRCULATION

PARKING

3

LOADING / WASTE MANAGEMENT

VEHICLE CIRCULATION

FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY

MECHANICAL / STORAGE / RESTROOM

HUDSON RIVER PARK PIER 57

1

3 3 3 3

New Stairways to Caisson Level

New Elevator Shafts

Extent of New Utility Shaft Enclosures Between Ground Floor and Caisson Level

1

SCALE

2

2

0 50 100 FEET

Cellar Plan

Figure 5


10.10.12

N

FIRST FLOOR MEZZANINE

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / RESTROOM / STORAGE

RETAIL

CONTAINER MARKET

FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY

HUDSON RIVER PARK PIER 57

20'-0"

17'-4 1/2"

0 50 100 FEET

SCALE

First Floor Mezzanine Plan

Figure 6


10.10.12

N

SECOND FLOOR

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / RESTROOM / STORAGE

RETAIL

CONTAINER MARKET

PROPOSED FLOOR AREA INFILL

ROOF TERRACE

FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY

HUDSON RIVER PARK PIER 57

T&E CLOSET

0 50 100 FEET

SCALE

Second Floor Plan

Figure 7


10.10.12

N

SECOND FLOOR MEZZANINE

CIRCULATION

FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY

MECHANICAL / RESTROOM / STORAGE

CONTAINER MARKET

ROOF

HUDSON RIVER PARK PIER 57

0 50 100 FEET

SCALE

Second Floor Mezzanine Plan

Figure 8


10.10.12

N

ROOF MEZZANINE

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / RESTROOM

RETAIL

FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY

HUDSON RIVER PARK PIER 57

OBSERVATION DECK

ROOF MEZZANINE

16'-8 1/2"

OBSERVATION DECK

CIRCULATION

PUBLIC PARK

ROOF PLAN

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / RESTROOM

RETAIL

PUBLIC PARK

ROOF

0 50 100 FEET

SCALE

Roof Plan

Figure 9


10.9.12

N

NOTE: The location of the public launch for non-motorized boats will

be determined once the final plan for the marina is established.

HUDSON RIVER PARK PIER 57

PIER 57

PROPOSED

PERIMETER WALKWAY

AND EXTENSION

PROPOSED

PERIMETER WALKWAY

AND EXTENSION

PRELIMINARY SLIP DISTRIBUTION

0 100 200 FEET

SCALE

Proposed Marina Plan

Figure 10


9.27.12

FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY

HUDSON RIVER PARK PIER 57

West Elevation East Elevation

South Elevation

North Elevation

Elevations

Figure 11


Pier 57 Redevelopment

In combination with some traditional walled enclosures, these containers would create multiple

“work/sell” retail stores and showrooms rangingexpected to range in size between approximately

160 square feet and 640 square feet. These retail uses would be oriented primarily toward a

collection of independent designers and food purveyors. The marketwork/sell marketplace

would be an incubator of smallfor new retail businesses, designers, and food-related businesses

as well as a community gathering place. Towards the western end of the piershedpier shed, the

design would open to a large double-height market squarespace with views of the water to the

north and south, featuring rotating kiosks and food. This end of the pier shed would include

open, public “piazza” spaces to be used for occasional entertainment or small-format

exhibitionsdisplays. Some larger retail could, and would be designed to also be located in the

pier, as well as a theater or other cultural use. accommodate rotating food exhibitionsmarkets

and “bazaars,” with the idea of providing lively surroundings for resident and visiting chefs and

food purveyors to exhibit and promote their food products.

The proposed project would also include a wide range of uses oriented towards food and design,

including a potential cookingtechnical arts school, test kitchen and ancillary facilities, as well as

restaurants and rotating food exhibition and sales spaces. These are anticipated to be located

primarily on the second floor, which, as noted above, would also have a mezzanine level over

portions of the piershed. A limited number of containerspier shed. Restaurants are

envisionedexpected to project from the piershed; if approved, these containersinclude both fullservice

restaurants and limited-service restaurants and would offer views overcomplement the

food purveyors and prepared foods in other retail spaces on the waterpier. Under the terms of the

proposed lease agreement, at least one publicly accessible sit-down restaurant must be located at

the western end of the pier shed.

Larger retail tenants, such as a sports-related store, would be located in the headhouse. There

would also be retail tenants in the larger spaces alongside the work/sell marketplace in the pier

shed. Aside from a sports-related store, other possible tenants for the larger retail spaces are

expected to include a themed market selling prepared food from small vendors and specialty

food purveyors. Under the terms of the Trust’s proposed lease with the applicant, “big box”

retail would be prohibited. Similarly, the lease would prohibit tenancies and uses that are

primarily trade shows, event or ballroom spaces. The lease would further require at least one

publicly accessible sit-down restaurant at the western end of the piershed.

The pier could also include a cultural use, such as a theater. The terms of the Trust’s proposed

lease would prohibit tenancies and uses that are primarily trade shows, event or ballroom spaces.

MARINA

The Pier 57 project would include a marina of approximately 115up to 141 slips located toon the

north, and south or on both sides of Pier 57. The marina wouldis anticipated to include a

breakwater that would befour wave screens located onnorth and south of the western end of the

pier, and would include and along the edge of the existing pile fields adjacent to the north and

south sides of the pier. It would include a vessel pumpout station within the portion of the

marina south of Pier 57 and slips for one or more historic vessels and a non-motorized boat

launch; it may also include a water taxi stop. No dredging would be required for the marina. A

30- by 60-foot water taxi landing may be located on the northwest corner of the pier. Figure 910

shows the project’s marina plan.

4


PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND OUTDOOR PROGRAMMING

5

Final Scope of Work

The Pier 57 project would add approximately 2.5 acres of open space to Hudson River Park in

three main areas:

• Existing Perimeter walkway. The existing perimeter walkway extending around most of the

pier would be repaired and extended to connect with the publicHudson River Park

waterfront esplanade to the east of the pier, consistent with existing permits previously

received by HRPT. The walkway would have a continuous width of 15 feetinclude seating.

• New perimeter walkway. New public walkways parallel to the existing bulkhead, also

previously approved and permitted, would extend to the north and south, enlargingextending

the currently limited public circulation space along the bulkhead. Treatments would be

compatible with existing designs within Hudson River Park for areas bordering the river.

• Rooftop open space. On the pier’s finger building, nearly 2approximately 1.8 acres of open

space would be created. The roof is roughlywould be divided into four zones. The open

areas on the eastern and western end of the piershed, where most visitors would enter the

space,portions of the rooftop with a pavilion in the center. The open areas on the eastern and

western portions of the rooftop would be unprogrammed, providingmostly provide flexible

space for seating, relaxation, and views of the river. These areas could include wooden

decking, hardscape, paving and small lawn areas. The center of the rooftop contains

pitchedwould contain a pavilion with a public observation deck on the roof and wide stairs

on the east that would function as seating (the amphitheater) and a flat surface for public

use; atareas during some events. At times, the arearoof would be programmed with film, art,

or sports related installations., as well as Tribeca Film Festival events. Some shipping

containers may be repurposed as seating around the pavilion. The easternmost section of the

piershed roof would have a pitched landscaped platform that would also be fororiginal

“burtons”—the metal framework along the north and south edges of the roof originally used

for cargo handling—would be preserved, and the railing would be improved to allow safe

public recreational use.access up to the pier edge. The rooftop would also include shade

structures that would be minimally attached to the pier structure. The shade structures would

be mounted on rails, which could be moved manually in an east-west direction to provide

shade where necessary. Figure 112 illustrates the project’s rooftop open space. It is also

expected that portions of the headhouse rooftop would be publicly accessible.

The outdoor rooftop open space, with a capacity of up to 3,000 persons, would function

primarily as public open space., with a capacity of 2,500 persons. It would also be developed to

allow the Tribeca Film Festival to periodically providehost a variety of rooftop

programmingexhibits, ranging from film screenings to outdoor art installations to exhibitions

linked to film subjects—for example, a temporary skate park to coincide with a sports-related

film series. While free, some of these events would require tickets to control capacity.

Attendance for such events typically would not exceed 1,500 people. , but it is expected that

maximum capacity events would occur approximately 8 to 10 times per year. For approximately

two weeks in late April/early May each year, the rooftop would also be used for Tribeca Film

Festival events.

It is expected that the rooftop open space would be open to the public from 9 AM to 9:30 PM

(later for special events) and the perimeter walkways would have the same operating hours as

the rest of Hudson River Park (6 AM to 1 AM).


9.27.12

N

0 50 100 FT

SCALE

FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY

Proposed Landscape Roof Plan

HUDSON RIVER PARK PIER 57 Figure 12


Pier 57 Redevelopment

CAISSONS

Pier 57 has three underwater caissons that support the pier structure. The caissons are unique in

Hudson River Park and are a major reason for the pier’s historic significance. Because these

“basement” structures are not connected to each other, access and code considerations limit

plans for future uses. The proposed project proposes to use the easternmost caisson for vehicular

circulation and parking of up to approximately 15075 accessory vehicles using triple height

stackers. This caisson was historically used for vehicle parking and circulation. If code concerns

can be satisfied, ideas for the middle and western caissons include ancillary storage related to

uses in the pier, art galleries or large rotating art installations, a spa, a wine cellar, and one or

more areas accessible to the general public, potentially in small organized groups, to view and

tour these underwater spaces.

PROJECT DESIGN

The proposed project’s overall design has been guided by three principles. First, the design seeks

to respect the pier’s history and reconnect with it. Second, the redevelopment approach is

intended to allow lesslimit intensive construction and intervention with the existing structure.

Third, to create a successful public and commercial venue, the approach is intended to bring

innovative design and use ideas to the interior space to transform and activate the currently

vacant property. Figure 123 illustrates an aerial view of the proposed project.

The revitalized headhouse at Pier 57 would become an iconic gateway and a greatly improved

entrance into the park from Chelsea and the Meatpacking District, further connecting these

neighborhoods to the waterfront. It would restore the building’s 1950s façade and, open the

ground floor to the public and welcome visitors from the north, south, and east.

The center of the headhouse entrance would be a virtual extension of 15th Street, drawing

visitors across Route 9A, through the headhouse and up an existing interior ramp to the second

floor. This “interior street” is continued through the second floor with the addition of a new

rampstaircase from the second floor to the roof;, where visitors to the pier would have a

continuous pathwayaccess to the new public rooftop.Retail on the ground floor and second

floors would flank this “interior street” and would extend west beyond the ramps. The

repurposed-stacked shipping containers would be a distinctive feature in these sections of the

piershed. Another distinctive feature is the 20-foot-wide modular vertical doors spanning the

length of the piershed. Historically these were often open to allow goods to be loaded onto

adjacent ships. The Pier 57 design seeks to take advantage of these openings during good

weather to allow the pier to be naturally ventilated. On the ground floor some openings would

provide a direct link to the public perimeter walkwaypier shed. Figure 143 illustrates the

proposed changes to the interior of the pier shed.

The signature feature on the public rooftop would be a new pitched seating area which would be

designed to function as both an amphitheatre and a great place to look back at the City. Like the

existing burtoning system which would be retained, the new amphitheatre would have a

lightweight, industrial character. The balance of the rooftop would have a mixture of lawn,

landscaped areas, decorative pavements and fixed and flexible seating. It is expected a moveable

screen for the Tribeca Film Festival would also reflect the industrial character of the existing

rooftop.

There are fourAlong with the repurposed shipping containers, the design would include other

elements referential to the pier’s historic character, such as the burtoning system described

6


9.27.12

FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY

Aerial Perspective of Proposed Project

HUDSON RIVER PARK PIER 57 Figure 13


9.27.12

FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY

HUDSON RIVER PARK PIER 57

Rendering of Proposed Container Market

Showing Floor and Mezzanine Concept

Figure 14


7

Final Scope of Work

above. In addition, the original “gangplanks” on the north and south pier facades would be

lowered to a horizontal position and repurposed as balconies, where visitors could experience

views over the water. The original burtoning would be preserved along the rooftop edge and a

railing would be incorporated for safety. The 20-foot-wide modular vertical doors spanning the

length of the pier shed—which historically were opened to allow goods to be loaded onto

adjacent ships—would be restored and opened during good weather to allow the pier to be

naturally ventilated. Utilizing the existing modular doors for ventilation would require less

rooftop space for mechanical equipment, maximizing the amount of rooftop space dedicated for

public open space, and would allow the structure to be passively cooled, reducing energy use.

Some doors would be permanently raised, and the openings would be screened with glass to

provide views from outside the pier to the interior. On the ground floor, some openings would

provide a direct link to the public perimeter walkway. In addition to energy efficiency and open

space benefits, the open modular doors are intended to differentiate the pier from traditional

enclosed retail spaces, creating the sense that the pier is an extension of the existing urban street

network and the surrounding Hudson River Park.

A central feature on the public rooftop would be the pavilion and observation deck, designed to

provide food, retail, public restrooms, circulation, and mechanical space, as well as views of the

City. Like the existing burtoning system that would be retained, the observation pavilion would

have a lightweight, industrial character. Figure 145 illustrates the proposed rooftop pavilion. As

discussed above, the balance of the rooftop would have flexible open space with small lawn

areas and seating.

Overall, there are three proposed rooftop additions:

1). On the north side of the lower headhouse rooftop, a new enclosure measuring

approximately 157,500 sf would be built and another enclosure measuring

approximately 8,100 sf would be constructed on, connecting to the upper levelsecond

floor of the head-house roof. Both areas wouldpier structure to provide for additional

retail space for retail and other support services. Their elevations would be lower than

the existing art deco façade.

2). The new ramp from the second floor to the rooftop is being designed to emerge onto the

rooftop under the amphitheatre, creating an additional Another enclosure; this space

under the amphitheatre measuring approximately 11,400 sf would provide climate

conditioning within the piershed. It would also offer additional space for restrooms, food

service, storage and other support functions. The fourth small rooftop addition at the

Eastern endbe constructed in the center of the piershed; beneathupper level of the

pitched landscaped areaheadhouse roof. This enclosure would containconnect to the

second floor mezzanine level of the pier structure, and would also provide additional

supportretail and mechanical space and storage for. Both of these additions would be

lower than the existing eastern façade of the headhouse.

3). As described above, a pavilion would be developed at the center of the pier shed roof

that would provide food, retail, public restrooms, circulation, and mechanical space, as

well as a public observation area.

In addition to the rooftop seating and equipment. Severaladditions, several code-required stair

tower and elevator enclosures would also be added to the roof to allow for egress for roof

occupants. None of the , as well as the shade structures described above. No new element on the

rooftop additions, including the shade structures, would be highertaller than the height of the


9.27.12

View from western end of piershed to the east

View from eastern end of piershed to the west

HUDSON RIVER PARK PIER 57

FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY

Renderings of Proposed Rooftop Pavilion

Figure 15


Pier 57 Redevelopment

existing elevator enclosures which would be removed in orderbulkheads. Because of the federal

approvals required for the proposed project, and as set forth in the Programmatic Agreement

executed under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Hudson River Park

project in 2000, modifications to provide the open rooftop planthe Pier 57 structure require

consultation with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation

(OPRHP). In addition, the project is seeking federal tax credits to rehabilitate Pier 57 to the

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties. Should the project

successfully obtain approval for such credits, the project would be required to be built to the

Secretary’s Rehabilitation Standards. For these reasons, the design intent for the rooftop

additions is to create minimally intrusive new elements.

The proposed project would also include the construction of new stairways, elevator shafts, and

utility shafts between the ground-floor and caisson level to facilitate access and egress from the

caissons, to improve accessibility in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA), and to provide for the necessary utility space to support the proposed uses on the ground

floor, in particular the proposed restaurant uses. The new stairways, elevators, and utility shafts

are described in more detail below and shown in Figures 4 and 5:

1). New Stairways: Two new stairways would be created to provide access from the caisson

level to the upper floors and to the perimeter walkway. One stairway would be located

in the middle caisson and the other would be located in the westernmost caisson. These

stairways would be located in new enclosures that would extend below the ground floor,

through the open water area between the caisson and ground floor, and into the caisson

roof. These stairways are necessary to create a legal means of egress from the caissons

and to increase the legal occupancy level in the caissons.

2). New Elevator Shafts: Four new elevator shafts would be created within the Pier 57

structure. Three of these elevators would extend from the ground floor to the upper

floors of the structure and would make the structure ADA-accessible. The shafts for

each of these three elevators would extend below the ground floor and would at times be

within the waters of the Hudson River, depending on tidal conditions. These shafts

would be adjacent to the exterior of the caisson but would not penetrate the caisson

structure. The fourth elevator would be located in the headhouse and would provide

access from the loading zone in the easternmost caisson to the upper floors. This

elevator would penetrate the caisson structure but would not pass through areas between

the caisson and ground floor that are currently open water.

3). New Utility Shafts: Five new utility shafts would be created below the ground floor to

house utilities needed to support the proposed uses on the ground floor, in particular the

restaurant uses. These shafts would be constructed in the intervening spaces between the

girders that support the pier shed on the caissons, and would result in new enclosures

that would extend between the ground floor and the caisson roof. It is expected that

three of these enclosures would measure approximately 80 by 18 feet and two would

measure approximately 26 by 18 feet. Within these new enclosures, there would be

smaller utility shafts that would penetrate the caisson roof in a limited number of

locations. It is expected that each of these smaller shafts would be approximately 18 by

10 feet and would be contain utilities (e.g., piping). Within the caisson, these smaller

utility shafts would drop down from the ceiling and enclose the necessary utilities.

8


PIER ACCESS / CIRCULATION

9

Final Scope of Work

To efficiently utilize the pier, the existing access routes would be modified to improve

pedestrian access, and to allow for proper servicing. and vehicular access. Figure 11156 shows

the project’s conceptual access plan and Figure 17 shows a detailed access plan.

Access to the project site would be limited to locations along Route 9A. Vehicles approaching

the site from the north would access the site at the Route 9A and West 16th Street intersection

via a newsouthbound right turn lane between West 16th from a dedicated turn lane. Vehicles

approaching the site from the east and south would access the site at the Route 9A and West

17th streets, directing vehicles to a circulation road parallel to Route 9AStreet intersection via a

through movement from West 17th Street. Vehicles would egress the site at the Route 9A and

West 14th Street intersection and be able to turn right onto southbound Route 9A, left onto

northbound Route 9A, or continue straight across Route 9A to West 14th Street eastbound. Taxis

would load/unload along a frontage road in front of the pier structure separated from Route 9A

by the bikeway or at a designated taxi stand located on northbound Route 9A between West 14th

and West 15th Streets. Most trucks would load/unload along the frontage road, largely during

off-peak hours. During overnight hours when the facility is closed, a truck-only entry off Route

9A at West 15th Street would be used for larger truck deliveries. Deliveries that require access to

the truck-only entry would be scheduled in advance. All traffic movements into and out of the

site would be controlled by traffic signals.

The frontage road would operate with exits at West 14th Street.two travel lanes. A third eightfoot-wide

drop-off lane adjacent to the project frontage would be paved with a special pavement

treatments such that it would operate as a pedestrian space during peak periods and would be

available as a loading and unloading lane for trucks during off-peak periods when a greater

number of truck deliveries are expected. From this accessfrontage road, cars, vans, and small

trucks would enter the pier via aan existing ramp at the south end of the pier buildingheadhouse

(near West 14th Street) down to approximately 15075 accessory parking spaces and a loading

area for vans and small trucks located in the Eastern mosteasternmost caisson. In addition, trucks

would enter the center of the pier at grade for servicing during the off-hours of the project.The

outbound driveway from the parking garage would be located on the north end of the headhouse

closer to West 16th Street. No on-site public parking facilities would be provided, which would

limit conflicts with vehicles crossing the bikeway and sidewalk.

As part of the overall access plan, the proposed project would implement a number of other

improvements to nearby intersections in consultation with NYSDOT and the New York City

Department of Transportation (NYCDOT). These improvements would include widening

crosswalks, changing signalizations, curb extensions, and construction of a protected pedestrian

pathway within the median on Route 9A between West 15th Street and West 16th Street. These

improvements are discussed in more detail in Chapter 14, “Transportation.”

Pedestrians would access the site via the Hudson River Park walkwaywaterfront esplanade from

the north and south, or from any of the five (5) nearby crosswalks which cross Route 9A (south

side of West 17th Street, south side of West 16th Street, north and south sides of West 15th

Street and the south side of West 15th Street and the south side of West 14th Street). The east

facade of the Pier is intended to pier would have multiple pedestrian access doors, orpoints;

pedestrians could also access the Ppier via the Public accesspublic walkway whichthat would

surround the pier on the south, west and northern sides.


SOURCE: Sam Schwartz Engineering

10.2.12

N

West 17th Street

Vehicular Access and Egress

Pedestrian Access and Egress

Proposed Taxi Lay-by Lane

Route 9A Bikeway

Median / Open Space

Speed Tables

Sidewalks / Pedestrian Walkway

Buildings

Roadway

HUDSON RIVER PARK PIER 57

West 16th Street

Ramp Up

Loading Zone

Pier 57

Pedestrian

Ramp to

2nd Floor

West 15th Street

Ramp Down

Tenth Avenue

Route 9A

Bikeway

Circulation Road

Hudson Rive r

0 60 120 FEET

SCALE

West 14th Street

Conceptual Access Plan

Figure 16


10.2.12

SOURCE: Philip Habib and Associates

HUDSON RIVER PARK PIER 57

Route 9A Bikeway

Frontage Road

N

0 20 100 FEET

SCALE

Detailed Access Plan

Figure 17


Pier 57 Redevelopment

The Route 9A bikeway, also A wide sidewalk would be provided along the project frontage to

encourage pedestrians to walk adjacent to the project rather than on the bikeway. In addition,

there is also the possibility of providing access to the site, would be realigned to the east,

maintaining its full widtha bus stop for the New York City Transit (NYCT) M14 bus route along

the frontage road, which would improve transit access to the project site and the waterfront.

However, because the details of the bus stop have not been determined at this time, the bus stop

is not accounted for in the technical analyses in this EIS.

Access from the ground floor to the upper levels iswould be via the existing vehicle ramp

whichthat leads from the Easterncentral eastern entrance to the pier to the second floor, as well

as from a new ramp whichstaircase that would lead from the second floor to the newly adapted

roof. This new access route primary circulation path, aligned towith West 15th Street, would be

a virtual extension of that street and lead to the roof; it would improve air circulation on the

second floor during warm weather seasons and increase opportunities for the public to enjoy the

rooftop park. In addition to the ramp and central staircase, pedestrians would have access to

enclosed stairwells (both new and existing), which would be adapted for use by pedestrians.

In addition to the ramps, pedestrians would have access to enclosed stairwells (both new and

existing) which would be adapted for use by pedestrians, and via some new and existing

staircases which also serve as means of egress.

The Route 9A bikeway, also providing access to the site, would be realigned somewhat, but

would maintain at least a 14 foot width.

The proposed access plan would accommodate potential tour bus activity, if needed. Tour buses

would be able to access the circulation road, and a possible bus stop location has been identified

for loading and unloading passengers. However, to maximize views of the Hudson River for

park users and along the bikeway, the proposed project’s intention is to have tour buses layover

off-site at sites designated for this purpose by NYCDOT, but the access plan would be able to

accommodate tour buses on site if necessary.

IN-WATER CONSTRUCTION

The proposed project would require a number of in-water construction activities. This related to

the marina and wave screens, pier repairs, and perimeter walkways and walkway extensions.

These activities are discussed in more detail below.

Some aspects of the work to be conducted at Pier 57 were previously assessed in the Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Hudson River Park, and permits and subsequent

renewals were issued to HRPT. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE Permit 1998-00290)

and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC Permit 2-6299-

00004/00001) permits issued to HRPT authorize the repair of the existing perimeter walkway

and its extension to connect with the public esplanade to the east of the pier; the development of

new public walkways parallel to the existing bulkhead; and pile jacketing and repair work.

While this work was evaluated in the FEIS for Hudson River Park and has been permitted, the

cumulative effects of these activities with the proposed project were not addressed and have

been included in the analyses of this EIS.

PIER REPAIRS

The project would require a number of in-water construction activities related to the pier. These

would include repairs to the caissons; repairs to the piles and beams around the caissons,

10


11

Final Scope of Work

including pile repair and replacement; repairs to girders supporting the apron walkway; pile

jacketing and repair work; and repairs to the timber fender system attached to the pier apron; a

new breakwater at the western most end of the pier; construction of new walkways , including

pile driving for fender piles along portions of the apron; and construction a 115-slip marina. Inwater

the periphery of the pier. Caisson repairs would include the placement of riprap for scour

protection at the base of the westernmost caisson and repairs to cracks in the caissons.

PERIMETER WALKWAY AND WALKWAY EXTENSIONS

Construction activities associated with the perimeter walkways and walkway extensions would

include pile driving for the perimeter walkway extensions and the new public walkways parallel

to the existing bulkhead. As noted above, these activities were previously approved and

permitted.

MARINA CONSTRUCTION

In-water construction ofactivities associated with the marina would include the installation of the

guide piles, walkways, and fingerfloats, and the piles and panels associated with the wave screen

structures and potential water taxi landing. The proposed development of a marina would not

include dredging of the Hudson River or refueling facilities.

OTHER IN-WATER CONSTRUCTION

The proposed project would include the construction of new stairways, elevator shafts, and

utility shafts between the ground floor and caisson level. As described above, these structures

would involve construction activities in the open water areas below the ground floor of the pier

shed.

C. PROPOSED ACTIONS

To develop the proposed project, various discretionary actions would be required.

In addition, coordination would be required with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation

and Historic Preservation,’s State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) under Section 14.09 of

the New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law, and Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act assince the project is seeking certain state and federal permits

(see below). Coordination is also required because the project is seeking federal tax credits to

rehabilitate Pier 57 to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic

Properties. Also, because the project will require Federal permits, it will be subject to review by

New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) for consistency with the NY State Coastal

Management Program.

HRPT APPROVAL

HRPT would need to approve lease terms with Hudson Eagle.

CITY ACTIONS

• Zoning map amendment. The applicant would seek an amendment to the New York City

zoning map to rezone the project site from M2-3 to a district that wouldan M1-5 to allow the

public marketplace and anticipated floor area.


Pier 57 Redevelopment

• Zoning text change. The applicant would seek a zoning text change to allow community

facility uses (e.g., cooking school) in certain manufacturing zoning districts.

• Relief from various Waterfront Zoning Regulations related to bulk, height and setback,

yards, public access and visual corridors, and design requirements. The applicant will

continue to have discussions with the New York City Department of City Planning as design

concepts progress.

• Special permit to allow certain retail and other uses over 20,000 sf of floor area on existing

piers.

• BSA approval to modify certain building and fire code provisions. The applicant would seek

approval to modify certain Building and Fire Code provisions pursuant to Section 666 of the

New York City Charter, including but not limited to, those provisions regarding egress.

• Special permit for retail in excess of 10,000 sf.

• Special permit to allow the proposed accessory parking garage.

• Certification that the project complies with the applicable waterfront public access and

visual corridor requirements, as modified by the requested approvals.

STATE ACTIONS

• NYSDEC—The applicant would seek a Part 608 Protection of Waters permit for in-water

work.

• NYSDEC—The applicant would seek a Part 203 permit for the proposed accessory parking

garage.

• NYSDOT—Approvals related to site access at Route 9A.

FEDERAL ACTIONS

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The applicant would seek Section 10 and Section

404 permits for in-river work in the navigable waters of the United States.

OTHER APPROVALS

• Other approvals as necessary to effectuate the project.

D. PURPOSE AND NEED

Consistent with the Hudson River Park Act, the purpose of the proposed Pier 57 project is to reuse

this portion of the Hudson River waterfront for the public benefit, making it an asset for the city,

state, and the region. The Pier 57 project would increase public access to the waterfront, provide

additional public open space resources and cultural space within Hudson River Park, and include

program components that are compatible with park uses and that would generate funds to

contribute to the operation and maintenance of the park. The Pier 57 project would also restore and

modernize the Pier 57 structure, which is listed on the State and National Registers of Historic

Places.

12


E. PROJECT SCHEDULE

13

Final Scope of Work

The proposed project would be completed in one phase and construction would take

approximately 18 months. If the proposed actions are approved, it is anticipated that construction

would begin in 2013, with the renovated Pier 57 complete and operational in 2015.

F. ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The CEQR Technical Manual serves as a general guide on the methodologies and impact criteria

for evaluating the project’s potential effects on the various environmental areas of analysis.

In analyzingdisclosing impacts, the EIS considers athe proposed project’s potential adverse

impacts on the environmental setting. Because the proposed project is expected to be operational

by approximatelyin 2015, its environmental setting is not the current environment, but that of the

future environment when the project would be completed. Therefore, the technical analyses and

consideration of alternatives assesscharacterize current conditions and forecast these conditions

to 2015, the project’s analysis year, for the purposes of determining potential impacts. The DEIS

will provide a description of “Existing Conditions” for the 2011 analysis year, and assessments

of future conditions without the proposed project in 2015 (“Future Without the Proposed

Project”) and with the proposed project (“Future WithProbable Impacts of the Proposed

Project”).

The future baseline in all technical chapters—future without the proposed project—will

assumealso known as the “No Action scenario”—in all technical areas assumes that none of the

discretionary approvals proposed as part of the Pier 57 project are adopted. It is expected that if the

proposed actions are not approved, the project siteactions are approved. In this case, absent the

proposed project, the existing Pier 57 structure will remain in its current vacant condition. The

DEIS will analyze the cumulative impacts of other projects expected to be complete by 2015 that

will affect conditions in any of the relevant study areas (each individual task in Section D,

below, identifiesvacant. The analysis of the No Action scenario accounts for other future

developments that would occur independent of the proposed studyproject.

In each technical area for analysis).of the EIS, the future with the proposed project (the “With

Action scenario”) will be compared to the No Action scenario as a basis for assessing impacts.

The analysis of the future with the proposed project will assess the potential for impacts from the

proposed project described in Section B, “Project Description.” The project as described

represents the reasonable worst-case development that could occur under the proposed rezoning

and other approvals.

G. PROPOSED SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

STATEMENT

The EIS will contain:

A. A description of the proposed project and its environmental setting;

B. A statement of the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, including its

short- and long-term effects and typical associated environmental effects;

C. An identification of any significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided if

the project is implemented;


Pier 57 Redevelopment

D. A discussion of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project;

E. An identification of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be

involved if the proposed project is built; and

F. A description of mitigation proposed to minimize any significant adverse environmental

impacts.

The specific areas to be included in the EIS, as well as their respective tasks, are described

below.

TASK 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The first chapter of the EIS introduces the reader to the project and sets the context in which to

assess impacts. This chapter will contain a project identification detailing the different elements

of the proposed Pier 57 development program, including the public open space and possible

marina uses; the background and purpose and need for the proposed project, including the

project’s context within the larger Hudson River Park project and overall development in the

neighborhood; figures to depict the proposed project, including the treatment of the Pier 57

building’s interior spaces. This chapter will also include a discussion of the project schedule and

a discussion of the approvals required, procedures to be followed, and the role of the EIS in the

process. The chapter is the key to understanding the proposed actions.

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 zoning and public policies that guide

development, and determines whether a proposed project is compatible with those conditions

and policies or whether it may affect them. The Pier 57 project would result in the

redevelopment of a vacant pier with new public open space, retail, restaurant and other

commercial uses, a marina, andas well as educational and, cultural uses, ancillary parking, and a

marina—allpublic open space uses as elements in the overall development of Hudson River

Park.

This section will present a description of existing conditions within ¼-mile of the project site,

and describe the project and its potential effects on land use, zoning, and public policy. This

assessment will also provide a baseline for other analyses in the EIS. Information sources will

include the Hudson River Park Trust, Department of City Planning, Department of Buildings,

and field reconnaissance. The chapter will:

A. Provide a brief development history of the project site and surrounding area, including a

discussion of the status of Hudson River Park development and the planning context of the

project. Describe conditions on the project site, including existing conditions and the

underlying zoning. Establish the ¼-mile study area surrounding the site (the area in which

potential impacts could occur).

B. Describe predominant land use patterns in the study area, including a description of recent

development trends.

C. Describe the existing zoning and recent zoning actions in the study area.

D. Describe the public policies that apply to the project site and the study area, including the

Hudson River Park Act and specific development projects and plans for public

14


15

Final Scope of Work

improvements. As part of the analysis of public policy, the proposed project’s consistency

with PlaNYC 2030, the Waterfront Revitalization Program (WRP), and Vision 2020: and the

new Comprehensive Waterfront Plan, will be assessed. The analysis will assess, for those

relevant policies identified on the project’s WRP Consistency Assessment Form, the

consistency of the project with the WRP policies.

E. Gather information on projects expected to occur in the study area in the future without the

proposed project, including plans for the changing use at the Gansevoort peninsula the High

Line, and other developments in this section of the west side, and describe how these

projects might affect land use patterns and development trends in the study area in the future

without the project. Also, identify pending zoning actions (including those associated with

the proposed No Build Action projects) or other public policy actions that could affect land

use patterns and trends in the study area in the future without the proposed project.

F. Assess impacts of the proposed project on land use and land use trends, zoning, and public

policy.

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 an area. The objective of the CEQR analysis is to disclose whether any changes created by the

project would have a significant impact compared to what would happen in the future without

the project.

According to the CEQR Technical Manual, the five principal issues of concern with respect to

socioeconomic conditions are whether a proposed action 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; and (5)

indirect business displacement due to retail market saturation; and (6) adverse effects on specific

industries. The following details the scope of analyses warranted by the proposed project for

each of these five principal issues of concern.

DIRECT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT

The proposed project would not result in direct residential displacement. Therefore, an

assessment of potential impacts due to direct residential displacement is not warranted.

DIRECT BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT

The proposed project would not directly displace any businesses. Therefore, no further

assessment of this concern is warranted.

INDIRECT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT

The proposed project would not introduce a residential use. Based on CEQR Technical Manual

preliminary assessment guidelines, if a project does not add a new population, no further

analysis of potential indirect residential displacement is warranted.


Pier 57 Redevelopment

INDIRECT BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT DUE TO INCREASED COMMERCIAL RENTS

Indirect Business Displacement due to Increased Commercial Rents

The proposed project would provide more than 200,000 square feet of commercial space, which

is a CEQR Technical Manual threshold for assessing the potential indirect effects of an action.

The concern with respect to indirect business displacement is to determine whether a proposed

project may introduce trends that make it difficult for businesses to remain in the area.

The indirect business displacement analysis will characterize employment and business trends

within the study area, which is expected to conform to the ¼-mile land use study area described

in Task 2, although adjustments may be made to the ¼-mile delineation to conform to Census

tract boundaries. This analysis will consider the most recent available data from public and

private sources such as New York State Department of Labor, the U.S. Census Bureau, and

ESRI, as well as discussions with local real estate brokers as necessary. This information will be

used in a preliminary assessment to consider:

• Whether the proposed project would introduce enough new economic activity to alter

existing economic patterns;

• Whether the proposed project would add to the concentration of a particular sector of the

local economy enough to alter or accelerate existing economic patterns; and

• Whether the proposed project would indirectly displace residents, workers, or visitors who

form the customer base of existing businesses in the area.

If the preliminary assessment finds that the proposed project could introduce trends that would

make it difficult for businesses to remain in the area, a detailed analysis will be conducted. The

detailed analysis would determine whether the proposed project would increase property values

and thus increases rents for a potentially vulnerable category of businesses, and whether

relocation opportunities exist for those firms.

INDIRECT BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT DUE TO RETAIL MARKET SATURATION

Since the project would introduce more than 200,000 square feet of local-serving or regionalserving

retail on a single development site, an assessment of indirect business displacement due

to retail market saturation is appropriate. The purpose of the preliminary analysis is to determine

whether the project may capture retail sales in a particular category of goods to the extent that

the market for such goods would become saturated as a result, potentially resulting in vacancies

and disinvestment on neighborhood commercial streets.

Based on methodology presented in the CEQR Technical Manual, the analysis will estimate

sales volume and expenditure potential of “relevant” retail stores within the trade area. 1 It will

also estimate sales for the project’s tenants and evaluate whether the proposed project would

have the potential to saturate the market for particular retail goods within the trade area. Retail

sales and expenditure data will be estimated from data from ESRI Business Analyst. Sales

estimates for the project’s tenants will be based on Urban Land Institute’s Dollars and Cents of

Shopping Centers.

1 “Relevant” retail stores include those establishments that would be expected to sell categories of goods

similar to those sold in stores in the proposed project.

16


17

Final Scope of Work

If the preliminary assessment identifies the potential for the proposed project to create market

saturation for particular categories of retail goods, a detailed assessment will be conducted to

assess whether the proposed project may result in an increase in vacancy in retail store fronts,

affecting the viability of neighborhood shopping areas in the study area. This analysis would

first develop a profile of existing retail conditions within the trade area and would develop a

profile of stores that provide goods similar to those of the proposed project. It would discuss

retail conditions expected in the future without the proposed project, and then determine the

proposed project’s impacts on local shopping areas.

ADVERSE EFFECTS ON SPECIFIC INDUSTRIES

The proposed project is not expected to affect conditions within a specific industry, and

therefore, an assessment of this concern is not warranted.

TASK 4: COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

The proposed project would not introduce any residents to the project site, and therefore would

not warrant analyses of public schools, day care, health care, or library facilities. In addition,

because the proposed project would not directly cause the displacement of a police or fire

facility, no detailed assessment of such services is required, and the EIS will provide a

screening-level analysis of police and fire protection facilities. This chapter will identify and

locate/map police precinct and fire houses community facilities within the study area.

TASK 5: OPEN SPACE

Open space is defined as publicly or privately owned land that is publicly accessible and

operates, functions, or is available for leisure, play, or sport, or set aside for the protection and/or

enhancement of the natural environment. An analysis of open space is conducted to determine

whether or not a proposed project would have direct effects resulting from the elimination or

alteration of open space, and/or an indirect effects resulting from overtaxing available open

space. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, an assessment of a project’s potential direct

effects may be appropriate if the project would result in a physical loss of public open space;

change the use of an open space so that it no longer serves the same user population (e.g.,

elimination of playground equipment); limit public access to an open space; or cause increased

noise or air pollutant emissions, odors, or shadows on public open space that would affect its

usefulness, whether on a permanent or temporary basis. Indirect effects may occur when 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. The population thresholds for CEQR

assessment of indirect effects vary depending upon the current adequacy of open space in the

project’s study area; for this area of Manhattan, an assessment is typically conducted if the

proposed project’s population is greater than 200 residents or 500 employees.

As described above in Section B, “Project Description,” the Pier 57 project would create

substantial new public open space within Hudson River Park and would not create any new open

space demand on the part of residential users. However, the project would introduce new

employees, shoppers and visitors to the site, who can be expected to utilize the project’s new

open spaces and other nearby sections of Hudson River Park.

The EIS will provide a qualitative discussion of the proposed project’s benefits with respect to

the new public open space that would be provided. In addition, a quantified screening

levelpreliminary assessment will be conducted to evaluate the potential for impacts from the


Pier 57 Redevelopment

project’s population; if that preliminary assessment does not rule out the potential for impacts, a

more detailed quantitative analysis will be prepared in conformance with the guidelines of The

CEQR Technical Manual. The proposed project’s potential shadows impacts on public open

space will be analyzed in the shadows task, as noted below.

TASK 6: SHADOWS

The CEQR Technical Manual requires a shadow analysis for proposed projects that have the

potential to cast new shadows on a publicly accessible open spaces, or historic resources with

sun-sensitive features, or natural resources such as water bodies. The project site is adjacent to,

as well as part of, a public park, and the proposed project may increase the height of some

sections of the pier structure. The proposed project is also adjacent to a portion of the Hudson

River, an important natural resource. Therefore, a screening analysis will be performed to

determine whether new shadows cast by the proposed project could impact adjacent public open

spacesunlight-sensitive resources. If the screening analysis indicates that a more detailed

shadows analysis is warranted, a detailed shadows analysis will be undertaken.

If the preliminary screening assessment cannot eliminate the possibility of new shadows on

sunlight-sensitive resources, a detailed analysis will be conducted, including the following tasks:

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

the preliminary assessment above, to represent existing conditions, and the proposed project.

B. 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

project on the four representative days of the year described in the CEQR Technical Manual:

the winter solstice, the summer solstice, the equinoxes, and an additional day in the growing

season.

C. Document the analysis with graphics illustrating the incremental 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.

D. 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.

The potential for shadows from the proposed project to affect aquatic resources is also addressed

in Task 9, “Natural Resources.”

TASK 7: HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

Historic and cultural resources include resources of archaeological value and architectural value.

The project’s potential to impact archaeological resources will rely on the studies undertaken for

the Hudson River Park project. As part of the environmental review undertaken for that project,

archaeological studies were prepared which concluded that there was no potential for significant

precontact or historic-period archaeological resources to be located at Pier 57. Therefore, this

task focuses only on architectural resources, and the EIS will not include an analysis of

archaeological resources although the EIS will document the archaeological conclusions set

forth above.

With respect to architectural resources, Pier 57, built in 1952 1950-1954, is listed on the State

and National Registers of Historic Places (S/NR). As set forth in the Programmatic Agreement

18


19

Final Scope of Work

executed under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Hudson River Park

project in 2000, modifications to this structure require consultation with the New York State

Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) to avoid, minimize and/or

mitigate any adverse impacts to this architectural resource. In addition, the project is seeking

federal tax credits to rehabilitate Pier 57 to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for

Rehabilitation of Historic Properties.

Alterations to the S/NR-eligible Hudson River bulkhead between Battery Place and West 59th

Street, including the bulkhead at Pier 57, which is primarily composed of a granite wall built

circa 1899-1915, will need to be undertaken in conformance with stipulations in the Hudson

River Park Programmatic Agreement.

The architectural resources analyses will include the following tasks:

A. Map and briefly describe designated architectural resources on the project site and within a

400-foot study area of the project site. These comprise National Historic Landmarks,

properties listed on or determined eligible for listing on the State and National Register of

Historic Places (S/NR, S/NR eligible), New York City Landmarks (NYCLs), properties

listed within New York City Historic Districts (NYCHD), and properties pending NYCL

and NYCHD designation.

B. Updating surveys conducted as part of the 1998 Hudson River Park FEIS, determine

whether there are any potential architectural resources that could be impacted by the

proposed project. Potential architectural resources comprise properties that may be eligible

for listing on the S/NR and/or designation as an NYCL. Identification of potential

architectural resources will be based on criteria for listing on the National Register as found

in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, part 60, and the New York City Landmarks

Preservation Commission (LPC) criteria for NYCL/NYCHD designation. Map and describe

any identified architectural resources. In consultation with OPRHP and LPC, seek

determinations of eligibility for any potential resources in the study area that would be

impacted by the proposed project.

C. Based on planned development projects expected to occur within the study area,

qualitatively discuss any impacts on architectural resources that are expected in the future

without the proposed project.

D. Assess any direct physical impacts of the proposed project on architectural resources. This

analysis will include a description of the consultation undertaken with OPRHP. In

conjunction with the urban design task, assess the proposed project’s potential to result in

any visual and contextual impacts on architectural resources.

TASK 8: URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL RESOURCES

Under CEQR, urban design is defined as the totality of components that may affect a

pedestrian’s experience of public space. These components include streets, buildings, visual

resources, open spaces, natural resourcesfeatures, and wind, and sunlight. An urban design

assessment under CEQR must consider whether and how a project may change the experience of

the pedestrian in the surrounding area.

The 20120 CEQR Technical Manual recommends an analysis of pedestrian wind conditions for

projects that result in the construction of large buildings at locations (such as along the

waterfront) that experience high wind conditions, and which may result in an exacerbation of


Pier 57 Redevelopment

wind conditions due to “channelization” or “downwash” effects that may affect pedestrian

safety. As substantial new building construction affecting wind conditions would not occur, an

analysis of pedestrian wind conditions is not necessary.

The CEQR Technical Manual guidelines recommend the preparation of a preliminary

assessment of urban design and visual resources when a project would have the potential for a

pedestrian to observe, from street level, a physical alteration at the project site beyond that

allowed by existing zoning. The Manual recommends the preparation of a detailed analysis if

warranted based on the conclusions of the preliminary assessment.

Therefore, this section of the EIS will consider the effects of the proposed project on the urban

design character of the project site and surrounding area. In addition, the project’s potential

effects on views of the Hudson River waterfront and other visual resources will be assessed. The

urban design and visual resources analysis will consist of the following:

A. Prepare a preliminary assessment of urban design and visual resources. The preliminary

assessment will include a concise narrative of the existing project area, the future Build With

Action condition, and the future No Build Action condition and will present photographs,

zoning and floor area calculationsinformation, building heights, project drawings and site

plans, and view corridor assessments. The study area for the preliminary assessment will be

consistent with the study area for the land use, zoning and public policy analysis. The

preliminary assessment will determine whether the proposed project would create a change

to the pedestrian experience that requires greater explanation and further study. If a detailed

analysis is warranted, the EIS will include such analysis.

TASK 9: NATURAL RESOURCES

Following the methodologies presented in the 2012 CEQR Technical Manual, a natural

resources assessment is conducted when such resources are present on or near a project site, and

when an action involves disturbance to natural resources. The CEQR Technical Manual defines

natural resources as “(1) the City’s biodiversity (plants, wildlife and other organisms); (2) any

aquatic or terrestrial areas capable of providing suitable habitat to sustain the life processes of

plants, wildlife, and other organisms; and (3) any areas capable of functioning in support of the

ecological systems that maintain the City’s environmental stability.”

The project site is Pier 57, located on the west side of Route 9A/West Street at West 15th Street.

The proposed actions would result in the redevelopment of a currently vacant, former bus garage

for primarily retail, cultural, educational, and open space, and marina uses. The project calls for

a number of activities that have the potential for impacts to the aquatic environment, including

repair of the three supporting caissons and pier structure; construction of the marina, wave

screens, water taxi landing and previously permitted walkway extensions; and operation of the

marina and potential water taxi landing. rehabilitating the pier structure and caissons. Additional

activities will include the development of a marina to be located on the north and south sides of

the pier, a kayak launch, and a new breakwater at the western end of the pier. The proposed

development of a marina would not require dredging of the Hudson River. Some repair and

stabilization of the caissons may also be necessary. While sections of perimeter walkway along

the edge of the pier apron would be rebuilt, this work was previously assessed and permits have

already been issued to HRPT for this work. The proposed development of vegetated open space

on the roof would have the potential to benefit terrestrial wildlife.

20


21

Final Scope of Work

As described above, some aspects of the work to be conducted at Pier 57 were previously

assessed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Hudson River Park, and

permits and subsequent renewals were issued to the Hudson River Park Trust (HRPT). U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, Permit 1998-00290) and New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC, Permit 2-6299-00004/00001) permits issued to HRPT

authorize the repair of the existing perimeter walkway and its extension to connect with the

public esplanade to the east of the pier; the development of new public walkways parallel to the

existing bulkhead; and pile jacketing and repair work. This work was evaluated in the FEIS for

Hudson River Park and has been permitted. Because the proposed project and the extensions of

the perimeter and bulkhead walkways would result in concurrent pile driving activities,

additional shading of aquatic habitat, and additional loss of bottom habitat, the cumulative

effects of these elements will be considered in the natural resources assessment.

The EIS will include an assessment of the proposed actions’ project’s effects on natural

resources, including water and sediment quality in nearby water bodies and terrestrial and

aquatic habitats and wildlife on and near the project sites. The EIS will also consider the

proposed actions’ consistency with relevant USACE and U.S. Coast Guard Public Interest

Factors.

WATER QUALITY

The following tasks will be undertaken for the analysis of water quality:

A. Using existing information available from sources such as the published literature, New

York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program (HEP), NYSDEC, the New York City

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the United States Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

summarize the existing water and sediment quality of the lower Hudson River within the

vicinity of Pier 57.

B. Assess water and sediment quality within the project area in the future with and without the

proposed project. The assessment of potential impacts from the proposed project will

consider activities associated with project construction and operation (e.g., stormwater,

operation of the marina and presence of wave attenuation structuresscreens).

NATURAL RESOURCES

The following work tasks will be undertaken as part of the natural resource analysis:

C. Using the results of site visit(s) and existing information available from published literature

and sources such as NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Essential Fish

Habitat (EFH) guidance documents; New York Natural Heritage Program on-line resources;

existing NYSDEC datasets (e.g., Breeding Bird Atlas data, etc.); information on state and

federally listed species from NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program (NHP), and the United

States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and NMFS; and USACE studies conducted as

part of the New York and New Jersey Harbor Navigation Project, Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance maps, and USFWS National Wetland

Inventory maps, as well as responses to requests for information on rare, threatened, or

endangered species in the vicinity of the project site submitted to NMFS and NYSDEC

NHP, describe the terrestrial and aquatic resources (e.g., phytoplankton, benthic

invertebrates, and fish), threatened or endangered species and EFH within the project area,


Pier 57 Redevelopment

as well as designation of the lower Hudson River as a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife

Habitat at a level of detail appropriate to the proposed project.

D. Assess the terrestrial and aquatic resources in the future with and without the proposed

project. The assessment of potential impacts from the proposed project will consider the

following:

• The existing water quality and natural resources of the Hudson River in the vicinity of the

project site.

• The potential for construction of in-water components, such as work on the pier’s support

structures, and construction of a marina with wave screens, a water taxi platform and

extensions of the perimeter walkway and bulkhead walkways, to result in temporary impacts

to water quality and aquatic organisms. These potential impacts may include:

- Temporary increases in suspended sediment and release of contaminants during

sediment disturbance; and

- Temporary loss of fish breeding, nursery, or foraging habitat, or Essential Fish Habitat

(EFH) identified by the NMFS, from temporary water quality changes.

• The potential for operation of the proposed project, such as operation of the marina and

water taxi, and discharge of stormwater from the pier to adversely affect water quality of the

Hudson River.

• The potential for overwater coverage associated with the proposed project to result in

significant adverse impacts to aquatic habitat due to shading.

• Projected sea level rise due to climate change.

• activities related to construction and operation (e.g., mooring of historic vessels, operation of

the marina, shading from new overwater structures, and presence of wave attenuation

structures) of the proposed project and potential habitat improvements that may result from

the proposed project (e.g., improved terrestrial habitat from landscaping of the rooftop

public open space).

TASK 10: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

This section of the EIS will examine the potential for impacts related to contamination, including

an evaluation of any potential for impacts in areas where the pier building and project site would

be modified. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Phase II Subsurface

Investigation have been prepared. These identified both the potential for upland subsurface

contamination (from historical petroleum spills) and for hazardous materials (such as asbestoscontaining

materials [ACM] and lead-based paint) in the pier building. The chapter will discuss

measures to be implemented prior to or during construction to avoid significant adverse impacts,

such as following a New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP)approved

Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and Construction Health and Safety Plan (CHASP) and

adhering to existing regulatory requirements relating to ACM and lead-based paint.

This chapter will summarize the results of any hazardous materials studies performed for the

site. It will also include discussion of any measures required to be implemented prior to or

during construction of the proposed project to avoid significant adverse impacts, such as

implementation of a remedial action plan and construction health and safety plan.

22


TASK 11: WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE

23

Final Scope of Work

The CEQR Technical Manual outlines thresholds for analysis of a project’s water demand and

its generation of wastewater and stormwater. For the proposed project, an analysis of water

supply is not warranted since the project would not result in a demand of more than 1 million

gallons per day (gpd) and it is not located in an area that experiences low water pressure. A

preliminary analysis of the project’s effects on wastewater and stormwater infrastructure is

warranted since the project would result in a substantial commercial development in Manhattan

on a pier.

The analysis will consist of the following:

A. Existing Conditions.

The existing stormwater drainage system and surfaces (pervious or impervious) on the

project site will be described, and the amount of stormwater generated on the site will be

estimated using DEP’s volume calculation worksheet. Drainage areas with direct discharges

(i.e., the pier) and overland flow will be presented.

The existing sewer system serving the project site will be described based on records

obtained from DEP. Records obtained will include sewer network maps, drainage plans,

capacity information for sewer infrastructure components, and other information if

warranted (such as sewer backup complaint and repair history data). The existing flows to

the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) that serves the project site will be obtained for the

latest 12-month period, and the average dry weather monthly flow will be presented.

Existing capacity information for pump stations, regulators, etc. within the affected drainage

area will be presented based on information provided by DEP.

B. Future No Build Action Condition.

As described above, absent the proposed actions, the site will remain in its current state.

Therefore, no changes to the site’s stormwater drainage system and surface area are

expected in the future without the proposed project. This will be described.

Any changes to the sewer system expected to occur in the future without the proposed

project will be described based on information provided by DEP.

C. Assess Project Impacts. The analysis of project impacts will identify and assess the effects

of the incremental sanitary and stormwater flows on the capacity of the sewer infrastructure.

The future stormwater generation from the proposed project will be estimated and assessed

for its potential to result in significant adverse impacts. Any planned sustainability elements

that are intended to reduce storm water runoff and that are proposed as part of the project

will be described, as will any changes to the site’s surface area (pervious or impervious).

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 the potential impact on operations of

the WWTP.


Pier 57 Redevelopment

Based on the analyses 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.

TASK 12: SOLID WASTE AND SANITATION SERVICES

Under CEQR, an analysis of solid waste and sanitation services assesses whether a project has

the potential to cause a substantial increase in solid waste production that may overburden

available waste management capacity or be inconsistent with the City’s Solid Waste

Management Plan or with other state policy related to the City’s integrated solid waste

management system. This chapter will assess the project’s generation of solid waste and demand

for sanitation service. The following tasks will be undertaken:

A. Describe existing and future New York City solid waste disposal practices;

B. Estimate solid waste generation under existing conditions and in the future No Build Action

condition;

C. Disclose the potential for additional solid waste generation and discuss the solid waste

management practices that would apply to the collection and disposal of the project’s solid

waste. The proposed project’s consistency with the City’s Solid Waste Management Plan

will also be assessed.

TASK 13: ENERGY

According to tThe CEQR Technical Manual, recommends a detailed analysis of energy impacts

for projects that could significantly affect the transmission or generation of energy or that cause

substantial new consumption of energy. The proposed project would not result in any of these

conditions, because all new structures requiring heating and cooling are subject to the New York

State Energy Conservation Code, which reflects State and City energy policy, actions resulting

in new construction would not create significant energy impacts, and as such would not require a

detailed energy assessment. For CEQR purposes, an energy impact analysis focuses on an

action’s consumption of energy. Therefore, in accordance with the CEQR Technical Manual,

this section of the EIS will project the amount of energy consumption required by the proposed

project.

TASK 14: TRANSPORTATION

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

The proposed development would generate a substantial number of new trips during several

critical time periods as shown by the preliminary trip generation estimates presented in Tables 2,

3A, and 3B.five critical time periods: Weekday Midday (12:00 PM to 1:00 PM), Weekday PM

(5:30 PM to 6:30 PM), Weekday Evening Pre-Event (7:00 PM to 8:00 PM), Saturday Midday

(12:45 PM to 1:45 PM), and Saturday Evening Pre-Event (7:00 PM to 8:00 PM). The CEQR

Technical Manual states that a quantified transportation analysis may be warranted if a proposed

action results in more than 50 vehicle-trips and/or 200 transit/pedestrian trips during a given

peak hour. Limited parking will be provided on-site, but it and is not expected to be sufficient to

meet the project’s parking demand. The transportation impact assessment will include an

analysis of the potential traffic impacts that the project-generated trips may have on vehicular

24


25

Final Scope of Work

traffic at area intersections; pedestrian traffic at sidewalks, crosswalks, and intersection corners;

service levels at transit stations; and on-street and off-street parking availability.

The transportation scope will include the following tasks:

A. Level 1 and Level 2 screenings will be prepared based on methodologies described in the

CEQR Technical Manual. These estimates—based on specific land uses—will include a

detailed breakdown of project-generated trips by vehicles, taxi, subway, bus, bicycles, and

pedestrians. Project-generated trips will be distributed throughout the surrounding roadway

network in order to identify potential study area locations. Trip distribution for pedestrians

arriving and departing on foot or via transit will also be estimated to determine the number

and location of pedestrian elements (crosswalks, sidewalks, intersection corners, etc.) that

may require detailed analyses. Preliminary trip generation and trip distribution assumptions

will be detailed in a travel demand factors memorandum. The time periods for the

detailedtraffic, pedestrian, and bus analyses are the weekday midday, weekday PM,

weekday evening (i.e., pre-event), Saturday midday, and Saturday evening for the traffic

analyses and the weekday PMwill be conducted for all five peak periods, while the subway

analysis will be conducted only for the transit analysesWeekday PM peak period. The

analysis will consider the worst-case scenario for the rooftop for each of the five study peak

hours. The weekday eveningWeekday Evening and Saturday eveningEvening Pre-Event

peak hour analyses will reflect a 15002,500-person rooftop event condition, while the

weekday midday, weekdayWeekday Midday, Weekday PM, and Saturday mMidday peak

hour analyses will reflect the more typical condition when the rooftop would consist of an

art installation/exhibition and open space.

B. Define the study area. The traffic study area will include key intersections along the travel

corridors that provide access to and egress from the project site. Based on preliminary trip

estimates, a study area that includes 16 intersections has been identified for detailed

analysis. These intersections are listed below:

1. Route 9A and Tenth Avenue/Horatio Street

2. Route 9A and West 14th Street

3. Route 9A and West 15th Street

4. Route 9A and West 16th Street

5. Route 9A and West 17th Street

6. Route 9A and West 18th Street

7. Route 9A and West 22nd Street

8. Route 9A and West 24th Street

9. Tenth Avenue and West 14th Street

10. Tenth Avenue and West 15th Street

11. Tenth Avenue and West 16th Street

12. Tenth Avenue and West 17th Street

13. Ninth Avenue and West 14th Street

14. Ninth Avenue and West 17th Street

15. Eighth Avenue and West 14th Street

16. Eighth Avenue and West 17th Street

C. Perform Traffic Data Collection. Traffic volumes, pedestrian volumes, bicycle volumes

along the Route 9A bikeway, and other relevant data will be collected during the study peak

periods as per CEQR guidelines via a combination of manual and machine counts. A field

inventory of all study area locations will be performed to gather information on lane widths,


Pier 57 Redevelopment

sidewalk/crosswalk widths, traffic control, pavement markings and usage, bus stop

locations, parking regulations, etc. Traffic signal timings will be obtained from NYCDOT.

For use in the air quality analyses, speed and delay runs will be performed during the same

peak periods as the vehicle counts.

D. Conduct existing conditions analysis. The data collected will be reduced and balanced and

Existing Condition flow diagrams will be prepared to show peak hour traffic volumes and

pedestrian volumes at study area intersections. Using the latest approved Highway Capacity

Software (HCS), capacity analyses will be performed to determine v/c ratios, delays, and

levels of service (LOS) at the study locations.

E. Develop the future No BuildAction condition. Existing Condition volumes will be grown to

the project’s build year. The growth rate applied will be based on CEQR criteria. In addition,

the volume of trips generated by other proposed developments in the area that would impact

study area intersections will be estimated and distributed based on standard sources, census

data, and information from other environmental studies. The future volumes will also

incorporate any unrelated roadway projects or approved mitigation that would impact travel

patterns and/or capacity within the study area. Using HCS, future No BuildAction v/c ratios,

delays, and LOS will be determined for the study locations.

F. Perform traffic impact assessment for the proposed project. Project-generated volumes will

be distributed throughout the surrounding roadway network to determine the changes in

traffic volumes at each study location due to the proposed actions. This increment will be

added to the background No-Build Action volumes to create the future BuildWith Action

Condition volume network. Using HCS, future Build With Action v/c ratios, delays, and

LOS will be determined for the study locations and compared to the No BuildAction

capacity analysis results. Significant impacts in LOS will be noted in accordance with

CEQR criteria.

G. Analyze current and future parking conditions. On-street parking regulations will be

obtained and the numberavailability of legal on-street parking spaces within ¼-mile of the

project site withll be inventoried, along with the capacity and utilization of off-street

locations within ¼-mile of the project site. Future parking demand projections will be

prepared based on the projected accumulation of parking generated by the proposed actions.

A parking shortfall is expected on-site; therefore, it will be determined if the on-street

system and off-street locations can accommodate the overflow from the site.

H. Quantitative transit analysis. Preliminary trip generation estimates show thatQuantitative bus

trip generation would be lower than CEQR thresholds during all peak hours; therefore, aand

subway transit analyses will be conducted. A detailed bus load point analysis or line-haul

capacity analysis are notis required. However, a quantitative transit analysis for the M14

route and will be conducted for all five peak periods. Subway analyses will be performed for

the 14th Street and Eighth Avenue subway station (A, C, E, and L subway lines) during the

Weekday PM peak hour. The analysis will be performed in accordance with CEQR

guidelines and will consist of an assessment of the key station elements such as stairways,

control booths, and turnstile areas. Since the proposed project is located to the west of the

subway station, it is anticipated that only the west side subway stairways will need to be

analyzed. Stairways and fare control areas will be measured and analyzed to determine

levels of service for the Existing, No BuildAction, and BuildWith Action conditions.

Existing counts will be conducted on the appropriate station elements and fare control point

data will be collected by fare control type. Future volumes at these analysis locations will be

26


27

Final Scope of Work

increased by a background growth rate as per CEQR guidelines. The future No BuildAction

condition and project-generated subway riders will be added to the transit network and

analyzed. Project-generated impact criteria will be in accordance with the CEQR and/or

NYCT guidelines. Data will be gathered for the weekday AM andWeekday PM peak hours

to determine current subway loading to determine if a subway line-haul and capacity

analysis should be performed. If so, the analysis will be prepared based on methodologies

set forth in New York City Transit’s Station Planning and Design Guidelines as well as the

CEQR Technical Manual.

I. Quantitative pedestrian element analyses. It is preliminarily anticipated that a A detailed

pedestrian analysis will be performed for the five peak periods for 1420 crosswalks, 2331

corners, and 1139 sidewalks. Using CEQR guidelines, the analysis locations for the DEIS

may change based on the final travel demand estimates and the pedestrian distribution

assumptions. Each element will be analyzed to determine existing and future (No

BuildAction and BuildWith Action) conditions, and mitigation measures will be

recommended to offset any identified impacts. The 4890 pedestrian elements assumed for

the quantitative impact analyses include the following:

• Crosswalks

• Route 9A and West 17th Street (1 element)

Crosswalks

South crosswalk

Corners Sidewalks

• Route 9A and West 16th Street south crosswalk(8 elements)

D. Route 9A and West 15th Street north crosswalk

Crosswalks Corners Sidewalks

South crosswalk Northeast corner South side, west sidewalk

East crosswalk Southeast corner South side, east sidewalk

East side, south sidewalk

East side, north sidewalk

• Route 9A and West 15th Street south crosswalk(11 elements)

E. Route 9A and West 14th Street south crosswalk

Crosswalks Corners Sidewalks

North crosswalk Northeast corner North side, west sidewalk

East crosswalk Southeast corner North side, east sidewalk

South crosswalk East side, north sidewalk

East side, south sidewalk

South side, west sidewalk

West side, within intersection

• Route 9A and West 14th Street east crosswalk(3 elements)

F. Tenth Ave and West 15th Street north crosswalk

G. Tenth Ave and West 15th Street south crosswalk

H. Tenth Ave and West 14th Street south crosswalk

I. Washington Street and West 14th Street south crosswalk

J. Ninth Ave and West 15th Street north crosswalk

K. Ninth Ave and West 15th Street south crosswalk

L. Ninth Ave and West 14th Street north crosswalk


Pier 57 Redevelopment

M. Ninth Ave and West 14th Street south crosswalk

N. Hudson Place and West 14th Street south crosswalk

- Corners

B. Route 9A and West 16th Street southeast corner

C. Route 9A and West 15th Street northeast corner

D. Route 9A and West 15th Street southeast corner

E. Route 9A and West 14th Street northeast corner

F. Route 9A and West 14th Street southeast corner

Crosswalks Corners Sidewalks

South crosswalk Southeast corner East side, south sidewalk

• Tenth Avenue and West 156th Street northwest corner(10 elements)

Crosswalks Corners Sidewalks

South crosswalk Southeast corner East side, south sidewalk

North crosswalk Southwest corner West side, south sidewalk

Northeast corner East side, north sidewalk

Northwest corner West side, north sidewalk

• Tenth Avenue and West 15th Street southwest corner(11 elements)

Crosswalks Corners Sidewalks

North crosswalk Northwest corner West side, north sidewalk

South crosswalk Northeast corner West side, south sidewalk

Southeast corner East side, north sidewalk

Southwest corner East side, south sidewalk

South side, east sidewalk

• Tenth Avenue and West 154th Street northeast corner(7 elements)

Tenth

Crosswalks Corners Sidewalks

South crosswalk Northeast corner North side, east sidewalk

Southeast corner East side, north sidewalk

Southwest corner East side, south sidewalk

• Washington Street and West 14th Street (5 elements)

Crosswalks Corners Sidewalks

South crosswalk Southwest corner West side, south sidewalk

Southeast corner East side, south sidewalk

• Ninth Avenue and West 156th Street southeast corner(8 elements)

Tenth

Crosswalks Corners Sidewalks

North crosswalk Northeast corner East side, north sidewalk

Northwest corner West side, north sidewalk

Southwest corner West side, south sidewalk

Southeast corner

• Ninth Avenue and West 145th Street southwest corner(11 elements)

Tenth

Crosswalks Corners Sidewalks

North crosswalk Northwest corner West side, north sidewalk

28


29

Final Scope of Work

South crosswalk Northeast corner West side, south sidewalk

Southeast corner East side, north sidewalk

Southwest corner South side, east sidewalk

South side, west sidewalk

• Ninth Avenue and, West 14th Street northeast corner, and Hudson Place (14 elements)

Crosswalks

Tenth

Corners Sidewalks

North crosswalk,

west of median

Northwest corner West side, north sidewalk

North crosswalk,

east of median

Northeast corner West side, south sidewalk

South crosswalk,

across 9th Ave

Southeast corner North side, east sidewalk

South crosswalk,

across Hudson Pl

Southwest corner North side, west sidewalk

East side, north sidewalk

East side, south sidewalk

• Eighth Avenue and West 14th Street southeast corner(1 element)

G. Washington Street and West 14th Street southwest corner

H. Washington Street and West 14th Street southeast corner

I. Ninth Avenue and West 15th Street northwest corner

J. Ninth Avenue and West 15th Street southwest corner

K. Ninth Avenue and West 15th Street northeast corner

L. Ninth Avenue and West 15th Street southeast corner

M. Ninth Avenue and West 14th Street northwest corner

N. Ninth Avenue and West 14th Street southwest corner

O. Ninth Avenue and West 14th Street northeast corner

P. Hudson Place and West 14th Street southwest corner

Q. Hudson Place and West 14th Street southeast corner

- Sidewalks

1. West 15th Street northern sidewalk between Route 9A and Tenth Ave

2. West 15th Street southern sidewalk between Route 9A and Tenth Ave

3. West 14th Street southern sidewalk between Route 9A and Tenth Ave

4. West 15th Street northern sidewalk between Tenth Ave and Ninth Ave

5. West 15th Street southern sidewalk between Tenth Ave and Ninth Ave

6. West 14th Street northern sidewalk between Tenth Ave and Ninth Ave

7. West 14th Street southern sidewalk between Tenth Ave and Washington Street

8. West 14th Street southern sidewalk between Washington Street and Ninth Ave

9. West 15th Street northern sidewalk between Ninth Ave and Eighth Ave

10. West 14th Street northern sidewalk between Ninth Ave and Eighth Ave

11. West 14th Street southern sidewalk between Ninth Ave and Eighth Ave

Crosswalks Corners Sidewalks

Northwest corner


Pier 57 Redevelopment

J. Safety assessment. Crash data will be obtained from the New York State Department of

Transportation (NYSDOT) and a safety review for the three most recent years available will

be performed to determine if any study locations are identified as high vehicular and/or

pedestrian crash locations. Improvements and mitigation measures will be recommended at

high crash locations. The assessment will focus on the Route 9A corridor and bikeway, as

well as the intersection of West 14th Street with Tenth AvenueAdditional safety measures

will be recommended to minimize conflicts withon the Route 9A bikeway.

TASK 15: AIR QUALITY

The proposed project will generate emissions from both direct and indirect sources. Direct

sources of emissions will primarily be from heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)

systems (stationary sources). Potential indirect effects will stem from vehicles carrying visitors

to and from the project site.

MOBILE SOURCE ANALYSIS

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 [PM10 and 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.

During events, the number of project-generated trips is expected to exceed the CEQR Technical

Manual carbon monoxide (CO) screening threshold of 140 vehicles in a peak hour at area

intersections, and the projected number of heavy-duty trucks or equivalent vehicles may

potentially exceed the applicable PM2.5 screening threshold specified in the CEQR Technical

Manual. Therefore, a microscale analysis of mobile emissions air quality impacts at affected

intersections is necessary.

Using computerized dispersion modeling techniques, the effects of project-generated traffic on

CO and PM (PM10 and PM2.5) levels at critical intersection locations will be determined. In

addition, the impact 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 work program will consist of predicting (using computerized dispersion modeling

techniques) the effects of traffic under both the Build With Action and No Build Action

conditions on PM2.5PM and CO levels at intersection locations within the study area, and, if

significant impacts are predicted to occur due to the action, developing feasible traffic measures

to alleviate those impacts. The analysis methodology is as follows: selection of appropriate sites

for intersection analysis, calculation of vehicular emissions, calculation of pollutant

concentration levels using dispersion models that have been approved by the applicable air

quality review agencies (i.e., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], NYSDEC, and

DEP), and the determination of impacts. Specifically:

2. Collect and summarize existing ambient air quality data for the study area. Ambient air

quality monitoring data published by the NYSDEC will be compiled for the analysis of

existing conditions.

30


31

Final Scope of Work

3. Calculate emission factors. Select emission calculation methodology and “worst-case”

meteorological conditions. Compute vehicular cruise and idle emission factors for the

intersection modeling using the EPA-developed MOBILE6.2.03 model and applicable

assumptions based on guidance by EPA, NYSDEC and DEP. Compute re-suspended road

dust emission factors based on the EPA procedure defined in AP–42.

4. Select appropriate background levels. Select appropriate background levels for the study

area.

5. Select appropriate analysis sites. Based on the background and project-increment traffic

volumes and levels of service, select intersections for analysis, representing locations with

the worst potential total and incremental pollution impacts.

6. Use EPA’s first-level CAL3QHC intersection model to predict the maximum change in CO

concentrations, and the refined CAL3QHCR intersection model to predict the maximum

change in respirable PM (PM10) and in fine respirable PM (PM2.5). At each analysis site

calculate for each peak period the maximum 1- and 8-hour average CO concentrations for:

(i) existing conditions; (ii) No Build Action conditions; and (iii) the Future with the

proposed project. For selected intersections, the maximum 24-hour and annual average

PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations will be determined for: (i) No Build Action conditions; and

(ii) the Future with the proposed project.

7. Perform an analysis of CO for the proposed project’s parking facility. 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

the parking facility will be calculated, where appropriate.

8. Compare with benchmarks and evaluate impacts. Evaluate potential impacts by comparing

predicted future CO and PM10 pollutant levels with national standards, comparing the

predicted CO increment with de minimis criteria, and comparing the PM2.5 increments with

the City’s interim guidance criteria. If significant adverse impacts due to CO concentrations

are predicted, refine results by performing detailed dispersion analysis at affected locations

using EPA’s refined CAL3QHCR intersection model and compare refined results to

benchmarks.

9. For locations where significant adverse impacts are predicted, identify and analyze

appropriate mitigation measures.

10. Provide a qualitative discussion of the effects of project related traffic on NO2

concentrations at affected roadways.

MARINA AND TAXI LANDING ANALYSIS

The marina and water taxi landing air quality impact analysis will determine the effects on

criteria pollutant levels (i.e., carbon monoxide, PM, and nitrogen dioxide [NO2] concentrations)

from emissions associated with motorized boat engines operating within the proposed project’s

marina. Specifically:

11. Perform an analysis of CO, PM2.5, and NO2 for the proposed project’s marina. The analyses

will use a methodology based on the procedure outlined in the CEQR Technical Manual for

assessing potential impacts from a surface parking lot.


Pier 57 Redevelopment

STATIONARY SOURCE ANALYSIS

The stationary source air quality impact analysis will determine the effects of emissions from the

proposed project’s heating and hot water HVAC systems on airqualitycriteria pollutant levels

(i.e., sulfur dioxide, PM and/or nitrogen dioxide concentrations). In addition, emissions from

existing large-scale residential, commercial, and institutional sources will be assessed to

determine their potential effects on the proposed project, if such sources exist within the study

area. Specifically:

12. A screening analysis will be performed to determine whether emissions from any on-site

fuel-fired heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment (e.g., boilers, space

heaters) are significant. The screening analysis will use the procedures outlined in the

CEQR Technical Manual. The procedure involves determining the distance (from the

exhaust point) within which potential significant impacts may occur, on elevated receptors

(e.g., open windows) that are of an equal or greater height when compared to the height of

the proposed project’s HVAC exhaust. The distance within which a significant impact may

occur is dependent on a number of factors, including the height of the discharge, type(s) of

fuel burned and development size. The stationary air quality analysis will include an

assessment of the potential impacts associated with emissions from commercial,

institutional, or large-scale residential developments within 400 feet of the project site, if

such sources exist within the study area. Future predicted concentrations on the proposed

project will be evaluated using the screening procedures outlined in the CEQR Technical

Manual.

13. An analysis of uses surrounding the project site will be conducted to determine the potential

for impacts from industrial emissions. A field survey will be conducted to confirm the

operational status of any sources identified in the review and to determine if there are any

additional processing or manufacturing facilities within 400 feet of the site. The DEP’s

Bureau of Environmental Compliance (BEC) files will be examined to determine if there

are permits to construct or certificates to operate for any industrial facilities that are

identified. A review of federal and state air permits and registrations will also be conducted.

Based upon this information, a determination will be made of whether further analysis is

necessary.

14. If active industrial sources are found within 400 feet of the project site, an industrial source

analysis will be performed using the screening procedures detailed in the CEQR Technical

Manual. Predicted worst-case impacts on the project will be compared with the short-term

guideline concentrations (SGC) and annual guideline concentrations (AGC) reported in

NYSDEC’s DAR-1 AGC/SGC Tables guidance document to determine the potential for

significant impacts. In the event that exceedances of guidance concentrations are predicted,

more refined dispersion modeling (using EPA’s AERMOD dispersion model) may be

employed as a separate task, or measures to reduce pollutants to within guidance levels will

be examined.

TASK 16: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

In accordance with the CEQR Technical Manual, project-generated greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions will be quantified and assessed for consistency with the City’s established GHG

reduction goal. 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

32


33

Final Scope of Work

for the global warming potential (GWP). 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 the proposed site is on the waterfront, the potential

impact of climate change on sea level and storm surge in the vicinity of the proposed project and

the implications of this for the project will be discussed.

The GHG analysis will consist of the following subtasks:

A. The potential effects of climate change on the proposed development will be discussed. The

discussion will focus on the potential impacts of sea level rise and changes in storm

frequency on the proposed project, the implications of this for the project and project-related

infrastructure.

B. Direct Emissions—emissions from on-site boilers used for heat and hot water and on-site

electricity generation, if any, will be quantified. Emissions will be based on available project

specific information on the expected energy and fuel use or the carbon intensity factors

specified in the CEQR Technical Manual.

C. Indirect Emissions—emissions from purchased electricity and/or steam generated off‐site

and consumed on‐site during the project’s operation will be estimated.

D. Indirect Mobile Source Emissions—emissions from vehicle trips to or from the project site

will be quantified using trip distances provided in the CEQR Technical Manual and vehicle

emission factors from the MOVES model.

E. 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 discussed.

F. Proposed measures to reduce energy use and GHG emissions will be discussed and

quantified to the extent practicable.

G. 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 levels by 2030, individual

project consistency is evaluated based on proximity to transit, on-site renewable power and

distributed generation, efforts to reduce 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

Under CEQR, a noise analysis determines whether a proposed project would result in increases

in noise levels that could have a significant adverse impact on nearby sensitive receptors and

also considers the effect of existing noise levels at the project site on proposed uses.

The noise analysis for the proposed project would be undertaken in three four sections:

• Identification of potential impacts due to traffic generated by the proposed project,

• Identification of potential impacts due to the proposed project’s rooftop open space

programming,

• Identification of potential impacts to the proposed open space due to ambient noise levels,

and


Pier 57 Redevelopment

• Determination of the necessary window/wall attenuation to achieve acceptable interior noise

levels according to CEQR criteria.

Each section of the analysis would have a separate methodology, each of which is described

below.

NOISE DUE TO TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT

The amount of vehicular traffic generated as a result of the proposed project is not expected to

be large enough to necessitate a detailed analysis of noise due to traffic—i.e., it is unlikely that

the proposed project would result in a doubling of PCEs which would result in a 3 dBA increase

in noise levels. Therefore, the EIS will present a screening analysis to determine whether a

detailed mobile source noise analysis is warranted.

NOISE DUE TO THE PROPOSED ROOFTOP OPEN SPACE PROGRAMMING

As part of the analysis of potential noise impacts resulting from the proposed project’s rooftop

open space programming, the following tasks will be performed in compliance with CEQR

Technical Manual guidelines:

• Select appropriate noise descriptors. Appropriate noise descriptors that characterize the

noise environment and the impact of the proposed project will be selected based on current

CEQR criteria. Consequently, the 1-hour equivalent (Leq(1)) will be examined.

• Select noise receptor locations. These receptor sites would include locations where the

proposed project would have the greatest potential to affect ambient noise levels. Particular

attention will be paid to sensitive land uses—parks, open space, residences, etc.

• Determine existing noise levels. At the identified locations, existing noise readings will be

determined by performing 1-hour equivalent (20 minutes readings as per CEQR Technical

Manual guidelines) continuous noise levels (Leq) and statistical percentile noise levels. The

noise levels will be measured in units of “A” weighted decibels (dBA) as well as one-third

octave bands. The monitoring periods will coincide with the expected peak periods of use of

the project. These would be the weekday midday and PM and Saturday midday time periods.

• If appropriate, perform sound level measurements at an outdoor facility comparable to the

proposed rooftop open space. Measurements will be performed during an event or concert so

that the noise level during events at the proposed project’s rooftop open space can be

predicted. The level generated by the comparable facility will be determined by performing

1-hour equivalent (20 minutes readings as per CEQR Technical Manual guidelines)

continuous noise levels (Leq) and statistical percentile noise levels. The noise levels will be

measured in units of “A” weighted decibels (dBA) as well as one-third octave bands.

• Determine future noise levels. Following procedures outlined in the CEQR Technical

Manual, future No Build Action and Build With Action noise levels will be estimated at the

proposed sensitive land uses. Existing noise levels, noise levels measured at a comparable

facility or the characteristics of the proposed sound system for the rooftop open space, and

mathematical models based on acoustic fundamentals will be used to determine future No

Build Action and future Build With Action noise levels.

• Determine noise impacts. Noise impacts will be determined by comparing future Build With

Action project noise levels with future No Build Action noise levels following the CEQR

methodology. Additionally, the predicted noise levels generated by the project will be

34


35

Final Scope of Work

compared to the performance standards in the New York City Zoning Code as well as the

New York Ctiy Noise Code in order to determine compliance.

BUILDING ATTENUATION ANALYSIS

The EIS will assess whether Structures with noise sensitive uses constructed as part of the

proposed project would be required to provide sufficient window/wall attenuation to ensure

acceptable interior L10(1) noise levels to comply with CEQR criteria. The CEQR Technical

Manual recommended L10 descriptor will be used to characterize noise in this analysis. The

following tasks would be performed for the building attenuation analysis in compliance with

guidelines contained in the CEQR Technical Manual:

• Selection of noise measurement locations. Measurement sites will be selected at the project

site. These measurement sites would be placed in areas to be analyzed for building

attenuation. This would focus on areas of potentially high ambient noise at the project site.

• Determine existing noise levels. At the identified locations, existing noise readings will be

determined by performing one-hour equivalent (20 minutes readings as per CEQR Technical

Manual guidelines) continuous noise levels (Leq) and statistical percentile noise levels. The

noise levels will be measured in units of “A” weighted decibels (dBA) as well as one-third

octave bands. The monitoring periods will coincide with the expected peak periods of use of

the project. These would be the weekday AM, midday, PM and Saturday midday time

periods.

• Determine future noise levels. Following procedures outlined in the CEQR Technical

Manual, future Build With Action noise levels will be estimated at the receptor locations.

Existing noise levels, relevant measured noise levels, and mathematical models based on

acoustic fundamentals will be used to determine future Build With Action noise levels.

• Determine the required amount of building attenuation. The level of building attenuation

necessary to satisfy CEQR requirements is a function of the exterior noise levels. Predicted

values will be compared to appropriate standards and guideline levels. As necessary,

attenuation measures will be recommended for the proposed project.

TASK 18: 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.

The proposed project—the redevelopment of the historic and currently vacant Pier 57 site with new

open space, commercial, educational and cultural uses, and a marinaopen space uses on an

unutilized, derelict site formerly occupied by a bus garage—represents a dramatic change and will

affect the character of the surrounding area. Methodologies outlined in the CEQR Technical Manual

will be used to provide an assessment of neighborhood character. The EIS analysis will consist of the

following tasks:

A. Summarize the predominant factors that contribute to defining the character of the

neighborhood.


Pier 57 Redevelopment

B. Based on planned development projects, public policy initiatives, and planned public

improvements, changes that can be expected in the character of the neighborhood in the

future without the project will be described.

C. Assess the potential for the proposed project to affect the defining features of the

neighborhood. The project’s impact on neighborhood character will be assessed and

summarized using the analysis of impacts as presented in other pertinent DEIS sections.

TASK 19: CONSTRUCTION

The CEQR Technical Manual calls for an assessment of construction-related impacts, with a

focus on historic and cultural resources, transportation, air quality, noise, hazardous materials,

and natural resources. For the purposes of assessing potential impacts in the EIS, a construction

scheme will be formulated focusing on phasing and duration, likely staging areas, placement of

equipment, the temporary loss of traffic lanes, and number of workers. The likely construction

schedule for development at the site and an estimate of activity on-site will be described.

Because substantial construction activities are expected to be completed in less than two years, a

detailed construction assessment is not necessary. Technical areas to be analyzed include:

A. CulturalHistoric and Cultural Resources. Measures to protect the S/NR-eligible Pier 57

structure during construction will be described, and any potential construction-period

impacts on historic resources will be considered.

B. Transportation Systems. This assessment will qualitatively consider losses in lanes,

sidewalks, and other transportation services during the various phases of construction, and

identify the increase in vehicle trips from construction workers and equipment. Measures to

minimize conflicts between construction activities and users of the adjacent open spaces will

also be identified and described.

C. Air Quality. The construction air quality impact section will contain a qualitative discussion

of both mobile air source emissions from construction equipment and worker and delivery

vehicles, and fugitive dust emissions. It will discuss measures to reduce emissions.

D. Noise. The construction noise impact section will contain a qualitative discussion of noise

from construction activity.

E. Hazardous Materials. In coordination with the work performed for hazardous materials,

above, the construction chapter will include a summary of actions to be taken during project

construction to limit exposure of construction workers to potential contaminants.

F. Other Technical Areas. As appropriate, discuss the other areas of environmental

assessment—such as natural resources and water quality—for potential construction-related

impacts.

TASK 20: PUBLIC HEALTH

According to the guidelines of the CEQR Technical Manual, a public health assessment may be

warranted if an unmitigated significant adverse impact is identified in other CEQR analysis areas,

such as air quality, water quality, hazardous materials, or noise. If unmitigated significant adverse

impacts are identified in any of these technical areas and the lead agency determines that a public

health assessment is warranted, an analysis will be provided for the specific technical area or areas.

36


TASK 21: ALTERNATIVES

37

Final Scope of Work

The purpose of an alternatives analysis is to examine reasonable and practicable options that

avoid or reduce project-related significant adverse impacts and achieve the stated goals and

objectives of the proposed actions.

The specific alternatives to be analyzed will be finalized with the lead agency as project impacts

become clarified. However, they must will include the a No Build Action Alternative and an

alternative that reduces any identifiedeliminates unmitigated significant adverse impacts. The

alternatives analysis will be qualitative, except where significant adverse impacts of the project

have been identified. The level of analysis will depends on an assessment of project impacts

determined by the analysis connected with the appropriate tasks.

In addition to alternatives specifically designed to address addressing potential impacts, the EIS

will consider an alternative that includes a pedestrian bridge that would extend over Route 9A

from the project site (see Figure 1218).

TASK 22: MITIGATION

Where significant project impacts have been identified in the analyses discussed above, any

practicable measures that have the potential to avoid or mitigate those impacts will be identified. This

task summarizes the findings of the relevant analyses and discusses potential mitigation measures.

Where impacts cannot be mitigated, they will be described as unavoidable adverse impacts.

TASK 23: SUMMARY CHAPTERS

Several summary chapters will be prepared, focusing on various aspects of the EIS, as set forth

in the regulations and the CEQR Technical Manual. They are as follows:

A. Executive Summary. Once the EIS technical sections have been prepared, a concise

executive summary will be drafted. The executive summary will use relevant material from

the body of the EIS to describe the proposed project, its environmental impacts, measures to

mitigate those impacts, and alternatives to the proposed project.

B. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. Those impacts, if any, which could not be avoided and could

not be practicably mitigated, will be presented in this chapter.

C. Growth-Inducing Aspects of the Proposed Project. This chapter will focus on whether the

proposed project has the potential to induce new development within the surrounding area.

D. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources. This chapter focuses on those

resources, such as energy and construction materials, that would be irretrievably committed

if the project is built.


10.2.12

Pedestrian Bridge

HUDSON RIVER PARK PIER 57

HUDSON RIVER

PIER 57

ONLY

ONLY

ONLY

JOE JOE DIMAGGIO DIMAGGIO HWY HWY

ONLY

ONLY

ONLY

ONLY ONLY

ONLY ONLY

ONLY

ROUTE ROUTE 9A 9A

ONLY

ONLY

ONLY

ONLY ONLY ONLY

ONLY ONLY

ONLY ONLY

W W 15 15 ST ST

W W 16 16 ST ST

SCALE

W W 14 14 ST ST

TENTH TENTH AVE AVE

Pedestrian Bridge Alternative Concept Plan

Figure 18

N

0 100 200 FEET

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines